Sitting of 8 April 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Poole, v. Charles Schreiber, esquire, deceased.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Commissariat and Transport Services (Egyptian Campaign); Charity Commission, nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading— Chatham and Brompton Tramways *; Metropolitan Board of Works (District Railway Ventilators) *.
Third Reading postponed—Stockton Carrs Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Ordered—First Reading—London Government [171].
Ordered—First Reading—Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Redhill and Earlawood Commons) * [172]; Public Health (Confirmation of Bye Laws) [173]; Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church) * [174].
First Reading—Matrimonial Causes* [175].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) * [120], debate farther adjourned.
Considered as amended—Real Assets Administration [98].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Army (Annual) [144], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Monday the 21st instant.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
STOCKTON CARRS RAILWAY BILL.
(By Order.)
STOCKTON CARRS RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD RADING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time upon Monday the 21st of April."— (Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. J. LOWTHER: On a point of Order I wish to ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker. This Bill was put down by Order for to-day, and an intimation was conveyed to me through the ordinary channels that it would be taken. So late as an early hour this morning I was informed by the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Bill would be taken. But, further, I feel it my duty to call your attention to the very extraordinary course which has been adopted by the promoters of this Bill. I should first of all, before I raise the point of Order, like to know whether it is intended to proceed with the Bill now? [Mr. DODDS: No, Sir.] Then I must, with reluctance, call your attention to a point of Order. Sir, my attention has been called to the fact of a Circular, signed by a Member of this House, having been sent to many Members of the House. The Circular is in the following terms; and as a point of Order I think it right to draw your attention to the Circular—
  "Reform Club, Pall Mall, S.W.,
  "5th April, 1884."
  Stockton Carrs Railway.
  "This Bill stands for Third Reading on Monday next, but Mr. James Lowther, M.P. has given Notice of opposition, and consequently the Third Reading will be taken on Tuesday next at Two o'clock p.m. precisely. My son is the Solicitor for the Bill, and I am exceedingly anxious to carry the Third Reading and defeat Mr. Lowther's opposition. May I beg that you will do me the very great personal favour to attend the House on Tuesday next, precisely at the hour named, to support the Third Reading? Hoping very earnestly for a favourable response,
  "I remain, yours faithfully,
  "JOSH. DODDS."
  Now, among the Standing Orders of this House is one that lays down, in clear and precise terms, that no Member of the House is entitled, with respect to a Private Bill, to take any action when he has a personal interest in that Bill. Now, I have reason to believe that the person alluded to as the solicitor for the Bill, and described by the hon. Member as his son, is, to all practical intents and purposes, associated in business matters with the hon. Gentleman. Within the last 24 hours I have had occasion to attend, in the country, a meeting of a Commission to which the hon. Member for Stockton is legal adviser. His place on that occasion was taken by his son, to whom reference is made in this Circular; and apparently an interchange of
  4
  work is taking place, and the hon. Member is very actively representing his son in regard to this Bill. I venture to submit this as a point of Order. If this kind of thing is allowed, it is bringing to this side of the Atlantic some of the objectionable "Lobbying" and "Logrolling" practices known in the United States, to bias the opinions of Members of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question of Order which has been raised comes on me by surprise. I was not aware of what had passed, or of the nature of the Circular alluded to. But I am not at all sure that this is the proper time to raise the question of Order on the Motion for the postponement of the Bill. I am not prepared to say, on the face of it, that this Circular transgresses the Standing Order in such a way that I am called upon to take notice of it.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I shall repeat my question, Sir, on the point of Order. I should like, also, to have an explanation as to the Motion for postponing the Bill. I was informed at an early hour this morning, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that this Bill would be taken to-day. This Circular to which I have referred had been sent out, and other Circulars also, drawing the attention of Members to the Bill, had been sent out; but not one single syllable was conveyed to me on the subject as to the change of intention in taking the third reading until, in an under-tone, that intimation was conveyed in the Motion made just now. I think I am entitled to ask for some explanation as to the most unusual course adopted, and the want of courtesy to individual Members and the House at large. To put myself in Order, I will move that the Order for the Third Reading be discharged.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the Third Reading of the Bill be discharged,"—(Mr. J. Lowther,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Before that Question is put, Sir, I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire has

  5
  brought before the House a certain document which is now in your possession, and has quoted the terms of that document to the House. He has asked you, as I understand, whether the issue of such a document by a Member of the House, if it was issued by a Member of the House, was not a violation of the Orders of the House—in fact, a breach of the Privileges of this House; and, Sir, I apprehend, in so very serious a matter as appears to be contained in that document, the House, having been put in possession of the terms of that document, cannot avoid giving some judgment on it, having regard not only to the order of its Business, but its own dignity and the dignity of its Members. Sir, in that document, which is signed by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), there is a passage of the most questionable, and, possibly, of a most objectionable nature. I waited, before I commented on the document, to hear whether the hon. Member whose name is at the bottom of it offered the House at once, and without any loss of time, some explanation of the history of the document; but the hon. Member for Stockton, whose name is on it, remained silent. Now, what was that passage, for I think the public out-of-doors will be of opinion that the House takes this kind of matter, where immense pecuniary interests are involved, very lightly if we allow this to pass over without notice from the House, or any attempt at explanation from the hon. Member? The passage was—I caught it from the reading; I have not seen the document until now—
  "My son is Solicitor for the Bill, and I am anxious to defeat the Motion of Mr. J. Lowther."
  A Circular is sent to the Members of the Liberal Party dated from the Reform Club, and a direct incentive—Cries of "Order, order!"]—I am quite in Order. I am speaking to a point of Order, and I intend, with the permission of the Speaker, to conclude with a Motion on the point of Order. It is sent by a Member of the Liberal Party——
  MR. M'COAN: I rise to put it to you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether the noble Lord is not wandering at length into a speech which has nothing to do either with a question of Privilege, or with the Motion before the House? Is he in Order in so using the time of the
  6
  House, when he rose exclusively on a point of Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that the Order for the Third Reading of the Bill be discharged. I am bound to say, in reference to the point of Order, that I scarcely think the Standing Orders cover such a case as this. What I said was, that I would respectfully submit to the House that, a question of Order having arisen, it should be raised when the Bill is taken. I understand now the Bill is to be postponed, and the point will be raised at another time. I thought it the most convenient course that I should have time to consider the point of Order, and give my ruling when the Bill comes on for discussion.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I respectfully submit to you, Sir, and to the House, that it is extremely essential that the House should not part with this matter in a hurry. In the first place—let me entreat the indulgence of the House—the honour of a Member of the House is directly involved; and, therefore, the Privileges of the House are immediately in question. I raise this question, which I am going to bring before the House, as a matter of Privilege, and on this account — that the moment the honour of a Member is involved, the matter becomes of a highly urgent nature that will not brook delay; and let me point out that why it is necessary to take notice of it now is because there is not the slightest guarantee that this Bill will ever be proceeded with. If, in order further to elucidate these very strange proceedings, we wait until the House can proceed again——
  MR. HOPWOOD: I rise to Order, Sir. I beg, Sir, to ask you whether we are not to understand that you have ruled that this point must come on when the Bill is taken at a later stage; and whether the noble Lord is not now, under pretence of suggesting several things to your consideration, violating your ruling in this respect?
  MR. SPEAKER: I repeat, it would be the most convenient course, in my opinion, that this matter should be reserved until the Bill comes on; and I stated I would then give a decision on the point raised as to whether this subject, now for the first time presented to my notice, is a violation of the Standing Orders. I said the point is so novel that

  7
  I should like to have time to see whether it contravenes any Standing Order or not. I submit to the House that is the most convenient course.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I, Sir, ask you one more question, and, in doing so, I do not in the least wish to question your ruling. I do not understand that you have given an absolute ruling against me. But I wish to ask you whether I should be in Order in moving as an Amendment, or as a substantive Motion, that the Circular communicated to the House by the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), and issued by the hon. Member for Stockton, is a gross breach of the Privileges of the House? Shall I be in Order in moving that now?
  MR. SPEAKER: No. That must be done as a separate Motion; it could not be raised in the discussion of the Bill.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is it not the essence of a question of' Privilege that notice should be taken at once on the matter involving the question of Privilege? I certainly take up the position that the House being in possession of the matter, the House is involved, and it is open to a Member to take the judgment of the House for the protection of its Members.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT:— [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair !"]—I rise to speak on the Motion before the House in spite of the cries—the most disorderly cries—of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. HEALY: Not more than your own sometimes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) has asked for an explanation.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I must rise to Order upon that. I asked you, Mr. Speaker, a question on your ruling which you delivered on a point of Order, and, in answer to the hon. Member for Stockport, whether I should be in Order in moving that the Circular is a gross breach of Privilege? I apprehend that if that Motion is not made now it never can be made?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question now before the House has to be disposed of. It will be competent to the noble Lord to make a Motion afterwards.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) says he expected this Bill would come on, since it was put down by Order for
  8
  to-day, and I must take the whole responsibility of the Order not coming on. I knew nothing of this personal question at all; but I saw it was extremely likely from the Notice on the Paper, and from what I heard of the opposition to the Bill, that it might interfere with the important Public Business coming on to-day. I know there is a great disposition when there is a peg to hang something of that kind upon it. I, therefore, made an appeal to my hon. Friend behind me to postpone this Bill, which, I am bound to say, he was extremely reluctant to do; and it was only at my earnest instance that he consented to the postponement, in order that the time of the House just now should not be occupied by the discussion of a Private Bill; and still less, I should say, should it be occupied with personal questions at this time, when everybody knows the time is limited within which the House has to dispose of Public Business. Now, I would, Sir, if I may take the liberty, support the appeal you have made to the House to postpone the whole of this question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It could never come on again.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, the Speaker has already ruled that the matter may come on as a separate Motion; and I am sure the House will be slow to reject your appeal, Sir, that time should be given for the consideration of the matter. The noble Lord said, as a matter of importance, it should not be hurried.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say that. I said this particular matter.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, I say it is being hurried on now, and that there will be a better opportunity of taking the judgment of the House by a Motion. It hon. Gentlemen opposite think they have a strong case, then it will be none the worse for waiting; and I ask them not to hurry on the matter.
  MR. DODDS: Sir, I yielded most reluctantly to the solicitations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to proceed with the Bill to-day. I have in my hand two or three little notes made since I came down to the House, for I came quite expecting to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite speak in opposition to the Bill and move its rejection, and I was prepared to answer him. When appealed to last night I declined to post-

  9
  pone the Bill; but I have now yielded to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after mentioning the matter to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who thought that the Bill might occupy considerable time; and, therefore, we agreed it ought to come on after Easter. That is the whole explanation why the Bill has not come on to-day. Just a word with respect to the Circular. I believe a portion of it was suggested before I left town on Friday. I left it in the hands of my secretary, with instructions to confer with the Parliamentary agents for the Bill, and to despatch it, with the reasons in favour of the Bill, to some of my personal friends, by Saturday's post. I left town on Friday, and it was not until Sunday or Monday morning, while in the country, that I saw the terms of the Circular. I then expressed regret that the one particular passage which has been referred to was contained in it. I only desire, further, to add that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, that there is something behind it in connection with my son, is wholly and entirely destitute of foundation. I have no more to do with the Bill and the matters involved in it than as Member for Stockton. I introduced the Bill into the House, and was desirous to pass it through, in the belief that it would be of great benefit to the district; but I will not go into that at present. The right hon. Gentleman says he attended a meeting where he saw my son representing me, and that there was something like an exchange of work between us. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my son is associated with me in the office of chief clerk to the Tees Conservancy Commission, and is only discharging his duty, whilst I am discharging mine in the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: To meet the convenience of the House, I am willing to withdraw my Motion to discharge the Bill, which I only made in order to allow of an explanation being given. But I should like to have a distinct assurance as to what day the Bill will be put down for, for Members have to attend at great inconvenience. I must again take exception to the fact that I was allowed to leave after the Division last night without being informed that the Bill would not be taken. Nor, apparently, was the Chairman of Ways and Means informed, for I am sure, had
  10
  he known, he would, with his customary courtesy, have informed me.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAY: I knew nothing of it.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I am sure of that. It must have been concealed from the Chairman of Ways and Means. I will not follow that up; but I must say it is most inconvenient that Members, having public and private Business to attend to in and out of the House, should be kept in ignorance up to the last moment of the intention not to proceed with a Bill in which they are interested. I do not wish to go into the merits of the Bill further than to say that I have in my hands ready for presentation to the House Petitions on the subject, signed by a majority of the Local Board of Stockton, and from a public meeting of the inhabitants, protesting against the Bill—["Order, order !"]—and when the time comes I will go into this matter, notwithstanding the disorderly interruptions of the Secretary to the Treasury, to which I must call your attention, Sir, for they are too habitual to be passed over. Meanwhile, I will withdraw my Motion, provided I am assured as to what day the Bill will positively be taken.
  MR. DODDS: I have already moved that it be taken on April 21. I will only add, further, that when he came into the House the Chairman of Ways and Means fully expected the Bill was going to be taken. I had been in his room a minute before.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I must object to that date positively, and I must take the sense of the House on my Motion, for I am already for that day engaged to attend a public meeting of importance in my own constituency—an engagement which it is impossible to put off. I must beg that it be taken not earlier than Thursday.
  MR. DODDS: In response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to alter the date to Tuesday the 22nd. It cannot be longer delayed. While I am on my feet, I take the opportunity of saying that I exceedingly regret if any passage or paragraph in the Circular seems in any way to infringe the Privileges of the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I am sorry to appear pertinacious; but I understood it was to be the earliest day after the Recess. I would suggest the Tuesday after the Recess.
  MR. DODDS: That will be the 22nd,
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Very well.
  MR. HICK'S: I beg to draw the attention of the House to the understanding that was arrived at a few days ago, that we were to have a Morning Sitting on the first Tuesday after the Recess for the express purpose of taking the Cattle Diseases Bill, and I will ask hon. Members whether they think it reasonable that a question of this nature, which, on the showing of the promoters of the Bill, is likely to take up a large portion of the Sitting, should be put down for Tuesday—I will ask hon. Members whether it is right that a most important Bill, to which the agricultural interest is looking forward with so much anxiety, should be postponed for the purpose of devoting that Sitting to a Bill of a private nature? I must offer the most strenuous objection to the date Tuesday, the 22nd.
  MR. DODDS: If the right hon. Gentleman prefers Tuesday, the 29th, I have no objection.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: No; I cannot do that. I cannot withdraw my Motion until I know what day the Bill will come on. I propose Thursday, the 24th.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We are anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman's wishes. We have mentioned two days, and they are objected to. Now he proposes to put it down for the Budget day. Let us say Friday, the 25th.
  SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE: I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the arrangements for today, which are the ground of the hon. Member for Stockton putting off the Bill, were made at such an early period that the whole re-arrangement might have been made in good time, and my right hon. Friend might have been informed at an early hour.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I accept the suggestion for the 25th, and beg to withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday 25th April.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (STOCKTON CARES RAILWAY BILL).

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise now to speak to a substantive Motion—that of Privilege—and in order to take as early as possible the opinion
  12
  of the House on the Circular which has been communicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire. The reason why I raise the point now is that I do not myself perceive how it is possible for the House of Commons to command the confidence of the public in matters relating to private legislation, where, as I have said before, enormous pecuniary interests are involved, if individual Members of the House lend themselves to such proceedings as are undoubtedly set forth in the Circular now before us. The private interests of a particular Member are set forth particularly as a motive why particular Members of the House should support a Bill. There is not a line in this Circular, from first to last, about the public interest—from first to last it is a personal appeal from a Member of the House to his own Party to defeat a Motion of opposition to a Private Bill on the ground of the lowest personal interest. Now, I say that the explanation with which the hon. Member for Stockton has favoured the House is no explanation at all; and it adds to, rather than detracts from, the gravity of the occurrence. There was some kind of an arrangement by which the hon. Member for Stockton left town, leaving to his son and secretary the duty of Lobbying Members of the Liberal Party, and after or before he came back to town the Circular was issued, and at once became public property. Allusions were made to it in the Press, and, I believe, it was current talk in the Reform Club. But I cannot understand that the hon. Member for Stockton made the slightest effort of any sort or kind to withdraw this Circular before the Bill came on. Therefore, although the hon. Member for Stockton says now that the personal portion of the Circular, or a particular portion of it—I do not know which he said—was issued without his knowledge and consent, assuredly he was perfectly willing to derive any benefit that might follow from it. Now, what is this passage in the Circular, which I will venture to say is quite unprecedented in the history of the House of Commons—
  "My son is Solicitor for the Bill, and I am exceedingly anxious to carry the Third Reading and defeat Mr. Lowther's opposition."
  Why is he exceedingly anxious? Not on account of any public good, but because "my son is Solicitor for the Bill,"

  13
  Now, I want to ask the House what would they have thought if, instead of the words "my son is Solicitor for the Bill," they had been—"I have an interest in it to the extent of £10,000?" What would the House have thought of it? But what is the difference? The son of the hon. Member is pecuniarily interested in the passage of the Bill. The son of the hon. Member is not only pecuniarily interested, but he is absolutely the partner in business with the hon. Member in regard to it. And that is put forward, without concealment, in the face of day—such are the morals of the Liberal Party now—put forward as a reason why the Liberal Party should support this Private Bill; and then we are asked to allow this matter to stand over, after the publicity which has been given to it, and after all the censures that are freely lavished on the mode in which this House conducts Private Business, though I must allow it has never yet been attempted to connect it with the private pecuniary interest of Members. We are asked to pass this over, to allow it to stand over, as the Home Secretary says, as a matter of very little importance—one of those personal questions hon. Members are so fond of raising, but altogether a triviality that ought not to delay the speech he is going to make. Now, I venture to say, the honour of the House of Commons is of far more vital interest than the Government of London. Whether the hon. Member belongs to the Liberal or the Tory Party, it is absolutely necessary for the House of Commons, if it is to maintain its character and retain the confidence of the people, to dispose of this matter without the slightest loss of time. I move, with every confidence, in the absence of any much more satisfactory explanation, and a much more apologetic withdrawal of the Circular in question than we have heard offered—
  "That the issue of the Circular concerning the Stockton Carrs Railway, by the hon. Member for Stockton, is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House."
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTseconded the Motion.
  Circular put in, and read as followeth:—
  "Reform Club, Pall Mall, S.W.
  "5th April, 1884.
  "Stockton Carrs Railway.
  "This Bill stands for Third Reading on Monday next, hut Mr. James Lowther, M.P
  14
  has given Notice of opposition, and consequently, the Third Reading will he taken on Tuesday next, at Two o'clock p.m. precisely:
  "My son is the Solicitor for the Bill, and I am exceedingly anxious to carry the Third Reading and defeat Mr. Lowther's opposition:
  "May I beg that you will do me the very great personal favour to attend the House on Tuesday next, precisely at the hour named, to support the Third Reading:
  "Hoping very earnestly for a favourable response,
  "I remain, yours faithfully,
  "JOSH DODDS."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the issue of the Circular concerning the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, by the honourable Member for Stockton, is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrose, and was called upon by the Speaker.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFF: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Stockton ought not to withdraw?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTendeavoured to speak, amidst cries of "Dodds!" and "Order!"
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The course the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) suggests was followed the other day.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is usual for the Member to withdraw.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to Order.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It seems to me that no one is to be allowed to speak except the noble Lord.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on Lord Randolph Churchill, and Sir William Harcourt resumed his seat. LORD RANDOLPH CHUECHILL: I rise to a point of Order. It will be in your recollection, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, that when the vote of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Coope) was contested on the ground that he was personally interested in the Corporation Water Bill under discussion, he was told to withdraw. The conduct of the hon. Member for Stockton with respect to a Private Bill being now under consideration, I submit that he ought also to withdraw.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stockton will be heard in his place. I do not know with what object the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) intervenes.
  MR. DODDS: I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said on this subject. Perhaps I had better repeat what I said. I stated that I had no personal interest whatever in this matter, either as partner or in any other way with my son, any more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire has; and I beg to repeat, in the most unqualified terms, that if there be anything in this Circular not merely in contravention of the Privileges of this House, but which, in the slightest degree, is supposed to approach to a breach of the Privileges of this House, I am exceedingly sorry for it, and beg at once and fully to withdraw it. I should be exceedingly sorry to infringe the Privileges of this House in any way whatever. I had not the remotest intention of doing anything of the kind. I thought I had said that before; but, at any rate, I say it now. If there was anything in the Circular which can be supposed, in the least degree, to infringe the Privileges of this House I am exceedingly sorry.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stockton will now withdraw.
  [Mr. DODDS accordingly withdrew."]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rose before, because I thought the hon. Member for Stockton had already made the explanation which the House demanded from him. He has now repeated it, and I really do ask any fair-minded man in this House whether, after the explanation he has given, there is the smallest foundation for this Motion. Let us see what the hon. Member for Stockton has said, and what it is averred he has done. There is a Bill before the House affecting the town which the hon. Member represents. It is habitual in this House to send round private Whips. Whether the practice is a good or bad one I do not say; but, at any rate, it is a practice very frequently adopted in reference to Private Bills. I have received Whips of this kind myself from Members of both Parties, although they are things I never pay much attention to. If the hon. Member for Stockton is to be attacked under the Orders of the House, it must be because he used his position as a Member of the House to seek some personal interest for himself. The noble Lord said that this Circular indicates the lowest and most grovelling
  16
  personal interest. Well, I believe the noble Lord is a father himself, and I do not know why he should describe a reference to his son as the lowest and most grovelling of all interests. The point is this—Has the hon. Member any personal pecuniary interest in this matter? He has said he has none, and there is no pretence for saying he has any. He sends a Circular round to his friends—a sort of "fiery cross"—asking them to come and meet a gentleman whom he describes as "Mr. James Lowther." I believe that up in the North there are feuds very similar in character to. those which used to prevail between the Border men of old, the Lowthers being ranged on one side, and the Doddses on the other. As to the expressions contained in the Circular, the hon. Member says that he did not draw up the document; but that it was drawn up in his absence, by his secretary.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: He signed it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Or it was signed on his behalf. He has told the House he is not responsible for the wording of the Circular, nor, I suppose, for this reference to his son; and then he added that if there was anything irregular, or that the House had reason to complain of, in what he had done, he very much regretted it. After that, I should like to know whether there is the smallest reasonable ground for this violent proceeding of a Vote of Censure on the conduct of the hon. Member? Suppose he did invite his Friends to come down to the House, it was, no doubt, out of regard to his son, and in opposition to Gentlemen on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says his own Friends have come down to oppose the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In consequence of this Circular.
  MR. WARTON: On public grounds.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At any rate, hon. Gentlemen engage their Friends to come down on the one side and the other. There is no question of pecuniary interest; and, so far as there may be anything improper in the wording of the Circular, the hon. Member has expressed his regret that such language was employed. Under these circumstances, I think the House will see there is no ground for raising this question of Privilege.
  SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE: I must say I was greatly surprised when I came down to the House to-day and found what was going on. I had not seen or heard anything of this Circular; but, from what I have heard since I have been in the House, it does appear to me that, whatever may be the amount of blame that may be applied to one person or the other, the House has a matter of great importance before it, and has to consider how far its Privileges are concerned in what, as far as I can judge, is certainly a step in advance of anything ever known to take place in regard to a Private Bill. It has been said that the practice of summoning Members to vote against Private Bills is one liable to abuse, and one which it is not desirable to see extended. I concur in that opinion; and this, it seems to me, is a case where there is a distinct step— I do not say whether it is a long step or a short one—in advance of the ordinary practice. It is hardly to be expected that the House will pass over such a matter without taking some note of it; otherwise it would be set up as a precedent, and we may incur greater and more serious inconveniences than, we have at present. When the hon. Member for Stockton told us he had not been responsible for the drawing up of the greater part of the Circular, it struck me that it must have been a document setting forth at considerable length the public aspects of the case, that he had allowed his secretary to fill in the facts, and that he was sorry to find that some expressions had been introduced without his subsequent approval. When, however, we heard the Circular read, it seemed to rest entirely on the fact of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Bill, or his connection with the Bill, either through his son or otherwise. This is a step beyond anything we have known, and certainly deserves the notice of the House.
  MR. RAIKES: I wish to say one or two words on this extremely painful incident in the history of Private Bill legislation. I am the more sorry to have to animadvert on the conduct of the hon. Member in this connection, because we know that for some time past he has been good enough to assist the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) in taking under his especial charge the management of
  18
  private legislation. I cannot help thinking that is a circumstance it will be well to take into consideration, because the House should always have a scrupulous and a nice regard to the propriety of the conduct of those who undertake, even voluntarily, the transaction of Private Business. Apart from the personal question as it relates to the hon. Member for Stockton, the House has to deal with not only an individual, but an overt act. We have heard the Circular that is under discussion read; and, I must say, I fail to see how any explanation, even if it were more satisfactory than that offered by the hon. Member for Stockton, or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, could operate to prevent the House expressing its regret at such an attempt to influence Members in regard to a Private Bill. Observations have been made as to what the Circular contains; but nothing has been said with regard to what it does not contain. From beginning to end there is no reference in it to the public interest, or the interest of the borough represented by the hon. Member who signed it. There is no reference to any public interest in it in any shape or form. There is a reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire, whose name is brought into the matter for reasons best known to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton. We have, then, a reference to the son of the hon. Member for Stockton—Members being asked to support the Bill as a "very great personal favour" to the hon. Member, because of his son's connection with it. I venture to think that if the House does not, in some way, record its sense of this sort of conduct in connection with a matter on which the honour of the House ought to be above all suspicion, it will be paving the way to great trouble and misrepresentation in the future, and that it cannot, at this moment especially, when we are engaged in the consideration of a great question affecting its actual constitution, be too particular to preserve intact for our successors that untarnished honour which has been handed down to us.
  MR. RYLANDS: I rise to express a hope that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) will not think it necessary to put the House to the necessity

  19
  of going to a Division on this question. If we are compelled to divide, I shall feel myself at liberty, after the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, to vote against the Motion. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not meet the Motion in the spirit, or even in the words, of the Home Secretary. I do not think the hon. Member for Stockton met it in that spirit, because ho expressed the greatest regret that he should have done anything, through accident or inadvertence, approaching a breach of the Privileges of this House. The noble Lord has performed a public duty in calling attention to the subject; and I think we should, to as great an extent as possible, put our foot down, in reference to Private Bill legislation, upon everything which bears even a shadow of a shade of a suspicion of any personal interest of private Members being involved in transactions of this kind. It is essential to the dignity of this House that we should seek to keep it above suspicion. If I am able to judge the feelings of the House, we are pretty much at one in regard to disapproval of this Circular; but I think that on this side of the House we are disposed to deal with the question leniently, having heard the handsome manner in which the hon. Member has apologized for the Circular. We are disposed to prevent, if possible, any such Resolution as that which has been put before the House being forced to a Division. But, from what I have gathered from the other side of the House, there is not the same disposition there to look on my hon. Friend's conduct leniently. The result of taking this matter to a Division, therefore, would be that on one side you would get Gentlemen of one Party, and on the other side Gentlemen of the other Party; and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition whether it would not be a misfortune if, on a matter in which I agree with him—["Oh, oh !"]—yes, I say on a matter in which I agree with him, we were not jealous of the reputation of the House, and avoided a Party Division? I think the feeling of the House has been sufficiently shown, and that the noble Lord has attained the object he has in view; and, seeing that the hon. Member has absolutely withdrawn the Circular, I submit that the course which would be most likely to promote the Privileges of the House, and sup-
  20
  port its character, would be the withdrawal of the Motion.
  MR. HEALY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down whether he himself received a copy of the Circular in question; and I would put it to the House whether it is not a very remarkable thing that the Liberal Party, who condemn the Circular now it is exposed, should have come down here to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockton? The Home Secretary has taken up a most extraordinary position in this matter. He said—"You must not ask a personal favour for yourself; but you may ask it for your son." It is a breach of the Privileges of the House to ask a favour for yourself; but it is not a breach of Privilege to ask one for your sister, your cousin, or your aunt. Such is the declaration of the Home Secretary. I should like to point out that we cannot altogether dissociate this Motion from the personality of the Gentleman who has issued the Circular. No one in the House can be unaware of the fact that the hon. Member for Stockton has set himself up as a censor morum et arbiter elegantiarum, therefore any offence committed by the hon. Member must be viewed with much more severity than one committed by anyone else. On the 30th May, 1881, a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry), supported by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) to declare certain matter published in The Freeman's Journal relative to a vote in this House on the Land Bill a breach of Privilege. The vote in question had been given so that, in spite of the heat of Party passion, there could be no question in regard to the anticipation of the decision of the House; but the matter complained of was decided to be a breach of Privilege. Now, however, the House is going to declare that it is no breach of Privilege for an hon. Member to ask a favour in this House in connection with a Private Bill for family reasons; and in so doing, I must say, you are taking up a most dangerous position. You may vote this Motion down by a Party Division, and the effect will be to give hon. Members a licence in the future to do as the hon. Member for Stockton has done. This House, by the machinery of the Liberal Party and its majority, will have endorsed the

  21
  Circular of the hon. Member, and Ministerialists will have an additional cry to go to the country upon. Before now we have heard of Circulars of various kinds —now you have the Stockton Circular. We have had the Slave Trade Circular, which has been turned into a Party cry, and now the Government use their majority—get their Whips, the two noble Lords whom I see opposite—to drill up their followers and bring them into the Lobby to vote that to ask a personal favour for your son in connection with the passing of a Private Bill is no breach of Privilege. I trust the Liberal Party will put itself in that position, and that we shall have the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister bringing his big battalions into the Lobby to declare that the action of the hon. Member for Stockton is not a breach of Privilege. That will put a weapon in the hands of the Tory Party that no previous act of the Government has given them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have only two remarks to make. The first is, that I think it much more important for the honour of the House that we should have a retractation on the part of the Home Secretary of the support he has given to the hon. Member for Stockton than an apology from the hon. Member himself for the issue of the Circular. It appears to me that the credit of the House is in much greater danger from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman than from the Circular issued by the hon. Member for Stockton. The other remark I have to make is that the hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to think that the chief objection to carrying the matter to a Division was that the whole of the Liberal Party were going to support the hon. Member for Stockton. Well, I would point out to the hon. Member that any evil which is likely to result from such a course can be obviated by himself and his Friends voting for the Motion of my noble Friend.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not at all agree with the action of the hon. Member for Stockton, or with the speech of the Home Secretary; but it does seem to me that when the whole House, with the exception of the Home Secretary, agrees in disapproving of the conduct of the hon. Member for Stockton, and when the hon. Gentleman himself has practically thrown over the Home Secretary by apologizing for that conduct, it
  22
  would be a mistake to divide the House on the question. So far as I am concerned, I disapprove of the conduct of the hon. Member for Stockton; but if the noble Lord pushes this Motion to a Division I shall certainly vote against him, because I regard it as a species of persecution because of the loyalty of the hon. Member for Stockton to the Ministerial side of the House. If the hon. Member were sitting on the opposite side, I am perfectly certain the noble Lord would not have brought forward a Motion such as this, unless, indeed, he had been sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. Under these circumstances, I do hope, for the honour and credit of the House, that after this general expression of opinion the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion; but if he does not, I trust we Liberals will stand by the hon. Member for Stockton.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Should I be in Order, Mr. Speaker, in moving as an Amendment to the Motion proposed by the noble Lord—
  "That the hon. Member for Stockton, having apologised for the issue of the Circular concerning the Stockton Carrs Railway, the House will now proceed with the further consideration of the Private Business appointed for this day?"
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member bring up the Amendment?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONaccordingly brought up the Amendment to the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SEXTON: Before you put the Question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, as a point of Order, whether it is in accordance with the usage of the House that a Motion of Privilege should be met otherwise than by a direct negative?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Rule applying to questions of Privilege. The Amendment is perfectly in Order.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "the honourable Member for Stockton having apologised for the issue of the Circular concerning the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, this House do now proceed to the further consideration of the Private Business appointed for this day,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 139: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That the honourable Member for Stockton having apologised for the issue of the Circular concerning the Stockton Carrs Railway Bill, this House do now proceed to the further consideration of the Private Business appointed for this day.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED RIOT AT CASTLEREA.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a young man named Thomas M'Greevy has been sentenced to a month's imprisonment, with hard labour, at the Castlerea (county Roscommon) Petty Sessions, for alleged obstruction of the police; whether it is the fact that the obstruction consisted in asking Sub-Constable Nolan not to kill a man whom he had in custody, and whom he was brutally maltreating; whether Nolan replied by rushing at M'Greevy and dealing him a terrific blow on the head with his baton; whether several respectable witnesses (including Mr. O'Kelly, Professor in the Castlerea Seminary) swore that M'Greevy was standing seven yards away from the police, and gave no provocation for the assault upon him; and, whether, if this be so, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to examine the evidence, with a view to the remission of the sentence?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the sentence of one month's hard labour was passed in this case for riot and obstruction of the police. The obstruction did not consist in a mere verbal remonstrance, but in raising a stone and advancing to strike the constable, who, in self-defence, was obliged to raise his baton. The witnesses did not swear the alleged circumstances. They contradicted each other; but they all agreed that there was a riotous mob.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SEC. 14—SEARCHES FOR ARMS.
  MR. HARRINGTON(for Mr. O'BRIEN) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many searches for arms have taken place in the counties of Fermanagh and the proclaimed portions of Tyrone since their proclamation under the Arms Act, and
  24
  with what result; how many resident magistrates' licences for arms have been granted in these counties; how many of the licensed persons are Protestants, and how many Catholics; and, whether, having regard to the fact that hundreds of revolvers were fired off in the landlord meeting at Rosslea, and to the statement that "sackfuls of revolvers" were brought to the meeting at Dromore, any steps have been, or will be, taken to disarm the Orange Association in these counties?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there have been no searches for arms in Fermanagh and Tyrone, as the having of arms in houses is not prohibited. The licensing officer for Fermanagh informs me that he has granted 475 licences—365 to Protestants and 110 to Roman Catholics. He mentions that the application for licences from the Roman Catholic parts of the county are comparatively few. He gives the respective numbers, as his personal belief that the religion of applicants for licences is not recorded. The licensing officer of the Dungannon end of the County Tyrone states that he granted, in all, 477 licences. He cannot distinguish as to the religious persuasions of the recipients. I have not yet received a Return for the Omagh district. The licensing officer for that portion of the county has been on duty in Dublin and away from his records. It is not intended to take any action "to disarm the Orange Association" in either Fermanagh or Tyrone, as is suggested in the Question of the hon. Member.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—COMPENSATION FOR MALICIOUS INJURY—THE BOROUGH OF TBALEE.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the ratepayers of the borough of Tralee have been taxed for the compensation awarded in the case of outrages which had been committed seven miles from the town; and, whether several magistrates and others who were not residents of the borough gave evidence in favour of its exemption; and, if so, would he state the grounds on which it was included in the area taxed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, from inquiries made by the County Inspector, I

  25
  think this Question must refer to the compensation in the case of the murder of Mr. Herbert. In that case, as in all others, the district taxed was reconsidered by the investigator after careful consideration of the evidence. In that case the murder arose from a conspiracy spread all over the whole barony in which Tralee is situated. If the Question refers to this particular murder, that is my answer; but I shall be glad to inquire if it refers to any other case.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Tralee is 12 miles from that place.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. GEORGE BOLTON.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What fee did Mr. George Bolton obtain by each appearance in the Ballyfarnon case; and, would he explain why the Tipperary Crown Solicitor appeared in a case in Galway?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Mr. Bolton has not yet sent in his account; but he will be paid the usual charges in such cases. The ordinary charges fixed are one guinea a day, besides travelling charges and other actual payments, except hotel expenses. I am informed a full day's work was done on each day of the investigation except one, when there was an adjournment, principally to suit the prisoner's solicitor. The Attorney General exercises his discretion in all cases when a Crown Solicitor has to be chosen for special duty.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the practice in Dublin Castle is for Mr. Matthew Anderson to get for every case three guineas; whether he then passes the case on to Mr. Murphy, who gets two guineas; and whether Mr. Murphy passes it on to Mr. Bolton, who gets one guinea; and, if so, why such a system is permitted, and does the Crown intend that it should continue?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I never heard of such a practice.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the Irish Government have any objection to insist on Mr. Bolton paying over a part of this money in discharge of his debts?

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—INSTRITCTIONS TO THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the suggestions and instructions issued from time to time to the Sub-Commissioners under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that there is no objection to laying the Papers referred to before Parliament.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LORD ARDILAUN'S BAILIFFS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that the Crown entered a nolle prosequi against one of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, who fired at and wounded two men who cut a bit of stick for aboat's row lock on his lordship's property; and, if another of them who pleaded guilty was released on his own recognisances?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The Crown did not enter a nolls prosequi against anyone. Two of Lord Ardilaun's keepers having come upon two men trespassing upon his Lordship's property and cutting rods, a scuffle took place, during which an attempt was made to upset the keeper's boat. The gun of one was fired—whether accidentally or not was a question—in the dispute, and the two men were wounded. This keeper was put upon his trial and pleaded guilty, and afterwards, by an arrangement made with the men wounded, which was sanctioned by the Judge, he was allowed out on his own recognizances on his paying in Court £40 to one of the men and £20 to the other. The other keeper pleaded guilty to a common assault, and as he did not fire any shot he was allowed out on his own recognizances.

  IRELAND—THE DUBLIN MURDER TRIALS — COMPENSATION TO MR.FIELD.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can give the date on which Mr. Field received £600, part of the £3,000 awarded to him as compensation for injuries inflicted upon him;

  27
  why this payment was so long delayed; and, why only £600, out of the award of £3,000, has been paid to Mr. Field, having regard to the fact that the Return published on the 7th of March last states that the levy was ordered to be made "Forthwith, in one sum?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Collector General of Rates handed £600 to Mr. Field's solicitor on the 14th of last month, the amount collected up to that time. The meaning "forthwith in one sum" is that the collection is made as rapidly as possible under one warrant— this being done. The warrant lasts for 12 months, and in order to meet Mr. Field, although it gave additional trouble to the officials, the money is being paid as it comes in without waiting till the whole sum is collected. A further payment of £600 will be made directly.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: What is the date of the warrant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The 20th of October, 1883.

  SCOTLAND—THE HIGHLAND CROFTERS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If the Report of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the Crofters will be issued before the House rises; and, if not, if he can say positively when it will be issued, and what is the cause of the delay?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the Rules in regard to the issue of official documents are very strict; and it is not the system under those Rules to issue them, until a printing order is obtained from this House, which could not be done until the Report was laid on the Table of the House. There will be no avoidable delay in throwing off the copies.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he could give any indication as to the probable date of issue?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have made inquiry, and I have given all the information I can. The Office assures me there will be no delay in the matter; but I believe it will be a matter of a fortnight or three weeks. I can give no further information.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—NUBARPASHA AND MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Who is accountable for the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to the responsible post of Home Secretary in Egypt; whether, prior to his appointment, he possessed any special knowledge of the language or customs of the Egyptian People; and, if he has yet succeeded in promoting any of the internal reforms indicated by Lord Dufferin? The hon. Member complained that his Question had been altered. He had referred to Mr. Lloyd as lately a magistrate in Ireland.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to know whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd could be dismissed by the Khedive, or whether it was necessary to have the sanction of the British Government before he could be deprived of his office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I can, of course, only answer the Question on the Paper. I have already stated in this House that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed by the Egyptian Government. There was a recommendation on the part of Lord Spencer and Lord Dufferin. I have no information as to the second Question; and, in reply to the third, I would refer him to the statement which I made in the House on the Vote of Censure. The Question of the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) should be placed on the Paper of Business. I hardly think it desirable to go into a general reply as to the position of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Egypt further than to say that he is employed by the Egyptian Government. I cannot say anything about the Irish part of the Question.
  MR. M'COANasked whether the Report of Sir Evelyn Baring with regard to the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in suppressing certain Egyptian newspapers would be issued during the Recess?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that it would be presented to Parliament in the next batch of Egyptian Papers.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether Her Majesty's Government had received any confirmation of the statement in the papers of that morning that the action of Nubar Pasha in intriguing

  29
  against Mr. Clifford Lloyd in his absence had been generally condemned?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a Question I cannot answer without Notice.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the Government give us any information as to the state of things described in Cairo respecting the relations between Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Nubar Pasha, and especially as to whether any information has been received with regard to the retirement, or contemplated retirement, of Nubar Pasha from office?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; no definite information can be given to the House in a matter as to which we have not ourselves received any information. A difficulty, as is well known, has existed between Nubar Pasha and Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but no decision has been arrived at with respect to it in Egypt. No resignation has been received.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether Mr. Lloyd could appoint his own subordinates without the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a matter of detail in Egyptian administration, and does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has Nubar Pasha's resignation been withdrawn?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No resignation has taken place.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Is it true that he offered it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No resignation has taken place.

  PERU AND THE POWERS.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the case, as stated in The Daily Telegraph, that the Foreign Diplomatic Body at Lima has refused to acknowledge the Government of General Iglesias; whether the action of the Diplomatic Body includes the Representative of Great Britain; whether any assurance can be given to the House, and to the Country, that our name and power will not be used in Peru for the recovery of debts, real or fictitious, due to Foreigners by that Republic; and, whether instructions will be at once telegraphed to our Representative to abstain from any course which would weaken a Government so recently established under circumstances of extreme difficulty, and
  30
  which might lead to the renewal of war in that part of the world?
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be true that the Foreign Diplomatic Body have broken off relations with General Iglesias, President of the Republic of Peru, declining to recognize his Government; and, if the Foreign Office has been informed of the reasons of such conduct?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, on the 19th of December Her Majesty's Representative at Lima was instructed that Her Majesty's Government intended to recognize the Government of General Iglesias upon the recognition by Congress of his appointment. The recognition took place early in March. On the 3rd of April the European and American Representatives were convened by the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who requested the immediate recognition of the Peruvian Government. The Ministers, including Her Majesty's Representative, appear to have desired to receive further instructions before replying. The Peruvian Foreign Minister thereupon informed them that henceforward relations with the Legations were suspended. I have already explained to the House the action of the Foreign Representatives in regard to the Treaty of Peace between Chili and Peru; but this question is quite separate from that of the recognition of the Peruvian Government, and it is evident that the questions raised by the Treaty cannot be properly discussed until diplomatic relations are restored. Her Majesty's Representative will, accordingly, be instructed that there is no departure whatever from the intention of recognizing the Government of General Iglesias, and he will be directed to do so. In regard to the claims alluded to by my hon. Friend, there is no intention of departing from the terms of Lord Palmerston's Circular of January, 1848, on the subject.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — TRAINING OF THE WICKLOW MILITIA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the annual training of the Wicklow Militia Artillery has been put off until August, when the service of most of the men of the Brigade will be needed for harvest labour; and, whether such postponement has any re-

  31
  lation to the convenience of Lieutenant Colonel Bayley, whose vacation as a Land Sub-Commissioner will then take place?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the date of training was fixed on the recommendation of the General Officer. There was not time enough to get information to enable him to answer the second part of the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS — RATHDANGAN, BALTINGLASS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as President of the Local Government Board (Ireland), a charge of misconduct on the part of Mr. Dagg, Returning Officer, and George Driver, Poor Rate Collector, has been brought under his notice, in regard to the election of a Poor Law Guardian for the electoral division of Rathdangan, in the union of Baltinglass; whether the complainants have applied to the Local Government Board for a sworn investigation; and, whether their application will be complied with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Complaints have been made with respect to the course pursued by the Returning Officer and the Collector of Poor Bates in connection with this election, and a sworn inquiry has been asked for. The Local Government Board are not yet in a position to say whether there is any necessity for such an inquiry, as they have not received the explanation which the officers concerned may have to offer.

  THE WAR OFFICE —LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since 1878, the Secretary of State for War has received several petitions from the Lower Division Clerks of the War Office on the subject of holidays and sick leave; and, whether, having regard to the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury in this House, on the 2nd August, 1883, that the question of holidays is one to be decided by the Head of each Department, it is the intention of the Secretary of State to accede to the prayer of his petitioners by extending their ordinary leave to the period allowed to Lower
  32
  Division Clerks at the Admiralty, and by placing them, as regards sick leave, on the same footing as Higher Division Clerks and established Messengers, and by authorizing arrangements whereby as many clerks as possible should be granted the privilege of the half-holiday on Saturday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; several such Petitions have been received. The question of clerks' leave is one which, as stated in the Question, has been arranged depart-mentally; but it raises some points of rather wider application, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF LACHLAN M'LEOD.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, with regard to the Skye prevarication case. If he could state whether Sheriff Substitute Speirs based his sentence on Lachlan M'Leod upon Statute Law or upon a fiction of Law; and, if upon the latter, whether he will at once introduce a measure defining the powers of the sheriffs and minor judges in dealing with and punishing those guilty of prevarication on oath or of contempt of court?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sheriff- Substitute Speirs based his sentence neither upon Statute Law nor upon a fiction of law, but on the Common Law of Scotland. I do not see any reason for dealing separately with the case of minor Judges; but I may say that the whole matter of punishment for contempt of Court was under the consideration of the Government last year, a Bill dealing with it having been introduced into the other House. If such a measure should again be submitted to Parliament, the case of minor Judges will doubtless be provided for in it.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— BERBER AND KHARTOUM.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Governor of Berber has telegraphed to Cairo that the tribes between Berber and Khartoum are in open rebellion, that all communication with Khartoum is cut off, that in his opinion Dongola and Berber will soon be invested, and

  33
  that the Great Bisharên tribe are momentarily expected to rise; what is the date of the last Despatch from General Gordon; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers propose to take to save him from, the grave danger in which he and those dependent upon him now stand?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Governor General of Berber has telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring that the number of rebels round Khartoum is said to be increasing, and that the population between Khartoum and Berber is in a very disturbed condition. He adds that the rebels are believed to be in communication with the Bisharên Arabs. The last intelligence from General Gordon received by Sir Evelyn Baring, as already stated by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, is the intelligence of the 23rd. I have nothing to add to the statement made by my noble Friend as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to General Gordon.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the House was to understand that in the present critical state of affairs absolutely nothing was to be done to save General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE not rising to reply,
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will answer the Question which I have put to the noble Lord?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I will not answer that Question. It is intended only to bewilder and mislead, and I will give no answer.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then I beg to give Notice that on the earliest possible occasion after the Recess—or to-night, if possible—I shall call attention to the abandonment by the Government of General Gordon.

  INLAND REVENUE—DRAWBACKS ON SILVER PLATE.
  GENERAL SIR, GEOEGE BALFOUEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will cause the Records to be searched, to ascertain if any "drawback" was granted to holders of silver plate when the Duty thereon was repealed in 1758, after being many years in force; also, to ascertain if trade
  34
  holders of gold and silver plate paid the additional Duties when these Duties were increased from 8s. to 16 s. and then to 17 s. per ounce on gold plate, and on silver plate from 6d. to 1s. then to 1s.3d. and finally to 1s. 6d.; and, if he will direct the official Return of Duties collected on plate to be separated in the Finance Accounts and in the Report of the Inland Revenue Board, so as to distinguish the Duties from gold separately from the Duties on silver plate?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection to search the Records in respect to the first part of the Question; and with respect to the second part of the Question, he would consider the suggestion before the issue of the next Financial Account.

  IRELAND—REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. MOLLOY)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his statement that ''the third class of clerks is being put an end to in the Registry of Deeds, Dublin," Whether he is prepared to offer to the gentlemen concerned in that Department the special terms of retirement given to the staff of the War Office and the Admiralty five years ago?
  MR. COURTNEY: There is no legal power to grant these terms.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (INDIA)—THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF BENGAL AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.
  LORD GEOEGE HAMILTON (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Letter of the Judges of the High Court of Bengal, dated 15th December 1883, protesting against the language used by him in the House of Commons on the subject of their Minute on the Hbert Bill; and, whether he will, in justice to the Judges, urge the Secretary of State for India to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that this document would be included in Papers which would be presented, and would shortly be in the hands of Members.

  TURKEY (EUROPEAN PROVINCES)— GOVERNOR GENERALSHIP OF ROUMELIA—RE-APPOINTMENT OF ALEKO PASHA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Whether it is a fact that the Russian Government alone among the Great Powers opposes the re-appointment of Aleko Pasha of Governor-General of Roumelia; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to support his appointment?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The question of the re-appointment of Aleko Pasha is now under consideration, and it is not in my power to make any statement at the present moment.

  EGYPT—SECRET AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN POWERS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the late Conservative Government entered into any covenants with Austria, Prussia, or any other Power, besides those regarding Egypt, which are not known to the House; and whether, if so, he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I would beg to refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar Question put by him on the 28th of May, 1880, when my Predecessor in the Office which I now hold stated that, for reasons which the House would readily understand, it was obviously impossible for Her Majesty's Government to give an answer which would completely satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. It will, however, be satisfactory the House to know that, subject to the statement made by the Prime Minister last night, Her Majesty's Government are able to state that this country is under no other engagement for the future than those on the Table of the House.
  MR. BOURKEasked when the Papers referring to agreements with other Powers, to which allusion was made on Monday night, would be presented to the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he intented to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject.
  MR. BOURKEobserved that the noble Lord was quite at liberty to publish the whole of the Correspondence.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he had no intention of going back upon what had been said on the part of the Government. He had only wished to state that he was willing to communicate with his right hon. Friend on this matter.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO RIVER.
  MR. JACOB BEIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would present to Parliament Copy of the full Reports, during the past two years, received from Mr. Cohen, Her Majesty's Consul at Saint Paul de Loanda?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There will be no objection to presenting a selection from the Reports of Her Majesty's Consul at Loanda to Parliament; but I cannot, of course, undertake to lay confidential communications before the House.

  ARMY —ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO—RETURN OF NUMBER AND COST OF GARMENTS.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of making clothing at the Government Factory, Pimlico, is from twenty to fifty per cent, in excess of that paid to contractors, and that the Director of Clothing, in his evidence before the Parliamentary Committee, admitted that there was a loss of £8,000 on the work done the previous year at the Government Factory; also, that the sum of £20,000, voted last year for making up clothing by contract, was not so expended, while the amount voted for the "Government Factory" was exceeded; that, in addition to the higher price paid at the Government Factory for making up, a larger quantity of material was used than that issued to contractors; and, whether he will grant the Return, of which Notice has been given by the Member for Queen's County, before Vote 11 of the Army Estimates is taken?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there would be no objection to give the Return referred to by the hon. Member.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether

  37
  the Government will communicate to the House the Despatch from General Gordon, in which he is stated to have asked that a small British force should be despatched to Berber, and a British, India, or Egyptian force to Wady Halfa, for the purpose of effecting a diversion against the Mahdi; and, if General Gorden stated in this, or in any subsequent despatch, that, in his opinion, it was the delay of the Government which rendered this decision a necessity?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is intended, shortly, to present further Papers on this subject. I cannot say exactly what despatches or telegrams will be included in those Papers; but it would certainly be inconvenient and most undesirable that the particular despatch referred to by the hon. and gallant Member should be laid on the Table separately from the others which explain it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANwished to know whether the extracts in question would be included among the Papers presented?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the selection of the Foreign Office Papers to be presented to Parliament did not rest with him. He would, however, communicate with the Foreign Office on the subject.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the Papers would contain the communications with reference to the proposed appointment of Zebehr?
  THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON: I said before, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the publication of these Papers does not rest with me or my Department. All I can say is that I will make the right hon. Gentleman's request known to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the Papers would contain the despatches from General Gordon relating to Zebehr?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot undertake to state exactly beforehand what will be produced; but there is every desire to give the House the fullest information. There has been no Session of Parliament in which Papers have been presented so voluminously or so quickly as in the present.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked what was to become of the refugees who had left Khartoum at the suggestion of General Gordon, and whether they had
  38
  reached Berber or gone beyond that place?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Speaking from recollection, we certainly heard of the arrival at Berber of a considerable number, and I think we have heard of their having proceeded further.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwished to know by what force they were protected?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot state exactly the numbers of the force at Berber.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Does the noble Lord speak of the refugees only, or of the troops as well?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Colonel Coetlogen himself has arrived in Egypt Proper. The women and children were, as I understand, sent from Khartoum with a certain number of soldiers, some of whom were in ill-health. It was these persons I referred to as refugees.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked whether the soldiers sent with these refugees were not recalled to Khartoum by General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot answer that Question immediately. I will, if the hon. Member wishes, give him privately the information which he desires to have.

  EGYPT—ALEXANDRIA INDEMNITY COMMISSION—CASE OF MRS. RIBTON.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When may Mrs. Ribton, widow of Mr. Ribton, C.E. expect to be paid the amount awarded to her by the Indemnity Commission of Alexandria?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the sum of 65,000 francs was awarded to Mrs. Ribton as an indemnity for the death of her husband. No decision has as yet been come to by the Egyptian Government as to the mode and time of payment of the award; but Sir Evelyn Baring has reported that, owing to the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Egyptian Government will make an advance of 5,000 francs to Mrs. Ribton, and she has been so informed.

  INDIA (MYSORE)—GOLD MINING COMPANIES—CONCESSIONS TO BRITISH OFFICIALS, &c.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

  39
  Whether the Report by the Viceroy of India promised early last Session, on the connection of Madras officials with the promotion of Gold Mining Companies in Mysore, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. J. K. CROSS, in reply, said, that the Report would be laid upon the Table immediately after Easter.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT (for Viscount LEWISHAM)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is a fact that General Gordon is under no constraint and under no order to remain in the Soudan, and that he is under no inability to leave the Soudan at this moment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this appears to me a reference to an answer already given by me, and it states, with general accuracy, what I then said. General Gordon is under no order and under no constraint to remain in the Soudan. But, so far as we are acquainted with his intentions, he is anything but desirous to leave it at the present time; and so far as we are aware, he is under no inability to leave the Soudan at the present moment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked what grounds the right hon. Gentleman had for his assertion that General Gordon could leave Khartoum if he wished?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is the inference which we draw from the information at our command.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if it was the fact that when the Government refused to appoint Zebehr Pasha they distinctly invited General Gordon to remain at Khartoum?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That it was the desire of the Government that General Gordon should find himself able to remain at Khartoum, if the reasons were sufficient for it, is beyond all question; but there was nothing sent to him approaching an order or an injunction to remain.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: A request?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No.

  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY — ARRANGEMENT WITH THE EASTERN SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements have been made, in the interests
  40
  of British commerce, in the matter of the Suez Canal difficulty?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, arrangements have been made with the Association of Shipowners, who represent, I believe, not less than three-fourths of the tonnage passing through the Canal, and we believe that those arrangements are satisfactory, and they are now being carried into effect. If the right hon. Gentleman desires further information, he will, perhaps, put his Questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I may say that Papers have been laid before the House which explain the whole of the matter.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— BRITISH TROOPS AT SUAKIN.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether it would not be advisable, the heat at Suakin being so intense, to substitute Indian troops for English as the garrison of that town?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think I stated the other day that the British troops at present at Suakin are not intended to remain there permanently, but that the European portion of the garrison would consist of Marines, for whose accommodation preparations were being made by the Admiralty, partly on shore and partly on board.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Of what will the garrison consist?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated the other day that it was proposed to send a portion of Sir Evelyn Wood's troops.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know whether it would not be possible to substitute Indian troops in the place of the Marines?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Of course it would be possible, but we do not at present propose to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April],
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the better Government of London, and other purposes connected there with."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in introducing this measure I shall endeavour to make as short as possible the observations I have to offer on behalf of the Government. I have great need to ask for your patient indulgence, for I am sure the House will feel that mine is a task of great difficulty and complication, and I approach it not without the feelings of a navigator who enters a sea strewn with many wrecks, and whose shores are whitened with the bones of many previous adventurers. Still I think we may approach this question with some hope of a solution, for, as time has gone on, both the public outside this House and this House itself —I venture to hope without distinction of Party—have come to believe that this question is one which ought to be dealt with, and one with which it is worth their while seriously to grapple. There are, however, one or two preliminary questions with which I must occupy the time of the House, and there are just one or two main points in the previous history of this question to which I should like to advert. There have been many attempts to solve it, which it was the duty of those who present this scheme to the House to have carefully studied; but I will not delay the House by going in detail through them. There can be no doubt, if you look at the origin of the present municipal institutions of London, that the Corporation of London in old days did, and was always intended to, represent the whole Metropolis. Why it did not extend itself as the Metropolis grew is an interesting question as a matter of history; in some degree it was due to the jealousy of the Crown; the Tudors and Stuarts were very unwilling to see the power of the Corporation increase; in some degree also it was due to the fact that London was surrounded by great manors, especially the great ecclesiastical manors, and the whole system of these manors was incompatible with the enlargement of municipal and corporate rights. The result was that, while London grew, the Corporation remained stationary, and the City of London, as represented by the Corporation, is now about one square mile in extent, and has a resident population of about 50,000—that is to say, is
    42
    equal to about a second or third-rate Provincial town in respect to population. When we consider that its population a few years ago amounted to about three times that figure, it will be seen that the resident population of the City of London, so far from increasing like the rest of the Metropolis, has of late years been constantly diminishing. Indeed, although it can hardly be compared to—
    "Sweet Auburn, loveliest village of the plain,"
    there is no spot on earth of which it could not be more truly said that it is a place—
    "Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
    I do not mean individuals, of course. When the general reform of Corporations took place throughout the United Kingdom it was always intended that, the Corporation of London should be included. Lord John Russell stated he never intended that Corporate Reform should stop short at Temple Bar. But there was one reason why the Corporation of London did not become the first subject of inquiry; and I mention it because it was a reason to the honour of that Corporation. It was because, amidst the decayed and decaying municipal institutions in England at that period, the Corporation of London was a real Corporation, with a real municipal life, and, whatever were its defects, was discharging a great duty to the community over which it presided. But a few years later, in 1837, the Corporation of London became the subject of an. inquiry by the same Commissioners who had previously examined into the state of other Municipal Corporations in England. They dealt with the City in a Supplemental Report, and I will read to the House what was said by the Commission of 1837. The Report states—
    "We do not find any argument on which the course pursued with regard to other towns could be justified which would not apply with the same force to London, unless the magnitude of the change in this case should he considered as converting that which would otherwise be only a practical difficulty into an objection of principle. We have pointed out how small a proportion of the Metropolis is comprehended within the municipal area. We are unable to discover any circumstances justifying the present distinction of this particular district, except that it is and has long "been so distinguished…… We hardly anticipate that it will be suggested, for the purpose of removing this inequality, that the other quarters of the town should be formed into independent and isolated communities, if, indeed, the multifarious rela-

    43
    tions to which their proximity compels them would permit them to be isolated and independent. This plan, as it seems to us, in getting rid of anomaly, would tend to multiply and perpetuate an evil."
    After referring to various subjects of local management, they add—
    "These matters have never been so well and economically managed as when superintended by an undivided authority, and the only real point for consideration is how far those duties for the whole Metropolis can be placed in the hands of a Metropolitan Municipality, or how far they should be intrusted to the officers of your Majesty's Government."
    I will merely state to the House that we are not going to make the second proposal here named, or to delegate these functions of municipal authority to any officers of Her Majesty's Government. Anyone familiar with the political and Party history of that epoch will understand why the whole question of Municipal Reform slumbered until 1853–4. At that time there was appointed another Commission to inquire specially into the Corporation of London. I observe that the Order of Reference to that Commission was exclusively to inquire into the Corporation of London; it had no reference to report upon a general scheme for the management of the whole Metropolis. Certainly I wish to speak with the greatest respect, not only on public, but on private grounds, of the individuals who constituted that Commission. They were Sir G. Cornewall Lewis—a name I never mention without feeling the greatest personal veneration and regard—Mr. Labouchere, not the present one, and that eminent Judge, Sir John Patteson. Now I state frankly and candidly to the House that this Commission arrived at a different view to that stated by the Commission of 1837. They were alarmed at the notion of a single Government for a town of the magnitude of London, and they preferred a scheme for the creation of seven Municipalities to represent practically the seven Parliamentary boroughs, and they indicated in general terms a Central Body to be elected from these Parliamentary Municipalities. I refer to that because I have no doubt that the Report of that Commission, and the opinions to which I have referred, will be frequently insisted upon in the course of this debate; but while I have said that the Commission thus reported
    44
    in 1854, the Government of Lord Palmerston, which took up the question of the reform of the Government of London, in that year declined to accept the principle of independent Municipalities, and in the ensuing year that measure was passed which, whatever may be its defects, has given some sort of government to the Metropolis, which was previously in a condition of absolute chaos, I mean the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. That Act was conducted through this House by a man of great practical ability—Sir Benjamin Hall—and was introduced by a Government of which, singularly enough, Sir G. Cornewall Lewis was one of the chief Members.
    Did that Government adopt the principles laid down by the Commission of 1854? No; it rejected them altogether. It declined to accept the principle of separate Municipalities. Sir Benjamin Hall said it was an idea that London would not accept, that it was not wished for, that if it had ever been desired, any of the London Parliamentary boroughs would have got it. Sir George Grey, as Home Secretary, in fact offered to any of these boroughs the privilege of incorporation if they desired it. They did not wish it, and therefore the Government did not propose it. That was the action of the Government of which Sir George Cornwall Lewis was a Member. (I forget whether Mr. Labouchere was a Member of the Government in 1855.) The Government and Parliament of that time distinctly declined to accept the doctrine of separate Municipalities in London. To that question of separate Municipalities, I have to ask the attention of the House for a few minutes, because I have noticed a disposition to revive the theory now. It has been raised repeatedly in Committees and in Bills before this House, but always rejected. The noble Lord opposite, the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), took a very active part in the Committee which sat in 1861. In 1861 the proposal was made to create separate Municipalities, and was voted against by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire. I do not see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but in 1870 the proposal to create separate Municipalities was brought forward by Mr. Buxton, and

    45
    it was condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster. He said there was no desire for separate Municipalities, but that, on the contrary, there was an impression that their creation would lead to considerable difficulties. Therefore I say that, as far as authority goes, the authority of the Commission of 1854 has been overruled by the authority of Parliament and the Government.
    I venture to say that the creation of separate Municipalities in London is impossible, and is not compatible with any real conception of a Municipal Corporation. What do you mean by a Municipal Corporation? Is it not one which represents the interests of the community over which it presides? But in all these schemes you must recognize the fact of some Central Body or other. This Central Body must deal with the large affairs, and the consequence is that you must have—according to everybody's theory, according even to the theory of the Commission of 1854, and according to everybody who has proposed it since—a Central Body doing all the great things; and then what is left for the other Municipal Corporations to do? There is nothing left for them but the minor matters, which are now dealt with by the Vestries of London. I suppose the Central Body would have to manage the drainage, the main roads, the fire brigade, the housing of the poor, open spaces, questions of water and gas, building regulations, embankments, and so forth. What, then, is left, after all these, for the separate Corporations? Nothing but the most subordinate duties. Under such a system you will have a number of second-rate inferior Bodies, overshadowed by the power of this great Central Authority. People are proud to live in London; but I do not think there are many people who, till a General Election comes on, are certain which particular borough they live in; and it seems to me that there is not a geographical or local feeling in London which would justify the creation of separate boroughs. As to founding them on the Parliamentary boroughs, that would not do; everybody knows that they are not fixed stars, and that their limits and character may from time to time be altered. It is these facts that account for what Sir Benjamin Hall pointed out, that none of these
    46
    Bodies had ever asked for incorporation, and that, if offered it, they have refused. Even Westminster, which has a sort of name of a Corporation, has not got a real Corporation, and has never desired to be incorporated; and no feeling in favour of separate boroughs has ever been manifested in London. It would be an absurdity, I think, to create 10 or 12 minor Corporations. The people do not want them. There would be an absurdity about having a Mayor, and a Sheriff, and Common Councilmen, and Aldermen, all to perform comparatively subordinate functions. They do not rise to the dignity of turtle soup—[Laughter, and a cry of"Conger!"]—they would hardly rise, as an hon. Member says, to the dignity of conger. Therefore I think that a proposal to create these petty Corporations is not one which is likely to commend itself to the House. I would venture, then, to dismiss, as Parliament has previously dismissed whenever it has been proposed, a scheme of this character. It is a sort of attempt to revive the Heptarchy, and I do not think that is a plan on which London would wish to be reformed.
    There are two questions which, leaving that scheme, we ought to ask ourselves. Are things satisfactory as they are? Because, if so, we have to ask ourselves — first, whether things are satisfactory as they are; because, if they are, of course no scheme is wanted at all; and, secondly, if things are not satisfactory, what are the defects of the present system, and what are the remedies to be applied to it? Does anyone assert that the present system is satisfactory? Shortly after the reform of 1855, there were Parliamentary Committees sitting to discover remedies for a system that was admitted to be in many respects defective. There was Committee after Committee and Bill after Bill. I will not go into the details of these various schemes; but in 1870, when Mr. Buxton produced one of his Bills—it was in the time of a Liberal Administration —proposing to create separate Municipalities, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster called upon the Government to introduce a Bill to reform the Government of London. In 1878 Parliament expressed an. opinion very definitely upon this subject when a Motion was brought before this

    47
    House by Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle-worth, who moved—
    "(1) That the present state of Local Government is unsatisfactory and calls for reform; (2) that the whole Metropolis should ho united under one administrative authority directly representing the ratepayers, and so constituted as to command general confidence; (3) that these conditions are not fulfilled under the present system; (4) that the ancient Corporation of the City should be extended over the whole Metropolis and remodelled so as best to form a Representative Body of the Metropolis of this country; and (5) that these reforms he undertaken by Her Majesty's Government without delay."
    That Motion was carried by a considerable majority. From that time unquestionably the Party sitting on this side of the House considered themselves pledged to undertake the task. It has been frequently discussed; it was before the constituencies at the last General Election, and the Government have always regarded it as one of their duties to deal with this matter. The House is aware of the circumstances that have from time to time delayed it; but at last we are making an effort to redeem our pledge, and to do the work which Parliament has called upon us to undertake. So much for the question of whether there is any occasion for us to handle this matter at all.
    Now, what is the nature of the evil which we have to combat? Everybody feels that it is the multiplicity of independent authorities in London. If you want anything done for London as a whole, you have the greatest difficulty in finding anybody to do it. A familiar example of this difficulty is the Water Question, and we have had indications of it in the question of the housing of the poor. You have a Central Body in London, it is true, for all London in the Metropolitan Board; but its powers are strictly limited. My hon. Friend opposite, the Head of that Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), knows very well there have been frequent complaints that the Board has not a general authority to act for London in matters that concern its interests as a whole. Everyone sees that if you have in London an outbreak of cholera or small-pox, it is a matter that interests every part of London; but how to deal with that outbreak is a question which can only be considered in the small part where the disease commences. If you wish to send out orders and see that that locality takes the mea-
    48
    sures necessary to stamp out the disease and prevent it from spreading, where is the Central Authority that has power to control the independent Vestries? It does not exist; and that is one among many instances that might be given of the evils from which we at present suffer. The question of the dwellings of the poor is also a question in which it is easy to see that there is an immense want of some controlling and superintending Central Authority to give vitality to and to arouse action among the small Bodies in the different parts of London, not only in great matters, but in small ones. No one has ever seen a snow-storm in London without observing how incapable the fragments of London are to deal with matters affecting the traffic of the whole of the Metropolis, What everybody feels that we want is some single Central Body having authority, of its own right, to meet the exigencies of the whole community of the Metropolis. That is what every other great town has, and we cannot help asking why London has not got it? But here I wish to guard myself. I do not say that the Central Authority should execute all details of administration in each locality. But you want a Central Authority to control the local action of the particular parts of the Metropolis and to bring them into harmony; and, in my opinion, that controlling and harmonizing force ought not to be in the Executive Government of this country, but in a Representative Body of the community of London. Now, if we take that as our general principle, is it a sound principle? I do not think that my hon. Friend at the head of the Metropolitan Board will dispute that, because in the year 1870 the Metropolitan Board passed a resolution to the effect that the Committee had considered the question of the future government of the Metropolis; and, as the result of their deliberations, they reported their opinion that it was desirable that there should be a Central Municipal Government, with jurisdiction over the whole of the Metropolis, and that there should be a readjustment of the districts into which the Metropolis was at present divided for the purposes of Local Government. What does that mean? That you are to have one Central Municipal Government for the whole of London, and that you are to readjust and alter the various

    49
    districts. That was the resolution of the Metropolitan Board in the year 1870. Well, what objection is to be urged against a proposition which seems on the face of it to be almost self-evident? Why, it is said, the size, the magnitude of the area, the vastness of the population, and the variety of London make this impossible. That is the fear that actuated the Commission of 1854. But then the Commission of 1854 had never seen one Central Body charged with the interests of the whole Metropolis; but immediately after that Commission reported, such a Central Body—namely, the Metropolitan Board—was created; and, therefore, the very thing that was then said to be impossible does to a certain extent exist. You have one Central Body, consisting of 46 members, who do for many—aye, and for some of the most important—purposes of Local Government deal with the whole of the Metropolis and its 4,000,000 of people. Therefore, you cannot say it is impossible, for the thing exists. I take this opportunity of saying, as I may not altogether find my hon. Friend opposite in accord with me, that he will bear me witness that our official relations have always been of the most cordial character; and I wish to bear my testimony to the admirable, and, I may call it, extraordinary, work, under the circumstances, which has been done by the Metropolitan Board of London. That 46 men should have been able to accomplish such vast and laborious work as they have achieved, upon the whole with considerabte success, is a thing which deserves a tribute of public approbation. The Metropolitan Board was originally limited in its scope—namely, it was created with a view to main drainage works; afterwards the Thames Embankment work was added to it; and gradually its authority was extended to other matters. And that is a point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. You have got a Central Body, for limited purposes, in London. You have a number of smaller Bodies in the Vestries. From time to time you have found that there was important work to be done. To which of these Bodies did you give the new work? Was it to the single Body, which it was said would not do for the whole of London, or to the Central Bodies? It was given almost invariably to the smaller
    50
    Body. And why was that? Because in that way it was more efficiently and effectively done. Therefore, since the constitution of the Metropolitan Board you have added to it almost all the important new functions that have been created in the Metropolis, including among others the charge of the fire brigade, the dealing with slaughterhouses, explosives, tramways, theatres, locomotives, and even with destructive insects. Therefore you have this Central Body which you say cannot deal with the minuter interests of London; and yet whenever you have a new job to be done it is to this great Central Body that you give it, and not to the Local Bodies. But it is said it cannot deal with minute matters in the different and distant parts of London. What more minute and daily or more constant operation can there be than the superintendence of buildings under the Metropolitan Building Acts? And to whom are the care and administration of that matter given? Why, to the Metropolitan Board. That, therefore, is the practical answer to the contention that it is impossible for a single Body to deal with so vast an area and such an immense population as that of London. I am told that the City of Manchester, which is, of course, small in comparison with London, but which still is a great town, was originally placed under a district system; but it was found that that was not nearly so beneficial as a central system, and the district system was abandoned in order to have a more central system under the Town Council. When it is said that you cannot administer minute interests spread over a great distance by a single Body, I should like to know how the London and North-Western Railway Company manages to do it. Looking at the enormous magnitude of our great railways, and the vast mass of minute details which enter into their daily administration, is it not absurd to say that, even in a town like London, it is impossible that a single Body could attend to this work? I conclude, therefore, that the size of London is no argument against a Central Control, although I make this proviso—that it may be a very good reason for having subsidiary arrangements for administering minuter local affairs in the districts themselves. To my mind the very vast-ness of London, and the impossibility of

    51
    breaking it up into well-defined areas, is an argument rather in favour of a Central Control than against it.
    Then I come to close quarters with this question. If we are to have a Central Body, where is that Central Body to be found? We might make a clean sweep of all that exists, but I am not in favour of that. I think it is not in accordance with the genius of English Reform. I would much rather build on ancient foundations. We have always built on ancient foundations, but we have never attempted to keep up rotten buildings. Now, we have a single Central Body already. I have indicated the character of the work, and the good work as far as it has gone. That Body is the Metropolitan Board. It has done much, but it has not done enough. It is constantly obliged to acknowledge its inability to undertake work which London requires, and which the Metropolitan Board, I dare say, also desires to do. It is not fit under its present constitution to bear a greater burden. It is not a Body directly elected by the ratepayers. It is elected by an indirect process, which is a source of weakness to it, and it is constantly conscious, I think, of that weakness. It is too small in its numbers to undertake much greater work. The nature of its election, as I have said, is not a good one. I desire to speak with respect of the Metropolitan Board, and I will therefore not adopt the phrase that was used in one of our debates, which characterized it as "a vestrified Vestry." If we were to take the Metropolitan Board as the basis of our Central Government it would have to be reconstructed altogether; and, therefore, you would not be taking an old Body— it is not very old—but you would have to take it entirely to pieces and reconstruct it upon new lines. That would not be taking what was practically an existing Body. Then it would involve another thing—it would involve the extinction of the ancient Corporation of London. Now, the extinction of the Corporation of London would be a great shock to the sentiment of this country and the sentiment of this House. I have said before that this House adheres to the traditions of its forefathers. It is willing to reform its institutions; it is not desirous to destroy them; and there are no traditions more illustrious than those which cluster round the Guildhall. I am
    52
    afraid that during the progress of this Bill I shall have to encounter the opposition of the Lord Mayor; but I will assure him beforehand that he shall not hear a word from me in these discussions that is inconsistent with the high personal esteem which we all hold for himself, or with the high respect which I feel for the great Office that he holds, and the famous Institution that he represents. I would very unwillingly part, unless there was the greatest necessity for it, with the traditions of the Guildhall and the Corporation of London. They belong to the most famous chapters in the history of the making of the English people. I should be as adverse to destroying the Guildhall as to destroying Westminster Hall or the Abbey. But the Palace of Westminster has adapted itself to the constitution of this House and of Parliament, and to the growing wants of the country; and the Abbey includes many memories which are strange to the traditions of the Plantagenets. I do not see why the Guildhall, or the Corporation of London, should not be willing to accept the same enlargement of their action as those two other famous Institutions have received. We have therefore come to the conclusion that if you are to have a Central Body, and are not to make a clean sweep of all that exists, but are to build on the foundation of that which exists, we ought to take as the foundation of the municipal life of London the ancient Corporation of London. And the object of the measure which it is my duty to explain, to the House, is to adapt the Corporation of London, and to make it what it originally was intended to be, and what, in my opinion, it is capable of becoming— the great Municipal Government of the Metropolis of the United Kingdom. There is no originality in this recommendation, but there is great authority for it. It was indicated in the Report of the Committee in 1837, and in 1861 it was proposed by a man of great ability and great knowledge of London, as well as of other affairs—whose absence from this House is a matter of general regret —Mr. Ayrton. I think the first definite proposal of adopting the Corporation of London as the foundation of our Municipal Institution was in the draft Report of the Committee of 1861. The great advocate of this scheme was another gentleman extremely well acquainted

    53
    with London affairs, the late Mr. John Locke; and he always advocated this proposal as the proper system of Municipal Reform. He was supported at that time by Mr. Benjamin Scott, the Chamberlain of the City of London, who gave evidence before this Committee, and who admitted that it was quite possible to adapt the Corporation of London to the wants of Municipal Government. But there is a still more important supporter of that scheme—and I am sorry he is not here to-day—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster. In 1870, after having condemned the principle of separate Municipalities, Mr. W. H. Smith is reported to have said that—
    "It appeared to him there "was but one mode of dealing with the subject—that suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke)."—(3 Hansard,[201] 870.)
    Now, what was the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark? Mr. Locke said—
    "The view he took of the matter was shared by a number of the members of the Common Council of the City, for he had read with great interest a debate which had occurred a short time ago, in which excellent arguments were adduced in support of the plan, that, instead of having these different corporations established, the whole Metropolis should be divided into wards, and that there should be one corporation for its government; and this view was strictly in accordance with the principle upon which the City acted when, centuries ago, they included within their bounds such districts as Cripplegate-without, Bishopsgate-without, and Farringdon-without."—[Ibid.870.]
    That was the opinion of Mr. Locke, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, who now sits on the Front Opposition Bench, said—
    "There was but one mode of dealing with this subject, and that was the manner suggested by Mr. Locke."
    Now, I think that that plan is the plan to which all those who have been occupying themselves with a consideration of this question have ultimately come. It is very well known that a gentleman who took part for many years in the discussion of this matter, and who formerly advocated the plan of separate Municipalities (Mr. Beal), himself came round to this opinion; and my hon. Friend, who has done so much to advance the cause of Municipal Reform— I mean the junior Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth)—arrived also at that conclusion. But, Sir, there is an authority that I rely upon even still more than
    54
    those Gentlemen to whom I have referred, because this plan of Mr. Locke's was proposed in a definite form before the Committee of 1867. He proposed a resolution that the limits of the City of London should be extended to the Metropolis as defined by the Metropolitan. Management Act, and that the Metropolis should be divided into wards for the election of Aldermen and Common Councilmen. One of the persons who voted for that resolution was my hon. Friend the Liberal Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence); therefore we have, in favour of this proposition, the recorded opinion of such a distinguished citizen as my hon. Friend behind me, combined with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Westminster, as a concentration of light upon a single point not often to be found.
    Well, therefore, the foundation of our plan is to adopt the Corporation of London as the basis of the Central Municipal Body which is to administer its affairs. Now, there is a very great advantage in thus extending the Corporation of London, because, as I have already said, it has never lost the instincts, the habits, and the forms of municipal life. In its Committees you have—if I may use a military phrase—complete cadres of municipal administration. You have a Body by reason of its numbers, its ability, its wealth, and of the whole system of its organization, capable of administering a much more extended area. When you have a Body like that, with all its grand traditions, and with all its resources and means of public benefit, why, in the name of common sense, should it not be adopted and adapted to the requirements of this great Metropolis? How this is to be done is much more simple than people will suppose. We adopt the existing Institution, with all its privileges, with all its traditions, with all its customs, but with certain modifications. What is to be the area? The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor need not be alarmed. We only extend his arms so that he may embrace a much larger population. I think nobody will doubt much about that. It ought to be the area now under the authority and control of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), in a speech

    55
    which he delivered on this subject, and which I read in the Recess, observed that there are many parts of London which ought to be included in the Metropolitan area, especially in the North district. That I admit; and a Bill would be very incomplete which did not give the Municipality the power of including other districts which ought to be included, and of excluding other districts which it was thought ought to be excluded. But there is immense advantage, I think, ill taking areas with which people are acquainted, in which they are in the habit of working together, in which they know their relations to one another; and, therefore, in the area to be taken, we adopt the area of the Metropolis Management Act, not as the real basis, but as the basis to start with. We propose to incorporate into the existing Corporation the whole of the citizens within the area of the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. We shall maintain the Corporation, and incorporate therein the inhabitants, who will then be "members of the ancient body corporate and politic of the mayor, commonalty, and citizens of London."
    Now, as to the provisions of the Bill. The qualifications of the citizens will be the same as in other Municipal boroughs. What are the powers of this Corporation? Now, first of all, we merge in the Corporation a number of semi-independent Bodies; and as it is the essence of this Bill that the whole original authority shall be in the Central Body, we merge in it the powers of the Commissioners of Sewers, of the Court of the Mayor and Aldermen, so far as they are administrative, of the Common Hall, the Wardmotes, and so on. The Lord Mayor will understand that I mean those satellite bodies which are not exactly the Corporation, and which are not exactly independent of it. Those Bodies, then, are to be merged in the Corporation. In addition to that we transfer to the Corporation of London the existing powers of the Metropolitan Board; the existing powers of the Vestries under the Metropolis Management Act of 1855; the powers, so far as they are administrative, of the Justices of the Peace of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent: the powers of the Burial Board; the control of baths and wash-houses, public libraries, and other minor matters. The House will see,
    56
    therefore, that the main transfer is a transfer of the powers of the Metropolitan Board, the Vestries, and the Justices of the Peace. Of course, we transfer with that the property and the debts; and, in fact, we transfer the whole administration of all the material questions in municipal life, with three exceptions. We do not meddle with the administration of the poor; we do not meddle with the administration of education as it exists; and we do not meddle with the existing administration of police.
    Now, the Corporation is to act exclusively through its Common Council for all purposes—that is to say, it will appoint all its own officers. It will not elect its officers, as it at present does, through the Liverymen in Common Hall.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): Some of them it does not.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Theoretically it does not, but practically it does, because it elects its chief officer, and that is the Lord Mayor. I may say, that in doing away with the authority of the Common Hall we are really following the advice of the Commissions and of the persons who were examined in reference to the question. I say nothing about the Parliamentary rights of the Livery Companies, but, so far as their municipal rights exist, they are universally condemned. They have nothing whatever to do with municipal life. Their claim to take a sort of part which they have been supposed to take in the affairs of the City of London, recommends itself to nobody. If I had the time at my disposal, I could quote authority after authority on this point. The institution of the Liverymen is entirely alien to City life. We owe the presence of the Lord Mayor here, it is to be noticed, to the fact that the Liverymen were overruled. How is the Common Council to be elected? It is to be elected, as was recommended by Mr. Locke, by what will correspond to wards. We propose to divide London into municipal districts—I adopt that word, as, perhaps, more appropriate than the term "ward," having regard to the size of these districts. I do not say that I propose the ideally best division of London into districts for this purpose; but we take the districts as they now exist under the Local Management Act. I dare say these areas may require a good deal of correction, and

    57
    powers for that purpose will be given to the new Corporation. These areas, I admit, are by no means perfect; but I think it is better to start with areas that are well known and familiar. What is to be the number of Common Councilmen? I have taken the number that at one time existed in the present Corporation. In the year 1837 there were, I believe, 240 Common Councilmen, although this number is now reduced to 206. The question of redistribution in regard to the new Corporation will, I have no doubt, excite a good deal of interest as it does in regard to another subject. Among these municipal districts it is proposed to distribute 240 Common Councilmen in the manner that will be found in the 1st Schedule to the Bill. We propose to allot those members upon the principle that exists in the present Municipal Corporation and under the Metropolitan Management Act—namely, of taking population and rateable value jointly as the basis of calculation. The allocation of members will, of course, not be correct to a decimal; but the principle will be that which I have mentioned. In regard to the City of London, having respect to the smallness of its resident population and the greatness of its rateable value, we do not think it would be fair to deal with it on the same footing as the other districts, and we have given it a proportion of representation upon the basis of rateable value alone. This will ultimately give 30 members to the City of London, which will be one of the municipal districts. The other districts will have a number of representatives on a scale descending from 14 to 1 each, according to their population and rateable value. We shall then have a Council of 240 members, which will be fairly Representative of the whole Metropolis, and which will be invested with complete municipal authority.
    The Lord Mayor will be annually elected by this Body, and will then be what he is supposed abroad to be—the Representative of the whole Metropolis of England. He will no longer be elected out of a couple of dozen Aldermen by a few hundred Liverymen who have no connection with the City of London, but by a Body which will be fairly representative of 4,000,000 of people. I do not think that we are thus doing much to degrade the Office of Lord Mayor of
    58
    London. The election in Common Hall will, as a consequence, be abolished. In consideration of the great amount of work which will fall on this Central Body, it is proposed to have a Deputy Mayor, who will be a paid officer, and who will assist and take the place of the Lord Mayor when he is unable to be present. He will receive such salary as the Common Council may decide.
    We now come to the question of the Aldermen, which is a very delicate subject. The present position of the Aldermen in the City of London is very peculiar — almost an unexampled one. They are a body of elected magistrates —an institution not favoured by the Constitution of this country. In 1843, Lord Brougham, in an eloquent speech, denounced it; and in 1837 a Royal Commission reported as follows: —
    "The Court of Aldermen still offers an instance of that union of magisterial, judicial, and legislative authority "which Parliament has recently condemned and dissolved in other Corporations. An additional inconvenience is found in London from the separate existence of the Court of Aldermen as a Municipal Court, the exclusive character of which appears to excite jealousy, while at the same time, by the constitution of the City, whatever advantages might be obtained from it as a second Legislative Chamber, are not secured or arrived at."
    It is also noticeable that in 1854 the Common Council themselves, in a document handed in to the Royal Commission, recommended the abolition of the extrajudicial authority of Aldermen. The Commission of 1854 recommended the abolition of the Court of Aldermen. We propose to do more than that. We propose to transfer the magisterial authority of the Aldermen to stipendiary magistrates. The administrative functions of the Court of Aldermen we shall transfer to the Common Council. The peculiar and exceptional features of the Aldermen of the City of London will disappear. The rights of existing Aldermen will, however, be reserved. We might, of course, create Aldermen upon the footing that they exist in other boroughs. In the Bill of 1835 Aldermen were given no distinction save that of rank, and I do not know that the change introduced in the House of Lords was very beneficial. Nor does it appear that the creation of Aldermen is very popular in boroughs where they exist. Only the other day I received a resolution adopted at Leeds praying

    59
    for the total abolition of the office of Alderman. There are people—I do not know why, because it is a very ancient and honourable title—who do not like being called Aldermen, and it might be more difficult to obtain suitable persons to serve in this capacity if the old title of Alderman was retained. Although this will be a matter for consideration, we do not, therefore, propose to create any titular Aldermen.
    Of course there will be a burgess roll for each district, and the term of election in each would differ. It would be a great affair to have a general election throughout London, especially an election which we hope will attract a great deal of interest. We are anxious not to tax London by too numerous elections of this kind, and therefore we propose, instead of the alternate system being adopted, as in the other municipal boroughs, to have the whole of the Common Council elected at triennial periods, in the same manner as is adopted in the election of the School Board.
    Hon. Members will also find in the Schedule of the Bill a number of clauses of the Municipal Act incorporated, which we think is the most convenient course. The Central Common Council under this Bill will be invested with all the original powers of the present Council, and it will be organized into committees in the same way. It may be objected that the work to be performed by the Central Council is too large and too varied to be all brought into one centre, and that, therefore, the interests of the particular localities will be overlooked and postponed. I am not going to argue against that view, because, although the fears thus expressed may be founded upon an exaggeration of the difficulties of the case, I am going not to put them aside, but to meet them. It is said that the local work can be done much better by the Local Vestries than by any Central Body. Happily it is not my business to attack or to impeach any of the existing Bodies in London or to deny that those Bodies have done much and useful work. Of the Vestries there are some good and very good, some indifferent, some bad and very bad; but the worst of it is, when they are bad, there is nobody to control them, nobody to superintend them, nobody who can bring their work into one common whole, and exercise any supervision over them. The
    60
    existing Bodies are absolutely independent in the exercise of the powers they possess, and there is no common bond of action between them. This has a bad effect. Thus, sometimes one Vestry will do its work very badly, while an-another will do its work very well, and the result usually is that the one that does its work well will suffer. It may be said that the local work might be done by the Central Body; but I do not think that would be a good plan, or that it would be calculated to give satisfaction to the different localities who like to look after their own affairs. Therefore, in addition to the Central Council, we propose to establish District Councils in each municipal district. These latter Bodies will not be like the present Vestries, inasmuch as they will have no original or independent authority. If these District Councils were to have such independent authority and powers conferred upon them, it would be impossible to control them or to bring them into harmony with each other. These Bodies, therefore, will have merely a derivative authority delegated to them by the Central Council, and that authority and those powers will be defined by district orders emanating from the Central Council. These District Bodies will not be nominated by the Central Council, they will be elected by their municipal districts, but they will possess no power except that which is conferred upon them by the Central Council. I wish to indicate to the House the advantages which will result from this plan. The Central Council, having original authority, will be able to judge how much of the work it can do itself, and how much of it it ought to delegate to the minor Local Bodies, whose action it will supervise in order to see that the work is properly done. We, therefore, propose that these Local Representative Bodies, actin gunder their derivative powers, shall take upon themselves the great mass of the minute work to the relief of the Central Council, and shall do that work in accordance with the wishes and the desires of the locality in which that work is to be performed. It might be asked— "Why do you not describe in the Bill what are to be the powers of the District Councils?" That would be a very bad thing to do, as it would perpetuate the very evils that now exist under the present Vestry system, and would destroy the elasticity of

    61
    the plan I am now submitting to the House. It is far better to leave the Central Council to ascertain for itself the matters which it will be best to leave to the District Councils to look after. It may be said that the Central Council will arrogate too much power to itself. But this check has been provided to meet that difficulty—namely, that the Central Body will have to provide the funds out of a central rate for the work it does itself, whereas the Local Bodies will have to pay for the work they do out of a local rate. This proposal will, therefore, operate as a check upon either Body undertaking more than their fair share of work. I omitted to mention this important fact—namely, that the members of the Central Council elected by the municipal district will be members of the District Councils, and thus will be the connecting links between them and the Central Body. In this manner we shall establish local subordinate Bodies, which will be in relation with the Central Body. The members of the Local Bodies will be elected at the same time as those of the Central Body are.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGasked how the members of these Bodies would be elected?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In the same way as the Municipal Councillors are elected now. Each will have its own budget, and by the exercise of the counteracting influences of these centrifugal and centripetal forces we provide that what each asks for it must pay for. Under the scheme, there will be 240 members of the Central Council, and there will be, with the City, 39 municipal districts. After a training up in life as District Councillors, they will become Common Councillors. When the Central Body consigns the duty of rating to the Local Bodies, it will consign to them the duty of preparing an estimate for carrying out the works, and the Local Bodies will be elected at the same time as the Common Council. The District Councillors will be in one sense the agents of the Corporation, who will have the confidence of the localities which elect them, and an understanding can be arrived at between the Central and the Local Bodies as to the powers best to be transacted by each. We hope that this combination will relieve the Central Body from all work they cannot
    62
    do. It will not be like surveyors or agents going into parishes; the Local Councils will give to active persons in the district a field of usefulness and ambition, a power which the Vestries do not possess. There will be 39 of these subsidiary Bodies, including the City, with powers of raising money by district orders granted by the Common Council. That is our plan for meeting the desire of local administration.
    I now come to a chapter which I cannot altogether pass over, and that is the question of finance. I cannot go into great details in regard to it, because the Corporation, remaining the Corporation as it is, will retain the whole of its property, and I hope we shall not hear the word confiscation on this occasion. The funds of the Corporation are practically in three categories. The first is that of the City cash, which is a semi-private and semi-public property. Then there is their Trust Fund, and next there is the rate which the Commissioners of Sewers apply. The City cash is applied to municipal staff purposes. It finds the emoluments of the Lord Mayor and of the staff, the Guildhall, the Mansion House, certain charities and schools, and so forth; and likewise certain magisterial salaries and expenses. All these purposes, or almost all of them, are equally as applicable to the whole of London as they are to the City. We think that the Lord Mayor of London, though he will perhaps be a more dignified, will not be a more expensive person. I have never been a party to the charges, as to waste of money, that have been brought against the Corporation of London; but if I had any complaint to make, it would be that the Corporation has a staff which is rather expensive in proportion to the work to be done. We do not propose to take it away; we only propose that it shall be available for the whole of the Metropolis instead of the centre. There is one other matter to which I should like to call the attention of the Lord Mayor. We are not going to abolish the hospitality of the Corporation. Allow me to read the 4th sub-section of Clause 20. It provides that—
    "Whereas the Corporation has been accustomed to spend money in conferring the freedom of the City upon distinguished personages, and in contributing to public and charitable objects, and also in the prosecution and defence of legal

    63
    proceedings for the promotion of the interests of the citizens, and whereas it is expedient to provide for the continuance of the power of expending money for such purposes, it is declared that all such expenditure properly incurred in pursuance of the resolution of the Common Council shall be deemed to be expended for the public benefit of the citizens of London."
    I think it would be a great mistake to deprive the Corporation of the Metropolis of the power of exercising that municipal hospitality, which, in my opinion, is not a dishonour, but an honour, to the Corporation of London, though I hope they will not offer too many invitations to Her Majesty's Ministers. The City will, of course, have its own expenditure for its own services within its own district, as at present under the Commissioners of Sewers. That will be a local rate.
    Now, I have already alluded to what I think is a very important economical principle in the Bill—that is to say, that the things which are administered and done by the Central Body of the Common Council will be paid for out of the general rate, but that the things administered by the District Council in the district shall be charged specially in the district. If you depart from that principle, you will have infinite extravagance. We know, by experience, what a tendency there is to extravagance if you allow people to put their hands into the pockets of the General Body.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Does the Local Body make the rate?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, it makes a budget and an estimate, but the rate is made by the Central Body. They say how much they will want, and they receive the money, and they levy that money on the people in their own district. That we regard as a very important economical principle. We also think that this is fair—that the assets and debts of municipal districts shall be credited to and debited against them, for, otherwise, we might have a district, which had incurred a large debt, placed in a position of advantage as compared with a district which had been more economically administered. As to the Audit, we propose to apply to it generally the principles of the Metropolitan Board Audit, although, from the jealousy which I know this House has on the subject, we have nothing to do with the power of surcharge. But if the Auditors see
    64
    anything which they disapprove, they may make a Report which will be published, and we regard that publication as a check on any improper expenditure. Now I must pass over a good many details. I have said that we keep alive the privileges and the customs of the City of London. I see no reason why we should not do so. The real truth is, that although there were privileges and customs and charters in old times which were found to have an expensive operation, yet in modern times the Corporation has been prudent, and I do not believe that the privileges and customs, with the exception of one or two, which are specially abolished by this Bill, will be injurious to anybody. We have limited the power under these customs to those which are actually now in use, so that there will be no power to go back upon any former practice.
    Of course, the burgesses of the City of Westminster must disappear. The real truth is that they never had any municipal character, and the officers of Westminster were really the officers of a Manorial Court. They exercised no power except as to weights and measures, and they never constituted a real municipal institution.
    Then there are other matters which we should like to deal with in this Bill, but we cannot afford to do so—like the episodes of gas and water. We cannot transfer the hackney carriages to the Municipal Body from the Police. We cannot undertake to do by this Bill what the Commission of 1854 recommended, and that was to transfer to another Local Body the Irish Fund. We have indicated our opinion that those things can be done by clauses which require the Corporation of London to introduce Bills for those purposes. We have also a larger power of making schemes, subject to appeal to the Privy Council, for the alterations to which I have referred. There is another episode which we cannot undertake in this Bill. I have often been asked my views on the licensing system. We cannot fight out the liquor question as an episode of this Bill; but although, as I have said, the view of the Government is that the power of licensing should be transferred to a local representative authority, we have been obliged, in order not to have too many side issues in this Bill, to leave the

    65
    licensing authority as it is, or rather as it will be under this Bill, in the Borough Justices.
    MR. RITCHIE: Did you say you are going to require the Council to deal with the Water Question?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes. Clause 48 enacts that the Common Council of London shall provide as soon as possible for the purchase or regulation of the undertakings which at present supply water and gas to any part of London, or any one of them. That, I think, sufficiently describes our ultimate municipal plan.
    There remains the County Question. The City of London is a county in itself; but the best of the Metropolis is dispersed among the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, being subject to a sort of haphazard jurisdiction as fractions of these counties. I do not think that anybody will consider that the administration of the Middlesex magistrates, for instance, is at all adequate to the requirements of a Metropolis like London. Well, we propose to include the whole of the Metropolis in the county of the City of London. For that purpose, of course, we shall remove the county jurisdiction out of London. That is done in the second part of the Bill. I have not time to refer to the peculiar history of the origin of the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex in the Reign of Henry I. London will, in the future, appoint its own Sheriff, and the Sheriff of Middlesex will be appointed, as in other counties, by the Crown. The Quarter Sessional jurisdiction of the various County Authorities will be transferred to a Recorder and Deputy Recorders. We shall keep the Recorder of London, and the Common Serjeant will be a Deputy Recorder; and we propose that there shall be three other Assistant Recorders to take the place of the Assistant Judges at the Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent Sessions. Practically speaking, the county jurisdiction in London ceases, and the administrative part of the business goes to the Common Council, while the judicial part of the business goes to the Recorder. There will be a Judge who will sit for the purpose of assessments. As to Petty Session jurisdiction, we shall have Stipendiaries. There will be a Borough Bench for London, and, subject to power of alteration in the Bill, the Police Court
    66
    Divisions will be the Petty Sessional Divisions of London. The Coroners will be appointed by the Common Council.
    The Central Criminal Court will be altered in this respect, that the Aldermen will no longer sit there. The Lord Mayor's Court will be retained until otherwise provided by Parliament, though its jurisdiction will not be extended over a further area. The City of London Court will be what it really now is—a County Court. Of course, too, in the Bill there is no alteration of the Trusts that exist—there will be a saving of all the nominations to the different Trusts. Above all, I desire to say this, with respect to the loud voices which have been raised on the subject—that the interests of all existing officers will be considered. There will be plenty of work for the admirable staff of the Metropolitan Board and of the Corporation of London, which will now be amalgamated, and the Vestry Clerks and the other officers of existing Bodies will continue to be officers of the Corporation. There is a Schedule in the Bill which I would commend to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). There will be a great number of Departments which are now under the Crown and charged to the Imperial Revenue—among others the Police Courts —which will in future be under the control of the Corporation. I am also happy to say that, though the Municipality will be larger, the Treasury will not be any richer. We have to encounter a difficulty which it is necessary to provide for. We are not creating a new Body to do a new business; we are taking over a going concern. We have therefore to provide for a transition period, so as not to lead to confusion. We must take care that chaos does not arise in the transfer to the new Body of the power which was exercised by the existing Body. For that purpose two things are necessary—first, that the new Body should have time to organize itself and make preparation for the duties it has to undertake; and, secondly, that the new Body shall include the persons who are now engaged in the old business. We have endeavoured to provide for both these things. The first thing wanting will be to provide a burgess roll, because there is now no burgess roll for the whole of London. That

    67
    will be commenced immediately after the passing of the Bill, and come into operation on the 29th of January following. Common Councillors will be elected upon that day for the several municipal districts. But we do not propose that they shall elect the whole 240 members. They are to elect 150, who will be rateably distributed among the municipal districts. The other 90 members will be chosen in the following manner: —We take over bodily into the first Triennial Common Council the whole of the 46 members of the Metropolitan Board, including their Chairman. We think we cannot testify more completely our sense of the services which the Metropolitan Board has rendered, and of their capacity to bring their knowledge and experience to bear upon the starting of the new machine. Next, we propose to elect out of the Common Council of the City of London 44 members to be members of the first Common Council—the best and most experienced members of the present Common Council. Thus we shall start in the new Common Council with 90 members perfectly familiar with the working of the Corporation, and the Metropolitan Board, with the finances and the various questions which are of importance in municipal affairs; and they will be 90 out of 240 members of what I may call the first "Constituent Assembly" of the Corporation of London. Those 44 members will take their places for the City districts. That Body will be thus constituted in the last days of January. I now come to the question of time; I have dealt with the question of persons. This Body will not at once enter upon its complete executive functions. It will have time to make itself acquainted with its duties, to organize and prepare its Committees, to appoint its officers, to consider and determine what work it shall do itself and what it shall assign to District Councils. In point of fact, they will have time to set the machine in motion. For that purpose they will have three months till the 1st of May. During that time they will be a Provisional Council. It will be elected at the end of January, will so exist for three months, and come into complete life and action on the 1st of May. We provide for this in the latter clauses of the Bill, which we call the Transitory Clauses, by which we provide for the
    68
    period of confusion and chaos and transfer of authority. That being so, at the end of April the Councils will be elected. Then the whole machine will be taken over in its new form, and in that manner we hope that by securing time and experience the whole work will be secure. Now, Sir, the fact that it is necessary to prolong, under the present Bill, the existence of the present Body will render it my proud privilege to have continued the existence of a Lord Mayor of London for a term of six months. I shall be the first person who will have continued a Lord Mayor in office for 18 months; and my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor will probably be the last man and the first who will have the office of Lord Mayor of London for 18 months.
    The House will be glad to hear that I am now coming to an end. I have endeavoured to explain this scheme— very imperfectly, I fear. At all events, it will not be said that it is a revolutionary scheme. As far as possible, consistently with the objects of the Bill, it is placed on the basis of existing institutions, and is built upon existing foundations. Now, there is one great objection which may be taken to it. That is a political objection. It is said that this will be such a terribly powerful Body that the State will reel under it. That objection was taken by a noble Lord in "another place" to the institution of the Metropolitan Board of Works, The noble Lord said that you, Sir, would tremble in your Chair. You are new, Sir, in that Chair; but I do not think your Predecessors have felt that terror. If my hon. Friend opposite (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) is a despot, he is a mild despot. If he possesses that great power, he exercises it with moderation. We have not suffered under the political reign of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. There have been times when there has been political danger from the Corporation of the City of London. We have read the history of John Wilkes and Alderman Beckford. There are to be found inscribed in marble in the Guildhall certain words said to have been employed on a famous occasion by Beckford, about which the strangest fact is, I believe, that they were never used. And, horresco referens, this House has sent a Lord Mayor and Alderman to the Tower. But those

    69
    events took place in the old days of the old Corporation, and are not the political dangers of some dreadful new Democratic Body. They were the work of the Corporation of the last century. I see no reason in the present century that the Corporation, as it becomes more representative of London, will become a danger to the State. How will this Bill affect the Mayor and Corporation? Does it do indignity to the present Corporation of London? This Bill merely magnifies and enlarges the power, dignity, and influence of the Corporation of London? And as to the Metropolitan Board, it will not exist completely as in the old Body; but it undergoes a transmigration of soul. The spirit of the Metropolitan Board will be transformed into the body of the Corporation of London. As to the Vestries, they will have as their principal Members, what they have never had before, members of the Corporation of London. It is idle to suggest adherence to the principle of independent local authority, which is at the root of all the mischief. I have done all I can to facilitate the understanding of the Bill by means of marginal references, and it will be accompanied by an explanatory summary which will make it more easy to master. The first and second parts are the skeletons of municipal and county government, while the third and fourth are the expansion of existing Bodies. I would make an appeal to the House to discuss this important question. The Bill of 1855 was one of 250 clauses, and it was dealt with in three or four months; this is a Bill of 73 clauses, and it is not so complicated as was the Bill of 1855. I hope the present House of Commons will show itself equal to that of a generation ago. The Bill is one of great complexity; it may contain errors of omission and commission. If there be any errors no one will be more happy than I to correct them. All I claim on the part of the Government is that we have made an honest and painstaking effort to grapple with a considerable question, which, I believe, does in a very great degree affect the happiness and the welfare of 4,000,000 of people.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Mr. ATTORNEY
    70
    GENERAL, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 144.]
  (The Marquess of Hartington, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 144.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he begged to move a new clause which had been drawn up in pursuance of the engagement entered into with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It was as follows: —
    (Unauthorised Punishments.)
    "Whereas questions have arisen as to the punishment which may be inflicted on persons subject to military law under 'The Army Act, 1881,' under or by virtue of power derived from Foreign potentates or rulers, and whereas it is expedient to determine such questions: Be it therefore enacted as follows:—There shall he added to section forty-four of 'The Army Act, 1881,' at the end of this section, the following enactment:—No officer or non-commissioned officer shall, under or by virtue of any power or authority derived from any Foreign potentate or ruler, inflict, or cause to be inflicted, on any person subject to military law under this Act, for or in respect of any offence against such law, any punishment not authorised by this Act. The above enactment shall be numbered section twelve."
    That, he thought, would meet the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It would be observed that to bring the clause into operation three things must concur. The person inflicting the punishment must be an officer of the Army; the offender must be subject to English military law; and the offence must be an offence against that law. He could go no further.
    New Clause (Unauthorized Punishments,)—(The Judge Advocate General,)— brought up, and read the first and second time.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was doubtful whether the clause would meet what he desired; and what he wished to know was, whether by the clause an officer would be prevented from punishing persons serving under the military law of England for any offence against the military law of the State in which they might be serving; if the offence was one against the military law of England and

    71
    also against the military law of Egypt, whether the punishment should proceed under the English or under the Egyptian Code? His object was to prevent the recurrence of such an action on the part of a British officer as the flogging of Egyptian camel-drivers by Admiral Hewett.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there could be no doubt that an English officer could only act under the English Code. This Bill, however, dealt only with the Army, and would not cover the case of a naval or civilian officer. Admiral Hewett had acted under a civil authority; and the Bill would not, therefore, affect such circumstances.
    Clause agreed to, and added, to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Judge Advocate General.)
    MR. HEALYasked whether the Government would give a Return of the number of non-commissioned officers in each regiment who were Catholics, in continuation of the Return granted to the hon. Member for Leitrim? His object was to ascertain whether Protestant non-commissioned officers had been unduly favoured in the matter of promotion.
    THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTONsaid, he believed it had been the practice of his Predecessor to decline to give Returns relating to particular regiments; but if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with him, he would consider what amount of information he could furnish him with.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the Government would consider the possibility of extending the effect of the clause just added to the Bill to the Navy by an amendment of the Queen's Regulations?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would communicate with the Admiralty upon the subject.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MOTIONS.
    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday the 21st of April."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY ACT (6 AND 7 WILL, IV., CAP. 14, SEC. 13) —EXTRA POLICE FOR THE CITY OF CORK.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I wish, before the Motion for the Adjournment of the House is carried, to direct the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to a matter which I trust, he will find time to consider during the Recess; and I trust that the result of his considerations may be that he may see his way to afford a favourable answer to the representations made to him from time to time with regard to this matter. I refer to the taxation of the City of Cork for extra police. This matter is one which has engaged the attention of several of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors for a number of years, and it has never been possible for us to bring it to a satisfactory issue. In fact, the laws regulating the powers of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the quartering of extra police are in such a very unsatisfactory and confused condition that it is almost impossible to know what the law on the subject of this quartering of police in the City of Cork really is. And although the Corporation and Town Council of Cork have made several attempts to obtain a judgment in the Superior Courts of Law with regard to the legality of the tax for this extra force they have never been able to carry the matter any further than the Recorder's Court. That official had expressed, in a judgment of the day, his very grave doubt as to whether he was interpreting the law correctly, or as to whether he could determine what the state of the law really was with regard to these old enactments under which forces of extra police are quartered in any Irish counties or towns. The first Act which applies to the Irish Constabulary, is one of the 6th and 7th William IV., 14th chapter, 13th section. That Act empowered the

    73
    Lord Lieutenant to declare by proclamation any city or county in a disturbed state, and thereupon he was empowered to send extra police. Section 35 of this same Act provides that the expenses of the police should, in the first instance, be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The 37th section directs that the Inspector General, with the assistance of the Receiver, was to ascertain the cost; and in case where an extra police force was sent, he was to send to the secretary of the Grand Jury a statement of the amount which any county or city in which extra police should be quartered was liable for, and a certificate, and lay it before the Presentment Sessions, and then the under secretary should send before the Assizes another circular nearly a duplicate of the other which was sent to the secretary, and was mandatory on the Grand Jury to present for the amount. The legal effect, to which I wish to direct attention, of the extraordinary provisions of this Act of Parliament, has constituted one of the great difficulties in obtaining any real legal decision as to the legality of the action of the Irish Executive in reference to this quartering of these extra police in Cork. The effect of this was declared to be binding and conclusive, even though it was proved to be a fact that the police charged for were not in Cork at all, or even though there was a palpable overcharge. I can only compare any of these certificates to the warrants by which, the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), was empowered to issue under the Coercion Act. There can be no question whatever that the authority on which they were raised is entirely removed from the purview or jurisdiction of any Court of Law whatever. Under this first and original Act regulating the Irish Constabulary, which were a certain fixed quota, there were originally 100 men free appointed to Cork under the Act. The next Act was that of the 2nd & 3rd Vict. c. 75, and under this Act the reserve force was established. This reserve force was for the purpose of meeting contingencies which, in the Preamble of the Act, are clearly recited. The reserve force was intended to meet contingencies when the ordinary force was deemed insufficient for the maintenance of order, as in the case of elections or other temporary ex-
    74
    citements, such as the July celebrations in the North of Ireland. The services of the reserve force were to be obtained as might be required. This reserve force was also to be available for all parts of Ireland, and they were to be maintained at the depôt in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, which is the nursery for recruiting, and training of officers. Section 6 of the same Act provides that under the order of the Lord Lieutenant the whole of this reserve force can be sent to any part of Ireland, there to remain as long as any order might be made. I should like particularly to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that section. The importance of that section is that it clearly indicates the temporary character of the order, which was intended to be for a definite period. It was necessary that the Lord Lieutenant should state the period which this force was thus to remain away from the depot. And yet it is a very remarkable thing that we have never been able to secure the production of that document, although the Corporation have endeavoured from time to time to obtain it. Moreover, so far as we know, that order has no existence — indeed, it is very likely that it has no existence. The order was not made by Lord Spencer, nor was it made by Lord Cowper. It was an order made many years ago when it was intended to meet a temporary emergency, and for a limited period. Cork had for a long time been in a condition of peace and good order; and he hoped the Chief Secretary would show his appreciation of this fact by withdrawing the heavy tax for extra police. The 3rd & 4th Viet. c. 128, and the 6th section, was a very important one, to which he begged to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, which empowered cities to make applications with reference to the force. The Town Council of Cork, some 80 years ago, finding that 100 men were not sufficient for the police requirements of the City, voluntarily applied, in the first instance, for six extra men, in order that a police station might be established in the district of St. Luke's, one of the wealthiest portions of the City, which, up to that period, had been without police protection. By further applications that force was increased to 16 extra men, which were paid for

    75
    voluntarily and without any grumbling, and the total force of the City remained for a considerable time at 116 men. When the Fenian period came, Cork being, from its geographical situation, the nearest port of call on the way between America and Liverpool, it was found necessary by the Government of the day —not for the purpose of checking violent disorders in the City, but solely as a matter of precaution, and for the purpose of protecting Irish-Americans and others who landed in Cork from America—to send an extra force of Constabulary to be stationed at Cork. This was done by one of the several Constabulary Acts passed from time to time to enable the Lord Lieutenant to distribute the Constabulary in Ireland; but these were free. The force was raised from 116 to 150, and it was still a free force, the Government being satisfied that it was owing, as I have explained, to the geographical position of the City of Cork, and not to any local causes, that the additional force was requisite. Up to 1866 the force was increased to 200 men and retained in the City, and in 1866 it was still a free force—the force of 200 men. In April, 1866, a letter was received from the Chief Secretary, in which it was stated that the time had arrived when it was necessary that the extra police of the City should be reduced, and only such number retained as the Town Council should decide upon in accordance with the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108. The Council, having considered the application fully, arrived at the conclusion that, for all practical and legal purposes coming within the purview of police duties in the City of Cork, 16 extra men added to the 153 men were ample; and, in fact, that the number of 16 extra police were necessary, and they instructed the Mayor to make that representation to the Lord Lieutenant; and that if, in the opinion of the authorities, there would be no reduction made in the force, the Council should not be asked to pay anything in respect thereof. No further action was taken in compelling the Corporation until 1879, when the Chief Secretary (Mr. Chichester Fortescue, now Lord Carlingford) wrote stating that the Council should make formal application, under the 3rd and 4th Viet. c. 108, for 50 extra men, so that the permanent force might be made up to 200. If they did not do this, Mr. Fortescue said he
    76
    was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform the Council that an extra force of 50 men was necessary for Cork, and a moiety of the charge was to be defrayed by the City. This was the first real attempt made by the Castle to compel the City of Cork to pay for an extra police force; and it was a long time after the Fenian outbreak, and when the City had resumed its normal aspect of orderly quiet. The object sought by this letter was to endeavour to coerce the Corporation of Cork to follow the example of the Corporation of Belfast. The Corporation of Belfast had placed themselves under the provisions of an Act which enabled them, practically speaking, to levy their own police force. That police force, however, was not under the local authorities, and the Corporation of Cork declined to follow the example in question. After some controversy, it was decided by the authorities that the entire extra men should not exceed 50 —that is, 16 men which the Council had originally applied for, and 34 fresh extra men, which, by the Lord Lieutenant's order, were directed to remain in Cork. The Council of Cork, Mr. Speaker, have ever since remonstrated, and are continually remonstrating, against this extra force of 34 men. They have disputed the payment from time to time. They have endeavoured to seek relief from the Courts of Law; but, owing to the state of confusion in which the Act regulating the powers of the Lord Lieutenant regarding the importing of extra police, it has been found impossible to bring any case before any of the Superior Courts. The Corporation have in vain remonstrated against what they believed to be the absolute illegality of the conduct of successive Lord Lieutenants in this matter in abusing an Act of Parliament, which clearly was never intended to give an authority for such a police force in the City. This state of affairs continued up to 1881, when the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) became Chief Secretary. He, in alluding to the subject, suggested that the Council should consider the precedent of Belfast and do likewise. But as the Town Council still continued to refuse to adopt the suggestion, the extra force of men was increased from 50 to 70, I suppose as a sort of punishment for declining to be as amenable as the Corporation of Belfast. In 1879 the

    77
    Under Secretary again wrote to the Council on the subject of the extra police, which at that date was reduced to 30, calling their attention to the fact that the reserve force was short of its strength by reason of 30 men being still retained in Cork, that his Excellency could not see his way to remove them, and he again recommended them to make a formal application with the view to their reduction. You will observe in all these proceedings the central executive authority in Ireland has been exceedingly anxious to get an application from the Corporation of Cork to get some endorsement of this illegal quartering; but although these attempts have been going on for a very long series of years, when the power of election to Town Councils in Ireland was not as it is now, but very much in the hands of wire-pullers and local magistrates, still they have never in one single instance obtained from the Town Council the slightest endorsement, direct or indirect, of this most illegal levy. Well, Sir, a case was prepared by the legal advisers of the Town Council, and it was argued before the Recorder in November, 1882, not two years ago. The result was that on technical grounds, entirely apart from the merits of the case, the Recorder held that, as a matter of fact, a certificate, countersigned by the Under Secretary, was conclusive as to the amount. He could not go behind it. Now, Sir, I think the judgment of the Recorder is a very important one. It was the highest judicial decision that it was possible for the Corporation to obtain. They applied, during the progress of the case, to the Recorder, and asked him to state a case for the Queen's Bench; but that was resisted by the legal representative of the Crown Solicitor, and the Recorder held that he had no power to do it. I would wish to direct the particular attention of the House to the judgment of the Recorder. His worship said—
    "I have been trying to guide my blind footsteps through the labyrinth of police legislation, with the aid of Mr. M'Carthy, whom I may call a legal Ariadne; but I must say that, after an argument lasting more than a day, I am not at all satisfied on the point under consideration, because, since the time of William the Fourth, the Legislature have been passing Act after Act—amending Acts, repealing Acts, explanatory Acts, and contradictory Acts—and really it is monstrous that nothing has been done to consolidate those Constabulary Acts. The Constabulary are a most important force
    78
    in the country. It would, therefore, be most desirable if some plain legislation were produced which would enable us to know where they are, what they are, what they ought to be, and what are their laws. Now, it appears to me that, beginning with the Act 6 & 7 will. IV., and comparing it with the Act 20 & 21 Vict. c. 17—that, upon the whole, the Inspector General, with the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant, has the right, in addition to the 100 men allotted to the City of Cork, to distribute the force as ho pleases without any restriction; but I am not at all certain that I am right in that construction of the law. But I am bound by this certificate, and if the Corporation require an alteration in the law, which, in my opinion, is demanded, they should send Mr. Lawrence to Parliament. Mr. Lawrence was the legal gentleman engaged, and let him vindicate their case there as he has done here. I do think that under the circumstances I am bound by this certificate, and I cannot get out of it. The Corporation ought to take the course I have suggested. I, for one, would be very glad to see Mr. Lawrence in Parliament, whore his great abilities would help to bring Irish Members to rational, reasonable, and sound views."
    This learned Judge does not recommend an appeal to the Superior Courts—in fact, he would not state a case for the Superior Courts, because he said he could not. All the relief he could give the unfortunate ratepayers of Cork was a sort of extra-judicial advice, which does not appear to have been acted upon up to the present, to send this legal gentleman to Parliament, where their case might be brought forward for review by the highest Court in the land. Well, Sir, I bring the case forward tonight, and I say it is a monstrous state of affairs that under a variety of enactments, which are, according to the Recorder of Cork, self-contradictory and impossible to be understood, which permit of no appeal, which simply rely upon the existence of a written piece of paper, purporting to bear the signature of the Chief or Under Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, that it should be possible to saddle the ratepayers of an industrious and peaceful city with such a monstrous charge as that without any remedy. Cork has now been charged for extra police for a period of 30 years, commencing with the year 1855, when the Corporation voluntarily agreed to pay a yearly sum of £175 in respect of an extra force of five men. The sum, paid in 1881, which was the last year in which payment was made, the Town Council having refused to pay the amount since then, was as high as £1,025. The total extra force in Cork

    79
    amounts to 180 men. Now, I wish to compare this total of 180 men, which is the ordinary police force, plus the extra force, with that of the other towns, and with the number of policemen to the population in other towns. The number 180 makes 23 policemen for every 10,000 of the population of the City of Cork in September, 1881. In Derry the Returns showed that there were, for the same year, 30 men for every 10,000 inhabitants—that is, an increase of 7 per 1,000, or nearly one-fourth as many more as in Cork. In Waterford the number was from 27 to 29 for every 10,000 of the population; but the House will bear in mind that in the two cases I have mentioned—the cases of Derry and Waterford—there was not an extra police force, and there was, consequently, no extra police tax. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker) dissented.] The hon. and learned Solicitor General shakes his head; but I am quoting from very accurate information, which I have reason to believe is absolutely correct. The authorities, in fact, provided 30 for every 10,000 of the population in Derry—I am not speaking of the occasional bringing in of men for particular occasions like the celebration of the shutting of the gates—and in Waterford they provided for every 10,000 of the population 27 men, whereas in Cork they only provide for every 10,000 of the population 20 men; for that 20 men they charge one-fourth, or about five men as an extra force—thus reducing the free force of Cork by one-fifth of these men. In other words, the cities of Derry and Waterford have a considerably larger free police force than Cork, counting the extra police force for which they pay. If there is one city in Ireland which deserves from the Government more consideration than another, entirely apart from its peaceful condition, it is the City of Cork. It is the chief inlet and outlet for the vast passenger traffic of the Atlantic steamers, and also for the passenger traffic from Munster to England. It has more police, force thrown upon it in respect to offences of a local origin than all the other Irish ports, excluding Dublin and Belfast, put together. In this respect the City of Cork does the work of the Empire. I find that, excluding Dublin, but not Belfast, Cork has now 1–16th the population of
    80
    Ireland. The distributive Constabulary Force, including Belfast, taken on the average of 1880–1, which is less than that of 1882–3, and divided by 60, would give a free force of over 170 for Cork. The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could hold out any hope that this extra police force would be removed. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had consulted the Bench of Magistrates and the local authorities, and that they were of opinion that the present force was not more than sufficient for the preservation of the peace of the City. I should be very glad to know what Bench of Magistrates or what local authorities the right hon. Gentleman had consulted. After the best local inquiry I have been able to make, I do not find that a single independent magistrate, and by ''independent" I mean magistrates not directly subject to, and in the pay of the Government, was consulted. I find that the Mayor and Town Council were not consulted. I find that no meeting of magistrates was held in reference to this matter, and that no recommendation opposed to the removal of the extra police force has proceeded from any public body. I am at a loss to know what Bench of Magistrates the right hon. Gentleman consulted, and what authorities. If he consulted magistrates and authorities they must have been very few. They must have been persons interested in maintaining the present position of affairs in order that they might retain their swollen and exorbitant salaries. When the right hon. Gentleman's reply was reported in the newspapers, the Corporation of Cork met and passed a resolution unanimously declaring that if the so-called extra police force were continued in the City, it should be placed permanently on the ordinary free establishment, which, even with the increase, would be very little, if anything, in excess of the quota the City should receive on the ground of population, and emphatically claiming exceptional consideration in this matter on account of the peaceable state of the City. Notwithstanding all this, they found that the Government, so far from treating Cork like Derry and Waterford, gave that City a smaller free force, and placed a heavy impost on her by this levy of extra men. Many thousand pounds have been paid by the citizens

    81
    since the establishment of this force, and since there is no possibility for them of redress from the law; since they are prohibited from asking the intervention of the Superior Courts, and since the only magistrate whom they have been able to approach has declared his opinion that it is impossible for him to understand what the state of the law is, or, if he did understand it, to decide the case upon its merits, the citizens have come to the conclusion, and I think they are right, that they will not pay this tax unless it is dragged out of them. Cork has been-exceptionally peaceful during the whole of the Land League agitation. There have been no outrages of any description. I say exceptionally peaceful as compared with the rest of Ireland, because Cork has been always peaceful. We have been told by Government officials that inflicting fines for extra police is of the greatest importance to deter districts from crime or disturbance; but there has been no crime in Cork, not even any disturbance. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his traditions and history, would have seized this occasion for showing the appreciation by the Government of the peaceful and quiet City of Cork. Instead of that, for purposes which are inscrutable to us, the Government insist upon maintaining this heavy taxation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider this matter during the Recess, which I trust he will very much enjoy, and that he will be able to announce to the House on his return that the Government see their way to remove the extra force from Cork, or to leave it there as portion of the permanent free force. When the Exhibition was held the Exhibition Committee had to pay, in addition to the extra police, for every policeman on duty within the walls of the Exhibition. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see I have made out a reasonable and fair case, and that it is an instance in which he ought to exercise his own judgment and authority, and not be guided by the biassed opinions and interested motives of subordinates.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he would not follow the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) very deeply into legal questions, nor, indeed, did he gather that Her Majesty's Government had done more than state the extreme perplexity in which the Cor-
    82
    poration of Cork found themselves with, regard to the various Constabulary Acts; but he was bound to say that to qualify the Constabulary Acts according to the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman and those who sat beside him was a thing which the Government could only do as a last resource. He should not enter into the legal right of the Government to exact what they had for a good while partially exacted, and what, at the present moment, they were endeavouring to exact with not quite equal success. These legal matters were, in his opinion, outside the purview of the House until they had been brought to the consideration of the highest tribunal to which they could go; and he did not agree with the hon. Member in holding that there were no means of taking the question before a higher tribunal. He concluded, if the decision of the Recorder was not a sound decision, it could not be enforced by mandamus from the higher Court, and that in that way, if no other, the case could be brought to appeal. As regarded the treatment of Cork in the matter of extra police, as compared with other towns, he thought that the hon. Member had been somewhat misled by a very natural predilection for that City, with which his name was so thoroughly identified. The hon. Member said if there was one city in Ireland which deserved more consideration than another it was Cork. From, that dictum he (Mr. Trevelyan) should be very unwilling to dissent. But he must go further, and say that there was no great city in Ireland, or, for that matter, in England or Scotland, which, on the point of paying for its police, had received such treatment as the City of Cork. He did not say that that decided the question; but it was a proposition he was ready to support. The hon. Gentleman, not having access to that official information which was at once at his (Mr. Trevelyan's) command, had a little erred in comparing Cork with other Irish towns and cities, especially with reference to Londonderry. He thought he heard him say that it had to pay for no extra police.
    MR. PARNELL: I was speaking of the free establishment.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would come to that afterwards. Limerick paid a sum less, indeed, than Cork, but still a very tangible sum, £340 or £350 a-year for extra police, and Londonderry

    83
    paid £1,550 a-year. What was the sum which Cork paid for extra police?
    MR. PARNELL: Londonderry has a very much larger free force. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute the accuracy of the proportional figures I gave regarding the free force in Londonderry.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not at all inclined to dispute the figures which he had heard. What he desired to say was that Limerick and Londonderry, in proportion to the population, was very much heavier taxed than Cork. It was quite true now that in Kilkenny, Galway, and Drogheda there was a much larger free force; but he found that in Londonderry the free force only numbered 10 in every 10,000, in Belfast only 17, and in Carrickfergus only 10, the average of the Irish towns being 16. Cork, therefore, was not excessively, although sensibly, above the charge made on other Irish towns; and, comparing Cork with English towns, he thought it would be found that for a population of 80,000, £1,100 a-year was a very small charge to make.
    An hon. MEMBER: But the local authorities have charge of the force.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would come to that. He might say that he was not now referring to the mere extra police lately stationed in Cork. Now, he would like, first of all, to compare the extra police force in Cork with that in other Irish towns. In Belfast the extra police cost £11,000 a-year, or 10 times more than Cork. Londonderry paid £1,500 a-year on a smaller population. Londonderry, in fact, paid 5d. in the pound for police, Belfast 4½d. in the pound, and Cork only 1d. in the pound. Taking for comparison an English town of nearly the same size as Cork— namely, Wolverhampton, which had a population of 75,700, whereas Cork had one of 80,000, he found that the Government contribution for police at Wolverhampton was £3,000 a-year, while £3,600 a-year was paid from the local rates—a great deal more than Cork had been paying for many years past. In Northampton again, with a population of 50,000, £2,846 a-year was paid for police; while Birmingham, with five times the population of Cork, paid 25 times as much for its police as the citizens of Cork had done during the last 10 years. However, he quite agreed
    84
    with the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) that paying money against the grain, and for a service that was not asked, was not a very pleasant thing. He knew that many historical non-payments were for small sums of money; but the question was—Was the City of Cork over-policed? Were they paying the moderate sum of 1d. in the pound on their valuation for police that they did not want? In April, 1871, when this question was discussed, a resolution was passed by the county magistrates, stating that they could not recommend any reduction in the police force of the City of Cork; and in the following August a resolution was passed by the Mayor and magistrates of the City of Cork expressing their opinion that the force of the City could not safely be reduced. Then there came a correspondence in which the Government wished to have the extra police paid for by the Corporation of Cork; and the Corporation, on the other hand, wished to keep the extra police, but at the charge of the public Exchequer. On the 10th of January, 1880, a resolution was passed unanimously by the Mayor and magistrates that the force should not be less than 180; and at the latest period, as far as he knew, at which the opinion of the Mayor and Corporation was authoritatively declared, it was their opinion that the present force—he did not speak of nine detectives—was the least that could keep the peace of the town, but that it should be paid for entirely by the Exchequer. He thought it was little to demand of a flourishing City like Cork, which had been characterized by the hon. Member, in not overstrained words, as one of the gates of the Empire, that if it was to have the full amount of police which its elected authorities considered necessary for its safety and good order, it should pay 1d. in the pound, when the cities and towns of England frequently paid 10 d. or 1s. Nevertheless, he allowed that it was the duty of the Government to communicate with the Corporation of Cork and ascertain what their real wishes were. He was not at all sure that if the town were perfectly satisfied with the free force as it at present stood, whether the police of Cork should not be reduced to that free force; but that the free force should be increased was a proposition to which, until they came again to the quintennial period of re-

    85
    vision, he could not for a moment assent. He was such a lover of self-government that he should be very glad if the responsibility of the ordinary police of Cork was placed to the greatest possible extent upon the elected Municipality of Cork; and if he found on careful inquiry that there was no real danger to the peace of the City, he should be very glad to see the force reduced by the greatest possible amount. With regard to what was required for the detection of special crime, he should be allowed to say that the immense advantages of Cork as one of the gates of the Empire imposed upon it the same duty which would be imposed on Liverpool of seeing that the gate was safely guarded; and he would promise the hon. Member very carefully to inquire into the matter, and if the stipendiary authorities could make out with the elected authorities, and should come to the conclusion that the mere peace of the City could be preserved with a smaller force than were now allotted to preserve it, he, for one, would be very glad to endorse that conclusion.
    MR. GRAYsaid, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not give them the benefit of his very elaborate and exceedingly laborious calculations with regard to the respective police forces of England and Ireland, though he confessed he (Mr. Gray) did not see the applicability of the comparison. The right hon. Gentleman had compared the cost of the police in Cork with the cost in other Irish towns, and then with certain English towns. Now, no such comparison was possible. The police in Ireland were a Governmental force, maintained for Governmental purposes, and in the Irish Municipalities that police force discharged hardly any of the many duties discharged by the police force in English and Scotch Municipalities. What the Chief Secretary seemed to think was, that the Irish towns should be satisfied to pay a police force over which they had no control, because English Municipalities, which had the control and management of the force for their own purposes, did so. Well, happening to have some knowledge of the working of local authority in Dublin, he should say that Cork was comparatively well off in having only to pay 1d. in the pound for its extra police force. In Dublin they had to pay 14 d. in the pound for a police force over which they
    86
    had not the slightest control. He was very glad to hear the Chief Secretary's declaration of principle over this matter, although he did not give any indication of a practical proposition of reform. One of the worst ways in which the present police system militated against the communities in Ireland was the enormous injury it inflicted on the country in the matter of public health. Now, the death rate was higher in Dublin than in many of the English towns. In Dublin, if they wanted to use a policeman as a sanitary officer, they first of all had to pay 14 d. for him, in supporting the ordinary police of the City, and then the Government came and demanded £120, or £140, for his services as sanitary officer. The result was that the sanitary condition of the City was deplorable, and it must remain deplorable, as long as this system of Governmental control, as distinct from local control, was exercised. This was only one more example of how a vicious system of centralization permeated the whole working of the social organization down to the smallest detail, and poisoned the administration to an extent which was not dreamt of by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Very likely they thought that the question of the control of the police in Ireland was merely connected with the maintenance of what they were pleased to call law and order. It had to do with a great many things besides that—as, for instance, maintenance of health and the preservation of life. Another means by which the control of the police operated most injuriously in regard to the public had reference to the most helpless class of the community. In Dublin the Government insisted, in spite of repeated remonstrances, and he believed of recommendations by a Royal Commission and of a Committee appointed by themselves, in placing an extremely onerous and oppressive tax upon the pawnbrokers of the City. He believed it amounted to over £ 100 a-year for each pawnbroker's licence. This was a portion of the indirect revenue which the Government received and devoted to a police maintained for purely Imperial purposes. Pawnbrokers taxed in this way were obliged, in order to recoup themselves, to tax their customers; and thus the Government in Dublin levied a most cruel tax upon the poorest of the poor for the purpose of maintaining a

    87
    system which even the Chief Secretary objected to, and would like to see abolished. He hoped that during the Recess, the contemplation of which had put the right hon. Gentleman in an extremely good humour, probably because he would be free for eight or ten days from having to answer any more Questions, he would give the matter his consideration. It would be something, perhaps, for him to look back upon if he could say when he quitted Office that he had reformed in Ireland an exceedingly vicious system, which he (Mr. Gray) could assure him from personal knowledge worked most detrimentally against all classes. He very much doubted whether, under the reform system which the Home Secretary contemplated introducing for the Metropolis, or in any Municipality of the United Kingdom, he would find that any community would tamely submit to this tax, amounting directly and indirectly to 4d. in the pound, for a force maintained largely for Imperial purposes, and over which the local representative body had no kind of control.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the burden of local taxation, of whatever nature in Ireland, was most keenly felt, because the sum of Imperial taxation in Ireland, as compared with England, was rateably something more than double, having regard to the means of each. He charged it upon the conscience of the House and upon the British Legislature that the system of taxes devised by the Imperial Parliament for Imperial purposes was, in its exaction, doubly greater in proportion to the means of the inhabitants in Ireland than in England; yet it was the habit to discuss questions like that before them as if taxation was generally equal in both.
    MR. DEASYsaid, the Chief Secretary seemed to have come to the conclusion that it was desirable, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, to consult with the local representatives, and to take counsel with them as to the future course which he would pursue in regard to the extra police force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carry out that principle; and he could assure him, from personal knowledge of the City of Cork, that it would treat him fairly, and expect nothing from him that was impossible. There was no Municipal Body more desirous of maintaining the
    88
    peace of its City than the Corporation, of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that from 1871 down to 1884, the Corporation of Cork had been unanimously of opinion that the maintenance of this extra force in the City was altogether unnecessary. In 1871, it was true, they petitioned the Lord Lieutenant not to withdraw the extra force; but the circumstances of the time were peculiar. Ever since then they had been desirous that it should be withdrawn, and over and over again had passed resolutions calling upon the Lord Lieutenant either to withdraw it or to charge it to the State. If the Lord Lieutenant desired to maintain the force, it would be unfair to the City that the ratepayers should be charged with the maintenance of this extra force. There was a very strong suspicion in Cork that these extra police had of late years been drafted into outlying districts to attend National League meetings, and that they had not only been charged to Cork, but to the districts to which they had been drafted. He was strongly of that opinion himself, and until the Chief Secretary contradicted it he would continue to hold it. The right hon. Gentleman had contrasted the small amount which they paid in Cork with the amount paid in certain English towns. The ratepayers of Cork would not object to pay 1d. or even 6d. in the pound for the maintenance of a police force in Cork, provided that they had control over that force; but what they objected to was taxation without representation. If the right hon. Gentleman would advise the Government to place the police force under the control of the Corporation, he (Mr. Deasy) had no doubt that they would be willing to bear the entire cost. Not only that, but they would be able to keep the peace quite as well as it was kept now. From time to time the Corporation had felt very great difficulty in compelling these men to do the duty. Even in the streets the police would not regulate the car drivers or regulate the traffic. The force was a source of constant annoyance in their midst; and he was convinced that if they did not give some value for the money paid for their maintenance, the people of Cork would find them some work to do.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that the extra police tax in the City of Cork was only a

    89
    very small proportion of the grievance that pressed upon the people of Ireland. In a great many districts where the people had been unable to undertake an expensive litigation they had been driven to take the law in this matter into their own hands, for outside the City of Cork, in the various districts of the County of Cork, in Limerick, in Clare, in Galway, in Kerry, the people were universally refusing both to pay the extra police tax and the blood tax; and he thought he must say that the Government up to the present, as the right hon. Gentleman had almost admitted in his speech, had not exhibited any very great energy or conspicuous success in collecting it.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I deny that. That is a very important matter. I quite deny that I have said anything to-night which would imply that the Government are not exhibiting all the energy that they possibly can. As far as my attempts are concerned, I must say that the Government are determined to stand by their rights in this matter.
    MR. O'BRIENobserved that the right hon. Gentleman knew his own mind best. He (Mr. O'Brien) only spoke of the fact, and it was rather curious that the neighbourhoods where the police had been withdrawn were the neighbourhoods where the people had recognized that there was a very easy way of standing up against these proposals. In one of the districts within the jurisdiction of Captain Plunkett a system of vengeance against the people was pursued in the collection of these taxes. A large farmer named John Daly refused to pay except under compulsion, and Kavanagh, a policeman, came on his farm with a warrant for 11 s. 7¼d., and seized a valuable horse which was engaged in the work of ploughing at a very critical time of the year. Mr. Daly, his son, and the parish priest were ready to declare that the policeman was offered his choice of a large collection of cattle, sheep, and pigs, which were on the farm at the time; but his reply was that his instructions were to seize a horse from the plough, and he did so. The policeman afterwards denied that he made that statement. They always denied it, and equally, of course, he was believed by the Castle authorities. The horse, which was worth £40, was knocked down for £5, and the owner protested against the
    90
    sacrifice of a valuable animal. The policeman knew he had landed himself in a serious legal difficulty; but he also knew the Government would support him in his illegality. The owner had served notice of action for wrongful seizure, and the authorities had boldly declared that the Government would defend that action at the public expense. Did the House think that was the way to maintain respect for the law in Ireland? If the police went on perpetrating outrages of this kind in vengeance for the protests of the people against these odious taxes the collection of those taxes would not become easier, and the item for law charges would have to be considerably swelled next year to pay the costs of the proceedings, for it was likely that Irish juries would have an opportunity of assessing the damages against the policemen—juries whom the Crown officials could not manipulate or pack. He wished they could have, as to this and other districts, some definite statement as to whether or not Ireland was in a peaceable condition. It was impossible to tell, from the statements of the Chief Secretary, what was the condition of Ireland. At one time he spoke as though the country had been in a blessed state of tranquillity since Lord Spencer and he went there. At another he would say Captain Plunkett and his extra policemen were necessary to keep down the disturbance. The fact was the English Minister in Ireland were the slaves of the officials whom they appointed. Even in the case of Mr. George Bolton they were obliged to shut their eyes to his frauds on his creditors and his wife, because it was difficult to gat another person to do what he did. It was the same with Captain Plunkett and those who were responsible for the extra police. The Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland got their briefs and made the best of them, and very contradictory the briefs were. One night they represented Captain Plunkett's district as free from crime, in order to show that Captain Plunkett had accomplished something for his money; the next they had to prove that the same district was in a dangerous state of disturbance lest his services should be dispensed with altogether. The Chief Secretary had claimed some glory for the pacification of Ireland, with which he believed he had no more to do than

    91
    the fly on the wheel had with the dust which was raised. But be that as it might, if that pacification was to continue, he would advise him to shake off those military adventurers and disturbers, men who, wherever they went, in Cork like Captain Plunkett, or in Cairo like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, did nothing but make the name of England detested and detestable.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Chief Secretary had boasted of having information which was inaccessible to others. He said nothing, however, to warrant the boast, nothing to justify the presence of the extra police, beyond the opinion of half-a-score of county magistrates. He was glad the Chief Secretary had at last seen his way to consult the Cork Corporation. His promise in that respect was a sign of a hopeful departure. Not more than two months ago, in the debate on the Address on the Queen's Speech, the Chief Secretary said the condition of crime in Ireland was such as could not be discreditable to the most peaceful country in the world. In January last, leaving out threatening letters, there were only one offence against the person, two aggravated assaults, 11 offences against property. In February, there were one fire, two aggravated assaults, and four or five offences against property. He would ask for an assurance that there should be no repetition of the course pursued by the Sub-Land Commission, and afterwards on appeal by the Chief Land Commission in the case of a servant of Sir Richard Wallace's at Lisburn. This tenant, having purchased all the improvements on his holding five years ago, had actually had his rent increased. The case had aroused deep resentment throughout Ulster.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the six Orange murderers of an unoffending Nationalist in Cavan, one Philip Maguire, had been discharged. The evidence against those men was more conclusive than it was against Hynes, Walsh, or Myles Joyce; but only one of the Dublin jury who tried the case was challenged, and he, of course, was a Catholic. The Government had been carrying on a very extraordinary series of tactics in support of what was called law and order in Ireland. Could Government justify procedure of this
    92
    kind? How could the Government justify such scenes as tainted the Court House in Green Street? How would Government like, since they refused to punish Orangemen, if the people were to adopt some Texan system of justice? What would they do if they formed Vigilance Committees, as had been suggested in The Evening Mail in the case of landlords? He would only say that if Philip Maguire were a brother of his, and his murderers were let loose to prey about the country, he would undertake to insure that they would not do such a thing a second time. He asked the Government to be warned in time in this matter. They were proving, by the light sentences which had been inflicted on the two or three Orangemen punished, and their connivance at the escape of others, that the whole prosecutions were a farce. The scoundrel Mathews, who was the first to issue a murderous placard against what had been called the Parnellite invasion of Tyrone, and then tried to roast alive a family by setting fire to a Land League hut with paraffin oil, was only sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, and his two confederates to only three months each. Mr. Doherty, who was brought from Derry to Sligo to be tried for having fired a fusilade from the roof of the Town Hall on the Lord Mayor of Dublin, found that his trembling limbs refused to bear him to the Court House to stand his trial, got an adjournment for months, and then was only sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. On the other hand, the young men who had been dragged from Mayo to Cork had been sentenced to years of penal servitude. Of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, who shot two unfortunate men who left their boat to seek on the shore a twig to make a rowlock for the boat, one who pleaded guilty got off, and by some trick of the law, which he would not call a nolle prosequi, the other got off by the payment of £50 or £60. The system of the Government was -simply a conspiracy for the protection of criminals and murderers of one particular class. It was not justice, but vindictiveness, upon the one hand, and partiality on the other, and even these sentences they had no guarantee would be carried out. The scoundrel Hastings, who published a paper abusing Nationalists, for a scandalous libel got six months' imprison-

    93
    ment, was released after two months, on the ground of ill-health. Had Mr. Harrington been released on the ground of ill-health? When he (Mr. Healy) got four months' imprisonment, he did not get ill, nor would he have got ill had he got four years of it. He had no doubt, however, that, if he had been some person acquainted with Earl Spencer, it would have been alleged that he had disease of the "mastoid process," and some convenient doctor's certificate have been procured. He wondered that the Government carried on this game, and that respectable Englishmen would not be ashamed to support such conduct; yet it would be defended, if necessary, by the Chief Secretary, upon the Treasury Bench, for £2,500 a-year and coals. He would ask the Government, could they expect reasonable men to look upon this system otherwise than with horror? He could show that whilst one class of men were released from prison, another class were tortured to death. He had the report of a debate which he had raised on the 21st August last with reference to the unfortunate persons charged with the Crossmaglen conspiracy, who had been sentenced to long periods of penal servitude—aye, and these poor men were a great deal more innocent of having caused effusion of blood than some of Her Majesty's Ministers. One of them was now lying in his cold grave in Glasnevin, and it was better for him than to be as the others, wasting their lives away in the convict cells of some English prison. On the 21st of August he had told the Government that poor Patrick Waters, a boy of 18, was dying. He had told them at the time that they had released another man— Bernard Smith—belonging to the same batch of prisoners. He (Mr. Healy) observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was receiving with a smile his statement as to this young man's death. The right hon. Gentleman might laugh; it well became his callousness.
    MR. TREVELYAN: It is an absolute falsehood to say that I laughed at the death of that young man. [Cheers, and cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has reached such a high level of violence throughout the whole of his speech, that I feel bound to interfere. He has
    94
    made charges of the most reckless description. He has charged Her Majesty's Government in language exceeding anything I have heard in this House. He has charged them with conniving at murder; and he has made a statement with reference to the Chief Secretary for Ireland which was couched in language which I conceive ought not to be used by one Member of this House to another. I can only warn the hon. Member that if this language is continued I shall resort to those powers with which the House has invested me to prevent what I consider a public scandal.
    MR. HEALY: When you rose, Mr. Speaker——
    MR. GRAY: On the point of Order, Mr. Speaker——
    MR. HARRINGTON: I rise to Orde——
    MR. HEALY: I thought when you rose, Mr. Speaker, you rose for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to the charge of falsehood made against me by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Loud cries of "Order !"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into an argument with the Chair. I have simply done what is my duty.
    MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. If I am not entitled to enter into an argument with the Chair, I am entitled to submit to you, Sir, a point of Order. In the course of my speech the Chief Secretary interrupted me by stating that what I had said was an absolute falsehood. You, Sir, at that moment rose, and I was under the impression, naturally enough, that you rose for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not entitled to use the words "absolute falsehood" towards another Member of this House. Perhaps you may have overlooked the statement of the Chief Secretary; but I wish to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether, if I am not entitled to use the language you have condemned, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to address to me a statement that my statement was an absolute falsehood?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I rise, Sir, upon the point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] On that point of Order, I wish to state that my right hon. Friend the Chief Se-

    95
    cretary was engaged in a private conversation with me.
    MR. HEALY: That is not a point of Order. ["Chair, Chair !"]
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): My right hon. Friend was smiling at something in our conversation— [Cries of "The point of Order!"]—and without knowing what the subject of our conversation was the hon. Member for Monaghan alleged that the smiling of my right hon. Friend was a smile of approval that an innocent man had been murdered. [Loud cries of "No, no !"] The hon. Member stated that my right hon. Friend laughed at an innocent man being murdered.
    MR. O'BRIEN: I rise, Sir, on a point of Order. My hon. Friend has asked for your ruling, and is he not entitled to your ruling on a point of Order which he has raised without hearing a speech from the Attorney General? My hon. Friend was stating that an unfortunate young man in a delicate state of health was detained in prison until he died, while another man charged with the same offence was allowed to go free. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman rose and said the statement was absolutely false. We now wish to know from you if that statement was in Order? [Ministerial cries of "Sit down !" and "Order !"]
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am speaking to a point of Order. When my right hon. Friend smiled—["Order!"]
    MR. HEALY: What is your point of Order?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Upon the point of Order, Sir, I ask your protection and permission to address the House.
    MR. O'BRIEN, who was received with loud cries of "Order! "and" Sit down!" —I rise to Order. I ask for your ruling, Sir, on the point which has been raised.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): When my right hon. Friend was entering into a private conversation with me he smiled; but that smile had no reference to this debate, but to something I said. Seeing a smile on his countenance, the hon. Member for Monaghan at once charged him with a smile of approval of the fact that an innocent man had been murdered. [Cries of "No !"] Under these circumstances
    96
    my right hon. Friend sprang to his feet with a natural impulse, and did state that that was untrue in the language that the House heard. It is in these circumstances that I ask you whether he has done wrong?
    MR. HEALY: Where is your point of Order? Where is your point of Order? Mr. Speaker—I rise to Order. You have allowed——
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member proceeds in this disorderly manner I shall be obliged to Name him.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I admit, Sir, that I used a very strong word just now, and in consequence of that I think I am entitled to give an explanation. The hon. Member for Monaghan charged me——[Loud cries of "Order!" from the Irish Members.]
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. [Land-cries of "Order!" from the Ministerial Benches.]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Chief Secretary for Ireland is in possession of the House.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I said I used a very strong word just now, and in con sequence I contend that, like every Member who has done something which is very exceptional, I ought to have an opportunity of explaining it, and, perhaps hon. Members will find, of excusing my self to the House. I am willing to use the hon. Member's own words, whatever they may be, that I was smiling at the death of—whatever the words were——
    MR. HEALY: I will supply you with them.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I will take them from you.
    MR. HEALY: Perhaps I had better explain it. I was referring to a young man in prison, and in the course of my statement for upwards of half a minute I naturally supposed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was attending to my remarks and observations on a subject affecting his Department. I observed him smiling. I was stating that this young man had died in gaol, and I saw the Chief Secretary receive this statement, as I thought, with a continuous ripple of laughter. I was saying that Bernard Smith was released from prison because he was spitting blood, and that Michael Waters had died in prison, and was now lying in his grave at Glasnevin. Seeing the Chief Secretary smiling, I assumed that he was

    97
    smiling at the death of that innocent man; and the Chief Secretary, putting a construction upon my language, said that that statement was an absolute falsehood.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I have used the exact words. It came to this really. The hon. Member said I was smiling at the death of an innocent man. Hon. Members heard the sentences uttered by the hon. Member. It is not possible that a Member could be in a smiling mood who was so addressed by a brother Member of the House of Commons. In these circumstances, when I was deeply moved already, the hon. Member makes this extremely strong statement. That statement of the hon. Member that I was smiling at the announcement he made I beg emphatically to deny as a fact; and I do not think the hon. Member himself believes that I was smiling at what he said.
    MR. HEALY: If you deny it, certainly not.
    MR. TREVELYAN: In these circumstances, I withdraw the words, because the hon. Member made the statement under an impression as to the truth of which he accepts my denial. I put myself in a false position under what I cannot but think was great provocation by using an un-Parliamentary expression, and I regret it.
    MR. HEALY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask your ruling as to whether the statement of the Chief Secretary was in Order or not? I have respectfully urged you to give your ruling, and you have not deigned to do so. ["Order, order!"] You have ruled when you were not called upon—["Order, order?"]—with regard to my general language; and now I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary was in order in using the language that he did?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Chief Secretary for Ireland has withdrawn the expression he used on the understanding that the hon. Member withdraws the expression he used also. [Cries of "Bule!"] I did express myself, not, I think, too strongly in terms of strong reprobation of the course which had been pursued during several minutes by the hon. Member. I thought the language he made use of exceeded in violence anything I have heard while I have been in the Chair, and demanded the reprobation of the Chair, and I took
    98
    upon myself to warn the hon. Member, in moderate terms, that if language of this kind was repeated I should be obliged to take serious notice of it, and to exercise those powers with which I am vested. I shall not take any further notice of the matter; I regard the point of Order as settled.
    MR. HEALY: I am glad you have settled the point of Order to your own satisfaction. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name him !"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The language of the hon. Member is not respectful to the Chair, and is not respectful to this House. I hesitate to Name the hon. Member; I am very unwilling to exercise the powers intrusted to me, or to appear to act with anything like precipitancy; but I warn the hon. Member seriously that this sort of language will not be tolerated.
    MR. HEALY, continuing, said, that at the time this interruption occurred he was speaking of the case of Michael Waters, as to which he trusted he should at least have the attention of the Chief Secretary, so as to avoid the risk of any further misunderstanding. Waters, who had been 12 months in gaol without trial, was dying of consumption, and on the 27th of June the Governor of Mountjoy Prison telegraphed to the uncle of Waters that he was dangerously ill, and wished to see his uncle. As Bernard Smith had been released because of blood-spitting, the uncle of Waters sent a memorial praying for the release of his nephew; but as the Lord Lieutenant was too much engaged in following the hounds to attend to it, no reply was received. The poor boy lingered on in prison without a sight of the blue sky until the 16th October. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison, on the 17th June, telegraphed that he was dying. He died on the 16th October. The Home Secretary told them in that House that it was a barbarity and cruelty which could not enter into his nature to keep a man dying in an English prison without releasing him. After the cruel and barbarous treatment by the prison officials and of the Castle officials of this unfortunate boy, what happened? The nephew's death was telegraphed to Michael Waters' uncle, and he sent this telegram to the Lord Lieutenant—
    "Will you allow out of Mountjoy Prison the remains of my nephew, Michael "Waters,

    99
    or at least hold a fair inquest. Reply prepaid."
    The Lord Lieutenant seemed to have put the shilling of Michael Waters in his pocket and did not reply. They kept this boy's wretched worn-out corpse, and at the dead of night shovelled it into Glasnevin Cemetery. He himself procured the money to pay for the shroud that covered his body. The prison officials would have buried him naked. The uncle of this man told him he had to beg and pray to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison for half-an-hour to allow him to put the shroud and some mementoes of Catholic devotion about the body, to show that his nephew had received Christian burial. He had no desire to continue this painful subject. Why did he and his Friends bring forward these cases? Because the victims were flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood. The feelings of the commonest people in Ireland were their feelings; the blood of the peasants were in their veins. For his part he would rather be a relative of that martyred victim in Mountjoy than the son of the proudest aristocrat in England. The name of Michael Waters in Ireland would be a holy name. On the hills of Armagh, where he was known, it would be treasured, and would be a war-cry amongst the people of the district against their oppressors. His blood rested not upon the head of anybody but the Government. They took him from his native place, kept him a year and a-half in gaol without trial, then dragged him to Belfast, and, before an Orange jury, convicted him without even giving time for his witnesses to be brought up. In the prison books of Belfast they would find the names of the Crown Solicitor and other officials as pretended visitors of this boy, placed there to suggest to his friends who might come to him that he had turned informer. It was a wretched trick they played for the young man's life with loaded dice, and they won the toss. His corpse was in Glasnevin, but his soul went marching on— [A laugh]— and he could tell the Government that the name of this young man—though it might form the subject of laughter to English Members, who wept over the slain Arabs of the Soudan—and the memory of Michael Waters, of his trial and his sufferings and death, would reverberate through the North of Ire-
    100
    land, and increase the flame which had been lighted against hatred and oppression, and which he hoped would continue until it consumed every shred and vestige of British despotism in the Province.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was somewhat surprised that, after the speech the House had listened to from the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), there was no disposition to reply exhibited on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He took it as evident, intimate as the hon. and learned Gentleman must be with the administration of affairs in Ireland, that his silence in regard to the grave and serious charges which the hon. Member brought against the Government showed that he had not a word to say by way of defence. It would not be possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to defend the Government in an assembly of Irishmen—neither he nor any other official of the Crown would have the hardihood to stand up in a representative assembly of Irishmen to defend the system which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan had assailed. But the hon. and learned Gentleman knew the sympathy which existed for him and his Administration in this House—he was conscious that, however infamous was the system, put forward in the name of the Irish Government, Members on the Ministerial side of the House would support it. Though the Government did not plead in vain for sympathy from hon. Members below the Gangway on their own side of the House—from hon. Members who went to foreign fields for the practice of their philanthropy—Ireland was passing through a system of maladministration and tyranny worse than was to be found in any other country in the world. He was acquainted with some of the facts his hon. Friend had mentioned. He had seen the very telegram sent by the Governor of the gaol—in the case referred to by the hon. Member—to the uncle of the young man, warning him to go up immediately because his relative was dying; and, looking at that telegram, he could not but remember that a few months previously the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had said to him, in that House, that if imprisonment endangered the life of a man the Government would certainly

    101
    think it their duty to release him. Later on, during the present Session, they had had a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he had gone a step further, stating that it would be heartless barbarity to retain a prisoner whose life was endangered by imprisonment. He (Mr. Harrington) would quote the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a witness against his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench. If it was heartless barbarity to endanger the lives of prisoners by keeping them in prison, that heartless barbarity had been perpetrated in Ireland by the responsible Officers of the Crown who, when an opportunity had been offered them this evening, had not attempted to deny it. Hon Gentlemen opposite who were so fond of applauding every expression of opinion which came from the Government Bench, and who, though they were the professed champions of liberty, were the first to cry down Irish Members when they spoke in defence of their fellow-countrymen, would, perhaps, like to know how it was that the Irish prison officials were empowered to do what they would not tolerate in the Governor of any English gaol. A short time ago he had had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Prisons Commission, and had drawn attention to the deliberate difference which had been made in the law between the two countries on the subject of prison rules. In England the rule was that if a prisoner's life became endangered, or was likely to become endangered, the doctor had immediately to report to the Governor of the prison, or to the Prison Board; but in Ireland the doctor had to report in the case of a prisoner in immediate danger of death. and not in cases where life was en-endangered, and the report had to be made to the Lord Lieutenant and the prison officials. Complaint had been made in the House time after time that prisoners in Ireland were in immediate danger of death, and the excuse for their non-release was that the doctors had allowed them to go so far before making up their minds that the sick prisoners were in immediate danger, that when they did at last make their reports the prisoners were not in a fit condition to be moved. Such a thing as that never occurred in England. But the release of a prisoner in Ireland on account of his being in immediate danger of death
    102
    was of the rarest occurrence. They had had in Ireland during the past year about 10 cases of inquests on the bodies of prisoners who had died in gaol, some of the deaths having even been, in the cases of persons serving short terms of imprisonment; so that there could be no doubt that life had been shortened by prison treatment. A case tried by the Prison Commission sitting in Dublin— the case of the man accused of the murder of Philip Maguire—had been referred to. In that case the accused was discharged by the Crown on the first disagreement of the jury; but, in the case of the unfortunate Mayo men, they were put repeatedly on their trial, and, finally, the case was withdrawn from Mr. Justice Johnson, who had been inclined to show some semblance of fair play to the accused, and though they were from time to time pressed to proceed with the trial, the Crown officials would not do so until they had got Mr. Justice Lawson on the Bench. Irish officials could deceive English Liberal Members, who would rather sympathize with them on Irish affairs than lose the smiles of the occupants of the Treasury Bench; but they could not shut the eyes of the people of Ireland to the system of administration they were pursuing in Ireland. Depend upon it, whilst they were pursuing a system of relentless hate against the people of Ireland, those people were treasuring animosity in their breasts which England and her Empire would one day feel the effect of. Then, as to the Dromore shooting case which was tried before the Commissioners, he should like to draw the attention of the House to the facts, in order that hon. Members might see that, from the Judge on the Bench to the lowest official in the land, the administration of law in Ireland was a perversion of justice. On the 16th December, four men passed through Dromore on a car and met two unfortunate young men walking in the opposite direction outside the village. The men on the car shouted "Down with the Pope!" or something of that description, and the two young men replied, whereupon the four got off the car and assaulted them, firing a revolver in the mê ée and wounding one of them. A telegram was sent by the Dromore police, directly the occurrence was reported to them, to the Omagh police, warning them to be on the Dromore Road to arrest the

    103
    young men on the car as they entered the town. The contents of the telegram were, of course, supposed to be a secret from everyone but the Constabulary; nevertheless, they reached the local Orangemen, and two of them—one of whom occupied an official position in Omagh — went out on the Dromore Road, met the car, and took the revolver away from the four young men, in that way anticipating the police. The four young men were brought before the local Resident Magistrate and the local Justices, and were formally committed for trial, bail being fixed in the case of each at £50 and two sureties in £25. But what happened afterwards? Why, behind the back of the Resident Magistrate, the paid official of the Crown, one of the local Orange magistrates—a brother Orangeman of the criminals committed for trial—came and reduced the bail from £50 to £20 and two sureties in £10 each. The consequence of this had been that one of the offenders, the most guilty of the four, had escaped to America. This was the system of things the Government wished ton. Members to respect in Ireland. They refused to respect it—the Irish Members refused to ask their countrymen to respect a system which was so infamous and unjust. He (Mr. Harrington) could assure the Government that so long as they dealt in the present manner with the people of Ireland, so long might they expect, to have a pretty hot time of it. And now, to go to another point, a question was raised earlier in the evening with regard to the levying of the extra police tax in certain parts of Ireland. The secret of the keeping up of this tax was that during the agitation the Government found it necessary to increase the police to an enormous extent; and now, rather than place the cost of the extra men on the Imperial taxes of the country and have to apply to the House for a large grant annually or increase the Estimates, they preferred to make the charge local and to keep the minds of the people in a constant state of disturbance. He challenged the Solicitor General for Ireland to stand up and deny that the Government had enormously increased the police, not only in those districts where disorder existed and it was necessary to have an enlarged force, but in the most peaceable and orderly districts of the
    104
    country. Another tax which was imposed on the people, and of which they grievously complained, was the blood tax. He would give an extraordinary instance of the manner in which the blood tax system was being increased in Ireland. When the Prevention of Crime Act was passing through the House, the case made out on behalf of the Government, its sponsors, for the blood tax was that they wished to bring to justice certain men who had become perpetrators of crime in certain districts, and to raise up in those districts a feeling against crime and outrage. Those who were acquainted with the manner in which the blood tax was levied knew that even where men had been found red-handed and had been brought to justice this infamous tax had been imposed all the same. In order to convince the House of the iniquity of the manner in which the tax was imposed he would give a single instance which had occurred in the constituency he himself represented. Some time since a police constable was murdered in the neighbourhood of Mullingar on the very day on which he had come to the district to get married. There was no doubt the murder excited widespread indignation and that general sympathy was felt with those whom the murdered man left behind. But it was ultimately found that the crime was the act of a lunatic. The murderer was at once arrested. He was tried and found guilty, and because he was a lunatic he was sent into a lunatic asylum; where he now was. An application was made immediately to the Lord Lieutenant to order an inquiry in order that the widow of the murdered constable might be awarded a certain compensation; a certain amount of blood money. No doubt the widow was entitled to a great deal of sympathy and commiseration; but he would put it to the sense of justice and fair play of the House whether the people of a district should be taxed for an act committed by a lunatic? The Government themselves admitted the murderer to be a lunatic, having sent him into a lunatic asylum. It was known, of course, that unless an agrarian complexion could be given to a crime it would not be possible to levy the tax; therefore, in this case, it was declared that the cause of the murder was agrarian, and the Lord Lieutenant had been seriously prepared to have an inquiry

    105
    held as to the motive of a murder committed by a lunatic. He should like to hear the Solicitor General for Ireland defend the policy of such an act as that. The fact was that the only effect of this blood tax and police tax was to incite people to the commission of crime and violence. It had done so and would continue to do so. They had had a spell of quiet and rest in, Ireland, yet the legal authorities in that country—he would not say to increase their own emoluments, because he did not desire to constitute himself a judge of their motives—were going round hunting up cases for the imposition of the blood tax, and getting unfortunate people to give evidence and, too frequently, to commit perjury. Then there were men who had been 15 months in gaol in Ireland awaiting trial. It seemed an extraordinary thing for the Government, who professed to be wedded to broad principles of liberty, with all their machinery of law, with their Special Commissions, their Winter Assizes, their Crimes Act, their trial by Judges, their extraordinary packing of juries so that not a man who professed the religion of the majority of the people was allowed in the box—it seemed an extraordinary thing for them to allow a system to prevail in Ireland under which men could be kept in gaol awaiting trial 15 or 16 months with no possibility of being brought to trial for another six months to come. That system was in force in a country which the Government told them, from time to time, had the benefits of the British Constitution, which was so much admired throughout the world. If the country was governed so well, why were men kept in gaol for two years awaiting trial for agrarian offences? What was the reason for delay? The Crown, of course, alleged a reason of their own; but the people of Ireland alleged an altogether different reason, and both these allegations were worthy of the serious attention of the House. The reason for repeated postponements alleged by the Crown was, forsooth, that they were hunting in America—all over the Continent of America — for witnesses whose testimony was essential; but the reason the people of Ireland alleged— and in which he agreed—was that the Government wished, by continued detention, to force the prisoners to give evidence, to force them to save their
    106
    own lives by sacrificing others, some of hem probably innocent. And this continued detention without trial meant not only imprisonment, but isolation from friends and starvation. The food given to untried prisoners was less in quantity than that given to convicted prisoners. The Government, he could assure them, would never settle the Irish difficulty by such methods as this. He should be ashamed to see the day when his countrymen would give their assent to a system so scandalous. They had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary make a comparison between, English cities and Irish cities in regard to the police tax; but the right hon. Gentleman's figures were quite fallacious. There was no comparison to be drawn, the circumstances of the two countries being entirely different. English cities had their police under their own Government, and the people were prepared to sustain the Force. In Ireland that was not the case, the police being hostile to the people. The more the police oppressed the people in Ireland, the more they raised themselves in the opinion of the permanent officials. He would not trouble the House with any further observations. Some defence would be made on the part of the Crown, he trusted, in regard to the serious allegations brought forward against them and their system of government tonight. Hon. Gentlemen who supported the Government, of course, did not care for explanations; in fact, explanations were rather an inconvenience to them. He would do them the credit of saying that they had still some conscience left, and that they shrank from having it pricked by harrowing illustrations of the sufferings of the people of Ireland; but they might make up their minds that so long as a vestige of the present system of administration existed they would have Irish Members, in spite of the Rules that might be put in force against them, making them feel the influence of the passions and hatred they had excited in. Ireland by their government.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that having listened to the violent language that had been used with regard to the administration of the law in Ireland, and having seen the results of that violent language in the excited feelings

    107
    that had been roused, lie did not sup pose any arguments he might use in reply would have much weight. He would, however, shortly call the attention of the House to the cases mentioned by hon. Members, in order to show those who would consider them calmly how little there was of substance in the charges brought against the Government. In regard to the first matter which had been noticed—namely, the police of Cork, he did not, on the pre sent occasion, propose to go into it, be cause he thought his right hon. Friend had gone very far in the direction o concession when he said that, during the Recess, he would investigate the matter, and if he found that those charges were justified, he would do al in his power to remedy them. Five or six specific instances had been mentioned as charges against the Irish Executive, which it would not be right for him to pass over without notice. The first case was one tried at the last Commission, where the murderers, or one of the murderers, of Philip Maguire, named James Johnson, was arraigned. The hon. Member who last addressed the House had said there was a disagreement of the jury; but that was not the case. The evidence against James Johnson—as he knew, not only from having heard the evidence, but from having read the informations— was stronger than against any of the other prisoners accused of the murder, so that, very naturally, the Crown had him tried first. He was acquitted, and, in consequence, the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in the other cases, deeming it useless to put them on their trial after the acquittal of the prisoner against whom there was the largest amount of evidence. It was now declared that there had been some partiality displayed because James Johnson was a Protestant, and the man who was killed was a Catholic. It had been often charged in this House, and made a subject of complaint by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Catholics were unduly challenged on Irish juries. Well, in the case of these men there was not a single challenge; the case was tried by a Roman Catholic Judge—a Judge whom he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had the honour to know intimately, and who was undoubtedly a consistent, high-minded Catholic — and the Attorney General
    108
    who prosecuted was a Catholic of the highest character and reputation. Was he to be told, therefore, that the trial was a partial one?
    MR. O'BRIEN: You had 12 Protestant jurymen.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would never believe that 12 gentlemen of the City of Dublin empannelled to try a case would ever stoop to partiality —would treat a prisoner with undue leniency because the man killed was a Catholic.
    MR. HEALY: They only challenge the juries.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the venue was changed from Derry to Dublin in order to escape all possible prejudice on the part of the jury, and yet complaints were made simply on the ground that the murdered man was a Catholic and the accused a Protestant. He denied that there was anything in this case to justify prejudice against the administration of the law in Ireland. As to the case of Matthews, in which the venue had also been changed, all that could be alleged against the administration of the law, and all that hon. Members opposite could say, was that the Judge before whom the case was tried, who heard the evidence, and was the person most likely to form a correct opinion in the matter, gave a light sentence. In the next case, Doherty was charged with shooting a man in Derry at some celebration. The venue was moved to Sligo to secure an impartial trial. It was not contended that the case ought to have been left for trial in Derry. A punishment of 18 months' imprisonment was inflicted on the prisoner. He was a man 70 years of age, and it lad been made the subject of complaint n this House, by Members representing the other side, that the man had ever been convicted at all. In the case of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, there was a question whether the gun did not go off by accident.
    An hon. MEMBER: Did not the prisoner plead guilty?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the prisoner did plead guilty; but as no one was injured, an arrangement was made which met with the approbation of the prosecution, the parish priest, and the

    109
    Judge, that compensation should be paid, £40 to one man, and £20 to the other. With regard to Waters, it was declared that he was convicted wrong fully, and that he was, consequently, a martyr. But he was found guilty by a jury, and, therefore, could not be justly said to have been wrongfully convicted. He was taken ill; his uncle was in formed that he was dying. The Home Secretary had said that it was barbarous not to release a man from prison whose life was jeopardized by his confinement; but Waters had no home to go to, and his state of health was such that it would have been a barbarity to have discharged him. In the case of another prisoner, he had been released in consequence of blood-spitting; therefore, there was an inconsistency in the arguments of hon. Members opposite. Waters was buried in Glasnevin Cemetery, the burying-place for Catholics, according to the prison regulations. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had referred to the case in which four young men who were Protestants, driving on a car from Dromore to Omagh, met two young men who were Catholics and fired a revolver at them. The hon. Member had pointed out that the Protestants had been committed for trial, but let out on bail, and that one of them had escaped to America; but the hon. Member had omitted to mention that the three who remained were tried and convicted, and were this moment under going, one five years' penal servitude, another 18 months', and the other 12 months' imprisonment. He hoped, there fore, the House would agree that, in those cases, justice had been meted out to Protestants as well as to Roman Catholics. And now with regard to the question of extra police——
    MR. HARRINGTON: How about the young man who ran away to America?
    THE SOLICITOR, GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had sufficiently referred to that matter. He was happy to say there were now in the whole of Ireland only nine cases of extra police, and it was hoped that they would soon be removed. The hon. Member for Westmeath had referred to the blood tax and the murder of the policeman Crowley; but, evidently, he did not know what had occurred in the case. He (the Solicitor General for Ire-
    110
    land) would tell the House what had transpired, and then, probably, the hon. Member would change his opinion. The widow of the policeman did present a petition to the Lord Lieutenant before the trial, declaring that the murder was agrarian. An inquiry was accordingly granted; but, after the granting of the inquiry, and before it was gone into, the prisoner was tried, and it was found that he was a lunatic and not responsible for his acts. The inquiry had taken place; but His Excellency had made no award, and it was not likely that he would make any. for, as it was shown that the prisoner was a criminal lunatic and that he was not responsible for his actions at the time the crime was committed, a fortiori the offence was not an agrarian offence at all.
    MR. HARRINGTON: Then why hold the inquiry?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had explained that point, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the House. An accusation had been made against the Lord Lieutenant with regard to his not taking the trouble to examine into matters himself, but in putting memorials aside for the sake of the enjoyment of his pleasure. Those who said that did the foulest injustice to the noble Lord, and, in saying it, showed that they knew but little of his character.
    MR. O'BRIEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to the charge in regard to the seizure of a horse.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had already answered a Question on that subject in the House. The policeman went to receive the tax, and it was alleged that he stated he had received instructions to seize the horse. That was a most absurd statement, for the hon. Gentleman knew what the law was, or, at all events, if he did not, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could state it to him. The policeman would have no more authority to seize a horse for this tax than he would have to seize one for the landlord's rent.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not prepared to say that the statements of the hon, and learned Gentleman as to the selection of juries shook his belief in the hon. and learned Gentleman's varacity, but they largely increased his faith in his credulity, and he certainly

    111
    thought the House would be able to swallow most monstrous improbabilities if they could give credence to such an accidental concourse of atoms. He had no intention to revive the controversy between his hon. Friend and the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the subject of his conversation was very different from that which was raised by the hon. Member. He had no difficulty in expressing his perfect confidence in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he considered that the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was one which demanded the concentrated attention of the right hon. Gentleman; and, although he was sorry to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of heartlessness, or of smiling at the death of an innocent man, he must charge him with a certain degree of levity in this matter. He was not surprised that his hon. Friend had imported into this discussion a considerable amount of strong and even fierce and passionate personal feeling. His hon. Friend was a man of strong emotions. This was a case with the details of which the hon. Member had made himself fully acquainted, and he remembered very well the strong speech which his hon. Friend made with reference to this man Michael Waters; and when he remembered that, in spite of the warnings of the hon. Member, the Government had allowed this man to die, he could not be surprised that his hon. Friend had expressed himself so strongly as to carry him beyond the limits of Parliamentary discussion. The case could be put in a nutshell. On the 27th of June, the Governor of Mountjoy Prison telegraphed to the uncle of Michael Waters that the prisoner was dying; on the 21st of August, the Chief Secretary announced in this House that Barnard Smyth, a fellow-prisoner with Waters, had been released because of blood-spitting. On the 23rd of August, the hon. Member for Monaghan brought the case of Waters before the House, and in the following October that man died. The Governor of the prison was aware that the life of that man was in danger, for he practically foretold his death, and, therefore, the Government were responsible to the country. The Chief Secretary was a Gentleman of kindly feeling; but he happened to be an Irish official,
    112
    and had no public feeling that he cared for, while the Home Secretary was an English official, and had a public opinion which he dared not offend. The Home Secretary, in answer to his hon. Friend, declared that the retention of the prisoner, in a manner which would only be worthy of a savage country, was necessary; and he was defended by the Chief Secretary, because this happened to be committed in a country which was certainly savage so far as the administration of the law went, and so far as the present Government were concerned. This case, simple as it was, was quite sufficient to show the manner in which justice was done in Ireland. The Solicitor General for Ireland urged, as a plea for retaining this man in prison, that he had not a home to go to; but the man asked to be sent home, and his uncle applied over and over again that he might be sent home. To whom were these applications made, and how were they received? The uncle sent a memorial to be allowed to see this prisoner, who, according to the Governor's telegram, was in a dying condition; but he did not get even the courtesy of an answer. Nay, more, with a depth of meanness of which he could not have thought even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland capable, Lord Spencer did not deign to reply to the prepaid telegram sent by the uncle. The hon. Member was perfectly justified in saying that if such a case as this had happened in Bulgaria or Turkey, and if a Tory Government were in power, the Liberals would come back to power upon that case, and Mid Lothian would be harangued, from one end to the other, on the barbarities of Turkish rule and the inherent wickedness of the Tory Government. This was one of the worst cases even among all the bad cases brought before this House, and justified him in saying that never in the past 80 years had there been a Government in Ireland more loathed, more detested, and more despised than the Government of which Lord Spencer was the head, and the Chief Secretary was the mouthpiece.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. ASHMEAD - BAKTLETTsaid, he was very sorry to interpose between

    113
    the House and the Holidays; but the news had been confirmed by the Treasury Bench that the tribes between Khartoum and Berber were in full revolt, and that all communication with General Gordon had been cut off. In the face of this intelligence, the Government had stated that they were doing absolutely nothing to save General Gordon and the garrison and civil population in Khartoum. It was evident that the Government were wholly inappreciative of the danger in which General Gordon stood, and had decided to take no steps for his relief. The Secretary of State for War might not assent to that; but the Prime Minister had stated that General Gordon believed himself to be safe in Khartoum, and that he saw no danger; and the noble Lord himself had said that the Government had no knowledge that General Gordon desired that any troops should be sent to him. The Government had taken no steps to ascertain whether General Gordon needed troops or a military diversion at this moment. The Government had been accused of having abandoned the brave Governor of Sinkat; and that had been justified over and over again. Now a worse charge could be proved against them — namely, that they had betrayed General Gordon. The Prime Minister had stated that General Gordon was under no constraint to remain, but could leave; and yet, at that moment, the Prime Minister knew, as the noble Lord had subsequently informed the House, that the Government had actually asked General Gordon to remain at Khartoum in consequence of their refusal to appoint Zebehr Pasha as his successor. Could the Government say he was under no constraint to remain when they had invited him to remain in consequence of their refusal to assent to the only proposition he had made, and in face of the fact that he had undertaken to rescue the garrisons and the civilian population of the Soudan? As long as there was breath in his body General Gordon would consider himself bound in honour to remain and endeavour to save the people and the garrisons whom he was sent out to rescue. General Gordon informed the Government, four weeks ago, that he thought a military diversion was necessary to achieve the object the Government had in view. He urged that if Zebehr was at once appointed, a military diversion should be made by
    114
    a British. Force from Suakin to Berber, or by Wood's "Invincibles," to Wadi Haifa. He asked for that a month ago; but the Government now shielded themselves behind the pretext that General Gordon only asked for that aid because Zebehr was going to be appointed. Much had happened since to make this ten-fold more necessary. At that moment Gordon was in command of Khartoum and of the road to Berber; there had been no defeat of his Army; there had been no rising of the tribes; there had been none of that threatened revolt of the great Bishari Tribe; there had been no breach of communications. And yet, when Gordon gave that advice, and when the communications were perfectly secure, the Government decided that it was not necessary to make any diversion. Since then Gordon had been cut off; he had been surrounded, and Berber and Dongola were threatened. If there was any ungenerous and unworthy answer it was that which the Government had given. It was all very well for them to say now that the heat was too great to enable British troops to advance; but this was not a question of the present moment; they had had it before them ever since the 19th of January, when they sent General Gordon out on his almost impossible mission. They had repudiated the only important appointment that Gordon had made—the appointment of Zebehr. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had no great objection to that repudiation; but he would justify the proposal by saying that General Gordon only made it to save the Soudan from universal anarchy. Gordon practically said— "Better Zebehr than universal anarchy." The Government had known all along since the 19th of January that Gordon's position would probably become impossible—on the 12th of February, when they sent out General Graham; on the 29th of February, when Osman Digna was beaten at Teb; on the 14th of March, when the battle of Tamasi was won. Why, then, did they not take action, and send a few squadrons to Berber? It could have been done at a slight cost—they only wanted a few thousand camels to carry water. A slight cost would have saved Gordon, the Soudan, and the credit and honour of this country. But the Government allowed matters to drift along until they found themselves in this position, that this chivalrous officer, doing the highest

    115
    work of humanity, had been cut off from communication with us, and he had practically been abandoned. That was the position with regard to General Gordon. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asked the Government what had been the object of the slaughter—the frightful slaughter—near Suakin? What was it for? Why were 5,000 brave Arabs and 200 gallant Englishmen sacrificed near Suakin? What was accomplished by that terrible loss of life? A few earthworks, an expenditure of £10,000, and 1,000 troops—Indian troops, British troops, good Egyptian troops— would have protected Suakin against Osman Digna. But Her Majesty's Government, by the retreat they had ordered, had thrown away all they had gained. They did not relieve Sinkat; they were too late to relieve Tokar; they were too late to disperse Osman Digna's forces. If they had opened the Berber road and saved Gordon, and saved the garrisons at Kassala, at Khartoum, at Berber, at Dongola, or at any of the other places, they might have something to show for this vast sacrifice. But what they had to show for it now, or would have to show for it in the future, he knew not. The Government could not explain it, the country did not understand it. Only this afternoon he had put a Question to the Government on the subject, and the Prime Minister's answer that that Question was "misleading" had justified him in taking up the time of the House to-night for 10 minutes while he put the matter again before them. His Question was not misleading; it was a very simple Question. If hon. Members tried to save General Gordon by putting Questions in this House they were accused of Obstruction; when the whole Press of the world defended General Gordon's claim to be relieved they were charged with being bribed by financiers. It was, however, essentially necessary that these Questions should be put. His own Question had simply been— "Do you intend the House and the country to understand that you abandon Gordon?" It was a pointed Question, not a misleading one, and it was a justifiable Question. He wished to make this protest against the course pursued by the Government with regard to General Gordon as a course which was most unjust and ungenerous to that gallant officer, and which was
    116
    discreditable to Her Majesty's Ministers. It was a course which cried aloud to the country for the most severe reprobation.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I quite understand that the House should desire to go to a Division, and I can assure them that I do not intervene at this late hour from any wish to continue the discussion upon this subject. The hon. Member who has just spoken has probably felt a considerable anxiety to deliver his own soul, and is not very anxious that there should be any long reply to his observations. I can only say over again, and I hope without any disrespect to him, that Her Majesty's Government have on several recent occasions placed before Parliament, both here and in "another place," their views upon the situation in general, and in regard to the position of General Gordon in particular. I do not think it would be possible to enter with advantage at this late hour into any of the numerous points which the hon. Gentleman has brought before us; but whenever the proper time comes we shall be ready to enter upon all these questions, as we have done upon other occasions. We have had much Egyptian debate in Parliament of late; and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with making his own speech, and will not think me disrespectful to him if I say no more upon the subject now.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 27: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 62.)

  PUBLIC HEALTH (CONFIRMATION OF BYE LAWS) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' so far as relates to the confirmation of bye laws."— (Mr. George Russell.)
    MR. GRAYasked whether some explanation could not be given of the character of this Bill? Why was it proposed to amend the English Act of 1875 without amending the corresponding Acts for Ireland and Scotland?
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had not intended to give any description of the Bill now, and would rather have reserved it for Committee. The Bill had been brought in in consequence of the decision of a Court of Law, who had

    117
    given their view of the legal aspect of the question, and had made it appear that as the law now stood these bye-laws did not require the confirmation of the Local Government Board, which, up to the present time, had been thought necessary. The object of the Bill was to give the force of law to bye-laws which had already been passed, and to remove any doubt on the subject.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he wished to point out that the same necessity would arise under the corresponding legislation for Ireland and Scotland, and he objected to this species of piecemeal legislation altogether. The hon. Gentleman ought to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and to be sure, before he brought in his Bill, that precisely the same condition of affairs, whatever it might be, did not exist in connection with the Irish law. He would ask the hon. Gentleman to delay the introduction of the Bill until he had made himself acquainted with the entire condition of the law on the subject.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, that in the meantime it was necessary for the Bill to be introduced.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 173.]

  ORDER OF THE DAY.
    REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL
    (Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Warton.)
    REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL

      [BILL 98.] CONSIDERATION.
      Bill, as amended, considered.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he desired to move the insertion of a new clause, providing that real estate should not be applicable to the debts of deceased persons till the personal effects had been exhausted. He thought that such a provision was desirable, and he believed it would come within the intention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who had brought in the Bill.
      Clause (Saving of specifically devised real estate,)—(Mr. Tomlinson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time,"
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should oppose the clause. It was objectionable, because it would discharge the real assets which were now available for paying the debts of specific legacies from that liability. He could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman intended to make so serious an alteration in the law.
      MR. WHITLEYalso opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would make far too serious a change in the law for the House to assent to unless they were directly advised to it by the responsible Law Officers of the Crown.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he declined all responsibility for the Bill, or for the proposed change in it. All that he had done was to give such assistance as he could when the Bill was in Committee to remove some of its defects. The responsibility rested rather with those who permitted the Bill to pass its second reading and to go through, the Committee stage. He was entirely opposed to the clause now proposed.
      MR. TOMLINSONasked leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn
      Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill to be read the third time upon Monday 21st April.

  MOTIONS.

    COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Regulation of Redhill and Earlswood Commons, situate in the parishes of Reigate and Horley, in the county of Surrey, in pursuance of a Report of the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to he "brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

    MARRIAGES LEGALISATION (WOOD GREEN CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill for legalising Marriages heretofore solemnised in the "Wood Green Congregational Church, in the district of Edmonton, in the county of Middlesex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented read the first time. [Bill 174.]

    COMMISSARIAT AND TRANSPORT SERVICES (EGYPTIAN CAMPAIGN).
    Select Committee on Commissariat and Transport Services (Egyptian Campaign) nominated of,—Mr. BRAND, Dr. CAMERON, Colonel MILNE HOME, Colonel STANLEY, Mr. CARINGTON, Mr. DAWNAY, Mr. BROWN, Mr. JACKSON, Colonel KINGSCOTE, Sir HENRY FLETCHER, Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. EARP, and Mr. HERBERT, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

    CHARITY COMMISSION.
    Select Committee on Charity Commission nominated of,—Mr. DAVEY, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Mr. PELL, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. YORKE, Sir JOHN KENNAWAY, Sir THOMAS DYKE ACLAND, Mr. MAYNE, Mr. BULWER, Mr. LONG, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. JOHN MORLEY, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five he the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday 21st April.