Sitting of 5 March 1883

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Robert Abraham Brewster French-Brewster, esquire, for the Borough of Portarlington.
SUPPLY—Considered in Committee—Navy (Supplementary Estimate), 1882–3; Transvaal, 1882–3; Civil Services and Revenue Departments (Supplementary Estimates), 1882–3—Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
Resolutions [March 2] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public House Licensing Committees* [110]; Clerical Disabilities (House of Commons)* [111].
Second Reading—Municipal Corporations (Uniformed) [6]; Seed Advances (Scotland) (No. 2) [108], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges of Redemption) Act (1873) Amendment* [107], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (INDIA)—VETERINARY DEPARTMENT—GLANDERS IN CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a regiment of Bengal Cavalry, infected with glanders for some time, and without being accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, was sent to Egypt; that the horses were not medically inspected before embarkation from India; that some of them died or were destroyed for glanders on shipboard before the regiment reached Egypt; that many were destroyed while in Egypt, and a troop had to be placed hors de combat at Suez, the horses of the other regiments and corps being placed in great peril of infection; that on the return voyage to India, and subsequently, many more of these Bengal Cavalry horses have been destroyed for glanders; and that an officer of an infantry regiment died at Lucknow of glanders, as well as two natives, these persons having been on board ship with these horses returning from Egypt, and there becoming infected; and, whether it is also the fact that with more than 7,000 animals despatched with the expeditionary force from India to Egypt, there were only two veterinary officers, while the proportion in the Imperial Army is one veterinary surgeon to two hundred and fifty or three hundred animals?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, an inquiry was made two months ago of the Government of India, as to the precise extent to which glanders prevailed among the Bengal Cavalry during the recent campaign and previously. Their detailed Report may be shortly expected. No information has reached the India Office of any officer or other person having died of this disease after their return to India; but inquiry will at once be made on this and other points raised by my hon. Friend. British veterinary surgeons are never employed on the establishment of the Bengal Native Cavalry, but instead each regiment has on its establishment two "Salootrees" (a very competent body of men), and these accompanied the corps to Egypt. The recently organized transport service is also provided with "Salootrees," and the full war establishment was attached to the

  1409
  transport in Egypt. Each battery of artillery had its British veterinary surgeon, and a veterinary surgeon on the staff accompanied Sir Herbert Macpherson as superintendent.

  NATIONAL MANUSCRIPTS OF IRELAND.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTE (for Mr. Bulwer)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the great length of the preface to the last volume of the National Manuscripts of Ireland; did the unusual length of that preface substantially add to the price of the volume (£5 5s.); and, is that preface now published as a separate volume, and sold at the small price of two shillings?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the work in question being published under the sole superintendence of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, I have communicated with his Honour on the subject. He informs me that the increased length of the introduction is rendered necessary by the nature and history of the documents of which it contains facsimiles. No comparison, he says, can be justly made between them and those facsimiled in former parts, in judging of an introduction or an appendix to them. He thinks that only a few passages of the introduction could with advantage have been omitted, and had the introduction been altogether omitted, the reduction in price would have been only 6s. or 7s. The introduction has been published separately in a smaller size, and is sold for 2s. This has been done for each volume, and is considered to help the sale of the larger work.

  POST OFFICE—AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, with reference to the complaints of the mercantile community as to the outgoing American Mails, If it is a fact that equal "regularity" and greater "efficiency," that is greater speed, have been attained by the system adopted by the Government of the United States, of sending the Mails by all fast steamers than by our arrangement of sending them by the steamers of the White Star, In-man, and Cunard lines alone; if the Inman Company are at present employing chartered steamers of inferior power; if he is aware that the "Catalonia" and
  1410
  "Pavonia" and other steamers of the Cunard line, as a rule, make passages several days longer than such vessels as the "Alaska" and the "Arizona," which have not the honour of carrying Her Majesty's Mails; if the American plan has resulted in the Mails being delivered in England never later than ten days after leaving New York, while frequently the outward Mails take fourteen or fifteen days in the passage; and, if these statements be correct, what is there to prevent our Government following the good example of the United States?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I fear I could not give a full answer to the Quesions of my right hon. Friend without troubling the House with many details. I shall, however, be very glad to make an inquiry into the subject, with the object of ascertaining whether it would be possible to effect any improvement in the Mail Service between England and America by employing other lines of steamers in addition to those by which the mails are now sent.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY —VENTILATING SHAFTS ON THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.
  MR. BUXTONasked the honourable Member for Truro, Whether he has sanctioned the proposed opening of eight shafts along the Thames Embankment which the Metropolitan District Railway desire to build; whether some of these shafts will seriously diminish the space now allotted to public gardens on the Embankment; and, whether this House will have any opportunity of considering such a proposal?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I beg to inform my hon. Friend that the shafts referred to were provided for in a Bill promoted by the District Railway Company in the Session of 1881. The Metropolitan Board and the Corporation of London vigorously opposed the Bill before both Houses of Parliament; and the Board, through their engineer, Sir Joseph Bazalgette, offered evidence to show that the ventilation could be managed by mechanical means in a way which would not be detrimental to the public. The opposition, however, was unfortunately unsuccessful; and, in accordance with the terms of the Act, the matter has recently been before the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade,

  1411
  before whom evidence for the Board was given by Sir Joseph Bazalgette, myself, and others, and whose award is now being carried out. There is no doubt that these shafts will seriously diminish the space now allotted to public gardens on the Embankment, and will also interfere with the road space; but I am afraid that, as matters stand, the Board is powerless to prevent the erection of these hideous structures.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the hon. Gentleman if he would inform the House whether the Metropolitan District Railway had paid the Metropolis or any local authority any sum of money for the ground taken for these ventilators?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In the original inception of the Thames Embankment a sum of £200,000 was paid by the District Railway Company for the accommodation then afforded; but not a penny has been paid for the destruction of the gardens and obstruction of the roadway. If I am rightly informed, the Company has let land which they might have applied for the purposes of ventilation, and then made application to Parliament for the powers they obtained last year.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether there was anything to be hoped from the interposition of the Board of Trade?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member gives me Notice I will have the matter further looked into; but, as at present advised, I am afraid we have no authority whatever.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state what is the cause of the delay in making payments to landowners under the Arrears Act, when the tenants have lodged the year's rent, and there is no dispute as to the facts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a Report from the Land Commissioners, of which the following is the substance:—An erroneous impression is conveyed by describing the procedure with reference to joint applications as merely one of "making payments," and by stating that in any application the facts are undisputed. The duty of in-
  1412
  vestigating every case is imposed upon the Commissioners by the Act, and they consider that it would be impossible to simplify or curtail their present procedure. Every application must be registered, examined by an investigator in the Commissioners' Office, and inspected by the Treasury Representative in Dublin. If the result is satisfactory, and no local inquiry is considered necessary, an order for payment is paid out as soon as possible, and its substance communicated both to landlord and tenant. But before this can be done a large amount of clerical labour is unavoidable, and this involves some delay. After the notification of the order to the landlord there is not an interval of more than three days in making actual payment, provided that no question of title is involved. I have to-day received the following telegram on this subject from the Land Commissioners:—
  "It is confidently anticipated that, by the end of May, landlords, in 100,000 out of the 135,000 cases lodged, will have been paid."
  Rent lodged with the Commissioners by a tenant to his landlord's credit is paid by the Commissioners when applied for. There is no delay as regards money so lodged, except the delay of one fortnight caused in giving public notice by advertisement pursuant to Section 1, Sub-section 5, of the Arrears Act.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL YACHTS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If, in view of the fact that Her Majesty already possesses three yachts in full Commission, in addition to the "Victoria and Albert" (one of them, the "Osborne," being of large tonnage), he will consent to postpone the proposed expenditure of £45,000 for repairs to the "Victoria and Albert;" whether the estimate for the repairs is for the hull only, or if it includes new boilers, overhauling of machinery, cabins, and other equipments; also regilding of the hull; whether, before sanctioning the outlay, at a time when the revenue is declining, he would recommend the sale of one or more of the four yachts; and, further, if he will grant a Return showing the orginal cost of all the four vessels, together with the amounts expended upon them for repairs and maintenance since they were built, and how often the two larger yachts have been

  1413
  employed in conveying Her Majesty across the Channel during the past ten years?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in answering the Question of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I wish to be allowed to correct a statement I made on this subject a few days ago. The estimates which at that time had come up from the Dockyard of the cost of repairing the Victoria and Albert amounted to £43,000, and I accordingly told the House that the cost of repairs would be about £45,000. Subsequently, however, a more detailed estimate has been received, including not only a thorough repair of the hull, but also new boilers and the complete repair of her engines, and amounting to £55,000. This estimate will not be approved until the Admiralty officers have made an accurate survey of the condition and requirements of the vessel, and no part of these repairs will be undertaken within the present financial year. My hon. Friend suggests that if this outlay is incurred one of the other Royal yachts might be sold. The vessels maintained for Royal use consists of two yachts and two tenders. No increase has been made for 20 years in the accommodation provided for Her Majesty's service; and it hardly seems that the moment when we propose to lay up one of the two yachts for an extensive and complete repair is an opportunity to be taken for depriving the Queen of the use of the only remaining full-sized yacht. There is no objection to furnish a Return of expenditure on the Royal Yachts if the hon. Member will move for it; but the particulars alluded to in the latter part of his Question can hardly be given in a Parliamentary Return.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been called to a statement in the "Standard" of February 27th, to the effect that, at the sitting of the Senate at Madrid on the previous day, the Marquis de la Vega do Armijo, Minister for Foreign Affairs, in reply to an interpellation, said that the negotiations now pending with England for a Treaty of Commerce permit of the hope of a satisfactory conclusion being arrived at; and, whether he can
  1414
  confirm such statement on the part of Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Lord Granville has received a telegram from Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid to the effect that no such statement as that referred to by the correspondent of The Standard with regard to the commercial negotiations with this country was made by the Spanish Minister of State.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CAVAN UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds the Local Government Board refused to have the contract for milk in Cavan Union reopened, seeing that it was proved another tender had been misdelivered by the Post Office of Cavan, and which offered to supply the quantity of milk required for £160 less than the tender which was accepted; whether it is a fact that the Guardians who accepted the higher tender had notice prior to their decision that another tender had been sent; whether the Local Government asked for the decision of the same Board of Guardians who had given the first decision, to which exception had been taken; and, whether he will instruct the Local Government Board to hold a sworn investigation into the whole case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts of this case are as follows:—Upon the day appointed for receiving tenders the Guardians had only one before them, which they accepted. They were informed by a Mr. Hewitt that he had sent a lower tender; but the Guardians assert that the prices he named were not known to them until after they had accepted the other tender. It subsequently appeared that Mr. Hewitt's tender had miscarried in the Post Office, and he complained on the subject to the Local Government Board, who immediately wrote to the Guardians asking if they wished to put an end to the contract which they had made. This might legally have been done with the consent of the Local Government Board. The matter was especially considered by the Guardians after due notice, and they decided, by a large majority, to abide by the contract. It is to be borne in mind that, if both tenders had originally been before them, they would not necessarily have accepted the lower. Having regard to all these facts,

  1415
  the Local Government Board saw no sufficient reason to interfere further in the matter, and there are no grounds for directing a sworn investigation.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the non-delivery of a letter addressed to the Guardians of Cavan Union, posted on 15th January last, and indorsed "Tender for Milk;" and, if so, what action he proposes to take regarding the alleged misconduct of the postmaster?
  MR. FAWCETT: It is the case, Sir, as stated by the hon. Member, that the letter was not delivered, and I much regret the circumstance. The postmaster has been censured for his carelessness, which I trust may not be repeated.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS— GALMPTON SCHOOL—DISMISSAL OF A PUPIL.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Vice President of the Council on Education, If his attention has been drawn to a statement made at Plymouth, on the 28th instant, by Canon Wilberforce, to the effect that the managers of a school at Galmpton had dismissed a female pupil teacher named Trant for wearing the colour of the Blue Ribbon Army; and, whether such interference, if correctly reported, with the dress and opinions of teachers is approved by the department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the girl Trant, who was dismissed from the Galmpton School for wearing a blue ribbon, was not a pupil teacher, but a scholar. Subsequent to her dismissal, three other children were dismissed for the same reason. When the Question appeared on the Notice Paper I caused inquiry to be made of the managers as to the facts of the case; and I am glad to be able to report that, before my telegram reached them, Mr. Bolitho, the owner of the school and the principal manager, had censured the mistress, who, under a mistaken sense of a rule of the school, had dismissed the children, and ordered their immediate re-admission. In a very sensible letter which I have received from Mr. Bolitho this morning, he explains that the expulsion of the children took place in his absence and without his consent; and he expresses a hope, in which I cordially
  1416
  agree, "that such an act of stupidity, not to say intolerance, will never again be possible in this country." I think I ought to state, in justice to Her Majesty's Inspector, who seems to have been reflected on in Canon Wilberforce's speech, that although he visited the school immediately before the dismissal of the children, he was not consulted on the matter, and was as entirely ignorant of, as he is entirely opposed to, what was done.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ANTRIM ARTILLERY—MAJOR JOHNSTON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the Junior Major (Johnston) of the Antrim Artillery is the same person who, when a Captain in that Regiment, formed one of a party that went to the hotel for the purpose of making an attack upon one of the Officers (Major Craig) who had rendered himself obnoxious to him because of his devotion to religious matters; whether a serious breach of the peace was prevented by the intervention of two other members of the Regiment; whether, in consequence of the noise and disturbance upon that occasion, the police were not placed opposite to the hotel; and, whether he, under these circumstances, has approved of the promotion of Major Johnston?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have made inquiries into this matter, and I find that nothing is known at the War Office of the circumstances referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and to which no date is attached. The General Officer commanding the Forces in Ireland, who has been communicated with, reports that the records of the regiment in his office have been searched from the date of Major Johnston's appointment as captain in February, 1873, to the date of his promotion in June, 1881, and that they contain no trace of the alleged occurrence. Major Johnston's promotion was approved after he had been strongly recommended by the district authorities and the General Officer commanding the Forces in Ireland. This is all the official information which I have received; but the following telegram has just been received from Lieutenant-Colonel Craig with reference to this matter:—

  1417
  "A practical joke happened nine years ago. I did not think the affair of sufficient importance to report it officially."
  Major Johnston has also written to his commanding officer to say that he was not one of the party who took part in the joke. I think the House will consider that it was scarcely worth while to have disinterred this incident, which took place nine years ago, for the purpose of throwing discredit on an officer who was not concerned in it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXTRADITION OF P. J. SHERIDAN.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a demand has been made on the American Government for the extradition of P. J. Sheridan; and, if so, whether the grounds upon which it has been made can be given to the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question, I may inform the House that a demand has been made for the extradition of P. J. Sheridan; but I regret that I am unable to make any further statement.
  MR. PULESTON: Is the noble Lord able to state whether any reply has been received?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—JUSTICES OF BALLYMAHON.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that in the district of Ballymahon, county of Longford, cases entered for hearing before the justices of the peace have remained unheard for more than three months because it was necessary that they should be heard by two justices; and, during that time, although there is a court every fortnight, only the resident magistrate attended; and, whether, if this be true, he will take any steps to secure a better attendance of magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I find, on inquiry, that one case, being a charge against a caretaker for overholding possession of a cottage, has remained unheard during the past two months for the reason stated, and that the non-attendance of a second magistrate was
  1418
  caused on two occasions by the illness of a local justice who usually acts, and on the third by a heavy snowstorm, which prevented a resident magistrate from arriving from another district. It is expected that the case will be disposed of this week.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can inform the House how soon the Martini-Henry will be served out to the Volunteers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The present reserve of Martini-Henry rifles is below the number which it is considered desirable to keep in store for the Regular Army and Militia. In view of the contemplated change of pattern which is now under consideration, it is not desirable to increase the manufacture of the present pattern. Although we are very anxious to issue the superior arm to the Volunteers as soon as possible, I am afraid that we cannot promise them this year.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUTDOOR RELIEF.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many unions out of the total number of sixty or thereabouts who were authorised to dispense with the workhouse test during the years 1880–81, did in the opinion of the Local Government Board abuse their power of granting out-door relief; and, how many of such unions are comprised in the counties of Clare, Donegal, or Sligo?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board inform me that it would be impossible to answer this Question accurately without longer Notice than has been given of it, as it would involve an examination of the Union records; but they give it as their opinion that outdoor relief was lavishly and capriciously disbursed in some Unions. I will give an answer on Thursday; but I can say at once that the strongest cases were in Mayo and Roscommon.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— LOANS TO OCCUPIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1419
  On what grounds the Board of Works have delayed making advances to a large number of farmers in North Leitrim who have paid the preliminary expenses and fulfilled the necessary conditions to entitle them to receive loans under the Land Act of 1881.
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have inquired into the condition of the applications for loans to occupiers in County Leitrim, and learn that, except in one case, there has been no excess over the time found to be normally required for making the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates, and for giving the notices required by law. That single case involved two holdings on different properties; and the proposed works were more complicated than usual, which accounts for the longer time which has been occupied in dealing with it. The preliminary expenses, being met by deduction from the first instalment, cannot be paid before an advance has been made.

  MUNICIPAL REFORM (METROPOLIS).
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that, as stated in the "Morning Advertiser" of Saturday 24th February, so lately as the week ending on that day—
  "A request was issued from the Home Office to the Metropolitan Board of Works, the District Boards, the Corporation of London, and the Vestries, to furnish accounts of their receipts and expenditure, as well as reports from the different officers connected with their institutions, as to the working of the departments;"
  whether such Reports, when received, will not necessarily be of immense volume and complexity; whether their due examination by the Home Office will not occupy a long time; and, whether it is intended to defer, until after due examination of such Reports, the bringing forward of the promised measure for the reform of the Corporation, or whether it is intended not to give to such Reports any sufficient examination at all?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this Question, like some others, has been founded on a misapprehension of the reasons for which these Reports have been asked. The material facts they will contain have long been under the consideration of the Government; but it was necessary that the details should be verified. With regard to the last portion of the Question, I am afraid, in the pre-
  1420
  sent state of Public Business, there will be more time for the examination of those documents than I desire or can in any way want.

  NAVY—THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any Report has been received from the Mediterranean Squadron of the result of the test of active service to our ships and guns, and dockyard and ordnance material; and, if he will communicate any such Report to the House?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in answer to the right hon. and gallant Admiral, I have to say that Reports have been received on some of the points mentioned; but they are necessarily confidential, and cannot be made public.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "NEPTUNE."
  MR. NORWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the statement that has recently appeared in the public press as to the "extraordinary discovery" of serious injury to the bottom of Her Majesty's Ship "Neptune" at Portsmouth, is substantially correct; whether it is a fact that this ship was built on the Thames for the Brazilian Government under the name of the "Independenzia," and that an accident occurred in the attempt to launch her; that she stuck on the ways for several days with a portion of her hull overhanging the river, and unsupported at low-water, and that she was thereby subjected to great strain; whether it is a fact that, owing to the very great structural injury she was believed to have sustained, a claim was made on her Underwriters for a total loss, which, after much debate, was compromised by the payment of a sum of about £77,000, being 35 per cent, on the insured value of £220,000; whether, notwithstanding these circumstances of general notoriety, Her Majesty's Government subsequently purchased this ship in the year 1878; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Surveys by the Dockyard Authorities, and of the recommendations, official or otherwise, upon which the purchase of this ship was made; together with a statement showing the price paid for her by Her

  1421
  Majesty's Government, the cost of the repairs and alterations subsequently I effected on her, and an estimate of the probable outlay now necessary to make Her Majesty's Ship "Neptune" seaworthy?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I have already said, in answer to the right hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay), that the statement in the public Press regarding the discovery of defects in the Neptune is greatly exaggerated, and there is nothing to prevent her from going to sea as intended. No outlay will be required at present. My hon. Friend recites a number of facts connected with the history of this ship, and her purchase by the late Board of Admiralty, and asks me if they are correct. Some of these facts were, I believe, matters of public notoriety at the time; but of the accuracy of others, as stated in my hon. Friend's Question, I have no knowledge, nor am I acquainted with the reasons which led my right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his Colleagues to make the purchase. If my hon. Friend will move for a Return of the cost of the Neptune up to the present time I shall be happy to lay it on the Table. I understand that there was no survey of the ship by professional officers before its purchase, for this reason—that no survey could be made, the ship being fitted and ready for sea. A thorough inspection was, however, made by the Board itself. As to the official recommendations on which the ship was purchased, these were, of course, of a confidential nature and cannot be produced.

  EGYPT—THE KOURBASH.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Echo" of the 28th February, signed J. Seymour Keary, descriptive of the infliction in Egypt of the tortures of the Korbach and Bastinado on persons who have not paid their taxes; whether the English Controller, Sir A. Colvin, has not habitually represented that the use of the Korbach and Bastinado had altogether ceased in Egypt, for at least two years past; whether he has observed a telegram in the "Standard" of the 28th
  1422
  February, asserting that the use of the Korbach was only "abolished last month by a circular from Ismael Pacha Ayoub," and stating that a certain one of the Provincial Governors had not remonstrated against the circular, because he was "especially notorious for his free use of the Bastinado;" whether he has also observed an officially recorded statement by Mr. Rowsell, the British Administrator of the Domains, dated 18th February 1882, as follows:—"Deprived of his Korbach and of his power to imprison, the Governor of an Eastern Province can do little with a population accustomed for centuries to strong, personal, direct government," also stating that he called on the Egyptian Mudirs to "suppress the strike at four villages," by imprisoning certain Sheiks, "on my demand, as persons who prevented the villagers from working;" whether, since one of the effects of the British Victories in Egypt has been to send Mr. Rowsell back to his post as Administrator of the Domains, Her Majesty's Government will recommend that he be removed from office; and, whether he will state what measures have been taken to secure the total abolition of the use of the tortures of the Korbach and Bastinado, as well as arbitrary imprisonment throughout Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have seen the article in The Echo alluded to by my hon. Friend; but I am not aware that Sir Auckland Colvin has made the statement alluded to. Ismail Eyoub Pasha, in assuming the duties of Minister of the Interior, issued a Circular on the 16th of January to the Provincial authorities, peremptorily forbidding the use of the Korbach and the Bastinado, which the Circular states has been applied in spite of repeated orders against their use. In regard to the alleged statement of Mr. Rowsell, it does not appear that he was expressing any opinion of his own in favour of the Korbach. The other statements to which the hon. Baronet refers and their explanation will be found at pages 42 and 43 "Egypt, No. 7, 1882." Her Majesty's Government have lost no opportunity of remonstrating against the continuance of the practices alluded to by my hon. Friend; and a despatch of Lord Dufferin's, which I hope shortly to present to Parliament, will, I feel sure, give him much satisfaction.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—THE BUDGET AND CONTROL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir E. Malet, on February 15th 1882, declined to sanction the voting of the internal Budget by the Egyptian Parliament, on the ground that the Egyptian decree establishing the control "had the nature of an International engagement," and "could only be modified by the consent of the Governments of England and France;" and, whether Her Majesty's Government obtained the consent of France before they advised the Khedive to issue the recent decree abolishing the control, and whether that consent was also obtained to the appointment of Sir Auckland Colvin as financial adviser to the Egyptian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, my hon. Friend will find the exact statement made by Sir Edward Malet in a despatch dated the 13th of February, 1882, which appears at page 27 of "Egypt, No. 7, 1882." At that time the Control was still in undisputed existence. The views of Her Majesty's Government as to its character and the circumstances which justified its abolition are fully given in Lord Granville's despatch contained in "Egypt, No. 20." The consent of France was not obtained by the Khedive to the issue of the Decree abolishing the Control, or to the appointment of a European Financial Adviser.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Has the consent of France been given to abolish the Decree under the law called the Law of Liquidation?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask for Notice of that Question.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether the noble Lord intended, in answering Questions in that House, to confine himself to references to dates and Papers, instead of giving an answer to the Question?
  [No reply.]

  IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE TAX IN KERRY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the extra Police Tax at present being demanded from the ratepayers of the parish of Mollahiffe, in the
  1424
  county of Kerry, is at the rate of two shillings in the £1 per annum; and, whether the police hut in which extra constables are quartered was erected on the farm of Mr. Jeremiah Leahy, despite his protest, and because he had given the site for a hut to an evicted tenant of Lord Kenmare; and, if he would explain what is there in the present state of the district to warrant the retention of the extra police force?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the extra police tax is at the rate mentioned. The site of the hut is in the possession of Lord Kenmare, having been surrendered to him by Jeremiah Leahy, in June, 1881. It is, therefore, not the case that the hut was erected on Leahy's holding against his will. The district is reported to be one of the most dangerous in Kerry. There are a number of persons in it who have to be specially protected, and the extra police cannot be removed at present.
  MR. PARNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us how many agrarian outrages of any kind have taken place in this district since last May?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will be glad to inform the hon. Member if he gives Notice of the Question.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, how many police protection huts there are on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare; and, whether the sub-agent of Lord Kenmare and the constable in charge of one of these huts have been returned for trial for one of the offences which, it is alleged, has rendered these extra police necessary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will put the Question on the Paper I will answer it. I cannot do so now.

  STATE OF IRELAND—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE—MICHAEL BANICAN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a communication signed Michael Banican, Tallyard, Crossmaglen, county Armagh, published in the "Belfast Morning News" of Februay 23rd, to the effect that the writer was summoned out of his bed by the police at about twelve o'clock at night without being shown any warrant, and was taken to a police station about two miles away, where he was told that certain prisoners now in

  1425
  Armagh Gaol were going to swear against him, and was urged to save himself, and that he and his family would be well done for; and further, that "they tried to get him to make statements incriminating some of the prisoners in gaol from his neighbourhood on a charge of treason-felony;" and, whether the statement of Michael Banican has any foundation; and, if so, whether such practices on the part of the police have the approval of the Irish Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, my attention has been called to this matter. I have considered a long Report upon it, and have reason to believe that the statements referred to are unfounded. I cannot say any more.
  MR. O'BRIENasked, whether Banican had written to the right hon. Gentleman calling for an inquiry, and offering the sworn testimony of himself, his wife, and mother-in-law?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he had received a letter to that effect.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT, 1869—PURCHASERS.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Land Commissioners on the condition of the tenants who purchased under the Irish Church Act, 1869?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I must remind the hon. Member that I made no promise to lay the Report referred to on the Table of the House, nor can I now undertake to do so, as the question it deals with is a very large one indeed, involving very important transactions, which will require to be considered very carefully by the Cabinet beforehand. I have received the following telegram from the Under Secretary, which I will read to the House—
  "As the Land Commissioners state they are not agreed on the subject of the tenants under the Irish Church Act and only send a Report from their solicitor, I think it would not he advisable to present their letter."
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that he would lay the Report on the Table.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— APPLICATIONS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1426
  If he will state the number of applications to fix fair rents now pending in the county of Limerick, and the number now pending in the county of Clare; what provision is made to have those pending in Clare dealt with within a reasonable time; and, what was the number of such cases disposed of for Clare and Limerick respectively since the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners, and how disposed of, whether by settlement, withdrawal, dismissal, or fixing of fair rents by consent or decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of applications pending are—county Limerick, 589; county Clare, 2,097. The Commissioners inform me that they hope to be able to expedite the progress of business in Clare; but they cannot at present state what measures it will be in their power to take for that purpose. The numbers of cases which have been disposed of are as follows:—County Clare—Rents fixed after hearing, 559; rents fixed by consent, 45; dismissed and struck out, 59; withdrawn, 33; total, 696. County Limerick—Rents fixed after hearing, 595; rents fixed by consent, 143; dismissed and struck out, 148; withdrawn, 87; total, 973.

  TURKEY—SERVIA—DETENTION OF PRISONERS.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that during the last twelve months numerous arrests of Old Servians charged with political offences have been made at Prishtina, Uscub, and other places; whether, notwithstanding the promise of the Porte to release them, they are still detained in loathsome dungeons without trial, and forbidden to communicate with their friends; and, whether it is true that other arrests of Old Servians have lately been made?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, numerous arrests of Old Servians charged with conspiring against the Turkish Government were made last year in the Vilayet of Kossova. Lord Dufferin, on learning that they were being ill-treated in prison, made representations on their behalf to the Porte in October last, and received a promise that instructions would be sent to the local authorities to desist from ill-treating the prisoners, as was reported, and to

  1427
  give them a fair trial; but it has lately transpired that these men, who had been condemned on the evidence of a renegade spy, wore to be deported to Acre, and imprisoned in the casemates of the fortress—a sentence which was described as one of slow death. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affairs, acting on instructions from home, addressed a letter to the Porte last month, and made a strong verbal appeal to the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs to cause some mitigation to be made in the punishment it was proposed to inflict on them. Reports have reached Her Majesty's Government of arrests being made in parts of Albania; but no official information has yet been received on the subject. I may observe that the district of Old Servia is one of those entitled to the execution of the Organic Statute mentioned in Article XXIII. of the Treaty of Berlin, which has not been put into force by the Porte.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Why, in the Board of Works Return of Loans to Irish Railways, the loan to the Belfast Central Railway Company is omitted; and, what is the amount of the loan, the rate of interest, and terms of repayment?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the loan in question was not included in the Return because it was not made by the Board of Works, but by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, under the old system. Its amount is £100,000, and the whole is to be repaid in May, 1886. In consideration of the guarantee of the Imperial Credit Company and of the early date of repayment, only 4 per cent interest is charged. I am not aware of any similar loan; but I will inquire into the matter.

  EGYPT—MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER AND PARTY.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why so many gaps marked by asterisks are in the Correspondence relating to the Palmer Expedition; if he has seen in the "Times" of the 2nd instant letters and depositions of Colonel Warren and other persons which have been
  1428
  omitted from the Correspondence submitted to the House; and, if he will supply these omissions?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the passages omitted from the published Correspondence relating to the Palmer Expedition either refer to matters unconnected with the subject, or to individuals whose names it was undesirable to introduce. There are only one or two exceptions, in which passages were omitted for other reasons; but the published Correspondence contains everything material to the question, and especially everything connected with the proof of the guilt of the culprits. Some further letters have arrived from Colonel Warren, which will, if desired, be laid upon the Table.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— WICKLOW ASSIZES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he received any remonstrance from the people of Wicklow complaining of the manner in which the special juries were empanelled there at the last Assizes; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the remonstrance and his reply upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I did receive a communication of the nature referred to; but I do not think that any good would result from laying it on the Table of the House. It belongs to a class of communication of which I receive many hundreds in a year; and my reply to it is, that I cannot enter into an argumentative discussion with the authors.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the population of Wicklow consists of 57,000 Catholics and 16,000 Protestants; and that the cases from which Catholics were excluded were not even of a political and agrarian character?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he was not aware of the number of Catholics and Protestants in Wicklow; but he presumed the numbers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were correct. Amongst the cases complained of was one where a peasant landlord appeared against a relative for stealing a door and other fixtures, and it could hardly be said that political considerations entered into such a case.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Is that the only case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is the only case referred to in the Memorandum.

  WAYS AND MEANS—ESTIMATES OF REVENUE.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the sum of £46,530,000 included in the Estimate of Revenue for the current financial year, under the joint heads of "Customs" and "Excise," Whether he is in a position to furnish to the House any reliable estimate of the proportions in which that sum is now contributed by the classes who live on weekly wages, and by those who pay direct taxation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the various attempts which have been made by statisticians at different times—notably by the late Mr. Dudley Baxter—to solve this very difficult problem. The absolute solution of it has never been found practicable, and I do not think that an official cachet could properly be given to what at the best would only be an elaborate conjecture.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the impediments now placed in the way of British Trade in the Portuguese Settlements on the West Coast of Africa will be extended to the Congo, if the alleged claim to Sovereignty over that river by Portugal is formally recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; they will not. As I stated in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on Monday last, the commercial aspects of these negotiations are securing the closest attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. GORSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Circular recently addressed by the Board of Inland Revenue to officers serving in that Department,
  1430
  prohibiting them from communicating on matters affecting their official position with their representatives in this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; I find that about two months ago a General Order was issued to their officers by the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject of the solicitations addressed to Members of Parliament to obtain for them increase of salaries, advancement in the Service, or other advantages. This Order was founded on two Treasury Minutes embodying the well-understood Rules on this subject, those Minutes having been issued in 1866 and 1867 by Boards of Treasury taken from each side of the House. If the hon. Member will move for these Minutes and for the General Order, and also for an Admiralty Order of 1869 on the same subject, he shall have them as an unopposed Return. Perhaps he will speak to me as to the words of the Motion.
  MR. GORSTasked, whether the General Order was issued with the knowledge of the Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, that it was issued before he had succeeded to the Office he now held, and he, therefore, could not answer the Question. He would, however, inquire.

  EAST INDIA (MADRAS)—TENURE OF LAND BY RELATIVES OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will inquire whether, during the acting Governorship of Mr. W. Hudleston, in 1881, the Government of Madras passed a Resolution that relations of "Members of Council" should not hold land; whether this prohibition applied to land within the Madras Presidency only; whether this order received the sanction of the Viceroy and also of the Secretary of State; and, what was the date of the Resolution?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I have replied to this Question before, stating that there was no knowledge at the India Office of the matter in question. Mr. Hudleston, who is, I understand, at present in England, will be asked whether he can in any way explain what the hon. Member refers to.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)— THE RIVER FERGUS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that the Board of Works, Ireland, have no jurisdiction, responsibility, or have they authority to execute works for improvement of the navigation of the River Fergus to Clare Castle, although they have to their credit a sum of £3,169 11. 0d. (receipts over expenditure), dues received by the Commissioners of Public works in Ireland, on account of Clare Castle Pier and Harbour in the years 1879, 1880, and 1881; and, whether any decision has been come to with regard to the proposal under consideration since August 1881, for transference of control of said Pier and Harbour to a Local Harbour Board, with power to make any necessary expenditure to remedy the present deplorable state of the Fergus River?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this Question has been put down without Notice; but I learn by telegram that the Board of Works have no jurisdiction over the navigation of the River Fergus. As regards the financial position of this harbour, the balance of receipts over expenditure is not quite so large as the figure given by the hon. Member, but amounts to £2,900. On the other hand, above £5,000 is in course of being spent in making a new quay. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I have to state that I think we see our way to a Bill dealing with the Shannon navigation, under which the suggested transfer will be possible, and I hope to introduce it before long.

  IRISH AND SCOTCH MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in addition to the promised inquiry from the English Local Government Board, regarding the demand for Irish migratory agricultural labourers, he will ask the Scotch Poor Law Board to make similar inquiry as to the cause of the decrease in number as appeared in 1882, and will suggest that they might follow up the statements regarding migratory Scotch Celts, embodied by their former President Sir J. Macneil in his Report of (885), and ascertain whether there is a probability of
  1432
  a continued demand for the services during half the year of the email farmers who return to their Irish crofts, the other half under a system which gives mutual satisfaction to the employers and the employed, such as Sir J. Macneil describes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have written to-day to the English Local Government Board, and I have no objection to write to the Board of Supervision.

  MAIN ROADS (SCOTLAND)—THE GRANT IN AID.
  LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to the regulations made by the Local Government Board with respect to the distribution of the sum of £250,000, voted by Parliament in aid of disturnpiked and main roads in England, Wales, and Scotland, and to the exclusion, under those regulations, of certain counties of Scotland from a share of the grant; and whether there is any intention to revise the regulations, and to give to the counties so excluded a share of the grant.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The portion of the grant appropriated to Scotland will this year be administered by the Home Office, and the principles on which it ought to be allocated are now under consideration.
  LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to give an assurance that the authority of the Local Government Board would not be again extended in a similar direction?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)believed he was in a position to give that assurance.

  EGYPT (FINANCE,&c.)—REVENUE ACCOUNTS OF THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is a fact that the Revenue Accounts of the Egyptian Government extending over several years, presented and signed by the European Controllers, show receipts of money from the Egyptian cultivators under the operation of the Moukabala Law amounting to £17,000,000; whether the receipt of this £17,000,000, paid by the peasants of Egypt to redeem

  1433
  one moiety of their land tax or rent, was ever disputed or objected to previously to the Report of Sir Rivers Wilson, in which the repudiation of these advances by the peasants was made known officially to this House; whether there is any evidence to support the suggestion made by Sir Rivers Wilson and others, that part of these £17,000,000 (mentioned in the National Budget Accounts as received by the Egyptian Treasury) had not been received, and to some extent represented fictitious payments; whether the Government of this Country will now advise the repayment of these £17,000,000, or any part thereof, or, if the money cannot be returned, will advise that the redemption of land tax so purchased by the Egyptian peasantry under solemn contract with the Government may now be carried into effect; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps in this matter; and, if so, when and to what extent?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the registers of the Egyptian Finance Ministry assume payments amounting to nearly £17,000,000, but there is no reason to suppose that any payments approaching to that sum were really paid, more especially as certain influential landowners succeeded in obtaining a reduction of one-half of their land tax without making any effective payment at all; while the increased charge upon the land, which was to continue for a term of years, ceased entirely a long time before the expiration of it. This question was exhaustively considered by the Commission of Inquiry in August, 1878, and was determined by the Law of Liquidation in July, 1880, which, by its fourth chapter, established annuities to compensate the owners for the payments actually made. How far those annuities have been properly paid is a matter to which the Egyptian Government will, no doubt, direct its attention.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Can the noble Lord state exactly how much was paid?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Government is unable to state the exact sum paid.
  MR. MOLLOY: Can the noble Lord say where the facts stated by him are to be found?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I referred the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question which he asked a few days ago, to the Papers which have been presented to Parliament, which contain all the information we have on the subject. I may state, in regard to the payment of the annuities to which I referred just now, that there is rather a deficiency of information. I may, however, point out that Her Majesty's Government is in no way responsible for that.

  MOROCCO—ILL-TREATMENT OF JEWESSES.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been called to a paragraph in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of the 2nd instant, in which it is stated that eight Jewesses had been bastinadoed by order of the interpreter to the British Consul at Casabianca—
  "That this barbarous act has aroused the indignation of all classes of Europeans on the coast, especially as the instigator is in receipt of an English salary;"
  and, whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the matter?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Minister at Tangiers was instructed, on the 26th ultimo, to make immediate inquiries on the subject of this paragraph. I may, however, inform the hon. and gallant Member that we have been unable as yet to identify the place mentioned, where certainly no British Consular officer exists.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether the noble Lord had seen an account of these transactions given in the last number of The Jewish World?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the hon. Member will send me a copy of the paper I will look into it.

  IRELAND—DISTRESS IN SLIGO.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the starving condition of the people in the parish of Cliffoney, county Sligo; whether he is aware that many families there and on the fishing coast of Mullaghmore are at present in a state of starvation; whether it is the fact that the Poor Law Guardians of Cliffoney represented to the Local Government Board the great want and destitution

  1435
  existing on the island of Innesmurry; whether a gunboat was some time afterwards despatched by the Board with some provisions; whether her cargo only consisted of 4 cwt. of Indian meal, barely a mouthful for the one hundred famishing souls on the island; and, whether the Government purpose taking any steps to allay the distress prevailing among these poor people?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board informed me that in the month of December last they had before them a representation from the Guardians of Sligo Union that there was distress on the parts of the coast named (Cliffoney and Mullaghmore). They then satisfied themselves that there was no exceptional distress which could not be met by the ordinary operation of the Poor Law, and they have now no reason to alter that opinion. On the 30th of January the ratepayers of Cliffoney called a meeting, and asked the Guardians to call on the Government to extend the benefit of reproductive works to all tenants who pay rates; but there was no special mention as to distress. With this exception there has been no more recent representation as to the mainland; but the state of the people of the Island of Innesmurry has been specially investigated. A gunboat was placed at the disposal of the Local Government Inspector (Major Spaight) to enable him to visit Innesmurry; but, owing to the dangerous character of the coast and the continuance of stormy weather, four weeks elapsed before he was able to get an opportunity of landing. He took with him 10 cwt. of Indian meal; but after visiting all the families in the Island, numbering 14, he did not consider it necessary to leave more than 4 cwt., which amount he distributed between three families. He reports that there is not, in his opinion, any danger of any of the people on the Island suffering from starvation.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the President of the Board of Trade, What operations in connection with the Channel Tunnel are in progress at Sangatte; and, if any commencement of a submarine driftway from the French Coast has been commenced; and, if so, to what extent it has been carried?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the Board of Trade have received information that at the end of January the length of the gallery or heading at Sangatte was some 1,267 metres, but that, owing to its following the coast obliquely, the head of the working was only some 350 metres from the shore. These works are, of course, only preliminary, and, by the terms of the concession granted in 1875 by the French Government, the preliminary works were to be completed in five years; but provision was made for this period to be extended to eight years, and this was done in 1880. I understand that unless by the 2nd of August next the French Company not only presents final plans, but also proves that it has come to an arrangement with an English Company furnished with the requisite authority to construct and work a submarine railway, starting from the English shore, the present concession will lapse, and can only be revived by an Act of the French Legislature.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Second Reading of the Affirmation Bill will be taken before Easter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think it would be for the convenience of the House to find as early a day as possible for taking the second reading of this Bill. At the same time, viewing the demands of other urgent Business, and especially the demands of Supply, I think it is but fair to say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not see any reasonable prospect of being able to proceed with the Bill before the Easter Recess. The pledge of my right hon. Friend that ample Notice shall be given of the second reading will be adhered to.

  EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked, Whether the Government had received information with regard to a meeting that appeared to have been held at Calcutta last week to protest against the new legislation, giving to Native Judges jurisdiction over Europeans in criminal cases?
  MR. J. K. CROSS,in reply, said, the Government had received no information

  1437
  other than that which appeared in The Times.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, After what hour the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would proceed with the Motion in reference to the Channel Tunnel? It was an exceptional and unusual proposal, and ought not to be proceeded with at an hour when it could not be fully discussed.
  MR.CHAMBERLAIN: Not after 11.30.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BILLS—MEMORANDUM OF PURPOSES AND ENACTMENTS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to put a Question to the Speaker, in reference to the Procedure of the House. I notice that there is attached to the Bill which has been introduced for restricting the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday a statement of its object and purpose. What I wish to know is, Whether it would be possible to extend that practice, so as to provide that hon. Members, in introducing a Bill, may have liberty to state its objects and purposes? If such a liberty were granted, I believe it would have a considerable effect in inducing hon. Members to dispense with preliminary speeches, and would consequently save the time of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: A memorandum or statement explaining the subject-matter of a Bill has been occasionally allowed to be presented with a Bill; but it has been limited solely to the contents and purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne seems to desire a further extension of that practice; but I do not think I should be justified in authorizing an extension of the practice without the authority of the House.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to give Notice that, on the first occasion of going into Committee of Supply, I will call attention to the matter, and move a Resolution authorizing the extension of the practice.

  QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord KENSINGTON)reported Her
  1438
  Majesty's Answer to the Address, as foloweth:—
  I have received with satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
  You may rely on My hearty desire to co-operate with you in the promotion of Measures which have for their object to secure the well-being and contentment of My People.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (SPECIAL REPORT).
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had selected the following Five Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under the Standing Order of the 1st December 1882:—

  The Right Honourable George Joachim Goschen,

  Richard O'Shaughnessy, esquire, The Right Honourable Lyon Playfair,

  Sir Matthew White Ridley, and The Right Honourable George Sclater-Booth;

  to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE), 1882–3.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.)Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in addition to the Bums already granted by Parliament, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for additional Expenditure arising out of Military Operations in Egypt."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to say a word or two in regard to this Vote. He saw that there was a large contribution from the Egyptian Government towards the maintenance of the Army of Occupation. He intended to have mentioned the subject the other night; but when they reached the Army Vote the hour was so late—between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning—and he knew that nothing would be reported in

  1439
  regard to any discussion which might take place—that he did not feel himself justified in making any remarks upon the contribution of Egypt towards the Army of Occupation. But it did seem to him, in regard to the large contribution Egypt was called upon to pay for the Army of Occupation, that some explanation ought to be given by Her Majesty's Government. For instance, the Committee ought to know whether this was the whole expenditure, or whether there was any other expenditure besides that which was asked to be voted in the Estimates. Having said so much, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, the other day, with regard to the occupation of Egypt, was that it would only last for six months. That statement had produced, as far as could be judged from the papers, a most disastrous effect in Egypt. It was stated that money would not nowbelent—in fact, that money was going out of the country; that applications for money to be taken to Egypt were now withheld; and that a feeling of insecurity was daily increasing in that country. he should like, then, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whom he was glad to see in his place again, and with hopes that he had quite recovered from the illness which took him abroad, if the Government had come to any definite determination with regard to the occupation of Egypt? That was a very serious question, and the answer to which was anxiously looked forward to by all classes in this country, as well as by all classes in Egypt. Everyone was anxious to know what the determination of the Government was, and what their aims were. He believed that this was a legitimate opportunity for asking these questions, and he was quite sure that this country would not be satisfied unless they know that the results of the expenditure, both of life and money, caused by the rebellion in Egypt were of a practical and substantial character. The country would desire to be assured that among the practical results which would accrue from the sacrifice of life and treasure, Egypt herself would be placed in such a position that no future intrigues would be likely to occur in that country. At any rate, we ought to have control over the Canal, and no interference with the
  1440
  Suez Canal should be allowed to take place. Unless the occupation of Egypt was such as would render these things certain, all that they had done would be thrown away. He had no wish to raise an Egyptian debate; but he wished to know if any determination had been arrived at by the Government in regard to the occupation of Egypt?
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to make one or two observations upon this Vote. In the first place, he desired to call attention to an item of £50,000 for "a special gratuity to Seamen and Marines." He wanted to know from the Secretary to the Admiralty how the money was to be distributed—whether it was to be paid to seamen on board of Her Majesty's ships as an award, in larger proportion than they had been in the habit of receiving? Then, again, under the head of "New Works, Buildings, &c." there was the very large item of £76,000 for "purchase of house and land at Port Said." He should like to know what that £76,000 was for, and whether it had any connection with the formation of a new depôt? Was it intended by Her Majesty's Government that they should, for diplomatic purposes, remain permanently at Port Said, or was it intended to create a military depot? If so, he was at a loss to understand the statements which had been made in regard to the Suez Canal as an international highway. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that before they were called upon to vote so large a sum of money as £76,000, they ought to have from Her Majesty's Government some explanation as to what their policy really was in regard to Egypt—whether they intended to give up all control over the affairs of that country for all time, or whether they proposed to retain possession of the Suez Canal as a protection to the road to India? If it was intended to give up all control, which was certainly indicated in the despatch of Lord Granville, then he was at a loss to see for what purpose they had been at war with Egypt at all. There was another question upon which he also desired information. There was the large sum of £15,000 in the Estimates for "piloting and towing Her Majesty's ships." That was a very large additional sum for Her Majesty's Government to ask the Com-

  1441
  mittee to grant for such a purpose. He had always held the opinion that many officers of the Navy, instead of being kept in a state of enforced idleness on half-pay on shore, should from time to time proceed to sea in order to acquire a knowledge of duties of this nature; and above all things he considered it necessary that they should be educated in the duties of piloting our ships of war, and there would then be no necessity to go outside the Navy at all, or for so large an expenditure as this. Under Vote 17 there was another item of £1,600 for pilotage in connection with the conveyance of troops, making the total charge for pilotage and towage £16,600. That was a sum asked for, for the services of men altogether outside the Navy. It was quite true that a portion of the money was to be returned by the Army Department; but he did not think there ought to be such a thing as charges for pilotage except in waters where it was compulsory. There was still another item to which he wished to direct attention—namely, £4,000 for Medals for Seamen and Marines. He thought that, considering the very efficient services rendered to the country during the recent war by the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine in carrying out our troops to Egypt at a moment's notice, and with such signal success, the services rendered ought in some way to be recognized by the Government. Something like 250,000 tons of shipping had been employed in conveying the troops to Egypt, and the duty had been accomplished without the loss of a single man. He therefore thought that the services of the Mercantile Marine ought in some way or other to be noticed and recognized. It was proposed to give to the men in the Navy and in the Army a distinguishing medal, and he thought it would be a wise policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make a similar recognition of the services of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. Seamen being cosmopolitan, recognition of their services would tend to increase their loyalty.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) that more money ought to be expended in medals. In fact, in his opinion, a good deal too much had already been spent in that way. If a man could not be attached
  1442
  to his country and Queen without occasionally being given a medal, it was of no use seeking to attach him. There were two points upon which he desired information. The first was the item of "Wages to Seamen and Marines—special gratuity." When the Vote for the military employed in the Egyptian Expedition was before the Committee on Friday last, he asked what portion of the £90,000 that was to be granted for military services was to be given to the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Wolseley. He had done that with a specific object, because the Committee had been told that an additional grant was to be voted for Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester. He supposed he must take it from the Prime Minister that full Notice would be given of the day on which that grant would be brought forward. What he wanted to know now was, what portion of this £50,000—[An hon. MEMBER: £90,000.]—the sum included in the present Vote was £50,000; and he wanted to know what proportion of that amount was to go to Lord Alcester? There had been a statement in the newspapers in regard to the way in which this money was to be apportioned to the Army and Navy; but he did not think there had been any statement laid upon the Table of the House. He would suggest that before the Vote was taken for a special grant of money to be given to Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester, they should have some statement in an official form laid upon the Table, to show how the money had been expended. There was one other point to which he desired to call attention. He observed a charge of £76,000 for the purchase of a house and land at Port Said. Now, he believed that this particular house and land had been offered to the Anglo-Egyptian Bank, some little time before, for £30,000. He quite admitted that the Government might be required to give more than a private individual; but the difference between £30,000 and £76,000 was so enormous that he should like to have some explanation of the matter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he desired to ask, before the Secretary to the Admiralty answered the questions which had just been put to him, if he would inform the Committee whether what was generally stated was accurate or not—namely, that this pur-

  1443
  chase was made by the Admiralty officials without any previous application to the Treasury, and without the sanction of the Treasury?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had asked some questions as to the contributions from the Egyptian Government towards the cost of the Army of Occupation, and upon those questions he had founded an inquiry as to the policy of the Government in the future with respect to Egypt. Although he quite admitted that his hon. and gallant Friend was entitled to ask any questions of this sort upon the Vote, still he had to point out that the particular item in the Vote now before the Committee referred only to the present financial year, and had nothing to do with the maintenance or withdrawal of the English Forces at the period stated by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. It merely covered the extra charge involved upon us by the maintenance of the Force which was now occupying Egypt up to the end of the year; and, of course, it included the Transport Charges, the charges connected with the bringing home of invalids and time-expired men, and the sending out of drafts. He believed the contribution, as far as the Navy was concerned, would cover the entire cost entailed upon this country. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) put a question to him in regard to the gratuity to seamen and marines. It was not in the nature of prize money, and was, therefore, not distributed under the Prize Acts; but for convenience they had followed the prize scale, in order that they might have something to guide them in the distribution. The unit with which they started was, in the Navy, the ordinary seaman, and in the Army the private. In each of these cases the amount would be £2 per man, and the prize scale would be increased to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and commissioned officers, according to their rank, up to the Commander-in-Chief. He believed that the Military Commander-in-Chief would receive £1,000, and Lord Alcester £927 9s. With regard to the Dutch house at Port Said, it was a large house erected on ground acquired from the Suez Canal Company, and when operations on the Canal were under-
  1444
  taken, it was found absolutely necessary to secure some sort of basis of operations on shore. The house in question had been used as a hospital and headquarters, and the difficulty of the operations would have been immensely increased if no such place had been obtained. Therefore the Government had thought it right to purchase this house. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Whose property was it?] He believed that it was purchased from the Dutch Government, or from the representatives of the late Prince Henry of the Netherlands. Exception had been taken to the price which had been paid for it. He was quite ready to admit that the price was high, in this sense—that it was quite conceivable a person who had had the opportunity of watching the market, in order to secure this property as an investment, might have bought it for a smaller sum than £76,000. He believed that Prince Henry of the Netherlands paid £35,000 for the land, and the building cost £103,000, so that it was by no means a disadvantageous bargain to get it for £76,000, especially when it was borne in mind that it was absolutely and essentially required for the purposes of the Expedition. It was not necessary for him to support the purchase on the ground of its being commercially an excellent investment. That was another question altogether. The purchase was made at a time when warlike operations were on the point of commencing, and it was unnecessary to say that at such a time they could not hope to make such a deliberate and careful bargain as they might have do no on another occasion. There was no reason whatever for thinking that too much money had been paid for this property, when it was considered of what great value it had already proved in connection with our military operations. He had discussed the matter only within the last few days with Sir Anthony Hoskins, who was the Admiral in command at Port Said, and that gallant officer assured him that it would have been simply impossible to have carried on the operations without having possession of this house. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) asked questions about certain items of the Vote for pilotage and towage in the Suez Canal. Now, a great deal was done by the officers of the

  1445
  Navy; but there were certain charges—dues and fees for towage and pilotage—which were necessarily included. They were really expenses incurred during the war. The only other point he had to answer was, the question which had been put to him in reference to medals. His hon. Friend wished the Government to consider whether a medal could not be given to the officers and men engaged in the Transport Service. He believed that such a thing had never been done hitherto. At any rate, he did not know of any case in which a modal had been granted for services of that kind. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that the matter should be fully considered. He quite agreed with all that his hon. Friend said of the great service which had been rendered to the country by the officers and men engaged in the Transport Service, and the admirable manner in which they had discharged their duty.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had not answered the particular question which he had put to him, and which he felt was a very important one—namely, whether, when the purchase of the house at Port Said was made, there was no previous consent on the part of the Treasury? To that question he had received no answer. He had now several other questions to put to the hon. Gentleman. He thought most hon. Members would agree that the statement of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the house at Port Said was extremely unsatisfactory. A large sum of money had been expended in the purchase—no less a sum than £76,000; and the hon. Gentleman must have known that such an item would have itself attracted the attention of the Committee. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman, knowing that fact, came down to the House, and, instead of being prepared to give every information as to the purchase, he did not even know of whom the purchase had been made. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not think that there was any precedent for such a want of information with respect to the expenditure of so large a sum of money. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a precedent.] The hon. Gentleman said there was a precedent. He was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the information. At the same time, that was no
  1446
  answer to his complaint, which was that a full explanation had not been given to the Committee in this particular case. Another thing he should like to know was, who bought this house? Who was the particular person? Who was the purchaser first of all? Who was it, and what authority had he for making the purchase? Was any man of business employed in England or in Egypt? The Secretary to the Admiralty said that the Admiralty were not in a position to watch the market. Now, it was a notorious thing, if his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) information was correct, that the matter had been hanging about for some years. In point of fact, this house had been hawked about to Hotel Companies, and it was offered to the Anglo-Egyptian Bank for less than one-half the sum the Government afterwards paid for it. He thought, he was entitled to ask for this information before the Committee voted the money. There was one more question he desired to ask—namely, what were they going to do with the house now? Did the Admiralty authorities contemplate selling it? Was it occupied at present, and, if so, by whom? All these were matters on which the Committee should insist upon having information before they consented to vote the money; and in order to get this information in a more explicit form from the Government, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £76,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £274,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in addition to the sums already granted by Parliament, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1883, for additional Expenditure arising out of Military Operations in Egypt."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHremarked, that objection had been so frequently taken in former years to investments by Her Majesty's Government in land and house property for Embassies in foreign countries that he was not surprised by the course which had been taken by the noble Lord and others with regard to the large sum of £76,000 which had been given for the purchase of this house at Port Said. He was not going to quarrel with the Admiralty in regard to the exact price they had given for the purchase, although he believed

  1447
  that the property might have been acquired, on a previous occasion, for a much smaller sum. He did not know who effected the purchase on the part of the Government—whether it was the Naval authorities on the spot, or the Board of Admiralty at Whitehall, or the Treasury. Whether it was an excessive purchase, no doubt, would be determined partly on the use already made of it, and partly on the use to be made of it hero-after. He had had an opportunity of visiting Port Said not many weeks ago, and he found this house occupied, with great advantage, by the Marines. It was used at the time as a Marine barrack, and he was glad to hear that it had been very effective for the purpose of a barrack, and that the health of the Marines had been remarkably good since they had been there. But he had heard since his return to England that the Marines had been withdrawn. Therefore, at this moment, as far as he was aware, the house was of no use to the Government. He should, as he had already stated, make no complaint in regard to the price paid. He was told that it was part of the policy of the Government to retain this commanding position for such uses as might hereafter crop up during our occupation of Egypt. He had no objection to the purchase if that were to be the case; but he hoped he should not be told that this property, which had been purchased so expensively, was now to be sold, and that the responsibility of the Government in respect to it was at an end. He was sorry to hear the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), as to the observations made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, upon a recent occasion, in reference to the term during which the troops might be retained. He confessed that he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was one of those who, when he heard the noble Marquess's observation, imagined it was a mere slip of the tongue, and that he had not really intended to pledge the Government to any time whatever for the withdrawal of the troops. He hoped that some notice would be taken of the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps this discussion was not the best mode of raising so important a question; but he hoped, if any answer was made, to find that no definite term had yet been fixed,
  1448
  and that as long as British interests required our troops to be kept in Egypt they would be retained. It appeared to him impossible, at the present moment, for any man to say at what time the withdrawal of the troops ought to take place.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I quite admit that it is the natural and primary duty of the Committee to scrutinize closely any investment on the part of the Government in any case, and especially when so large an outlay as £76,000 is involved. But then, viewing as I do, and as I think the Committee will do, our duty of scrutinizing such purchases with jealousy, it must be borne in mind that this house was acquired under circumstances of real necessity; and I think it would be premature if the Government were to go the length which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down invites them to go, and to declare that it is our intention to retain the building as permanent Government property. On the other hand, it would be a great mistake to suppose that any definite conclusion has been arrived at. Any proposal on the subject will have to be considered on its merits. The time the property was purchased was, undoubtedly, a time of urgency. There is certainly no question of urgency now, and we shall be able to make a deliberate inquiry as to the best step to be taken. With respect to the question put to me by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) I think I shall state the case correctly if I say, in general terms, that there was no prior application to, or intervention, on the part of the Treasury in regard to the purchase of this property; but there was an early explanation to the Treasury of the circumstances under which it took place. The explanations supplied by the Admiralty were of such a character as to satisfy the Treasury, on examination, that there was no good reason for passing an unfavourable judgment on the transaction. The noble Lord may say, and on general grounds primâfacie he is right, if he says that an ex post facto application to the Treasury is not the kind of application contemplated in the regular business of the Government. But this was a peculiar case, and I am bound to say that the Naval authorities, provided they used—and I believe they did use—their best discretion in the matter and act for the best, were perfectly right in proceeding without a prior ap-

  1449
  plication to the Treasury. This was a measure, on the first blush of the case, of military necessity. What would have happened if an application to the Treasury had been made? If such an application had been made it would have been the business of the Treasury to require, in a regular and formal document, all the considerations in favour of the purchase to be stated. What would have been the effect of drawing up a document of that kind, to be submitted to the Treasury and considered by the Treasury? Considerable delay must have occurred in the carrying out of measures that were necessary for the purposes of the Expedition, and it would have been in the highest degree pedantry on the part of the Treasury to have looked for any communication of that kind. It was, therefore, in my opinion, quite within the discretion of the Treasury for the Naval authorities to act without having reference to the Treasury.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who did actually buy the property?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Naval authorities on the spot arranged the transaction, and, as we believe, they exercised their best judgment, and acted upon the best information in their power. I do not admit at all that there is in the facts of the case any reason to suppose that there was any error committed. As my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has stated, although this is a very large sum, and although at a certain time the property might have been in the market at a lesser price, and that in the end we were forced to purchase it at double the price at which it might have been originally obtained, that is not the ground on which we can pretend to look at the matter. It must be looked at altogether as a question of military necessity, and questions of property become of secondary importance when a real necessity is involved in the matter. That is the way in which we ought to look at the question. I do not wish to appear disrespectful in passing by, without notice, the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) on the subject of our general policy. But I think I make a reasonable reply to it when I say that, in regard to a general appeal of that kind, the circumstances of the case preclude our giving anything but a general answer. Anything in the shape of a
  1450
  specific answer would be liable to be misunderstood. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War referred to a certain period within which he thought it possible we might withdraw from Egypt, and that statement has been understood by hon. Members opposite to mean that we were to withdraw from Egypt within that particular period. But what my noble Friend stated was simply his hope. That hope was derived from the impression which he had received from such a review of the circumstances of the case as in the present development of those circumstances was practicable. What my noble Friend felt, and what all the Government feel, is that, in the first place, we have an important purpose to accomplish in Egypt; and that, in the second place, when that purpose is accomplished we shall be sincerely desirous to withdraw. But, in regard to the definition of the time, it is impossible to go beyond the expression of a hope, because it is evident that the purpose we have in view must regulate the time to be employed, and a fixed and arbitrary time must not be permitted to interfere with the attainment of that purpose. Now we may say this—that the definition of the objects for which we are in Egypt has been explicitly explained upon more than one occasion in this House. We are there for the establishment of order and stability; we are there for the improvement of the institutions of the country; we are there to secure, as far as depends upon ourselves, the equal fulfilment of international engagements; and we are there undoubtedly in a principal degree in reference to the freedom and security of the great passage by the Canal from one sea to another. If these are matters which are entirely and absolutely matters in our own hands, it might be right, and part of the duty of the Government, that we should from time to time state exactly the point we have reached in the adjustment of them. It must, however, be borne in mind, that we are not in Egypt as masters, but as friends and advisers, in the first instance, of the Egyptian Government, and that, with respect to many of the purposes, for which we are there, other nations have interests, and not only interests, but rights just as definite and as undeniable as our own. Nor are the Government aware of any separate or selfish interests on the

  1451
  part of this country as severed from the general interests of the world, and of all civilized nations which we ought to prosecute in a selfish and a narrow spirit. I may farther venture to say that, in the opinion of the Government, through the ability and indefatigable action of our Civil Agents and Representatives, which has been worthy, I may say, to be classed—and certainly I could bestow no higher eulogy upon them—with the admirable services rendered by our Naval and Military Commanders—we believe that through their ability and indefatigable action reasonable progress has been made, and that, viewing the nature of the case, everything has been done thus far which could possibly have been expected. But the Committee is very well aware of the importance and delicacy of the relations in which we stand in regard to those many parties who are interested in Egyptian affairs; and they will, I think, believe with us that the Government would not be contributing to the acceleration of our rate of progress were we to undertake to give explanations to the House of Commons of a premature character with reference to these proceedings. I hope the Committee will think that this is all that can fairly be expected from us; that that disclaimer, on the one hand, of separate objects, and the expression, on the other, of determination with the support of Parliament, which has already been granted to us to accomplish, as far as depends upon us the purposes, important for Egypt and the world, which we consider the proper object of all civilized communities, will be regarded as sufficient.
  SIR JOHN HAYremarked, that, in regard to the purchase of the house at Port Said, he was glad to hear what had been said in defence of the gallant Admiral by whom the purchase had been effected; and after the statements which had been made he hoped his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would now withdraw the opposition which, perhaps, on not unnatural grounds, he had offered to the Vote. No doubt, the Suez Canal, as a basis of operations, had been of vital importance to the success of the Expedition. The operations themselves were of a most delicate character; and, as far as he was acquainted with the particulars of the operations, the gal-
  1452
  lant Admiral whose duty it was to superintend them had done so in a manner to prevent irritation either on the part of the great Company who made the Suez Canal, or the foreign countries who were interested in it. It was quite certain, he believed, that there had been an intention on the part of M. de Lessops to occupy this particular house in order to prevent its being made a basis of operations, and the gallant Admiral in charge of Port Said telegraphed to the Admiralty for authority to purchase it without delay. The Board of Admiralty at once gave their consent to the purchase of the house, and then the matter was referred to the Treasury. As a basis of operations it had proved of the utmost service. He believed that the gallant Admiral might have seized the house, have placed his Marines in it, and paid nothing for it; but, although France and other nations were accustomed to acts of violence of that character at the commencement of a war, it was not considered advisable to copy their example by this country. It must be borne in mind that the Naval officers engaged in the Suez Canal had very delicate operations to carry out; and he was sure that at this moment, when they remembered the successful issue of those operations, they would not feel inclined to reflect upon Admiral Hoskins for the arbitrary measures he was obliged to resort to. He (Sir John Hay) knew it was right that the Treasury ought to have been communicated with; but it would have taken a long time to get the Treasury to agree to the purchase of this house, and in the meantime it might have been taken possession of by other people, so that, in the end, they would have been compelled to resort to violent measures in order to make use of it for their own purposes. Those violent measures had, happily, been avoided; and if the purchase had cost the country £76,000, instead of £35,000, there was very little doubt that they had been saved the extra £40,000 by the judicious steps taken by Admiral Hoskins, and the manner in which that gallant officer had been seconded by the Board of Admiralty. The possession of this particular site had been of the utmost advantage so far as the health of the persons who occupied it was concerned. He trusted, after the explanations that

  1453
  had been given on the matter, his noble Friend would withdraw his opposition to the Vote.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not at all going to dispute for one moment the position which had been taken up by the Secretary to the Admiralty. In the first place, the Admiral in command believed that it was necessary, upon military grounds, to take possession of this house and site. He admitted also that the Treasury might very well not have been communicated with, in the event of an immediate decision being required. He thought the Committee were bound to accept those two points; but there was another point which must not be overlooked. They were not contesting these two particular points, nor had the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Vote contested them. No one disputed the statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay), as to the gallantry of the Admiral and the splendid success of our Forces. No doubt, they were matters on which they often congratulated the country and the Army and Navy; but what he wanted to point out was this—that whenever they engaged in warlike operations they found those who had administered the affairs of the country rushing into expenditure without the slightest check or control; and unless the House had these transactions constantly brought under their notice, in regard to the loose and reckless manner in which certain officers of the Crown, placed in responsible positions, handled the public money, nothing would be done to discourage practices by which the country might lose millions. Let the Committee carefully examine the question which had just been raised. Here they had the fact before them that a large mansion, built by a foreign Prince for a considerable sum of money, had been acquired by the Government; but if used for any other purpose it was not worth a mere fraction of the outlay that had been made upon it by this foreign Prince. He dared say there were hon. Members to be found who would advocate the application of large sums of money in the purchase of property, which, if ever it came into the market, would be looked upon as a sort of white elephant. There was every reason to believe that up to a recent period this building, being even unsuitable for an hotel or anything else,
  1454
  was hawked about for sale at a very low sum, and then, in an emergency, it was purchased at a figure very much in excess of that for which it had been offered. What he wanted to know was, how the transaction had been carried out? Who was the reputed owner of the property when the Government purchased it? Did the Admiralty carry on the transaction directly with the owner of the property, or did they, as he thought it was probable, employ a go-between? If they did employ a go-between, that fact might possibly, to some extent, account for the difference between the sum originally asked and the sum paid by the Government—a considerable portion of it having very likely found its way into the pocket of the go-between. He certainly thought that explanations ought to be given by the Government, because, upon the face of the matter, it was possible that, by better management, a good round sum of money might have been saved in the purchase. He thought the Committee ought to be told whether the Admiralty purchased the property from the actual owner, or in what way the negotiations were carried on.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the property, as he had already stated, belonged to Prince Henry of the Netherlands, and it was purchased from the representatives of Prince Henry. As to the question whether the intervention of commercial agents would have led to a lower price being given, there was no time for any such proceedings, or, indeed, for any protracted negotiations. The essence of the whole thing was that if the Government were to have the property at all they must have it immediately; and, therefore, the immediate occupation of it was secured on the best terms the representatives of the Admiralty could make. Before the negotiations were carried out, a Report was made to the Board of Admiralty by the Director of Works, General Pasley, whose opinion was taken as to the value of the property. It was only upon his advice that the purchase was completed. He could only repeat that there was no time to go into elaborate negotiations through a commercial agent. He did not think that if such negotiations had been permitted they would have been effectual in carrying out the purposes of the Admiralty.
  MR. RITCHIEwas bound to say that he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that these things could hardly be regarded in a carping spirit, or from purely a mercantile point of view. Looking at the very serious position of affairs, and the value of the property, which, in common with other Members of the House, he had himself seen, he was bound to say he could not agree with the strictures which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had passed upon the bargain. It was quite possible that more money had been paid for the property than it was commercially worth; but, looking at all the circumstances of the case, its admirable position and the value of the property, he did not think the Committee should look upon the bargain with dissatisfaction. He also wished to say that he thought the country was indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for having obtained from the Prime Minister the answer which he had given to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. Of course, the Committee had no wish whatever to force from the Government any premature declaration as to what their policy was to be, or what the duration of their occupation of Egypt was likely to be. He was perfectly satisfied with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of withdrawing from Egypt until they obtained what they wanted to secure—namely, that peace and good government should be restored in Egypt, and be placed upon such a sound and permanent footing as would give a guarantee for their continuance for a long time to come. He could not but think that if they were to withdraw from Egypt before those objects had been secured, the money and the sacrifices they had made would be entirely thrown away, and all that they had done, at such a large expenditure of life and property, would simply have to be done over again, at a largely-increased cost, in a few years. He was satisfied that it was for the good of this country and of Europe, and of the people of Egypt, that our occupation should continue until good government was secured. So far from the Committee desiring to force any premature declaration from Her Majesty's Government, he would say, in
  1456
  reference to that point, that it was to guard against the evil effects of the premature declaration of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that an explanation had been asked for. Undoubtedly the impression had gone abroad, and had done much mischief in Egypt, that the Government, on reviewing the situation, had come to the conclusion of withdrawing their troops from Egypt in the course of six months. Seeing the harm which that declaration had done, the noble Marquess ought to be thankful for the explanation given by the Prime Minister, which would certainly afford satisfaction both in this country and in Egypt. There was another matter upon which he wished to say a word, and that was in reference to the grant of £13,500 to the family of Professor Palmer and the expenditure incurred by Colonel Warren in searching for Professor Palmer and his companions. He did not propose to criticize this item in any adverse spirit. The Papers which had been distributed lately showed that every care had been taken to endeavour to discover the whereabouts of these unfortunate gentlemen, and that every effort was made from every quarter to secure some intelligence as to their fate. He was sure, however, that few people would rise from an inspection of these Papers without feeling that sufficient security was not taken before the Expedition was sent out that these gentlemen were properly protected. In the first place, it was quite apparent from the Correspondence which had been published that, even at the best of times, when the country to be traversed was in a state of profound peace, and when there were no large sums of money in the possession of the travellers, such an expedition as this would have been attended with considerable risk and danger. But when they came to consider that it was a time of war, and that these gentlemen were entrusted with a very large sum of money in gold, it did seem to him that it was the height of folly to allow the Expedition to go out without some efficient and proper protection. With reference to Professor Palmer, there could be no doubt that he felt confidence in his friendly relations with the Sheikhs of the district. His previous acquaintance with them inspired a certain amount of confidence in his mind; and, no doubt, the consequences that followed were

  1457
  due, in some degree, to that confidence.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He understood that an Amendment had been moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in reference to the purchase of the house at Port Said; and he wanted to know whether that was a proper opportunity for discussing the Expedition of Professor Palmer?
  MR. RITCHIEunderstood that the Question put from the Chair was that the whole of the Vote be granted to Her Majesty.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now before the Committee is that the Vote, reduced by the sum of £76,000, be granted to Her Majesty.
  MR. RITCHIEunderstood from the answer of the Chairman that he was perfectly in Order, or it would have been intimated to him that he was pursuing an irregular course. He would, therefore, proceed with the few remarks he wished to make. He was about to say, with reference to Professor Palmer, that he went out very much in the character of a volunteer, and that he was prepared to take the risk in consequence of the friendly relations he had with the Sheikhs. But that was not the case with Captain Gill and Lieutenant Charrington. They were ordered to proceed with the Expedition; and those who ordered them ought to have taken reasonable care to see that they were properly protected in the mission they had undertaken. So far from being properly protected, there was not the smallest attempt to protect them in going into the Desert in a hostile country with a large amount of specie in their possession. He understood that, so far from being on friendly terms with the Sheikhs of the country, the Sheikh under whose guidance they proceeded was not even connected with the tribes of the locality through which they had to pass. He was a man of no influence whatever among them; he had been taken from a different part of the country, and was the Sheikh of a small district with a very small amount of authority. Therefore, there was not even the precaution taken of seeing that these gentlemen proceeded on their expedition under the guidance and guarantee of a Sheikh of some influence and authority over the district through which the passage was
  1458
  to be made. Indeed, there was not the smallest precaution taken to secure the lives of the gentlemen who had been ordered out on the Expedition by Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding that the Expedition itself was attended by great peril. He had no fault to find with what was done after the catastrophe which happened to the Expedition. No doubt, every effort had been made to rescue Professor Palmer and his companions, and, since their fate was discovered, to bring their murderers to justice; but he thought that great blame and responsibility attached to the Government in having allowed the Expedition to go out without the smallest attempt to provide for its protection.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought it would have been a better course to proceed to a decision upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) before entering upon the question of the Expedition of Professor Palmer. At the same time, his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had made certain specific statements to the Committee which he thought ought to be replied to at once. The hon. Gentleman said that he quite understood the position of Professor Palmer; that Professor Palmer was well acquainted with the Desert and the Bedouins, and had formed a somewhat sanguine estimate of the prospects of the Expedition. But the hon. Member contrasted the position of Professor Palmer as a volunteer with the character in which Captain Gill and Lieutenant Charrington joined the party, and he said that they were ordered to join the Expedition. Now, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) ventured to say that in all matters connected with the Expedition which had ended so unfortunately, it was desirable they should be correct in all their statements. First of all, he would take the case of Captain Gill. In answer to a Question put to him in November last, whether Captain Gill was ordered to join the Expedition, he had distinctly stated that Admiral Hoskins—and this, be it remembered, was Captain Gill's own account—gave him directions at Port Said to go to Ismailia and consult the telegraph engineer there as to the best mode of cutting the telegraph. His only business was to consult with the telegraph engineer; but

  1459
  when he got there he met Professor Palmer, and in consulting with that gentleman he came to this conclusion, which he afterwards wrote—
  "I have decided to do the business myself, as it seems the best and surest way, and I have arrived at this conclusion after a long consultation with Professor Palmer. I am very glad that I have come down here, for I have more confidence than I had before seeing him that Palmer has not overrated his power; indeed, from our conversation this morning, I am convinced that he thoroughly understands the business on which he is engaged."
  It would thus appear that he had discussed with Professor Palmer the manner of doing the business, and that there were certain reasons which induced him to go with him. This plainly showed that Captain Gill was not ordered to go with the expedition. He would not say that Captain Gill was not right in going. It was a very gallant act on the part of that officer, and no doubt he was, of all men, best qualified to judge which was his best course; but he was not ordered, any more than Professor Palmer was ordered, to go upon the expedition. He now came to the case of Lieutenant Charrington. Professor Palmer was going to start upon this expedition, and he asked Admiral Sir William Hewett to allow a naval officer to go with him as a guarantee that he was acting on behalf of the British Government. Most of the young naval officers were anxious to be allowed to go; and Admiral Hewett permitted Lieutenant Charrington, who volunteered among the rest, to go on the expedition. He would ask his hon. Friend, who must know the relations which existed between an Admiral and his flag lieutenant—relations almost of a filial character—if it was at all likely that Sir William Hewett would have ordered Lieutenant Charrington to go on an expedition if he thought he would have been incurring undue risk. He had seen a letter from Sir William Hewett himself, in which he expressed himself a good deal hurt at the insinuation that he had neglected proper precautions. The expedition was accompanied by Professor Palmer and Captain Gill, two men who, it was generally allowed, were most qualified to form a judgment as to the risk that was run; and it was by their deliberate advice that the expedition went out. He thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend was a little too hard upon the
  1460
  Government at home, because, as his hon. Friend knew very well, they did not in any way interfere in the details; and his hon. Friend had spoken approvingly of the search after the lamentable catastrophe which befel the Expedition happened. He certainly thought that his hon. Friend went a little too far when he spoke of these gentlemen being ordered on a dangerous mission without proper precautions having been taken for their protection by the authorities.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONwished the Committee to go back to the purchase of the house at Port Said. It was stated that negotiations were carried on outright by Admiral Hoskins at Port Said; and he wanted to know if it was by arrangement with the Dutch Government? He should like to have that point cleared up. He was quite convinced that it was an advantageous purchase to make, but he should like to have the matter fully explained. There was also another question he desired to ask which was incidental to the Vote—namely, whether the Admiralty had, during the course of the operations in the Suez Canal, placed dues on their war ships? Had any dues been paid according to the usual scale charged in a time of peace?—because, if such had been the case, he thought it might be fairly contended that they had no business to pay them. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would, be able to clear up these points.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that it might be in Order, upon this Vote, to discuss the Expedition of the late Professor Palmer, but, at any rate, it was extremely inconvenient; and he could not help thinking, when the Secretary to the Admiralty pointed out that obvious fact to the Committee, that it was a curious commentary upon his remarks that he should himself immediately afterwards enter into a long discussion upon that Expedition. It certainly looked as if the Admiralty wished to draw the attention of the Committee of Supply away from the question of the purchase of the house at Port Said, in which they had been immediately engaged. Now, he must say that the speech of the Prime Minister entirely exonerated the Treasury from all blame and responsibility for this purchase; but, while exonerating

  1461
  the Treasury, there seemed to be some doubt as to the action of the Admiralty in the matter, which made the Committee still more anxious to have a more full and complete explanation from the Admiralty in regard to their conduct. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that the purchase was dictated by military necessity. Then it was obvious, if it was a military necessity, there was no occasion for the Admiralty to make any purchase at all. Hon. Members were there, as the guardians of the public purse, to see that the Government, in carrying out their operations, either in the East or elsewhere, did not spend more of the public money than they were obliged to spend. And if this was a case of military necessity for the carrying on of operations in the Suez Canal, the Government could have taken possession of this house, and have paid a moderate compensation afterwards to those whose property they had occupied. They saw what was done in other parts. It was what was done at Ismailia. Property at Ismailia and the railway at Alexandria were taken possession of by a military force; engines and other rolling stock of the railway were taken possession of, and at a subsequent period the Government paid a moderate but sufficient compensation for the use of them. If, in a time of necessity, that was a preliminary step, why had it not been taken in the case of this house and land? He thought the Admiralty ought to point out why they had departed in this case from the usual custom, and why, instead of taking possession of this property, they had considered it necessary to purchase it. He presumed the Government did not intend to occupy this house and land permanently; and, if so, why had they purchased it? He did not say that there might not be an explanation; but the explanation should be given, if it could be given, why the temporary possession of these premises could not have been obtained. The question asked by the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. A. F. Egerton) was a pertinent question, and the explanation hitherto given to the Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was that the purchase was effected in Egypt, and that the negotiations took place in Egypt between the Admiral commanding there and the representatives of the late
  1462
  Prince Henry of the Netherlands. Now, if it was the fact that the negotiations took place, not at Port Said, but in London, and that it was not the Admiral at Port Said, but the First Lord of the Admiralty who made the purchase, and, further, that it was made, not of the representatives of Prince Henry of the Netherlands, but of the Dutch Government, some explanations were most assuredly demanded. It was a most remarkable thing that the Secretary to the Admiralty, in the first instance, said that the property was bought of the Dutch Government. It was quite likely that it was bought of the Dutch Government, not as the representatives of the Dutch Government, but as the representatives of Prince Henry of the Netherlands; but all these matters required explanation. If the property was really bought in London, he did not understand why it was impossible to consult the Treasury. He supposed the Treasury was quite as capable of acting on an emergency as the First Lord of the Admiralty, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty had in his hand a telegram from Port Said, stating that the purchase of this house for £76,000 was an absolute matter of necessity, he could easily have gone over to the First Lord of the Treasury and obtained, as he ought to have obtained in the first instance, the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the purchase. He did not say that those were matters that were not capable of explanation; but they ought to be explained, and the Committee would not be doing its duty to the country unless it insisted upon having them explained. He therefore hoped, if the Secretary to the Treasury did not give a fuller explanation than that which had been given by the Secretary to the Admiralty, his noble Friend would press his Amendment to a division.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not understand why there should be so much trouble about the taking of this house at Port Said. Seeing that they had taken the whole country, surely there was no difficulty in taking a single house. They were carrying on what was called a military operation, and surely that military operation would include the taking of a house. He had risen, however, not to comment upon the purchase of this property, but be-

  1463
  cause he thought some of the statements made in this short debate were not altogether satisfactory. A short time ago, when the Prime Minister was away, the noble Marquess at the head of the War Department gave the House an intimation that it was very probable the English troops would be brought back from Egypt in the course of six months. That was a declaration which gave hon. Members sitting below the Gangway great satisfaction, and they thought there was going to be an end of this miserable matter. But now the Prime Minister, on the first night of his return to the House, came down and dashed away all their hopes by saying that the noble Marquess was wrong, and there was altogether an uncertainty about the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] It was evident, from the cheer which that statement received, that there were a great many hon. Gentlemen in that House who, he was sorry to say, looked forward to the permanent occupation of Egypt. ["No!"] Well, then, to a very indefinite occupation, which would be next door to a permanent one. He thought they had been travelling about in the debate very wide of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). His own opinion was that they ought to have an opportunity of discussing the occupation of Egypt distinctly, fairly, and fully in that House. They ought to know what the troops were kept in Egypt for, and for what purpose all this expense was incurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the troops were going to stay there until they got security for the improvement of the institutions of the Country; but surely they ought to be told what the improvements were to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave, as another reason for continuing the occupation, that the troops must remain there until the great sea passage by means of the Suez Canal was secured from danger. But he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wanted to know who had endangered it? He had never been told any fact yet which could have led any single individual to believe that it was in danger. Yet they were now told that their troops were to stay there until the danger was removed. Let them understand what the danger was. The noble Marquess had spoken of International
  1464
  engagements. He should like to know what those International engagements were? It was all very well to come down to the House and talk about International engagements; but he should like to have a statement he could understand as to what those International engagements were for, as it had never yet been stated in the House. He did hope that they would have some statement so that the House might have some chance of saying, after it had heard the whole matter, what it thought of the occupation of Egypt by our troops. On Friday last, when they discussed the matter, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs alluded to the despatch of Lord Dufferin, and said that when it came it should be discussed. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hoped that it would be discussed, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would promise, when they got Lord Dufferin's despatch, that a fair and full opportunity for discussing the whole question should be given to the House, especially as such discussion had been offered to them by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Friday night. It was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing it as soon as it arrived, and at a convenient period, so that the House might be able to state distinctly whether it approved of their troops being kept in the land of Egypt.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty ought to give an answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton), because it would appear that some very slipshod proceedings were going on in reference to the acquisition of the house at Port Said, which it was absolutely necessary should be explained. The Committee were entitled to know how the purchase was negotiated. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigan had asked distinctly whether the negotiations were carried on in Egypt or in this country; and, as far he could understand the matter, they were done in this way. The Admiral at Port Said thought the house and land ought to be bought, and he wrote home to this country stating that in his opinion the house should be purchased; whereupon the Admiralty here concluded the bargain. If the Admiral on the spot had

  1465
  made the purchase he would have been exonerated by the reasons put forward by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay); but it did not appear that anything of the kind occurred. This building had been in the market for a long time, and the Admiral, finding it in the market, thought it right, for reasons of his own, that it should, be purchased. He accordingly telegraphed to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty went at once and purchased the establishment for £76,000, without even consulting the Treasury, although the Treasury was next door to them. He thought there ought to be an understanding that when money was spent in London it was spent on the authority of the Treasury. On this occasion it seemed that the Treasury was not even consulted in the matter. They did not know of it until after the purchase was made, when they were horrified at what had occurred. Thus they found the Board of Admiralty in this happy-go-lucky manner spending a large sum of money on a house, without any idea whether it was to be ours permanently, or whether it was only required for six or 12 months. He also thought the Committee was entitled to have an answer to another Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan as to the dues paid to the Suez Canal. Had any dues been paid or not; and, if so, to whom had the money been paid for piloting and towing Her Majesty's ships? Had it been paid to the owners of the Canal? He thought there ought to be the clearest explanation upon these points, because, as the matter now stood, it was open to the gravest suspicion.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to point out that the acquisition of this piece of land was diametrically opposed to everything the Prime Minister had said in Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in denouncing the acquisition of Cyprus—
  "That there was no greater folly than to suppose that, by multiplying their garrisons and islands, they could guard the road to India. The road to India was perfectly safe as long as they retained command of the sea."
  Nevertheless, they now found the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House for £76,000 to provide for the accommodation of a garrison at Suez. It was really a very serious matter indeed, after all the right hon. Gentleman
  1466
  had said before, that they should be garrisoning the whole of the Suez Canal in direct opposition to the views which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed elsewhere. He thought the Secretary to the Admiralty ought to give the Committee a little more information about the purchase of this house and land. Did he know anything about it when the Treasury were asked to agree to the purchase? He thought the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, deserved a clear and straightforward answer, and unless such an answer was given he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was somewhat ill-advised in making reference to the Mid Lothian declarations of the Prime Minister. He was sure the reception which the declarations in Mid Lothian had received from the Radicals below the Gangway afforded a convincing proof that they had long since taken their place amongst the good jokes of the Liberal Party. He was sorry to see that with the return of the Prime Minister had returned the régime of vague declarations. They had a short time ago a statement from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War which had, at any rate, some character of clearness and decisiveness about it. The noble Marquess gave the House to understand that the occupation of Egypt by British troops, and the interposition of despotic tyranny by British bayonets would probably come to an end in six months. They now learned from the Prime Minister that no period could be fixed for the return of the troops. No doubt the in-definiteness of the British occupation of Egypt would only be prevented from becoming an eternity by some circumstance over which the British Government had no control. When the British Government and the British arms entered a foreign country, the tendency was to diminish self-government, and even the capacity for self-government. All that was known of the most recent proceedings in Egypt showed that the very worst elements had sedulously been brought into operation; that anything like the independent working of any native institutions would be carefully

  1467
  guarded against by British interests; and that the so-called desire for self-government in Egypt resolved itself into a more or less elaborate sham to cover the intervention of Her Majesty's Representatives. That was the history of India, and he was very much mistaken if it would not prove to be the history of Egypt. He did not intend to refer on the present occasion to the grave questions which had been raised about the Palmer Expedition. He thought that matter had better be raised on definite points suggested by the specific mention of the Expedition in the Vote. But he had thought it would not be right to let the statements which had fallen from the Treasury Bench be passed over without a word of protest. The very worst elements in Egypt had been called into existence, and now they were assured that the native population of Egypt—the masses of the population—had been practically excluded from the new Army which had been created, and that the Turks and Circassians—those ancient favourites of the Premier in Bulgaria—were to fill the ranks which, under British officers, were to supply the Army of Egypt for all time to come. The Prime Minister had referred to the necessity of securing the Inter-Oceanic highway of the Suez Canal. He (Mr. O'Donnell) could only say that the measures being taken in Egypt were the safest and surest means for rendering the Suez Canal insecure, and anything but safe. In the possession of Egypt the Canal might have been made perfectly safe. There had been no attempt to interfere with it during the war except by Her Majesty's Government. The only interference with International traffic came from Her Majesty's Government after an elaborate declaration by the Chief of the British Expedition—that some other means of access to the heart of Egypt was to be chosen by the British Expedition. He would only say that the result of the Expedition to Egypt would be most unquestionably to hasten the ruin and break-up of the Ottoman Empire, and too late Her Majesty's Government would see power passing from the Asiatic side of the Suez Canal, and when this happened, and there was a serious attempt to interfere with the Canal, Her Majesty's Government would find themselves deprived of the assistance of Europe. In regard to the
  1468
  question of the Palmer Expedition, he proposed to discuss that by-and-bye.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that he should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the real owner of this house, and the real vendor of the property, was not His Majesty the King of Holland? He had heard Prince Henry of the Netherlands described that evening as a "foolish Prince." That was not an expression which would be applied to him by anyone who knew him. The only folly of which he was guilty was that, being a man of immense wealth, he had allowed death to surprise him without having made a will; and, as a consequence of his intestacy, all his property, including that in question, passed to his elder brother, the King. This fact, he thought, would serve to explain the transfer of the negotiations from Port Said to London, and the intervention in the affair of His Majesty's Representative at the Court of St. James's. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, he did not feel that he should be able to give it his support, because, looking at all the circumstances, he inclined to the belief that the country had received value for its money.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the purchase of the house at Port Said was, in fact, a military necessity—not in the sense that military operations were going on at the time, but as a preliminary necessity for military operations which had not then commenced. The Admiral had been so fully impressed with the necessity of having the house at once, that he communicated with the Admiralty, who, after consultation as to the value of the building, entered into negotiations with the trustees of the late Prince Henry of the Netherlands. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who are the trustees?] He could not say who were the trustees; but, after negotiations, the purchase was made. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Was it made in London?] The purchase was made in London, but on the advice and urgent insistance of the Naval authorities on the spot.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, after the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty, he should be wrong if he did not take the sense of the Committee on the purchase in question. He regretted having to put the I Committee to the trouble of dividing;

  1469
  but they had not found the hon. Gentleman able to give any satisfactory information with respect to this largo sum of £76,000. He did not know what view of the matter was taken on the Front Bench; but he and his hon. Friends considered they had no option whatever as to the course which it was right to pursue.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19: Noes 156: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 16.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had to ask a question with regard to the Transport Service. He wished to know whether the arrangements made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminister (Mr. W. H. Smith) in connection with fittings for transports were fully availed of by the present Government? And, further, he asked whether the fittings had been returned into store, and would be available for any future operations which might take place? He was very desirous of information upon this subject, and would thank the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty for any explanation which he was able to afford. As there had been some ugly stories in circulation with reference, not only to the inefficiency of the Medical Department, but also with reference to the food supplied to the sick and wounded brought home by the transports from Egypt, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman was in a position to state that there was no foundation for those stories; and he took that opportunity of asking him whether there was any truth in them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the greatest advantage had been derived from the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, which the Admiralty had availed themselves of; and the fittings as to which the hon. and gallant Baronet had inquired had been returned to store, so far as they were in good condition, and would be available at a future time. With regard to the hon. and gallant Baronet's question as to the treatment of the sick and wounded on the voyage from Egypt, he believed there had been some complaint of the kind indicated. That, however, formed one of
  1470
  the subjects which was now under consideration by a Committee at the War Office; and for that reason any opinion which he might be able to express would be but second-hand and unauthoritative. As a matter of fact, he believed that a good deal of discontent had occurred because the Carthage hospital ship was extremely well provided, and men, when transferred to ordinary transports, missed the comforts they enjoyed in her. The average transports were quite up to the usual requirements of the Service; but the hon. and gallant Baronet would know that this service was undertaken by the Admiralty for the Army; and, as he had already stated, the whole question was being thoroughly investigated by that Department.
  MR. SALTsaid, it was necessary to regard this Vote, which was another Vote to supplement the amount taken for the purposes of the Egyptian Expedition in the summer of last year, with great caution. He did not complain of it as being a Supplementary Vote, because when war had to be carried on it was impossible to know precisely what the charges in connection with it would be. But when the original Vote was proposed in the summer of last year, he had felt, what no doubt had occurred to other hon. Members, that the amount of the Estimates would in all probability be insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended. For his own part, he was much gratified that the expenditure had been kept within the present figures, and he was bound to say that it reflected great credit on all concerned in the management of the Department that it was not larger than the amount now asked for. Nevertheless, he wished to know how far the present Supplementary Estimate would carry them? The House, in his opinion, ought, as far as possible, to have been told the whole amount of the probable expenditure at the commencement of the war, in order that it might be understood what the country was committing itself to, and that was not an insignificant matter when they were dealing with so large an undertaking as the recent operations in Egypt, because the magnitude, and consequently the policy, of an undertaking of the kind depended very much upon its cost. It was possible that a Government might deliberately undertake an Expedition, and move for a very

  1471
  moderate Vote at the commencement when they knew very well that the estimated expenditure would be enormously exceeded; and therefore, although it was impossible to arrive at a perfectly accurate Estimate it was of the first importance that the Government of the day, who were responsible for the policy of the undertaking, should at once place before the House as nearly as possible the whole of the probable expenditure about to be incurred. He was not then saying anything in a spirit hostile to the Vote, because he regarded the Expedition as having been most successful and, on the whole, economical; still, he should have been more satisfied had the House been told at the conclusion of the War that they had been in the first instance asked for too much money. It was not without reason, now that they had got to the end of the War, to call attention to the fact that when the present Supplementary sum had been voted, they would still be required, as appeared on page 2, to vote a further sum in 1883–4. This Vote would be in connection with the special gratuity to seamen. Another item was called Supplementary Estimate for the year 1882–3, by which he inferred that the Estimates were ascertained with tolerable accuracy up to the 31st of March next. But in the next page of the Paper he found the heading—"Supplementary Estimate of Her Majesty's Navy for 1883–4." This, it appeared was a misprint, but it was not, therefore, a small matter; because, although an error of the kind in writing might be rectified, a misprint in figures might make all the difference in the world. Was this Estimate to carry them bonâ fide to the end of the present financial year? He wished to be certain that when they came to deal with the Estimates of 1883–4, they would be told distinctly what was going to be the expenditure on this account, and that they were not to have one statement in 1883, a Supplementary Estimate in July, and another Supplementary Estimate in February, 1884.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, this was the Supplementary Estimate for the current financial year. The first Vote, as the hon. Gentleman would be aware, was taken in the form of a Vote of Credit. As had been stated by the hon. Member, it was impossible in respect of operations of the kind for
  1472
  which that Vote was taken to definitely state what the charges in connection with it would amount to. He agreed that it was most unfortunate when war was first undertaken that small Estimates should be brought forward, and that these should be afterwards very greatly exceeded, as was the case in the Abyssinian Campaign. In the present instance, however, he thought the Government Estimates had been, on the whole, most exact. The first Vote of Credit was stated in the House to be for three months only, and to meet the requirements of a certain force. That force, however, had to be very much increased, and the figures before the Committee included not only the Military and Naval expenditure during the three months originally contemplated, but it also represented the whole cost of the subsequent period after the military operations ceased. The present Estimate exhausted the whole amount of the Naval expenditure on account of the war, with the extion, he believed, of three items. There was a certain amount of transport, the payments for which could not be brought within the present financial year. This would be about £15,000. Then there was a small item for special gratuity to seamen and marines, which it was impossible to include in the present financial year, the ships having returned to the India and China station. This would amount to about£10,000. Finally, there was the sum of £2,000 for medals, which the Mint had not been able to supply in sufficient numbers, and delay had in consequence arisen. He trusted this statement would be satisfactory to the hon. Member who had just sat down.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Salt) entertained the same considerations with reference to the Vote as he himself had ventured to address to the House in connection with the Military Estimates under consideration on Friday last. He held it to be a great pity, when the country entered upon a war, that they could not get at the worst of the expenditure on account of it. It was almost always the case that the Estimates first presented to the House were under-Estimates. It was true that the estimated cost of the Indian Contingent was not exceeded, but turned out to be considerably less than the amount said to be required at the

  1473
  time. He expected, however, that when this came to be inquired into, it would be found to be due to the mode in which the Indian Accounts were made up, that there was a reduction in the Indian expenditure. He had pointed out at the time that the sum asked for the English part of the Expedition on account of the war was not reasonably sufficient to carry the operations to a conclusion. In the present instance, however, the excess in the case of the Navy was so small that he thought it might very well be condoned. He considered that the thanks of the country were due to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War for the economy with which the war had been conducted, and especially to the Admiralty for the efficiency and economy of the Transport arrangements. When that was compared with the Abyssinian Expedition, its small cost must cause amazement to most persons.
  MR. GORSTremarked, that there was a credit for the contribution of the Egyptian Government towards the cost of the Army of Occupation. Was that credit taken for the present financial year? He would be glad to know whether the amount had been actually paid, and if not, when it would be received?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the amount would undoubtedly be paid within the present financial year. he was very glad to hear the praise which his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) had bestowed upon the Transport arrangements of the Admiralty. The movement entirely depended upon the good working of those arrangements; and as it had been his duty to watch them carefully throughout the operations, he was bound to say that the arrangements made for that purpose by the Earl of Northbrook could not have been excelled. With regard to what had fallen from his hon. Friend with reference to the excess on the Army Vote, it must be borne in mind that the original Estimate was made with reference to a much smaller number of men than were afterwards sent out, and the sum originally asked for was in consequence exceeded. It was stated at the time that the French Government took the responsibility of the naval operations in the Suez Canal; but three days after our
  1474
  Vote of Credit was taken, the Vote of Credit proposed for the operations of the French Fleet was rejected by the Chamber, and the responsibility with regard to the Suez Canal fell upon the British Government, the consequence being that a considerably larger number of men were sent out.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to express his concurrence with the terms used by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) as to the extremely efficient way in which the Egyptian Expedition had been organized. Credit was, no doubt, due to the First Lord and other officers at the Admiralty; but it was also due to the permanent officers at the Admiralty and their professional advisers, without whose assistance no amount of skill would have been of any avail. These gentlemen had rendered to the Government most valuable and efficient service, and he was glad to see that Admiral Sir William Mends, to whose great efficiency during the time he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had the honour to preside at the Admiralty he wished to bear testimony, had received a high mark of recognition. The despatch of the troops had been, undoubtedly, greatly facilitated by the stock of fittings on hand for the use of the troops on board ship, without which a much larger expense must have been incurred as well as much delay. He understood that these had been freely availed of by Her Majesty's Government, and that they had been returned into store; but he would also be glad to learn whether any waste, destruction, or loss with respect to them had been made good, and whether money was taken in this Vote for the purpose? Experience had shown that there was a great value in having in store the means of quickly despatching troops by transports, and there was a general belief that the existence of the stores in question had been the means of effecting great economy in the cost of the Expedition, both as regarded the War Department and the Admiralty. It would, therefore, be of advantage if the House were furnished with a statement, in the form of a balance-sheet, showing what were the stores in existence before the war was contemplated; what were now available for carrying on the service of the country, and those which had been dissipated in

  1475
  carrying on the late war. He had no doubt whatever that the statements made by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Guilders) were perfectly accurate; but nothing would tend more to give the country a greater feeling of security and satisfaction on the subject than the publication of a balance-sheet, countersigned by the First Lord, and for the accuracy of which the officers and storekeepers of each Department were held personally responsible, making it clear that we were none the worse off in respect of stores in consequence of the operations of the last six months, or, if so, that the money would be taken to make good the loss sustained.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he was desirous of receiving some information with regard to the item of £50,000 for special gratuity to seamen and marines. Did this amount stand alone, and was it the sum total? If so, he would ask in what way the gratuities had been distributed? The item very largely affected the Navy; and seeing so large a sum by itself, they were not able to form an opinion as to whether the whole of it was given to seamen and marines, or whether the officers participated in the distribution.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had just made a full statement on the question, which his hon. Friend, who was probably engaged elsewhere at the time, had not heard. A similar statement had also been made in Committee on Friday night.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminister (Mr. W. H. Smith) had a few minutes ago made a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, but no notice had yet been taken of that suggestion, which was that a statement in the form of a balance-sheet should be drawn up showing the stores remaining on hand after the recent operations as compared with those in existence previous to the commencement of the war. No intimation had been given as to whether or not that suggestion would be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. There had been a good deal of criticism against the Government, and many people believed that our stores had been very much depleted during the war, and that if there were a stock-taking it would be found that large quantities of the national stores required to be replaced. That
  1476
  belief might or might not be unjust, but if it were unjust, there could be no better way of proving it to be so than by adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster. Let the Government put before the country the amount of stores which the Army and Navy possessed before the war began, and the amount of stores which they now possessed, and if there had been any depletion it would be made clear. He should have thought Her Majesty's Government would have at once adopted the suggestion of so experienced a Gentleman as the right hon. Member for Westminster, and he could but express his surprise that they had not done so.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, they had listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with great interest and satisfaction. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman had not been lost upon him; but it was quite impossible to say at once that the Government would assent to his proposal. Hon. Members would easily understand that a stock-taking of all the stores in the various Departments was a very complicated matter and could not be undertaken off-hand. He did not wish to be understood to say that the Government could not do this, but he thought they were entitled to a little time to consider whether the production suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be worth the money and labour that it would be necessary to expend upon it. Upon that question he did not himself offer any opinion; but with regard to the feeling which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had stated to exist in the minds of some persons that the Army and Navy stores had been depleted during the recent operations, he would only say that amongst his own acquaintances he did not find that any such feeling existed.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, the effect of a depletion of the national stores had been illustrated in former years, when after starving all the Departments it was found necessary to spend largely in getting a new supply in a hurry. If that was the case at the present time a balance-sheet would show it, and would tend to prevent a recurrence of such a state of things in future.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked on what security the contribution of the Egyptain

  1477
  Government in relief of the expenses of the war rested? Had the sum of £70,000 specified been already paid?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the amount would absolutely be received on the 28th of March.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if he was to understand that the English Government had levied a sum of £70,000 on Egypt, and that the money was to be collected by the English Army? Because, if that were the state of things, it was not, in his opinion, too much to say that it would have been fairer to put down in the Estimates, "Forced contributions," or "Forced loans," phrases which more accurately described what was taking place than that used in the Estimate. However, he perceived that the Government were rather shy of explaining their relations with the so-called Egyptian Government. Before going any further he wished to ask what were the miscellaneous charges in connection with the Palmer Expedition which were put down at £13,500?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, one item was the sum of money which Professor Palmer had with him when he was murdered. There were also the expenses of the journey incurred before the Expedition started. He was not in a position to give the items.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he accepted the explanation of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and should, consequently, be able to take the course he intended without interfering with the allowance which it was proposed to make to the families of the officers and the expenses of finding the body of the late Professor Palmer. He should, therefore, propose that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000, which would cover with sufficient accuracy all that had relation to the Palmer Expedition apart from the payments to the families. The reason he proposed that reduction was in order to ask for information on the whole subject of the Palmer Expedition, which, as far as he was aware, had been apparently concealed from Parliament as long as possible, and with respect to which, even at the present moment, there seemed to be rather a desire to disguise the truth. There was, to a certain extent, an amount of difficulty in the way of a Member of that House asking for information, because he was
  1478
  not at all satisfied that they had before them anything like complete information as to the Expedition. He asked for information as to the number of asterisks which occurred in the Papers laid before the House, and which, he believed, concealed the absence of names of a character most important to the proper understanding of these proceedings. There were also letters omitted from the Blue Book which seemed to have a very important bearing indeed upon the nature of the credence which the House ought to attach to certain portions of it. No less an authority than The Times, of Friday last, alluded to a letter from Colonel Warren in the following terms:—
  "The record of the stratagems and devices by which the 'guilty ones'—for so Colonel Warren throughout speaks of the accused persons—were entrapped and forced into giving evidence and confessions, is not altogether agreeable, though it is instructive reading. Colonel Warren, for instance, in his first expedition, writing to a Sheikh (this letter does not appear in the Blue Book), whom he wishes to persuade of Arabi's overthrow, which had not yet occurred, informs him that the Sultan has landed 6,000 soldiers at Port Said."
  He thought that the statement in The Times with regard to the absence of this letter threw a responsibility of a very grave kind upon Colonel Warren, who had played such an important part in the matter, and upon the Government, which had omitted, for some reason or other, to include this letter amongst the other Correspondence published in the Blue Book. They knew that the Sultan did not land 6,000 soldiers at Port Said, and they could have no doubt that Colonel Warren was thoroughly aware of that fact. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Please quote the date and place.] The date and place could come afterwards. At the same time, he would remark that, as far as he was aware, at no date did the Sultan land 6,000 soldiers at Port Said. The Times did not appear to give the date; but it gave an extract of considerable length from the letter, and in that letter Colonel Warren informed a Sheikh that the Sultan had landed 6,000 soldiers at Port Said, and Colonel Warren made that declaration for the purpose of putting pressure upon a Native Sheikh, to cause him to deliver up persons whom Colonel Warren considered "guilty persons," and who, they were informed, had been recently executed. He (Mr.

  1479
  O'Donnell) said that if Colonel Warren made that statement to anyone, they were compelled to approach the other statements of Colonel Warren with a certain amount of reserve, because he was an officer in Her Majesty's Service, and the case was not that of an ignorant or uninformed man. It was against this officer, who had such important duties laid upon him, that the leading English journal had brought a charge which could not be disguised as anything else than a grave imputation upon his veracity. If that misrepresentation on the part of Colonel Warren were defended on the ground that it was a lawful stratagem to misrepresent the truth to an Arab Sheikh, how were they to banish from their minds the feeling that other statements of Colonel Warren were legitimate stratagems also? For in other portions of his Correspondence, Colonel Warren, who varied in his accounts, appeared inclined to convey as much as possible the impression that the attack on Professor Palmer and his party was a mere Bedouin onset, stimulated by the hope of plunder. That was the account given to Her Majesty's Government; and when he found that the Government supported that view, how was it possible to feel otherwise than that the whole thing was a stratagem on the part of Her Majesty's Government, as it was on the part of Colonel Warren? A very serious imputation was thus cast upon the accuracy of one of the principal witnesses who might afterwards have to be called on behalf of the Government. At the same time, the circumstances of that imputation might render the evidence of Colonel Warren all the more important for his (Mr. O'Donnell's) purpose. What he wished to bring before the Committee, and what he maintained was the fact, was that the death of Professor Palmer and his companions was not the result of a Bedouin onset, stimulated by the hope of plunder, but that Professor Palmer, Lieutenant Charrington, and Captain Gill formed part of a surreptitious Military Expedition directed by the Government of Great Britain, then at war with the Egyptian nation, and that this Expedition, carrying out its purpose in disguise, was met, surrounded, captured, and executed by Arabs in exactly the same way as that in which three Arabs and one English soldier, disguised for
  1480
  the purpose of cutting telegraph wires, would have been met, surrounded, captured, and executed by a file of English troops under the orders of Her Majesty's Government. Now, with regard to the sacrifice of Professor Palmer and his military and naval companions, he had not one word to say that would in any way detract from the gratitude due to them. The man who took up the dangerous and disagreeable office of spy in an enemy's country knew that he exposed himself to the very last penalty; the man who undertook the act of bribing the enemy's soldiers rendered a service to his country far more onerous even than that of the soldier who volunteered to go on the forlorn hope. Professor Palmer and his companions went out to do a duty for their country, and they lost their lives in the performance of that duty; but he protested as an Irishman, and he believed that every honest man in England would be ready to join with him in protesting against the act of those defenders of their country, who treated Professor Palmer and his coadjutors as we would have treated three Arabs, being palmed off as a case of murder, and that for the purpose of concealing one of the most dubious and unpleasant transactions to which Her Majesty's Government had committed themselves in the pleasant and dubious act of carrying on war while they maintained the principles of peace. When the question was raised during the last Session of Parliament, every effort was made to impress on the country that Professor Palmer had been engaged in the peaceful office of purchasing camels, that he had with him money for that purpose, and that this fact had drawn upon him the cupidity of the Bedouins of the Desert; and so the whole thing was to be explained. But, as a matter of fact, the expedition on which he was engaged had been most comprehensively and carefully planned and entered into with the officers who died on the occasion to which the Blue Book particularly referred. It would have been necessary—and here was another defect in the Blue Book—for the full explanation of this matter, for the Government to have produced a true report of the use they made of a M. Picard, French telegraph engineer in the service of the Khedive's Government, who was placed at the disposal of nor Majesty's Government, be-

  1481
  cause, while they were sending Professor Palmer to cut the telegraph wires in the Desert, they were sending M. Picard into Turkish territory—into the Lebanon—where he stayed for months, and where he was also engaged in cutting telegraph wires. This execution of Professor Palmer, Lieutenant Charrington, and Captain Gill was not an isolated execution, for while an Islamite force was capturing and executing the English portion of the Expedition, another Islamite force was looking after M. Picard in the Lebanon. The whole thing was a Mission of carefully-disguised spies for the double purpose of cutting the telegraph wires communicating between Constantinople and Cairo, and seducing and bribing the Bedouin warriors who were prepared to assist us in the attempt upon Egypt. The tale about the purchase of camels must be thrown aside and utterly repudiated. But he must observe that, even if the Expedition had been for the purpose of purchasing camels, if that purchase had been conducted by spies in disguise, it would subject those spies, according to the English laws of war, to the last penalty. But it now came out clearly that this was not an expedition for the mere purpose of getting camels. They had the Admiralty introducing "Professor Palmer, passenger for Brindisi," to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and it spoke of him as a person who
  "Speaks Arabic and knows Bedouins. Keep him at your disposal."
  Then, on the 21st of July, the Admiralty, in another telegram to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, expressed the desire that Captain Gill should be attached to Rear Admiral Hoskins—
  "For the purpose of assisting him in communicating with the Bedouins."
  And the telegram went on to say that Captain Gill had travelled among the Bedouins and was employed to collect the information which had already been sent to the Admiral, and it added that Captain Gill was—
  "Fully acquainted with the arrangements made with Professor Palmer."
  The Admiralty had also telegraphed to Sir Beauchamp Seymour what might be looked upon as the outline of the story afterwards to be put upon Parliament—namely, that, in anticipation of the arrival of troops, he should hire all
  1482
  available camel transport in the vicinity of the Suez Canal, which the telegram went on to say would be—
  "A good opportunity of enlisting the services of Bedouins."
  Now, they had a telegram on August the 5th, from Rear Admiral Sir William Hewett at Suez to the Admiralty, which showed the manner in which the resources of the Government were employed to place Professor Palmer in communication with the domestic traitors of Egypt and Syria who were expected to assist the work of British invasion in Egypt. It ran thus—
  "Forward following message to Consul at Jerusalem:—'Want reply to message which commences: "To British Consul at Jerusalem from British Admiral at Suez." Send trustworthy horsemen to Gaza at once, to deliver the following message to Sheikh Misleh in Arabic. He expects this message, and is in the neighbourhood. Message begins: "Kajah Abdullah wishes Sheikh Misleh Ameer of the Tizahah to ride a swift camel and meet him at Nakhl on the 12th."'"
  Sheikh Abdullah was the name and disguise under which Professor Palmer was to seduce the Bedouins by money to assist the British invasion of Egypt; it was at Nakhl that Professor Palmer met his fate, and there was reason to believe that the Sheikh did ride a swift camel as requested by Professor Palmer. On the 6th of August they had a telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the Admiralty, which said that—
  "Palmer, in letter of 1st August at Suez, writes that if precisely instructed as to services required by Bedouins and furnished with funds, he believes he could buy the allegiance of 50,000 at a cost of from £20,000 to £30,000."—
  A gigantic scheme for getting Bedouins to assist in the invasion of Egypt—
  "Palmer with Hewett still. Gill still there. Will Admiralty communicate with Palmer direct?"
  The Admiralty were, therefore, directly implicated in this transaction. They had a return telegram to Rear Admiral Sir William Hewett at Suez on the 6th of August, which run thus—
  "Admiral reports Palmer's proposal of 1st August. Instruct Palmer to keep Bedouins available for patrol or transport on Canal. A reasonable amount may be spent, but larger engagements are not to be entered into until General arrives and has been consulted."
  That showed that the Admirals were implicated in the scheme which it was intended to put on the country as a robber

  1483
  onset for the sake of plunder. It was now clear what was the nature of the services which Professor Palmer was engaged to perform; and, as he had before said, he deserved every honour and credit for playing such a part, which was a difficult and dangerous one, because he not only exposed himself to the risks of ordinary war as a soldier, but he exposed himself to the certainty, if caught, of being executed as a spy. But what about Captain Gill? Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in a telegram from Alexandria on the 6th of August to the Earl of Northbrook, said—
  "Gill has gone to Suez to make arrangements about Bedouins with Palmer. Authority has been given to Hoskins to expend for this service. Arrangements made to cut the Syrian telegraph wires and for Bedouins to help in preventing its repair."
  What made this act on the part of Her Majesty's Government reprehensible was that arrangements were made not only for seducing the Bedouins to help our Army, but for seducing them into cutting the telegraph wires of their liege Lord the Sultan, with whom we were supposed to be at peace. Such double-dyed treason and trickery never was exceeded in the whole history of tortuous transactions. Then there was a telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, who, if he did not deserve his Peerage for the bombardment of Alexandria deserved it for other reasons, stating that—
  "Gill expected to accomplish it Thursday or Friday; not yet known."
  This, as the Admiralty note at the foot of the telegram explained, referred to cutting the telegraph. Rear Admiral Hoskins, on the 14th of August, next telegraphed the Admiralty—
  "Gill, who is in Desert to cut Syrian wire, has not yet been heard of."
  At that time, when Admiral Hoskins was writing a telegram evidently full of joy at the work being done, Captain Gill had been seized and probably executed for attempting to cut the telegraph wire, contrary not only to the usages and laws of peace, but, as he believed, contrary to the laws and usages of war. By August the 17th the Admiralty was becoming anxious, so they telegraphed on that date to Rear Admiral Hoskins at Port Said—
  "Have you heard anything of Gill? orders did you give him?"
  1484
  And Rear Admiral Hoskins telegraphed back the same day—
  "Gill left 5th to confer with telegraph engineers at Ismailia. On the 6th he wrote to me from Suez. After discussing the matter with Palmer, he had determined to go and cut wires in Desert himself, and hoped to effect his object by Friday. Nothing heard of him since."
  He had been intercepted, just as an Arab wire cutter would have been intercepted by English troops.
  "Wires have not been cut. Sent…to coast of Syria in the Beacon to cut the wires and gain news. Will report result on return."
  Thus the Government were cutting the telegraph wires of their Ally, the Sultan, at the very time they were keeping up before Europe the farce of seeking to come to terms with regard to the pacification of Egypt. They were designedly cutting off Arabi from every source of communication with the rest of the world, so that they might wake him up one morning with the rush of their 17,000 bayonets, cutting and stabbing his half-armed troops. Oh, the Liberal victory! It was evident that the unfortunate Professor Palmer began early in August to realize the consequences of the hostility he would incur on the part of the Arabs and the extreme danger in which Her Majesty's Government had placed both him and Captain Gill. Accordingly, they found a telegram from Professor Palmer to Rear Admiral Hewett on the 8th of August, from Suez, as follows:—
  "I think it would be most desirable that an officer of Her Majesty's Navy should accompany me on my journey to the Desert as a guarantee that I am acting on the part of Her Majesty's Government."
  Professor Palmer knew well what he was at, and he sent for the uniform of the British Navy in order to cover that work. It was an act of self-preservation on the part of Professor Palmer; but the grant of that naval uniform, the sending of Flag Lieutenant Charrington to Professor Palmer and Captain Gill in their joint expedition of seduction and wire-cutting, deepened the part played by the Home authorities throughout the whole of these characteristic transactions. Now, he maintained that even from those miserably imperfect documents, in spite even of all the asterisks and all the suppressed passages of the missing letters, in spite of the complete silence that had been observed with re-

  1485
  gard to the Lebanon portion of the wire-cutting expedition, the Blue Book before him contained ample evidence that the resistance which the Palmer Expedition met with was a national and a popular resistance directed by the Arab authorities, and that the Palmer Mission was intercepted not merely for the sake of plunder—although prize money had its temptations even for the British soldier—not merely for the sake of loot, as the miserable misrepresentation that had been circulated sought to convey, but that the Mission was intercepted and found its death in consequence of that national resistance to invasion, and to spydom, bribery, and treachery, and that the orders came from the Government at Cairo to intercept the English spies, just as the English Government would give orders to intercept Arab spies. He maintained that the alleged murderers of the Palmer Mission were simply half-a-dozen rank and file from a couple of Bedonian tribes, who stood in the same position as a party of English soldiers employed to shoot down a man as they were commanded. The trial which took place under Colonel Warren, carrying out the instructions of the Government to represent the whole thing as having been done for the sake of plunder, and which had resulted in the execution of five humble Arab tribesmen, was a bloody judicial trial carried out with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. They need not go to the source of the authority under which these men met their doom. The Egyptian Government were but the instruments in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Those humble men wore slain for doing what they believed to be their duty to their tribe and tribal Chief, and their execution was a judicial murder, and a judicial murder of the most atrocious description. He would read an extract from the letter of Colonel Warren, dated Suez, November 28th, and received by the Admiralty on November 30th. The name of one of the Sheikhs engaged in the interception of the spying party had arrived at Suez, and Colonel Warren reported that—
  "Sheikh Salami Shedide arrived from Cairo on the 22nd. He professed to be quite ignorant of the facts connected with Professor Palmer's murder; protested that he had no power as a Sheikh beyond the Canal, and gave the name of a Sheikh (Mahomed Feyere) who lives beyond Akabah, a ruler of the country about Wady
  1486
  Sudur. I refuted his statements by means of his own Hawetats brought in from Wady Sudur, who declared that the Shedides of Cairo were their only Sheikhs, that Sualim Assam Farey ruled them by deputy, and that Mahomed Feyere was to them only a name. Having at last acknowledged that he was Sheikh of the Hawetats about Wady Sudur, Salami Shedide asked me to give him the names of the culprits, and the details connected with the murder. This I refused to do, and told him to get it from his own people. He protested he could not do this, but eventually sent to Cairo to ascertain the particulars from the Bedouins about there. Having thus obtained from him the acknowledgement that the particulars of the murder were known to the Bedouins about Cairo, and that, therefore, he must be aware of what took place, being head Sheikh, I told him to examine the Hawotats brought in by his party from the Desert, and elicit the facts in my presence."
  He might at this point observe that to throw upon a mere tribesman the whole of the alleged guilt of this transaction, was an artifice which could not have blinded any eyes but those willing to be blinded, for he found in the Blue Book that Colonel Warren was forewarned as early as October 20, 1882 (page 40), that the war being over, the Shedides who stood high with Arabi still continued in power, and were endeavouring to throw the whole guilt upon the Towarah; and so great was their power that they had succeeded in fixing the impression on the minds of the local Egyptian officials. So that the policy of throwing guilt on the men—the mere executioners—was fully known to Colonel Warren and Her Majesty's Government as early as October the 31st. In the same letter, Colonel Warren showed that the pursuit and capture of the English Mission was not an act of isolated robbers, but was a true Governmental act, and a part of the Government defence against English invasion. On page 39, Colonel Warren reported that there was a considerable amount of evidence showing that the attack on the party was aided from Cairo by Ibu Shedide, whose brother was at Suez, helping him to discover the guilty parties, and who professed entire ignorance in all matters connected with the attack. Abu Sofieh endeavoured to ransom the party, but failed to do so; and after they had been prisoners for two or more days, they were taken up into the mountains over a precipice, and told that by orders of Arabi, through Nakhl and through Cairo, they must die, and were at liberty to choose be-

  1487
  tween dropping over the precipice or being shot. It was said that Professor Palmer and Captain Gill chose the former death, while Lieutenant Charrington, the Dragoman, and the Cook chose the latter. It was also said Professor Palmer solemnly called Heaven to witness that the death of the party would be avenged upon the murderers. Colonel Warren went on to say that there could be no doubt whatever that it was the intention of those in authority and the Bedouins that a veil should be drawn over all the details of this tragedy after the attack upon the baggage; and every available clue had, as they thought, been successfully obliterated. Even the murder of the Cook Moussa was solely actuated by a desire to conceal all facts connected with the attack, for it was known that Moussa was not a Christian; and the outrage was committed, not by a mere band of robbers, but by an organized band of Moslems acting under authority to kill Christians. But, although, said Colonel Warren—
  "I believe the order for the attack came from those in authority immediately under Arabi. I do not think the order to kill Christians proceeded from Cairo, but emanated from the over-zealous fanaticism of the Egyptian Governors of Nakhl and El Arishe. The attack was made principally by the Hawetat, whose Sheikh is Sualem Abu Farag, acting immediately under I be Shedide of Cairo. This man was actively engaged during the war, and commanded the line of Bedouins covering Cairo; and yet, in the face of the well-known fact to all Bedouins, that Sualem is the Sheikh of the Hawetats of Wady Sudur, under the Shedide, Shedide's brother has protested that these Hawetats were under a Syrian Sheikh, and he had no power over them."
  There was much more evidence in these documents. In an enclosure, Colonel Warren, writing to Pear Admiral Sir William Hewett, reported—
  "I visited Mr.…"—these asterisks were always turning up in the most convenient places—"and ascertained from him that he would be able to arrest, near Gaza, a Bodouin who had been heard to say that he had assisted in killing two accursed Feringhees near Suez. He also informed me that he had evidence to show that the Governor of El Arishe had sent out a party of Suwaki Bedouins after Professor Palmer, to bring him in dead or alive on his journey from Gaza to Suez."
  They had a very important statement from Consul West upon the same subject. Her Majesty's Consul, at Suez, writing on the 20th of November—the letter was received at the Admiralty on the 4th of December—said—
  1488
  "It is becoming every day more apparent that the Shedides at Cairo, acting under the influence of their own convictions, in the power of Arabi and his followers, if not under their direct orders, had sent instructions to the Sheikhs in the Desert to arrest all travellers, at least, and to prevent them from obtaining assistance from these over whom they, the said Sheikhs, had any control; to what extent their instructions, which were only verbal, as a matter of course, would have instigated such a crime as that committed, it were difficult to say, and may be still more so to prove. It is, nevertheless, certain that the Shedides now here, ostensibly for the purpose of bringing in these of their tribe who are 'wanted,' are far from doing their utmost to clear up matters, their action tends to show that they are in great dread of the exposé which they can see is hanging over their heads."
  That was a Report of Consul West, a Report completely removing the possibility that it was a mere set of robbers; a Report completely proving that a levy en masse had been ordered to prevent an incursion of English soldiers and spies. The name of Arabi was mentioned. There was no blame on Arabi respecting the murders; indeed, there was every reason for supposing he did not give express instructions to execute such men as Palmer, Gill, and Charrington. It was, however, clear that the Government of Egypt had taken every precaution to arrest and to execute enemies and spies entering the country. There was other evidence which would not be less impressive. The Native witness, Hassar Ateiya, of the Marani tribe, examined by Colonel Warren, page 52 of the Blue Book, stated that the Huvalats, the tribesmen engaged in the attack upon the Palmer Party, expressly said—
  "We are Arabi's soldiers, and if we meet any English people, we must get hold of them."
  And the wretched story had been set going that it was all an attack of Bedouins stimulated by the hope of plunder. What part of the explanation of Her Majesty's Government with regard to their policy in Egypt could they credit in a higher degree than they could now credit their statement as to the object of the Palmer Mission, and the nature of the opposition which that Mission provoked? Nay, not only was there all this evidence, which he could multiply even from these documents, as to the manner in which these orders were disseminated through the country to oppose an English incursion, large or small, and to arrest English people,

  1489
  but they had evidence that the execution was really known at Cairo; and they had the evidence of Colonel Warren that it was the impression of Professor Palmer himself that he was being hunted and watched and opposed by the tribes of Arabi Pasha. On November the 14th—the letter was received at the Admiralty on the 28th of the same month—Colonel Warren wrote to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour—
  "I am under the impression that Professor Palmer has elsewhere stated that he travelled over this ground in haste, and during the night, to avoid Arabi's emissaries."
  And yet the Government shut their eyes to all this; this miserable and sham Government shut its eyes and allowed five wretched tribesmen to be executed as murderers and robbers for only carrying out the orders of the Government of their country. Furthermore, Colonel Warren reported that the actual orders for the capture and, as it appeared, the execution of the English emissaries were given by a man of such a low class, that it was quite evident that in order to obtain the obedience which followed his words, he must have been only a messenger from some higher authority. Colonel Warren said—
  "The Bedouins generally concur in stating that Ali Showyar is a man of very low class, and could only have been used as a messenger, giving information with reference to orders already given. It appears that the Terabin, Debour, and Hawetat, had already been instructed to attack the party, and they were prepared to waylay them on either of the three roads into the interior."
  That comprehensive plan for arresting an incursion of these English emissaries; that comprehensive plan, carried out with every appearance of the concurrence of the general patriotism and loyalty of the country, it had been attempted to explain away in the miserable manner the Committee were aware of. There was more evidence still of first-class importance. The Committee, or such Members of it who had paid attention to Egyptian affairs, might have noticed in the list of sentences passed the other day by a so-called court martial, that five persons were sentenced to death and hanged in conformity with that sentence, and a certain Governor of Nakhl got off with 12 months' imprisonment. That was perfectly in keeping with the warning that had already been given to Colonel War-
  1490
  ren and the Government—namely, that every attempt would be made to throw the blame as low down as possible. But on page 51, there was the translation of a letter from the Governor of Nakhl to the Governor of Akabah, written towards the end of August or the beginning of September. It was written, as was stated in the Blue Book—
  "About the 27th of Showal, and delivered at Akabah about the 9th of September."
  The letter went on to say—
  "We let you know that, on the 11th day of Showal (9.9), we have appointed one soldier Bedouin to carry the mail. Soon he reached Ismailia. He learnt that the English Christians attacked the Bedouins who lived about Ismailia when they were much in need of water, and the Fresh Water Canal was blocked, so that no water could go from Ismailia to Suez. Then at night the English attacked the Bedouins, who ran away and informed Arabi Pasha about it. So he came from Kafr Dowar with lots of troops, and attacked the enemy, &c."
  And towards the end of the letter it went on to say—
  "As regards the three Christians who were going to the Fort of Nakhl, accompanied by Meter Sofieh (Meter Nassier), one of the Sofieh tribe, they were killed, through the son of Abu Mushid, one of the Sheikhs of the tribes of Bedouins who live at Wady Sudur, and never arrived here. My only object (in writing to you) is to inform you to be careful about the Fort (Akabah), and to inform the Bedouins not to be far away from the fort, already to be ready for the enemy, and not be afraid. I hope God will permit that you are not found wanting. If any men of war come in your direction not to lire on them, but if they go on shore to get hold of them by hand, and if they fire, fire your selves. Let me know what is going on in your place. Don't be afraid. Don't wonder because the Moslems are victorious by the force of God. Abu Shedide has informed his Bedouins, by writing, that if they see any Christians to get hold of them and send them to their place (in Cairo), when they had learnt that the Christians were killed which I spoke of. Till now we did not receive any instructions from Cairo."
  More evidence of the constant communication there was going on between the centre of the National defence and the outlying places which were opposing the English invaders, and the complete victory of the English invasion in no way detracted from the legitimacy of the Egyptian defence. The Governor of Nakhl boasted that the work was done by his own orders, and, in one statement, by his own hands. Of the sympathy of the Governor in the transactions there could be no doubt. Consul West, throughout the Blue Book, was a most valuable witness,

  1491
  and anyone who wished to try the case fairly and apart from the pressure of Ministerial Whips, could not do better than trace from page to page the despatches of Consul West. Evidence which was also worthy of particular attention on the present occasion was that of Meter Abu Sofieh, who acted as guide to the party, and who was very probably in collusion with the attacking party. Very probably Meter Abu Sofieh thought that spying against spies was legitimate. Just as Her Majesty's Government appeared to act on the principle that they need keep no faith with Bedouins, he acted on the principle that Bedouins need keep no faith with Englishmen. As to the comparative casuistry of the two parties in the case, he (Mr. O'Donnell) would say nothing, save that the Bedouins were acting in the defence of their own country. Meter Abu Sofieh died in hospital, certainly under suspicious circumstances, after having given certain evidence. There was a post mortem examination held on the body by some English Army surgeon, but whether the surgeon was a proficient in the detection of poisons there was no evidence to show. If, however, there was ever an Arab who deserved a cup of bad coffee, it was the Chief Meter Abu Sofieh, after giving this testimony, testimony which was stated to be spontaneous—
  "All the questioning will do you no good; but if you get Ali Showyar, he will tell you who sent him after us to tell them to attack us"—he spoke of "us"—"I heard that Ali Showyar had gone all round the Bedouins to tell them to attack us;"
  and Colonel Warren reported that all the Bedouins concurred in that statement. Meter Abu Sofieh, who, it was not to be wondered at, died under suspicious circumstances, went on to say—
  "I hear he was at the wells when we left, but I don't know his face the Bedouins were quite quiet till Ali Showyar went away, though he is not a Sheikh lie is of the lowest Natives, but must have been sent by someone. The Government won't allow me to say who it was. I do not know who it was. I hear that Ali Showyar brought a message. I don't know if message came from Cairo. I hear that Ali Showyar said the Christians come into this country, attack them, and take their things. He said Abu Sofieh was bringing the Christians to buy camels, and they had money with them for that purpose."
  So, Ali Showyar knew how to encourage the attacking Bedouins with the hope
  1492
  of prize money, as well as with the satisfaction of patriotism. Now, if the statement of The Times was true, Colonel Warren was a gentleman who, when intrusted with a mission by a Liberal Government, was capable of embroidering the facts, and giving a diplomatic misrepresentation of the facts. But there was another thing to be taken into consideration in regard to the so-called confession wrung from the principal of the wretched culprits, who might or might not have been guilty, and it was that nothing was more usual in the East, when great men were implicated, for humble men to come forward and take the blame on themselves for the sake of saving their wives and their families. The men who were put to death were men whose wives and families had been previously taken prisoners by Colonel Warren; and it was under the pressure of the terrorism, caused by that fact that these men apparently were ready to make any admission, though the only admission they did make was that they were actually the executioners in carrying out the sentence on the English Mission. The Committee had heard most important admissions made by Colonel Warren; but at page 91, in a letter to Admiral Lord Alcester, dated Port of Nakhl, Desert of the Tib, December 25, 1882, he said—
  "Most of the culprits, when first brought in, denied even belonging to this portion of the country; but, after being wearied with constant cross-examination, they have now all confessed to the attack upon Professor Palmer's party, and on the baggage, and some of them have confessed to having been present at the murder; and I hope eventually to be able to obtain a full detailed confession from each man, except, perhaps, from the live murderers, of whom three are now secured."
  What he (Mr. O'Donnell) wanted to know was, what was the worth of that evidence, even as regarded the participation of these wretched men? At any time a tribesman would give his life 100 times over, if he could, at the mere suggestion or wish of the Sheikh. These men merely formed the firing party; and that was all the Government had proved. The confessions were due to a wish to spare their tribes; and it was very important to observe that the Sheikh only gave his adhesion to the pursuit of the suspected men on the condition that the quiet of the Desert

  1493
  should not be disturbed. The Committee could fully understand how very small was the amount of credence to be placed on the confession of the tribesmen acting in conformity with the wishes of their Sheikh, and after being wearied with such constant cross-examination that it was in the power of Colonel Warren to apply. There was no reliance to be placed on the confessions of these wretched men; but even admitting the confessions wore to be accepted, the Government had only got hold of the firing party who acted under the orders of the National authorities, just exactly as any firing party of English soldiers would act against American or Irish spies. He had stated at some length, but with the utmost possible brevity—leaving out large and important portions of testimony which he might endeavour to furnish in addition, if, in the course of the debate, Her Majesty's Government required it—he had stated, with the utmost possible brevity, a clear, convincing, and indisputable case, which proved that they were not in face of an onset of Bedouin robbers on an innocent travelling party for the sake of loot, but in the presence of a deliberate combination of Native tribes for the purpose of intercepting an English spying Mission, engaged to cut down telegraph wires in time of war, and to seduce from their national allegiance 50,000 or 60,000 Bedouins, if necessary, at an expense, in the words of Professor Palmer himself, of from £20,000 to £30,000. That was the case he laid before the Committee and the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £345,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in addition to the sums already granted by Parliament, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for additional Expenditure arising out of Military Operations in Egypt."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not have risen had not the Government, as represented by the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), seemed disposed to allow the very able and powerful speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to pass by without any answer. He was rather astonished that the Secretary to the Admiralty had not thought it worth his
  1494
  while to rise in his seat and attempt to destroy the arguments just advanced by the hon. Gentleman. The questions which the Government were called upon to answer were divisible under three heads. In the first place, was his hon. Friend justified in describing Professor Palmer and his colleagues as spies. In the second place, were the Government justified in having these five men executed as murderers. And, thirdly, the manner in which the confessions were extracted from the prisoners, and the mode in which their guilt was proved. He was very glad his hon. Friend prefaced his remarks by encomiums upon Professor Palmer and his colleagues in the Expedition for their gallantry. They had, as it proved, given up their lives to the service of their country and their race; but the question which the Committee were asked to consider was, what was the position of the men in the country? His hon. Friend maintained that their position was that of spies, and that their object was to raise up against what was the then de facto Government of Egypt a considerable portion of Egyptian subjects. On that point, he observed, once or twice there came some thing like interjected contradictions from the Secretary to the Admiralty; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would challenge anyone who had read the Blue Book to deny that Professor Palmer over and over again asserted that it was within his power, if properly supported by the Government, to get as large a number as 50,000 Bedouins to withdraw their allegiance from Arabi and ally themselves to the Khedive. On that point the proof was great. He would challenge the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he were present, to deny that the military authorities so far accepted Professor Palmer's estimate as to agree to give £20,000 for the purpose of getting the Bedouins over to the Khedive's side. If £20,000 was to be employed for that purpose, it was clearly to be employed against Arabi, and, therefore, Arabi was justified in attacking the Expedition. During the American War of Independence, Major Andre was taken as a spy, and executed by order of General Washington. Major André, it was admitted by friend and foe, was a man of great personal bravery and of high personal character, and yet, according to the laws of war and by the circum-

  1495
  stances of case, General Washington was justified in the course he took. If during the American War an Englishman had gone down to the Southern States, and had endeavoured to induce the negroes to fight against those States, he would have been, if caught, executed. The Committee were entitled to more satisfactory explanation than they had yet received from the Government as to the real character and purpose of the Palmer Expedition. The second point on which he wished to address a few words to the Committee was, were the Government justified in having the five men executed as murderers? That would depend upon whether the men were acting upon their own initiative or under the orders of superior powers. It was a very significant fact that the Governor of Nakhl was in the neighbourhood on the day of the murders; and all who had read the Blue Book would know that, as a matter of fact, this person had no business whatever to be so near the place at the time, and that when he was called upon for an explanation, all he could give was that he had applied for leave of absence and had started for Suez. The explanation was far from satisfactory, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought it was clear from the evidence, that these men, low in position and without any social prospects, or any real or other power at their disposal, were acting under the authority of others. If they were, he wanted to know why it was that these unfortunate dupes and tools should be executed, while the superior authorities were allowed to go almost scot-free—because the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on the Governor of Nakhl was a farce in the face of the sentence of death passed on the others? With regard to the third point, he would ask the Committee whether they could read without something of shame, the statement made by Colonel Warren himself as to the manner in which the evidence upon which these men were convicted and afterwards executed, was obtained? The most important fact which was brought out with regard to the alleged confessions of the prisoners was that one set of witnesses gave such and such persons as the guilty parties, whereas an altogether different list of guilty parties was given by other witnesses who were examined. It was plain, from the Blue Book, that Colonel
  1496
  Warren acted on what was not supposed to be an English doctrine—namely, that the end justified the means. It was clearly proved by the admissions of Colonel Warren himself, that he did not scruple to adopt any means, either of duplicity, or force, or virtue, to extort confessions from the prisoners. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might express his gratification that the Secretary to the Admiralty had now returned to his place. He would not repeat the observations he had made; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not lose the opportunity of answering the very detailed and very conclusive charges which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had brought against the action of the Government. He was dealing with the third point—namely, the manner in which the evidence was obtained from the incriminated parties; and he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain the reason of the omission from Colonel Warren's despatch of a large quotation from it, which omission had appeared in The Times. In connection with the statement that Colonel Warren told a Sheikh that the Sultan had landed 6,000 troops, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) invited the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to page 40 of the Blue Book, and to the following paragraph in Colonel Warren's despatch:—
  "For I pointed out to Musa Nassir, who arrived yesterday, that matters were being arranged so cleverly against him and his tribe that it simply lay between their divulging everything they had heard or knew and being arraigned as the guilty parties."
  Or, in other words, these men were put to the alternative either of confession or being placed along with the other prisoners who were executed for taking part in the murders. He ventured to say that was a most un-English mode of conducting a trial of the kind; and the public and the Committee had a right to be anxious on the three points he had enumerated—namely, Was the Expedition one for the purpose of spying—he did not use the word in an offensive, but in a military sense? Were these men who were executed principals, or merely tools? Were they murderers acting for plunder, or soldiers acting under what they considered lawful authority? And, thirdly, was the evidence against the men obtained in accordance with the laws of justice and honour?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANapologized to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) for being out of the House when he began his observations. He should, however, be very willing to reply to all he had said. he thought that, perhaps, the best thing he could do was to state very plainly and candidly what the object of the Expedition was, and how it came to pass that Professor Palmer was sent into the Desert of Sinai. At the end of June, before the attack on the Alexandrian forts, and when there was only a strong possibility, not even a probability, of warlike operations, it became obvious that steps must be taken to secure the tranquillity of the Suez Canal; and the fact that the duty of taking those steps was imposed on the Admiralty was the reason that he was here to-night to explain to the Committee what had happened in regard to the matter. Practical measures were necessary with regard to the Canal, because, as hon. Members might recollect, there were constant rumours of the Canal being blocked by the Arabs; and there was even a most circumstantial rumour one day of a ship in the Canal being looted. It therefore became necessary that, apart from the military operations, something should be done to secure the friendliness of the Arabs, and to obtain from them any help they could render in furnishing transport for the Indian Contingent. These were really the objects the Government had in view—to utilize the Arabs for the protection of the Canal, and secure their goodwill. For this purpose the First Lord of the Admiralty consulted two persons—Colonel Bradford, a well-known Indian officer of great experience and knowledge of the Arab people, and Captain Gill, who was then attached to the Intelligence Department of the War Office, and who was also an experienced traveller, thoroughly conversant with the habits and disposition of the people of those parts. They at once suggested to him that the best man to consult in regard to the whole matter was Professor Palmer. He had spent a good deal of time in Sinai, in connection with the survey of that country; he was an extraordinary adept in languages, and he had been able to go about and live among these people as one of themselves; and so far from it being the case, as was assumed by the hon. Member for Dun-
  1498
  garvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that he disguised dim self on this occasion and took a false name, in order to cover his identity, he went there with the same name as he had always used, and the same dress as he had always worn among the Bedouins. Every traveller that he ever heard of, who had had these acquirements and these facilities for going about among such people, had dressed as a Native, and had adapted himself more or less to their habits and appearance. Professor Palmer was asked who would be a likely man to go out and assist Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his communications with the Arabs on the Canal, and act also as interpreter between our officers and the Natives, and he volunteered to go himself. He was not asked to go; he distinctly volunteered to go upon this service. His own proposal was that which was adopted; and that was that he should go to Gaza, and cross the Desert to Suez. He believed that he would be able upon that journey to acquire certain knowledge as to the feelings of the Bedouins; and, at the same time, he would be less conspicuous and less likely to attract attention than if he went by the Canal. Undoubtedly, his journey was in that sense secret; for it was desirable that it should not be bruited about that he was going for this purpose, because probably, if his intention had been known of, steps would have been taken to prevent his achieving the object he had in view. He went by Gaza; and on arriving at Suez, where he was told to report himself, he was appointed chief interpreter. He received no money on that journey to secure the allegiance of the Arabs. No sum whatever was given to him, and he was not encouraged to expect any money for that purpose. The object in view was to have him available at our disposal at Suez, if necessity should arise; and he had no authority to bribe the tribes. It had been stated in The Times that when he arrived at Suez he sent a report to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that report might be the "Letter" alluded to at the bottom of page 2; but the Admiralty had not seen any such report. He appeared to have taken a sanguine view of what he could do, and he described himself as able to secure the allegiance of 50,000 Bedouins for about £20,000 or £30,000. That proposal originated

  1499
  with himself alone. He had not been encouraged to conceive any such purpose at all, and he must say that the telegram which the Admiralty sent on the receipt of that opinion was calculated to discourage him; and if it did not fully express that meaning, he could assure the Committee that it was intended to do so. It was not desirable on the other hand, as it were, to snub him, or to imply any rebuke on account of over-zeal—nor did he now wish to attribute to him over-zeal—but he was instructed to keep the Bedouins available for control or transport on the Canal, and that for that purpose a reasonable amount might be spent. Now, he had no money given to him either at home or by the authorities on the Canal for any such purpose as the purchase of the allegiance of the Arabs. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Or for service?] No. The only money given him beyond his expenses was £3,000, which was handed to him at Suez by Sir William Hewitt to go into the Desert and secure camels for the use of the Indian Contingent. Sir William Hewitt said at first that the number of camels required was 1,500, but further information, after Professor Palmer had left, showed that 750 would be sufficient. That £3,000 represented only the cost of a fortnight's hire of 1,500 camels. Whether they would be ultimately required was doubtful; but they were required to be collected near Suez, and the £3,000 was intended as a guarantee to their owners that, if the camels were not eventually needed, the loss of time would be paid for. That was the whole history of the transaction. There was no bribery, and no purchase of allegiance or goodwill. It was certainly part of his mission to conciliate the Bedouins, and to use his well-known influence to get them into a favourable state of mind towards us; but that was a very different thing from what was often suggested—that he was furnished with large sums of money for the purpose of bribing the Bedouins. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Was he never promised £20,000?] He could not understand that £20,000 being named, or how it got into the article in The Times. He did not know who the writer of that article was; but he must have had access to some confidential Papers which were only in the hands of four persons beside the Heads of the Ad-
  1500
  miralty. One of those four persons was allowed to see the actual Papers, and the others were furnished with copies in the strictest confidence. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But they were genuine.] He was coming to the genuineness. There was nothing in them that the Admiralty were afraid should come out, as he would show immediately. In the original of the same, or the next despatch, mention was made of £20,000; but that sum had nothing to do with the Palmer Expedition. It was an intimation that, under the authority given by the Admiralty, Sir William Hewitt, who was without money, had received £10,000 from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and £10,000 from Admiral Hoskins, for the general purposes of the Indian Contingent. Professor Palmer had nothing whatever to do with that money. No part of it was given to him. It was required for the general purposes of the command at Suez, and, therefore, all mention of it was omitted from these published Papers, which referred to the Palmer Expedition alone. Those were the facts of the case, for which he could vouch. The £20,000 being alluded to in one of these original despatches, which also alluded to the Palmer Expedition, did get into the confidential Papers, which included all the information the Admiralty had on the subject. He hoped he had made it plain to the Committee how it was that this sum of £20,000 got into the confidential Papers, and also, he was sorry to say, into the hands of people who were anxious to find some tangible proof that Professor Palmer was being supplied with money in order to bribe the tribes. He could assure the Committee, upon his own knowledge, that what happened had nothing to do with Professor Palmer's Expedition, and that he was merely furnished with the £3,000 which he had with him when murdered.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How was that money to be expended for the Indian Contingent?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that it was for the ordinary expenses of the command at Suez. Sir William Hewitt had no funds whatever, lie had to pay his men, and pay for provisions and coals for his own ships, and to meet the requirements of a considerable force at Suez and of the Contingent coming from India. The other

  1501
  Admirals being Letter supplied with money than he was, he asked them for some; and the telegram which referred to that matter also alluded to the Palmer Expedition, which took place at the same time. He hoped this was a sufficient explanation of what, no doubt, appearing as it did, might have conveyed an entirely wrong impression to many minds. That was the whole story so far as the Admiralty were concerned. He would add, with regard to the accusation that Professor Palmer was going as a spy in disguise, of which the Committee had heard so much that night, to these simple Bedouins, that he went in the ordinary dress and under the ordinary name which, as a well-known English Christian, he had always assumed, and in which he was well known to the Sheikhs. As to this emissary of ours going to act as a spy, what was the first thing he asked for before leaving Suez? He wrote to the Admiral—
  "I think it desirable that an officer of the Navy should accompany me to the Desert as a guarantee that I am acting on the part of Her Majesty's Government."
  Lieutenant Charrington went with, at all events, a great part of his uniform, and particularly with his naval sword, as a proof of the nature of the Expedition, and to give the Arabs, from whom they were to buy the camels, confidence that it was a bonâ fide transaction, and that they would not be outwitted in the matter. This was not consistent with the suggestion upon which the whole speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was based—namely, that Professor Palmer was sent as a spy to deceive the Bedouins.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Was the uniform used by the officer, or was it packed away in a bag?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Admiralty had reason to believe that it was used on some occasions, and, at all events, when his remains were found, a pair of duck trousers was found with them. The hon. Member had a good deal to say on the cutting of the telegraph wires, and made much allusion to a gentleman, who, he believed, was an Englishman, but who was called by the hon. Member, "Monsieur Picard." The object of cutting the telegraph wires which connected Egypt with Constantinople was to prevent information of the preparations we were making from reaching the Egyptian belligerents. The Government had
  1502
  every reason to believe that the wires were being largely used for that purpose; and perhaps some hon. Members would remember that once or twice he and some of his hon. Colleagues refused to answer specific Questions as to their preparations in this House—Questions as to which information could be easily got by anybody who had access to the ordinary sources of knowledge, but replies to which, if given in a prominent way in that House, would immediately be telegraphed to Egypt. That was an instance of the way in which this telegraph was used; and, so far from it being an usual method of modern warfare to cut telegraph wires, it was an acknowledged form of warfare. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In an Ally's country?] They were not going out of Egypt in order to cut the telegraph. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had alluded to an expedition under Picard into the Lebanon, where the telegraph was cut, and where, as he understood the hon. Member, two persons were seized and executed. That was the first he had heard of it; and, if that was done at all, it was not done in connection with this Expedition.
  MR. O'DONNELL: They were hanged in opposition to the Expedition.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had no knowledge of any telegraph engineer or anyone else going into the Lebanon to cut the telegraph wires; but it was intended to cut the wires between Kantarah and El Arishe, and it was for that purpose that Captain Gill was sent with this Expedition. Now, with regard to the Papers generally, the hon. Member had pointed out that there were a great many gaps, and that these gaps were distinguished by asterisks. Well, at all events, the asterisks were honest asterisks, and showed where something was left out. If the Admiralty had made no asterisks at all, no one would have known there was anything left out. They were, at all events, a sign of a certain degree of honesty. He had carefully gone through the Papers and marked the passages that were left out, and seen what they contained, and, as far as he could find, only two passages—one of them of no great significance—were omitted for any other reason than that they were totally unconnected with the main subject of these Papers, or that brought in names of men who would be

  1503
  compromised, in this sense—that they might be exposed to danger if it was known that they had been friendly to us. The hon. Member seemed to think it would have been better to have kept all their names in, in order that these men who had been induced to do us a kindness should suffer; but he thought it was better, if there was any danger that they would suffer in their trade or in any other way in consequence of what they had done for us, that their names should not appear. One instance of omission was the letter which was quoted in full in The Times, and which was addressed by Colonel Warren to a certain man named Musa Nassir. Colonel Warren, no doubt, spoke of 6,000 Turkish troops being sent by the Sultan to help the English. When the hon. Member referred to that matter, he had asked the lion. Member to quote the date of the letter and the place from which it was written. It was written from Tor, in the Desert, on September 12. Colonel Warren could not be expected, when in the Desert, to be in possession of the most recent intelligence as to whether the Turkish troops had been sent or not; but when he left Suez it was the expectation of everyone there that Turkish troops would be sent to Port Said, and he apparently concluded that by that time they had been sent, and so he wrote that letter. Of course, that statement was not true, inasmuch as it was not confirmed by the facts; but there was no reason to attribute to Colonel Warren any intention to utter a deliberate falsehood, seeing that he might very well have believed that these troops had been sent. He put it rather too strongly, perhaps; but, at all events, he merely did so to satisfy a friendly Arab that he would be treated in a friendly manner, and had nothing to fear from us. The letter, which was said to have been written in order to induce some poor creature to come in and be convicted of complicity in crime, was written for no such purpose. It was written to Musa Nassir, who was not one of the criminals at all, but was a friendly Arab, with a view to inducing him to bring in Professor Palmer, the belief being that he was alive and in the custody of some Arabs, or under the protection of friendly Arabs. The letter was written for that purpose only, and not to bring in cul-
  1504
  prits on false pretences. That was the only Paper of any importance that was omitted from the Papers published. He was not going to follow the hon. Member for Dungarvan in the very imaginative account he had given of the whole transaction; but the Papers, he thought, showed with how much zeal, tact, courage, and patience Colonel Warren had conducted the whole of the negotiations and search, first of all, for the unfortunate victims, and afterwards for those who committed the crime; and the conclusion at which Colonel Warren arrived was very clearly stated. He said, at page 92—
  "There can be no doubt that the attack upon the party was owing to the extreme avarice and culpable negligence of Meter Sofieh, and that their death was due to his persistent refusal to ransom the party and to give up the money placed in his hands by Professor Palmer. He appears to have betrayed the trust imposed in him, whether viewed from a European or Bedouin standpoint, and is certainly the principal cause of the sad disaster."
  The hon. Member for Dungarvan said this was not a simple case of murder. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not believe that they could be quite certain as to what was the inducement to these men to murder the unfortunate gentlemen who fell into their hands; but it might be partly a purpose of murder and partly political excitement. There might have been political feeling in the occurrence; but the fact remained that those men, whom Colonel Warren, with great patience and astuteness during weeks and months, had been able to trace as the principal actors in the deed, richly deserved the punishment they received. The hon. Member said these poor men wore, after all, only the instruments of people at Cairo and elsewhere who hired them to commit this atrocity. That might be the case; but it was unfortunately sometimes true, not only in this occurrence in the Desert, but in other cases and other countries. It often happened that the instruments of crime of this kind could alone be detected and punished, while those who incited them to the crime could not be approached. That often happened, and it was greatly to be regretted, but that ought not for a moment to prevent the infliction of punishment upon those who actually committed crimes. The case of these men had been thoroughly investigated, first by Colonel

  1505
  Warren, and then by an Egyptian tribunal. All the men had confessed their crime, and the passages read only showed what might be expected from the habits of these people—that it required a great deal of skill and patience to get at the real truth; but he felt perfectly certain, and he was sure that hon. Members would agree, that Colonel Warren had successfully brought homo to these men the guilt with which they were charged; and that he had done his best, not to make reparation, but to inflict punishment upon them for the murder of these unfortunate gentlemen. In answer to the speeches that had been made, he had given the plainest explanation he could as to the objects of the Expedition, and the part which the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken in it, and he felt sure the Committee would approve of what he had done.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, in reading from the letter which was now recognized as genuine, and which had appeared in The Times, the hon. Gentleman had forgotten to quote some important sentences from the letter given in The Times, in which Colonel Warren said—
  "The Sultan has declared Arabi a rebel. He has sent 6,000 troops with English officers to support the Sultan's Khedive, to act with the English, and reduce Arabi to submission. Your old friend Khedive Wilson is with the troops, who have now landed at Port Said."
  After that, he said—
  "the Governor of El Arishe and Nathl will soon be prisoners. Do not think of obliging men who are rebels to your Sultan."
  Clearly those sentences showed that Colonel Warren was aware that the Governors of Nakhl and El Arishe were at the head of the local resistance to the English invasion, and yet the Committee was now to be told again this story—that the attack upon the English Mission was a mere matter of attack by isolated Bedouins working for mere lucre. There was a little political excitement about it; that was all that the hon. Gentleman would admit. He found also that in that letter from Tor, on November 10, Colonel Warren stated that during the recent investigation concerning the disappearance of Professor Palmer and his party, he had ascertained that there was a general impression, both at that place and at Suez, that the Governor of El Arishe was employing stringent mea-
  1506
  sures to induce the Bedouins of the Desert to make common cause against the Christians and the Europeans. There was another matter which might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman—that Professor Palmer and his party shed blood and took life before their blood was shed and their lives were taken. When the Arabs first attempted to intercept and capture the party there were shots fired on both sides—
  "Meter Sofieh asserts that there were shots fired, and that he and Professor Palmer fired, and that the remainder were unharmed. Shots certainly appear to have been exchanged, for the camel of Salami Ibu Azed was shot in the head, and Ayed, a Hawetat, is supposed to have been wounded; and Muret died six days afterwards."
  It was a matter of importance which should be borne in mind, that these men were engaged in bribing a levée en masse, not to oppose the English, and were prepared not only to spend money, but to shed blood in the undertaking. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of honest asterisks. They were comparatively honest, for it would have been much more dishonest to have given fictitious names, and after listening to the enlightening voice of the hon. Member, on the whole, he thought the Committee had every reason to hold in high esteem the hon. Gentleman's preference for honest asterisks—at least, to fictitious interpolations. With a delicacy only equalled by its propriety, the Representative of the Admiralty had suggested that he (Mr. O'Donnell) was anxious in some way to have these names put in so that their publication might endanger the lives of the men holding those names. He was not aware that the Blue Books circulated largely in the Arabian Desert, and seeing that the hon. Gentleman had control over the nominal Government of Egypt, he could, no doubt, prevent Hansard, in a vernacular edition, circulating among the Arabs. These men had been tried, and found guilty, and hanged. Was that with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government? Were they hanged on a charge of murder for money, which this Committee knew was unfounded? Were the lives of these men taken with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government? He called this as atrocious an assassination as would be the hanging of five English soldiers who shot down Arab spies. The

  1507
  hon. Gentleman made light of the offences committed by Professor Palmer's party. Prom an English point of view, he would say let every honour be paid to Professor Palmer and his companions, for they sacrificed their lives for their country; but they not only underwent a soldier's risk, but they knew that they were putting their necks into the halter by the task they undertook. If a similar task had been undertaken by any Frenchman during the German invasion of France, any German sergeant who had caught a Frenchman cutting down telegraph wires would have blown his brains out without a court martial or a word of delay or explanation. Yet these men, the creatures of their Chiefs, acting in a cause they believed to be not only patriotic but sacred, had been put to death after a mock trial, in order to spare somebody from making further investigations! The conclusion he drew was not only drawn by him, but by the general public opinion of the country. It was drawn by all who had any acquaintance with the facts of the case and the facts in the Blue Books. The evening newspapers of Saturday had agreed that, whether or not the actual perpetrators of the murder of Professor Palmer had been executed, unquestionably the original instigators had not been brought to justice; and The Times of Saturday had also said that—
  "After reading the Papers on the subject, the painful impression prevails that, if the perpetrators of the crime had been brought to justice, the instigators of the crime were still at large"
  But there was no crime in the matter. It was a legitimate offence, and these men were as much entitled by Holy Law to defend their country as were the Natives of any other country. One thing had resulted from this debate. There was an end to the camel-purchasing story. It was published to the ends of the world, and it could not be denied that these gentlemen received money to purchase the allegiance of the Arabs.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman having made a violent attack on the Government had, no doubt, through inadvertence, absented himself during his reply to that attack. He had given an elaborate and detailed account of the whole object of the Expedition, and distinctly denied that Professor Palmer or any of his party had any power whatever, or was fur-
  1508
  nished with any funds for the purpose of buying the allegiance of anyone.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman would remember that after he had spoken the hon. Gentleman did not rise, but that a Member of the Irish Party rose. He was, therefore, not responsible for not supposing that the hon. Gentleman would choose the hour when he (Mr. O'Donnell) was at dinner in order to make his explanation. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman made an elaborate explanation, but he had got a clear explanation which was perfectly convincing. The telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the Admiralty on August 6th said—
  "Palmer in letter of August 1st at Suez writes that if precisely instructed as to service required of Bedouins, and furnished with funds, he believes he could buy the allegiance of 50,000 at a cost of from £20,000 to £30,000."
  What elaborate explanation would the hon. Gentleman put on that? Then there was the reply of the Admiralty to Sir William Ilewett—
  "Admiral reports Palmer's proposal of 1st August. Instruct Palmer to keep Bedouins available for patrol or transport on Canal. A reasonable amount may be spent, but larger engagements are not to be entered into until General arrives, and has been consulted."
  That was to say, the Admiralty consented to expend money on the Bedouins, who otherwise might have opposed the British operations on the Canal, in order to make them available for patrol and transport in the service of the invader of their country. Was not that bribing and seducing the Bedouins from their natural allegiance? There could be no clearer explanation than the six lines of this simple telegram. There were only £3,000 spent! Did the hon. Gentleman remember that in consequence of the unfortunate and summary stoppage of Professor Palmer's Mission, he had not time to spend even those £3,000? They were part of the money stolen from the Expedition; and but for the precautions taken by the Arab tribes in charge of the at portion of the country, if the English Mission had succeeded in penetrating that country, was there any doubt that there would have been plenty of money forthcoming in addition to the £3,000 in order to buy Bedouins by the thousand for patrol and transport or any other purpose? Ono great and valuable result of this discussion was that some light had been thrown

  1509
  on the means by which the great and glorious Liberal victory in Egypt was attained. There was as much gold as lead and steel in that campaign.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved that the hon. Gentleman had stated that Professor Palmer's duty was not to bribe the Bedouins with money, but to conciliate them. He wished to ask how Bedouins could be conciliated without being bribed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that Professor Palmer's influence among the Bedouins was very great. He was in great favour with them, and had remarkable powers of ingratiating himself with people of that kind. From his habits he was very acceptable to them, and had great power of getting them on his side. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had repeated what he had already denied, but he thought he could appeal with confidence from that hon. Member to the hon. Member behind him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who had made some reasonable remarks on the subject, and had listened to his explanation, whether he had given a complete answer or not?
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to
  (2.)£17,500, Civil Charges of Expedition to Egypt.

  TRANSVAAL, 1882–3.
  (3.)Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Expenses connected with the Transvaal."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished to ask whether the sums of money payable by the Natal and Cape Governments, which had been taken credit for in the Budget for the current year, had been paid into the Exchequer?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he saw in this Vote, amongst other things, a Vote for the Royal Commission of 1881, the object of which was to secure the due performance of the duties that this country had undertaken towards the Kaffir Tribes that inhabited the country which was once our Dominion. He remembered at the time when the surrender of the Transvaal
  1510
  took place many Members of the Government—certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was at that time a Member of the Administration—used some very brave and fine language about the duty the Government had contracted in regard to the Native Tribes, and the importance of seeing that those duties were efficiently and fully performed. He confessed that quite recently the country had had some reason to doubt whether Her Majesty's Government was quite as much alive to the duty which it had assumed towards the unhappy Kaffir Tribes as the Government of two years ago, because, when the humanity of the people of this country had been exercised of late by telegrams which had appeared in the public journals relating to atrocities of the Boers towards the Native Races of the Transvaal, opinions had been publicly stated by high officials connected with the Colonial Office which were, at least, calculated to somewhat alarm the humanity of the public. He thought it would be very desirable if, before this Vote was passed, they could obtain some assurance either from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—whom he at present saw in his place—or—and it would be much more satisfactory if they could get it from the right hon. Gentleman—from the Prime Minister himself, that Her Majesty's Government would not cease to use their benevolent offices in order to mitigate, as far as they now could, the dreadful disaster which the surrender of the Transvaal had brought upon the Native Tribes? He should like very much to know whether it was really the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the use of dynamite in warfare with these people was a thing to be encouraged? Was it really the opinion of the Government that these people might be blown up with dynamite, and that, if war was to be made upon them, there was no more harm in employing dynamite against them than in employing gunpowder? In fact, that was an opinion which had been given some countenance to by statements which had been made from very high sources. To show the Committee that this was no imaginary grievance, and that there was really some danger of the people suffering cruelty, he should like to be allowed to read to the Committee a private letter,

  1511
  which gave an account by an eye witness of the destruction of a small party of Kaffirs in the Transvaal. This was what happened—
  "In a raid made by a commandery of Boers, after killing all the cattle they could, and taking over 200 head of cattle, the Boers passed a large cave. From this cave two shots were fired. The Boers were afraid to go into the cave on account of the darkness, so they got a lot of wood and made a huge fire at the mouth of it. There was an opening in the stones at the top of the cave, through which the smoke was seen to issue. Then they piled on green wood to increase the suffocation. A noise like the buzzing of bees and groans were heard from the cave. One girl who rushed from the fire, thinking to save her life, died a few minutes after. The fire lasted about half-an-hour, and then the Boers went into the place. They found only two men there, one writhing in such agony that one of the party fired at him to put him out of his misery; but there were above 21 souls dragged out, with the exception of the two men, all women and children, who doubtless had taken refuge there from fear. The two men who fired the shots betrayed their hiding place; but they must have thought they were secure enough, as the Boers could not penetrate the recesses within. You can imagine the state the poor wretches were in. My heart sickens—I cannot describe it. I trust they were not left by their tormentors to writhe and die."
  That was an account, given in simple language by an eye witness, of what took place. He would mention the name of the lady, the writer of this letter, only he had received a letter from one of his constituents containing a most earnest request not, on any account, to mention it, or even sufficiently to describe the place from which the letter was written, for fear that the lady's identity would be discovered. The lady had told his correspondent that so little were the English thought of in the Transvaal now, and so much injustice had they to endure from the Boers, that were it known that any information of this kind had been transmitted through the means of an English woman to the people of this country, her position in the Transvaal would be highly dangerous. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would be satisfied, with his assurance that what he had read was a genuine statement in a genuine letter, written by a lady of great respectability at present residing in the Transvaal. He hoped he had said enough to convince the Government and the Prime Minister that there were atrocious cruelties being committed at this moment upon the Kaffirs, who, a
  1512
  few years ago, were subjects of Her Majesty, and for whose welfare and whose treatment under the Government to which they had been transferred it could not be denied that Her Majesty's Government were in some degree responsible. He did not wish at the present time to anticipate the discussion which would, no doubt, be raised in the House in the course of a few weeks by the right lion. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the general subject of the Transvaal; but the case was so urgent, and the minds of the people of this country had been so disturbed by statements which had been made by high officials in the Government, to the effect that there was no harm in the use of dynamite against the Native Tribes, that he was inclined to ask that, before this sum was granted, Her Majesty's Government should give some assurance that they still admitted some responsibility for the treatment of those people by the Boers.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would recollect that on the first day of the Session he had put before him certain statements which he was not prepared to dispute, and which he seemed to fear were true, showing conduct on the part of the Boers of the most horrible and heartless character. These statements described the manner in which the Boers oppressed the Natives, attacking and murdering them. But, more than this, he had brought before the hon. Member the case of two Englishmen who had been pursued by the Boers, all that was found of them afterwards being their skeletons, with irons on their feet. He (Mr. Fowler) was glad his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had referred to this matter. It was obvious that the hon. and learned Member could not give the name of the writer of the letter he had read. If it were known in the Transvaal who was the writer, the lady would find it perfectly impossible to live there, and would be very likely murdered by the Boers, The hon. and learned Member was bound to conceal names. He (Mr. Fowler), since he had addressed the House on the first night of the Session, had himself received some information from South Africa, and, like his hon. and learned Friend, he was not in a position to give the name of his correspondent. The

  1513
  writer was a member of the Independent Community, and, as such, lie supposed, was a supporter of Her Majesty's Government. He said in his communication that it would have been better if the unfortunate Bechuanas had never trusted to the intervention of their philanthropic friends, Her Majesty's present Advisers, and that—
  "His complaint against the Government always had been, not that they had left the Transvaal, for they had no option but to do so, but that they had withdrawn under a cloud of promises to the Native Tribes which had never been kept, and which he was strongly inclined to believe never would be kept."
  That was the opinion of his correspondent. He did not agree with him that it would have been impossible for the Government to stop in the Transvaal. His opinion was that if the Government had taken a strong course, and insisted upon putting down the insurrection before they made a Treaty with the traitors, it would have been better for their interests in South Africa, and also for their interests in other parts of the world. They saw what were the results of the course they had taken. They had scuttled out of the Transvaal, and now these unfortunate Natives who were loyal to them in their troubles, and had stood faithfully to them whilst they were in difficulties, were left to the mercy of the wretched Boers. They were oppressed and shot down, and no one was permitted to stop them who was not prepared to take an oath of fealty to the Transvaal Government. He earnestly appealed to the Committee whether the course things were now taking in the Transvaal was not one which called for the interposition of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he wished to put a question to the Under Sectetary of State for the Colonies on the same subject. The Native Tribes were not only deserted by their friends, but were unable to purchase gunpowder and arms for the purpose of defending themselves from their enemies. This seemed rather hard, for it deprived them of the only means they had of defending themselves against the most blood-thirsty of their enemies. He should like to know how they were to obtain the means of defence? Everyone knew that the Bechuanas had been exemplary for their advance in civilization. They had bet-
  1514
  ter houses than almost any of the Races in South Africa, they had adopted our dress and civilization and religion, and perhaps nothing had more tended to discourage the advance of civilization in South Africa than the attacks of the Boers upon this Tribe, by which the progress of civilization had been not only retarded, but driven back for many years. He wished to know whether the embargo on the sale of weapons and gunpowder had been taken off in the British Colonies at the Cape? A little time ago they had learnt that two cannon had been sent by the Cape Government to the Transvaal, and he certainly could not see why they should cause the purchase of gunpowder to be refused to their allies, whilst they allowed their enemies to be supplied with arms and ammunition.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked if the Vote for the Transvaal would appear again in the Estimates, or whether this Supplementary Estimate would close all the accounts?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, it was very difficult to deal in any satisfactory manner in this interlocutory style with so grave and complicated a question as the Transvaal, embracing, as it did, according to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, not only the policy of the taking of the Transvaal, but the conditions and interpretations of the Convention, and, their liability to protect or defend or aid the Natives. Seeing that there was a Notice of Motion on the subject in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) standing for Tuesday, and that the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice of his intention to bring the whole question in a formal manner before the House, he confessed he thought it would be better, even in the interests of the Natives themselves, that the discussion of the matter should be delayed until they could deal with it in all its phases. Still, it was his duty to the best of his ability to answer two or three questions which had been put to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) had put a question to him as to the reply of a Minister in "another place" on the subject of the alleged use of dynamite by the Boers against the Natives. If he had known that the hon. and learned

  1515
  Member was going to call attention to that subject, he should have armed himself, as he did the other day, with the exact words used by the Earl of Derby. But he thought his memory was correct when he said that a Question was put to the Earl of Derby in the House of Lords as to what Report he had received from the Colonial Office with reference to the war now going on between the authorities of the Transvaal and Mapach, one of their vassals living in a corner of Transvaal territory, as to whether the Colonial Office had received any information to the effect that dynamite had been used by the Boers against the Natives. The Earl of Derby replied that, as a fact, he had no official information of dynamite having been used; but he added that it was his own opinion that when they came to elements and implements used in destruction, whether they employed dynamite or gunpowder seemed to him a matter of indifference. The inference that the Boers were thereby held to be justified in using dynamite in any other way than as a legitimate explosive for purposes of war was an inference he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) entirely denied. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Government, under the Convention, had no authority whatever to interfere with the conduct by the Transvaal Government of wars carried on within their Border. There seemed to be great confusion in the hon. and learned Member's mind as to the power or right of interference of the Government. However much they might deplore any imaginary or real acts of atrocity against the Boers, this, at any rate, was clear—that the war was one carried on by the recognized authorities of the Transvaal State against their rebellious subjects who had refused to pay a tax, and had refused to allow the Location Commission to proceed with the duties devolving upon it. As to the other question put to him—namely, about the embargo on the supply of gunpowder, Her Majesty's Government had represented to the Cape authorities that it was hard that the Bechuanas should be deprived of the power of purchasing ammunition, whilst their enemies had every facility of that kind they required. Though the Cape authorities had desired not to depart from strict neutrality, as soon as they ascertained that peace had been declared be-
  1516
  tween the two Chiefs who had been at war with each other, they took off the embargo. As to the guns, he knew no more than had been already stated. They had only been supplied for this internal war. Then, with regard to the money they would have to ask for in the future, the only provision they would probably have to request would be the amount of the salary of the British Resident. He hoped hon. Members would not think him disrespectful if he declined to go into the larger question of their relations with the Transvaal Government, because the question was so large that it would be doing injustice to it to attempt to go fully into it at present.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the Committee had great right to complain of the attitude taken up by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. As a matter of Parliamentary practice—and he was certain he should be supported by those who had had a considerable experience of the House—there was no opportunity of bringing the Government policy on any point before the House more favourable than Committee of Supply. When the Government came to Parliament and asked for money for a particular purpose, it was the right of hon. Members not only to raise questions on any point regarding that expenditure where they might think the Government to blame, but to demand from the Government an explanation. By raising the question on consideration of the Vote which the Government demanded, was the proper and Constitutional method for an English Member of Parliament to obtain explanations from the Government. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies said he could not go into the question, because his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had a Motion down for Tuesday, and the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had another down for a period not yet fixed. But the hon. Member had taken care to inform the Committee that there was not the remotest chance of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham coming on, and that there was no day fixed for the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire. Therefore, with this Liberal Under Secretary of State

  1517
  for the Colonies—this humanitarian Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—[Cries of"Oh!"] Oh! then the hon. Member was not humanitarian. He would withdraw the epithet, and recognize from his speech that night that the hon. Member was not a humanitarian or a philanthropist. This Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was willing to postpone the interests of these wretched Natives to the chances of the Ballot Box in the House of Commons. The hon. Member declined to go into the matter because it was too large. Why was it too large? It was only half-past 10 o'clock. The Committee would have been glad, he was sure, to have had an explanation of the extraordinary events that were taking place in the Transvaal. He very much doubted, however well satisfied the supporters of Her Majesty's Government might have been with the hon. Member's statement, whether the country would feel satisfied with it. There was another example of the philanthropic and humanitarian tendencies of the Government on the part of its latest valuable acquisition. The very first contribution this valuable acquisition had made to the stock of public information was as to the Boers in the Transvaal. He had said that the use of dynamite in conducting operations against the Natives was quite as much to be expected, and no more to be blamed, than the use of gunpowder. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) did not attach so much importance to the use of dynamite as some people did. Perhaps he would not attach much importance to the use of Greek fire, explosive bullets, or any other torture to compel the Natives of the Transvaal to allegiance to the Boers. The noble Earl did not attach much importance to this matter, for he had said it might or might not be important to use dynamite in military operations against these wretched savages, but if military operations were carried on, he did not see that there was necessarily more blame attaching to the employment of dynamite than to the employment of gunpowder. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) commended that statement from the Secretary to the Colonies to the Nonconforming supporters of the Government, who were the cause of their obtaining their large majority at the last Election, and who were so horrified at the Zulu War.
  1518
  He must confess he did not think Her Majesty's Government were coming out in a good light in this matter. This Committee had been very useful that night, for it had brought to light the Port Said scandal; it had elicited the disclosures of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and now it had brought out that the Government saw no harm in the use of dynamite against savages. The Under Secretary of State said the Boers might make use of slow fire—any weapon or instrument—and the Government had no right to interfere so long as the war was carried on within their own Border. Had they no right to interfere on the ground of common humanity? Had they never interfered anywhere else on the ground of common humanity? On what grounds, pray, had the Prime Minister denounced the atrocities in Bulgaria? And yet the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies got up that night, in his place, and said that no matter what barbarities the Boers committed towards the Native Tribes, the Government were not responsible. [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: I never said any such thing.] The hon. Member would have an opportunity of explaining his language later on. Whilst the political opponents of the present Government were in power, common humanity came to the front, and any interference was not only justified, but absolutely demanded by the circumstances of the case. But then the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, after saying that they had no right to interfere in a war carried on within the Borders of the Transvaal State, fortified the statement by giving the Committee to understand that, in any case, whether they had a right to interfere or not, Mapoch was a rebellious subject. Against whom was he rebellious, pray? Against the Boer Government; but had he ever given in his allegiance to the Boer Government? Had he not warned them—he and his brother Chiefs—that he did not owe allegiance to the Boers, but claimed to be subjects of Queen Victoria? Mapoch, unfortunate as he was, behind the age as he was, savage, uncivilized as he was, could not change his loyalty quite as quickly as some political Parties in the House. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies and

  1519
  Her Majesty's Government this—had they received any information at the Colonial Office of the fact that a certain Dutchman, of the name of Jorssen, had left the Transvaal, and was now in Europe, deputed by his Government to negotiate with the Powers the independence of the Transvaal from the Suzerainty of the Queen? He (Lord Randolph Churchill), at any rate, had very certain information about it. The matter was an important one, and he should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would vouchsafe him some reply with reference to it.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that before the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies replied, he should like to say a word or two in reference to certain statements made in the course of the discussion. It was true that in Committee of Supply it was perfectly legitimate on the Vote for the Transvaal to raise the whole question of the Transvaal annexation and grant of independence, and it must be remembered that the New Rules of Procedure materially circumscribed the opportunities of debate on going into Committee of Supply. It might be fairly expected, therefore, that in Committee of Supply hon. Members would enter into detail upon matters which came under the Votes. He would not deprecate the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) raising an important discussion on this Vote; but, as the hon. and learned Member had himself stated, the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice of a Motion on the subject, and there would be a general discussion on it, no doubt. His (Mr. Rylands') object in rising, however, was to say this—that they were, probably, on the eve of having their feelings constantly appealed to in regard to the sufferings of the Native inhabitants of the Transvaal. He had no doubt the object of the lion, and learned Member was to induce Her Majesty's Government to recognize that they were, in some sort, responsible for seeing that the Natives of the Transvaal were treated in a humane manner. They had over and over again interfered in Africa, no doubt under impulses of a very humane character. They had gone to war with Native Races with a view to promote what they had supposed to be the rights of these countries, and he did not hesitate to say that for one cruel injustice
  1520
  committed without the presence of the British Army there had been 100 instances of death, cruelty, and injustice with its presence. ["No, no!"] Take the Zulu War, for instance. The policy of the late Government had led to a larger destruction of life than had ever at any time taken place before in that country through the instrumentality of Europeans. Speaking in Committee of Supply, he would venture to remind hon. Gentlemen that their policy of intervention in attempting to settle matters between contending parties, and in preventing a rough people on the fringe of civilization from doing injustice to the Natives, had involved them in wars that had cost them millions of money. What had been the result? Had they secured independence for the Natives? Certainly not. They had carried their arms over a large part of South Africa, and if they were to retain possession of that country, or actively render assistance whenever it was asked for, they would have cast upon them a responsibility and an amount of difficulty which no Government would be likely to accept. They were told that they ought now to interfere in the affairs of South Africa. How interfere? They were all at one so far as mere moral influence might be used by Her Majesty's Government. If they had any reason to believe that there were any cruelties being practised in the Transvaal they should use their moral influence to put a stop to them. Hon. Members might smile; but what he said they would not be justified in doing was using the influence of force. If the Transvaal Government within its own Borders acted in a manner they did not approve of, and Her Majesty's Government were to go there with an Army and put down the Transvaal Government, they would be taking on themselves a responsibility with which they ought to have nothing to do. They had responsibilities enough, in all conscience, without taking upon themselves fresh ones in regard to the Transvaal. Therefore, while he thought it would be more convenient to discuss the attitude of the Boers towards the Native Tribes on a future occasion, he simply entered his protest that on account of certain humane feelings which he honoured they were to be called on again to undertake a new crusade on behalf of the Native Races—a crusade which would be likely to do

  1521
  more harm than was sufficient to counterbalance any good that might arise out of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid the Transvaal Natives would find the use of dynamite a far more powerful agent against their interests than they would find moral influence powerful to protect their interests. He understood the Under Secretary of State to say that they had no right to interfere in the Transvaal, and he understood the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rylands) to say that even if they had a right, it was not a right they ought to exercise. He (Mr. Balfour) rose for the purpose of eliciting from the Under Secretary of State whether he adhered categorically to the statement which he was understood to have made? He recollected that when the Government decided that it was immoral to retain their Sovereignty over the Transvaal, one of the arguments most used by hon. Gentlemen who impugned the conduct of the Government was the injury that would be done by their retreating from the Transvaal to the interests of the Native races. The Conservative Party had a right to suppose that the humanitarian considerations which the present Government had never been slow to urge, with an appearance of sincere belief, when they were in Opposition, would have induced them to reconsider their position. But how were the Opposition met? They were told, when this Convention was objected to, that the arrangements which the Government had come to, or would come to, before the final settlement with the Boer Government, would be adequate to protect the vast Native majority in those districts. Now, however, the Committee heard from an independent Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House that this country ought never to interfere; and they wore told by a Member of the Government that they had no Treaty right to interfere; and that even if they did interfere, they could exercise nothing more than a mere shadowy moral influence, unless the Government was prepared to break the Convention, which, they were assured at the time it was entered into, was fully adequate to protect the interests of the Native majority. He wished to impress upon the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the duty of the Government to let the Committee know clearly
  1522
  the position in which the Government stood in regard to this question; for if it was true that the Boers might do anything they chose, as far as the Natives were concerned, and the Government had no right to interfere with them, it was clear, to his mind, that the Committee had not been adequately informed as to the position which the Government intended to take up in regard to the protection of the Native majority.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there could be no doubt as to the right of the hon. Member who had just sat down, or of any other hon. Member, to raise the subject of the policy of the Government with regard to the Transvaal on a Vote in Supply. But the demand just made by the hon. Member for Hertford for information, and the objection to his demand was that all the facts and information on the subject at present in possession of the Government were already in the hands of hon. Members. The matter was one of great complication; and although full information was not yet in the hands of hon. Members, further Papers were on the point of being laid before Parliament in regard to this important subject. The hon. Member for Hertford ridiculed the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that it was better to trust to moral influence than to compulsory powers of interference. He must, in passing, advert to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who was pleased to refer, with very great inaccuracy—an inaccuracy which he would do well to devote his talents to correcting—to what he called the doctrine of interference set up by the Government on other occasions. The argument set up by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was to this effect—that under the Convention which bound them with the Boers they had no right to interfere with this case. "Then," said the noble Lord, "how monstrously inconsistent you are to urge interference in the case of certain Provinces in the Turkish Empire." The answer to this was that in the cases referred to by the noble Lord the moral obligation to interfere arose out of certain Conventions to which Her Majesty's Government was a party. In the present case the argument of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of

  1523
  State was that the terms of the Convention with the Boers not only did not authorize, but tended to exclude any interference beyond the exercise of moral influence.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I only said that the Government must have a right to interfere in the Transvaal, on the ground of common humanity, against the use of dynamite and other explosive substances, or against any other barbarities of the kind.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord said that the Government must have a right to interfere, in certain circumstances, on the ground of common humanity. On that point he would not express an opinion until he was in possession of the facts. But there was another and a fundamental difference between the case before the Committee and that to which the noble Lord had referred. The noble Lord knew, or ought to know, that none of the interference which he so much blamed in the case of the Turkish Provinces was recommended at all until the facts had been fully certified upon official authority; and now, because facts and allegations of the gravest and most painful character were stated upon authority which was not official, but was anonymous, and must therefore be subjected to sifting, the noble Lord declared that the cases were perfectly parallel, and brought forward charges of inconsistency against the Government. He sincerely hoped the noble Lord would give more attention to some effort, or, at least, some elementary effort, towards an approach to accuracy in the matter of comparisons and contrasts when he chose to draw them. There were one or two points on which he wished to say a few words, not so much for the purpose of settlement as of elucidation. The allegations which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) were of the gravest and most painful character, and it was to be hoped that he would, in some way or other, give to the Government a means of examining as to their accuracy. He had stated what might be perfectly true, and he could not be blamed for so stating, that he could not give openly in the House the names of the persons on whose authority those charges rested; but it was to be hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the Go-
  1524
  vernment some assistance in investigating the cases.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would show the letter to any Member of the Government—to the Prime Minister himself.
  MR. GLADSTONEsuggested that the letter should be shown to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State as the Representative of the Colonial Department. The Government would use the best efforts in their power to ascertain the exact state of facts, in which case it was, perhaps, more than possible that they would be able to trace out all the circumstances. There might, perhaps, be some truth in the charges; but it was also possible that there might be considerable inaccuracy. He had not yet read a report of the words used by the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), to which the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) so much objected—the words in which his noble Friend referred to the use of dynamite. The noble Lord quoted certain words, and he must say that, in his view, the words did not justify the comments which were passed upon them. His noble Friend said that, in his opinion, the use of dynamite was not necessarily culpable, and upon this the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock based the statement that, in the opinion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), there was a justification for the use of dynamite in all cases instead of gunpowder. But what the noble Earl said was that the use of dynamite was not necessarily culpable; and he would ask the noble Lord whether he had never heard of dynamite being used by British Commanders and British troops?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Never against human beings. I have no knowledge of it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Was the noble Lord prepared to assert that dynamite was never used in South Africa before by British Commanders and troops?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrepeated that he had no knowledge on the subject. He did not know what was done by the Generals of the right hon. Gentleman in Egypt.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord said he had no knowledge; but he had better have some knowledge of the rules practised by British Commanders before he indulged in these vehement and declamatory denunciations. It appeared to

  1525
  him that the meaning of the words used by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was that it was not possible to lay down an abstract proposition that dynamite should never in any circumstances be used in military operations, but that a judgment should be formed according to the peculiar circumstances of each individual case. He must admit that the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was one which evidently had very much to be urged in its behalf. It had been his fate, in a very early period of his Parliamentary life, to give much attention to these Native Wars in South Africa; and although he did not doubt that there might be cases in which good might be done by British interference, he must confess that it had always appeared to him, over a period now as far back as 45 years, to be a matter of the greatest uncertainty whether, upon the whole, the balance of evil and the balance of mischief, cruelty, and suffering to the Natives themselves did not arise out of our attempts at forcible interference. And although they were sensible that many honourable and generous impulses might, perhaps, dictate a different course, and though the question did not admit of being treated dogmatically, it was important, before this country undertook to use the influence such as was contemplated under the Convention which had been long on the Table of the House, that there should be a very careful examination of what had taken place in former times, and into the very serious allegations that were loudly made, in the interests of humanity as well as of justice, against a system of forcible interference such as appeared to him to be recommended. He only made these observations as interlocutory. He should be sorry if difficulties, owing to the state of Business, should arise to prevent the House from giving an adequate discussion to this important subject. He most fully recognized the duty of the Government to obtain without delay the fullest information upon all matters affecting the interests of the Natives within the Borders of the Transvaal; and he should feel that they were under obligations to the hon. and learned Member, for Chatham, or anyone else who would give to the Government the means of obtaining information in an accurate form, and of
  1526
  at least trying to test the influence they possessed for the purpose of recommending that system of humanity and moderation in the relations between the Boers and the Natives, which certainly, in the long run, would not be a bit more in the interest of the Natives than of the Boers themselves.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he should not have interfered in this debate but for the speech in which the Primo Minister had, at last, admitted the real nature of the Convention upon which the Boers had insisted, and had admitted, further, that there was a great difference between that Convention and the one which had reference to their dealings with the Turkish Provinces. The great objection which the Conservative Party, from the first, took to the Convention with the Boers was that it would not enable this country to protect the Native Races. Anyone who had looked upon the troubles in South Africa must know that the difficulties had mainly arisen from the cruelty with which the Boers had treated the Native Races. Now, however, they found the Prime Minister admitting that the Convention which his Government signed with the Government of the Transvaal was in exact reverse to that which existed between the British and Turkish Governments in regard to the Provinces of Turkey, to which reference had been made. Then the Prime Minister went on to say that the Government ought not to make statements or to take action upon any information other than that which was supplied to them by officials; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the only official in the Transvaal—a country as large as France—was a Resident, who had no force at his command with which to enforce his opinions, and who had neither railroads nor telegraphs which he could use, but without information from whom the Government could take no notice of the action of the Boers. That was not the way in which the Government acted when a correspondent of The Daily News supplied them with information concerning the Bulgarian atrocities. The fact was that the Government, by its Convention with the Boers, practically surrendered everything for which it had previously fought. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the influences which the Government intended to use

  1527
  in South Africa were moral influences; and it was important to take the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect as a whole, for the Government, he supposed, had a policy not only in the Transvaal, but in Zululand. As far as Zululand was concerned, he found that it was proposed to take, under a Supplementary Estimate—which could not now be discussed, but only attended to—a sum of £600, for the purpose of remunerating Cetewayo's wives. Thus, the House was to be called on to give an expression of approval to the practice of polygamy. Cetewayo was a Monarch who, if he had more wives, had also a larger number of cattle than any other reigning Sovereign in South Africa; and thus it came about that in the Estimates there figured a sum of £386 for the sale of his flock and herds, which the Government would be able to set off against the £600, which they proposed to devote to the remuneration of his many wives. This he mentioned as an illustration of the moral influence which the Government proposed to bring to bear in South African affairs. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would give some explanation of their reasons for, on the one hand, handing over the Natives outside Zululand to the Boers to do what they liked with; and, on the other, calling upon the British taxpayers to provide them with the wherewithal to remunerate Cetewayo's wives.
  SIR HENEY HOLLANDsaid, he was grievously disappointed, not to say dismayed, at the speech just delivered by the Prime Minister. He did not intend to discuss the question of the Turkish Provinces, nor the question as to the use of dynamite, though he must say that the Prime Minister, when asking the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in somewhat indignant tone, whether the noble Lord was prepared to say that dynamite had never been used by British troops, did not give any instance in which it had been so used; and he (Sir Henry Holland) ventured to doubt whether, as a matter of fact, it had ever been used by English troops in the way in which it was alleged to have been used by the Boers. The question before the Committee was not only whether they had a right, but whether they were not in honour bound to interfere, if Natives, whom they took under their protection
  1528
  when this country annexed the Transvaal, were attacked by the Boers. The Prime Minister seemed now to question both the right and the obligation, and warned them against interference. But it was just because they were afraid this would happen that they opposed the peace and Convention with the Boers. They objected that the Natives were not really defended from the Boers, and that the terms of the Convention—terms against which the Boers all along protested—would prove to be as illusory and useless to the Natives as the remonstrances of the British Resident unsupported by any force. And so it had proved, if they might judge from the newspapers, though the Papers to be presented to the House might alter the case. But the ink on the Treaty was hardly dry before the Boers began to attack the Natives, and, doubtless, Native land would soon be annexed. He (Sir Henry Holland) had trusted to hear the Prime Minister state that if it was proved that loyal Natives, who had been formerly recognized as British subjects, had been attacked, the terms of the Convention should be enforced. The difficulties of managing affairs in South Africa were great enough, but they would be increased a hundredfold if the Natives once learnt to distrust English loyalty and honour. That, however, he feared would be the result of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the Transvaal and Zululand; and should such be the case the country would hold the Government responsible.
  MR. SALTsaid, he wished to ask two questions which were, he thought, kindred to the Vote which the Committee had under consideration. He wished to know whether the Resident in the Transvaal had any power of reporting to the English Government any cases of ill-treatment of Natives which might come under his notice; also whether, in case of complaint of such ill-treatment, the relations of the Government with the Resident were such that they could apply to him for information? These were, to his mind, very important questions; but, in addition to these, if answered in the affirmative, he would ask if the Government would make inquiries from the Resident concerning the matters stated in the House? Next, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who, with his

  1529
  usual capacity and sagacity, was trying to slip out of this troublesome business, whether, in the Estimates which would be presented for 1883–4, there would be contained a specific Vote for the salary of the Resident?—because, if that were so, a discussion of this important question might then be raised. If that were not the case, he thought it absolutely necessary, for the credit of the House and the country, that the discussion should be there and then continued. It was most important that the country should know at the earliest possible moment what the result of the Transvaal arrangement really was, especially in so far as the protection of the Natives was concerned. He also wished to have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the details of the Vote, which, as it stood, was, to say the least of it, exceedingly misty. He hoped this was the last Vote of the kind the House in. Committee would be asked to pass.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped this would be the last Vote of the kind they would have to ask the Committee to sanction. As to the expenses of the Resident, they formed a separate item, and they could be challenged or discussed when the Estimates for the year were brought on.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that, in consequence of what the Prime Minister had said, he would be most happy to place the letter from which he quoted in the hands of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon the distinct understanding that he would take great care that the identity of the writer was not betrayed to the authorities of the Transvaal. The Government would see from the terms of the letter that the writer was extremely apprehensive of being known.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he must answer all the questions of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) in the affirmative. The Resident had power to report, and he was constantly reporting. The Government would make inquiries concerning the points which had been raised; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) would give him the letter, extracts from which he had read, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would make the inquiries with all the safeguards the hon. and learned Gentleman desired. He would like to say one word as to what fell from the hon. Baronet the
  1530
  Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). The position the hon. Baronet had taken up in this matter was not quite fair. If hon. Members would look at the Blue Books already delivered and to be delivered to-morrow, they would see that the Government had persistently, within the terms of the Convention, done all they possibly could to protect the Natives within and without the Transvaal Borders. The Government could not go beyond the terms of the Convention, but within the terms they had done their best. Whether they were to go beyond the terms of the Convention, whether, as it had not been indistinctly urged, they were to go back to force, he did not think it would be dignified or right they should discuss on an occasion like the present. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Natives were in a state of protection from any violence or any dispute when Her Majesty's Government took over the Transvaal, and that when they gave it up all these things happened. Why, the disputes between the Boers and the Natives had been going on for the last 25 years. There was, no doubt, a little interlude during the time we occupied the place. What he wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Midhurst was that, so far as Mapoch was concerned, whose case had been brought up that night, he never gave in allegiance to the English Government. He promised to pay taxes, but that promise was never carried out. He had never been a subject of the British Crown, and he had never given allegiance to the Boers since we withdrew. The hon. Member for Midhurst, who was generally so fair, had left an impression that the Government had not done their best to protect the Natives as far as they were entitled under the terms arrived at with the Boers. The Blue Book would show that that assertion was not justifiable.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he felt some disappointment at the reply of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst had not been understood. What the hon. Baronet said was, not that the Government had not done all they could under the Convention, but that the powers reserved to them under the Convention were so insufficient that they could not do what was required. He

  1531
  was most anxious that whatever was necessary should be done to prevent the unfortunate Natives being handed over body and soul to the cruel Boers.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, and he was bound to say he did not think it was satisfactory as far as the Natives were concerned. If possible, he had listened to the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with more apprehension. The words he used were significant and painful. The Under Secretary of State indicated, after listening to the statement which the Primo Minister admitted was one which required investigation and attention, the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as to the painful and revolting cruelties practised on human beings who, a couple of years ago, wore, like ourselves, subjects of the Queen—the hon. Gentleman indicated that the present was a state of facts which had been going on for 20, 25, or 30 years. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, know when they entered into the Convention what they had to guard against; and the cool words of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State was that the revolting state of alternate cruelty and barbarism was checked or had an interlude during the time that the Natives enjoyed the protection of the English Crown and were Her Majesty's subjects. The Convention which had been entered into had been either efficacious or worthless in respect to the protection of the Natives. If it was efficacious it must be something capable of being appealed to to prevent the ill-treatment of the Natives; if it was worthless, it was only another instance of the mischievous policy of the Primo Minister and his Government. The Under Secretary of State said the Government or the Resident would do what they could or were able to do within the limits of the law. That was all very good if the law was good; but the law was the deliberate act of Her Majesty's Government, and the law was the Convention. What he wanted to know was, what power there was within the law for Her Majesty's Government to insist that the Natives should not be ill-treated, but should be treated as human beings? They had got a Resident there with moral power. What did they
  1532
  mean by that? If they wore satisfied to-morrow, when they were given the letter from which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had quoted that the things alleged had gone on, what could they do? Under the terms of their existing law, what could the Government do? What did they intend to do if they were satisfied that these cruelties had actually happened? It was impossible to disregard the charges that had boon made that night, for they had been supported by extracts from letters, the reading of which, at all events, had satisfied those who heard them that a primâ facie case had been made out for inquiry. It was impossible to have listened to the reading of the letters without grave misgivings. The Convention was made in spite of protestations. What could they do but morally protest if they were satisfied that the charges were well-founded? The Committee might, he presumed, venture to look forward to this—that the Government would, now that this debate had occurred, take the earliest possible means, by telegraph and otherwise, of ascertaining what foundation, if any, there was for the charges; and that they would, if there was any foundation for them, take care that such a disgraceful state of facts should cease as soon as possible. The Prime Minister used words they had heard often during the last two years—"Wait for Papers; the matter is not yet ripe." Whenever a charge had been brought forward in that House during the last two years they had been told—"Wait for Papers; the matter is not yet ripe." And when Papers were presented the Opposition were told that the matters to which they related were ancient history. That happened very much, if he remembered right, when his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), day after day, and month after month, asked for a day to discuss the proceedings of the Transvaal War. The right hon. Gentleman was put off until a day at the end of the Session, when the Government thought that public opinion in regard to the matter had cooled down. Let them no be plain. They were told by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) that on the Vote for the salary and expenses of the Resident the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing the

  1533
  affairs of the Transvaal. They would have an opportunity, of which they would avail themselves, of discussing what they then thought ripe; but they did not mean to be put off in regard to this subject until a later period than they considered proper. They hoped the Papers would be given on an early date, and that the matter would be made ripe for discussion. He trusted the Government would make investigations into the charges which had been made, and that they would soon be in a condition to inform the House that there was either no foundation for the charges, or else, there being some foundation for them, the Government would make representations to prevent a recurrence of the proceedings.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that before the Vote was put there should be some answer given to the appeal which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). His right hon. and learned Friend desired that an opportunity should be given by the Government, when the Papers were produced, for the consideration of the grave questions raised in the present debate. It was alleged that some hundreds of thousands of men, who were British subjects a few months ago, were now subjected to great cruelty, by reason of the fact that the Government failed in the arrangements they made with the Transvaal Government to secure means by which the Natives should be protected. Whether that allegation was true or not, it was so grave an allegation that the Government could not fail, he apprehended, to meet it in a fair and straightforward way. They were told they could not refuse to vote the money asked, because they had not information before them. Information was to be laid before them to-morrow. But then the Vote would have been passed, and there would be no opportunity for discussing the question. Before the Vote was taken there should be a distinct understanding that the Government would give an opportunity for the consideration of the question of which his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice. The Opposition desired to raise this question, this grave question affecting the honour and humanity of this country. It must be remembered that the Committee yearly voted large sums of money, and they were glad and proud
  1534
  to vote them, for the protection and deliverance of slaves on the West Coast of Africa. They deliberately exposed their sailors to the influences of a pestiferous climate, and they lost many annually in the protection of Natives in Africa who never were British subjects; and now when men, who only a few months ago were British subjects, were subjected to great cruelties, the Committee had a right to ask the Government to give them an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not quite understand the appeal that was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). Was it that on the ground of the allegations made that night, which the Government had undertaken, to the best of their power, to sift, and in anticipation of the information to be so obtained, the Government should promise to give up one or more Government nights, which alone were at their disposal, for the discussion of this question? Such an appeal was entirely premature, and with due regard to the obligations of the Government and to the transaction of Public Business it could not be acceded to. What his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had pointed out was that there must be upon the Estimates of the coming year a Vote proposed for the salary of the Resident, and that in that shape the Government must itself submit the arrangements made in the Transvaal for the consideration of the Committee.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been met in a spirit in which it ought not to have been met. It was asked whether there would be an opportunity afforded for discussing the particular question which had been raised that night. The Prime Minister said certainly. But they wanted to know when, for they feared that it might be probably about the end of August. That was the time at which the Estimates for these sort of things would naturally be brought forward. They were told there were Papers to be laid on the Table, and they were asking the Government not to take this Vote before hon. Members could see these Papers. No Member of the Government had risen to answer the forcible speech of the right

  1535
  hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). Certainly, unless some answer was given which would be satisfactory to the Committee, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should rise again in order to propose that the Vote be either postponed, or that the debate be adjourned. Until the Papers were laid before the Committee, he thought that was a reasonable course to pursue.
  MR. MONKsaid, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had been a Secretary to the Treasury himself, should not have remembered that there was another occasion on which the matter could be discussed—namely, the stage of Report. If the Vote was passed now it would not be taken on Report until after the Papers were in the hands of Members. If necessary, the matter could be fully discussed on the Report stage.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monk) seemed to forget that it was one of the duties of the Secretary to the Treasury never to bring on Report until it was impossible to discuss it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, as no one had risen to answer the appeal made to the Treasury Bench, he should take a division on the Vote. He would move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 128: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 17.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to obviate a misapprehension which he thought had arisen, and to point out to hon. Gentlemen that there must be a full opportunity afforded by the Government for the discussion on the Vote which would have to be proposed for the salary of the Resident in the Transvaal. It was hoped that that Vote might be taken at a comparatively early period, and it had never been at all within his intention that it should be moved so late in the Session as the month of August, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to suppose would be the case. The Government had made the best arrangements
  1536
  they could to got on with Supply; and as to the question now before the Committee, he had no difficulty whatever in saying that the Vote for the Resident's salary should be taken at a convenient period of the evening. He did not say that it should be taken out of its regular course, because it might so happen that it would come on in regular order at a convenient period of the evening; but, if it should prove to be necessary, he would promise that it should be taken out of its regular course.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the explanation of the Prime Minister had been given before the division was taken, he should not have thought it necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. But he had thought it absolutely essential to make a protest against the way in which the Government had chosen to treat the observations that had been made.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1882–3.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WOBKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Government whether, at that hour of the night—a quarter to 12 o'clock—it was not right to report Progress? Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury was not aware of the fact; but he wished to remind the Head of the Government of the pledge into which that right hon. Gentleman entered during the debates on the Procedure Rules last year. On that occasion this important question of discussions in Committee of Supply was carefully gone into; and the Prime Minister expressed a strong opinion that when the Speaker left the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays, without the intervention of any preliminary discussions, it was not unreasonable that Progress should be reported at midnight. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there was a distinct understanding to that effect; and it was understood

    1537
    that one of the great advantages which the House was to derive from the New Rules was that they were not to continue these Votes in Supply long after midnight. That was a distinct and clear understanding, and it was one of the terms on which the House agreed to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair on Mondays and Thursdays without any other Question being put. Considering that they had now been engaged in the discussion of Supplementary Estimates ranging over almost every variety of subject since 5 o'clock, he did not think it was unreasonable that those who had been sitting there for so many hours should ask the Government to report Progress. Therefore, without the least intention of obstructing Business, he moved that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was impossible for him to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord. They had now been engaged in Committee of Supply since 6 o'clock. The understanding to which the noble Lord referred amounted to this. It used to be a common thing to go on with Supply until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and they were very glad to get rid of the necessity for those late hours. But, tonight, they had had nearly an hour cut off at the beginning of their proceedings, and the noble Lord now proposed to cut off another quarter at the end, and that double process of the reduction of time would be very inconvenient indeed. Another special consideration which ought to be borne in mind was this, that these were not ordinary Estimates, but Supplementary Estimates, which must be passed before the close of the financial year. If the Government acceded to propositions of this kind at this stage, they would be compelled to ask the House to adopt other measures which would entail much greater inconvenience upon hon. Members in order to meet the requirements of the law.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that after this explanation he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, this was a Vote to pay the expense of providing accommodation for the spectators on the occasion of the Royal Review of the Forces that had returned from Egypt—the Review which took place in St. James's Park. He did not mean actually to oppose this Vote, though he believed that it would have been better if the troops had been kept at home. But to show the troops to the people of this country in this way when they came back was really making a military glorification of the Expedition. He had been given to understand that the honours awarded for this Egyption Expedition were a good deal more numerous and far greater than those which were awarded for the Waterloo Campaign—a campaign of far greater importance. No doubt, enormous credit was due to Lord Wolseley and to Her Majesty's Government for carrying this Egyptian Campaign through so bloodlessly and with so moderate an expense to its termination; but it was not necessary to make a point of military vapouring about honour and glory.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £5,200, Houses of Parliament.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERwanted an explanation on a matter which was not at all clear. A sum of £3,000 was charged for the House of Commons during the Autumn Session. He would not go into the question as to whether the country did or did not get value for that Autumn Session, but there was one item under Sub-head E—an item of £1,275 for furniture—which he wished to call attention to. Of that sum £600 was charged for furniture of the rooms for the Grand Committees, and that was not unreasonable; but the remainder of the excess was occasioned by the Autumn Session. He could understand the other items put down for the Autumn Session, such as salaries, ventilating, warming, lighting, and the rest; but he could not understand how the supply and repair of furniture could reach to that extent. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury would have some difficulty in offering a satisfactory explanation on the point.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could only point out that the ordinary charge for the supply and repair of fur-

    1539
    niture for the Houses of Parliament amounted to £6,000 a-year, and that included a great deal of wear and tear and repairing.
    EARL PERCYwanted to know what was the meaning of the very large sum which was charged for supplying additional presses for Members of the House in one of the Corridors? The item amounted to £340 for additional presses. He had examined these presses that afternoon, and he believed there were 50 new ones, and he submitted that £340 for 50 new lockers was an excessively large Estimate. This Vote was increasing year by year. Only three years ago the whole sum voted for the Houses of Parliament was £33,000. It was now increased in three years to £42,000, and the excess was by no means covered by the £3,000 put down as chiefly owing to the Autumn Session. He thought that if the House of Commons was intended to check the Expenditure of the country, it would do well to put some check upon the outlay upon this Vote.
    MR. SALTsaid, he hoped that another year his right hon. Friend would say at once what he wanted when the ordinary Estimates came up for consideration. These Supplementary Estimates were most unsatisfactory. In some cases they were, perhaps, inevitable; but in matters of ordinary annual expenditure each Department ought to know what it wanted. It was most unsatisfactory that these Supplementary Estimates should be continually coming in after the ordinary Votes were passed; and, under such an arrangement, it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to obtain a proper control over the Expenditure. If the National Expenditure was to be kept down to the point at which it ought to be kept down, it must be done by small economies—by looking after every £5 that was spent. If they continued to have ordinary Estimates in April, then Supplementary Estimates in July, and then Supplementary Estimates again in February, it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government, or the House of Commons, to preserve that proper control over economical expenditure for which the constituencies of the country very properly looked. He did hope that when his right hon. Friend produced his ordinary Estimates, after
    1540
    Easter, he would produce Estimates on which they might be able to rely, for it was very much better to vote a little too much at first than to have these Supplementary Estimates continually recurring. One word about the Autumn Session which applied to one or two of these Votes. He had a very strong feeling in his mind of which he would like to relieve himself, and that was, that the Vote for the Autumn Session ought to have been taken at the commencement of the Autumn Session. It was a necessary expenditure, and he felt very strongly that an Estimate for that necessary expenditure ought to have been placed before the House when they were launched, at great inconvenience, upon the Autumn Session. Instead of that having been done, Supplementary Estimates were now produced in the month of March, when the House could not refuse to pass them. An enormous amount of money had now to be spent over an Autumn Session which it would have been much better for them to have done without.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that, with the single exception of the presses, there was not one item in the Account which could possibly have been foreseen. He need hardly remind hon. Members that the Grand Committees were not talked about at the commencement of the Autumn Session.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he thought the sum of £340 for 50 presses was most enormous, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he got an estimate for them? If hon. Members were putting up such presses in their own houses, they would be very careful to find out what they would cost before they had them put up.
    EARL PERCYsaid, the item for the supply and repair of furniture during the Autumn Session was £675. He wished to know how the Autumn Session made it necessary to supply new furniture and to arrange for repairs at such a cost?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought an answer ought to be given to this question. He wanted to know why so much was spent for repair of furniture during the Autumn Session?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had already explained that the total cost was £6,000 for the whole of the Session, and that the excess for the Autumn Session

    1541
    was £675. The ordinary wear and tear of the House was very heavy indeed.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he thought that on both sides of the House there was dissatisfaction with the insufficiency of the explanation that had been given. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked as to the additional presses for Members, whether the amount of £340 was not excessive, and his answer was merely that he had been pressed for 50 presses and he had supplied them. He (Viscount Emlyn) did not know whether that was an official reply, or whether it was a courteous one; but the Committee was entitled to have an answer to the question, and if it were not to be given it appeared to him that the Committee might save itself the trouble of any criticism upon the Votes at all. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £340.
    Amendment proposed, "That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £340."—(Viscount Emlyn.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was sorry he could not give any further information, but he promised to make further inquiries, and if the noble Viscount would renew the question on a future occasion, he would endeavour to answer it.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that, at the same time, his right hon. Friend might give them some more information with regard to the excess under Sub-head E, for that was a matter which was perfectly inexplicable as it stood, and the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given had really not been satisfactory.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNexpressed his readiness to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £1,700, County Court Buildings.
    (7.) £350, Harbours, &c., under the Board of Trade.
    (8.) £6,700, Rates on Government Property.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought there ought to be some explanation of this Vote, as he did not see how it was that the Government did not
    1542
    know what rates would be imposed when the Estimates were presented.
    Mr. W. H. SMITHpointed out that there was some discrepancy in the figures, as there was an original Estimate given of £161,500, and another original Estimate of £201,088.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the explanation on this last point was very simple. The smaller original Estimate referred only to Sub-head C, the larger one to all the sub-heads. As to the question raised by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, there were certain items of taxation which could not be settled when the original Estimate was prepared. The original Estimate included all the then outstanding items.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERwished to know, with reference to the item of £3,150, under Sub-head C, for the rates for Public Buildings, Law Courts, Parks, Police Courts, &c., how much of the sum was for Parks and Police Courts, as he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
    MR. COURTNEYwas unable to say, but he would promise to inquire into the matter, and there would be many opportunities of raising the question.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not quite satisfied as to the item for Prisons, amounting to £660. The Government must have known perfectly well what the rateable value of those prisons were, for they had had them in their hands for a long time.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the matter was one between the Treasury and the local authorities. The local authorities sent in their Returns, and the Treasury could only accept them.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £4,741, Shannon Navigation.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought it would be well for the Secretary to the Treasury to explain how it was that so large an excess as one-third of the whole Vote was not anticipated when the Estimates were framed. This would seem to be an expenditure that might well have been allowed to stand over for another year; but, assuming it to be a proper expenditure, how was it that a sum of £4,741 was now asked for, when they were told that there would be a set-off of £1,000? A rule had been laid down that these extra receipts were not to be paid into the Exchequer,

    1543
    but were to be taken in diminution of the Vote. Was that sum of £1,000 to be paid into the Exchequer in contravention of the rule, or bow was it to be accounted for hereafter? This was one of many Votes which, to his mind, illustrated the objectionable practice which bad grown up in the Treasury of bringing forward these paltry excesses in the form of Supplementary Estimates, and calling the attention of the House to them in that form, so as to screen the Departments. These were matters which should be subjected to proper audit, for what was the use of the Auditor General if a Department was to be screened in this way from his criticisms? The proper Representative of the Department should be called before the Committee on Public Accounts, and made to explain why the Vote had been exceeded. This was not an Estimate at all, but the confirmation of an excess already incurred. He wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point, as it was likely to lead to a gross abuse.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was under some very strange misapprehension with regard to the arrangement at present in use concerning these Exchequer extra receipts. He (Mr. O'Connor) looked upon it as a very dangerous system for sums such as this to be taken in aid of Votes, and if such a system became general it would do much to counteract the healthy and proper control which the House had over the Public Expenditure. But with regard to this particular sum—a very small sum for the floods of the Shannon—it was very strange that this was the first time it had been seriously carped at. A Vote of £2,400 had just been passed for a Military Review in St. James's Park, which was of no earthly use to anyone; and now this sum, which was absolutely necessary to carry on important works in the Shannon—works which were essential to relieve hundreds of thousands of acres from periodical floods—was objected to. He wished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was a final charge in regard to the Shannon navigation? The sum originally asked for was £37,000, but that sum had been exceeded. In 1879–80, £5,000 was granted; in 1880–1, £20,000 was granted; and in 1881–2,
    1544
    £24,000 was granted. But of the £20,000 voted in 1880–1, no less than £5,875 was never expended, so that the extra Vote now granted did not even make up the sum which was voted two years ago by the House of Commons, but which never left the Treasury. That being so, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee whether all the works were now in perfect working order, and whether the weirs which were now in use would enable the floods to be drained off.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied that, according to the latest information he had, the works would be in perfect order by the end of this month. The increase had attracted the attention of the Treasury, and on inquiry they had found that the work had been very much impeded by the extremely inclement weather in Ireland, which had caused damage to the work in progress. With the exception of a sum of £700, this was the last amount required to complete the charge. The channel was now practically completed.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONinquired whether the whole cost of this work, amounting to £50,000 or £60,000, had been defrayed by the Treasury, or whether any portion of it came upon the rates? He also wished to knew whether the Financial Secretary would direct a Report on the working of the Shannon Sluices to be furnished to the House? These sluices were merely an experiment, and they were the first in connection with any Irish river; and as the hon. Gentleman had stated that the work would be completed by the end of the month, it was desirable to have a Report from the engineer as to the effect and results of these sluices without delay.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would at once admit the importance of watching the working of this experiment; but he thought some time must elapse before a Report could be called for. The sum of £700 was not really connected with this work, but was for continuing some other improvements. So far as he was aware the whole of this expense was borne by the Treasury.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £1,000, Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to know how far these buildings had ad-

    1545
    vanced, and what was their state of completion?
    MR. COURTNEYreplied, that what remained to be done was the alteration of certain rooms as offices.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to call attention to the remarkable development of this Estimate. As the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had pointed out, the Government had got into a habit of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates in an extraordinary way. The total original Estimate in this case was £25,765; then there was a Supplementary Estimate of £6,000 last Session; and now there was a further sum of £2,000—making altogether an increase of 33 per cent upon the first Estimate. There must be some explanation of this, for the first Estimate was supposed to be the Estimate for the whole year. The Government had probably taken credit to themselves for having proposed only £25,000, and yet they required £8,000 more before the year was out. He would like to know something about the item for sanitary works at the Washington Embassy. Why had these been carried out since the Estimate was first proposed? The Government must have known when they introduced the Estimate that these works were required; and he wished to know why there was this additional Vote, when the Government knew there was a strong feeling in the House against spending money? Then with regard to the graves of soldiers in the Transvaal, were they under the superintendence of an Ambassador or a Consul? Had they a Consul out there?
    MR. COURTNEY: There is a Resident.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: He is not under the Foreign Office. He communicates with the Colonial Office.
    MR. COURTNEY: This is not a Foreign Office matter.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he could not understand why this matter was put under the Foreign Office. He thought there was some meaning in it. Why the cemeteries in the Transvaal, which had nothing to do with Diplomatic business, should be put in this Vote was more than an outsider like himself could understand. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why an Estimate was not originally taken for the sanitary works at Washington, for the Consular offices at Bankok, and for these graves in the Transvaal?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, if the Treasury had known of these sanitary works at Washington they would have included them in the original Estimate; but, in point of fact, after the Estimate was made up, a telegram was received stating that the Embassy buildings were in an unhealthy condition, and that it was absolutely necessary to do something at once. The Treasury therefore sent out a surveyor, and he found that the buildings were in an extremely dangerous condition, and that improvements were absolutely necessary. With regard to the Consular buildings at Bankok, it was originally intended to spread that work over two years, but they had received an intimation that the work would be completed shortly, because it was impossible to carry on building work in that country at any other period of the year, and they had therefore thought it better to spend £800 more at once than to throw the work later in the year. With respect to the soldiers' graves in the Transvaal, the hon. Member appeared to be unaware that the original Vote contained an item for the graves of soldiers in the Crimea. The charge was only £200, and he was sure the Committee would not object to grant that.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had no objection to the Vote in itself, but there was no analogy between the graves in the Crimea and those in the Transvaal, because the former were under a Consul, whereas the latter were not, and therefore they ought not to be put into this Vote.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had no doubt that the Treasury thought that the same Office should have charge of all the graves.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman entirely unsatisfactory. The Committee

    1547
    must be aware that if the Government were allowed without difficulty to carry Supplementary Estimates, they would engage in new works without the previous knowledge of the House. The right hon. Gentleman stated with regard to the works at Washington that at some time last year the buildings were reported to be in an insanitary condition; but what did he do? He actually sent over a surveyor from this country to make a Report as to what should be done in the matter. He objected to this waste of public money in sending over a surveyor, instead of placing the matter in the hands of someone at Washington; and he should like to know what class of work was done. Then with regard to the Consular offices at Bankok, the Treasury had gone to expense without thinking it necessary to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon it; and they gave no satisfactory reason for not including this item in the original Estimate. There was no justification for this, and he therefore would move to reduce the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked what proportion the expenses of the surveyor bore to the amount now charged? It struck him as an extraordinary thing to send a surveyor from this country to Washington for a small matter which could have been dealt with by people on the spot.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member seemed to be unaware that there was a Government surveyor, whose duty it was to survey Diplomatic buildings. That was the only way in which they could control expenditure. Expenditure to a large amount was constantly pressed upon them from all parts of the world, and it was only by sending a man from head-quarters to make special investigations that they were able to control this kind of expenditure, and he ventured to think that this system had been very effective in diminishing expenditure in a variety of ways. But for such con-
    1548
    trol these Estimates would be far greater than they had been. When the Treasury heard from the Minister to the United States that the Embassy was in a bad state, they thought the most economical way of ascertaining the facts and controlling expenditure was to send this surveyor out to inquire into the matter, and the total expense was not £40. He did not think this was an unwise course, having regard to all the circumstances; and but for this system the expenditure would very easily grow into a much greater amount.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought there was certainly some reason in what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and that in the case of Constantinople it was wise to send out a special surveyor, because there there were a large number of buildings, and there was a constant desire to spend money. But with regard to Washington, he thought a fee of £10 to a Sanitary Inspector on the spot would have supplied the Treasury with what they wished to know. He did not object to the Vote itself; but there was always something going on at these places, and he thought the Committee ought to protest against these items being put in the Supplementary Estimates. For that reason he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. DILLWYNasked what was the limit of expenditure on works upon which this surveyor was sent to all parts of the world?
    MR. GIBSONasked whether, as the principle was that this surveyor should be sent out to all parts of the world, he was sent to Bankok; and, as several hon. Members had some doubt as to were Bankok was, the right hon. Gentleman would ascertain from the Foreign Office, or elsewhere?
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he could not help thinking these Estimates were made up in a very slipshod fashion. With reference to Bankok, it had been originally proposed that one-fourth of the building should be done in the year; but now it seemed that three-fourths had been done. In regard to this surveyor, did he receive an annual salary, or was he only employed for each occasion separately? If he received a salary, how was he employed when not travelling?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied, that the surveyor was only sent out in re-

    1549
    ference to important works. He was a salaried officer, and when not employed in that way he was engaged in advising the authorities at home. He was not sent to Bankok. The original intention was to commence the building at Bankok between the present financial year and the next, and to spread the payment over the two years; but after that had been determined upon the Treasury learnt that the building season was a short one, and it was necessary to proceed with the work at once.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he thought that any hon. Member who had any knowledge of drainage work would be glad to get it done at once; and it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had done all that was in his power.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know how much of this £1,000 was spent on the journey of the surveyor? Were his expenses included in the £1,000? [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] These sanitary works, therefore, cost £1,000, plus the expenses of the journey. Surely it would have been easy to obtain a satisfactory Report from someone in Washington, which might have been checked by this distinguished surveyor. He should support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), seeing that the original Estimate had been increased by 33 per cent.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, his right hon. Friend had already explained that the total cost of sending out this salaried officer had been about £40. He doubted very much whether any economy would have resulted from employing someone at Washington, for he knew something about that city, and he should not be content to trust to surveyors at Washington, where the question of drainage was one of peculiar difficulty.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 92: Majority 33.—(D.List, No. 18.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there had not been, under this Vote, a saving in two items—namely, "A" and "C," which almost amounted to the extra sum now asked for, and whether there had not been every year a small saving almost sufficient to cover the Supplementary Estimates?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was not aware of any saving at present. When the Estimate was brought forward, they might be aware of such a thing; but they could not propose a small sum now on the mere chance of there eventually being a saving of which they now knew nothing.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B.BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that now, at five minutes to 1 o'clock, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no objection to reporting Progress. They had been discussing the Estimates since a little before 6 o'clock. He therefore begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Committee surely would not adjourn the discussion of the Estimates before 1 o'clock, when it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the Vote should be got through that day. If the whole of the Estimates were not got through at the next Sitting, they would have to sit either on Saturday next or the Thursday in Holy Week. He would now suggest to the Committee that they should sit another half-hour, so as to improve the chance of getting through the whole of the Votes at the next Sitting.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had no objection to going on with Supply for another half-hour; but he would respectfully ask some authority on the Treasury Bench to explain to the Committee how and why it was absolutely necessary to have these Votes taken by a particular date. They were told at the last Sitting that it was absolutely necessary to take the Army Estimates to-day. They had not been taken today, and yet the Constitution would go on without any disastrous consequences. Why was it that the Government were constantly telling them it was absolutely necessary to take particular Votes on a particular day? He had made as careful a calculation as he could, but for the life of him he could not make out why

    1551
    it was so necessary that more of these Votes should be finished to-day.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Committee was aware that this year Easter fell unusually early. The result of that was that they must get through not only the whole of the Supplementary Votes, but also the first Votes, the Army and Navy Estimates, and must pass the Ways and Means Bill through both Houses, so as to get the Royal Assent, and take the first Vote on Account for Civil Service before Easter. Easter was on the 25th, and they would have no time between that and the 29th, which was positively the last day on which Treasury operations could be conducted. It was necessary that they should take all these Votes he had referred to, and get the Ways and Means Act assented to by Her Majesty before Good Friday. He presumed the House would not sit on Good Friday, and that would take them at least to the 22nd of this month. If hon. Members would consider how many days it would take to pass the Ways and Means Act, not only through this House, but also through the House of Lords—although in that Chamber they could take two or three stages together—they would see that if the Government did not get the Votes which were necessary on Thursday and Monday and Thursday week, they would have to sit on those days before Easter that, at any rate, they had not been accustomed to sit on—on Good Friday and the day after, or meet again on Easter Tuesday.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether it was understood that if they did not get through on Thursday and Monday they would have to sit on Thursday in Passion Week?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)replied, that if they concluded the Supplementary Estimates on Thursday, and took the following Monday for the Army Estimates, and the following Thursday for the Navy Estimates, they might just get through.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: When does the Government contemplate rising for the Easter Recess?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot say; but we shall not be able to rise before the Thursday unless we get these Votes and pass the Ways and Means Bill.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: If we get through, will the Easter Holidays begin on the Tuesday?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): They might.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee wore anxious to proceed he would withdraw his Motion. He would, however, point out that if they allowed the Estimates to be taken as they had been taken that night, their New Rules would be of no avail. They ought not to pass Votes in this perfunctory manner, for on Thursday the Speaker would at once leave the Chair.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (12.) £6,300, Foreign Office.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, they could not be expected to pass this Vote without making one or two remarks upon it. It involved a large additional sum for telegrams sent to and from the Foreign Office, which were referred to as consequent on the state of things on the Continent. That was clearly a mis-statement or euphemism. The telegrams had not been sent in consequence of the state of things on the Continent, but in consequence of the state of things in Egypt. As he objected altogether to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt, he naturally objected to this very large addition for telegrams. It had often been said that the Expenditure of the country must depend upon the foreign policy of the Government, and this was an instance of the foreign policy of the Government leading to a very large expenditure. There was not only a sum of £6,000, but later on in the Estimate there was one of £16,000 in addition; so that, in fact, the policy of Her Majesty' Government, in regard to Egypt had imposed on the country, in the single item of telegrams to and from the Foreign Office, the sum of £22,000, in addition to the ordinary Estimate. He could not part with this question without some protest against this additional sum and against this expenditure having become necessary on account of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not complain of his right

    1553
    hon. Friend's criticism—in fact, he had anticipated that it would be necessary to explain to the Committee the large additional sum that was asked for. One part of his right hon. Friend's criticism he admitted the justiceof—namely, that in which he had said it would have been better if some other word had been used than "Continent," or some further word added, because, no doubt, the expenditure under this head had been caused by the telegrams which had been sent in regard to affairs in Egypt. No doubt, in common parlance, the word "Continent" was rather a mistake. He might be allowed to say to the Committee that, perhaps indirectly, some little good might arise out of what he admitted to be a heavy and unusual item for telegrams in the Supplementary Estimate and in the total Estimate for the present financial year. The large item had naturally caused the Secretary of State to devote his attention to the subject of telegrams to and from the Foreign Office. A close examination had been made of the subject, and he was in hopes—although he could not pledge himself on the matter—that it would be found possible to bring about a considerable reduction in future years—a reduction below what might be called the ordinary Estimates. With this explanation he sincerely hoped the Committee would grant the sum asked for.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, it was satisfactory to hear that the Foreign Office were looking into this matter, as they had promised to do so for several years. But the noble Lord had not dealt with a point on which he (Sir Henry Holland) and others entertained a strong feeling. The Foreign Office went on putting down as an original Estimate an amount which they knew, from the experience of past years, must be far below the sum which would be required for telegraphic expenses. The Estimate was £7,000, and the Supplementary sum was £6,000; and if they looked at the Diplomatic Department, they would find the original Estimate for telegraphing £5,000, and the Supplementary Estimate £16,500. He had found fault with the Estimate on these grounds last year. Granting that the Foreign Office had every desire to reduce the expenditure on telegrams, he should not be satisfied until the original
    1554
    Estimate bore some proportion to the expense likely to be incurred during the year.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEwished to make a practical suggestion. Would it not be possible to reduce the expenditure by somewhat curtailing the practice of repeating telegrams that they received to their Ambassadors abroad? The practice used to be that when a telegram came from a particular Embassy to repeat it to all the others. That was a system which had been started, and, to his mind, had been considerably abused, and he thought a considerable amount of saving might be effected in that direction.
    SIR H.DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know how it was that there was such a discrepancy between the original Estimate and the amount to be voted? There was no reason why all these items in the original Estimate should not be considerably nearer the mark.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not know whether it would be regular for him on this Vote to discuss the Vote referred to; but, if the Committee would accord him permission to do so, it might, perhaps, save time. There could be no doubt that the chief field for reduction lay in the telegrams sent to the Foreign Office rather than in those sent from it; and the Secretary of State, in order to bring about a reduction in the expenditure in a quarter where he believed it could be reduced, was keeping a much closer watch than used to be kept on the telegrams sent from our Agents abroad. The Vote under which this matter would come would be found lower down the list of Votes. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) was an exceedingly useful one. It was one which was not altogether new to Her Majesty's Government; but it was very important, and doubly important coming, as it did, from one who had a special knowledge of the matter. He could assure the hon. Member that this matter, amongst others, was receiving attention.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the noble Lord had not answered the question which had been put to him—namely, why, after the experience the Foreign Office had had in former years, they should come for such a ridiculously small sum, knowing that they would have to ask for twice as much in the end?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEadmitted that was a question which must be answered. He thought he had answered it, because he had pointed out that the large excess this year over the Estimate was owing to circumstances which were not foreseen when the amount was fixed, those circumstances being the condition of affairs in Egypt. If it had not been for the state of things in Egypt he did not think they would have had to come for such a large sum. It was true that a complaint of this kind had arisen in former years; but he firmly believed that there would not have been ground for it this year but for the Egyptian complications.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that, in justice to the permanent officials of the Foreign Office who prepared these Estimates, it must be said that the Estimates originally framed were as nearly correct as possible, and the additional amount was entirely due to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. As to telegrams in general, he believed that the more there were received and sent within a certain degree of reasonableness the better and the safer for the country, for he believed it was highly desirable that Her Majesty's Government should be well informed, generally speaking, as to the condition of affairs abroad. He did not complain of the general Estimate, but of the excess, which was entirely owing to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.
    EARL PERCYsaid, the amount altogether was greater, with one exception, than it had been for many years past.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £3,500, Board of Trade.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, some explanation of this Vote was necessary, and if it was not satisfactory, he should feel it his duty to move a reduction of the Vote by £3,300. It was stated that "the excess is caused mainly by the increase in the number of inquiries." That was very vague and required explanation.
    MR. J. HOLMSadmitted that the explanation was very vague. Inquiries had increased in reference to load lines and like points. He thought the Committee would allow that such inquiries were very necessary.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought he was correct in saying that the Board
    1556
    of Trade had a paid solicitor and a solicitor's staff. Was it to be understood that the charge of £21,600 for Law Charges was a charge outside the cost of the regular staff of officials which, no doubt, advised the President of the Board of Trade, and conducted all prosecutions and, he presumed, all inquiries? If it was a charge apart from the regular staff, it certainly represented a large charge indeed for additional assistance.
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, the inquiries were from time to time increasing in number, and the ordinary staff could not carry out all of them.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked if he was to understand that the ordinary staff was paid for making inquiries? It did seem extraordinary there should be a charge of £21,600 for Law Charges which wore altogether independent of the staff of the Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not think it would be found, on investigation, that this excess was caused mainly by the increase in the number of inquiries. He imagined the Committee on Public Accounts would find, under the Sub-head I, that there were a number of things which could hardly be classed as inquiries. Last year the Comptroller and Auditor General remarked upon the excess of this particular item, and, amongst other things, he said—
    "There is, as far as I am aware, no Parliamentary authority for sanctioning these Votes."
    He (Mr. A. O'Connor) made no doubt there was in the item of £3,300 provision made for matter which had never been set in the Estimates of the House, and which, in due time, would be noticed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report. As to the Board of Trade, he wished to point out that it was incumbent on the Board, under several Acts of Parliament, to furnish a number of Returns with regard to piers and so forth. None of such Returns had been furnished as yet; in fact, every Return which ought to have been furnished this year was now in arrear. Last year this arrear was more noticeable in the Department of the Board of Trade than in any other. Now, when the Board of Trade was coming forward asking the House to give it increased powers with regard to trade and bankruptcy, there seemed little chance of the

    1557
    Business being got through unless a very stringent hold of the Department was kept by the House. He would ask whether any steps had been taken to get rid of the arrears in regard to Returns?
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, he had placed a number of Papers on the Table of the House in regard to Fishery Harbours and Piers. Some of them were of a local character.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Holms) would understand he did not wish to press him unduly or improperly when he said that if there was a professional staff belonging to a Department, that professional staff ought to discharge the duties of the Department. Surely the legal staff of the Board of Trade was large enough to be able to conduct the business without coming to Parliament for a Vote of such an enormous amount as £21,600 for assistance.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),remarked that these duties only fell on the permanent staff to a very small degree. Many local inquiries had been lately held, and much expense outside the Office necessarily incurred.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that a Judge had to go down into the country from London. If that was so, he could not see why an official of the Board of Trade should not.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) £2,053, Charity Commission.
    MR. MONKsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury could give some explanation of this Vote. He thought there had been a Resolution passed in the House to the effect that the Charity Commission was to pay its own expenses. The Resolution was not passed in the present Parliament, but it was understood the subject would be considered by this Government. It seemed strange that this Vote should come up now on the Supplementary Estimates, at a time at which they could not discuss the principle involved.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Vote related to a particular branch of endowed schools, and it was to provide for three months' salaries of the officers.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, what was the intention of the Government with regard to the power of the
    1558
    Charity Commissioners as Endowed Schools Commissioners?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that was a question the Committee would not wish to enter upon now.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was intended to introduce a Bill on the subject this Session?
    MR. COURTNEYcould not say.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £465, Civil Service Commission.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it might be very properly asked why all these salaries and expenses were not thought of before the original Estimate was made? This Vote was for salaries, and allowances, and incidental personal expenses, all of which must have been perfectly well known at the time the original Estimate was produced.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Vote was due to an automatic increase in the number of candidates. If there was an increased number of candidates, provision must be made for them.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether competitive examination had been introduced in the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, or whether it was still close?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied, that vacancies, both in the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, were now filled up after competition among candidates nominated by the Secretary of State. As a general rule, it might be said that there were six competitors for each vacancy.
    Vote agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was half-past 1, and he, therefore, moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would not raise any opposition to the Motion.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked when the Estimates would be printed and circulated? He did not think it reasonable they should be asked to consider the Estimates immediately they were put in their hands. There was a great delay

    1559
    in the production of Papers, and therefore they should receive the Estimates some days before they were called upon to vote them.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.— [BILL 6.]
  [Sir Charles Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Hibbert.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.— [BILL 6.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved that the Bill be read a second time, on the understanding that the Committee stage should not be taken until after Easter. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had given Notice of opposition to the Bill, had consented to that course.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Bill would be brought forward at a time when it could be properly and reasonably discussed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Certainly.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERinquired if the Bill was to go before one of the Grand Committees?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 19th March.

  SEED ADVANCES (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 108.]
  (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Cochran-Patrick, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Mackintosh.)
  SEED ADVANCES (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 108.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CAMERON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would be very much disinclined to trouble the House at that hour of the morning (1.35), were it not that the Bill related to a matter of extreme urgency. At the present moment a lamentable amount of destitution prevailed in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and that destitution had been brought about
    1560
    by an extraordinary concurrence of calamities. Last year, not only did the potato crop, on which the crofter population largely depended, fail, but a storm ravaged a number of districts and destroyed the oat crop. To add to that, many of the fishing boats were destroyed by storms, and, generally, fishing in the sea was a failure. Under these circumstances, a movement was set on foot for the relief of the people, particularly of the Island of Lewis. Subscriptions were collected, not only in the districts themselves, but an appeal was made to the Cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow and elsewhere. It was asserted, by a deputation from Lewis, that the amount of destitution there was much greater than could be met by charitable relief; and the Committee appointed to collect subscriptions in Glasgow at the beginning of the year, found from the applications made to it from all parts of the Highlands that it was so hopeless to cope with the distress by means of private charity, that it addressed a Memorial to the Government for extraordinary relief. In that Memorial the Glasgow Committee asserted what was corroborated by testimony from all parts of the destitute districts—that the distress was unequalled by anything which had occurred since 1846. There was great destitution, not merely in Lewis, in Skye, and other Islands, but, to a certain extent, on the mainland—in Inverness, Sutherland, and Ross-shire. The destitution had, up to the present, assumed an acute phase in certain places only; but from every place there came a great demand for seed. The potato crop last year was a total failure, or almost a total failure, and what potatoes the inhabitants had not been obliged to consume for food were of such a diseased character as to be of no use for seed. The oat crop was also a failure; and the object with which he introduced the Bill was to meet a very sad emergency—an emergency which had not been equalled in the history of the Highlands during the last 40 years. When, a few years ago, great destitution prevailed in Ireland, the Conservative Government of the day passed an Act enabling loans to be made to the destitute tenants, in order that they would be able to procure seed. They knew that the results of that Act had not been very encouraging; but this Bill, while based on the same general principle, was very different

    1561
    in detail. They proposed that under this Bill interest should be charged, while the loans in the case of Ireland were made without interest. In the present case the advance was limited in extent, and it was proposed that it should be made to the parish on security which was absolutely undoubted. He thought he was perfectly safe in saying that any loan made under this Bill would be absolutely certain of repayment. The assistance proposed to be given was in the shape of loan. It was to be given to the parish on the application of the Parochial Board, and with the sanction of the Board of Supervision. The Parochial Boards were to have the power of giving small loans not exceeding £5, and the loans were to be limited to the case of tenants under £15. There had been one or two hon. Members who took objection to this proposal—his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), for example, who apparently held that the assistance should be rather by way of gift. That was a proposal to which, however, he was afraid that Government would not agree. It might be said that the sum of money was so small that it might easily be borrowed from private Companies. He quite admitted that such machinery might be put in force if there were time. It was now the 6th of March, and seed-time was just upon them. It might be said that the landowners might make the necessary advances. It must be remembered that the proprietors were often life-renters, and that they could not safely make such advances without special legislation. It seemed to him that there could be no possible objection on principle to making advances to tenants for the purpose of enabling them to tide over an extraordinary crisis. It appeared to him there was no difference in principle between the advances he recommended and advances to a landowner for the purpose of enabling him to effect improvements, or to a municipality or school board for educational and sanitary purposes. The object was quite as laudable in the one case as in the other. ["Divide!"] He should not have trespassed upon the House where it not for the extreme urgency of the matter. There were but few days during which any relief could be given; and what he was afraid of was that unless relief be given immediately, unless these men be enabled to plant their
    1562
    ground, the same thing would happen as happened in 1846; they would find themselves, at the end of this season, drifting into a state of chronic pauperism, such as existed formerly for five years, and which would necessitate an expenditure of public money much more formidable in amount than that now asked for. The amount asked to be advanced was a mere bagatelle contrasted with the amount which that House wasted upon infinitely less important objects. He would repeat that his object was to prevent the Highlands drifting into the state into which they drifted in 1846, and he believed that might be done by making small advances promptly. He thought the principle upon which this proposal was based had been admitted on both sides of the House in 1880, and he therefore moved the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not propose to enter into the merits of this Bill now, for it was one which it was quite impossible to discuss at that time of night (1.45). He entirely sympathized with the object of the hon. Member; but he felt bound to say, speaking from his knowledge of their character, that the Scotch people were quite able to take care of themselves. But, however that might be, the principle of the Bill would require very grave consideration, and he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he hoped the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) would consent to the Motion, as he thought the Bill could not be adequately discussed at that hour.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was not so much concerned for the amount involved as for the principle of the Bill, for it proposed that money should be advanced without any security, and probably, in many cases, without any prospect of its being repaid. He regarded this as a very serious question, and he was anxious to have the debate adjourned in order that the Government

    1563
    might lay before the House any information they possessed which would justify a Bill of this kind. Such a measure ought to be a Ministerial measure, and should not be brought in by a private Member without any assurance from the Government that they would help the Bill through.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought this so important a matter—not as far as the amount of money involved was concerned as in regard to the principle—that if the Government favoured the proposal, as he understood they did, they ought to introduce a Bill themselves.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Government were usually guided in such matters as this by precedent. The Seed Loans Bill for Ireland was not brought in by the Government, but by a private Member; and the present Bill was for a very much smaller amount, upon totally different security. He did not think it would be possible for the Government to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion; but the question should be considered in the light of experience.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that, in view of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be absurd for him to attempt to press the Bill now; but he wished to urge the necessity for whatever was to be done being done at once. If nothing was to be done in the next few days, it would be better to reject the Bill at once, and so let the country know exactly how the matter stood.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSING COMMITTEES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BARRAN, Bill to remove the disabilities of Magistrates who are Shareholders in Railways from sitting on Public House Licensing Committees, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARRAN, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, and Mr. JACKSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

    CLERICAL DISABILITIES (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ROUNDELL, Bill to remove the disabilities affecting the eligibility of persons in Holy Orders to sit in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ROUNDELL, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Mr. THOROLD ROGERS, and Mr. GREGORY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.

EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any intelligence respecting the meetings which have been held in Madras and Calcutta with reference to the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill; and also—which is the most important part of my Question—whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have pledged themselves to carry the Bill through, and whether the Bill has received the formal approval of Her Majesty's Government in England?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no official information respecting the meetings in Madras and Calcutta. As to the last part of the Question of the noble Marquess, I may say that he will find in the Papers I propose to lay on the Table to-morrow, and which I hope will be distributed in a few days, that the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council was formally given to the Bill.

BRAITHWAITE AND BUTTERMERE RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, it was so exceptional a Bill that it ought to be dealt with in an exceptional manner. It would disfigure the most beautiful and frequented part of the lake scenery without any advantage to the public. It would only convey slates that were then carried in 10 light carts without any suffering to the 10 horses. It had been received throughout the neighbourhood with the greatest dismay and apprehen-

  1365
  sion. The peculiarity of this proposed railway lay in the fact that it ended in a slate quarry in Honister Pass, destroying the picturesque wildness of that celebrated ravine. It would lead to no town, and would accommodate no population. The population of the district was very scanty, consisting mainly of farmers who carried their market produce in small carts. No tourists would use it, because it could carry no one to the fine scenery, but only through it. The number of visitors was estimated at 5,000 annually. He appealed to their Lordships to protect the natural beauty of their favourite holiday ground, which refreshed and delighted the hard-worked artizans of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and repaired the mental exhaustion of professional and literary men from all parts of the country. The interests of the public were not represented before Committees on Private Bills.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, so far as he was able to judge, there might be objection taken to the Bill on the ground that it was a private concern, and therefore ought not to have compulsory powers granted to it. He wished that some noble Lord had risen to take part in the discussion who was in favour of the Bill, so that the House might know what arguments could be adduced on its behalf. Any remarks he himself had to make would come in more appropriately after the arguments in favour of the Bill had been stated.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the better way of dealing with the Bill would be to refer it to a Select Committee, so that the House might be put in possession of all the facts. He admired the part of the country through which the line proposed to pass as much as his noble Friend opposite (Lord Mount-Temple); but, at the same time, the promoters might be able to show that the railway would not disfigure the country and would be of some utility. He thought that the better course would be to allow the Bill to pass a second reading, reserving opposition, if it should then be thought desirable, for the third reading.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not-Contents 11: Majority 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

  Brabourne, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Belmore, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Camperdown, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Derby, E.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Devon, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Granville, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Ramsay L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Lytton, E.

  Minto, E.

  Reay, L.

  Morley, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Nelson, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Sydney, E.

  Sudeley, L.

  Cranbrook, V. [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Albany, H.R.M. D.

  Mount-Temple, L. [Teller.]

  Westminster D. [Teller.]

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Cowper, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L

  Feversham, E.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Manvers, E.

  Waveney, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2ª accordingly.

NAVY—PAY OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in rising to call attention to the Bates of Pay of the officers of the Royal Navy, and to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he could hold out any hopes of an increase in those rates in accordance with the increased expense of living at the present day in comparison with that when those rates were fixed? said, that although this subject was one of great interest to those who were affected by it, the question was really a very simple one, and he need not take up much of

  1367
  their Lordship's time. He would begin at the lowest rank. The pay of a naval cadet was 1s. a day, and that of a midshipman 1s. 9d. a-day. He need not, however, dwell on those ranks, as their pay did not represent their cost to the country, owing to the fact that they practically—if not literally—received a free education. He would pass on to the rank of lieutenant, the rank where the greatest grievance was felt. And here he would go into the history of the pay of lieutenants from a very early period. He found that prior to 1693 they received 2s. 6d. a-day, or 3s. in first or second rates. In 1693, 5s. a day, or 6s. in first or second rates. In 1700 this was reduced to 4s. and 5s. a-day respectively, and so it continued nearly all through the last century. In 1796 it was increased to 5s. a-day, but was the same in all rates except that there was 6d. a-day extra in flagships. In 1806 it was raised to 6s. a-day, with 6d. a-day extra in flagships. It so continued for 10 years until 1816, when it was increased to 6s. 6d. a-day, and 8s. 3d. for a 1st lieutenant of seven years' standing, with 6d. a-day extra in flagships. In 1840 it was raised to 10 s. a-day, or 10 s. for 1st lieutenants of seven years' standing, but flagship's pay was abolished. So it remained till this day, although the purchasing power of the sovereign was considerably diminished. Lieutenants in independent command received either 3s. 9d. or 2s. 6d. a-day command money, according as they were attached to seagoing or harbour ships, or their tenders, and lieutenants appointed for navigating duties, and gunnery lieutenants received sums varying from 4s. to 1s. 6d. a-day extra; but what he might call ordinary lieutenants, who had to maintain the position of gentlemen, only received 10 s. a-day. If such an officer went into a Colonial port, such as Sydney, he would find artizans such as ship-caulkers receiving higher daily wages than his day's pay. When he (the Earl of Belmore) was at Sydney, ship-caulkers received 12 s. a-day, whilst they had an inferior position to maintain, and, in fact, were so well off that they could not be relied on to stick steadily to work. But when he came to the half-pay rates, he found lieutenants receiving, according to standing, from 4s. to 8s. 6d. a-day. In these days many officers were lieutenants up to 37 or 38 years of
  1368
  age, and had themselves, and perhaps a wife and family, to maintain on 8s. 6d. a-day. He had seen a calculation made that only two lieutenants out of every nine could, on arithmetical principles, expect to reach the rank of commander. Perhaps this was rather an exaggerated estimate, as he understood there were 700 lieutenants, and that the Commanders' List was, or was to be, fixed at 150. This would give one only in every four and a-half who could hope for promotion. He was aware that there were different rates for retired lieutenants, but he did not propose to go into that part of the subject. This was varied for captains, commanders, and lieutenants from £600 down to £200 a-year. He now came to commanders. These officers received full pay at the rate of £1 a-day, with either 3s. 9d. to, 2s. 6d. command money. But their half-pay, according to their distance from the top of the list, and whether or not, if near the top, they had served a year at sea, was either 8s. 6d. or 10 s. a-day. On this they might have to live and maintain a family until 47 or 48 years of age. Captains received £1 13 s., or£l 7s. 6d., or £1 2s. 6d., according to their position on the list, with command money varying from 18 s. to 5s. a-day. Perhaps there was not much fault to be found with the full pay of the captains, but their half-pay varied from about £301 to £228 a-year. He was aware that at the present moment a number of comparatively young captains were going on to the flag list; but these were officers who had entered the Service shortly before the Crimean War, and had had the benefit of the Crimean promotions and death vacancies. After a time captains would be getting up to 55 years of age. The noble Earl then stated the full and half-pay of chief engineers. He also said that he had been requested to draw the First Lord's attention to the case of Warrant officers. Having only received the communication since he came down to the House, he could only mention it. These officers complained as to their pensions, provision for orphans, and also that their rates of pay, or some of them, were the same as they were 80 years ago. He thought it better to content himself with drawing the noble Earl's attention to the subject, rather than asking their Lordships to agree to what could only be an abstract Motion, which

  1369
  was all that could be done in that House, as it was for the House of Commons to deal with the Navy Estimates. The noble Lord concluded by putting the Question of which he had given Notice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to call attention to the fact that a post-captain when named to a ship was expected, as a matter of custom, to spend money on its embellishment, and he was told that even lieutenants had contributed in the same way. That was a thing which should not be allowed by the Admiralty.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that, in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, he was sorry he could not give any assurance that the rates of pay of the officers of the Navy would be increased, for the Estimates had been framed for the ensuing year without any such increase having been provided for. The noble Earl had given particulars as to the pay of various classes of officers, and undoubtedly this was a question of very great importance and must be always interesting to their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, although it must not be forgotten that those who entered the Military and Naval Professions, or sent their sons into them, were not influenced altogether—often, indeed, not at all—by pecuniary considerations, but by other motives. The question of the adequacy of the pay of officers must not be lost sight of. On inquiring into the history of the pay in the Navy, as he did on seeing the noble Earl's Notice, he found that successive Boards of Admiralty had bestowed great attention on the subject, and had from time to time made such alterations in the pay and allowances of the officers as they thought expedient, and thus the position of officers had of late years been considerably improved. He himself occupied rather a curious position, inasmuch as he had had the great advantage of serving as Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty when his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) in 1856 was First Lord. His attention had, therefore, been particularly directed to these questions; he naturally looked back to the time when he was first connected with the Service for a comparison between the pay and allowances then and at present, and he found that the position of almost every rank of officers had been considerably
  1370
  improved since 1856. The allowances to admirals, commodores, and captains had been increased, and the pay and allowances of commanders had been considerably augmented. Although the pay of lieutenants had remained the same for a long time, yet since 1856 they had received a considerable increase in allowances. There was an increase in the allowances of lieutenants in command, and of 1st lieutenants of ships commanded by captains, and also for proficiency in gunnery and other matters. It was a necessity of the Service to have a reserve of officers, and that obliged a certain number to remain for some portion of their time on half-pay, when most of them would be only too glad, if opportunity offered, to serve their country in active service. He could assure their Lordships that the Board of Admiralty and he himself sympathized with those officers, but it was absolutely necessary that there should be a reserve. With respect to the half-pay, it had been increased for officers of the rank of captain. It remained the same for the rank of commander, but had been considerably increased for the rank of lieutenant. Extra half-pay was given to officers according to the number of years they had served afloat. While the half-pay had been improved, the pensions of officers of all ranks upon retirement from the Service had been very considerably increased in 1870 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. That was an advantage given to officers to which the noble Earl had not adverted. In 1856 the highest pension of a captain was £456 5s.; it was now £600. In 1856 the highest pension of a commander was £191 12 s. 6d.; it was now £400. In 1856 the highest pension of a lieutenant was £155 2s. 6d.; it was now £300. Their Lordships would therefore see that a very large increase in pensions had been given. That increase had proved a great advantage to the Navy. It had had the effect of inducing officers to retire, and, therefore, of reducing the numbers on the Active List in all branches of the Service. By reducing the number on the Active List, officers remained for a shorter time on half-pay. Therefore, the indirect effect of the increase in the rate of pensions was to improve very much the condition of the officers. And whereas in 1856 a

  1371
  captain took 10 years before he received the second scale of half-pay, now he took only five years. In 1856 a commander would have been 22 years on the list before he received the highest scale of half-pay, and now he would be only five years. In 1856 a lieutenant would not have got 7s. a-day, the highest scale of half-pay at that time, until he had been 43 years on the list, or the second rate until after 26 years; but now, in 1883, a lieutenant of nine years' standing could get 8s. 6d., which was now the highest rate of half-pay, if he had sufficient service. In 1856 there were 394 captains on the list, of whom 138 were employed; at the present moment a far greater proportion were employed. In 1856 there were 568 commanders on the list, and 199 employed; in 1883 the numbers respectively were 223 and 141. In 1856 there were 315 unemployed lieutenants; in 1883 there were only 136. It was difficult to supply a greater proportion of the lieutenants; but the Admiralty had by no means lost sight of the most important question to officers of that rank—namely, their prospects of promotion to the rank of commander. An addition of five had been made to the annual number of promotions, that number having been raised from 20 to 25, which had given an opportunity of promotion to some deserving officers who otherwise could not have obtained it, and six additional appointments in the Coast Guard had been allotted to lieutenants. Thus a very sensible improvement had been made in the position of the senior lieutenants. With respect to the general question of the prospects of a young man entering the Navy, he could only say that he had not found any indisposition on the part of fathers to send their sons into the Service. The expenses and prospects of young men entering the Navy would compare favourably with those of young men who went in for the Church, the Bar, or the Medical Profession. Indeed, having regard to the comparatively moderate cost of a naval education, and the subsequent advantages of a naval career, he could not say that a case had been made out for any considerable increase in the rate of pay. His noble Friend at the Table had commented on the practice of captains spending their own money on the decoration of their ships; but he believed that this was far more often the
  1372
  case with the 1st lieutenants and commanders than with the captains themselves. He believed that the practice was not nearly as common now as it had been before the increase of the Admiralty allowances of paint and other materials for the purpose.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would give attention to the case of lieutenants on half-pay, and, if possible, would improve their position. He was of opinion that many men who would otherwise be valuable officers were driven from the Service by the inadequacy of their pay. It was true, no doubt, that the Navy was not regarded as a lucrative Profession, and that-no one expected to receive a large income from it; but the pay ought, at least, to be such as to suffice for the proper maintenance of an officer and his family. He feared that officers had still to incur a great deal of expense in the decoration of their ships, and he hoped the Admiralty would consider the question of increasing the allowances to cover that expense.

IRELAND—PEASANT PROPRIETARY.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Royal Commission be appointed to report as to the most effective means of giving to a larger portion of the people of Ireland a permanent proprietary interest in the soil by purchase of their holdings,"
  said, he had hoped, till the beginning of the Session, that it would not have been necessary for a private Member of the House to call attention to the subject the noble Earl the Leader of the House had last year intimated that the Government thought that the Bright Clauses of the Land Act needed revision, and the introduction of an amending Bill was very generally expected; but the speech of the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carling-ford) in the course of the debate on the Address had placed it beyond doubt that the Government did not now contemplate legislation in that direction. He mentioned this without any desire to complain of the Government. It was natural, certainly, after Parliament had been almost wholly occupied for three Sessions with Irish affairs, that the Government should be reluctant to embark once more on the stormy sea of Irish legislation; but he did think the House

  1373
  would have some cause to complain if the position taken by the Government with regard to the Bright Clauses were not rather more clearly defined. If the last word of the Government on this subject had been spoken, let it be known, for nothing would retard the operation of these clauses more than a belief that the whole subject remained an open one, and that there was a prospect of a considerable amendment of them. If, however, Her Majesty's Government were of the opinion which they held last year, and still thought that these clauses required revision, his suggestion was that they could not employ the next few months better than in such an investigation of the subject as he recommended. When he spoke of investigation, he wished to guard himself against it being supposed that he meant an investigation of the whole subject; there were portions of it that might be taken as no longer requiring investigation. It might be assumed as conceded that an increase in the number of proprietors of land was a desirable thing. Although the original proposal to this effect proceeded from Mr. Bright, it had been adopted again and again by leading statesmen of both political Parties. If not, why were the Purchase Clauses embodied with general approval in the Acts of 1870 and 1881? If not, why had Notice been given in "another place" by a conspicuous Member of the Opposition of a Motion with precisely the same object that he had in view? If he were to trouble their Lordships with reference to authorities on the subject, he would have to detain them for a long time. But it was not his intention to do so, except to this extent. He wished to refer to an expression of opinion which had fallen from one distinguished statesman, which it appeared to him was entitled to special attention. The Marquess of Hartington, whilst the Land Act of 1881 was under discussion, in the course of a speech made out of Parliament, expressed his opinion that the provisions of the Bill which related to emigration and to an increase in the number of landlords were the provisions most likely to effect a permanent improvement in the condition of Ireland. His Lordship spoke of the Tenure Clauses as designed to provide what was called a modus vivendi in the meantime. And again, in
  1374
  the present year the noble Marquess, addressing his constituents, spoke of the Act as designed to meet "a period of transition," which "must be passed before a better state of things could arise." These utterances appeared to show that the Bright Clauses were regarded by Lord Hartington not only as a solution, but as the solution of what was commonly called the Irish difficulty.
  There was another proposition, which he thought might be taken as conclusively proved. It was, that the existing law, as embodied in the fifth part of the Act of 1881, was not sufficient for the purpose which it was intended by the framers of that Act to achieve. With regard to this, they had the opinion of a Committee of their Lordships' House, presided over by the noble Earl opposite. That Committee reported that all the witnesses examined by them held that the arrangements made to promote the purchase of holdings must be taken to have failed. The Committee proceeded to give reasons for the failure. The first was that the restrictions which the Act imposed upon the investment of the proceeds of the sales by limited owners were such as to make the bargain ruinous to the vendors. The next was that the difficulties arising out of the apportionment of head and quit-rents threw considerable impediments in the way of the carrying out of these transactions. The third was—and the Committee spoke of this as the main obstacle—that there was an absence of sufficient inducement to the tenant to buy his holding or to the landlord to sell it. The Committee recommended that enlarged powers of investment should be given to trustees of estates; that arrangements should be made for the redemption and apportionment of quit-rents; and that there should be a considerable improvement in the terms offered by the State to vendors and purchasers under the Act. These recommendations would be important if they stood alone; but they had since received a most remarkable confirmation at the hands of a body, whose opinions on these matters were entitled to the utmost respect—namely, the Land Commissioners in Dublin. In their annual Report the Land Commissioners said there was reason to believe that a considerable number of landlords were anxious to sell; that purchasers were not forth-

  1375
  coming; and that the reasons were to be found in the restrictions on the investment of the proceeds of sales, in the difficulties arising out of the apportionment of head-rents, and in the insufficiency of the inducements to landlords to sell and to tenants to buy. The Commissioners added that the tenants were also deterred from buying by a feeling of uncertainty with regard to the amount of their future rents, and also by that which the Commissioners spoke of as a "vague feeling of political disquietude." He would say a word presently about that vague feeling of political disquietude; but in regard to the three main conclusions, the Land Commissioners were absolutely at one with their Lordships' Committee, and those were substantially the conclusions, not only of the Land Commissioners and their Lordships' Committee, but of everyone who had paid attention to the subject. The simple matter of fact was this, that no tenant with a perpetuity of tenure, with the right of the free sale of his holding, and in a position to manage his farm very much as he pleased, was likely to give, in order to place his grandchild, perhaps, in possession of the fee of the farm, a price which any landlord could afford to accept. There was another consideration which was not financial, but which weighed with them all the same. The tenants were reluctant to exchange the landlordism of the landlord, from whom they had nothing to fear, and from whom they might have something to expect, for the considerably sterner control of the State, from which they would have nothing to hope, and might have something to apprehend. These were the reasons which deterred tenants from buying. They were reasons of a permanent character, and as long as the Act remained unamended in certain respects, so long would tenants be unwilling to buy. Mr. Shaw, the hon. Member for Cork County, who was Chairman of the Munster Bank, and who had been selected by the Government as a Member of the Bessborough Commission, ought to be a good judge, and Mr. Shaw had recently told an Ulster audience that if the Act remained unamended, the purchases by tenants in the next 50 years would be very small indeed.
  If, then, it were conceded that it was desirable to obtain an increase in the
  1376
  number of proprietors, and if the existing facilities were not sufficient for the purpose, there only remained the question—could they afford to wait for a settlement of this matter? He would endeavour to show that it was not desirable that they should wait. If these clauses were necessary when they were inserted in the Act of 1870, if they were necessary in the Act of 1881, could they be said to be less necessary now? He remembered reading an admirable Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1878 to inquire into this subject, and presided over by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. The language used in that Report was to the effect that a substantial increase in the number of proprietors of land in Ireland was necessary in order to promote thrift and industry among the Irish peasantry, and to give stability to the social system of that country. It seemed to him that the social system in Ireland was never more in need of increased stability than it was at the present time. He did not wish to underrate the improvement which had taken place in many districts, or the fact, of which he had had agreeable experience, that the conduct of some of the people had been exemplary in the face of great temptation; but, looking below the surface, what was the condition of Ireland? Was it one out of which social stability was likely to arise? Were they really nearer to a solution of the Irish Question than they were three years ago? He feared that of the old sources of mischief the worst and most deep-seated still survived. But the elements of future trouble had been intensified and strengthened by the events of the last few years. They still had in Ireland an agricultural community without capital and without industries; but capital had never been more effectually frightened away from Ireland than it was at the present time. They still had, on the one hand, a mere handful of owners, and on the other half-a-million of occupiers; but the owners were smarting under the bitter experiences of the last two or three years, and the occupiers had been taught in every village throughout the country the terrible lesson inculcated by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), who had had the courage to place it on record, that "fixity of tenure was the direct

  1377
  result of Irish outrage and Party obstruction." As for the labourers, they were still worse housed and worse paid than any labourers in the United Kingdom; but they were now in too many cases, tainted by sedition and full of bitter resentment at the illusory advantages which the Land Act had dangled before their eyes. The agriculture of Ireland was still more thriftless and ignorant than the agriculture of almost any other country. Were these, he asked, conditions under which social stability was likely to arise? He was aware that rents had been largely reduced, and that this was in itself an immense boon to the occupiers of land; but of the tenants, probably about one-half were in a position in which the question of rent was really not a material one at all. When their Lordships looked at the West of Ireland, and had regard to the condition of the population in those densely-inhabited regions, could they fail to discover that these poor people, no matter whether their rents were raised or lowered, must still be in a position of chronic insolvency, and, therefore, of chronic discontent? The soil was exhausted, the cultivation miserable in the extreme, the staple crop rapidly degenerating. What was the Chief Secretary's description of the people of one of these Western Unions? He said the population was in a state of social and financial crisis. It was true that an Act passed last year contained some very well-conceived clauses intended to promote emigration from those Western districts; but emigration must be very gradual and slow in its operations. We could not take these people suddenly by the thousand from their miserable homes, and throw them pell-mell across the Atlantic. Emigration was a relief which could only come after the lapse of a considerable number of years. Was it proposed, then, he might be asked, to turn these Western cottiers into proprietors of their holdings? It might seem a paradox to say so, but he owned that he would sooner see these poor people brought face to face with the hard exigencies of their position, and made entirely responsible for their own and their families' sustenance, than he would leave them as they were at present, relying first upon their landlords, then upon the rates paid by their neighbours, who
  1378
  were on the brink of insolvency themselves, and finally clamouring for public works or relief out of the Public Exchequer. Be that as it might, could there be any doubt that it would be desirable to establish, as a counterpoise to these miserable Western populations, a body of men owning the farms which they cultivated, and placed in a position which rendered them independent and self-reliant, and naturally opposed to agitation and crime?
  There was another reason which made him anxious to see a measure of this kind effectually carried out. There was the question of local government. They were given to understand that the Government had no present intention of formulating a scheme upon that subject, but they were pledged to deal with it sooner or later. His own opinion was that, although the defects in the Irish system of local government had been very much exaggerated, and though they were probably less than in England, still they were such as must be removed. Parliament would not be going far wrong if it endeavoured, by prudent and moderate legislation, to set matters right in this respect, instead of waiting till a fresh clamour arose for ill-considered and reckless remedial legislation. When the time came for dealing with this question of local government, would they be in a worse or in a better position if there were scattered over the face of Ireland a number of small proprietors interested in an honest and economical administration of rural government, instead of having the rates mainly paid by the landlords, and spent by the tenants for the tenants in public works and indiscriminate outdoor relief?
  It might be urged, perhaps, that a fair trial should be given to the Tenure Clauses of the Land Act. It appeared to him, however, having paid some attention to those clauses, that they abounded in elements which were likely to lead to future complications and troubles. He would venture briefly to refer to two of these. In the first place, there was the restriction of the tenant's saleable interest in his holding. Out of Ulster, whenever a tenant applied to the Court to have a judicial rent fixed, the Court might simultaneously fix at a specified sum the value of the tenant right. Similarly, even where the holding was sub-

  1379
  ject to the Ulster Custom, the landlord might, whenever the tenant sought to sell, exercise his right of pre-emption at what the Court might determine to be the "true value" of the occupier's interest, just as out of Ulster he would be allowed to buy at the "specified value" fixed by the Court. The landlord's right of pre-emption at the "specified value" was his only security against the incoming tenant paying a preposterous price for the tenant right, and being, therefore, practically rack-rented, in spite of the lowness of his rent. The landlord must, therefore, either accept a rack-rented tenant, or he would be obliged to say to the vendor—"It is true that you are able to get £200 for your interest in the farm; but I require you to sell it to me for £100 or £150." He entertained no doubt that this right of pre-emption would be a very fertile source of discontent and trouble between landlord and tenant; and he was convinced of the great importance of settling these matters, once for all, in as many cases as possible. He would pass to another source of future trouble and agitation. We were told to congratulate ourselves upon the rapidity with which the Sub-Commissioners were getting through the task of fixing judicial rents. One was almost tempted to say, in the words of Macbeth—
  "If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
  It were done quickly."
  But in reality it was not done, because the rent was fixed for only 15 years. He understood that applications which had now, for the first time, been brought before the Courts could probably not be dealt with till 1885 or 1886. There would, therefore, be at the outside a period of 10 years, between 1886 and 1896, during which the land would have peace from litigation of this kind, and at the end of that period the whole question of the rental of Ireland would once more be re-opened. That was a very serious prospect. If prices had fallen in the interim every tenant in Ireland would be looking for a reduction. If they had risen every landlord would be hoping for a rise. In any case he feared that the temptation to the tenant to put a poor face upon his holding on the chance of getting something off his rent would be irresistible. Then there was
  1380
  another matter to be considered. The present race of Sub-Commissioners, most of whom held office for a brief term, would have disappeared by that time; and there would be clamour, intrigues, and agitation for and against the appointment of particular persons to seats upon the new Commission. The difficulty would be bad enough if the present Government remained in power; but if the Party on the other side of the House happened to be in Office at that time, under what condition would they approach the difficult task of filling up these appointments? Supposing that the appointments of 1896 were conferred upon men whose antecedents rendered them a little less acceptable to the tenants than their predecessors, there would be almost a rebellion. In Ireland there was no such thing as a colourless politician. Everyone, unfortunately, belonged either to the landlords' camp or to the tenants' camp; and the consequence would be that whatever might be the antecedents of the men to whom Sub-Commissionerships might be given, yet if they were nominated by the Party opposite their awards would not command the confidence of the tenants of Ireland. This, he begged to say, was no mere bugbear of his own imagination. When the Solicitor General for Ireland was canvassing his constituents, he put it thus to them—"Supposing you had a Cabinet composed of Lord Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Gibson, and others, to administer the Land Act, what would that Act be worth? If a Conservative was returned for Londonderry, and if the Land Act came to be worked by a Conservative Party and Conservative Officers, what would become of it?" It was, he feared, the inevitable result that when a temporary tribunal was set up, the members of which were to be appointed by the Party in power, it should come to be believed that that Party would utilize it for its own purposes. This, then, was another serious source of danger in the future; and he wished to impress upon the House how desirable it was to take as large a number of the tenants as possible out of the reach of that danger, and to put them in a position in which their rents should not be variable at the will of a Sub-Commissioner, but fixed once and for all, and payable to the Government, the payments representing an annually-

  1381
  diminishing debt and an annually-increasing progress in the direction of absolute proprietorship.
  So far he had rested his case on public convenience; but he should not be speaking frankly to the House if he did not express his conviction that the measure which he advocated was required not only by public convenience, but as a matter of simple justice to individuals. What was the position of owners of landed property in Ireland? They were owners of a kind of property of which only one class of customer was at all likely to become the purchaser, a class which recent legislation had effectually deterred from purchasing. A measure such as he had suggested was, therefore, necessary in order to do something to re-establish the value of landed property in Ireland. It was not merely a question of rent; he wished to avoid entirely the question of the action of the Courts in reducing rents. If not a single rent had been reduced, or even if Justice herself had a seat on the Land Commission, the value of land would not the less have been enormously depreciated by the legislation of the last two years. The value of landed property was made up of a number of incidents, the value of which was cumulative; and if any of those incidents were taken away the value of the remainder was diminished. But not only would nobody buy land in Ireland, but nobody would lend upon it. What had been the consequence? A number of the smaller landowners found themselves deprived of 40 or 50 per cent, perhaps more, of their available income, and were on the verge of ruin, unable to meet the charges on their property, to sell or to emancipate themselves from the miserable position in which they found themselves. It would be a public scandal if those men were allowed—many of them having purchased their property on the security of a Government title from the Landed Estates Court—to be ruined by the legislation of the year before last. His noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) might say that that was the result, not of legislation, but of the agitation which existed in Ireland.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): Hear, hear!
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he was glad to learn that he was right in his anticipation. He admitted
  1382
  that such an agitation as that which had recently disturbed society in Ireland could not fail to have some effect upon the value of all property in that country; and it was not easy, when two causes had been at work, to assign the effect with precise accuracy to its cause. He, at any rate, believed that the effects of legislation which were universal and permanent were more serious than those of an agitation which, after all, was local and transitory; but, be that as it might, there was a very simple mode of testing the Lord Privy Seal's theory that the fall in the value of land was due solely to agitation. Let them imagine for a moment what the effect would be if the legislation which had been applied to Ireland were applied to England and Scotland. Was it not beyond question that in such a case the value of land in England and Scotland would at once have been enormously depreciated? There could be no doubt upon the point. It was, in fact, the case that the prophecy of Mr. Fottrell, late Solicitor to the Land Commission, was being fulfilled to the letter. In that famous pamphlet which had been so often referred to, Mr. Fottrell told the tenants of Ireland—
  "That the landlord who is wise will re member that he has now no probable purchasers but his tenants.…The landlords must sell to them or not at all."
  The condition of affairs was therefore this—that the tenants at this moment not being likely to buy, the landlord found himself saddled with estates from which it was absolutely impossible for him to divest himself. He did not desire to conceal his own opinion, that no owners of any other kind of property could have been treated in this way without, at least, a full examination of their claim to be compensated for the loss which they had sustained. He had always regretted that that was a matter which had not received fuller consideration. He occasionally read the speeches and letters of Ministers to their constituents, discussing the Licensing Laws; and he observed that they were always extremely careful to point out that no interference would take place with the existing rights of the licensed victuallers without compensation being made. But, unfortunately, Irish landlords were only Irish landlords, and could not expect the

  1383
  treatment to which the licensed victuallers were to be entitled. They might, however, surely ask that what the Government in the Act of 1881 proposed to do should be made a reality and not a sham, and that the clauses in the Act to which he had directed attention should not remain on the Statute Book as a record of disappointed expectations and abortive legislation. It was under these circumstances that he asked their Lordships to agree to the Motion on the Paper. He did not take upon himself to say what course an inquiry of that kind should take. But there were four matters which required special investigation. In the first place, they should endeavour to ascertain what were the impediments which had stood in the way of the operation of the clauses; secondly, they should seek to discover what additional inducements were necessary in order to lead the landlords to sell and the tenants to buy; thirdly, it was desirable to determine whether the rent-charge due by the purchasers could be collected by some local agency, and not by the Central Government; and, fourthly, whether, in certain circumstances, one of the parties should not be allowed to require the other to purchase from him, whether that other wished to do so or not.
  He was aware that those proposals were regarded in some quarters with considerable misgiving, and he would like to notice, before he sat down, one or two of the principal objections which had been raised to them. He had heard it stated that if the Purchase Clauses were carried out on an extensive scale they would get rid of the landlords altogether, and that this was undesirable. He was sure he might say, as an Irish landlord, that they felt grateful to those who desired to retain them in existence. It was comforting to know that if ever they were obliterated their obituary notice would be conceived in friendly terms. But what he wished to impress on their Lordships was his conviction that his proposals would have precisely the opposite result. There would be more resident landlords in Ireland, and not fewer. Those who never went near their estates and took no interest in them would disappear, and, perhaps, nobody would regret it. But those who did take an interest in and intended to live on their estates
  1384
  would find it easier and better to do so under the new order of things which would arise. They would probably get rid of the outlying portion of their properties, retaining only their homes—to which, let him say, Irish landlords were as deeply attached as their English and Scotch brethren—and such a portion of their estates as they could either keep in their own hands or manage much in the same fashion as that in which English estates were managed. Men who acted thus would consult their interests better, and would be more useful and happier members of society, than the nominal owner of a whole barony who came into contact with his tenants only through the medium of their periodical visits to the rent office.
  He believed, therefore, that this objection was not one which rested on any good ground. There was, however, another which was felt by many persons, especially by the noble Earl at the Table, who spoke upon the subject the other evening—namely, that if a large number of these tenants were allowed to purchase their holdings, there would be some risk of a general repudiation of their debt to the State, and an extensive conflict between the Government and the tenants. He did not believe that the objection was a valid one. He would, in the first place, point out that whether the tenants purchased their holdings or not, the Executive Government would not escape the liability of being called upon to enforce the payment of rent. If the rents were once pronounced fair and just, the landlords would expect the whole force of the Executive Government to back them in their endeavour to enforce punctual payment. The noble Earl on the Woolsack had himself stated that "if you adjust the rents you must secure the rents you adjust." Therefore the enforcement of the law as to payment of rent in Ireland was a duty from which the Government could not extricate itself; he believed, however, the risk of repudiation to be an imaginary one. He never met anyone conversant with the Irish people who did not believe that if, in lieu of rent payable to the landlord, an annual and terminable rent-charge were payable to the State that rent-charge would be punctually paid. The "no rent" policy had at first been successful because of the weakness

  1385
  of the landlords, and he was afraid he must say also because of the reluctant support which they had received from the Government. They might, however, rely upon it that the tenants would be slow to engage in an unequal struggle against the forces which the Executive would have at its command, and that these obligations would not be repudiated. The fact that throughout the recent agitation those tenants who had purchased their holdings under the Irish Church Act paid their instalments with complete punctuality went far to confirm this view. It was very remarkable that in the case of these tenants the influence of the Land League had been exerted against, and not in favour of, repudiation. There was, besides, another consideration which ought not to be lost sight of. Year by year and step by step these purchasing tenants would be advancing on the road leading to the absolute ownership of their farms. They would be slow to take any action which might jeopardize the interest which they had already acquired in them. And it must not be forgotten that not only would each year bring them one stage nearer to the goal of complete ownership, but that each year the rate of their advance would become more rapid. He would recommend to the attention of those interested in this branch of the subject a very interesting table published, with a paper written upon it, by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. It appeared from that table that if the annual payment due by the purchasing tenant to the State were divided as between the interest payable to the State on the sum advanced, and the amount available in each year for the reduction of the principal debt, the calculation would stand, roughly speaking, as follows:—At the beginning of the fifth year—assuming that the whole debt was to be paid off in 35 years—two-thirds of the sum paid by the tenant would be charged as interest and one-third as repayment of principal. In the 15th year the whole sum would be equally divided between payment of interest and repayment of principal. But in the 25th year one-third only would be due for interest, and the whole of the remainder would be available in diminution of the principal. The financial position of the tenant would therefore improve with increasing rapidity year by year, and in the face of
  1386
  that he had very little fear of repudiation. At any rate, the risk would tend to diminish with great rapidity.
  He would notice one more criticism frequently passed upon proposals such as these. He might be told that an increase in the number of owners of land was an admirable thing, but that their artificial creation was undesirable, and that the change should be left to be effected by natural laws. It appeared to him that those who made use of this argument were too ready to forget the facts of the case. If natural laws were being left to operate, or had ever been left to operate in Ireland, he should be very much disposed to rely on them still. But, in point of fact, Ireland had never been left to the operation of natural laws; she was the product of artificial legislation in the past, just as she was the playground of artificial legislation in the present. The laws with regard to the possession of land by Roman Catholics, the laws regulating the franchise, the laws affecting the transfer of landed property, all these had tended to keep the soil of Ireland in the hands of a few persons. The land legislation of the last 12 years had stereotyped the evil by rendering it impossible for those persons to extricate themselves from their position. He therefore submitted that we could not, in these circumstances, trust to natural laws, but that we must seek to remedy a purely artificial condition of things by artificial means. A wisely-conceived measure would terminate the confusion of interests which he had pointed out, would strengthen the bases of society in Ireland, and would do something to accelerate the advent of that "better state of things" to which Lord Hartington looked forward, but which was as yet undiscernible in the troubled distance of the future of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in seconding the Motion, said, that, whatever opinion might be held as to the advisability of appointing the Royal Commission, there could be no doubt whatever as to the great importance of the subject which the noble Marquess had brought before the House. With the exception of the more immediately pressing question of distress, it was the most important question connected with Ireland. He himself did not see in what way a Royal Commission could

  1387
  throw much additional light upon the subject. In the Report of the Committee on the working of the Land Act of their Lordships' House, and in the Evidence taken before that Committee, a great deal of information would be found; much valuable information was available also from other sources. It seemed to him that what was necessary to be done in order to enable the present occupiers in Ireland to buy their holdings was perfectly understood already. Everyone knew that tenants would not buy unless the instalments they had to pay to Government were less in value than the rents they at present paid to their landlords. One reason why tenants were so reluctant to buy was that, having already forced such great concessions from the Government, they hoped in the future to extort more from them. They would not be inclined to avail themselves of Purchase Clauses as long as they thought they could obtain further benefits by agitation. He should have thought, therefore, that this was a question for the Government to decide. A question for the House of Commons and the country to determine was, what amount of money they were willing to devote to the purpose, and for the Government to put forward their views as to the terms on which this money should be advanced. There could be no question about the fact that, whether the people of Ireland were to be assisted by means of loans from the State or not, some means must be found, and ought to be found, as soon as possible, of extricating Ireland from the condition in which she was now placed. The system of land tenure they had imposed upon her rendered it impossible for the country to improve, or even to maintain, the position she had now arrived at. On no country in the world had been imposed such a system of land tenure, and no country could get on under such a system. The noble Marquess quoted Lord Hartington to the effect that, it would be well for Ireland to look forward with hope to a time when she could emerge into a better state of things and enjoy a better system of tenure. He believed the Prime Minister, on introducing the Bill into the other House of Parliament, said that the most considerable benefit would be derived from freedom of contract in Ireland if the social condition of the country admitted of it. But whether the social
  1388
  condition of the country was improvable or not, there was no provision in the Land Act whereby Ireland could ever emerge from the extraordinary system placed upon her. There was nothing to look forward to but an endless vista of agitation for the reduction of rents and endless contention. It appeared to him now that in this idea of peasant proprietary lay the only possible solution of the difficulty. He had expressed in that House before his objections to peasant proprietary; but he confessed his views were somewhat modified and changed. Still, he did not look with any great favour upon such a system. There were two manifest objections clear to everybody. The tenants and occupiers must be, for a considerable number of years, in the position of tenants of the State; and circumstances might arise to place the State in great difficulty, on account of a long period of distress, making it impossible, or very difficult, for a largo number of people to pay. Another objection was that, undoubtedly, in the natural course of events, many small owners would be unable to maintain themselves. They would get into debt, fall into the hands of usurers, money-lenders, and shopkeepers, and a class of landlords would arise that would not be beneficial to the country. These were two strong objections that arose in his mind as to peasant proprietorship. But, after all, it was a question of choosing the least of two evils. The difficulties that might be produced in Ireland under a system of peasant proprietorship would be less than those that must follow if the present condition of affairs was allowed to continue. Tenants were just as likely to get into the power of money-lenders now as they would be if they had complete ownership. The difference was that creditors would be much loss likely to turn them out and take possession now than if they could, by so doing, obtain complete ownership of the land. As it was, the occupiers would become the absolute slaves of their creditors; they would be kept in a state of wretched poverty, and would not be allowed enough money to support themselves in decency or comfort, or even to till the land properly; but they would not be sold up. It would be far better for them and the country that they should be sold up altogether, and that would be more likely to occur under a

  1389
  system of peasant proprietary than under the present system. Moreover, by becoming the absolute owners of their little properties, the tenant would be more likely to become thrifty and prudent, and less likely to become hopelessly involved in debt than at present. The sense of real ownership would act beneficially on the character of the people; and under a system of small ownership they would be more likely to maintain their position in the country than under the system of judicial leases now existing. Those were the advantages and disadvantages which he could see in peasant proprietorship; but what weighed with him was the absolute necessity of finding some way out of the present condition of affairs. It was absolutely impossible to suppose that Ireland, or any other country, could go on with the whole soil of the country held in perpetual solution, with no man owning it. Real ownership of some kind there must be. Either the land must belong to the State, according to the theory of Mr. George, or it must belong to private owners, large or small. But a tenure under which land belonged to no one was a condition of affairs that could not last long. No sooner would rents have been settled for one term of 15 years than another re-valuation for another term of 15 years would have commenced. The condition of Ireland would be one of incessant grumbling at the way rents had been fixed, and of incessant agitations for fresh reductions. The condition of Ireland was a transitory condition. It was one the people could not possibly remain in; and he submitted that the only way out of the difficulty was to complete the revolution as soon as practicable, and to take the ownership of the land from its late owners and put it in the hands of the present occupiers. A final settlement of the Land Question in the direction contemplated by the noble Marquess was desirable for Ireland, and it was equally desirable for England also. A great deal had been done to weaken the loyalty of many Irishmen. He did not so much mean that many men who were loyal two years ago had become less loyal; but the loyal classes throughout the country, with the exception of the North of Ireland, had completely lost all the influence and power they
  1390
  formerly possessed. That being so, they could not by any possibility restore it; all they could do was to try and build up, by degrees, another class of loyal men in their place. It was well known that small owners were very Conservative in their tendencies, in the larger sense of the word; and he had no doubt that such a class would be in favour of law and order, and either from a sense of gratitude, or from knowledge of the stability of this country, would be in favour of maintaining the Union between the two countries. England had always acted foolishly towards the loyal element in Ireland. She persecuted the class that was really the backbone of the country in former days, and had driven thousands of Presbyterians across the Atlantic, men who took no mean part in the struggle that lost us our North American Colonies. The Government had lately done all they could to discourage the loyal classes in Ireland. Those classes could never recover the power they once held; and the wisest thing England could do was to endeavour to repair that loss by raising up loyal men in their stead. It seemed to him also very necessary that those measures should be undertaken to do ordinary justice to the landowning classes in Ireland. He did not think that any class had ever suffered more severely or so severely on account of their adherence to a principle believed in and upheld by the Government than the landowning class in Ireland at the hands of that Government. They had lost about one-fourth of their property, and what many valued still more, a great deal of the affection and love of the people among whom they dwelt. They had also lost all their influence and power for good. For the future they knew that they were powerless. They would have to see poverty around them without the ability of alleviating it. They would not be able to consolidate their farms, or to encourage a better state of agriculture, but would have to sit by and see the country gradually going to ruin before their eyes. And all this was lost by their adhesion to the principles of the Union. Her Majesty's Government had an extraordinarily fatal tendency to be always in error in making any statements with regard to Ireland. He could recall no statement

  1391
  made by the present Government with regard to Ireland which had not turned out to be absolutely false and wrong. From the very beginning the Prime Minister's estimate of Ireland was as absurdly wrong as anything could possibly be. The letter written by the late Lord Beaconsfield to the noble Duke the then Lord Lieutenant (the Duke of Marlborough) had proved to be absolutely correct, although that letter was greatly animadverted upon at the time. The present Prime Minister then described Ireland as being in almost a beatific state. In the same way, the Government estimate of the working of the Land Act had not been justified. Mr. Bright said that in nine cases out of ten there would be no change of rent, and yet changes had been made in all, or, at least, in 99 out of 100 cases. Then, again, they were told that the reductions would not affect the great estates; but experience had shown that the large estates had been affected. They were informed that the worst cases would come first, and that reductions would cease after a time; that had not been the case. Every statement of that kind that the Government had made with regard to the probable action of their own Bill and the condition of the country had proved incorrect. The greatest mistake of all that the Government had made with regard to Ireland was in their estimate of the agitation in that country. They considered that the agitation was against landlordism, and against rent being too high. The leader of the agitation told them the object was separation from England. Everybody in Ireland who knew anything of the country, the police, the stipendiary, and the unpaid magistrates pointed out the same thing. But Her Majesty's Government insisted that they were all wrong, and that it was a very proper agitation directed against excessive rent. Over and over again the Government had declared that separation—Home Rule—was a matter not even to be discussed in Parliament; and, if that were the ease, he could not conceive why, at the same time, an agitation with that object out-of-doors could be legitimate. He could not understand the Government saying that Home Rule was a matter they could not discuss in Parliament, and, at the same
  1392
  time, permitting an agitation with that object to be promoted out-of-doors. He did not mean to say as far as he was concerned that Home Rule was not a fit subject for Parliamentary discussion; but if it was not, then neither was it fit to be the object of an agitation out-of-doors. Agitation meant one of two things, either a direct threat of an appeal to physical force, or an endeavour by the people to express opinions in order to influence their Representatives in Parliament. Nothing could be more absurd than to say to the people—"You are ruled under a representative form of government, but we will not allow the one thing you want—Home Rule—to be discussed by your Representatives in Parliament without saying, at the same time, that any agitation for the purpose outside is illegitimate and will not be allowed." But Her Majesty's Government did act in this way. They allowed an agitation to be conducted throughout the country for an object they would not allow to be discussed in Parliament. The agitation was consequently forced in, and concentrated against, the loyal classes. The consequence of the mistake of the Government had been that the Irish landowners, being loyal men, had suffered loss in their property, in the affection and love of the people among whom they lived, and in their influence and power in the country. He did not mean to suggest that compensation could be offered for those losses; they could not compensate men for the loss of affection and influence; but they could and ought to be compensated for the direct loss of their property. At any rate, the proposition of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would afford them some way of leaving the country, and of extricating themselves with as little loss as possible from a difficult, perhaps an intolerable position. A peasant proprietary ought not to be established on a large scale very suddenly; it should only be introduced gradually. But there was no danger that it would grow up too quickly. Whatever inducement there might be to tenants to buy their holdings, there was no reason to suppose that the landlords would rush into the market in a great body to sell. Some landlords would remain in the country, either from affection to the soil or from the hope of being able to do

  1393
  some good to the country. A great number would also be unable to leave from various causes; but a good many would go because, by getting a fair price for their property, they could free themselves from the money embarrassments from which they were at present suffering most severely; and some would go out of a natural preference for some country where the rights of property were still regarded, where a man might hope to do some good by his time and his labour, where honesty was not punished by an unwritten law, and where loyalty to the British Crown was not criminal. Something must be done to get Ireland out of the unfortunate condition in which she now found herself. It was coincident with—he did not say in consequence of, but coincident with—the legislation of the last 10 years that the condition of the country was getting worse and worse. Land was going out of cultivation with great rapidity, and the live stock of the country was diminishing also. If the live stock of the country had increased in proportion as land went out of cultivation it would not be so bad; but when they saw both processes going on together it was impossible to give stronger evidence of the deplorable condition of the country. Landlords could not lay out money; they could not be expected to do so, and to whom were they to look for the improvement of the country? They must endeavour to raise up a class which would take that necessary function out of the hands of the landlord class. It appeared mere common sense to say that true statesmanship would endeavour to hold out the greatest inducements to occupiers of land in Ireland to lay out their capital upon it. There could be no doubt that a man who was the owner of his land was more likely to develop his property by the employment of money or labour than the man who held it under any other system of tenure. Though he could not look forward with very bright anticipation to the formation of a large class of peasant proprietors, he saw in the formation of such a class the only possible way in which the country could extricate itself from the difficulties caused by an impossible land tenure; the only way in which a strong Conservative and loyal class could be created in Ireland; and the only way in which some justice could
  1394
  be done to those who were at present supposed to hold the land of the country.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Royal Commission may be appointed to report as to the most effective means of giving to a larger portion of the people of Ireland a permanent proprietary interest in the soil by purchase of their holdings."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), to which we have just listened, is a good, and, at the same time, a curious illustration of a practice to which we have become accustomed in this House. I mean that, whenever the name of Ireland is mentioned, every possible Irish subject is thought germane to the question immediately under discussion, and is dragged into the debate. Every observation that has been made 100 times before on the history of Ireland during the last few years is revived, and that, too, with very little relation to the subject immediately before the House. [Laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] My noble Friend was especially severe on the Government for the untrue—that was, mistaken statements he said they were always making on the subject of Ireland; and he made a number of statements, to which I should be inclined to apply the same terms which my noble Friend has applied to the statements of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot remember them all, but I wish to make a remark on two of those statements, which I confess have rather surprised me. My noble Friend said it was notorious that the amount of reduction on Irish rents now being made in the Land Courts throughout Ireland was not only not less than it had been during the earlier operation of the Courts, as it was thought would have been the case, but that it had even been greater. The notorious fact is precisely the reverse of what my noble Friend has stated. The fact is that the amount of reductions found necessary by the Commissioners has been gradually diminishing, and the percentage of reduction during the last few months has been considerably lower than at the time of the earlier operations of the Court. Then my noble Friend said that it was notorious that, contrary to our expectations and predictions, the largest estates in Ireland have been most

  1395
  severely dealt with. My noble Friend must have forgotten some of the most important parts of the evidence given before the Committee of this House, of which he was a Member, which sat on this subject last year. If he will refresh his memory, he will find the Commissioners, Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Mr. Vernon, both stated that, while the amount of rack-renting was greater than they had expected, and, consequently, in many eases, the reduction on what they fully admitted to be excessive rent, the large estates had been scarcely touched by the operation of the Courts. They also said that their experience of excessive rents was in the main, or to a very large extent, confined to the smallest class of estates. My noble Friend has, I think, treated the House to the gloomiest and most morbid view of the Irish situation that I have ever yet heard even in this House. I can only hope that your Lordships will not be influenced by any view so evidently exaggerated and so evidently morbid as that taken by my noble Friend. I now come to the Resolution proposed by the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Lansdowne). My noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) stated that peasant proprietorship was very objectionable, but that the present tenure of land in Ireland was still more so, and that, consequently, he preferred the former. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, has adduced reasons of a much more substantial kind in support of his proposal than that. I must say I entirely agree with his mode of stating the object which the Government, as well as he, have in view—namely—
  "Giving to a larger portion of the people of Ireland a permanent proprietary interest in the soil by the purchase of their holdings."
  The Government have in no way changed their opinion in favour of that object. They believe, as they have often said in Parliament, that that object is a highly desirable one in the interests of all classes in Ireland, and they have not abandoned the hope of attaining it. But the question which the Government have had to put to themselves, and which I have to put to the House, is a practical one—namely, whether an inquiry by way of Royal Commission, as proposed by the noble Marquess, is likely to tend to the promotion of that
  1396
  object; and whether, also, in the circumstances of the case, it would be wise to set on foot now a new formal inquiry into the working of this important part of the Land Act of 1881. I did not gather from the observations of my noble Friend that he brought this Motion forward with the intention of pressing for legislation during the present Session. There is nothing in his speech which gives that idea; and if it is so, the Government and my noble Friend are agreed to that extent. My noble Friend referred to the opinions of the Irish Land Commissioners, and I also should like to refer to them. Last summer the Land Commissioners informed the Government and the Committee of your Lordships' House, in the same terms, that, in their belief, nothing effectual could be done at present in connection with the Purchase Clauses. They told the Government that the minds of the Irish tenants were fixed upon obtaining a settlement of their rents, whether in or out of Court, and had not as yet been turned at all to the question of purchasing their holdings. The Commissioners laid down then, very strongly, that there was nothing useful to be done in connection with the subject of purchase, and that is the opinion which they still entertain. That is also the view of the Government, founded upon all the information we can obtain. The Government feel that in this matter, if they wait for the present, they will, before long, be in a far better position to judge as to what are the necessities of the case that call for legislation, and what amount of change will make these Purchase Clauses available for the Irish tenant and induce him to make use of them. But that time has not yet come. Great progress is being made in the settlement of rents in Ireland, and we have good reason to believe that the minds of the mass of Irish tenants are settling down in a way which, compared with the last two or three years, is highly satisfactory and full of hope. When that process has gone further, as it is now going, we are convinced that it will be far easier to decide what the shortcomings in the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act are, and in what way those clauses ought to be dealt with, so as to make them effective for the object in view. Until then, our belief is that there is nothing

  1397
  which can usefully or effectively be done; and I am not at all sure that my noble Friend the noble Marquess would not agree that the subject does not call for immediate legislation. But my noble Friend may say—"Though this may not be the moment for legislation, you may make use of the interval for the purpose of inquiring with a view to coming legislation." Upon that point I have two observations to make. First of all, the Government do not think that this is a case in which a fresh public inquiry would help them in their task. There has been a large amount of inquiring, investigating, and reporting upon this subject already. It has been inquired into and reported upon by two Royal Commissions before the passing of the Irish Land Act, and we have that information and those opinions before us. We also have, and shall have, the advantage of the experience of the Irish Land Commission. There is also the evidence taken by the Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Report of that Committee, which will be one of the materials of judging when the matter comes to be dealt with. Remember what the aim of such an inquiry as this must be. It is not to inquire whether the object is a desirable one or not; upon that we are all agreed. It would not even be an inquiry into the general mode of attaining that object—it would be an inquiry into the details of the process, into the machinery by which the object is to be gained, and especially it would be an inquiry which would greatly concern the financial duties and responsibilities of the Government, and the safeguards which it would be necessary to adopt, in case a large number of tenants were to come into debtor and creditor relations with the Treasury of this country. The Government are convinced that such a work would be better done by the Executive Government itself than by any Royal Commission that could be appointed. But, in the second place, they are convinced that while a careful investigation into this question of machinery, and into questions relating to the financial responsibilities of the Government on the one hand, and the interest of Irish landlords and Irish tenants on the other, would be much more safely and wisely dealt with by the Government itself, they think that, by now once more
  1398
  opening a new public inquiry into this large branch of the Irish Land Act of 1881, an unsettling effect would be produced upon the minds of people in Ireland. These are the grounds upon which the Government are not able to come to the conclusion that the proposal made by my noble Friend would tend to the better attainment of the object which he and they both have in view; while, at the same time, they believe it would be liable to many disadvantages in the process. I should be sorry to say one word which might give the utterly false idea that I, on the part of the Government, intend to throw any cold water on the object which the noble Marquess has in view; but I submit to the House, and I trust the House will share the view of the Government, that the mode of action proposed would not promote that object, while, at the same time, it would, in the opinion of the Government, seriously interfere with that responsibility of their own of which they cannot divest themselves.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that he regretted the Government had not accepted the Motion. He, for one, did not wonder at the passion which had been shown by Irish landlords in the course of these debates, because no class of men had ever been treated as Irish landlords had been treated by their Lordships' House. He could not understand how the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could say that the figures quoted by his noble Friend who had seconded the Motion (the Earl of Dunraven) were incorrect, when it had been proved, over and over again, that the figures of the Commissioners were incorrect. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had stated that the reductions in rent in the Land Courts were not now so large as they formerly were; but the impression in Ireland was general that these reductions were going on upon very much the same scale as before, and in some cases upon a greater scale. He knew himself a case where two estates were reduced, one 20 per cent, and the other 40 per cent, and they were exactly the same class of land. As to the large estates not being touched, why the estate of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) had been very largely touched.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, that Mr. Justice O'Hagan, in his evidence before the Committee of

  1399
  their Lordships' House, had stated that the large estates had been but slightly touched.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that, when Mr. Justice O'Hagan gave that evidence, the Land Commission was only beginning its work, and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal himself said that they ought not to have an inquiry, because there were such few cases. Everybody knew that the great estates had been just as much reduced as the small ones, and that the reductions had been made upon rents that had been fixed for many years. He was glad to hear that the Government favoured the working of the Purchase Clauses; for he (the Marquess of Waterford), with others, had been inclined to believe that the Government wished for delay. Did they wish to delay until the value of the landlords' property was so depreciated that they could buy it for a trifle? As a Member of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, he wished to say a word on that point. The Land Act had absolutely prevented the sale of land in Ireland, and many properties had been put up for sale in the Encumbered Estates Court without a single bidder. At the same time, while the fee-simple of the estate was not saleable, the tenants' interest fetched a great deal more than it had ever done before. The noble Lord might suppose that that was owing to the agitations, or the agricultural distress; but the facts did not bear out that view. No doubt the difficulties the tenants had in borrowing the purchase-money was one of the greatest impediments in the way of purchase. But when the tenants had something almost as good as fixity of tenure, and knew that they could not get a better occupation by purchase than they had already, and that they would even lose by purchase, it was not to be wondered at that they did not come forward and purchase the landlords' estates. The Treasury had thrown every obstacle in the way of working these clauses. They had refused, or almost refused, to advance money at all. They had done everything in their power to prevent them working; and if the fountain head was against the working of those clauses, he did not see how it was possible for them to be worked. Then the Land Court, overburdened by work as it was, could not possibly be
  1400
  expected to work those clauses properly. That Court, which had to assess the value of the rents, could not be expected to act fairly by the landlord and tenant in the matter of purchase, because it was natural that they should be inclined to a further reduction of rent. There was a Court in existence, however, a Court with all the necessary machinery, with officers perfectly acquainted with the value of land, and with power to give a title to property—he alluded to the Encumbered Estates Court—and he ventured to say that if the properties to be purchased passed through the hands of that Court the result would be satisfactory. The adoption of that suggestion would certainly save expense, and would greatly facilitate the working of the clauses in question. He could not wonder that these clauses of the Act had been much more a dead letter than they were under the Act of 1870. Landlords were now obliged to retain their properties, whether they would or not, and possibly for the benefit of the mortgagees alone. Immense stress had been laid upon the working of the Bright Clauses. When the Act of 1870 was passed, the Government at that time believed that if a peasant proprietary could be established throughout the length of Ireland it would add enormously to the loyalty of the population, and that the agitators would not have the hold upon the people which they had had up to the present time. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had alluded to some remarkable words which were made use of in a speech of Lord Hartington, and which were to the same effect. But if that view of the case were true, why was it the Government did not take steps to have those statements carried out? They knew perfectly well that the Purchase Clauses were a dead letter, and yet they sat quiet and asked for delay. Many considerations seemed to mark out the course proposed as being a proper one to pursue. The landlord of the future would be no more than, and only a rent-charger. He could not lay out any money for improvements, because he knew very well that his money might be confiscated and sold by the tenant the next moment; and he had, in fact, no interest in his estate. He would probably be an absentee, and from time immemorial absentees had been looked upon as a curse to

  1401
  Ireland. It was said that the absentee landlords had done nothing for the tenants, that they had drawn the rents out of the country and spent them elsewhere; and lately they had heard—he did not know how true it was—that a great part of the cause of the agricultural distress in this country was due to the fact that the land was held by so few persons. He would, at any rate, be one of the too few owners of the land to whose exclusive ownership much of the agricultural distress had been often attributed. The Act of 1881 would tend to perpetuate and to aggravate all these unfortunate social and economic conditions. It would have the effect of turning the great bulk of the landlords of Ireland into absentees, and, at the same time, of keeping the proprietorships in the hands of a few; because, however ready they might be to sell, they would not be able to dispose of a single acre. It came to this, then—that those who believed that the land of England was held by too few persons had succeeded in passing for Ireland a measure which kept the land in the hands of a few, for it forced the landlords to retain their property, and prevented them from developing its resources; while, at the same time, rendering them practically useless members of society. His own belief was that the Purchase Clauses might be made operative very speedily, and without any loss to the State, if the Government could only be persuaded that there was not the slightest risk in advancing the whole of the purchase money to the tenants. A certain sum of money might be set apart for this purpose every year, and the result would be that while the second or third batch of tenants were borrowing the money the first batch would have repaid it. He entirely agreed with what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said on that point. He believed that the instalments which would have to be paid to the Government would be looked upon by the tenants as so much of an investment; and if he repudiated it he would lose, in addition to his farm, all the money he had paid up to the time he ceased, payment. He (the Marquess of Waterford) could not see, therefore, that there would be the slightest danger of the State advancing the whole of the money to the
  1402
  tenants; and he was quite satisfied that it would have such a beneficial result upon Ireland, that, even if there was a risk of its costing the State any money, it would be amply repaid in the improved state of things which would follow. They must do something to render land saleable again, for as things were, land in Ireland was simply unsaleable at any price. Properties must change hands; but, at the present time, they could not be sold, because buyers had been frightened away, not by the depreciation of the value of the property, but by Imperial legislation and nothing else. He therefore thought, under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Government to take steps to give effect to the Purchase Clauses of the Act, which promised to be most effectually remedial. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had said that the Government was as anxious as he was that the Purchase Clauses should be worked. If that was so, what was the difficulty in the way of its being done? He knew it was believed that, if that were done, every tenant in Ireland would at once become a proprietor; but if the Government had any doubt upon that, could they not moderate the use of the clauses by an annual grant of so much? By so doing, the first lot of tenants would almost have paid the first instalment, before the latter part had received any money at all. Of course, not every tenant in Ireland could become a proprietor, and not every landlord would wish to sell. He knew, however, that in Ulster the tenants were more anxious to buy than in the other parts of Ireland, and that there they were looking with the greatest interest to the Motion of the noble Marquess, and he had received a telegram from an influential meeting there, praying the House to accede to the noble Marquess's Motion. They were most anxious to purchase their holdings in Ulster; indeed, no landlord could be more deeply interested in the question than the Ulster tenants, and he believed that before long they would have both landlord and tenant in Ireland anxiously agitating for a change that would render those clauses really workable. He sincerely wished Her Majesty's Government had acceded to the appointment of the Royal Commission, for though the Irish Land Question had been the

  1403
  subject of many inquiries, most of the information had been obtained before the passing of the Land Act, and the state of things had been completely changed since that time. An inquiry now, at any rate, would show the country that Her Majesty's Government were really anxious that the Purchase Clauses should be rendered workable; and that they were anxious in some manner to mitigate the evils which had followed the violent change in the Land Laws—of that which they had seen—evils which he believed would increase in volume every day that they remained unremedied.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he deeply regretted that the Government had not assented to inquiry in respect to this matter. He was rather sorry that everybody who had advocated that inquiry had coupled his remarks, more or less, with observations derogatory to the Land Act. He thought it would be a pity that it should be supposed that the two things were in antagonism, or that an inquiry was to be vindicated only on the ground of its repairing an injustice done by that Act. He considered the Land Act had materially reduced the grievances of the Irish people, which the Purchase Clauses by themselves would not have done. That Act, in his opinion, was certainly a good and just measure, but it had one drawback. They know that although the improvements on holdings, as a rule, had been made by the tenants, there were some landlords who did make improvements themselves, and they felt that the Act had had the effect of causing landlords to stop making those improvements. The consequence was that the tenants carried out all those improvements, and landlords would undoubtedly more and more, year after year, get into the condition of mere rent-chargers; and what he said was that those mere rent-chargers should, if they chose, be allowed and even encouraged to sell their estates, and that the tenants now who had made all the improvements in the land should have the additional responsibility of ownership. One objection to the scheme put forward for placing the tenant in the position of an owner was that the State must, for a certain number of years, itself become the landlord. He did not, however, see any objection to such a system of tenancy, and there would not be any
  1404
  difficulty in collecting the rents, as the Government had the power to enforce them. It was, however, said that would excite odium against the Government, but he did not share in that opinion. On the contrary, he thought they would incur less odium in enforcing their own rights than they did in enforcing the rights of others, and certainly would find it much easier to do so. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had stated that the Government had acted with reluctance in enforcing the payment of rent to the landlords; whereas the fact was, there was no one occasion on which they had not helped them. If a landlord wrote to Dublin Castle to say he wanted such assistance, a force of military and of police were sent to help to enforce his rights; but sometimes when they had gone long distances they found when they got to their journey's end there was no occasion for their services, for arrangements had been made at the last moment by the landlord, agent, or bailiff, and the men had to march back again. There was want of joint action on the part of the landlords; for if they had only agreed among themselves in any locality where they might require assistance, the Government could have afforded it them more easily. The work was done sporadically. It had been impossible for the authorities to render the assistance they might have done if they could have dealt with a county or a district at a time. There would have been great advantages if the Government had had the whole power of collecting the rent; and the Government could scarcely have incurred more odium in enforcing its own rights than it had incurred in enforcing those of other people. He was very sorry that the Government had announced that it was not their intention to grant the Commission asked for. He thought that if they stated it was their intention to make sufficient inquiries on the subject, it would answer the objects of the Resolution. It would have been much more satisfactory if the Government had undertaken inquiry with the view of settling all the details that could possibly be settled as to the number of years over which payment for a loan should be spread, the Court which was to carry out the scheme, and all matters which needed so much inquiry. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said it would be hotter to allow things to

  1405
  settle down. He (Earl Cowper) doubted very much whether, if there was a postponement and there was a marked change in the country in the way of improvement, the English people would be inclined to re-open the question until it was again forced on their attention. There were many reasons why the Bright Clauses should be made more workable. He must repeat that he regretted very much that the Government did not consider it necessary to make inquiries. There was no more proper time to make those inquiries than at the present moment, when the landlords were anxious to sell. It would be a boon to them, and the tenants would buy cheaply; and, for that reason, he did not see why the Purchase Clauses should not at once be made workable.
  LORD WAVENEY,after reading a Petition from the Ulster Tenant Eight Association, praying that their Lordships would accede to the Motion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), and also quoting several resolutions passed at meetings in Ireland, in its favour, said, he heartily joined in the regret that had been expressed by several speakers that the Government had signified its intention of not offering any assistance in the matter, as he believed it to be of the greatest moment that the fullest light should be thrown upon a subject of such vast importance to the future of Ireland. He contended that it was urgently needed to supply Government with data for supervising the new legislation, which was designed to effect a revolution in the economical condition of the country. In his opinion, the best arrangement that could be made in the circumstances would be one by which the farms would be transferred to a peasant proprietary, with a modified reduction of their interest that would be equivalent to the copyhold system of this country. Such an arrangement was especially required as regarded the tenants in Ulster.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he would refer their Lordships to his Protests put upon the Journals of the House at the time of the passing of the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, in which he had foreshadowed many of the difficulties which had since arisen respecting it, and had predicted that the purchase of holdings would cause disputes between the purchasers of a valueless tenant right and those who
  1406
  entered farms at the end of the first or second 15 years' lease. He had a farm which, in 1817, paid £120 yearly rent; this was reduced, first, to £90, and latterly by his father, in consultation with him, to £60; but, the land being exhausted from the tenant's acting as a carrier of lime, that rent could not be paid, on which he (Lord Denman) cultivated the farm, and the son of the tenant, in 1817, was his caretaker. It now was in good condition. Bearing this in mind, and referring to his Protests, he did not think that the present Motion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would lead to any good result.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in reply, said, he wished, in the first place, to explain with regard to the remarks made by the noble Earl the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper), that when he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said the Government had reluctantly supported landlords in enforcing the payment of rent, he did not intend to apply the words to the action of the Executive in Ireland. He had rather in his mind the fact—which he still believed to be a fact—that the Government did not, at first, clearly apprehend the character of the struggle which was going on between landlords and tenants in Ireland, and that the moral support which landlords received was not of a very cordial character. That was evident from the fact that in 1880, immediately after their accession to Office, they introduced a Bill imposing heavy penalties upon landlords who attempted to enforce their undoubted rights by eviction. He could not regard the reply of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal as being in every respect satisfactory; but, nevertheless, those who were interested in this question might gather some crumbs of comfort from what was said by the noble Lord. He understood the noble Lord to state that Her Majesty's Government were still in favour of an effectual measure for increasing the number of proprietors in Ireland, but that they reserved to themselves the duty of revising the shortcomings of the Land Act, and that they would do so at the proper time. If the noble Lord had said that the Government would bring in a Bill next year, his answer would have been entirely satisfactory. His (the Marquess

  1407
  of Lansdowne's) contention was that indefinite delay was unfortunate—first, because nothing with regard to the operation of the Purchase Clauses was so prejudicial as uncertainty as to the extent to which they were to be amended; and, secondly, because there were many owners of land in Ireland who were not able to wait for an indefinite time. These men, if not extricated from the embarrassing position in which they stood, would before long be in a state of absolute ruin. He did not, of course, intend to press his Motion, because an inquiry of this sort, if forced upon the Government, would lead to no useful results. He would only beg the Government to address themselves seriously to the consideration of this matter, and to do so with as little delay as possible. In conclusion, he begged to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn).
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.