Sitting of 25 February 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Commons, appointed and nominated; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), Mr. Sheil, added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts)* [118].
Committee—Report—Brokers (City of London) * (69).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNERDALE RAILWAY BILL.

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. BRYCE, in rising to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report to the House, whether the proposed Railway will interfere with the enjoyment of the public who annually visit the Lake district, by injuriously affecting the scenery or otherwise, and that they have power to call witnesses and receive evidence upon the subject,"
    said, he wished the House to know that this Instruction was moved last year by his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. S. Howard) and carried by a large majority. The Instruction which he (Mr. Bryce) now moved was exactly the same in every respect, and was based on the precedent of the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, in which a similar Instruction was given to the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred. The House had, therefore, on two previous occasions affirmed the principle of such an Instruction. With regard to the Instruction itself, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who supported the Bill, ought hardly to oppose it, because it was his own contention in the debate on Thursday last, on the second reading of the Bill, that the scenery would be in no way injuriously affected by the construction of this railway. The opponents of the Bill said that it would, and surely, therefore, this was a matter proper for the decision of a Select Committee. In the debate upon the second reading it was strongly urged by the supporters of the Bill that the matter should go before a Select Committee, so that the whole question might be gone into. The op-
    1824
    ponents of the Bill were quite ready to accept that offer. They contended that a picturesque valley like this would very materially suffer from the construction of a railway; while, on the other side, it was urged that there would be no injury to the scenery at all. Therefore, as the House had decided to send the Bill to a Select Committee, the Committee ought to have information before them upon this point as well as upon others, and it must be borne in mind that without this Instruction the public would have no technical locus standi, although they had quite sufficient interest in the question of the preservation or destruction of the scenery to make it desirable that they should be heard. He saw that a Notice had been issued, addressed to the Members of the House on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, objecting to this Instruction, in which it was alleged that no resident in the district had expressed himself otherwise than in favour of the Bill. Now, he was informed that there was a strong feeling of opposition to it. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman might say "No;" but he (Mr. Bryce) said "Yes." He was informed that there was a very strong feeling of opposition indeed to the Bill. It was further stated in these reasons that the Instruction, if carried out, would entail upon the promoters of the Bill a considerable additional expense. He failed to see what additional expense it would throw upon them. The expense would have to be incurred by those who sought to prove that the construction of the railway would be injurious to the scenery. The Bill, however, was not one which was promoted in any public interest. It was a Bill promoted entirely by certain private speculators in the interests of two or three landowners, and in total disregard of the interests of the public. That being so, he thought the interests of the general public should be represented before the Committee, and that the Committee should receive an Instruction from the House to inquire into the effect which the formation of this railway would have upon a piece of scenery unique in the character of its beauty. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven would himself admit the propriety of passing this Instruction, so that the Committee might have the

    1825
    matter fully and fairly before them begged to move the Instruction which he had read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report to the House whether the proposed Railway will interfere with the enjoyment of the public who annually visit the Lake district, by injuriously affecting the scenery or otherwise, and that they have power to call witnesses and receive evidence upon the subject."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing this Instruction, because it appeared to him, if those who really had at heart the interests of the district, as in the case of the promoters of this railway, were to have all these difficulties imposed upon them at every stage, there was no telling when a successful result would be arrived at. It appeared to him to be a perfectly monstrous thing that a set of people who had nothing whatever to do with the district, who were un acquainted with the locality, and many of whom, including the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) himself, had never been at the place at all——
    MR. BRYCEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must allow him to contradict that statement. He had been there.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Member said he had been there; but perhaps the exception proved the rule. Certainly, a great many who joined in opposing the Bill had never seen the place. They lived at a distance, and they had organized an opposition, which it was most undesirable for the House of Commons to countenance if they were anxious to see any improvements carried out at all. He complained that the hon. Member and those with whom he acted were making persistent misrepresentations in regard to himself (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) and his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), and others who thought it their duty to take the course they had adopted in regard to this Bill, on Friday last in a newspaper called The Echo.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had written nothing whatever in any newspaper upon the subject.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had not said that the hon. Member
    1826
    had; but the hon. Member might have taken stops to prevent such misrepresentations appearing in the newspapers. The Echo, which was formerly under the control of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Passmore Edwards), and was now said to be under the control of another hon. Member of the House, accused him and his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) of coming to the House with a shameful and selfish proposal for the purpose of putting money into the pocket of the Lowther family. He hoped hon. Members would not support the statement, but would repudiate it as strongly as he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did himself. In another newspaper of the same date, lately under the control of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—[Mr. JOHN MORLEY dissented.] He referred to The Pall Mall Gazette. In that paper his right hon. Friend and himself and the Conservatives generally were accused of having endeavoured to carry the Bill upon the second reading, and the article went on to say that the House had lost the opportunity of asserting itself, on behalf of the public interest, against private greed. Now he wished to deny, in the strongest Parliamentary language he was able to use, the truth of that accusation, and to reiterate that he supported this railway, not on account of private greed, but on account of the public interests, and especially in the interests of the people of the country through which it would pass. Hon. Members below the Gangway were always pretending to be the friends of the people. If that were so, why did they refuse to support the Bill, which would afford the only means by which the public could have an opportunity of visiting Ennerdale Lake? At the present moment there was no access to the Lake, except by very bad roads which could only be traversed by a carriage and pair of horses. It was consequently impossible for the people of the country generally to reach Ennerdale Lake, or to enjoy the great beauty of the scenery at all. What he blamed hon. Members opposite—these pretended and so-called friends of the people—for was the spirit of exclusiveness which animated them. That was very remarkably shown in the observations made the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

    1827
    Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). When asked why he did not apply to the au-thorities in Italy, Switzerland, and Savoy to pitch all their railways into the lakes or over the precipices, the right hon. Gentleman said that it did: not matter, because there was so much beauty there. Nevertheless, in this instance, the right hon. Gentleman objected to a railway, although it was intended to carry it through a deep cutting. What was really the case was that when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends went to Italy, Switzerland, and Savoy, and other far-off places, they were obliged to avail themselves of the means of communication offered by railways; but when they came to England, and could pay for carriages and horses and drive to these remote districts, they liked to exclude all other persons. Now he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was in favour of the public enjoying any site they could property obtain access to, and for that reason, among others, he supported the present Bill. If hon. Members opposite, who were trying to defeat the Bill, would read the newspapers of both political Parties published in Whitehaven last Thursday, they would soon arrive at a clear idea of what the opinion of the district in regard to this railway was. He had not brought the newspaper articles with him, and if he had done so they were too long to read to the House. The purport of the principal article was to ask why hon. Members opposite had not objected to the railway in Eskdale. He dare say that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) did not know where Eskdale was. He would tell the hon. Member that Eskdale was a valley leading up to the highest mountain in the Lake District—Scawfell Pikes, and it was one of the most beautiful valleys in the district; but when the Eskdale Bill was before the House the hon. Gentleman opposite was silent. How was it that he did not come forward then?
    MR. BRYCEremarked, that he was not a Member of the House at the time.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The hon. Member had been returned since. But the hon. Member had Friends in the House who could have taken up his views. The Bill, how-over, was allowed to pass, and he wanted to know why the hon. Member, and those far-away people who were
    1828
    always interfering with other people's business, did not come forward then and try to prevent the Eskdale Railway from being made? The object of the newspaper article to which he had referred was to show the benefit which the Eskdale Railway conferred upon the people of the district. It not only enabled the Dalesmen, at the cost of a few pence, to got to Whitehaven and other markets, but it enabled persons, who were desirous of organizing excursions in connection with public societies, and to give treats to school children, to obtain access to the district. But that was precisely the thing which hon. Members opposite, in their dog-in-the-manger spirit, were anxious to prevent. He wished for a moment to call attention to the reasons against the Instruction which had been printed and circulated by the promoters of this railway. In the first place, it was said that no Petition had been presented against the Bill except one from the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), and that Petition was only presented on Saturday last. The hon. Member for West Cumberland kept it back until the last moment, waiting to see whether the Bill would be thrown out on the second reading, in which case it would not have been worth while to incur the expense of presenting a Petition. The hon. Member now thought better of it, and had presented a Petition, although the only part of his property affected was a small turnip field. The reasons went on to say that not a single resident in the district other than the hon. Member for West Cumberland had expressed himself otherwise than in favour of the line. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said that was not the fact; but if any other resident of the district or owner of property had expressed himself as opposed to the Bill, he should feel obliged if the hon. Member would say who he was. The reasons went on to say that in order to remove any cause of objection the line for the last three miles had been entirely altered, and instead of being carried close to the Lake and running upon an embankment, it was now proposed to carry it further away through a cutting 25 feet deep, which would not be visible to the eye of any person in the district. He would ask hon. Members who objected to railways running through the Lake dis-

    1829
    trict why they did not stop the steamboat traffic on the Lakes themselves? Surely hon. Members ought to object to steamboats openly plying upon the Lakes, rather that to railway trains which were outside, and yet bon. Members had not a word to say against the steamboats. He presumed that if the steamboats were stopped it would interfere with their personal comfort. It was somewhat remarkable that hon. Members who had this extraordinary mania on the subject of Lake scenery thought nothing of other objects, and although they passed St. Margaret's Church day after day they failed to notice the extraordinary spectacle presented in connection with Westminster Abbey, the destruction of which was partly commenced by the late Dean of Westminster. The same thing was going on with many other fine old cathedrals in the country, but all the sympathies of hon. Members were reserved for these out-of-the-way Lakes, and in that case they pursued a course which, if successful, would entirely prevent the people from enjoying the scenery. Under these circumstances he thought the House ought not to grant this Instruction, which really could not accomplish any good purpose, but would only obstruct a useful public work, and put the promoters of the Ennerdale Railway to unnecessary expense.
    MR. BUSZARDsaid, he trusted the House would allow him to make a very few remarks in answer to the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). He thought that, with all duo respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he had unintentionally misled the House as to what the nature of this proposed railway was. In point of fact the right hon. and learned Gentleman had rather turned the House away from the issue raised by the Instruction. He ought to inform the House that he (Mr. Buszard) bad no interest whatever in the matter; but he was probably as well acquainted with the district as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, seeing that he had for many years taken great interest in it. His sole connection, however, with the matter was, that for years past, in company with thousands of other people who sought relief from town life, he had visited this neighbourhood, and he believed the works of the
    1830
    proposed railway would very seriously affect the enjoyment of the thousands and tens of thousands who went there, He was connected with no society for the protection of the Lakes or any other part of the Kingdom, and he was prepared to admit that where great public interests were involved, questions of scenery must inevitably give way. But where great public interests were not involved, but merely private speculations such as he believed this Bill to be, then he submitted to the House very respectfully that small private interests ought to give way to the preservation of that scenery which was for the enjoyment of all. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: There is no scenery there.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no scenery there. That confirmed the truth of the complaint he made, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unintentionally misleading the House in the matter. He (Mr. Buszard) knew that persons might differ in their notions of scenery; but, for his own part, he regarded this district as one of the most beautiful valleys in the country, for wild, rugged, solitary scenery. He did not think that the House fully comprehended what this scheme was, or what sort of valley the proposed line would run through. He fancied the House supposed that Ennerdale Valley was a district teeming with mineral wealth, and that it merely wanted a railway to bring that wealth into the market, and make the people happy and prosperous. Now, Ennerdale Valley was a valley 10 or 12 miles in length. This railway proposed to occupy something like seven miles of that valley, and to get out of the valley by any other way than that in which the railway proposed to enter it, it would be necessary to climb over a range of hills from 2,000 to 2,500 feet high. The line must stop where the Bill proposed that it should stop. Was there any population to be served in the valley? He believed there were only 75 people living between Ennerdale Bridge and the place where this line proposed to stop. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Four miles.] Well, in a district extending four miles 75 people resided, and there were, perhaps, 12 or, possibly, 15 houses in it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Eskdale Railway, and had asked why the hon. Gentleman

    1831
    the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had not stopped the Eskdale Railway Bill. The illustration given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a most unfortunate one, because the Eskdale Railway had destroyed, without the slightest advantage to the public, a very beautiful piece of country. And in what condition was the Eskdale Railway on that day? The Eskdale Railway had been made with a mine at the terminus, and both the mine and the railway were at this moment bankrupt. The working of the mine, after disfiguring the hill-side, had been stopped, and the railway practically conveyed no one to the district at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the railway was intended to convey passengers to the locality who now found themselves unable to get there. Now, the neighbourhood was essentially a pedestrian neighbourhood, and it would be of no use for anyone to go into Ennerdale Valley who had not the full use of his legs. There was already a railway within a mile and a-half of Ennerdale Bridge, which was the only village in the valley, and people went there in large numbers. Only last year, when he was there, at the end of August or the beginning of September, he found from 300 to 400 school children from Egremont enjoying the scenery in that valley. It was, therefore, idle to say that people could not get there, and if the proposed railway were made, he ventured to say that no one would travel by it, because it could only be approached by a long journey around the coast-line, which nobody would undertake, seeing that the carriage route was so much shorter. Under those circumstances, he earnestly appealed to the House to allow this Instruction to be passed, in order that the Committee might have a fair issue before them, whether the scenery of this valley was to be destroyed or not. If the Instruction were not given to the Committee, it seemed to him that they would be powerless in the matter.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he wished to say, before the House went to a Division, that the case seemed to him to be one of serious importance. As far as the opposition embodied in the Resolution was concerned, it amounted to this—that the inhabitants of a district of singular beauty, and the owners of land
    1832
    presenting grand features of scenery, were to be deprived of the ordinary right of improving their property and developing the resources of the district because someone else admired it. It seemed to him that the opposition amounted to nothing more nor less than the confiscation of property. Every other question except that which affected the scenery could be urged in the Committee upstairs, and were simply questions for the Committee to decide. If there were only 75 inhabitants in the district which the railway would serve, the Bill, no doubt, would be thrown out by the Committee. Then, again, if there was no traffic, and nothing for the railway to carry—if the funds were insufficient for making the railway, those questions would simply and solely, according to the custom of the House, have to be decided by the Committee, and he thought it would be a grave invasion of the practice of the House if a Bill of this nature was to be rejected because somebody else happened to admire the scenery through which the line would pass. He trusted that the Bill, in the ordinary course, would be sent to a Select Committee.
    MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he strongly objected to a general Resolution of this kind being sent as an Instruction to a Select Committee. Such a Resolution would impose upon the persons who appeared as suitors before the Committee very heavy responsibilities. The Resolution gave power to the Committee to inquire and report to the House whether the proposed railway would interfere with the enjoyment of the public who annually visited the Lake District, by injuriously affecting the scenery or otherwise; and it gave them power to call witnesses and to receive evidence upon the subject. Consequently, no end of persons might be called before the Committee. Allegations contained in a Petition came regularly before a Committee, but the passing of a Resolution of this nature would render it impossible for the promoters of the Bill to know whore the investigation would end. If the Association calling themselves "The Lake Defence Association" was to be allowed to interfere in every question affecting the Lake District, there would be no knowing where its operations would end. Take the case of North Wales,

    1833
    with which he was familiar. Suppose there had been a Defence Association in North Wales to prevent a railway from going down the Vale of Llangollen, or to approach the Bala Lake, or the Estuary of Barmouth, or Llanrwst or Llanberis, how would those districts have been developed, and what would have happened in regard to the employment of labour? It was impossible to see the Lake District of Merionethshire without going through the most lovely valleys; and was the Defence Association to be allowed to interfere, and, by opposing the introduction of railways, to render the scenery altogether inaccessible to the public? He trusted that Parliament would pay no attention whatever to the sentimental views of those persons. The objects of the Lake Association were most Quixotic, and ought to receive no encouragement from the House of Commons. He trusted that the Bill would be referred to a Committee, and that it would be inquired into solely upon its own merits.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would only remind the House that this was the same Instruction as that which was carried upon a Division last year by a large majority.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 101: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 21.)

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (MUNICIPAL, &c. AUTHORITIES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HIBBERT, in rising to move—
  "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number, to whom shall he referred all Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Peculations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law:—That Standing Order 173a shall he applicable to the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum,"
  said, as his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who took great interest in the question, was not present on Monday last, when an understanding was come to on the subject of this Motion, he wished to explain what had occurred. On Tuesday the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) opposed the second reading of certain
  1834
  Municipal Bills, because they contained clauses extending the general law. It was suggested that the House should allow the Bills to be read a second time, on the understanding that they should be referred to a Special Committee, who would take into consideration all the proposals contained in them which altered the general law. It was quite clear that the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view when the Committee of 1882 was appointed would be secured by the adoption of this course. The House and the country were very much indebted to his right hon. Friend, and the other hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Committee with him two years ago, for the attention and labour they had bestowed upon the question; and he ought to explain how it was that the Standing Order, which was founded upon the recommendation of that Committee, had not been found to give that satisfaction which had been expected. He was informed by the Local Government Board that many Bills which contained clauses of this character last year went before Private Bill Committees, and that those Committees took very little notice either of the Report of the Local Government Board or of the Standing Order proposed by his right hon. Friend two years ago. He could go into detail, and point out in what respect many of the Bills departed from the Standing Order; but he did not think it was necessary to take up the time of the House. He thought the House would agree with him that Bills of this kind should receive proper consideration; and it was considered by the Local Government Board and by the Home Office that all Bills which contained clauses which extended the general law, either in reference to sanitary improvements or improvements of police, should be as far as possible referred to the same Committee. Having that object in view, and desiring to give every credit to his right hon. Friend for what he had done in the matter, he trusted the House would assent to the appointment of this Committee, so that all these different Bills might have full and fair consideration, and something like uniformity be secured in the manner in which they were dealt with.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number,

  1835
  to whom shall be referred all Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law:—That (Standing Order 173a shall be applicable to the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), as he thought the House would naturally expect to have some good reasons given to them for dealing with these very important Bills in an exceptional manner. His hon. Friend had done no more than justice to the labours of the Committee of 1882, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might say, in respect to those labours, that on that occasion, for the first time, the attention of Parliament was directed to the anomalous character of the proceedings, which, from year to year, were being conducted in the Private Bill legislation of the House, and which involved serious alterations of the existing law. With a view of conducing to the public, as well as private interests, special provisions had been enacted by the Standing Order in regard to Railway, Gras, and other Bills; but Bills promoted by the corporations of large communities were now becoming an important part of the Private Bill legislation of the House of Commons. Such Bills, in the interest of the Municipalities, were obliged to deal with subjects which would be much more properly dealt with under the general law. The Committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, dealt fairly, but stringently, with the Bills which came before them; and, as the outcome of their labours, a Standing Order was formed, which the House was pleased to adopt, which was intended to give security that similar Bills introduced in future should be dealt with in the same way. What he understood his hon. Friend and the Government to object to was that although the Standing Order was sufficient for this purpose, there was no security that it would be carried out with uniformity in regard to all the Bills that might be brought before different Committees in the course of the same Session. Under the Motion of Reference now proposed, he understood that it was intended to send all these Bills before the same Committee, and to make it compulsory that the Standing
  1836
  Order passed in 1882 should apply to them. If that was so, he could not agree with what his hon. Friend had just said, that the Standing Order had failed in its object. On the contrary, all that he understood was that it had failed to be uniformly applied by all the Committees appointed last year; and on that account, and that account only, the hon. Gentleman proposed that another Special Committee should be appointed. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) agreed, therefore, that it was desirable that the Motion should be adopted, and that the same policy should be pursued as in other Sessions, so that there might be more uniform dealing with these subjects under the provisions of the Standing Order which was passed in 1882 upon the Report of the Committee to which he had referred.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman who proposed the alteration of the Standing Order (Mr. Hibbert). He wished to know whether the Instruction to the Committee would include questions relating to licensing, because he understood that the Leicester Corporation Bill contained provisions which would affect that matter?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Leicester Corporation Bill is one of the measures that will come before the Committee.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad to hear that that was the case, because he was given to understand that in other instances some extraordinary provisions had been adopted in regard to licensing, which went far beyond the provisions of the Act of George II.
  MR. HIBBERTwas understood to say that the Leicester Corporation had agreed to withdraw the extraordinary provisions from the Bill.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that as reference had been made to the Leicester Corporation Bill, he wished to state that the opposition—if it could be called opposition—of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), when the question was before the House a few days ago, arose from some misapprehension on his part; but his hon. and learned Friend was now satisfied that there was nothing objectionable in the Bill. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) desired also to say he was informed, on the highest authority, that the Bill had been thoroughly discussed in Leicester,

  1837
  and was carried, notwithstanding some opposition, by a majority of 4,000 or 5,000 votes. It was also incorrect to state that it was intended to convert the Wednesday market into a Saturday market. He was told that the new site was much more suitable and convenient for a market than the one to be abolished, that it was twice the size, and almost within a stone's throw of the old market, and that the proposals of the Corporation in this respect were unquestionably approved by a large proportion of the population. Seeing that there was nothing objectionable or unusual in the Bill, he failed to see any necessity for sending it to a Special Committee, the effect of which would simply be to retard the progress of a measure which authorized a much needed improvement, and for no useful purpose. He, therefore, hoped the Leicester Bill would not be sent to the proposed Committee.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had just one word to add in regard to this matter. He thought the Government had done good service to the House in proposing the Motion, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had so much signalized himself by his endeavour to deal with the subject, would not be likely to oppose the Motion which had been made. He (Mr. Hopwood) had watched the Reports which had been presented to the House by some of the Committees who had inquired into these matters, and although the House desired, by this Standing Order, that the Committee should give some reasons and explain why they departed from the general law or increased the stringency of these provisions, those reasons were generally of a laconic kind—such, for instance, as "We allowed this because we thought it right." He thought the Instruction given by the House had been hardly fulfilled, and, as that was so, and as there was a possibility of the old neglect upon this subject becoming chronic and being repeated from year to year, he thought the Government had very wisely brought forward this Resolution at this stage. He wished to express his entire satisfaction as to the course which had been taken, because he thought it was essential that, as far as possible in all matters of this kind, the law of the land should be uniform.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked who was to decide whether a particular Bill contained provisions that were repugnant to the general law? Was it to be left to some Department in the House of Commons, or to the Local Government Board, or to the Home Office? There was another question he also wished to ask. Supposing a Bill, as originally framed, included clauses which were considered to be repugnant to the general law by the authorities, whoever they might be, and the promoters of the Bill consented to withdraw such clauses, would the Bill so amended be withdrawn from the Committee; or, if the Committee was once seized with it, would it be necessary for them to go through with it?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought it would be a matter for the Chairman of Committees to decide what were the Bills which ought to go before the Committee. In regard to the other question, he thought that if clauses which involved an extension of the law in regard to sanitary or police improvements were withdrawn, the Bill would then plainly come under the ordinary Rules which regulated Private Bill legislation.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number, to whom shall he referred all Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law:—That Standing Order 173a shall he applicable to the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

QUESTIONS.

  MARKET TOLLS (IRELAND).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state in how many towns in Ireland the landlords levy toil for fairs and markets; whether, on the income derived from such tolls, any contribution is made to the local rates; and, whether income tax is paid on said income?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government have no information which would enable me to answer the first and second

  1839
  Questions, nor could such information be obtained without a detailed local inquiry throughout the country. With regard to the last, I believe that income derived from tolls is not exempt from Income Tax; but this inquiry should more properly be addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, as the matter is not one within the jurisdiction of the Irish Government.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF A. DOWNEY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the evening of the 25th of December last a serious assault was committed at Belfast upon a young lad named Andrew Downey, while passing through Sandy Bow, by a number of boys who infest the neighbourhood; whether it is a fact that upon the evening named Downey was felled to the ground by the blow of a stone which inflicted a severe wound, and kicked by several members of the crowd while on the ground; whether Downey has gone deranged owing to the injuries he received on that occasion, and is now confined in the Belfast District Lunatic Asylum, with little or no hope of recovery; whether, it having been proved in court that James M'Ilveen was a member of the crowd from which the stones were thrown, and who admitted to the sergeant of the police in charge of the barracks in Sandy Bow that he was the boy who threw the stone which struck Downey, the magistrates, Messrs. M'Carthy, Johnston, and Andrews, were justified in releasing James M'Ilveen; whether it is a fact that, upon the 9th of January, Mr. John Downey, the father of the injured boy, wrote to the Bight honourable gentleman, inclosing a Report of the case, and calling his attention to its serious nature; and, whether he has taken any stops to have the guilty parties punished; and, if so, what are they?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the case that a boy named Andrew Downey was struck by a stone on the head. No evidence has been produced that he was knocked down or kicked. The stone was thrown from among a crowd of boys, of whom Richard M'Ilveen (not James) was one. He was summoned for the assault, but no evidence of identification was produced. One witness
  1840
  swore positively that he had seen the stone thrown, and that the accused was not the boy who threw it. The injured lad was among the witnesses examined. He did not appear to be seriously hurt; and, in the absence of evidence to identify the accused, the magistrates dismissed the case, without prejudice to any further proceedings that might be taken. There is no foundation for the statement that the boy M'Ilveen admitted to the sergeant of police that he had thrown the stone. Andrew Downey has since become affected with religious mania, and is now in Belfast Asylum. John Downey, the boy's father, addressed a letter to the Government on the subject on the 9th of January, and the case was at once inquired into, with the result that the foregoing facts were elicited, which do not show any way in which the Executive could interfere. The police were advised that it was open to them to bring on the case again if they could obtain any further evidence of identity, either as regards the boy already charged, or any of his companions.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CO. DOWN LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there be thirty-two governors belonging to the County Down Lunatic Asylum, and, out of that number, there are only four Roman Catholics, or one-eighth of the entire number; if there be fifty-five attendants and tradesmen attached to the asylum, and, out of that number, there are only about eight Roman Catholics, or about one-seventh of the entire number; if the superior officers are all Protestants, except the Roman Catholic chaplain; if all the middle-class officers, such as head attendant, the two shoemakers, the two tailors, baker, engine man, painter, land steward, carpenter, gate man, hall porter, gas man, shepherd, &c. are all Protestants and Orangemen; if he would inquire of the governors how it is that the Roman Catholic attendants and tradesmen are in such a great "minority;" and, are the attendants in the asylum appointed by the governors, or the medical resident superintendent, or by whom?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts were, in the main, as stated, excepting;

  1841
  with regard to the middle class of officers being all Orangemen. Five of them were Orangemen. He was informed by the Resident Medical Superintendent that the applications for those appointments from Roman Catholics were, as a rule, very few. The attendants were appointed by the Resident Medical Superintendent.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXECUTION OF JOSEPH POOLE, CONVICTED OF MURDER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that the Government are in possession of evidence proving the innocence of Joseph Poole, recently executed in Dublin?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; we are not in possession of any such evidence.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE ORANGE MEETING AT DROMORE—CASE OF SAMUEL GIFFEN.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there was any evidence given at the inquest to show that Giffen was or had been rioting; whether it was not proved that Giffen met his death by being bayonetted in a field into which he and others had been driven off the high road by a charge of cavalry; whether this field was not on the side of the road the furthest away from the route of the Nationalists, and at the time Giffen was stabbed in the back he was going in a direction the opposite to that along which the Nationalists were moving; whether the surgeon who attended Giffen did not swear that it required the full strength of a man to inflict the wound which perforated the young man's body; whether any one, except the Loyalists bayonetted by the police, of the Nationalists, Loyalists, Constabulary, or Troops, were otherwise hurt or contused; whether the Crown Solicitor did not decline to examine the official witnesses who were in attendance in Court; whether such a refusal is not most unusual, if not unprecedented; and, whether under these peculiar circumstances the Government will lay upon the Table the evidence of the inquest, and the reports of the magistrates present, which the Solicitor Gene-
  1842
  ral quoted in the House on February 21st?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will answer the last part of this Question first. I will lay upon the Table the evidence, and the Reports referred to. In the opinion of the Government, they give satisfactory answers to the first four queries of the noble Lord. It does not appear that, with the exception of the two men stabbed, any persons were seriously injured. A constable was severely wounded over the eye by a stone, and while a party of military were being halted a revolver was discharged at them from the direction of an Orange party. The official witnesses referred to in the Question had been required to be produced by the solicitor for the next-of-kin of the deceased. They were accordingly produced, but he declined to ask them any questions or to examine them. The Crown Solicitor did not consider it necessary to do so.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Is there any precedent for a Crown Solicitor refusing to examine official witnesses at an inquest?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that there is every precedent in the world. His reason was that he thought the case sufficiently strong without such examination; but I am bound to say that the Law Officers in Dublin had not time to consult with the Crown Solicitor on the subject. It turned out that the evidence was, for his immediate purpose, sufficiently strong.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—POLICE BARRACKS AT CHARLEVILLE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 7th of January 1884, Dr. Cremin, the sanitary officer of Charleville, gave the following certificate regarding the stables attached to the Constabulary barracks:—
  "I hereby certify that the stables in the barrack yard of the Police Station are in a condition dangerous to the health of the people in the neighbourhood. The refuse from the water-closet is trickling in through the wall, and the odour is frightful.
  "JOHN CREMIN,
  "Sanitary Officer."
  "7th January 1884."
  whether, for two years previously, they were in the same unsanitary condition; whether it was the duty of County In-

  1843
  spector Carr, upon his quarterly inspections, to take cognizance of this nuisance; whether, when he first inspected the barrack, he condemned it; but, same evening, the landlord, Mr. Sanders, called upon him at the hotel, and he never afterwards complained; whether Colonel Bruce, the Inspector General, instead of properly inspecting this barrack, went and spent his day with the landlord; whether the constables occupying it have, since November last, been obliged to send out their food to be cooked in the houses of the neighbours; and, having regard to "The Public Health Act, 1878," and the Rules of the Constabulary Force, whoso duty is it to remedy these abuses?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that Dr. Cremin did give a certificate, but it was misquoted in the hon. Member's Question in an important particular. He did not use the word "people;" he referred to the "police." The County Inspector's attention was not drawn to it on his quarterly inspection; but when he heard of it he travelled 27 miles to attend to it. The insinuations with regard to County Inspector Carr and Colonel Bruce were unfounded.

  METROPOLIS (WATER SUPPLY)—CASE OF "BALLARD v. TOMLINSON."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a decision of Mr. Justice Pearson, on February 14th, in a case, Ballard v. Tomlinson, heard at the High Court of Justice Chancery Division; and, whether, assuming his judgment to be correct, the Government would take steps to remedy an obvious defect in the Law, which permits the pollution of the water derived from wells in the chalk, from which many of the London Water Companies take their supply?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the law on this matter had been long established. There was a very clear difference between the water right in respect of water flowing in a defined and well-known water course and water flowing in subterranean channels. In the case of water flowing in an open, well-defined channel above ground, the adjoining owners had a right to resist by the law any diversion or pollution of the water. It was not so in the case of subterranean
  1844
  water, and for this obvious reason, that the manner in which such waters flow was not capable of being ascertained and estimated in the same way. That was the law upon which the case mentioned in the Question was decided, and it could not be altered by Act of Parliament, because it rested on reason and sound sense; but that only affected private rights as between individuals. If there were anything done upon the surface of the ground which led to a general public deterioration of the water-course below the ground, that was a matter which might stand on a different footing, and he would have the matter examined from that point of view.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—HIGH SCHOOLS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether there is any prospect of arrangements being made for the examination of high schools in Scotland by Government Inspectors or otherwise, in accordance with the intention of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1878?"
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, this question is now under the consideration of the Treasury. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully alive to its importance, and I hope very soon to be able to announce the arrangements that have been made.

  METROPOLIS—LIVERY COMPANIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The City Press of January 26th, this year:—
  "Some of the minor Companies are setting their houses in order with a view to avoid confiscation should that time arrive, and they are also, in the words of 'Mr. Thwaites Trust,' making themselves comfortable with the money that has been, in most cases, subscribed by themselves, and which, until threatened by a Royal Commission, had been carefully husbanded;"
  and, whether, pending the Report of the Royal Commission now sitting on City Companies, he will consider what steps should be taken to prevent the alienation of the property in question?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I do not think the Government will take any measures at all pending

  1845
  the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—CATTLE DISEASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the bull bought by Lord Carbery from the herd of the Rev. T. Stainforth, of Stores Hall, Win lermere, and imported into Ireland on 17th January, 1883, Whether there was any ground for the statement which appeared in The Irish Farmers' Gazette of 3rd February, 1883, to the effect that Professor Ferguson, of the Irish Privy Council Veterinary Department, had reported the illness of the bull to be a true case of foot-and-mouth disease; whether he will also state how far the next animals attacked with foot-and-mouth disease were from the stable in which the bull is reported to have been isolated; how many days the bull remained in Liverpool en route; and, how long his quarantine in Dublin lasted?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that on January 22nd Professor Ferguson reported that the animal in question was suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. It was kept perfectly isolated, and disinfection was thoroughly carried out. The animals next attacked were two miles from its stable. The bull had remained in Liverpool from the 6th till the 8th January. During this time it was twice inspected and certified free from disease. Quarantine at Dublin lasted until the 22nd February. The animal was certified to have recovered on the 10th. It was not removed from the place of quarantine until March 2nd.
  MR. J. HOWARDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the disease was brought to Ireland by drovers was based on evidence?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that there could be no doubt of it. The first outbreak in Ireland occurred on February 5th, 1883, in three different places in Dublin, amongst cattle belonging to the same person. The cattle were purchased on Thursday, 1st February, in the Dublin market, and while there had been in contact with persons who had come from markets in Lancashire where cases of foot-and-mouth disease had been found. There was no other probable cause of the outbreak. Lord Carbery's bull could not have
  1846
  come into contact with animals in the Dublin market. The bull was from the date of his arrival, January 17th, kept in an isolated stable, and the attendant and the veterinary surgeon in charge were the only persons who had access to the bull, and both were duly disinfected.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE MASSACRE AT SINKAT.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Have Her Majesty's Government yet ascertained the fate of the 1,000 women and children in Sinkat; and, what applications have they made for such information?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I regret to say that a telegram has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Suakim, stating that no women or children have reached that place from Sinkat; that, as the soldiers carried their wives, they were probably killed; but that the fate of the children is more uncertain.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the noble Lord state the day when the Government asked for the information?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not the actual telegram with me, but I have no objection to produce it.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he thought it was worth while to ask any question-about it? What telegrams were sent?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This was the first.
  MR. GIBSON: What is the date?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Question on the Paper is, what application was made? I meant to imply by my answer that the information I gave was in reply to a question addressed by us to the Consul at Suakim.
  MR. GIBSON: When?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not got the telegram with me.
  MR. GIBSON: The Question has been on the Paper for three days whether and what application has been made for information, and the noble Lord's answer shows that it was made. What I want to know is, when the Government asked for the information? I do not ask for the words.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a new Question. I have already said I have not the least objection to give the date.
  MR. GIBSON: What is it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not got it with me.
  MR. GIBSON: I will repeat this Question to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—LOCHGOIL-HEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is a fact that in Lochgoilhead Public School castor oil poured down the throat unmeasured from a bottle has habitually been administered to children as a punishment; whether any children at that school have been beaten on the bare solos of the feet as a punishment; whether five children of Mr. Duncan Blair were some months since withdrawn from the school on account of the severe punishments inflicted on one or more of them; and, whether Mr. Blair refuses to send them back on the ground that the teacher has told him that they will got the same sort of punishment when they go back; and whether in the interests of public education, he will order an investigation into the administration and discipline of the school?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the schoolmaster has admitted that castor oil has been in use in his school. The object, he says, has been to use it not as a punishment, but as a deterrent. I need only say that I regard its use on any pretext as wholly unwarrantable and reprehensible.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Not on any pretext?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The last statement is denied. But with respect to this and the threat to Mr. Duncan Blair's children, and the general conduct of the master of this school, he is an old parochial schoolmaster, and can only be dealt with by the Sheriff. I have directed inquiry to be instituted by the Inspector in the district.

  IRELAND—MR. TUKE'S EMIGRATION COMMITTEE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the accuracy of the statements contained in a letter addressed to him, on the 29th ultimo, by the Very Rev. Henry Hewson, P.P. V.F. Belmullet, with regard to the operations of Mr. Tuke's Emigration Committee in the
  1848
  district of Belmullet; whether it is true, as affirmed by the Very Rev. gentleman, that the Tuke Committee, administering not only their own funds, but also the free grant of the money of the State, assigned to them by the Guardians of the Belmullet Union for the emigration of distressed persons, sent out of the country, from the Belmullet Union, 360 families out of a total of about 2,800, and that
  "More than one-half of the number emigrated were comfortable, well able to live at home, and, if they chose to emigrate of their own accord, were well able to do so at their own expense;"
  that the Tuke Committee "co-operated with dishonestly disposed persons" to enable them to evade, by free emigration, "the payment of just debts which they could easily have discharged," and thereby caused (a) the robbery of traders in Belmullet to the extent of some thousands of pounds, and (b) the mulcting of persons who had become sureties to the traders for the debts of the emigrants; that some of those sureties themselves were allowed to emigrate, free of charge; that evidence of the debts and of the solvency of emigrants was rejected by the Committee, and that Mr. Sydney Buxton, the principal member of the Committee, in refusing to receive such evidence, said "I cannot constitute myself in any way a collector of debts;" that a widower (named in the letter of Dean Hewson) who had been in the employment of one of Mr. Tuke's paid agents, who knew him to be a widower, was provided by the Committee, on the faith of an assurance by the agent in question, with free tickets for himself and his wife, and that he was thereby enabled to abduct from her parents, to take with him to America, and to seduce a young girl of seventeen, to whom he could not, by the rules of the Church to which they both belong, be married, as she is the cousin of himself and of his deceased wife; whether, if any of these statements are questioned, Dean Hewson will be afforded an opportunity of establishing their truth; and, what measures will be taken to provide against such proceedings hereafter?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that it was not the case that Mr. Tuke's Committee administered any sum assigned to them by the Guardians of the Belmullet Union. The Committee were requested to undertake the emigration

  1849
  on the ground that the Union was too poor to contribute, and the Committee's own funds were used to supplement the grant from the Local Government Board. Great care was taken in the selection of candidates, and there was strong reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement that any of the 330 or 340 families were able to live at home in comfort, or at their own expense to emigrate together, which was the object of the family emigration. A few figures would refute it. The valuation per head varied from 18 s. 8d. to 4s. 4d., the average was less than 14 s. The holdings were of the average valuation of £4, and out of a total of 2,700, only 153 were above £10. It was not the case that the Tuke Committee co-operated with dishonestly disposed persons to enable them to evade the payment of just debts. In only one instance did a trader make complaint. He brought a list of persons who, he said, were about to leave the country. He had no evidence that some of the families mentioned on that list the Committee had already refused, and in the remaining cases, after renewed inquiry, the charges were, in the opinion of the Committee, refuted. In a letter communicating the result of the inquiry, Mr. Buxton told the trader that he could not make himself a collector of debts. In regard to the case of one widow the Committee were deceived by the relieving officer, who was in collusion with a man that had relations with her daughter. Upon discovering this the Committee at once discontinued his employment. He saw no ground for instituting further inquiry into the allegation contained in the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JOHN LYNCH.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a youth named John Lynch, recently returned from America, was lodged in Naas Gaol on the 16th instant to undergo a sentence of six months' imprisonment passed during his absence from the Country for an alleged offence committed more than a year ago; and, whether he will inquire into the facts with a view to Lynch's discharge?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the "youth" referred to is 21 years of age and 6 feet high. In a district where there was at
  1850
  the time a good deal of Boycotting and intimidation, he was summoned for intimidating a man, whose door he forcibly broke open. He absconded after service of the summons, and was convicted in his absence. Whether he went to America or not the police do not know. He has recently returned to Baltinglass, and has been committed to prison to undergo his sentence.

  IRELAND—THE COUNTY SURVEYOR-SHIP OF KERRY.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, about ten years since, the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry superannuated the then county surveyor, after more than thirty years' service, with a view to dividing the county and having two surveyors; whether, in answer to the memorial to that effect sent to the Duke of Abercorn, he appointed one county surveyor about the same age as the officer who had been superannuated, and in fact not so well able to discharge the duties, as the late surveyor had made 800 out of the 1,800 miles of road in the county, and therefore had a thorough knowledge of the district; and, whether, since that time, several memorials have not been sent to the present Government asking to have the county divided which have been ignored, the result being that while the county-cess is almost the highest in Ireland, most of the roads are hardly fit to travel on?
  Mr. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that in 1876 the County Surveyor retired after a long service. The then Lord Lieutenant appointed another gentleman who had experience in another county. He did not know the gentleman's age; he was not a Government officer. It was true that the Grand Jury applied to have the county divided, and this application, more than once renewed, had not been complied with. The ground of the decision was that it was more to the interest of the public that the existing arrangement should continue, and that the duties of the office should be performed by one County Surveyor of experience, with an adequate staff, than by two. In the only case under his notice in which complaints were made as to the state of the roads in Kerry, there was nothing to show that the County Surveyor was in fault.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE PURCHASE CLAUSES—CAPTAIN COSTELLO'S ESTATE.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Capt. Costello, of Edmundstown, county Mayo, has offered to sell to the tenants for sixteen years' purchase that portion of his estate in their occupation, the yearly rental of which is £2,156; whether the tenants have agreed to this proposal, and made arrangements to pay one-fourth of the purchase-money in cash provided the Land Commission advanced three-fourths on mortgage under the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act; whether the one-fourth to be paid by the tenants, or the greater part thereof, has not been agreed to be advanced by a bank to the tenants puisne to the Commissioners' mortgage, the bank considering that they had ample security for such advance; whether the Land Commissioners afterwards, upon the joint application of landlord and tenants, caused the estate to be valued to ascertain if the security offered was sufficient for the proposed loan by them, and whether, as a result of such valuation, the Commissioners intimated that they would not advance more than three-fourths of twelve years' purchase, or thereabouts; whether the landlord, being without any means save the rents of the estate, over which a receiver had been appointed, and which rents were entirely applied towards paying off interest on mortgages, estate outgoings, &c. was obliged to assent to the purchase money being reduced from sixteen to twelve years' purchase; whether the sale is now being carried out at such reduced rate; and, whether the Government intends to take steps to prevent the proper market price of land being depreciated by the action of the Government officials?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he had received a Report from the Land Commission, which stated that proposals for the sale to the tenants, under Section 24 of the Land Act, of the plot mentioned in the Costello estate, at an average of 15 years' purchase of the rent, were submitted by the landlord to the Land Commission for approval. The proposals were agreed to on behalf of the tenants, on the condition that three-fourths of the purchase money
  1852
  should be advanced by the Commissioners. The Commissioners were informed that the remaining one-fourth would be lent by a bank; but they were not informed how the advance would be secured. The Commissioners, under the circumstances, ascertained the value of the land to see if the loan could be secured. The result of the valuation did not satisfy them that the security was sufficient as to the number of years' purchase, three-fourths of which they would have been prepared to advance. The negotiation for sale under Section 24 dropped. The Commissioners offered to buy the estate under Section 26 for £25,000, which, in their opinion, was its full value, and this offer had been provisionally accepted by the Government.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANgave Notice that on the Estimates he would move to reduce the Vote for the salaries of the Land Commissioners by the amount charged for this purchase.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—OVER-SIZING-COTTON GOODS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the complaints of the Trades Union Congress that, of late years, from 50 to 200 per cent of sizing is introduced into cotton goods for the Eastern Markets to give them a fictitious weight and appearance, and that the process also injures the health of the operatives, Whether he has accepted the conclusions of the Report that the Eastern consumer prefers frequent renewal of cheaper clothing to longer use of a more genuine article, that regrets are unavailing, and that the only remedy is to facilitate the process by ventilation and improved arrangements for heavy sizing; and, whether the officers who made the inquiry before coming to their conclusions examined any, and what, Eastern "consumers," or whether they were content with the assurance of the manufacturers that the Eastern middlemen-dealers have become so far demoralized as to distribute fictitious goods which can be passed off on ignorant consumers for the genuine article?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, a Commission appointed by the Home Office had made inquiries as to the over-sizing of cotton goods, but they

  1853
  had done this solely in a sanitary and not in a commercial point of view, the health of the operatives being the only matter of which, in reference to this matter, the Home Office could take cognizance. He was happy to say that the inquiry had already had a good result in the point of view to which it was directed; and he hoped that still further good results would follow. If the hon. Gentleman wanted information as to the commercial aspects of the subject, he must address his inquiry to the President of the Board of Trade.

  SCOTLAND—VACANT CLERKSHIPS IN THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether two vacancies have not arisen on the staff of the second class of the Sasine Office Edinburgh, by the death of Mr. Robert Anderson and the resignation of Mr. James Kerr; whether, notwithstanding a Memorial was presented in January 1883 by a majority of the clerks in the third class in said office, complaining of a Treasury Minute of December 1882, wherein my Lords proposed to promote those officers who had been instrumental in detecting the frauds which occurred in said office on the first vacancy arising, without respect to seniority, and that, in answer to said Memorial, my Lords assured the Memorialists, through the head of the Department, that such was not their intention, it is now the intention of the Treasury, in filling up the vacancies in the office, to act in accordance with said Minute of 1882 or in terms of said assurance; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Memorial and answer referred to?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, since I answered the Question of the hon. Member relative to this office last week, we have heard of the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Anderson, but not of that said to be caused by the resignation of Mr. Kerr. The matter of filling up the vacancy caused by Mr. Anderson's death is now under consideration. It is the intention of the Treasury to adhere to the spirit of the Minute referred to. The hon. Member can see the Minute if he chooses. It is scarcely worth while to present it to Parliament.

  NAVY (DISCIPLINE)-SENTENCES OF NAVY COURTS MARTIAL.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to the case of an able seaman named William Collision, who has been sentenced by a Court to nine months' imprisonment for striking a ship's corporal; whether, considering that the offence of Collision was analogous to those for which Endersby and Quinn have been sentenced to penal servitude, the Admiralty will remit a still further term of the punishment assigned to those men; and, whether, pending further legislation, the Admiralty will take steps to prevent sentences of penal servitude being passed by Naval Courts Martial for assaults on superiors committed without intention of or not involving grievous bodily harm or other circumstances of exceptional gravity?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the hon. Member speaks of the offences committed by the three seamen named in his Question as being "analogous" to each other. They were, no doubt, analogous in the sense that they were all cases of striking a superior officer; but I need hardly point out to my hon. Friend that offences so described may differ widely in their circumstances and in the degree of punishment they deserve. The court martial in Collision's case appear to have considered that for his offence he would be adequately punished by nine months' imprisonment. It is not the intention of the Admiralty to interfere with naval courts martial as suggested in the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the Government would grant a Return of the number of officers in prison for in-subordination?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, that he imagined there would be no objection to giving a Return, but as it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this year to amend the Naval Discipline Act, an opportunity would thereby be afforded of discussing the subject.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—DROGHEDA.
  MR. WHITWORTHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1855
  Ireland, Whether, seeing the peaceable condition of Drogheda, he can see his way to relieve that town from the operation of the Peace Preservation Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, seaport towns stand in a different position in this matter from other localities. One of the reasons for proclaiming such towns under the Peace Preservation Act was to check the unlawful importation of arms, and his Excellency does not at present think he would be justified in revoking the proclamation of Drogheda.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, although Mr. Clifford Lloyd is at present in the employment of the Egyptian Government, he is actually receiving the pay and emoluments of a first class resident magistrate in Ireland, although he has not discharged any of the duties of that office for the past five months; and, if such an arrangement exists, how long it is proposed to continue it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no such arrangement exists. Mr. Clifford Lloyd is on leave of absence without pay.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN PLUNKETT.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Captain Plunkett, Special Divisional Magistrate, has publicly admitted the truth of the statement of a brother magistrate that the representation of Hallissey, of Monaning, that he had been fired at, was believed by all who investigated the matter to be false; and, whether any investigation concerning Hallissey's story was in fact held; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, Captain Plunkett denied that he had made any such admission as was here stated. An inquiry was held under the 16th section of the Prevention of Crime Act as to the alleged assault, but no evidence was elicited to implicate anyone. It was not, however, the case that everyone present believed Hallissey's statement to be false.
  MR. O'BRIENasked, whether it was not a fact that this statement appeared
  1856
  in all the newspaper reports which were supplied by the Government reporter?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—DUBLIN GENERAL POST OFFICE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether the last four gentlemen appointed to clerkships in the General Post Office, Dublin, Mr. Ker, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Odium, and Mr. Sheridan, are Protestants, and were appointed to these positions without passing an examination, and over the heads of men of long and faithful service; whether sorters are in the habit of doing the clerical work of the sorting office when the regular clerks are sick or on leave; and, whether he can hold out any hope that clerkships will be thrown open to competition among deserving and competent sorters?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, as previously stated, no inquiry is made as to the religion of any persons appointed by the Post Office. I promoted the four gentlemen referred to by the hon. Member after considering the qualifications of various officers, including the sorters to whom reference is made, because I thought that the four persons selected were the best qualified. These gentlemen had already been in the service for periods varying from 12 to 14 years, and their promotion did not necessitate any examination. They entered at the bottom of their class, and, consequently, were not appointed over the heads of other men. Sorters, except on very rare occasions, are not employed in the room of clerks who are absent from sickness or away on leave.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he has recently forwarded to the Treasury a representation recommending an increase of pay to the officers in the Secretary's Department of the General Post Office; and whether that recommendation will extend to the officials in Dublin?
  MR. FAWCETT: I do not think a Memorial has been forwarded, but I would be glad if the hon. Member gave Notice of the Question.

  INDIA—THE ILBERT BILL.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for

  1857
  India, Whether before the Ilbert Bill was modified with a view to extend the right of trial by jury in the ease of English prisoners, the opinion of the local governments of India was obtained as to whether such a change could be made without considerable administrative inconvenience; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will, before assenting to the measure, take steps to ascertain if the compromise will in any way injure or impede the administration of justice?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, there is no intention of instituting the inquiries suggested, the matter having already been considered by the Government of India. No special reference was made to the Local Governments as regards this particular modification. But the question was, in some cases, referred to in their opinions on the original Bill. And the Papers already presented show that one of the recommendations of the Government of Bombay was that European British subjects brought for trial before any Sessions Judge should have the right to claim a jury.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—BELFAST GAOL—CASE OF MICHAEL WATERS.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Michael Waters, one of the Crossmaglen prisoners, whilst in Belfast Gaol before his trial, was placed in a cell which, as the water pipes had burst, was flooded; and, whether the said Michael Waters has since died?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the General Prisons Board inform me that it is not the case that Michael Waters was placed in a cell in Belfast Gaol in which the water pipes had burst, causing it to be flooded. The prisoner died in Mount-joy Prison, Dublin, into which he was received on the 28th April. He was removed to the prison hospital on the 7th June, and died on the 22nd October. The coroner's jury found that he died from disease of the intestines.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—FERMANAGH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in a Resolution, moved and seconded by Town
  1858
  Commissioners of Enniskillen, and unanimously adopted by a public meeting of Catholics, held at Enniskillen on Monday last, under the presidency of the Catholic Vicar General of the diocese, that, out of the total number of magistrates in the county Fermanagh, seventy, not even one is a Catholic; whether the Catholic people of the county form a great majority of the whole population; whether, of the seventy magistrates, sixty-three have attached their names to a public manifesto, condemning the Government for having deprived Lord Rossmore of the commission of the peace; and, whether the state of things indicated by these facts will be allowed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to continue?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Resident Magistrate, Captain M'Ternan, is the only magistrate in the County of Fermanagh who is a Roman Catholic. According to the latest Census Reports, 53 per cent of the population are Roman Catholics; 63 of the magistrates of the county signed the protest referred to. It is the intention of the Government to proclaim, under the Crimes Act, districts where Party riots or Party disturbances are likely to occur, if they are not already so proclaimed, so that cases arising out of such disturbances may be dealt with under Section 8 of that Act. I may take this opportunity to state that when I was in Ireland the general subject of the constitution of the magistracy had engaged my most serious attention and consideration, that I conferred with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland thereon, and that he assured me that no exertion or pains on his part would be spared, so far as he could act, to redress inequality, and to remove or prevent any injustice that might be brought under his notice.
  MR. SEXTON: With reference to the recent declaration of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that if the names of proper persons were submitted to the Lord Chancellor he would at once appoint them, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if a representative public meeting like this forwards by public resolution the names of suitable persons to the Lord Chancellor, he will consider them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member I think I can respond at once that if the

  1859
  names of proper persons are submitted to the Lord Chancellor he will appoint them; but I should be very unwilling to name any special method of recommendation, and I might even go so far as to say that I do not think the recommendation of a public meeting of one religious body, whether Catholic or otherwise, is a good method of submitting such names, and I may tell the hon. Member that we have already acted on that opinion with a Memorial having a similar object in view which was not Roman Catholic.
  MR. O'DONNELL: With regard to the proclamation of places in which riots have taken place, or are apprehended, will the Government take into consideration the propriety of distinguishing between places into which rioters have been imported, and places in which riots have occurred through the misconduct of outsiders; and in that case will the proclamation be applied to the place from which the rioters have been imported, and not the place in which the riots occurred?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That depends, Sir, upon what magistrates there are in the places.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—ORANGEMEN AND REVOLVERS—ARMS LICENCES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many Members of the Orange Society, in the district of Ballymote, where the shooting affray occurred a few days since, have licences to keep revolvers; by whom the granting of these licences was recommended; and by whom the licences were granted; whether those Orangemen who hold licences to keep revolvers have paid for the Inland Revenue licence for leave to carry those weapons; whether, in particular, the three members of the Orange Society now in prison awaiting trial, on a charge of wounding persons with revolvers, had entitled themselves to carry revolvers by payment of the necessary fee, and procurement of the licence from the Inland Revenue Department; and, if not, will the Department proceed against them; and, whether their licences to have revolvers will be revoked?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, from inquiries made in the town of Ballymote, and within a radius of five miles round it, it has been ascertained that there are
  1860
  37 persons who have revolver licences under the Peace Preservation Act. Most of the licences were granted by the late Resident Magistrate of the district, Captain Gage. Of these 37 persons 34 are Protestants, and of these 10 are believed to be Orangemen; but as to this, the Licensing Officers and Constabulary have no positive means of knowing the facts. Of these 10 persons, eight obtained their licences on the recommendation of two Justices of the Peace, and two were personally known to the Licensing Officer. Only three of them have Excise licences this year. The persons arrested in connection with the recent affray in the district of Ballymote have not Excise licences. This was duly reported by the Constabulary to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It rests with them to prosecute, and I understand that proceedings have been instituted. With regard to the revocation of the licences under the Peace Preservation Act, it is customary to await the result of pending legal proceedings before revoking such licences.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—POLICE TAX IN MONANIMY.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, in the first levies for the police tax in the parish of Monanimy, the Lord Lieutenant exempted Mr. Foote, J.P. who resides in the district; whether Mr. Foote joined in the Memorial of the people to the Lord Lieutenant for the removal of the tax; and, whether he was then included in the next levy of the tax?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that, in the earlier levies, the tax was remitted to Mr. Foote so far as it affected a Constabulary barracks on his property and some unoccupied buildings, the Government being advised that it was not properly chargeable thereon. In a subsequent warrant Mr. Foote's name was, by a clerical error, entered as entitled to exemption for all his property; but the error had been discovered, and was rectified in the latest warrant. That occurred subsequently to Mr. Foote having signed the Memorial, and the fact of his signing the Memorial had nothing to do with his being included in the levy.

  IRELAND—TRAMWAY LOANS—RATE OF INTEREST.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, "Whether it is true that the Treasury decided, by Minute, last year, that they would charge interest at four per cent. and not five per cent. on money advanced to Railways in Ireland; and that he, in reply to a Question last Session, said that loans to Steam Tramways would be charged a similar rate of interest; whether the Board of Works in Ireland did then charge the Portrush and Giants Causeway Tramway and Railway Company interest at the rate of four per cent.; whether the Board of Works in Ireland have recently asked that Company to recoup them for the difference between four per cent. and five per cent. for the period during which the lower rate was charged; and, what is the meaning of this demand?
  MR. COURTNEY: The rate of interest with respect to tramway loans is the same as with regard to railway loans—namely, 4 per cent. The application referred to in the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was made in error, and has since been corrected.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—THE IRISH CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he has ascertained, by reports from the Official Inspectors of the Privy Council, or otherwise, that the Steamship Companies engaged in the cattle traffic between England and Ireland have followed the advice of the Privy Council as to the temporary withdrawal of their vessels for the purpose of thorough cleansing and disinfection; and, whether, in the event of the suggestions of his Department not being carried out, he is prepared to insist on his advice being followed?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, the suggestions referred to in the Question were issued by the Irish Privy Council with the concurrence of the British Privy Council. He was informed from Dublin that the principal Steamship Companies had expressed their willingness to meet the views of the Privy Council, and were actually doing so. He, therefore, hoped it would not be
  1862
  necessary to put any pressure upon the Companies.

  THE IRISH LAND COBIMISSION—SITTINGS OF THE KERRY SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Kerry Sub-Land Commissioners, instead of holding their sittings at Cahirciveen as usual, have held their sittings for that district at Killarney, a distance of forty miles from many of the parties interested; whether this was done at the request of the solicitors who reside in Killarney; and, whether he will recommend that the practice be discontinued?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the Land Commissioners had informed him that the cases of certain estates lying between Cahirciveen and Killarney were heard at Killarney on the application of the tenants' solicitors, the solicitors for the landlords assenting. In none of these cases had the tenants to travel 40 miles. The remaining cases of the Cahirciveen district would be heard at Cahirciveen next month.

  ARMY (INDIA)—INDIAN LEAVE.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, in future, Indian Military Officers are to be allowed to take their general leave in England on the same terms as it can now be obtained in India, and, consequently, if the 1875 Rule, which provides that the furlough must be spent at some place east of the 40th degree of east longitude, is to be abolished?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, if my right hon. Friend refers to the local leave which, to the extent of six months in each year, may be granted at the discretion of the Indian authorities, to officers of the Indian Army who are subject to the Furlough Rules of 1875, I can only say that there is no intention of altering the limits within which this leave may be taken.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SUPERSESSION OF LORD ROSSMORE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a protest from the Lieutenant and cer-

  1863
  tain Deputy Lieutenants and Magistrates of the county of Wicklow, in which the following occurs:—
  "We consider that the action of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, in depriving-Lord Rossmore of the Commission of the Peace for the county Monaghan, was most unjust and ill judged;"
  and, whether he will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. M'COAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question I beg to be allowed, in fairness to the gentleman whom it seeks to denounce, to trouble him with another. It is, whether the acceptance of the Commission of the Peace involves the loss of the common right of all citizens to criticize the Government of the day; and if it does not, whether popular confidence in the impartiality of the Administration is likely to be promoted by arbitrary interference with this right, while the magistracy themselves, the judicial body, and the Executive authority are all, by turn, being persistently held up to public scorn and execration in newspapers owned and conducted by Members of this House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I would rather decline to answer that Question now.
  MR. M'COAN: I will put it on the Paper.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think I laid my view of the case sufficiently before the House in the debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I have also more than once answered Questions similar in effect to that of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet). I have pointed out the material difference which exists between persons with more or less imperfect knowledge of the circumstances expressing an adverse opinion as to the course adopted by the Government, and themselves taking an active part in proceedings similar to those which the Government have condemned. Judged from this point of view, the Government do not think that the protest of the Wicklow magistrates—however much it is to be regretted—calls for special notice.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON AND BAKER PASHA.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When
  1864
  Lord Granville telegraphed, on February 7th, to Sir E. Baring—
  "If possible, ask Gordon whether change of circumstances affects his judgment as to going to Khartoum, and whether he has any suggestions to make,"
  what change of circumstances was referred to; when, on February 10th, Lord Granville telegraphed to Sir E. Baring—
  "Ask Gordon whether he can suggest anything respecting Sinkat and Tokar,"
  had any steps been taken to apprise General Gordon that Baker Pasha had been defeated on the 5th; and, what were the date and words of the first message received by General Gordon, telling him of Baker Pasha's defeat?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The change of circumstances referred to was the defeat of Baker Pasha. My answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second Question is in the affirmative. Gordon Pasha received the intelligence of the defeat from Sir Evelyn Baring on his arrival at Berber on the 11th. Lord Granville had on the 5th telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring to do what was possible to acquaint Gordon Pasha with the news. Sir Evelyn Baring replied on the 7th that he would, of course, keep General Gordon fully informed, but he could not communicate with him by telegraph till he arrived at Berber. The text of Sir Evelyn Baring's message to General Gordon is not in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. GIBSON: Is the House to understand that all the time the first four telegrams were sent to General Gordon he did not know the changed circumstances with reference to which his opinion was asked?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There was a further telegram. As already explained by the Prime Minister, General Gordon for a certain number of days, while between Korosko and Berber, was not within reach of telegraphic communication.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government can afford any further information as to

  1865
  the crew of the Nisero, wrecked four months ago on the coast of Acheen; and, whether any result has followed the negotiations of the agent of the Governor of the Straits Settlements on their behalf?
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any further information respecting the crew of the Nisero; and, if not, whether he expects any which may relieve the prolonged and painful anxiety of the numerous friends of the imprisoned men in Sumatra; and, whether it is not intended to take active measures to secure the deliverance of a British shipwrecked crew now held in captivity by a semi-barbarous chief?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in reply to the first Question, and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, I may state that the crew of the Nisero having been sent into the interior subsequent to the operations of the Dutch expedition, Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any recent information respecting them. They have not as yet heard the result of the negotiations which have been entrusted to the agent nominated by Governor Weld with a view to obtain the liberation of the prisoners, and until this is the case Her Majesty's Government would not think it advisable to take any active measures.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ATHY UNION—DR. P. L. O'NEILL.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Dr. P. L. O'Neill, medical officer of the Athy Union, is the same gentleman who was for some time president of the local Land League; whether a warrant was issued for his arrest under the Crimes Act; whether he is now Coroner of the Queen's County; and, whether, having regard to his duties in that capacity and his political antecedents, the Local Government Board will maintain him in the office of a medical officer under that Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that Dr. O'Neill was Vice President of the local branch of the Land League at Athy. I cannot ascertain that any warrant was ever issued for his arrest under the Crimes Act. He has been medical officer of the union since 1874;
  1866
  but the fact that he has lately been appointed coroner for the county of Kildare—not Queen's County, as stated—has only now been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board. His political antecedents would not warrant the Board in removing him from his office under them, but the question whether they should object to his continuing to hold the two offices is under consideration. It is a case exactly similar to that of Dr. Parke, of Newtownards, which was brought under my notice some time ago.
  MR. SEXTON: Dr. Parke holds two offices in the same district, while Dr. O'Neill holds two offices in different counties.
  MR. TREVELYAN: In Dr. O'Neill's ease the two districts are in the same county.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. O'Neill had sufficient leisure to preside at a Land League meeting on Sunday last?
  [No reply.]

  THE NEWSPAPER PRESS (IRELAND)—THE "IRISH CITIZEN."
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will read to the House the Letter addressed by Mr. Hastings to Mr. Healy, M.P. for Monaghan, which the latter gentleman has de-scribed as "incriminatory," and as confirming his suggestion that Mr. Hastings' newspaper, The Irish Citizen, is supported by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant out of the Secret Service Fund?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am at a loss, Sir, to know upon what ground the hon. and gallant Member can expect me to read to the House the private correspondence of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). But I am glad of this opportunity to contradict, in the most emphatic terms, the suggestions that have been made that The Irish Citizen newspaper received, or ever did receive, any support out of the Secret Service Fund. The Lord Lieutenant's support of it was limited to subscribing for one copy, and I may observe that to that extent the support—if it can be called support—of the Irish Government is given to newspapers of every shade of

  1867
  politics, including United Ireland and The Nation, and otherwise advocating similar views.

  INDIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1882, AMENDMENT ACT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State proposes to allow the Act passed by the Governor General of India in Council, No. III. of 1684, by which (1) magistrates of districts are deprived of the power of summary trial of Europeans for minor offences against Natives, which they have exercised since the reign of George III.; and (2) every criminal or party to a criminal trial, European or Native, can demand, as of absolute right, postponement of the trial, for the purpose of making application to a distant High Court for its transfer to another tribunal, and that without any regard to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the demand, or to the inconvenience to witnesses and other parties, and the possible perversion of justice by means of such delay; whether the Council of India unanimously approved of the Bill as proposed to be modified last summer; and, whether they have been consulted on its subsequent transformation, either before or since it was passed, or now will be consulted; and, if consulted, whether they have approved of it?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the authentic copy of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, Amendment Act, which the Governor General is by statute required to transmit to the Secretary of State, was only received by last mail. No Member of the Council of India dissented from the Secretary of State's despatch of the 8th of November last, concurring in the modifications of the Bill recommended by the Government of India in their letter of August 10. The further modifications of the Bill were not referred home by the Government of India for the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, but were made during its passage through the Governor General's Council. I may remind my hon. Friend that an Act which has been passed by the Legislative Council, and assented to by the Governor General, does not require to be "allowed" by the Secretary of State in Council. It takes effect in duo course, unless Her Majesty signifies her disallowance of it.
  1868
  The Papers I have referred to are now being printed for presentation to Parliament.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE FOOT-PATHS IN HYDE PARK.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the footpaths in Hyde Park owing to the bad gravel with which they have lately been covered; and, whether he will take any steps to have them improved and laid down with the shell sand hitherto employed?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that the gravel laid down was exactly the same as that which had been laid down in previous years, but that, owing to the wet season, it had not hardened this winter.

  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Eight honourable Member the Lord Mayor of London, Whether the City intend to proceed with the Second Reading of the Metropolis Water Bill on March 11th, or whether it is intended to abandon such Bill; and, if it is intended to abandon the measure, whether he will state the reason for such abandonment?
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)in reply, said, that it was the intention of the Corporation to proceed with the second reading of the Bill referred to on the 11th of March, and he hoped that the House would report the Bill for Committee in the usual way.

  POST OFFICE—THE WEST INDIAN MAILS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury will be prepared to decide, at a sufficiently early date, which of the tenders for the conveyance of the West Indian Mails (submitted on the 1st December last) they will authorise the Postmaster General to accept, so as to allow the person or Company whose tender may be accepted adequate time to complete arrangements for commencing the service on the 1st January next?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the decision upon this question has to be suspended until we learn the views of the West India Colonies, who are, of course, very much interested in the matter, and whose duty it will be to contribute their share

  1869
  of the cost of the service. But the Government will make every effort to come to a decision as speedily as possible.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the National Schools of Ireland are conducted on the mixed system; how far technical education is carried out in these schools; whether Reformatories and Industrial Schools are purely denominational; whether technical instruction forms a largo portion of the education in these schools; and, whether he will cause to be extended to the schools which are not intended for the vagrant and criminal classes the same religious privileges and technical instruction which are afforded to Industrial Schools and Reformatories?
  MR. TREVELYAN: According to the fundamental rule of the Commissioners of National Education, the object of the system is to afford combined literary and moral and separate religious instruction to children of all persuasions as far as possible in the same schools. With regard to technical instruction, the rule of the Commissioners is to encourage it in all suitable cases. In all rural boys' schools the manual of agriculture is a compulsory subject, and in the case of 73 schools to which farms are attached, special grants are made for the encouragement of practical agricultural education. Practical dairy instruction is given at the farms at Cork and Glasnevin. In all schools in which female teachers are employed, the girls are taught needlework, for proficiency in which over 128,000 results fees were paid in 1882. There are also 54 schools to which grants are made for instruction in special subjects, such as lace work, embroidery, crotchet, &c. Cookery and domestic economy are taught to the students in the training colleges of Marlborough Street and Bagot Street, that they in turn may teach their pupils when they take charge of schools; and the students of the male training college in Marlborough Street are, with a similar object, taught the use of tools. Reformatory and industrial schools are strictly denominational, and technical education formed a large portion of the education in these schools. The last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question opens up a
  1870
  field for consideration much too large to be satisfactorily dealt with in answer to a Question. Much difficulty would exist in the way of increasing the technical education now given, while to make the national schools essentially denominational would be a complete subversion, not only of the Irish national school system, but also of the English and Scotch systems of public education.

  NAVY—THE ELECTRIC LIGHT IN SHIPS OF WAR.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any of Her Majesty's Ships on the East Indian Station are provided with the electric light; and, if not, whether prompt steps will be taken to remedy so serious a defect?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, of the ships on the East India Station, the Euryalus alone is of the class now usually fitted with the electric light, and she was not so fitted when she left England in August, 1878. The Hecla, now in the Red Sea, carries the electric light, and is at the disposal of the Admiral for any purpose requiring its use. We have not heard that he has used it. It is not intended to fit the electric light to the smaller class of ships of the Squadron.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (IRELAND)—HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any determination has yet been arrived at with regard to any change in the rate of interest at which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorised to advance money for Harbour Works?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that it would not be possible to answer his Question except in debate, when full explanations can be given, and that the information he requires will be fully stated when he calls attention to the question on the Motion of which he has given Notice for the 18th of March.

  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1883—THE NORTH SEA FISHERY CONVENTION.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any prospect of "The Sea

  1871
  Fisheries Act, 1883," shortly coming into operation?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the North Sea Fishery Convention concluded at the Hague will, I expect, be ratified shortly, and when that has been done the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, which confirms that Convention, will be brought into force with as little delay as practicable.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE HOUSING OF THE POOR (MISS OCTAVIA HILL).
  MR. PENNINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the exceptional experience of Miss Octavia Hill on questions relating to the housing of the poor, he will consider the advisability of her being appointed to serve on the Royal Commission which is about to inquire into the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there can be no doubt as to the exceptional experience of Miss Hill, and I have myself for the last 13 years had personal knowledge of her excellent system. I may, however, point out to the House that the experience of highly skilled persons is often more valuable when they have an opportunity of giving evidence before a Royal Commission than when they are themselves Commissioners.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The Prime Minister stated on Tuesday last, in answer to a Question whether the inquiries of the Commission on the dwellings of the poor would extend to Scotland and Ireland as well as to England, that he had not then an opportunity of consulting the right hon. Gentleman near him. I now wish to ask him the following Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether the Royal Commission will extend its inquiries to Ireland and Scotlnnd; and, if so, whether it is not desirable that an Irish and a Scotch Member should be placed on the Commission?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Inquiry will, no doubt, have to be made, either now or later, into the housing of the working classes in Scotland and Ireland. If the Royal Commission, at its preliminary meeting, should decide to consider at an early date the question of the housing of the working classes in either Scotland or Ireland generally an addition to the Royal Commission
  1872
  will probably be recommended to the Queen.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is there anything in the practice of Royal Commissions to prevent a Member of such Commission giving evidence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: On Committees of the House it is not unusual, but I do not think it is very usual on a Royal Commission. I do not know, however, that there is anything to prevent it.
  MR. R. POWERasked why there was no Irish Member of the existing Commission?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As regards the Irish inhabitants of this country, I think they would have confidence in the name of Cardinal Manning; but as regards Irishmen in Ireland, I think that would be very much a matter for the Commission to consider.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Seeing the personality of the Commission has been referred to, may I ask, as there is a Bishop of the Episcopal Church of England and a Roman Catholic Prelate on the Commission, whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think it desirable that some influential person connected with the Nonconformists should also be appointed a Member?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Without in the least admitting that it has any bearing on the question, I may state that, as a matter of fact, there are several Nonconformists on the Commission.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: But not clergymen.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; and I say at once that Cardinal Manning is not a Member of the Commission as the head of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, nor the Bishop of Bedford as a Prelate of the Episcopal Church; but they have been nominated, not because they represent largo communities, but because they have taken great interest in, and thoroughly understand, the question.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any objection to place a lady on a Royal Commission?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is hardly a Question for me to answer, as it has nothing to do with the duties of my Department. But there is nothing, so far as I know, to prevent a lady being put on a Royal Commission.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S PROCLAMATION.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the following translation, published in The Times, of General Gordon's proclamation on the subject of slavery, is correct:—
  "Proclamation.—To all the inhabitants. Your tranquillity is the object of our hope. And as I know that you are sorrowful on account of the slavery which existed among you, and the stringent orders on the part of the Government for the abolition of it, and the punishment of those who deal in them (the slaves), and the assurances given by the Government for its abolition, seizing upon and punishing those concerned in the trade; the punishment of those who trade in slaves, according to Imperial decrees, and the firmans forwarded to you—all this is known to you.
  "But henceforward nobody will interfere with you in the matter, but everyone for himself may take a man into his service henceforth. No one will interfere with him, and he can do as he pleases in the matter, without interference on the part of anybody; and we have accordingly given this order.
  "My compassion for you.
  "(Signed) "GORDON PASHA;"
  and, if so, whether such a proclamation on the part of the recognized agent of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan is not in direct contravention of the principle of the Act of 1807 abolishing the slave trade; and what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  SIR HENRY TYLERwished, before that Question was answered, to ask whether, having regard to the extraordinary and exceptional character of the mission of General Gordon, it would not be better to leave General Gordon to carry out, unmolested and in his own way, the duties which he had so courageously undertaken, and not through Questions addressed to Her Majesty's Government, especially when those Questions were founded on imperfect information—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERhaving interposed, Sir HENRY TYLER resumed his seat.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, undoubtedly I concur, and very strongly concur, with the general sentiment expressed in the truncated Question of the hon. Gentleman. I understood, likewise, as far as I could interpret the feeling of the House, that to be the decided feeling of the House. But, at the same time, it
  1874
  was quite understood that the case of this Proclamation was to be treated as an exception. The Government have given a pledge for its production, and they do not regard it in the main as a political Proclamation. On that ground I cannot find fault with the hon. Gentleman (Baron De Worms) for the inquiry he has made. My reply to that inquiry will not be held to involve me in any inconsistency if I should decline to reply to other inquiries respecting General Gordon of a different character. But I must still ask the hon. Gentleman's indulgence to some extent. We have received the authentic text of what appears to be General Gordon's Proclamation, and that authentic text has been laid upon the Table to-night. Hon. Gentlemen will, therefore, have the opportunity of considering it for themselves. It is not in accordance with the terms of this Proclamation, and that is all, I think, that I can say at the present moment, because it is not in my power absolutely to assert that General Gordon has not issued some Proclamation with which this may be in more or less correspondence. We have sought the Proclamation to which the discussions in this House referred. It is the text of that Proclamation which has been sent to us, and it will now be in the hands of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, not expect me now to answer the closing clause of his Question, in reference to the consistency of the text of this Proclamation with the Act of 1807. But I cannot reply to the Question without stating that our confidence in General Gordon on this subject is absolute and unabated. Our belief is, that he has issued no Proclamation whatever that is in any manner in conflict with the Act of 1807.
  MR. PARNELLasked, whether the Proclamation would be laid on the Table in Arabic, as well as the translation of it, in order to afford the Arabic scholars of the country the opportunity of comparing the translation with the original?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we are not in possession of any Arabic original or version, whichever it be, and I am not able to undertake to seek for this Arabic document until and unless it can be shown to me that there is some special reason why so unusual a course should be adopted, because it certainly would be attended with a good deal of prac-

  1875
  tical inconvenience to the working of our Parliamentary system.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS—FUNDS FOR THE REPAIR OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY AND PETERBOROUGH CATHEDRAL.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, By what means it is proposed to raise the funds requisite for the repair of the fabrics of Westminster Abbey and Peterborough Cathedral; and, whether such an inquiry as to the lands and other property held by the Ecclesiastical Commission as was approved in principle by Her Majesty's Government on March 31st 1882, would not afford the best means of obtaining a satisfactory provision?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer, at the same time, the Question on the same subject that he placed on the Paper for Thursday next.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Perhaps I may answer at the same time the Question put by my hon. Friend, and also that proposed to be put to me upon the same subject on Thursday next by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster. We have been for some time in communication upon this matter with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and with the Deans of Westminster and Peterborough; and during the present Session I hope to introduce a Bill which will deal with the general subject, including provision for the fabrics of the Abbey and the Cathedral of Peterborough. It would be premature to enter into details until the Bill is before Parliament.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—FOREIGN SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has lately passed between the Workmen's National Association for the abolition of Foreign Sugar Bounties and Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Home and Colonial Sugar industries?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Correspondence to which reference is made by the hon. Gentleman consists, no doubt, of the letter which the Work-
  1876
  men's Association addressed recently to me, and the reply which I sent them; and these have been published in the newspapers. Since that time a rejoinder has been published by the Workmen's Association, and to that rejoinder, I apprehend, probably an answer will be made. I think, therefore, that any Question on this subject had better stand over till the Correspondence is complete.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—SURRENDER OF TOKAR.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I put a Question to the Government last Friday night, and gave Notice that I would repeat it to-night. In the first place, I asked whether the Government had received confirmation of the surrender of Tokar; and, secondly, what effect that surrender, if true, would have upon the operations in Egypt? If the noble Lord can give us any information with regard to those operations we shall be obliged?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, although the report of the surrender of Tokar was received in this country on Friday, yet the telegrams which were received on that day and on Saturday, both from Trinkitat and Suakin, appeared to throw some doubt upon the accuracy of the reports; and it was only late yesterday evening that Sir William Hewett telegraphed from Suakin confirming the reports. There was, therefore, no reason for suspending the movement of troops to Trinkitat. Instructions were sent on Saturday to General Graham at Trinkitat, to some extent restricting the scope of his operations; but giving him very full discretion to act under certain contingencies. He has been asked further to report fully to the Government upon the position which he finds existing at Trinkitat. But that report has not yet been received. The principal object to which his attention will now be directed will be to secure the safety of Suakin, which appears at present to be threatened by the tribes. I do not think at the present moment it would be desirable, or at all expedient, that I should enter into any further detail in regard to the instructions to General Graham, or the movements which it may be necessary to undertake.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the noble Lord whether

  1877
  General Graham is empowered to negotiate with Osman Digma, or to slaughter his forces?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Graham has I believe, no special instructions as regards that; but I presume he has the same discretion that is usually given to the commanding officer of troops on active service.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the noble Lord, whether it was a fact that Tokar did not surrender until the 22nd; and whether he could state why the promise made to Sir William Hewett on the 12th February, that a sufficient force to relieve Tokar would be at Suakin on the 19th, was not carried out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think we have any information yet as to the exact date on which Tokar did surrender. The telegram referred to by the hon. Member gave the 19th as the day on which it was anticipated that the force would be at Suakim.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether it was in the discretion of General Graham to advance against the forces of Osman Digma beyond Suakin?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That appears to me to be one of those Questions which it would be extremely undesirable to answer. I have already stated the general object of the instructions to General Graham, but I do not think it would be at all desirable to state the precise character of those instructions.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how General Graham could provide for the safety of Suakin when he was with his forces at Trinkitat?
  MR. O'DONNELLinquired whether the noble Lord could state, as a matter of policy of Her Majesty's Government, what was the nature of the relations between them and Osman Digma, seeing that the latter was, as he understood, the Lieutenant of the Ameer of Kordofan, to whom Her Majesty's Government had proffered the terms of a friendly alliance?
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY AND THE BLENHEIM COLLECTION OF PICTURES.
  MR. AGNEW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister the following Question,
  1878
  of which I have given private Notice:—Whether any overtures have been made to the Government and the Trustees of the National Gallery in respect to the purchase of the Blenheim Collection of pictures, or of any portion thereof; and, if not, having regard to the report that the property is for sale, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of negotiating for the purchase of some, at least, of the masterpieces of acknowledged historic value and artistic excellence which form part of that Collection?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, no overtures have been made to Her Majesty's Government, or, to our knowledge, to the Trustees of the National Gallery. Certain rumours have reached Her Majesty's Government and the Trustees of the National Gallery; but I do not think that, upon the ground of those rumours, it would be at all prudent on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Trustees, to take the initiative in this matter. In fact, in my opinion, and as far as I can judge, the question is not mature for any practical measure; and I believe that nothing is yet absolutely settled as to the sale of these pictures, or as to what portion, if any, shall be sold. We have no authentic information.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—CHATHAM.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he had received from the Medway Board of Guardians a Report from their medical officer, Dr. Buchanan, relating to the present state of contagious disease at Chatham; whether this Report was not in possession of the Local Government Board on Thursday last, when the right hon. Baronet said that he had received no Report from Dr. Buchanan; and, whether the right hon. Baronet would lay the Report on the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The answer to the first branch of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is in the affirmative. A copy of the Report was received at the Local Government Board on Thursday last, the day on which the Question of the right hon. Gentleman was asked. I have seen the Report, which goes outside the question of Poor Law administration, which is the

  1879
  only aspect of the subject which concerns the Local Government Board. I do not think it of a nature to receive the general circulation which would be the case were it laid before Parliament; but I shall be happy to let the right hon. Gentleman see it himself if he desires to do so.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKexpressed his intention of moving that the Report be laid on the Table of the House.

  EGYPT—BAKER PASHA.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it was a fact, as stated in The Observer, that the officer known as Baker Pasha had been recently wearing Her Majesty's uniform during the operations near the Red Sea; and, if so, whether he had acted with the sanction of the military authorities?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I must ask for Notice of that Question. My attention has not been called to the paragraph in question.

  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE BRIGHTON ELECTION.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Home Secretary, Whether he knew that an organized system of ruffianism was being practised at Brighton in order to prevent Mr. Marriott and his friends from holding and addressing meetings; whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Schnadhorst, and some other members of the Birmingham Caucus, were at Brighton directing the election; and whether such interference as he had described did not amount to intimidation under the Corrupt Practices Act?
  MOTIONS.
    MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.

      RESOLUTIONS.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I have to submit to the House two Motions which are, in point of form, divided, but which are virtually one. The first of these is a Motion conveying, Sir, to yourself the thanks of this House for your services
      1880
      in the Chair; and, with respect to that Motion, I will say at once that I am convinced, Sir, it will proceed to you direct from the heart, as well as the understanding, of the House of Commons. The second Motion is a Motion for an Address to the Crown, praying the Crown to confer upon Mr. Speaker some signal mark of honour. That Motion, I believe, Sir, will be adopted, and will pass through from this House winged, if I may say so, with the anticipation of Her Majesty's ready and cheerful concurrence in its purport. The House has had the opportunity of examining the terms in which these Motions are couched; and especially the first of the two, which indicates, at least, if it does not describe, the services upon which it is founded. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen may have been led to compare the terms of this Motion with the terms used in preceding Motions upon similar occasions. There is no great difference between them. This Motion recites the zeal, the ability, the judgment, and the fairness with which the Speaker has discharged his functions; his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing Business; and his uniform urbanity to Members of the House. But these recitals, and these terms of description, not very different from those that have been used before, acquire, I must say, additional emphasis and significance from the circumstances under which they are applied. It is truly stated in this Motion that the Business of the House is increasing. It is not stated in the Motion; but it is in some degree indicated by the terms "unusual labour," "difficulty," and "anxiety" which it mentions—it is in some degree indicated; and it is a matter of intimate and familiar knowledge to us all that the high functions which you have been called upon to exercise have been exercised in a period of difficulty unknown to prior experience. I may, Sir, speak as a witness to the labours of five Speakers during more than half-a-century in this House; and I do not hesitate to say that the functions, always arduous, always grave, which are entrusted to the hands of Mr. Speaker, have risen, Sir, during the period of your occupation of the Chair, to a point, both of gravity and of difficulty, entirely beyond what your Predecessors have had to deal with. I will not go back beyond that period;

      1881
      because I believe it may be taken for granted that the Speakers who sat in that Chair before the Reform Act had no greater difficulties—perhaps not such great difficulties—to encounter as the Speaker who sat in that Chair immediately after the Reform Act. Sir, this is no merely formal or ceremonial occasion. The Speaker of the House of Commons is united with the House of Commons by ties so intimate and confidential, that his Office may be said, perhaps, to be without example in any part of the civilized world. I do not believe that the President of any other deliberative Assembly, however important it may be, rises to the height of the Speaker of the House of Commons. On that account, at all times, it has been felt to be a matter of serious importance when we have either chosen or parted with a Speaker; but on this occasion, Sir, the considerations brought to our minds are of greater weight and of new significance. There can be no doubt, Sir that the functions of the Chair are now, at the close of your period of occupancy, much greater than at its commencement; and I believe I may add to that, that probably, but for your skill and tact, for your courage and firmness, for the admirable understanding which you have applied to the solution of the multitude of questions presented to you, those functions, and the difficulties they present, would have been graver still. Sir, our thanks, therefore, to you are not to be measured by the mere formal purport of the words in which they are couched. Every one of those words has, in our view, a meaning and a force proportionate to the growth of the circumstances, and by no means to be limited within the bounds of dry and customary precedent. We, Sir, are deeply grateful for the work you have done on behalf of the House and of the country. We wish that it were in our power better and more fully to convey to you the nature and reality of that gratitude. It lives, it burns, I might almost say in every breast. It expresses not the partial, but the pervading, sense of the mind and heart of the House of Commons. Sir, it is not desirable on this occasion to use many words. I will only say further, in submitting to the House this Vote of Thanks, that, as we look backward with gratitude, so we look forward with a warm desire that
      1882
      there may still remain to you many years of public service and of private happiness, and that the valuable life which you have given so freely to the service of the House and of the country, cheerfully facing the cares incident thereto, may be greatly prolonged by the diminution of those cares. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquent words to which we have just listened, and knowing, as I do, how completely those words represent the feeling and sentiment of the great body of the House on both sides, I feel that it is hardly necessary for me to add anything in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Prime Minister. But it is for our satisfaction that we desire to take part in expressing, on the part of those who sit on this side of the House, our entire concurrence in the sentiments which have been so ably and so beautifully expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and to join in thanking you, Sir, for the manner in which, during 12 anxious and laborious years, you have filled the high Office which you hold. We desire to express our great regret that you should find it necessary to leave the Chair which you have so ably filled, and to leave us deprived of the counsels and advice which we have so long received from you; and, at the same time, we wish to express our cordial hope that during the remainder of your, as I trust it may be, long prolonged life, you may enjoy the comparative repose which you have so well earned. I say the comparative repose, because I feel assured that, if it pleases Heaven to grant you that measure of health and strength to which you may fairly look forward, you will spend much of the remainder of your life, as you have spent so much of that which has gone, in the service of your country. Sir, I need not say anything more in the sense of which I have spoken; but I hope I may be allowed, without presumption or offence, to express my own individual feeling towards yourself of your conduct in the Chair. During the greater part of the time that you have filled that Chair, it has been my lot, either on that side of the House or on this, to take part in the conduct of Public Business; and I am able to bear, and desire to bear, my

      1883
      strongest testimony to the urbanity and kindness, as well as to the ability and strength of character, with which you gave advice, and with which you applied yourself to the maintenance of the high duties of the Office which you filled. Many and many a time, both when I sat on that side and on this, have I resorted to your counsels, and they were always given with readiness and urbanity, and always to the advantage of those who consulted you. I trust, though we shall no longer have the privilege of seeing you among us in that Chair, that those who have enjoyed your friendship here may be allowed to continue it under other circumstances. I most cordially join in seconding the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Thanks of this House he given to Mr. Speaker for his distinguished services in the Chair for more than twelve years; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal and ability with which he has discharged the duties of his high office, through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which he has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that this House feels the strongest sense of his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and of his uniform urbanity, which have secured for him the respect and esteem of this House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, personally I extremely regret that it does not fall to my lot on the present occasion to acquiesce, at all events tacitly, in the Resolution so ably proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and so ably seconded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). But while acknowledging, and being most desirous to acknowledge to the fullest extent, both for my hon. Friends and myself, the great personal courtesy, kindness, and consideration which you, Sir, have always extended towards us in your individual capacity, I feel bound, and they feel bound, though with great regret and pain, to remember that certain of your official actions have, in our judgment, ended in producing grievous misfortune and wrong to our country, and in inflicting much injustice and hardship upon many individuals in Ireland. Believing, with all humility, that those actions were in excess of the authority conferred upon you by the Rules of the House, and contrary to the privileges of its Members, we feel that we should
      1884
      stultify ourselves if we tacitly agreed to this Resolution. But, while we propose to say "No" to the Question, we do not intend to trouble the harmony of the House by taking a Division.
      MR. O'DONNELL: I had great pleasure, on the occasion of your re-election at the beginning of the present Parliament, in expressing my hearty acquiescence in everything that was then said of your merits as Speaker, and of the manner in which you discharged your high functions in the preceding Parliament; and I reiterate now all that has been stated as to the personal urbanity, courtesy, and undeviating consideration in all relations you have shown to individual Members of this House. But, Sir, the Prime Minister, the introducer of coercive legislation for Ireland, has reminded us that this is no merely formal and ceremonious occurrence. So, Sir, while heartily re-echoing all that has been said of your urbanity and courtesy, I am bound to take exception to a Vote which too clearly conveys a repeated sanction of your acts in reference to the Irish Representatives and the cause of Ireland in this House of Parliament. I cannot forget that legal coercion in Ireland was first rendered possible by what I am obliged to consider illegal and unprecedented coercion in this House. I am convinced that, in your action, you conducted yourself entirely according to your idea of duty to the House of Commons, and to your native land. But, Sir, I cannot forget that when a Member of this House was in possession of the House, and was interrupted by the Premier, who had made an archaeological discovery which he found among the relics of Tudorism, by a Motion that the Member be no longer heard, the Chair sanctioned the act of the Premier. Of that I do not complain; but I also remember that at a most critical time in the history of the relations of my country with the governing Power, a large number of the Representatives of that country, after making precisely the same Motion as the Premier, were "Named" in this House, and were duly suspended by the vote of a dutiful, though inconsistent majority. Sir, I cannot but remember that even when, on a later occasion, you intervened to enforce and discountenance the discussion of that first and fatal Coercion Bill, which, by the admission of its authors, has pro-

      1885
      duced so many evils in Ireland—I cannot but remember that your action prevented a large body of the opponents of the Bill from even having an opportunity of expressing, by their votes, the mandate of their constituents. It cannot but be within the recollection of hon. Members of this House, without distinction of Party, that repeated applications were made to the Chair as to the legality of the action of the Irish Members, and that, day after day, that action remained uncontested by the highest authority in the House. And, Sir, besides my objection to interference with free discussion in this Assembly, I take exception specially to the fact that that interference took place without warning, under circumstances of complete surprise, at an hour when a vast majority of the Members from Ireland had, and could be expected to have, no knowledge that a sudden intervention of the authority of the Chair was about to take place. Sir, as I said before, I am certain that you acted according to your sense of duty to the House; but I must also maintain that your action facilitated the unjust purpose of the Government of postponing reform to coercion; and that, but for the interference of the Chair, the necessity of legislating for admitted evils might yet have proved victorious over the pretended necessity for coercive legislation. Sir, finally, I would say that, on the present occasion, I cannot forget that, under your auspices, the character of the House of Commons has changed in a sense advantageous to the Government of the day, whatever that Government may be in the future; and, as I consider, in a manner disastrously detrimental to the interests of private Members, and of freedom inside and outside the House. You found this House of Commons and all its private Members in possession of the largest measure of liberty ever enjoyed by the Members of a Legislature of a free people. Sir, you leave this House of Commons—I trust for a long and honoured career, but you leave this House of Commons disastrously cramped, mutilated, and truncated in most of the vital privileges which have been handed down from successive generations. It is with no disrespect to you, Sir, but with all respect to you in every personal and individual regard, that I must protest against the Vote moved by the Prime Minister, con-
      1886
      sidering you, as I am bound to do, as one who was, in his time, the last Speaker of the last free House of Commons, and that your successor will be "Monsieur le Presidént" of a Continentalized Corps Législatif. During your Speakership the House has changed into a faint copy of a Continental Legislature.
      LORD HENRY LENNOX: I have no intention of prolonging the discussion upon a subject in regard to which the feeling of the House appears to me to be almost unanimous; but I do think, considering I have sat uninterruptedly in this House for 38 years, during a part of which I used to fight with you, Sir, in the Lobbies in this House, and during the other part I have been accustomed to sit under your genial guidance, that I may be allowed to ask you to forget the amiable and eccentric criticism which has been passed on your conduct in the Chair by a certain section of Members. I have known you in actual warfare outside the House, and I have known you as Speaker of the House of Commons; and whether inside or outside the House, I have always felt, and knew, that you were actuated by the most genial manners and the most courteous consideration.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) states that he has been a Member of this House for 38 years; I have been here, Sir, for more than 40 years, and I have sat under the auspices of two of your Predecessors. I am happy to know that the unanimity with which we tender to you the expressions of our well-earned gratitude is not to be interrupted by a Division; and, whatever verbal reservations may be made, they only illustrate the old maxim that the exception proves the rule. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has referred to what occurred in this House on the 21st January and the 1st and 2nd of February, 1881. Why should such painful reminiscences be now revived? But I must be allowed to say, with regard to the transactions of which the hon. Member seemed to complain, that I never before, in all my long experience, witnessed a more determined and organized attempt at revolution in in this House. You, therefore, deserve our thanks for having met exceptional circumstances by an exceptional exercise of authority.
      MR. GREGORY: I will trouble the House but for a few minutes, but I stand in the position of having for 15 years had the honour of representing the division of the county in which you, Sir, reside; of having learnt how you are known, and, I need not add, appreciated there. I think it, therefore, my duty, on behalf of your friends—and they are all your friends there—to say how warmly they all sympathize with, and how warmly they will reciprocate, everything that has been said of you by the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. Sir, they will remember with pride the position which you have occupied, and the manner in which you have discharged the functions of it. They will regard with pleasure the honours which are to be conferred upon you, and they will look forward with hope to your long continuance among them, and to the pursuit by you of those honourable and useful occupations in which you have been engaged, and by which they have so much benefited in the development of the agricultural resources of the country and the cultivation of the social relations of all classes in it.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved, That the Thanks of this House he given to Mr. Speaker for his distinguished services in the Chair for more than twelve years; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal and ability with which he has discharged the duties of his high office, through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which he has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that this House feels the strongest sense of his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and of his uniform urbanity, which have secured for him the respect and esteem of this House.
      MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House as follows (the Members being uncovered):—
      Before I proceed to address the House upon this Resolution, I am anxious to say a few words in regard to the criticisms which have fallen from the honourable Member for the City of Cork, and the honourable Member for Dungarvan. I do not doubt that both those honourable Members have, in the course which they have thought fit to take, been actuated by a sense of duty to their constituents; and I am quite sure
      1888
      they will give me credit for having, in my position as Speaker, acted upon all the occasions to which they have referred, from a sense of duty to the Country, and to this great Assembly.
      I scarcely know how to address myself to the Resolution to which the House has now agreed. It has been moved and seconded, and received generally by the House, in a manner far above my deserts.
      I am very sensible of my own shortcomings; and it has often been a subject of wonder, on my part, how it is, that I have been lifted up to this high position.
      I believe that my elevation to this Chair is mainly due to the simple fact, that, ever since I entered this House, nearly thirty-two years ago, I have been animated and guided by a constant and abiding faith in this House, as an instrument of good government, and have loyally worked for the maintenance of its high character.
      If, in my tenure of this Chair, during a somewhat eventful period, I have helped to sustain the power and authority of this House, I shall feel that I have not lived in vain.
      The rest of my life will be cheered by pleasant memories of my career in this Chair; and, among those pleasant memories, the scene, which is now passing before us, will hold a prominent place.
      I am unwilling to say Farewell, for my heart will always live with this House, to which I owe so much.
      I thank you heartily for the crowning act of this day, in recognition of my services.
      Before I conclude, I beg the House to allow me to take this opportunity of thanking the officers of this House, for the zealous and efficient support which I have received from them.
      From the Clerks at the Table of this House, I have derived, day by day, constant and intelligent assistance.
      To the Clerk of this House my thanks are especially due. He enjoys, deservedly, a world-wide reputation, as an authority on

      1889
      Parliamentary Procedure, and I have largely availed myself of his long experience, and, sound judgment, in the conduct of the business of this House,
      Let me conclude with my best wishes to one and all of those many Members who have been introduced to me, in this Chair.
      May the blessing of God rest upon this House for ever.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move—
      "That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has said this day to the House, and that the same be printed in the Votes of this day, and entered in the Journals of this House."
      Motion agreed to.
      Resolved, That the Thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has said this day to the House, and that the same be printed in the Votes of this day, and entered in the Journals of this House.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I have now to move the second Resolution of which I have given Notice, and which is in the hands of Members—
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will he most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal Favour upon the Right Honourable Sir Henry Bouverie William Brand, G.C.B., Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same."
      Motion agreed to.
      Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal Favour upon the Right Honourable Sir Henry Bouverie William Brand, G.C.B., Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same.
      To be presented by Privy Councillors.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN).

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Ad-
    1890
    journment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz. the position of the British Army on the Coast of the Bed Sea; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having accordingly risen in their places,
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was only on rare occasions it was desirable that the right of moving the adjournment should be exercised by private Members, and it was perhaps least of all desirable that it should be done in reference to active military operations going on at the time; but, looking at the tone of the public papers and at the position we occupied at Suakin, it seemed expedient that the House should have a clear intimation of what the Government were going to do in that part of the world. The expedition was sent to Suakin purely from motives of humanity; it was understood there was no intention to occupy any part of the Soudan beyond Suakin, and that only temporarily; but it certainly was not understood that, if it were impossible to save the garrisons, there should be an expedition into the interior of the country. When the expedition went out there was a strong feeling that Tokar might be and ought to be relieved; but Tokar had surrendered, and the men whom our forces were sent to relieve had joined those whom our forces went to oppose. There were no other garrisons within striking distance. We had sent an expedition to Trinkitat, which was on a little bay on the coast, where our soldiers were under canvas. The object with which they were sent there was the defence of Suakin. What, then, was the object we had in view in remaining there and in giving discretionary power to the General in command—General Graham? He did not wish to hold the Government or the Prime Minister responsible for the utterances of the public Press; but it could not be disregarded when it was said that it represented the public opinion of the country. It was evident that a strong Jingo feeling was arising in the country. One newspaper—a Liberal paper—The Daily News—referred to a black circle of Zulus surrounding a British square as furnishing a lesson that we ought to apply. It said—

    1891
    "When the air cleared there was seen on the grass a black circle around the British square, a circle formed by 1,200 dead Zulus. Ulundi crushed the thought of resistance out of the Zulu mind. An experience of the like sort would convert Osman Digna and the Eastern Soudan from a belief in the Mahdi."
    He never head a more monstrous suggestion; the policy indicated was that of Zulus rather than of a Christian country; it was nothing but a desire for vengeance; a cry that we should "wash our spears" in the blood of these Arabs. The Times suggested that we should thrash them. The Pall Mall Gazette advised that we should administer a knockdown blow; and he read also that there was a prevalent desire to "hammer" them. It was possible that these suggestions might reach our soldiers; and military men were generally anxious to get into action if they could. He could see nothing in all this but a desire for prestige and military glory by destroying the followers of Osman Digna. Were we at peace or were we at war with him? The mission of General Gordon was applauded because it was supposed it would prevent war. We were supposed to be negotiating with the Mahdi and trying to put an end to the war by leaving the Soudan perfectly independent of the Egyptians; and it must endanger General Gordon's mission if simultaneously with it we allowed these hostile operations to be carried on. He trusted we were but temporarily at Suakin, and did not know why we should remain there. He believed that Suakin was a port of the Soudan; and if it were desirable to bring the Mahdi into contact with civilization, we ought rather to give him a port than deprive him of one. While we were there we must defend ourselves, and sometimes defensive operations required offensive operations; but if we could get the necessary assurances, that should be our only object in defending Suakin. He repudiated entirely the bloodthirsty declarations of the public Press. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had said that it was indiscreet to reply to a question as to the discretion vested in General Graham; but surely what was said in the House would not be telegraphed to Osman Digna; there could be no danger of that kind. The House had a right to ask that a telegram should be sent to General Graham to tell him that his mission was limited to the defence of
    1892
    Suakin, and that he was not to carry out the bloodthirsty policy of a part of the Press.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that although he rose to second the Motion pro formâ, he must by no means be supposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in the opinions he had expressed. But the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had been such that the House could not have the slightest confidence that they were taking any measures whatever to maintain the honour of the country or to protect the lives of those committed to their charge in the Soudan. There was reason to believe that the Government was not prepared to enunciate their policy, because the Cabinet was once more divided as to the course of action to be pursued. On the 6th of February the Prime Minister stated that the Government did not feel called upon to adopt any measures with respect to the defeat of General Baker and the safety of the garrisons, and the protection of General Gordon; but shortly afterwards a force was despatched. The House now had a" right to know whether the Commander of the Forces at Suakin had been sent there on a mission similar to that of General Roberts's in the Transvaal, merely to be recalled by the next steamer. The Soudan had been threatened by a rebellous movement, and the House wanted to know whether Her Majesty's Government thoroughly realized the position, and intended to do anything with regard to Kassala and other places. A great revolt threatened the North-Eastern part of Africa, and the Government had prevented the Sovereign of the country from defending his territory, while, at the same time, they paralyzed the arm of England which they were professing to use. The Agent of the Government had proclaimed the continuance of the Slave Trade at Khartoum, and the Mahdi to be Sultan of Kordofan. At the same time, the Government declined to say whether they intended to take any steps to protect Suakin from the fate of the garrisons which had already fallen. It was stated that the only way in which Osman Digma could be cheeked and the movement prevented from spreading was by prompt and efficient action on the part of Her Majesty's Forces; but still the Government went drifting on.

    1893
    The House had a right to know whether they realized the critical position in which they stood with, regard to affairs in the Soudan, and whether they intended to withdraw their forces before a decisive blow had been struck against that rebellion, for which Her Majesty's Government were mainly responsible. The Prime Minister had referred to the opinions of the civilized world; but if he had studied the organs of public opinion in Germany, Prance, Austria, and other Continental countries he would find them strong in their condemnation of Her Majesty's Government, instead of expressing approval of their policy. He did not in the least blame General Gordon for what he was doing, but only Her Majesty's Ministers. General Gordon had been sent out against his will to undertake an almost impossible task, for which he had no inclination; and in order to carry out his instructions he had been obliged to take a step which was a disgrace to the nation and to the Government—namely, to proclaim the Slave Trade. He hoped the Government would be able to satisfy the anxiety of the country upon this subject, and to state that they had at last seen their way to adopting a definite policy with regard to the state of the Soudan and the suppression of the Slave Trade. Until they were prepared to do that he could only describe their policy as one of vaccillation and inconsistency—consistent only in imbecility, and uniform only in want of courage.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had never had any hesitation in either speaking or voting against the Government when they were wrong; but he would be no party to needlessly harassing them in a time of difficulty and trial. He had not, therefore, stood up when his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton moved the adjournment, as he was substantially satisfied with the answer that the noble Lord had given to a Question put at an earlier part of the evening. The House of Commons had a right to demand from the Ministry a full and explicit statement of their policy; but that he thought they had got during the long debate which closed last Tuesday. He assumed that the Cabinet were carrying
    1894
    out the views that they then expounded. But, while Parliament had a right to ask for a statement of policy, they were not warranted in asking for information as to military enterprizes which were in the course of being carried out. The House of Commons could not conduct a war. No Legislative Assembly could do it. The French Convention tried and the Amrican Congress tried, but they both failed; and this House would fail too, if it made the attempt. He passed no judgment in favour of the policy of the Government—certainly, he did not endorse it. It had been supported, however, by a substantial majority; the Government had the confidence of the House; and it was a simple act of fairness to allow them to enforce that policy in a way that in their discretion appeared best. They were a deliberative, not an Executive Body. When the Executive asked for payment for the campaign they were engaged in, then would be a fitting opportunity to criticize their proceedings and to censure them; but to do so at that moment was not desirable. He quite allowed the force of what his hon. Friend had said. The Government were in an embarrassing position, and it was difficult to reconcile their action in one part of the Soudan with their action in another. In the East they were fighting, and in the West they were at peace. He was as anxious as his hon. Friend for information; but he so fully recognized their responsibilities and the difficulties of the situation, that unless the Ministers themselves were ready voluntarily to give a statement of their operations, he was not prepared to press them at such a time and under such circumstances.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I certainly do not think it would be desirable that I should attempt to follow the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett) into the general question of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan, which was discussed at considerable length a short time ago, and upon which the House then pronounced a very decided opinion. In reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I think he greatly underrates the possibility of mischief which might be caused, or the serious harm and embarrassment which might be caused to our Commanders in the Soudan by any

    1895
    indiscreet or unnecessary indications of the intention of the Government in this House. My hon. Friend must be aware that the telegraph is open from this country to Suakin, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that Osman Digna and the other Chiefs of the Arabs in the neighbourhood of Suakin have accurate and complete knowledge as to everything which goes on. Anything which is said here or at Cairo is reported direct to Suakin; and so far as it may be of any use, it comes to the ears of those with whom it may be necessary shortly to come into conflict. My hon. Friend says he does not know why we have undertaken the defence of the Red Sea Ports; but I can only say that that is a part of the policy of the Government which has been declared, and which is understood by the country, and which also formed part of the policy which was approved by the House by its vote of Tuesday night. If the Government are to undertake and have undertaken, and have the approval of Parliament and the country in undertaking, the defence of the Red Sea Ports, I think my hon. Friend himself must admit that the duty the Government have assumed does not by any means confine them to the defence of Suakin, within the limits of the fortifications of the place. It appears that a large body—a victorious body—of Arab tribes are within a short distance of the place, and we know that one of the leaders has announced his intention, not only of attacking Suakin, but of sweeping the British Forces into the Red Sea. Under these circumstances, it is, of course, evident that it may be necessary for the Commander of the British Force which is now on the shores of the Red Sea not to wait till he is attacked in Suakin. It may be necessary, absolutely as a defensive measure, to take the offensive and move against the hostile army of Osman. My hon. Friend has said that he does not wish to hold us responsible for anything written in the newspapers, some extracts of which he read. What reason has he to assume, from anything that has fallen from Her Majesty's Government, that they are disposed now, or are likely to be disposed at any future time, to undertake any such enterprizes as those he quoted from the newspapers. I think when my hon. Friend has some further information that the Government
    1896
    intend to adopt measures of that kind it will be time enough for him to call upon us to repudiate any such intention or design. We are not at present in possession of full information. We expect very shortly to receive fuller information from the General as to the state of affairs by which he is surrounded. Until that information is received the Government themselves cannot make up their minds what further instructions will be sent to the General. But it may not be desirable, oven when these instructions have been sent, to communicate them to the House. All I can say is, that the instructions, he far, were in the first instance directed to the relief of the garrison of Tokar; and in the next to take such measures as were necessary to secure the safety of Suakin. Those instructions may, or may not, have to be enlarged; but at present I think it would be extremely undesirable that I should give to the House any further in formation than that which I was able to give a short time ago.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought it very remarkable that on the last evening on which Mr. Speaker presided over the deliberations of the House, and when every Member was expressing his regret at parting with him, he should be called upon to put a Motion for Adjournment which he had so often described to the House as irregular and inconvenient. But he thought that Mr. Speaker would be inclined to agree that of all the Motions for Adjournment none was perhaps more justified than the present one, made as it was under the most rigid restriction and brought about by the unbroken silence which Her Majesty's Government on almost every occasion chose to preserve when asked to state their policy to the House. The only means of eliciting the policy of the Government was by taking advantage of the Forms of the House and raising what might be called an irregular debate. Was it not now a critical moment? They had a force in the Red Sea, ill-provided with the accessories of a military force—a force without Artillery, without Cavalry, and without commissariat or transport, and the House did not at the present moment know what it was intended to do with that ill-provided force. Her Majesty's Government had stated that they had sent a force for the relief of Tokar, and

    1897
    if they had not made that statement they would not have obtained a majority in that House against the Vote of Censure. Now, what were the Prime Minister's words, because he thought it was of the last importance that when the Government obtained a Vote of Confidence by stating a certain policy, they should be forced to adhere to that policy? Or, if they did not adhere to that policy a few days after that Vote of Confidence, their vacillation and inconsistency should be pointed out. The Prime Minister stated at the end of his remarkable speech in the course of the Egyptian debate that the Government were in communication with General Gordon in reference to the relief of Tokar, and that General Gordon did not disapprove the efforts being made to relieve Tokar. He said—
    "We have acted, therefore, without hesitation on our undivided responsibility for a purpose which implies no departure from our policy in regard to the reconquest of the Soudan, but with a view of rendering a small service to humanity which I am quite sure the House and the country will approve."
    He (Lord Randolph Churchill) entreated the House to observe that the relief of Tokar was the only object for which that expedition was sent out. No other object was stated to the House, and the expedition had no other purpose than the relief of Tokar. The Government on the strength of that expedition obtained a Vote of Confidence. Tokar had surrendered. He had remarked in the course of the debate that the expedition was too late, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), with his usual politeness, flatly contradicted him and said—" No; it is not too late." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge—what he had done several times before—that he was wrong, and that he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was right. What he desired to know from the Government now that Tokar had surrendered was why they were leaving that ill-provided force in a dangerous position on the coast of the Bed Sea. He challenged the noble Marquess to say whether instructions had not been sent to General Graham to advance against Osman Digna. There could be no doubt, he believed, that the announcement which appeared in the newspapers that morning that instruc-
    1898
    tions had been sent to General Graham to attack Osman Digna was an authorized communication. ["No, no!"] He asked hon. Gentlemen to wait until that statement was directly contradicted by the Government. He should be extremely surprised if they gave a direct contradiction to that announcement. Why had the Government given a discretionary power to General Graham to attack Osman Digna in his present position? What purpose could they possibly have in view in slaughtering the forces of Osman Digna? Her Majesty's Government had made over the Soudan to Osman Digna. The Prime Minister perfectly gloated in the prospect the other night of these tribes wandering about their ancestral homes in ancestral happiness. And he now prepared to give them this happiness by sending a military force of 4,000 men in order to decimate these half-naked savages. Not only had they made over the Soudan to Osman Digna, not only had the Government commissioned General Gordon to make terms with the master of Osman Digna, the Mahdi, but they were instructing their General to make war and slaughter the army of the man with whom they were endeavouring to make peace. How did the Government reconcile the facts that Osman was to be slaughtered and the Mahdi was to be rewarded? It was idle for the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) to shelter himself under the pretext that it would be inconvenient to tell the House what arrangements had been made. The pretext that had been put forward by the noble Lord as the reason for this step meant that Osman Digna had a correspondent at Suakin; that the correspondent at Suakin had a correspondent in London, who was able to expend an enormous sum of money in telegraphing out to the correspondent at Suakin, who in his turn would send to Osman Digna in the desert, the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Marquess treated Suakim as if it were a capital of Europe with an enterprizing Press. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheered that; of course, he (the Marquess of Hartington) made the statement on his own responsibility. He had heard many surprising statements from the noble Marquess; but none had more surprised him than the statement that there were people at Suakin who had

    1899
    the funds, resources, and intelligence to have immediately telegraphed to them every pearl that dropped from his lips to be sent on to Osman Digna. This was the idle and frivolous pretext by which the Government endeavoured to lull their Radical supporters into a false security, and kept back information from the House. But if it were necessary to defend Suakin, what, in Heaven's name, was General Graham doing at Trinkitat? To defend Suakin he ought to be there. All he could say was, that the policy of the Government with respect to Suakin seemed likely to be as successful as their policy with respect to Sinkat and Tokar. They would all be glad to know whether the noble Marquess could state, on his authority as Minister of War, that reinforcements were to be sent to General Graham, and that he was tolerably secure, though he was without Artillery and Cavalry, and two transports sent to assist him were on the rocks. He could not at all understand the policy of the Government—[Ironical, Ministerial cheers]—nor did he think that the hon. Members who cheered him understood it either. This matter was in itself sufficient to justify the Motion for Adjournment. The Government had sent an expedition for the relief of Tokar, and it was too late. Why did it not come back? Was it because the Government wanted to get something for their money, and that something human blood? Her Majesty's Government was no longer a Government of peace at any price; it was a Government of blood at any price. They had been too late to save the garrison of Sinkat from massacre, or that of Tokar from surrender; but, coûte que coûte, they would have the blood of Osman Digna. It was because the noble Lord dared not state to the House the instructions that had been given to General Graham that he had taken refuge in the idle and frivolous pretext previously referred to; and the Government hoped, before they were called upon in debate to vindicate their policy in this matter, that General Graham might have succeeded in taking the blood of Osman Digna; and it was thus that gunpowder and glory were to cover the vacillation and inconsistency of the Liberal Government. He was sure that the country and the House would demand further explanations, and, until
    1900
    those explanations were forthcoming, the Government would be suspected of almost any crime.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONdid not think that the somewhat violent style of address of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was likely to forward the object they had in view. He urged the Government to do something to prevent even a suspicion that the charge of seeking blood which the noble Lord made against them had any foundation in fact. He thought the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had done well in calling attention to this matter, and he could not agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that this was not the time to ask for information. If the House must not speak then, when were they to interfere? In a time when there was a period of danger, and when there was a chance of committing a great wrong, that was, in his opinion, the chance for the House to speak out. He wanted the Government to say they were not to undertake offensive operations against Osman Digna, and the whole object of those who supported the Motion for Adjournment would be satisfied, and the country would be satisfied too. He and some of his Friends supported the policy of the Government on the Vote of Censure solely on the ground that they were going to render a small service to humanity. What service to humanity were they going to perform now? He did not think it was any service to humanity to attack Osman Digna and kill several thousands of his men. He supported this expedition in the service of humanity with very great reluctance, because he thought a set of greater scoundrels than the Egyptian Rulers of the Soudan did not exist. Now all was changed. There was nobody to rescue, and if fighting was to be done, it was to be carried on for the sake of fighting, and to that he utterly and entirely objected. General Gordon himself declared that war was simply organized murder, and if our troops were sent to take the offensive against these people whom we were without reason calling rebels, it would not only be organized murder, but it would be deliberate and wanton murder. It was time somebody spoke out after what they read that morning in the London Press—and the Liberal Press was the worst of all. It made one

    1901
    shudder to read articles crying out for slaughter and blood for the prestige of this country. The Daily News led the way. He had not read The Pall Mall Gazette, but dared say it was quite as bad. He asked the Government not to give way to the disgusting clamour raised in the Press, but to trust to the humane and Christian feeling of the people of this country, which would bear them to a triumphant issue.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to give my hon. Friend an assurance which will, I think, be satisfactory to him. That assurance will also embrace part of the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), but I am not quite sure that it will be equally satisfactory to him. That assurance is, that neither by the London Press nor by the Foreign Press shall we be guided in the advice we give to the Crown, but that we shall be guided by our own sense of duty, acting under our constant knowledge of our full and absolute responsibility in this matter. A conclusive reason for putting a negative upon this Motion as the only way the House has of expressing any disapproval of the Motion is that which has been stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that is to say, it is impossible for this House to conduct a military operation. The only effect of its interference is likely to be inconvenience, or even more serious mischief in one direction or the other; but what it has to do is to keep a tight hand on the Government, and call it to account for its acts whenever it deems them to require its notice or its censure, but that to effect a substitution of this House for the Executive is really a course that can end in nothing but mischief. I do not wish to add a word to the statement of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington)—that is to say, as regards the debate or conversation at the point which it had reached; but the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) requires from me a very brief notice. The noble Lord closed that speech with an accusation against the Government, which I must call an odious and loathsome accusation. It seems to be the daily food of the noble Lord to conceive and frame these accusations. They are congenial to his appetite and to his taste, and I will not attempt to deprive him of the peculiar
    1902
    enjoyment which he appears to draw from that sort of occupation. Nor will I go one more syllable beyond what was stated by my noble Friend in the expression of any feeling I may have with regard to the justice of the accusation. If the noble Lord, as I am bound to believe, and I do believe, is actuated by a desire to prevent guilty blood-shedding, then I can only say he deserves great credit for entertaining that desire, and I should not wish to be too minute and critical in examining the means which he may use for obtaining so laudable an object. I need not have noticed that if that had been the only matter in the speech of the noble Lord; but there was another point which he put with distinctness, and which has been taken up by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) who spoke last. The noble Lord's point was to quote words of mine which appeared to be given with very great accuracy. He said I described the relief of Tokar as the first and only object for which the expedition was sent from Egypt to Suakin. Undoubtedly I did so describe it. But the House was perfectly aware when I used that language that the defence of Suakin we were already committed to, and when I spoke of the relief of the garrison of Tokar, I meant that that was an additional object, and a special object, for which this expedition was intended. Now I am not going to discuss the ground on which we had thought it our duty to provide for the defence of Suakin. That is an important question of policy. It was important with reference to the obligations under which we lay to persons interested in Suakin, British subjects having a distinct claim upon our protection in a place where the lawful Government of the place was totally unable to afford such protection. But it is also, I may say, a question of very great importance with regard, perhaps, to the peace of the Eastern world and the extinction of the Soudan rebellion—certainly and undoubtedly a place of great importance, and the tenure of which is of great importance with respect to the extinction of the Slave Trade, properly so called. Those, however, are matters on which I do not propose to enter. My only object is to remind my hon. Friend and the noble Lord, that the defence of Suakin was a purpose which we had announced to enter into our policy before any ques-

    1903
    tion about the relief of Tokar had arisen. I With respect to what the defence of Suakin may require, that, of course, is a matter upon which the development of circumstances might throw further light, and what is required for the defence of Suakin would manifestly be very much dependent upon the forces that might be in its neighbourhood, and the intention of the leader of those forces. On that matter, I think my noble Friend has given all the information that it is possible for us to give. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) endeavours to do that which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) has warned the House not to do. He asks about the security of General Graham. He asks about the sufficiency of his force, complains that it is not sufficiently provided; and, in fact, is endeavouring in his place in this House to perform all the most important and critical duties of the War Minister of the Crown. My noble Friend and his Colleagues are perfectly aware of their responsibility in these matters, and to allege and plead that responsibility is the only answer they can make to the noble Lord at this time. My noble Friend has referred to the defence of Suakin, and he has in answer to a Question acquainted the House that at the present time the principal object to which General Graham's attention will now be directed will be the safety of Suakin, which appears to be threatened by the tribes. And my noble Friend has frankly said that the defence of the place may involve the undertaking of some operation, which, in its form may be offensive, but which, at the same time, may in perfect good faith and in the strictest reality, be a defensive operation to ensure the safety of the place. Upon that declaration of my noble Friend I wish to stand. If it were true that we had used any language sustaining the doctrine of vindictive operations—if it were true that we had given any colour for suspicion in that direction, such as the noble Lord has now cast upon us—then I grant there might be some reason for pressure; but no such language on our part has been used. For my part, though I will go into no detail, I repudiate the charge. It is not sustained by any act or words of ours. Under those circumstances, I think the Government can say nothing except what has been said by my noble Friend.
    1904
    I should probably not have risen, except to point out that when I spoke of Tokar as the only object of the expedition, I knew that the House was aware that the defence of Suakin was an essential part of our policy in the present circumstances; and to the expression of these few words I cannot but add the hope that the House may think that, on the whole, there is no sufficient cause for continuing the discussion on a matter on which we had an exceedingly long debate upon a recent occasion.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is no doubt that of all the various classes of questions the most difficult are those which concern the relations between this House and the Executive Government in time of war or when hostilities are being carried on. I therefore agree with the doctrine that has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and by others, that this House cannot carry on a war, and must be very careful how it in any way interferes with the details of military operations. What this House has a right and is bound to do is to satisfy itself as to the policy under which military operations may be undertaken and conducted, and I think it is impossible to say that the events which have taken place within the last few days—or which have become known to us within the last few days—have not, so far, changed the situation in Egypt as much to affect the amount of the knowledge that we have of the intentions of the Government and of the views with which those intentions are to be carried out. I do not see that it would be right at present to press the Government for further information than that which was given in the speeches of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman; but I must say that, before very long, it will become the duty of this House to press for much fuller and clearer explanations than those which have been given to us. It is not a question whether our forces at Suakin are or are not sufficient, or whether movements are or are not to be made in a certain direction. These are all questions that are more of a military than of a political character; but, in order that we may make ourselves properly responsible for this policy, we shall be bound to require further explanations than those which we have received. The proper time for these

    1905
    explanations will be when we are asked to vote the money for these operations. I think the House will very soon be in a position to come to a vote on that subject, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us how soon we may expect that that Vote will be before us, and when we shall have the opportunity of raising a discussion upon it.
    Question put, and negatived.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    STANDING COMMITTEES—REVIVAL OF RESOLUTIONS OF 1st DECEMBER, 1882.—RESOLUTION.

      ADJOURNED DEBATE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th February],
      "That the Resolutions of the House of the 1st December, 1882, relating to the constitution and proceedings of Standing Committees, he revived."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
      And which Amendment was,
      At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided that no Bill reported from such Standing Committee shall be first taken into Consideration by the House at any date in the Session later than the 1st of August."—(Sir Baldwyn Leighton.)
      Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. MONKsaid, that he was not disposed to take any exception to the proposal of the Government to reappoint Grand Committees on the lines of those of last Session; but he thought that it was only right that Members who had had experience of the working of either of the Grand Committees should take that opportunity of saying what they thought about them. He himself had served on the Grand Committee on Law, and though he did not agree with the ton. Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who thought that Members were very much overworked who were called upon to serve on Grand Committees, he nevertheless thought that the Standing Committee on Law had been anything but a success, in spite of the exertions of the Attorney General; in fact, it had been a complete failure. Various reasons had been assigned for this failure; in the first place, that the Bills submitted to that Commit-
      1906
      tee were not proper ones to be considered by a Grand Committee; secondly, I that the principle of those Bills had not really been assented to by both sides of the House, that the number of Members serving on the Committees was very much too large, and that some Members attended very little, others not at all, while some came in about 3 P.M., merely to be "marked in." He thought that the number of Members should not exceed 35 or 40; but the real cause of the failure of the Committee on Law was, in his opinion, that it was far too complete a reflex of the House itself.
      MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that his remarks will be more in Order when the Main Question is before the House.
      MR. BIGGARrose in his place.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having spoken when the question was last before the House, is not entitled to speak upon it again.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Words added.
      Main Question, as amended, proposed.
      MR. MOLLOYsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he rose to move the Amendment which that hon. Member had placed upon the Paper. During the proceedings of last week very considerable dissatisfaction had been expressed by the Irish Members as to the way in which Irish Business was conducted from time to time. It must be evident to the House that the details of many of the Bills relating to Ireland were altogether beyond the ken of the House in general, and required a great amount of local knowledge, while they were well understood, as a general rule, by the Irish Members. It was from this want of knowledge of details on the part of the House and the perpetual meddling on the part of some hon. Members in small matters connected with Ireland, that many ludicrous mistakes had happened, and that several Bills had been absolutely unworkable. He thought that the common sense of the House would support him, as a very considerable amount of time had been wasted on the attempt to enter into details of Irish Bills. There was no proposition to take the Bills out of the hands of the House at large; they would consider them upstairs, and the Report of

      1907
      the Committee would come simply as a recommendation to the House at large. This would save an immense amount of time and add greatly to the value of every Bill relating to Ireland. He would now simply move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend, who would state his own views upon the subject to the House.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided also that one Standing Committee be appointed consisting of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Members representing Counties, Counties of Cities, and Boroughs in Ireland, for the consideration of all Bills relating to Ireland which may, by Order of the House, in each case be committed to them, and the procedure in such Committee shad be the same as in the two Standing Committees appointed under the above Resolutions of the House of the 1st December 1882."—(Mr. Molloy.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLdesired to point out in a few words the reasons why he should assent to the Motion of the hon. Member, provided it were amended so as to include, as Members of the Committee, his right hon. and learned Friends the Members for the University of Dublin, who—he did not know whether designedly or accidentally—were excluded.
      MR. GIBSON: No; the University is a borough constituency.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: Now, the reasons why he supported this Amendment were briefly these. It might be in the recollection of the House that the Order of the 1st of December, by which these Standing Committees were appointed, limited the subject-matter of the Bills to be sent to them to Bills relating to Law, Courts of Justice, Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures. No Bills could be referred to a Standing Committee until the principle was affirmed by a second reading. It did not even follow that all Bills relating to these matters should be necessarily referred to the proposed Standing Committee, for the words of the Amendment were "Such Bills as may in each case be committed to such Committee." Now, the reasons for which he thought it desirable that this Amendment should be accepted were these. In the first place, he thought it would effect a considerable saving of time. It could not,
      1908
      he thought, be doubted that if a prolonged discussion of the details of a Bill occurred in Committee it would, although not precluding the re-opening of the discussion in the House, have a material effect in shortening discussion, because the Bill would have already been discussed in the presence of those who represented the Government, and who, consequently, would have heard all the reasons urged in favour of it. There was a further Amendment to the Amendment which he intended to suggest, and it was, that in addition to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Government should have power of appointing on the Committee Representatives from either England or Scotland not exceeding three. Such a course of procedure would clearly have the effect of saving time. In the next place, the comparatively limited number of the Committee before whom any question was brought would bring home to each Member of that Committee a sense of individual responsibility for the proposals offered for acceptance. Lastly, its effect would be to bring clearly and distinctly to the knowledge of the House and of the country what was the opinion of the Representatives of Ireland upon any question affecting Ireland, which was at present exceedingly difficult, because few persons attempted in the mixed Division Lists to analyze the expressed opinions of the House, and determine what the opinion of the Irish Members was on any given subject. But it was a matter of the greatest importance that there should be placed before the House and the country what was the public opinion of Ireland as Constitutionally represented in that House. For these reasons he thought the Amendment ought to be accepted.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very much indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), in his temporary absence—the debate on the previous Motion not having taken place as was expected—for having moved his Amendment, and he was thankful also to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Charles Russell) for his able contribution to the debate. He must say that in this Amendment he followed a precedent laid down by the late Mr. Butt, a Constitutional lawyer of great learning, who moved a similar Motion when an Irish Bill was under consideration, and

      1909
      as it had now the adherence of another distinguished lawyer and eminent Liberal like the Member for Dundalk, he hoped it would receive the support of those "nominal Home Rulers "whom the Prime Minister had immortalized by conferring that name upon them [Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no recollection of it.] There was no doubt that it was the Prime Minister invented that name for them. Now, some men might look upon this as a Home Rule Motion in disguise; but it really had nothing whatever to say to that matter. He admitted that it was open to Members to say that the adoption of the Motion might be a step towards Home Rule; but he might say that many of his Friends around him would regard the adoption of the Resolution as a deadly blow against what was known as Home Rule. That those opinions might exist he had no doubt; but for his part he would wish the House to look at the Motion simply as an endeavour to promote the efficiency of the House for the purpose of enabling the House to perform its duties towards the Three Kingdoms, whose interests it had in charge. Although it might be a matter for argument whether Home Rule would be advanced or injured by this Motion, he would ask, was the House to look at this matter from the point of view which he had suggested—namely, how best to work the Sessional Order of the Autumn of 1882, so that it might be made an efficient instrument for the purpose of forwarding the Business which Parliament had now in charge? He thought it would be admitted by everybody that the Sessional Order of 1882 had not been sufficient to solve the problem it was intended to solve. There was just as much difficulty as ever in transacting the Business of the nation. The Prime Minister from time to time had urged that, in his view, the principle of delegation was the principle which he looked forward to as the most hopeful for the purpose of enabling the House to get through the greatest amount of work; but the principle of delegation which was fixed by the Sessional Order which it was now proposed to renew was perfectly useless, although he would admit not quite useless for the purpose of saving the time of the House. Then he found that the Resolution as it stood absolutely neglected the interests of Ire-
      1910
      land. The Resolution provided for important matters which were of much consequence to England and Scotland. It provided for the codification of the law, a most important matter for English commerce and trade. It provided for manufacture and trade and shipping matters, which, unfortunately, did not much affect the interests of Ireland; and its practical effect was that while the House provided for all non-contentious matters relating to England and Scotland, it left Ireland out in the cold. The Government contended itself, forsooth, with this assurance, that the time of the House was so much occupied during the first three years of this Parliament with Irish matters that all time now must be devoted to English and Scotch Business. That was the announcement practically made in the Queen's Speech of 1883, and it was the announcement practically made in the Speech from the Throne by which this Session was opened. Now, he denied that the Government was entitled to take up that ground. He submitted that so long as the English people and Parliament asserted their capability of legislating for the wants of Ireland that their first duty and care should be to carry out the obligation so undertaken. Irish Members came to that House as the Representatives of an unwilling people in unwilling union; and it was not a sufficient answer to them, under those circumstances, to be told that Parliament had not time to examine the just claims and just grievances of the people of Ireland. The time of Parliament had, no doubt, been occupied with the consideration of Irish affairs, but not mainly of remedial legislation. If they took numbers of days as the measure of the attention given by Parliament to remedial Irish legislation, they would find that in the Session of 1880 this number did not represent more than about one-third of the time at the disposal of the Government. In the Session of 1880 they would find that 14 days were given to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which was the principal measure introduced during the Session. All the rest of the Session, so far as Bills undertaken by the Government were concerned, was devoted to English and Scotch questions. Coming to the Session of 1881, they found that only one-third of the time of Parliament

      1911
      was devoted to the passage of the Land Act—53 Sittings, either wholly or in part, were given to the single Irish remedial Bill introduced by the Government in that Session, which lasted about 150 days. Coming to 1882, they found that 20 days were occupied in the passage of the Arrears Act. With the exception of these 20 days, all the rest of the time of the House had been devoted to English and Scotch interests, if they left out of the question the time spent in protesting against and bringing before the notice of the public and this House the results of the most mischievous policy of coercion in Ireland. It was not the attention of the House to Irish remedial legislation which had rendered the House incapable of doing its work; nor was it Obstruction, because Obstruction had undoubtedly been put an end to by the Rules which the right hon. Gentleman passed in the Session of 1882; but it was the inherent incapability of Parliament to cope with its work, which still remained, and which must continue to increase until some radical alterations were made either in the direction of his Resolution or in the direction of distributing the duties of Parliament among local Governing Bodies. What were the causes of this paralysis of the functions of Parliament? He traced them chiefly to the fact that this single Assembly had taken upon itself duties which ought to be distributed among a number of Assemblies; secondly, to the presence of a "foreign body" in the House, of which foreign body he considered himself a component part; thirdly, to the results of the coercive legislation undertaken against Ireland; and, fourthly, to the existence of "another place," which so far from serving as an example, and as a deterrent to evil-doers in that House, seemed on occasions to incite them to acts which they probably would not undertake were that "other place" not in existence. The first of the causes he had mentioned would undoubtedly increase from day to day and from year to year, and would produce congestion and blocking in all matters of importance. England had the greatest commerce in the world; she had the largest foreign Possessions, and the most extensive Colonies. She was more liable to be brought into contact with Foreign Powers, and a greater number of Foreign Powers, than any
      1912
      other country. Her cities were increasing in a greater ratio and to a greater extent than the cities of any other Power, and all those interests and affairs which necessitated the intervention and attention of Parliament were more pressing and more numerous in reference to the Empire of England than were like interests and affairs in the case of any other country. Take, for example, the United States. The United States had not one-twentieth part of the commerce of England. They had not her mighty interests, and could not compete with her in many matters. Yet how did the States do their legislative work? How did they attend to the wants of the 50,000,000 comprising her population? Why, they distributed the work among nearly 40 different Assemblies. If all the business of the American States was attempted to be done at Washington, instead of being distributed through local centres, there would be a state of paralysis nearly equal to that which prevailed in the British House of Commons. Canada, again, distributed her legislative work. She did not content herself with one Legislative House, but had several subordinate Local Assemblies invested with considerable powers. If England, with 10 times the need for distributing her legislative function, attempted by one House to do that which America found it difficult to do with 35 or 40, it followed that there must be paralysis. The Irish Members—"the foreign body "—had been held up during the last few years to odium, as a cause of the incapacity of the House to perform its work. It was said that their Obstruction, which it was alleged existed till very lately, was the cause of Parliament not getting through its Business. Well, he would admit at once that he believed the Irish Members sitting on those Benches were part of the difficulty which Parliament had experienced, and he thought that so long as they continued to sit there so long would they continue to be a difficulty. He did not for a moment mean to say, in regard to the great bulk of them, that that difficulty was intended. He thought that it was the reverse. Indeed, he believed he could show that it was the reverse. Take, for example, the last few years, when Obstruction, or rather what was alleged to be Obstruction by the organs of public opinion in England, took place in that

      1913
      House. Take the question of the Prisons Act. That was apparently a non-contentious measure until they came to that portion which was impeached by the Irish Members. Under the skilful guidance of the Home Secretary the Bill was passing through the House with the utmost celerity, when two or three Irish Members intervened in the debate, and from that moment till the measure struggled through its final stage there were scenes of constant difficulty and alleged Obstruction. Now, why was it that the Irish Members intervened in the Prisons Bill? It was simply because the question of prisons had an absorbing interest for many of the Irish Members. At the time, perhaps, it had an absorbing interest for only very few of the Irish Members; but since then the number of Members concerned about prison discipline had very much increased. So though very few intervened in the debate, yet by their resistance and Obstruction—if they would call it so, though he deemed that it was not Obstruction—they obtained improvements and the recognition of principles in the measure by which it afterwards became possible when the Coercion Act was put in force in Ireland to obtain something like just and humane treatment for the 1,000 persons arrested under its provisions. Then, again, take the Army Discipline Act, which enlisted the sympathies of Irish Members for somewhat similar reasons. They would find that if they looked back on the last and the present Parliament that the presence of the Irish Members was always a source of complaint from the fact that they took a practical interest in the questions brought before the House, but not with any desire to obstruct Business in which no section had greater concern than they had. He thought he had proved his case, then, that they must look forward to difficulties, not designed, but arising out of the nature of the case, so long as they had Irish Members in the House. That being so, why did not Parliament allow Irish Members to devote their energies and attention in Committee upstairs to the particular questions affecting their own country—non-contentious subjects, such as the question relating to the housing of labourers, which had been made the subject of reference to a Royal Commission he far as England was concerned.
      1914
      If the Government would agree to this Amendment, they would, in all probability, find that much of the energy now devoted by Irish Members to outside matters—to matters of a negative kind, and in regard to which they could only hope to act indirectly—would be applied to their own affairs, and that the experiment would be so successful and beneficial that it would be repeated. It was obvious that the results of coercive legislation had delayed the Business of the House very much. No reasonable or sensible Englishman could suppose that 1,000 persons, many of them of great responsibility and respectability, could be arrested, and their business ruined, and they taken away from their families, without causing considerable friction and discussion. When the last Coercion Act was passed—an Act which exceeded in stringency all the Coercion Acts ever devised by that House—no far-seeing Englishman could ever have supposed that such an Act could have any other result than that of creating considerable friction and discussion and obstruction in the Business of Parliament. As to the existence of that "other place" to which he had referred, it was within the experience of Members that Bills which had occupied day after day in that House were wrecked on the Charybdis of the other branch of the Legislature. He was sure that many would be disposed to agree with him that one great source of difficulty, if not of obstruction, was the continued existence of that "other place" of irresponsible legislators. Let hon. Members consider the present position of affairs so far as Ireland was concerned. Amongst the non-contentious questions which might be referred to a Committee such as that proposed by his Amendment were the extension of the Municipal Boundaries of Dublin and the working of the Labourers' Act. The Irish Members had secured a very good day (Wednesday) for their Agricultural Labourers' Bill; but in all probability it would be blocked, and then it would be utterly impossible to make progress, except by a miracle or some fluke, aided by as good management as enabled them to reach the Committee stage last Session. It was not reasonable to expect Irish Members to spend the whole Session in this country, and to deny them the opportunity of obtaining reforms of admitted evils.

      1915
      He hoped, therefore, the Government would consider the matter, and that they would agree, if not to his Amendment as it stood, at least to some modification of it by which non-contentious matters connected with Ireland could be referred to the definite judgment of the House by means of inquiry by a Grand Committee upstairs. He concluded by expressing a hope that the House would accept the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend, who had taken the matter in hand in his absence, or as he had said, some modification of it.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman must have framed the Amendment which has been moved in his name, and has been supported by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Russell), with a perfect knowledge that Her Majesty's Government could not accede to it, for reasons which I shall presently give. Before doing so, however, I wish to say, with regard to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that I regard it as a very noteworthy speech. It is one to which I have listened with very great interest, and one which, while it contains many propositions to which I cannot subscribe, and from which I must altogether separate myself, is yet, looking at the main staple of the speech, a most valuable and able contribution to the arguments in favour of Grand Committees. It recognizes in full that we can only cope effectually with the enormously increasing Business of this House upon the principle of the distribution of labour and by multiplying the means of dealing with that Business, as far as its details are concerned. With regard to the Motion itself, there are various grounds on which, as the hon. Gentleman has himself anticipated, the Government cannot accept it. One is that it is a step in the direction of Home Rule; another that it involves the adoption of the local principle of government, which many hon. Members may not see their way to accept in greater fulness than it at present exists; another objection is that the form of the Motion is faulty; and the fourth is that the present is not the time at which to consider the reconstruction or the full development of the principle of Grand Committees. I will not now deal with the objection based on the Home Rule argument, nor will I deal with the prin-
      1916
      ciple of local government involved, because I frankly own that I am rather sanguine in the belief that, if the experiment of Grand Committees has fair play, and is allowed to develop, it may be found advisable to refer to such Committees matters of legislation referring especially to particular portions of the United Kingdom. My main objection is to the form of the Motion, which is such that the Government could not possibly accept it. The Motion as it stands applies only to Ireland. How would it stand in the face of the country, even if we had arrived at the stage at which we should consider how to apply the local principle, that we should apply it to Ireland exclusively? It is quite plain that the claim of Scotland would be as undeniable as the claim of Ireland. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] Quite so; you may say you will make another Motion for Scotland, but that is an objection to your Motion because you do not propose a plan for Scotland. I consider that Wales has a fair claim of the same kind, and, moreover, that parts of England might profit very considerably by the judicious application of the principle. But that is not the proposal we have before the House. The proposal deals with only one particular instance of the application of the principle which, if it is to be applied at all, must be applied equally and fairly, in order that all the different parts of the Kingdom might take advantage of it. I am bound to say that if ever the local principle came to be applied in these Committees, it would never be upon a basis so exclusive as the hon. Member proposes. Then the hon. Member proposes that all Irish questions of a certain character should be remitted to a Grand Committee, consisting exclusively of Irish Members, with the exception of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who might or might not be an Irishman but who would, at any rate, be a solitary and undefended individuality amongst 103 Irish Members struggling to maintain existence in such a depressing atmosphere as that in which he would find himself. The legitimate consequence of adopting this Motion as drawn would be that not only must the same principle be adopted for all parts of the United Kingdom, but the Grand Committees must be constituted of Members who stood in special relation to the subject.

      1917
      The hon. Member has used expressions with regard to the working of these Committees up to the present time which are not, I think, justified by the facts. He seems to think that the experiment has been a failure. That is the very principle which the House has always rejected. It has always aimed at taking care that a Grand Committee should be a body in which the special interests should be largely and adequately represented; but it has never acceded to the principle that the Committee should he exclusively composed of those who may be called specialists. If it did accede to a rule so rigid, nobody would consent to refer Bills to such Committees, or when they came back they would have to go through the same ordeal as if they had never been referred. The hon. Gentleman said we were very nearly in the same position as if Grand Committees had never been appointed; that the experiment, if not a total failure, was very near it. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not press that proposition. Is it not an undoubted and indisputable fact that two very important laws relating to subjects which for a long time had each presented insurmountable impediments to the progress of this House in legislation—namely, Bankruptcy and Patents—were both disposed of last year, and exclusively through the medium of Grand Committees? We found that we were making a promising commencement, but still it was not such a commencement as would justify us in asking the House to go into the question at large. I cannot help thinking, and I believe that the great mass of the House will agree in my opinion upon the point, that we have not as yet had sufficient experience in reference to this subject as to warrant our putting forward any other plan. "Well, then, what was the only plan open to us to propose? It was a repetition of the experiment of last year. What would have been the case practically if we had taken any other course? Supposing we had endeavoured to bring in another plan, or to make some sort of amendment, the consequence would have been that every hon. Gentleman would have brought forward his own view upon one or other of the extremely numerous points involved in the question of Grand Committees, and the result would have been that we
      1918
      should have been obliged to sacrifice a large part of the Session, or go without Grand Committees at all. The only course we could take was to propose a renewal of the Grand Committees, exactly on the old lines, with a view to the enlargement of the experience obtained from that trial so as to place the House in a position hereafter—probably next Session—at all events, I hope, at an early period—to judge what shall be its final determination with regard to this enormously important question of the Grand Committees, in which I find, and in which I am glad to see the hon. Member finds, the best and the most hopeful, if not the only possible, instrument of restoring the House to a condition of due efficiency. It is, perhaps, enough to dwell upon this single proposition that we have no option, and cannot be parties to an endeavour to amend, in this or that single particular, the system of the Grand Committees at the present moment. The only thing we can do is to ask the House to again make a trial to enlarge its own experience, and then, when it feels the ground well under its feet, the Government might be asked to make a final proposal. I hope I have made good to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that the position of the Government is already defined for it, and that for us to accept an Amendment of this kind would be a total abandonment of our ground, and would be attended with great disadvantages to the Business of the House, and would be specially injurious to the views of those who regard the experiment of Grand Committees with favour on the whole.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the Prime Minister had said very much what he (Sir George Campbell) had intended to say, and he rose to subscribe almost every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He thoroughly agreed with what the Prime Minister had said as to its being necessary and desirable that some part of the system of Grand Committees should be devoted to local legislation; but he could not agree with the last portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he gave his reasons for not proceeding at the present time to carry out the views he had so clearly enunciated. He humbly adhered to the view of the Prime Minister that the Business of the

      1919
      House would never be efficiently perfected till they had a complete system of distribution of labour, and it seemed to him that the devising and carrying into effect of a system of that kind was a great work, and the most pressing at the present moment. He was, therefore, disappointed that the Prime Minister had not proceeded at once to give effect to his views on that subject. Life was short, and Parliaments were shorter, and if they did not do good work by means of those Grand Committees this Session, Heaven know when they should do it. After what the Prime Minister had said, it was hopeless for the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to go to a Division with his Amendment in the exact form in which it stood; and he hoped the hon. Member would amend it by leaving it to the House to determine of what Members the Grand Committee should be composed. He would not, under the circumstances, propose his Amendment for the appointment of a Grand Committee for Scotland. They hoped they should shortly obtain a Minister for Scotland, and the proper complement of that Minister would be a Grand Committee for Scottish affairs. He did not believe the system would ever be effective till they had such a Grand Committee. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork pressed his Amendment, he should move the following addition:—
      "That all questions relating' to Ireland shall he put to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in that Standing Committee, and not in this House."
      MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork's proposal that Local Business should be referred to Local Committees was one from which he would totally and absolutely dissent. It would be to break up that principle on which their great Parliament rested—namely, that local prejudices should be tempered by the general common sense. The Prime Minister had virtually conceded all that the hon. Member asked for, and a great deal more; only, like doctrinaire parents giving presents to good children, he pleased to keep it back for the domestic anniversary to make it more valuable. In promising its Grand Committee to Ireland, he added that if there was to be a Grand Committee for Ireland, why should there not be one for Scotland,
      1920
      another for Wales, and possibly others for other parts of the country? That was sufficiently alarming; but the Prime Minister went on to say that these Local Committees must not be composed simply of Members connected with the locality. The argument of the Prime Minister amounted to this—that the Business of the country was becoming so overwhelming that the old practice of legislating by means of Bills passed by the Whole House must give way to a system of General Committees. He could not accept that view of the matter. An experiment was made last year of appointing Grand Committees to deal with the special subjects allotted to each. They had a Committee on Trade and another on Law, and when that system was extended they might have Grand Committees on all social questions and foreign questions and various other subjects. The hon. Member for the City of Cork now plunged in with a counter-proposition for Grand Committees based on a geographical principle. The Prime Minister breathlessly accepted the idea; so it came to this—that the Business of the Empire was to be conducted, not by the House of Commons, but by two parallel series of Grand Committees, co-existent and inconsistent, one series to be based on the rule of subjects, and the other based on geographical considerations. The House only consisted, when full, of 658 Members, it must be remembered, and if such a system as this was carried out the present block, even in the blackest days of Obstruction, would be only a joke compared with the inevitable confusion of the future. The hon. Member appealed to the local and general legislatures of Canada and the United States; but the reason why the system of local legislation succeeded in these countries was that the local legislatures were in existence first as the governing bodies of independent Colonies or foreign States, and were subsequently united for certain purposes by a Federal scheme. But it would be a very different thing to break up the old Parliament of an ancient and consolidated Realm by attempting to create a "pinchbeck" imitation, which would be the first note of National decay and ruin. The prospect opened up by the joint agency of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and of the Prime Minister would, if carried out,

      1921
      only lead to an era of confusion, compared with which the one they had just advanced through would be peace, Paradise, and progress.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that for months he had had a Motion on the Paper to the same general effect as that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but he did not think it desirable that hon. Members from English and Scotch constituencies should be altogether excluded from the Irish Grand Committee. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) ought not to object to such a Committee, as the Land Laws of the two countries were wholly different; the landlord in Ireland occupied a wholly different position from the English landlord. Again, there were laws with respect to religion in Ireland which differed from the English laws. It could not be contended that if a Standing Committee were granted for Ireland it must be granted also for every county in England. The right hon. Gentleman did not desire that the English system should be assimilated to the Irish; and the institution of a separate Grand Committee for Ireland was a rational proposal. But the hon. Member for the City of Cork would apparently exclude all English and Scotch Members—even the Prime Minister himself, the author of the present Irish Land Law. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] He was glad to find that the hon. Member for the City of Cork did not carry his proposal so far; and in so far as the hon. Member only asserted the general principle he agreed with him.
      MR. GREGORYthought that the Grand Committees of last Session had done good work; but he did not think the distinction between Trade and Law could be maintained, as the legal question and the necessity of the presence of lawyers were equally prominent in one as in the other. But the success of the experiment depended on the exclusion of political or controversial matters. There had been none such in the Committees which passed the Bankruptcy and Patent Acts, and the Committee which dealt with a subject which did involve controversial matter broke down. On that ground he was opposed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; any attempt to introduce national questions would necessarily introduce political and polemical conside-
      1922
      rations, which were eminently unsuitable for such Committees.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) based his objection to the Amendment on the ground that its adoption would lead to putting before the Grand Committee contentious and political matter. But, as he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork, his intention was that only Bills of a non-contentious character should be sent to the proposed Committee. He supported the Amendment of the hon. Member; but he would have done so more heartily had the form of the Amendment been different, and had it proposed to introduce the element of English and Scotch Members into the proposed Committee. He thought, too, that the hon. Member should have embraced Scotland in his Amendment; but he supported the adoption of the Amendment in the hope that if it were adopted the system it proposed to introduce would be applied to Scotland as well as Ireland. Great benefit, he thought, would follow from the appointment of Committees on Scotch and Irish matters of a non-contentious nature. Not only would a great deal of the time of the House be saved, but Bills would receive far more adequate discussion than they now did. So far as Ireland was concerned, indeed, he did not think the change was so much required as it was in the interests of Scotland. The Irish Members were more numerous than the Scotch, and the Party of the hon. Member for Cork City was well trained to act together, and the result was that Irish measures generally obtained pretty full discussion. But it was quite otherwise with Scotch measures. The Scotch Members were few in number, and they had no union among themselves. He repeated it, they had no union, and the result was, that Scotch Bills were crowded into the end of the Session, and passed through rapidly without adequate discussion and often without any discussion whatever. They saw that in the case of important Bills at the end of the Session before last. He advocated the proposed change chiefly in the interests of legislation for Scotland and Ireland. The Prime Minister said if they extended the principle of Grand Committees to the affairs of Ireland, why not extend it to those of

      1923
      Scotland and Wales, and of the large counties of England? There were, he thought, obvious reasons why the system, if extended to Scotland, should not, on that account, be extended to Devonshire, or Yorkshire, or other English counties. He must remind the House that Scotland was in an entirely exceptional position. As had already been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, the whole system of law and the national institutions of Scotland were quite different from those of England or Ireland, and hon. Members outside of Scotland neither understood nor cared for Scottish affairs. On those grounds he was prepared to support the Amendment; and if it were carried, he would move a similar Amendment with regard to Scotland.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think anyone present would regard this Amendment in a very serious light, or attach any considerable importance to it. He bad been observing during the evening how many Irish Members had waited in the House to listen to the discussion of what was really an Irish subject. On one occasion he noticed that there were only 17 Irish Members present out of 103 who had seats, and at the present time the proportion was still smaller. This, as he had observed, was an Irish question, introduced by an Irish Member of considerable influence; and the state of the House showed clearly enough that it did not attract much interest. He heard the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which was delivered with all that plausible manner and that attractiveness of arrangement which the House was becoming accustomed to; but he did not consider that anything had been presented which suggested a solution of what were called the difficulties of legislation at the present time. The hon. Member said he proposed, by his Amendment, to deal with matters peculiarly Irish, to produce a large machine for dealing with Irish Bills of a non-contentious character; but who had ever known of any difficulty arising in that House in dealing with Irish Bills of a non-contentious character? But he would go further back. Who had ever known of a non-contentious Irish Bill? They had one illustration suggested to-night—namely, the Labourers' Act of last year, an illustration of a Bill which
      1924
      the new invention of a Grand Committee could have worked at with effect. He asked the House to remember that no one took any part in that discussion but Irish Members. They were allowed to work—it was not for him to say—their wicked will, but they were allowed to work their benevolent intention on that Bill, and to endeavour to mould the machinery into form; and no one but Irish Members spoke upon it, except, perhaps, the Representative of the Treasury, who thought it necessary to say a few words. A glance at Hansard would assure anyone that, with the single exception he had quoted, no English Member took part in the discussion. They had heard there were mistakes in the Bill; but, if so, the errors were certainly not the fault of the English or Scotch Members, but the Irish, so that that did not very much advance the discussion; and the House would see that it was not impossible for Gentlemen, so clever even as Irish Members, to make mistakes. He regarded the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork as one for the furtherance of Home Rule, notwithstanding that it was said to be necessary only in order that the people of Ireland might know what were the views of their Representatives on the various subjects relating to the country which were brought forward; but he would appeal to the hon. Member whether he thought the Irish Members in that House were so given to taciturnity as to leave any man living who took an interest in the matter in doubt as to what their views were on every conceivable subject? That, he was sure, was not the intention of the Amendment. He listened with much attention to the speeches of the hon. Member and the Prime Minister; but it seemed that they had forgotten one point, which was that the Committee constituted in the terms of the Amendment would have to deal with almost every Bill which was introduced, for they all applied to Ireland, unless that country was specially excluded. He supposed, however, that the hon. Member meant Bills which applied solely to Ireland—[Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!]—and, as that was not enough, he would exclude Bills of a contentious nature. But a great number of these non-contentious Bills, as they were called, were Bills which the Treasury, in some

      1925
      way or other, had an indirect interest; and was it intended that such Bills should be dealt with exclusively by Irish Members without the Treasury having any voice in the matter, or without a Representative of the Treasury being present, when they were drawing their blank drafts on the Exchequer for the requirements of Ireland? [Mr. PARNELL: The Chief Secretary.] The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not the Representative of the Treasury. No doubt, that right hon. Gentleman would occasionally be very pleased to give considerable sums for Irish purposes; but his benevolence was interrupted by the Treasury. This was, he believed, not a new proposal. The hon. Member for the City of Cork told them that Mr. Butt introduced the subject, and he (Mr. Gibson) had no doubt it was clearly and distinctly dealt with then. The only reference, however, he had been able to make to previous discussions on the subject, in the short time at his disposal, had been to the time when it was supported by the hon. Member for the City of Cork in the Autumn Session of 1882, on which occasion a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), supported by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who did not think much of its object. The hon. Member for the City of Cork then made a well-considered speech, and the Prime Minister dealt very clearly with the matter. He said the hon. Member's Motion might be very useful as a ventilation of opinion, but that it could hardly be taken seriously. He might point out also that its principle was wrong. Grand Committees were constructed on broad bases, upon agreement of principle, and not on geographical limits, or according to the views of particular Parties or cliques. Why, if it were granted to a section of the Representatives in that House, should it be withheld at the request of the Representatives of other sections? If Ireland were granted a Grand Committee, why should not Scotland and Wales each have a Grand Committee for the transaction of its Business? They had already Grand Committees on Trade and Law, and there was full representation on each for the various sections and Parties in that House. If special local knowledge was required, the Committee had power to add to
      1926
      their number such Members as would supply that deficiency. The hon. Member had disclaimed any reference to Home Rule; but others might interpret it as a Home Rule Motion, and if the House assented to it, that assent would be liable to misconstruction. He was opposed to anything like Home Rule for Ireland, expressed or implied; and because he thought that the proposal now before the House would not do any good to Ireland he should oppose it.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the proposal made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was a very moderate one. One of the features, perhaps, of that debate had been the extraordinary difference of opinion shown to exist between: the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), although both sat upon the same Bench" The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge minimized the effect of the proposal, which he thought indicated no danger of "Home Rule," and was but a very moderate departure; whereas the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin appeared to think that the understanding of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was defective. The former had been so badly off for an argument that he remarked upon the absence of Irish Members, of whom he (Mr. Sexton) believed there was a substantial representation both where he was and on the Government Benches, whilst where the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University sat there was not an Irish Member except himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had invited the House to believe that there were no non-contentious Irish Bills; but he (Mr. Sexton) believed that the Labourers' Act of last year, which had been referred to, was emphatically a Bill of that character, as it was supported by Representatives of all schools of thought; yet in consequence of the hurried manner in which it had been passed into law in a defective state it had since been found unworkable, and had entirely failed to effect its purpose in Ireland, to the great loss of the poorest and most helpless class, simply because it had not the advantage of being considered by a Grand

      1927
      Committee. As to the effect which it was said this proposal would have on Home Rule, the House ought to consider the Amendment on its own merits, rather than with reference to a question which was not before it. Then, as to drafts which might be made on the Treasury, surely it was open to the House, when a Bill came from a Grand Committee, to revise it from the point of view of right hon. Members opposite. It was not proposed that all Bills, even of a non-contentious character, should go before a Grand Committee. The proposal was, that any Bills which the majority of the House thought it advisable to refer to a Grand Committee should be so referred; and the House would have complete power over those Bills, both on the Report stage and on the third reading. The Prime Minister laid great stress on the argument that if the Government assented to the proposal they would abandon the ground which they had taken up. But if the ground was good ground, the acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member would not lead to the abandonment of the ground, but would rather strengthen, extend, and fortify it. He was not sure, however, that the experiment of the Grand Committees had been so successful as to entitle them to take a very sanguine view with regard to them for the future. The Bills on Trade, owing to the great tact of the Minister in charge of them, had no doubt passed into law; but of the two Bills on Law which had gone before the Grand Committee, one had been returned to the House too late to be passed into law, and the other had been abandoned at an early stage in the Grand Committee itself. And there was one great drawback attending those Committees. Hon. Members from the country, who had seldom before opened their lips, acquired such a habit of speaking in the Grand Committees, that they returned to the House having developed powers of speech of a most portentous character. One effect of the Grand Committees, therefore, was to raise up a tribe of orators who might make the glut of Business more embarrassing than ever. As to the argument of the Prime Minister, that if Ireland had need of a Grand Committee, Scotland and Wales might also put in similar claims, he could only say that he did not see why they should not; and if Scotch
      1928
      and Welsh Members supported the Irish Members in this proposal, the Irish Members would support their claims in return. He thought the Prime Minister would find that he had made a great mistake in refusing to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which, he submitted, would tend to relieve the Business of the House, conciliate national feeling in Ireland, and make legislation more efficient.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERremarked, that the objection raised by the Prime Minister seemed to be founded entirely upon the form and not upon the essential character of the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. In voting for that proposal he should regard it simply as an abstract Resolution; but if it had been a substantive Motion, he should have voted for it, because he thoroughly believed in the principle which it enunciated. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) intimated that he could not support such a proposal if it were interpreted as sanctioning a tendency towards Home Rule. That was a very unsatisfactory method of dealing with a serious question. It would be impossible for the House to arrive at a practical conclusion on any subject if proposals were always tested in that manner. He thought that while their experience of the working of these Committees had not been entirely disappointing, it still had not been sufficient to justify the sanguine hopes which they had entertained. He thought the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was merely renewing the Resolution of last year, and making it more likely to be successful when the Committee was composed of those best qualified from their local knowledge to deal with the subjects to be considered. These Standing Committees necessarily exhausted a good deal of the energies of those who worked upon them, and diminished their capacity to take part in legislation. The feature in the Foreign Legislative Assemblies which, at the very outset, struck them was the limited number of hours the House was called upon to devote to Public Business. Thus in Austria four or five hours daily were found to be sufficient to devote to the Public Business, simply because during the first days of the Session most of the work was done in sections under Com-

      1929
      mittees. The Imperial responsibilities of the Empire were extending from day to day, and if Parliament was to be made a sufficient engine for the transaction of Business, and for the successful management of difficult Imperial affairs, it could only be done by means of a large and comprehensive measure of devolution. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would bring this matter forward by moving a distinct Resolution, if he failed to win the support of a majority on that occasion, so that they might be able to devise some means whereby sectional Representatives might be trusted to deal with sectional affairs, while they were all united in that House by a common desire to facilitate and properly transact the affairs of a United Empire.
      MR. RAIKESdesired to call attention to the latter part of the observations which fell from the Prime Minister. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Mover of such a Resolution seemed to have some obliquity of mind. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not obliquity.] He thought the right hon. Gentleman might be mistaken in making that emphatic repudiation. To-day the Prime Minister came down, and unreservedly—as far as he could do anything without reservation—accepted the principle of locality as constituting a proper basis for a Legislature. But in so doing he had clearly shifted ground, because, in the course of a debate upon the Rules in the short Session devoted to them, in speaking against an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork which proposed a Committee to consist of Irish Members, the Prime Minister said the proposal might be a good one for the ventilation of opinions, but if it were meant seriously it implied obliquity of understanding to think that it could be entertained. [Mr. GLADSTONE: What was that proposal?] It was a proposal similar to the proposal now in dispute—namely, for a Committee consisting of Irish Members. If the present Amendment did not argue great obliquity of mind in the Mover, its acceptance would argue great obliquity of mind in the majority of the House; and he (Mr. Raikes) hoped the House would reject it. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely shifted his ground when he said that geographical limits might be a sufficient justification for separate branches of
      1930
      the Legislature—a principle which would involve Home Rule for each part of the British Empire. It was a saying of Mr. Canning's, or of some of the great men of his day, when the question of the Repeal of the Union was in the first instance ventilated—"You might as well restore the Heptarchy." If the Prime Minister was not prepared for the Repeal of the Union, he was willing to restore the Heptarchy. He had expressly admitted the claim not only of Ireland, but also of Scotland and Wales; and he did not know how much further he might be disposed to go—perhaps to the Isle of Wight, and perhaps to the Isle of Ely——
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that on the occasion referred to he carefully guarded himself by saying that he spoke only his own opinion, and not for the Government.
      MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not see that that much altered the case. It was well known that the right hon. Gentleman was Her Majesty's Government—that when he expressed his opinion he expressed that of his Colleagues and the great majority of his followers. The right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer could hardly be accepted on this question. It was to be observed that the wording of the Amendment excluded the right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin. ["No, no!"] Then it was considered a borough; but that was not evident, at first sight, to the ordinary English mind. It was said that the unfortunate Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could not be left on the proposed Committee to bear the attacks of Irish Members of three Parties, and that he would require to be supported by the Prime Minister, whose energies and time were too valuable to be spent in this way. In all seriousness he hoped the House would speak with no uncertain voice on this Amendment. He hoped Members would not adopt the view of the Prime Minister, but that they would take more emphatic and decisive ground, and that they would not consent to Home Rule by instalments, and establish an Irish Parliament at St. Stephen's or at College Green. When the House, with doubt and hesitation, accepted the Standing Committees, they did so upon the express assurance that they should be confined to matters like consolidation,

      1931
      codification, and non-contentious details, and that they should not assume any general responsibility for Imperial legislation.
      VISCOUNT LYMINGTONwished to state why he was constrained to oppose the Amendment. This was an inconvenient method of raising the question of Local Self-Government, and if the Amendment were carried it would have the effect of leaving a large number of Irish questions which were Imperial as well as local to a Standing Committee, and this would seriously prejudice the general ground on which Grand Committees stood, while it would not facilitate the settlement of the questions themselves, which would be sure to be re-discussed in the House.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if the proposed. Committee were to consider "all" Bills relating to Ireland there could be no restriction to non-contentious subjects, and substantially the proposal was the same as the former Motion to appoint a Committee to consist of Irish Members, as to which the Prime Minister was reported to have said that he doubted whether Parliament would sanction anything of the kind, as it involved an enormous Constitutional innovation. It was, therefore, impossible to say that the Amendment would bring about a simple continuance of the experiment of last year. It was really a development which had been distinctly repudiated by the Prime Minister himself. He had no great faith in Grand Committees, but the acceptance of the Amendment would destroy all the good which they were intended to effect. He resisted the Amendment as being contrary to the principles which had always governed that House.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that it seemed to be forgotten that it was the House itself which decided what measures should be dealt with by a Grand Committee. He distinctly recollected two instances which showed the necessity of the Amendment. One was a Bill dealing with cattle disease in Ireland. The right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), when he was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the late Government, held a conference with Irish Members of all Parties on the Bill, discussed its details with them, and by that means brought the Bill into such a
      1932
      condition as to be acceptable to Irish Members, and suitable to the requirements of the case. The other case was that of the Tramways Bill. They had only two hours to discuss the details of that Bill. He had himself several Amendments to propose, upon which he found it impossible to obtain the judgment of the House. The consequence was that, though the Act was a well-intentioned measure, it had been found impossible to work it effectually. The Bill might have been made a really effective measure if it had been discussed in detail by a Grand Committee. He pointed out that Bills would have to pass their second reading before being referred to the Grand Committee, and if that Committee altered the principle of the measure it would be open to the House to reject it on the third reading.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in supporting the Amendment, he had not changed the opinion which he entertained when, two years ago, he introduced an Amendment to the same effect when Grand Committees were established. Nothing surprised him more than the idea expressed by hon. Members that the proposal was of a Separatist character. In his opinion, the weakness of the Amendment was that it was of a distinctly anti-Separatist character; and when he made his proposal in October, 1882, he distinctly guarded himself from advocating the appointment of a Grand Committee as anything else than a temporary expedient. There was no final power in a Grand Committee, and the relegation of Irish Business to such a Committee would be an affirmance of the principle of Imperial legislation for Ireland, which would certainly fail in the long run. What could be the objections to the constitution of a Standing Committee consisting of Irish Members, for the consideration of Business at one stage relating to Ireland, always sup-posing, for the sake of argument, that the Imperial Legislature wished to rule Ireland according to Irish ideas and Irish wants? All that was asked was, that in the Committee stage of the Bill, which required, above all things, local knowledge and sympathy with local wants, Irish Members should deal with the measure. The Bill would still have to be reported to the House, and English and Scotch Members would have the power, in the last resort, of deciding

      1933
      with that sovereign indifference to Irish ideas against the Irish proposals. Where was the danger in this to Imperial unity; where was the danger, except to the Imperial ignorance of Irish affairs? If a moderate proposal of this sort was to be met by stout refusal, it was pressure from outside, as in the days of the Land League, and not argument inside Parliament, which would affect the consciences of English and Scotch legislators for Ireland.
      MR. WARTONsaid, the House was not yet in a position to pronounce a decided opinion that the Grand Committee system had succeeded. In his opinion, the Grand Committees had failed; and the only thing they had done was to agree to the principle of certain measures upon which the majority of Members were already agreed. He need hardly say that he should oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
      MR. FINDLATERsaid, as an Irish Member, it was his intention to support the very fair and reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 160: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
      MR. O'SHEAmoved the following Amendment:—
      "Provided also that one Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Labourers' or Artisans' Dwellings, which may, by Order of the House, in each case he committed to it, and the procedure in such Committee shall he the same as in the two Committees appointed under the above-mentioned Resolutions of the House of 1st December 1882."
      The hon. Gentleman said, that the same objections would not apply to this Amendment as had been urged against that upon which they had just divided, because it did not ask for any exclusively National Committee. The fact was that, owing to the want of a Standing Committee of this kind, an Act which was passed last year—the Labourers' Dwellings Act—was passed in a manner which had rendered it almost unworkable in many of the Unions of Ireland. He believed if Her Majesty's Government consented to accept this Amendment that a great deal of trouble would be saved, and it would be altogether unnecessary to include Ireland in the scope
      1934
      of the Royal Commission which had just been appointed. Of course, there was an objection that the Standing Committees were originally established for certain definite purposes, among which such a proposal as this could not be numbered; but the arrangements under which Standing Committees were originally formed were surely not governed by any law of the Medes and Persians. If there was any logical reason, as he believed there was, for extending the scope of these Committees to such a case as that which he had now put before the House, he thought it would be a misfortune to exclude it, and run the risk of doing over and over again in Irish remedial legislation what was done last year. The Royal Commission need not be extended to Ireland if Her Majesty's Government would accept this Amendment; because, however defective in detail the measure might be, the principle of the Labourers' Act was good, and, when properly amended, it could be applied to artizans' dwellings in the towns. At the present moment, however, it was impossible to work the Labourers' Act in Ireland for two or three reasons, one of the chief being that the questions of title and the cost of transfer rendered the expense enormous. A great many attempts had been made to carry that Act into operation; but, unfortunately, owing to the defects in the details, of which so much had been heard that night, and which must befall almost every kind of Irish legislation, unless there were some means of taking Irish opinion quietly in a room upstairs, he was very much afraid that many very useful pieces of legislation would be wasted when it was attempted to put them in practice. The question he proposed to put before the House was one which involved no subject beyond that upon the Paper. There was certainly no question of Home Rule contained in it; and, under those circumstances, he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to extend the operations of these Standing Committees at least as far as was covered by his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the Question, as amended, to add the words "Provided also that one Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Labourers' or Artisans' Dwellings, which may, by Order of the

      1935
      House, in each case be committed to it; and the procedure in such Committee shall be the same as in the two Committees appointed under the above-mentioned Resolutions of the House of 1st December 1882."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was not, on the average, more than one Bill dealing with the subjects mentioned in the Amendment introduced in the course of three or four years; and it was not, therefore, to be expected that such matters would be the subjects of annual legislation. If Bills dealing with these subjects were prepared with proper care, anything like annual legislation would be unnecessary. That, he thought, was a sufficient reason why the House should not agree to set up a Special Committee for the purpose proposed. With regard to the illustration given by his hon. Friend, and upon which his hon. Friend relied for proving the necessity of the Amendment—namely, that of the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill of last year, he could only say that an amending measure had already been prepared by some of the Irish Members, and be could only hope that it would be passed in the best possible form. He was sure that it would be the desire of the House to pass, without any great discussion, a private Member's Bill for such a purpose. He knew the difficulty which had been found in working the Act, and be was quite sure that the House would pass an amending Bill as readily as they passed the original Bill. Under those circumstances, he thought the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend was unnecessary.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to endorse everything that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that any Bill introduced for the purpose of amending the Act which had been referred to—any Bill introduced with the real and bonâ fide object of amending that Bill—would receive every consideration on that side of the House. He need not remind the House that a Committee sat for two years upon the subject, in 1881 and 1882, and made a Report, which contained very valuable suggestions. Those suggestions were put into an Act of Parliament last year; and he had
      1936
      been of opinion that the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the First Commissioner of Works would really have settled most of the difficulties which had arisen in carrying out the existing Acts. As far as the working of the Act went, all the Bills that were necessary to carry it out were dealt with by Provisional Orders; and, of course, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment knew that such Orders were matters that were dealt with in a special way without troubling the House. With regard to the amendment of the Act on the general question of the dwellings of the poor, a Royal Commission had now been appointed, and all the facts were to be thoroughly investigated, he hoped for the last time for a long time to come. If any further legislation were found to be necessary, of course it would be based upon the amending Bill; but, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said, they must not expect too much in that direction. He believed the Act, if properly worked at the present moment in the large towns, would carry out all that was absolutely necessary; and be gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was of the same opinion. No doubt, in regard to the country and some of the smaller towns, there was a great deal more to be done; and he trusted that everything that remained to be done in the country and in the smaller towns would be included in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, upon which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to ask him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to serve. He felt it was quite time that these matters should be seriously taken up; and he hoped that before long the law which affected the small towns of the country would be brought into conformity with that which applied to the large towns. He ventured to repeat what he had said in 1875, and what he believed to be perfectly true and proved by experience—namely, that in the large towns the existing evils bad been the growth of centuries; and they could not expect to remove all those evils, which had been growing up for so long a time, in the course of two or three or five years. On the contrary, it must be a matter of considerable time; a matter of considerable expense, and, to some extent, a matter of degree; and the real question was, how it could be done as

      1937
      cheaply as possible, consistently with what was due, and nothing more than what was due, to the requirements of the case? He had always held that property had its rights, and that those rights ought to be defended; but he bad also held quite as strongly that property had its duties as well as its rights. The object of the Royal Commission should be to see that, while the real rights of property were fully protected, the duties which attached to it, on the other hand, should be completely discharged.
      SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) would not press the Amendment. The matter the hon. Member proposed to deal with was now under the consideration of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Board had brought in four schemes under the amended Act, which were now being carried out; and there was every hope that the result would be satisfactory, and that hereafter bad dwellings for the artizan classes would be prevented. At the same time, he must say that if an Amendment of this kind were adopted, it would aggravate and intensify the expense of future schemes, and it would be much hotter to leave the authorities to carry out the arrangements as they best could under the existing law. The Metropolitan Board of Works had tried in every way to grapple with the question; and he thought the hon. Member would be astonished if he were shown the figures and put in full possession of the facts. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) believed that the Metropolitan Board of Works would succeed in carrying out their intentions; and, in the meantime, he trusted that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, which would interpose difficulties in their way.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member was intended to apply to Irish Bills, and especially to the Labourers' Act of last year. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the machinery for carrying out that measure was defective, and that the measure itself was practically unworkable. He was, therefore, glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government that there was a probability of the Act being amended; and he should be ready to support any
      1938
      Amendment that would substantially carry out the objects for which it was originally introduced. He believed that if the Labourers' (Ireland) Act were referred to a Committee composed principally of Irish Members, it might be so amended as to be rendered a perfectly workable Act. He had had some experience of the operations of a Committee appointed upon a similar principle in connection with a purely Irish Bill—namely, the County Courts Bill. That Select Committee was composed principally of Irish Members, and they came to the consideration of the matter with a practical knowledge of the nature of the work before them. The result was that the Committee were able to make the Bill a thoroughly workable measure. Whenever a Bill for amending the Labourers' Act came before the House, he, for one, would be willing to support any proposal in the direction of referring it to a Select Committee composed principally, if not entirely, of Irish Members.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board for the assistance he had kindly promised to the Irish Members in amending the Labourers' Act of last Session. But what he was anxious to provide for was this—that in the event of a Bill being proposed, and turning out to be satisfactory to the Government and the House generally, upon this question, there should be some chance of passing it through the Committee stage. He was afraid that the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) would not secure that object; but, on the contrary, it would certainly insure that the Bill would not be passed into law during the present Session, because they all knew from experience that when a Bill was referred to a Select Committee it was about the last that was seen of it in the House for that Session. The result, therefore, of referring the coming Labourers' Bill to a Select Committee would be to shelve it for the rest of the Session. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) fairly asked Her Majesty's Government to say that if they found themselves in a position to agree to the second reading of the proposed Bill for amending the Labourers' Act of last Session, they

      1939
      would afford facilities for getting the Bill through Committee. The labourers of Ireland had been subjected now for many years to successive disappointments in regard to this matter. In the first place, they had the Act of 1870, which proposed to do something for them. Then they had the Act of 1881, which also proposed to do something for them. And last Session they had the Act of 1883, which proposed to do something still more for them, and in reference to which expectations were largely excited. Nevertheless, all these Acts had turned out to be useless, and of no practical importance or avail for the object in view. He, therefore, thought it was of the greatest possible importance that some means should be found by the House, if not those suggested by the hon. Member for Clare, by which the Government might see their way to holding out some hope and affording some means, in the event of an amended Bill being introduced, of carrying it through all its stages. It was a matter which would not take very much time, even supposing that the measure was referred to a Select Committee, coupled with a promise on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they would give it facilities when it came back from the Select Committee. In that case there might be some chance of seeing it passed into law in the course of the present Session.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) that a Standing Committee should be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to labourers' or artizans' dwellings; but he thought, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, that he might say this. The hon. Gentleman was aware of the spirit which animated the Government last year in regard to the Labourers' Act. They would be prepared to act in exactly the same spirit in regard to an amending Bill, and would assist, as far as possible, in seeing that the necessary provisions for carrying out the Act effectively were introduced. They would even be more desirous of taking that course now than they might have been in the first instance in obtaining the original Act, because it was most desirable that the whole question should be put upon a satisfactory basis.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that the engagement made by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, coupled with the promise which had just been given by the Prime Minister, would render the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Clare unnecessary. He therefore hoped that it would be withdrawn. In regard to the observations which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), he thought the reference made to the County Courts Bill was somewhat unfortunate, seeing that, from some circumstance or other, that measure had not been carried out, owing to an omission on the part of the Clerks of Unions to send out notices in the spirit in which the Act was intended. He hoped in any new Bill that some provisions would be inserted to require the Castle officials to do their duty.
      MR. O'SHEAsaid, that after what had taken place he would not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
      MR. WARTONmoved, at the end of the Resolution, to add the words—
      "Provided also that neither of the Standing Committees shall sit while the House is sitting."
      The hon. and learned Member remarked that it might be said the object he sought to carry out was, to a certain extent, provided for by the Rules of the House. He believed that it was distinctly understood, when the question of Standing Committees was before the House, that those Committees should not sit while the House was sitting. But they all knew what occurred last Session. They knew that, somehow or other, the Government found it necessary to pass a certain Bill through the House; and in order that this might be done the Standing Committee passed a Resolution directing the Chairman to obtain leave from the House to sit while the House itself was sitting. He forgot the exact time the Committee sat in that way; but it was occupied in its labours for a considerable time after the proper hour. He thought that was altogether unjust to hon. Members who were

      1941
      required to serve upon Standing Committees. It was quite enough that, in addition to their labours upon the ordinary Committees of the House, they should be called upon to serve upon a Standing Committee at all; but it was highly objectionable to require them to sit upon a Standing Committee upstairs when the House itself was engaged in discussing important Imperial questions. It was the right of every Member of the House to be present during the whole of the time that the Public Business was being carried on. Indeed, it was the duty of every Member to be in his place; and if it was the pleasure of the Prime Minister to force these Grand Committees upon the House, the right hon. Gentleman ought not, at any rate, to deprive the Members of such Committees of their rights as Members of the House of Commons. In the interests of Members who might be appointed upon Grand Committees, he asked the House to agree to his proposal that no Standing Committees should sit while the House was sitting. He thought it absolutely necessary that they should guard against the danger he had pointed out, and that there should be a clear and unequivocal understanding as to the time at which the Standing Committees should sit. No doubt they had already had an understanding; but he wanted something more satisfactory than the understanding arrived at the year before last. What he wanted was that in some clear and regular terms—such as those embodied in his Amendment—the question of the sitting of the Grand Committees should be defined without necessitating a reference to other Rules and Regulations, which only tended to embarrass the action of the Committees. It was quite possible now, if any hon. Member objected to sit when the House itself was sitting, for other Rules and Regulations of the House to be referred to, and for those who objected to be told that it was provided in Rule 45, or some other number in conjunction with some other Rule, or Standing Order, that the Committee had power to sit. It was possible at present for all sorts of arguments to be made use of in support of that theory; and he wanted to have an unmistakable Rule laid down by a Special Resolution, in order to make it impossible that any Standing Committee could sit while the House was
      1942
      sitting. It was only due to the House itself—and the Members of the Grand Committees also—that this course should be taken. The effect of the uncertain state of the existing Resolutions was that in more than one case every Member of a Grand Committee was compelled to remain in attendance upon the proceedings of the Committee upstairs, because an attempt was being made to carry an objectionable Amendment or Resolution. The consequence was that such Members were prevented from taking part in the Public Business of the House. Under those circumstances, he begged to move his Amendment, with the utmost confidence that it would receive the approval of the House; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be able to accept it, although, no doubt, the astute mind of the right hon. Gentleman would enable him to find a flaw in it.
      MR. TOMLINSONseconded the Amendment. He was of opinion that it was most desirable that no part of the House should be sitting on a Grand Committee while the whole House was engaged in transacting its ordinary Business. At the same time, he did not think they ought to put upon the Committee the responsibility of refusing to sit, if there happened to be an important question for the consideration of the Committee. He knew personally, in regard to the Sittings of the Standing Committees last Session, that many of the Members of those Committees came to the House jaded and tired, when they ought to have been fresh and fully prepared to discharge the duties they were called upon to perform. It would easily be understood that when an energetic and powerful Minister in charge of a Bill had submitted a Resolution to continue the Sitting, hardly any Member of the Committee would like to be the first to shirk the work, however indisposed he might be to continue it. Every Member of the Committee, therefore, felt himself called upon to vote for continuing the Sitting, and the Committee would unanimously pass a Resolution authorizing the Sitting to be prolonged beyond the proper hour. He thought that was placing upon the Committee a responsibility which it ought not to bear, and that it was for the House itself to undertake the responsibility of saying that under no circumstances

      1943
      should a Grand Committee sit while the House was sitting. It was only by the adoption of a fixed Rule of that nature that the House would enable the Members of these Grand Committees to do justice, not only to themselves, but to their constituents.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end thereof, to add the words "Provided also that neither of the Standing Committees shall sit while the House is sitting."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped that the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would receive favourable consideration, or that the House would have some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they would not, in the coming Session to which the Order extended, propose that the Grand Committees should sit during the sitting of the House. There were some strong objections raised last year to the proposition that these Committees should sit at any time during the sitting of the House, and certain words were inserted in the Standing Order to guard, as far as possible, against that course being taken. He was quite sure that the experience of those hon. Members who had sat upon the Grand Committees during last Session would have increased very much their objection to the imposition of double work of this kind upon Members of the House. He was of opinion that what had actually occurred showed that the Standing Order, as at present framed, hardly met the necessities of the case; because, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade had actually suggested to the Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill that their Chairman should apply for leave to sit during the sitting of the House, although he did not proceed to carry out his intention, because he found the opinion of the Committee was so strong against it. The Law Committee was never asked to take that course at all. Now, what was the Standing Order on the subject? It referred to Standing Order No. 56, which provided that Committees should have leave to sit on Wednesdays and other Morning Sittings during the sitting of the House, and so far excluded
      1944
      Standing Committees from the operation of that Order as to enact that an Order of the House should be necessary to enable them to sit during the sitting of the House. Any hon. Member who had served upon a Select Committee knew how easily such an Order was obtained. If a Select Committee desired to sit during an Evening Sitting of the House, all that was necessary was that some hon. Member should come down to the House at an early period of its Sitting, and a Motion was made, without Notice, that the Select Committee should have leave to sit during the sitting of the House. That Motion was put and carried as a matter of course, and leave was accordingly given. He must say that any proceeding of that kind on the part of the Chairman or of any Member of a Standing Committee would be open to great objection, and yet such a proceeding was permitted by the Standing Order. If Her Majesty's Government could not accept the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, he trusted that, at any rate, they would say that it was not their intention, as far as they could foresee, to move in the course of the Session that a Standing Committee should obtain permission to sit during the sitting of the House; and that if any unforeseen circumstance should arise which induced either of the Standing Committees to agree to sit during the sitting of the House, no Motion for Leave should be made without due Notice having been previously given to the House, in order to secure that the matter should be fairly considered, and the real judgment of the House taken upon it.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he was afraid that he was unable to assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He had been really at a loss to know what the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was. He did not know whether it was intended to be a repetition of the provision already contained in the Standing Order, or if it was to be something that was to be in conflict with it.
      MR. WARTON: It is a modification of it.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he now understood from the hon. and learned Member that the Amendment was intended to be a modification of the provision of the Standing Order; and all he had to say was that it appeared to him to be both

      1945
      unnecessary and undesirable for the House to agree to such an Amendment. These Standing Committees were expressly prohibited from sitting during the sitting of the House. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had already pointed out that the Standing Order of the 21st of July, 1856, which gave Select Committees leave to sit on Wednesdays and during other Morning Sittings of the House, did not apply to Standing Committees. It, therefore, appeared to him (Mr. Dodson) that the matter was fully provided for; and he remembered that a discussion took place upon this very question when the propriety of appointing Standing Committees was discussed in the Autumn Session of 1882, and the words quoted by the right hon. Baronet were inserted, in order to meet the objection that it was undesirable for the Standing Committees to sit during the sitting of the House without the express leave of the House in each case. So far as his recollection went, the words which were now taken exception to were inserted for that purpose. If they were now to strike out the words "without an Order of the House," would it be a proper way of dealing with the subject to amend the Standing Order thus? They would still find themselves unable to bind the House not to give leave. It would still remain in the power of the Committee to make the application, and in the power of the House to accede to it; and the only effect would be that it might make the proceedings somewhat more difficult. All purposes were completely answered as the matter now stood. As a matter of fact, he did not think that a Standing Committee sat last Session while the House was sitting.
      MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. A Standing Committee sat constantly during the sitting of the House.
      MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, the Bankruptcy Committee sat; but the Law Committee did not.
      MR. DODSONsaid, that he was a Member of the Law Committee, and he had no recollection of its sitting during the sitting of the House; but he would not say whether the Bankruptcy Committee did or did not. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was the Chairman of the Bank-
      1946
      ruptcy Committee, and would be able to say.
      MR. WARTONsaid, that also was a mistake. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was not the Chairman of the Committee.
      MR. DODSONsaid, his right hon. Friend was in charge of the Bankruptcy Bill, and it was the impression of his right hon. Friend that that Committee did not actually sit during the sitting of the House. If, however, it had done so, it was not very frequently, and only after the leave of the House had been first obtained, and that leave would not be requested except by the wish and at the desire of the Committee itself. The object of inserting the words in the Standing Order was to give a Select Committee power to sit with the leave of the House, if, on any special occasion, it might seem to them to be expedient that they should do so. He must say that it appeared to him undesirable to fetter the Committee and the action of the House itself by providing that a Standing Committee should be unable to obtain the leave of the House on a special occasion. He considered that such a course would be most objectionable.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he remembered, to wards the end of last Session, the proposal being made that the Bankruptcy Committee should sit during the sitting of the House; but he and other Members of the Committee objected. He hoped the House would receive from the Government some assurance that they, at all events, entered into the spirit of the opposition to the sitting of these Committees during the sitting of the House. There was no doubt a good deal of discussion upon the subject in the Autumn Session of 1882, and it was after that discussion that the words of the Standing Order were settled. If the Motion were now adopted, he was afraid it would be in direct conflict with the Standing Order; and the proper way of amending the Standing Order would be to omit the words" without the leave of the House." Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) said, the House was omnipotent, and could at any time order a Committee to sit if it was so minded. His (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) objection, as he had said before, to the sitting of the Grand Committees

      1947
      during the sitting of the House was not on the ground of the convenience of hon. Members—although that was not to be lightly regarded—but it was upon another ground altogether. Hon. Members who served upon Private Bill Committees and other Committees during the sitting of the House must take the consequences; but he thought that the object of appointing these Standing Committees was to substitute them for a Committee of the Whole House; and if it was intended that they should give satisfaction to the House in discharging an important and a permanent part of the work of the House, there was nothing more likely to prevent that consummation from being realized than the practice, at the instance of the Government, in order to pass some Bill in which the Government were especially interested, of breaking down the general Rule that these Committees, composed of so large a number of Members, should not sit simultaneously with the House. Such a practice was one that ought not to be countenanced or thought of. Therefore, notwithstanding what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he still hoped to hear from the Government that they would, as far as possible, avoid what he could not help regarding as the fundamental mistake of appointing Committees to consider the most important public questions, and then encouraging them in sitting during the sitting of the House. He was quite certain that such a practice would greatly militate against the future usefulness of Grand Committees.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was afraid that hon. Members opposite did not understand what took place in reference to this matter; and as he was answerable for the misunderstanding caused by a remark of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), he would at once say that it was not the case that the Committee on Trade sat during the sitting of the House last year, and he wished to give an explanation. He had had an opportunity of conversing with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), and he was now in full possession of the facts of the case. In the first place, no Resolution was come to, either by the Government or anybody else, that the Grand Committees should sit during the sitting of the
      1948
      House; but when the Morning Sittings began, it was thought that as the Committee would sit for so short a time, once a-week, it was desirable that they should meet at 12, and extend their Sittings until half-past 2. A proposal was made, as a matter of fact, by an hon. Member on the other side of the House—although he did not admit that there were two sides of the House upon the Trade Committee—a proposal was made that the Chairman should apply for the leave of the House to sit during the time of Business up to Question time, and accordingly the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) did make that proposal to the House. It was assented to by the House after a discussion, and in consequence of the leave thus obtained the Committee sat during the latter part of their work until half-past 2 o'clock on Morning Sittings.
      MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)thought the Committee sat until 3.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was not so; they only gained half-an-hour, or until the time when the Questions were usually reached, and the practice only extended over a portion of the time the Committee sat. He had now, he believed, placed the House in full possession of what occurred in the Committee on Trade; and he thought it would be rather hard to ask the Government to exclude future Committees from doing the same thing if, as on the occasion to which he referred, it was done with the assent of every Member of the Committee. He would give the House an assurance that there was no intention or desire on the part of the Government to press any proposition of this kind. They would not think of doing it, unless with the general wish of the Committee, and then only to the extent to which it had been carried before.
      MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was of opinion that the statement they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was the strongest argument to show that the matter would not stand on a satisfactory basis unless some alteration of, or addition to, the Standing Order were made. He had heard the last words of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction—namely, that it was not the desire of Her Majesty's Government to allow these Committees to sit fit the same time the House was sitting.

      1949
      Upon that point he thought they would all agree; but the preceding portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman only demonstrated the fact that whatever the wishes and good intentions of the Government might be, they were but ill fortified by the powers already possessed. The same intention and desire existed last year; but the stress came on late in the Session. The stress was that very stress which the House foresaw in the Autumn of 1882. Although some hon. Members were believers in the utility of these Standing Committees, he confessed that he had never believed in them. He had foreseen that the stress would come at the time when there was a collision between the sitting of the Standing Committees and the Morning Sittings of the House. He ventured to say that the House, by a preponderance of conviction, if not unanimously, intended in the Autumn Session to provide against the sitting of the Grand Committees during the sitting of the House; but in the difficulty and hurry-scurry of the legislation which took place in that wretched Autumn Session in November, words thrown out by the Prime Minister were adopted in the Resolution which made it possible for the intentions of the House to be frustrated; so the compromise then entered into, as compromises were apt to do, happened to break down. And what was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman said they did so? Some Members of the Trade Committee discovered that they had some private arrangements which made them unwilling to go in for the slight change of day which would have set matters right, and that was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman would not press on the Committee an arrangement which ought to have been made. But he must say that he saw no sufficient reason for adhering to the mistake of 1882. It showed that the settlement did not stand on a satisfactory basis. The House had declared very strongly what its wishes and desires and intentions were. The right hon. Gentleman had very fairly and clearly ranged himself on the side of the same intentions; and yet, by an unfortunate compromise, they found that where the stress was strongest the resisting power was weakest, and that the evil complained of might be perpetrated over and over again of the Standing Committees con-
      1950
      tinuing their work while the House was sitting. He considered that a case had been made out for an alteration in the Rules, in the sense of greater stringency, and making them really preventive of the evils in question; and he thought it would be a mistake to part with the question before the House before the remedy was reached.
      MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, as a Member of the Standing Committee on Trade, he was present when the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was moved; and he ventured to say on that occasion that, in his opinion, it was unnecessary that the Members of the Committee should be present in the House when the Questions were being put. His point was that Members of the Committee could arrange to put down their own Questions for days when it was convenient to them to be in their places in the House, and that they could continue to sit upstairs until the real Business of the House commenced. For those reasons, he had ventured to suggest that they should sit until 3 o'clock. His view, however, was not carried out, and the result was that it was decided to adjourn at half-past 2 o'clock. On the application of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Goschen), who was not then in his place, the House gave leave for the Committee to sit until that time; and, if his memory was right, it was also arranged that they should meet an hour earlier. He was sorry to differ from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and other Gentlemen on that side of the House. He could not on this occasion go into the Lobby with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport, because it certainly seemed to him undesirable that in this matter the House should commit itself to a hard-and-fast line. It would, he presumed, be for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), or any other Gentleman presiding over a Grand Committee, to come down and ask leave of the House as to the hour at which the Committee should cease its labours. That he regarded merely as a formal matter; because when any Gentleman who presided over a Standing Committee, fortified by the unanimous opinion of the Committee, came down to ask leave of the House,

      1951
      he did not think it likely that such leave would be refused. When the House appointed the Standing Committees it had confidence in them, and in the Gentlemen who presided over them; and, therefore, he repeated that, in his opinion, it was not well that the House should adopt a hard-and-fast line in this matter, which might in future fetter its action. He was aware that the experience of hon. Gentlemen who served on the Standing Committee on Law was very different from that of Members of the Standing Committee on Trade; and he was bound to say that the former Committee seemed to have fully justified the expectations and wishes of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the establishment of Standing Committees. For the reasons stated, and differing with very great regret from hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually acted, he should be unable to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend if he thought it necessary to divide the House upon it.
      MR. ECROYDsaid, he would press strongly on the right hon. Gentleman opposite the policy of giving such an assurance with regard to this question as would make it unnecessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport to carry his Amendment to a Division. He could himself testify to the great inconvenience experienced by willing workers on the Bankruptcy Bill last year, in consequence of the prolonged hours of sitting of the Standing Committees complained of by his hon. and learned Friend; for all hon. Members would know how many matters demanded the attention of Gentlemen representing large constituencies at the commencement of the daily Sittings of the House. If the Standing Committees were hereafter to be made permanent, he thought it would be good policy on the part of the Government to make the small concession asked for, and to give a positive assurance that the Standing Committees would not be required to work when the House was in Session.
      MR. PULESTONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) that it would be very unwise to establish any hard-and-fast rule in respect of the time during which the Standing Committees should sit. He was, however, bound to point out that
      1952
      one cause of the unpopularity of the Standing Committees, notwithstanding the way in which they had worked so far, was that many hon. Members felt that their constituents were practically disfranchised, because their Representatives were excluded from participation in Parliamentary work, and the remedy for this must be the appointment of a number of Standing Committees on something like the system in the American Congress, where every subject had its appropriate Committee, and every Member was occupied on one or other of those Committees. Thus the House was saved the discussion of useless measures, and was able to concentrate its efforts on the result of the action of its Committees.
      MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the Standing Committee of which he was a Member was asked to sit a great many times when the House was in Session. He pointed out that a Member who took a great interest in the subject brought before a Standing Committee, and attended the Sitting from 11 in the morning till half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon—as was the case on the Standing Committee on Law—came down to that House fagged; and if there was no interval between the rising of the Committee and the sitting of the House, he was certainly not able to do his duty in respect of the Business of the House. For his own part, he had never missed a Sitting of the Committee of which he was a Member; he was present from the beginning to the end of the Sitting; and he certainly found it a great strain upon his powers to have to rush from the Committee Room to take his place in the House. He cordially supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, and trusted the Government would see their way to adopt it.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it was the understanding last Session that the Standing Committees should not sit during the sitting of the House, except on special occasions; but when a certain period of the Session was reached the Committee on Trade sat constantly when the House was in Session. The leave of the House, which was supposed to be the safeguard of Members, was asked, not every time it was necessary, but once for all. He and his hon. Friends did not say Her Majesty's Government were not adhering to the letter of the Rule, but they were certainly not adhering to

      1953
      the spirit. He had said, in the discussion of last year, that the proposal of the Government was a dangerous one; it was contrary to the understanding upon which the Grand Committees were appointed. He certainly preferred having these words left out of the Rule altogether, unless some understanding were arrived at. If the Government meant that the Standing Committees were to sit during Morning Sittings of the House, it would he better that they should say so at once—they had better take out the words from the Standing Order, and not leave the matter in this doubtful and shadowy condition. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said—"We sat last year until the time when the Questions began;" but when he made that statement he seemed to have been under the impression that the Questions began at Morning Sittings at half-past 2 o'clock; but, as a matter of fact, they began immediately the Private Business was disposed of, which was very often the case at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock. The House was at present in a complete state of mystification on this subject; and he repeated that it was his opinion that if the Government intended to adhere to the precedent of last year, that the Committees should sit during the Morning Sittings of the House, it would be better to say so at once, and put an end to the uncertainty which existed on this subject.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
      MR. MONKsaid, if he had had the opportunity at an earlier period of the evening, he should have wished to point out some of the causes of failure in respect to the Grand Committee on Law, which reflected but too accurately many of those well-known features in that House which had for so long impeded and prevented legislation within its walls. But as the Government had, in his opinion, wisely limited the experiment to one year, it would not then be necessary for him to take up any length of time in discussing the subject. His object in rising was to ask for some further declaration on the part of the Government in reference to the announcement made by the noble Mar-
      1954
      quess the Secretary of State for War when he introduced the present Resolution. The noble Marquess on that occasion said that last year it was understood that none but Government Bills should be referred to the Grand Committees; he said that was an engagement which the Government would be quite willing to renew if the House desired it; but in the event of a private Member's Bill reaching its second reading stage, the Government would not raise an objection to its being considered by a Standing Committee, if there were a general wish on the part of the House to that effect. Now, it was well known that the greater number of Bills dealing with banking and commercial matters were introduced into that House by private Members; those Bills were frequently read a second time; but it was absolutely impossible that they should be considered in Committee of the Whole House. Many of those measures might, with great advantage, take their place in the Statute Book; and he, therefore, wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not give an undertaking to the House that they would not oppose the sending of such Bills to the Standing Committees after they had been read a second time?
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that, before any answer to this appeal was made from the Treasury Bench, he should like very much to ask for some undertaking or pledge from the Government with regard to the much more serious question which was raised by the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General at the end of the last Session of Parliament. He was sorry they had not had an opportunity of hearing at greater length the observations of his hon. Friends opposite on the subject of the Grand Committee on Law. Those observations would have been interesting and improving, no doubt; but the most interesting thing which had happened in regard to the Law Committee was this. Two measures were referred to it—the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill and the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill—and, by direction of the House, the former, when passed, was to be incorporated with the latter. The Court of Criminal Appeal Bill passed through the Committee after a certain number of Sittings, which were well attended,

      1955
      considering the enormous pressure the work of the Committee was upon those who were naturally made Members of it. The Bill passed through the Committee, and then it was hung up in consequence of the Committee addressing itself to the other subject, which it was obvious it could not possibly deal with—namely, the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill. The Court of Criminal Appeal Bill was brought back to the House very late in July, and the Attorney General one day announced that he intended to ask the House to strike out the alterations which had been made in it in the Grand Committee, and to restore it to the condition in which it was brought in by the Government, in order that it might be passed in the following Session. That appeared to him (Mr. E. Clarke) to be a great violation of the understanding upon which the Grand Committees were appointed. The very meaning and purpose of the Grand Committee was to substitute for the unwieldy and, to a certain extent, uninstructed body of the House, a body that might be able, with all the authority of the House, to deal with the matter, and put the measure in a condition proper to be passed into law. The object of the Grand Committee would be entirely defeated if the Government, after sending a measure down to it, and so withdrawing that measure from the cognizance of the House during the greater part of the Session, brought it down again in July, when, from the nature of things, they were the absolute masters of the time of the House, and sought to restore it to its original position. As he said, that course was attempted in the case of the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, but it had failed. Now that the House was asked to re-appoint the Grand Committee they had a right to demand from the Government an assurance that they—the Government—would pay that respect to the Committee which was demanded of the House when those bodies were originally proposed. It should be understood that when the opinion of a Grand Committee had been deliberately taken on a particular measure, the Government would not use their July or August majority to reverse the decision arrived at.
      MR. DODSON: In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), I must say I
      1956
      think he rather misunderstood the statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). My right hon. Friend said this——
      MR. MONK: I beg pardon. I said the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for "War (the Marquess of Hartington) had used those words.
      MR. DODSON: I may then at once say the Government do not propose to sup port the proposal for referring to these Grand Committees the Bills of private Members. Of course, if they are over ruled by the House, that is another matter; they will be bound by the decision of the House; but they do not, of their own motion, propose to support such projects. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down asks for an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government, after a Bill has passed the Standing Committee, to refer it to a Committee of the Whole House——
      MR. EDWARD CLARKE: No, no; that it is not their intention to undo what has been done in the Grand Committee on Report.
      MR. DODSON: Very well. I can give no definite pledge that no Amendments will be introduced on Report; but this I can say—that it is intended that a Bill coming from a Grand Committee shall occupy the same position and be entitled to the same respect—neither more nor less speaking generally—as a Bill which has passed through Committee of the Whole House. As we know, it is sometimes necessary to propose Amendments on Report that may in a manner differ from what has been done in Committee in the case of Bills that have passed through the Committee of the Whole House. The same thing may have to be done in the case of Bills coming from the Standing Committees; and I do not consider that in so doing we shall be treating those Committees with the smallest amount of disrespect.
      Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
      Ordered, That the Resolutions of the House of the 1st December 1882, relating to the constitution and proceedings of Standing Committees, be revived; Provided that no Bill reported from such Standing Committee shall be first taken into consideration by the House at any date in the Session later than the first of August.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [BILL 1.]
    (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Holms.)
    MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [BILL 1.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Thursday."
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, this was, perhaps, one of the most important measures which had been brought in this year, and it had been put down every day since the first day of the Session. He did not know whether there was anyone on the Treasury Bench who could answer for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain); but, if there was, he should like to ask for an assurance that the Bill would not be taken without Notice, and that, when it was taken, it would be the first Order of the Day. If it was not convenient for the Government to give an answer now he would repeat the question on Thursday.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Order of the Day would be deferred until Thursday.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it was important that the country should have time to consider the Bill.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that ample Notice would be given before the Bill was brought on. As for its being considered in the country, its purport was well known, and had been pretty generally discussed.
      Motion agreed to.
      Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

    BROKERS (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.
    (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin, Mr. Magniac, Mr. Francis Buxton.)
    BROKERS (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.

      [BILL 69.] COMMITTEE.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, he had a series of verbal Amendments
      1958
      to propose which were not upon the Paper, the object of which was to make quite clear the date—namely, the 29th of September, 1886—at which the Bill would come into operation.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to know why it was sought to defer the period for two years?
      MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, it was to carry out an agreement which had been come to, after full discussion, by the parties interested. By postponing the operation of the measure until 1886, the object of the Act of 1870 would be amply met.
      Amendments agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

    MOTION.

      COMMONS.
      Select Committee appointed, "to consider every Report made by the Land Commissioners for England, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the inclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order:"
      Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power in respect to each such Provisional Order, to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modification; and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Land Commissioners:
      Ordered, That the Committee do consist of the following Members:—Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. ACLAND, Sir WALTER B. BARTTE-LOT, Mr. PELL, Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. RICHARD POWER; and Five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
      House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Marriages Legalisation (Stopsley, Beds.) (18).
Committee—Law of Evidence Amendment * (9).
Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals) * (17).

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—IMPORTATION FROM THE UNITED STATES—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I wish to ask the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford), Whether it be the fact that the steamship Ontario has arrived at Liverpool from the United States, and whether there was on board that ship a cargo of animals which were affected with foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, how many animals were affected, and whether the noble Lord has, as I conclude he has, sent down an Inspector to Liverpool; and, if so, whether he will

  1821
  lay upon the Table the Report which may be received from him as to the result of his inquiries, in order that the public may have full information of the disease which is supposed to come from the United States to this country?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, it is a fact that a vessel named the Ontario has arrived at Liverpool from Portland with an infected cargo. The number of cattle on board was 275, and of sheep 639, and of these 31 cattle and seven sheep were found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. The cattle and sheep are Canadian. The Privy Council, on being informed of the fact, sent down an Inspector to insure every possible precaution being taken at Liverpool, and every possible precaution has been taken—so completely, indeed, that there need be no apprehension as to the spread of infection from those animals. I have heard just now by telegram that the cattle had been all slaughtered before this morning, and that the sheep will be slaughtered before this evening. The Inspector will remain there in case of disease showing itself in another vessel expected to arrive at Liverpool on Wednesday. There is good reason for believing that this infection that has returned to us from Portland originated in Liverpool. The Ontario some time ago carried out a cargo of Herefords that had been detained in Liverpool for some days before embarkation, and these showed signs of infection after landing at Portland. We have reason to apprehend that the places of embarkation and detention at Portland are infected, and we have, therefore, as a matter of precaution, issued an Order which will suspend the despatch of any further cattle ships from Portland for a short time. We shall soon be able to see whether that suspension should be continued or whether it can be safely removed.

BENGAL TENANCY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that in the official papers on the Bengal Tenancy Bill, published in Calcutta, the minute of the Chief Justice of Bengal is not included; also, whether it is true that the opinions
  1822
  of the Judges of the High Court of Calcutta on the Bill have not been asked?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the Minute of the Chief Justice referred to by the noble Lord is doubtless the letter from Sir Richard Garth which appeared in the newspapers, and was transmitted home by the Government of India; but I am not aware whether it has been included in the official Papers published in India. The opinions of the other Judges of the High Court were asked for by the Government of India, but they have not yet been received at the India Office.

MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION (STOPSLEY, BEDS.) BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Ely.)
MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION (STOPSLEY, BEDS.) BILL.

  (NO. 18.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF ELY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to remove all doubts as to the validity of marriages solemnized at the church at Stopsley, Bedfordshire, which was consecrated in 1862, but by some inadvertence remained for some time unapproved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Ely.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that though he did not intend to oppose the second reading, he must complain of the introduction of Bills applying only to particular localities. There had been sufficient experience of the state of things which this Bill sought to remedy, and the question would be much more conveniently dealt with in one general measure.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.