Sitting of 29 February 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Hon. Murray Edward Gordon Finch-Hatton, for Lincoln County (Southern Division); John Deasy, esquire, for City of Cork.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4); CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—"Sir. Speaker's Retirement * [123]; Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) [124].
Second Reading—Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts) [118].
Third Reading—Brokers (City of London) * (69), and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  BULGARIA—THE VARNA RAILWAY.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether two Delegates of the Bulgarian Government, who are at present in this Country, have been in communication with Her Majesty's Government, with the view of effecting a settlement of the Varna Railway question on a basis other than that established by the tenth article of the Treaty of Berlin; and, whether, in view of the statement made by Her Majesty's Government, on 26th July 1883, to the effect that—
  "Her Majesty's Government had lost no opportunity of pressing the matter on the Bulgarian Government, and that they trusted that, on the return of the Prince of Sofia, steps would he at once taken to settle the question.… And they have no doubt that means could be found to provide the funds required, and they believe that the Bulgarian Government, who are themselves deeply interested in the loyal execution of engagements entered into on their behalf, will see the necessity of meeting the obligation which their independent position now entails upon them,"
  Her Majesty's Government is now prepared to urge upon the Bulgarian Government the necessity of at once fulfilling their obligations to the bond and shareholders of the Varna Railway, as imposed on them by Article 10 of the Treaty of Berlin?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, negotiations are now proceeding in this country between the Company and the Bulgarian Government, pending which action on the part of Her Majesty's Government is temporarily suspended. Papers on the subject will be laid before the House.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATION FOR FAIR RENTS IN CO. KERRY.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Gerald Leahy, Bridget M'Coy, and Patrick Steartney, tenants of the Reverend Richard Fitzgerald, Tarbert, county Kerry, made application to the Land Commission to get a fair rent fixed, in 1881; whether the date of the service of the originating notices was the 24th December 1881; whether the hearing of these cases has yet taken place, if he could explain the reason; whether these tenants are paying a rent considerably above the value of their respective holdings; and, whether he can give any idea as regards the length of time which may elapse before these cases can be reached by the Land Commission?
  TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that no tenants bearing these names have made applications to have fair rents fixed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT-PRESSURE OF SCHOOL WORK.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the reports on the case of the boy at West Bromwich, who is alleged to have committed suicide in consequence of the pressure of school work; and on the case of Sophia Raybould, who is alleged by the doctor who attended her to have died from brain disease superinduced by overstrain at school; and on the case of the two pupil teachers who are alleged by Her Majesty's inspector to have been killed by overwork in London, are yet ready to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Reports on the first two cases have been received, and we are expecting the Report from the London School Board on the other cases in a day or two, when the whole shall be laid upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—DONCASTER SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Postmaster General, Whether William Heap, of Bentley, Doncaster, was on 2nd January elected to the local School Board at the head of the poll; whether the said William Heap at that time held a sub-office under the Postmaster General, with 10 s. per week for the delivery of letters; and, whether the said William Heap has since been required by the Post Office authorities to resign his seat on the School Board, under threat of dismissal?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, it is the case, as implied by the Question of my hon. Friend, that Mr. Heap, of Bentley, was instructed to resign his seat on the local School Board; but this instruction was given under a misapprehension, and as soon as it became known at headquarters directions were given to revoke it. Mr. Heap has been informed that, so far as the Department is concerned, there is no objection to his remaining a member of the School Board, so long as his official duties are not interfered with thereby.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT—APPEALS IN THE IRISH LAND COURTS.
  MR. P. MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 16th of August last, he admitted in the House the grievances endured by suitors in the Court of the Land Commission from the then accumulation of pending appeals, and undertook that the Government would try and devise a remedy, and the matter should have their most careful attention; is not the appeal list at present far heavier than it was in August, amounting to 8,600 cases to be heard; is there any reasonable ground for believing the list can be finally disposed of before the expiration of some three years; have any communications passed between the Land Commission and the Government in reference to the great injury caused by the delay incident to the disposal of these appeals; can he state what have been the nature of these communications or suggestions; and, will he have any objection to lay such communications upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is unfortunately true that the appeal list is
  210
  heavier now than it was in August last. The Government have had various communications with the Land Commissioners on the subject of diminishing the number of appeals, and of accelerating the mode of progress of the Commissioners. After very careful consideration, no new plan which would be effective has been yet found; but the Commissioners are doing their utmost to hear and dispose of appeals as fast as is consistent with due regard to the interests of those involved. It is impossible to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place between the Government and the Commissioners on this subject, as it is of a confidential character.
  MR. P. MARTINasked whether the total number of appeals heard last year was not 2,000, and when did the right hon. Gentleman expect that the remaining 8,000 would be disposed of? That Question was on the Paper, and had not been answered.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not see anything in the Question about 2,000 cases having been heard last year. No doubt the hon. Member had stated the number accurately.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, his Question was when the Government expected the remaining 8,000 cases to be concluded?
  [No reply was given.]

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CASTLE. WELLAN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 1st January ult., at the Castlewellan (county Down) Petty Sessions, in a case against four boys, for having caused obstruction in the street, the evidence was of such a character that the solicitors for the accused appealed to the bench to censure the prosecuting constable, but Lord Annesley, the only justice present, whilst declaring that there was no evidence, said he believed the boys were guilty, and inflicted the utmost penalty upon them; and, whether the penalty will be remitted?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The defendants in this case were of the "corner boy" class, and were aged from 20 to 25 years. They were charged with placing large stones, weighing up to 112 lbs., across the street at 11 o'clock at night.

  211
  It is not true that the solicitor for the defence appealed to the Bench to censure the prosecuting constable. He merely applied that costs should be given against him, which is not an unusual application. It is not true that the presiding magistrate declared that there was no evidence. He stated that the evidence clearly satisfied him of the defendants' guilt, but that it was not strong owing to the reluctant manner in which the witnesses—some of whom were accomplices of the defendants—answered the questions put to them. No witnesses were produced for the defence. The penalty imposed was a fine of 10 s., and I see no reason for asking the Lord Lieutenant to remit it.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to the declaration of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the condition of the Irish magistracy was not the fault of the Executive, and that, if suitable persons were recommended for the Commission of the Peace, the Lord Chancellor would not be slow to exercise his inherent powers; and, whether he will indicate, for the public guidance, by whom, and in what manner, such recommendations should be made, whether by public memorial or resolution, and by the Municipal Councils, the public boards, the clergy, the electors, the ratepayers, or the community at large?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is open to any individual, or number of individuals, to bring under the notice of the Lord Chancellor allegations that a fit and proper person for the Commission of the Peace has been brought under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant of any county where the appointment of a magistrate is needed or required, and that the Lord Lieutenant of such county has unreasonably declined to recommend the appointment of such person to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, in such a case, will make inquiry into the allegations, and if he finds that they are supported by the facts, will consider the propriety of placing the persons so dealt with in the Commission of the Peace. It is not intended to lay down any rule as to the people or body of people who have a right to make an application of that sort.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether it would be open to individuals to make representations to the Lord Chancellor direct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Not until the case has been laid before the Lord Lieutenant.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882-COMPENSATION.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any individual has been exempted in the case of a levy for compensation, under the Crimes Act, on the inhabitants of Miltown Malbay, county Clare?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—DEFICIENCY OF SCHOOL PLACES (METROPOLIS).
  MR. BOORDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a requisition has been addressed by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education to the School Board for London asking for a Return of the deficiency of School places in the Metropolis; whether such deficiency was stated by the School Board in their reply, dated 14th February last, to amount to 45,153 places; and, whether, on the opening of the Carlton Road Board School, Kentish Town, on the 16th instant, he stated that the deficiency of places in the Metropolis amounted to 100,000; and, if so, could he explain the discrepancy between his statement and that of the London School Board?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there is no discrepancy between the Return to which the hon. Member refers and my statement in this House last year and elsewhere subsequently, that about 100,000 school places are still lacking in the Metropolis. The Return is one that is filled up annually by all School Boards. It sets forth the accommodation provided in all schools throughout the district, the number of children to be provided for, and the actual deficiency of school places. The London School Board Return of the 14th instant is quite in agreement with the official estimates of the Department, and is as follows:—Permanent places, 555,123; temporary places, 16,006—total, 568,129. Children to be provided for after requisite reductions, 613,282; deficiency, 45,153. To this must be added the temporary places, 16,006, giving a deficiency on

  213
  the gross number of places throughout the Metropolitan area of 61,159. This is assuming that surplus places in one district are available for another, and that the accommodation and the fees are suitable for the children resident in the district, and that you could force any child into any vacant place in any school wherever situated. If the hon. Member will refer to the Education Report of last year, page 13, he will find that the estimated deficiency was calculated at about 132,000. Sir Francis Sandford, the late Secretary of the Department, has to-day put the figures in my hands verifying his calculations. In the Statistical Report of the London School Board for November last, the projected accommodation is set down as 96,770.
  MR. W. H. SMITHinquired whether the provisions made by the London School Board went below the age of five years, or whether it meant children between the ages of three and five?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the estimate was obliged to go below the age of five, because there were 400,000 children on the register of schools in England and Wales between three and five, and the Department had always paid for those children. It was accordingly necessary to make a certain amount of provision for them.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LAND COURTS, CO. CLARE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph, which appears in The Freeman's Journal of the 25th inst.:—
  "Widespread dissatisfaction prevails amongst the tenants in this part of the county as well as in Scariff, Feakle, and other places at the deadlock which has taken place in the hearing of their cases. At the court which was held here this week there were 125 cases listed, of which five cases were struck out for various causes, five more were settled, about twenty were heard on evidence, and all the rest were adjourned to Ennis, where only fiteen cases were gone into. The remainder were postponed to some future sitting; but when that may take place no one can divine, for the Commissioners that should continue to hear the Clare cases now in court, but still unheard, numbering upwards of 1,000, have been ordered to Limerick county to hear the cases still pending there. Several of the cases adjourned from Killaloe this week (where the chairman, Mr. Reeves, Q.C., sat only for a few hours) have been lodged for more than eighteen months. If a separate set
  214
  of Commissioners were told off to-morrow for Clare county, they would not be able to dispose of the unheard cases for two years to come. Meanwhile the tenants will have to pay the old rack rents in full;"
  and, whether he will take steps to remedy the grievance?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is a good deal of inaccuracy in the paragraph quoted. The Killaloe list contained 108 cases, not 125 as stated. Of these, 29 were disposed of at the first day's sitting at Killaloe. More than half the cases on the list were nearer to Ennis than Killaloe. It was accordingly arranged, apparently with the approval of all the parties, and at the express request of the solicitor for some of the tenants, that the second day's sitting should be held at Ennis. Nineteen cases were heard at Ennis. The remaining four days of the sitting were unavoidably taking up in visiting farms, the district being remote and mountainous. The number of cases awaiting trial in the whole county of Clare is not upwards of 1,000, as stated, but 659.

  NAVY—DOCKYARDS—PAY OF WORKMEN.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have considered the case of the Hired Men in Her Majesty's Dockyards, with a view to re-arranging the basis on which their "gratuities" on retirement are calculated, and extending the age at which retirement becomes compulsory?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, that a number of questions affecting the pay of the workmen employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards, including the hired men, had been for some time under consideration, but had not yet been finally decided.

  NAVY—OFFICERS OF MARINES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have decided that the provisions contained in Paragraph 34, section 5, of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army, relative to Confidential Reports, to the effect that—
  "Whenever an Officer is disadvantageously reported upon, he will be officially informed of the particulars of such Report by the Officer making it,"
  are to apply to Officers of the Royal Marines; and, if not, what is the reason

  215
  for withholding this privilege from them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the paragraph in question is contained in the Queen's Regulations and Orders of the Army, the provisions of which do not apply to the Royal Marines unless specially ordered to apply by the Board of Admiralty. In such matters as that referred to the Royal Marines are naturally subject to Navy Rules, according to which it is in the discretion of the officer who makes a report whether or not its nature shall be communicated to the officer reported on.

  NAVY—WORKMEN AT PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the same consideration cannot be shown to the workmen employed at the Plymouth Breakwater (eight in number, with services ranging from 20 to 42 years) as was shown in 1880 and 1881 to others in the same position, who were then granted pensions, especially since the Admiralty did not dispute the claim to pension of these eight men until December 1883?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I regret to say that we have no power under the general Rules, which apply not only to the Admiralty but to all other Departments of the Public Service, to grant pensions to the men alluded to by my hon. Friend. The pensions awarded in 1880 and 1881 were given in error, and constitute no precedent for departing from the well-understood rule of the Service.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETINGS.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is intended by the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to institute prosecutions against the persons who, in spite of the proclamations issued by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, made persevering and continued attempts to hold meetings of the National League at Newry, at Castlewellan, at Cootehill, and at Blacklion, and also at Park, in the county of Derry? He also wished to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that at the meeting which was
  216
  held a mile from Park, speeches were delivered by Mr. M'Loughlen and Mr. M'Closkey which occupied three columns in The Derry Journal?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Sir, reports which have appeared of persevering or continued attempts to hold meetings at Newry, Castlewellan, Cootehill, Black-lion, or Park are much exaggerated. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, on the 22nd of this month, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), stated the facts within the knowledge of the Government as to the Castlewellan meeting, and intimated that the Government were advised that the attempt then made to address a few persons, who immediately dispersed on the approach of the military and police, did not afford sufficient ground for instituting a prosecution. Those observations equally apply to the other meetings mentioned in the Question, and the Government are advised that no sufficient grounds for instituting prosecutions exist. As regards the Question just put to me by the hon. Member, supplemental to that on the Paper, I believe, from the information before me, that the statements are equally exaggerated.

  SUBMARINE CABLES—THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. PENDERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the International Conference of Delegates from thirty States, which satin Paris in 1882 and 1883, on the subject of the protection of submarine telegraph cables, have come to any agreement; and, if so, whether it is likely that any convention will be concluded; and, if he will lay the Papers connected with same upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the draft of the Convention drawn up by the Delegates at the last Conference has since been under the consideration of the Governments represented. An agreement has now been arrived at, and as soon as the requisite authority has been received by the Plenipotentiaries of the several Powers in Paris, the Convention will be signed. The signature is expected to take place very shortly, and as soon as possible after-

  217
  wards the Convention will be laid before Parliament.

  IRELAND—COLLECTION OF CUSTOMS AT COLERAINE.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any truth in the statement in The Civilian newspaper of the 16th instant, that the Coleraine collection of Customs is about to be broken up; and, whether he will consider if this course may not act very prejudicially on a district which is expending so large a sum of money for the improvement of its port?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that the statement quoted was not correct, and he could assure the hon. Member that nothing would be done to the disadvantage of local interests.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—RATE OF INTEREST FOR LOANS.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Local Government Board in Ireland charge £5 7s. 2d. interest on every £100 borrowed for the erection of labourers' dwellings; is it the case that the Labourers Act has been very little availed of, as the ratepayers object to pay so high a rate of interest; and, if he will consider the advisability of granting loans to sanitary authorities in Ireland upon the same terms as those set forth in "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880?"
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the terms for the loans were fixed by the Treasury, and not by the Local Government Board. It could not be said that "The Labourers' Act has been very little availed of." The sanitary authorities of 60 Unions had presented petitions praying for orders confirming about 570 schemes, which, if passed, would involve loans to the amount of £400,000 or £500,000. There did not appear to be any reasonable grounds for seeking to obtain these loans on the same terms as those on which loans were granted under the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, in the very exceptional circumstances then existing.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (INDIA)—PROSECUTIONS IN MADRAS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will cause inquiry to be made as to
  218
  the truth of the statement in The Times of India of the 1st inst. that Mr. Grant Duff has called on the Advocate General to give his opinion as to the advisability of prosecuting for sedition the Native members of the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, for discussing politics within the precincts of the club?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Question of the hon. Member for Longford is based, as I understand, upon a report in a Bombay newspaper; and really, unless the hon. Member can give me some better authority, I hope he will not think me discourteous if I decline to trouble the Government of Madras with the inquiry suggested.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—MR. PRESTON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Eyre W. Preston, who lately resigned his office of Investigator of Tithe Rent Charge in obedience to the direction of the Irish Land Commissioners is still in the office of the Commission; and, if so, if he would explain the reason?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commission, thinking that Mr. Preston did not understand his tenure of office, gave him an opportunity of withdrawing his resignation, of which he availed himself. The matter having subsequently been brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, without whose assent Mr. Preston could not be removed from office, His Excellency conferred with the Land Commissioners, when it was decided, having regard to the fact that Mr. Preston had been in the service of the State for 38 years without a complaint having been made against him, and to the fact that he never had anything to do with the action of the committee, upon which his name was placed without his authority, that the case would be fairly dealt with if Mr. Preston were reprimanded instead of being dismissed, provided that he undertook to withdraw his name from the committee of the Orange Hall and disavowed any responsibility for the terms of the appeal for funds, and further that he expressed regret at having allowed his name to appear, and undertook never in future as long as he should hold office under the Land Commission to take any public or prominent part in any political mat-

  219
  ters.With these conditions Mr. Preston has complied. Consequently, he is still in the employment of the Land Commission.

  POST OFFICE—FEMALE TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Why the employment of young women in the telegraph service is not more general in the provincial districts in Ireland, and why head offices like Waterford, Derry, Kilkenny, Limerick, Killarney, Clonmel, Mallow, and Tralee are not open to the employment of females; whether most of these offices are free from night duty, and suited to the employment of females; and, whether, in anticipation of increased traffic in the telegraph department, he will promote the establishment, in different towns in Ireland, of schools, such as that established in Limerick by Lord Emly when Postmaster General, for the training of competent telegraph clerks of both sexes?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that I am most anxious to promote the employment of women in the telegraph and other branches of the Postal Service. One of the difficulties which often prevent their employment is the unsuitability of the buildings, as in many cases no separate accommodation can be provided. Care is taken to attend to this whenever new offices are rented or built. A few females are employed at four of the offices mentioned in the Question; only one of them is free from night duty. With regard to the establishment of additional telegraph schools in the Provinces, I may mention that it is the practice at most offices to train recruits in the instrument room, and this system has been found to answer well. The Limerick school was discontinued soon after its establishment, as it appeared that there was no sufficient demand for its services.

  POST OFFICE (POSTAL ORDER SYSTEM), AUSTRIA.
  MR. MONKasked the Postmaster General, Whether Her Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with the Austro-Hungarian Government, with a view to the establishment of a system of Post Office Orders or of Postal Orders for the transmission of small sums between this Country and Austria?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I may say that negotiations are already in progress with the Post Office of Austria-Hungary for the establishment of the money-order system between this country and Austria-Hungary, and I hope to be able soon to conclude a convention for that purpose.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—SIR EVELYN BARING
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in a telegram from The Times correspondent in Egypt, dated February 27th:—
  "No single measure down to an increase of the salary of a petty official is made without reference to Sir Evelyn Baring," and that "therefore one of two things is true, either Six-Evelyn Baring immediately interferes with the national business, contrary to orders, in which case he should be recalled, and the entire machinery of Government would collapse, or he is the sole responsible Governor of Egypt;"
  and, whether he can state if this statement is correct in regard to the action of Sir Evelyn Baring; and, if so, whether he is acting in accordance with orders?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICE: The position of Sir Evelyn Baring is defined in the Papers which have been laid before the House, and Her Majesty's Government have no reason to doubt his conforming himself to the instructions which he has received. In all matters of importance on which Sir Evelyn Baring thinks it necessary to give advice, it is expected that during our provisional armed occupation his advice will be followed.

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT—NONPAYMENT OF THE SEED RATE.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any person in Ireland can be deprived of the right of voting at the elections of Poor Law Guardians for not having paid the seed rate; and, if the Local Government Board will give such directions as will insure that no one is deprived of his vote for not having paid this rate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Seed Supply Act requires that the seed rate shall be levied as a part of the poor rate, and collected with it. The disabilities as to voting which follow nonpayment

  221
  of the one, equally, therefore, attend non-payment of the other. This being provided by law, the Local Government Board have no power to give such a direction as is suggested.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—DEATH FROM OVERWORK—CHELTENHAM BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGETONasked the Vice President of the Council, "Whether it is true that the jury at a coroner's inquest just held at Cheltenham on the body of Elizabeth Rowley aged eight, who it was alleged had died from overwork at a Board School, found by their verdict, given in accordance with the medical evidence, that the primary cause of death was inflammation of the membranes of the brain; that the lessons coupled with the time devoted to study were too great a mental strain for a healthy child of seven or eight years to bear, and that the mental strain she underwent hastened her death; and, whether he will maintain the new Code in its present severity?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I know nothing of this case, except that I saw a paragraph in The Times yesterday, on which this Question appears to be founded. I telegraphed at once to Her Majesty's Inspector to make an inquiry and report upon it. He is inspecting in a remote part of his district, and telegraphs that he will report on Monday. There must be some error in the paragraph, as there is no School Board, and consequently no Board school, in Cheltenham. So far from the New Code being more severe for children of eight years of age than former Codes, the direct intention and, I believe, the effect of it is to relieve children of tender years from pressure. It empowers teachers and managers to withdraw delicate children from examination; but we think this is insufficient, and we are considering how we can best protect such children from being overworked during the year previous to the examination.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT—CHARLES THOMAS—LEOMINSTER UNION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Board, Whether his attention has been called to the reappointment of Charles Thomas, as Inspector for a term of three years, by the
  222
  Leominster Urban Sanitary Authorities; and, whether this is the same Charles Thomas who, in December last, was declared by a special jury, in the case of Priestman v. Thomas and others, to have been a party concerned in forging the will of Mr. James Whalley; and, if so, whether he will take steps to cancel this appointment?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, on the 25th instant, we received a report from the Rural Sanitary Authority of the Leominster Union that they had reappointed Charles Thomas as Inspector of Nuisances for the district. He is the person who was one of the defendants in the case referred to, and who, according to the finding of the jury, was a party to the forging of a will. We have addressed a letter to the Sanitary Authority stating that, having regard to the finding of the jury, we must decline to sanction his appointment as an Inspector of Nuisances.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwished to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a Question of which he had given him private Notice—Whether it was the case that the markets and fairs of North Lincolnshire were closed, while those of New Holland, the neighbouring district, were open?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, foot-and-mouth disease is happily now extinct in the parts about New Holland—which is a separate county for the purpose of the Act—and an Order, therefore, freeing this district will be issued to-night. Disease still exists in North Lincolnshire, though it is very largely reduced, and, therefore, these markets are still under restrictions. I hope, however, shortly to be able to remove the closing Order.
  MR. J. LOWTHERinquired whether a cargo of diseased cattle did not land last November in North Lincolnshire?
  MR. DODSON: There was a cargo which landed either on the 29th of October or on the 11th of November in which there were a few diseased sheep or swine, I do not remember which. But the animals were slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and there is no reason to suppose that the infection spread inland.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Government, Whether they have any information which they can properly communicate to the House with regard to the military proceedings in Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Up to this time we have received no telegram whatever from General Graham.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL YACHTS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the details of the cost of Royal sea passages could be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, there would be no objection to present the Return if the hon. Member thought it necessary to move for it, but it would be similar to that previously laid before the House.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE—HORSE ARTILLERY.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Can the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War tell me, Whether it is a fact that General Graham, Sir Redvers Buller, and Sir Evelyn Baring all requested that a battery of Horse Artillery might be sent to Egypt, and whether that request was refused by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to put down the Question for Monday. I may say that a suggestion to that effect was made from Egypt, but I do not think it came from General Graham.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: Can the noble Lord say when he received the last telegram from General Graham?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We have had no telegram direct from him since Saturday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY ACTS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE, in rising to move the Resolution standing in his name, said, the subject was one of special interest at the present moment, when the question of overcrowding among the poor in our great towns was so prominently before the public. He had obtained at different times modifications of the restrictions connected with the House Tax, and he now proposed to show how to provide healthy homes for the mass of the people. Most of the suggestions put forth were in the direction of removing dilapidated and unhealthy buildings; but there were very few proposals for obtaining new ones. The Inhabited House Duty threw every obstacle in the way of attaining that object. If many dwellings were comprised in one large building the tax was levied on the whole, although every tenement might be of a less rental than £20. That was not fair, because a separate house of a similar rent would not be taxed. Sir Sydney Waterlow's Company had escaped the duty by building their model dwellings with open staircases and no front doors, the law being that a house with a front door and a common staircase was liable, even if occupied by several families paying separate rents and rates. The buildings erected by the Peabody Trustees, the Middlesex Association, and other Bodies were not free of the tax unless they obtained a certificate from the Treasury. It might be said—"If you can get that certificate, what more do you want?" But the fact was that if a private individual built houses for the poor the tax must be paid, however admirably adapted to the labouring classes the dwellings might be. For instance, Messrs. Ashby Horner and Mr. Hart erected such buildings in Stratford and in the South of London, expecting them to be free from the duty; but on applying in November last to the Treasury they received the following reply:—
    "Treasury Chambers, 17th November, 1883.
    "SIR,—I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you in reply to your letter of this day's date that it is not in accordance with the usual practice to furnish applicants with copies of directions given by one Government Department to another. Their Lordships, however, wish me to add that in June, 1866, they directed that Inhabited House Duty should not be charged on

    225
    certain dwellings erected by the Metropolitan Association for improving the dwellings of the industrial classes, in cases where each distinct tenement was of a less annual value than £20. This exemption has not been extended to buildings erected by private individuals.
    "I have the honour to be, Sir,
    "Your obedient servant, J. H. COLE.
    "Mr. HENRY HART, 16, Great Dover St., S.E."
    Instead of removing restrictions on the construction of houses for the working classes, the authorities had followed a contrary policy. There were three absolute necessaries of existence—food, clothing, and lodging; but while the taxes had been removed from food and clothing, additional taxation had been placed upon lodging. Whatever public improvements were wanted—whether bridges, or roads, or the removal of toll-bars—the expense had all been thrown on the dwellings of the people, and so, likewise, had the cost of education; local bodies having apparently no idea of any other source of income. Were these taxes placed on the owner of the building? No; they all fell on the occupier. He was called upon to pay for improvements which indirectly increased the letting value of his house, and then for having done so he was compelled to pay more rent. The result of the removal of the Window Tax had been that small houses were now provided with windows equal to what in former times were only to be found in houses of a superior class: but the House Tax prevented the addition of a room or an increase to the height of a small house, because the increase of the value to £20 would render it liable to the tax. The Inhabited House Duty, he contended, did a vast amount of mischief. There were many persons who held that a £20 limit of rateable value was a sufficient limit at which to fix the levying of this tax; but those persons could have but little idea of the class of dwellings which came within that limit in the Metropolis, as compared with the comfortable dwellings in country districts which were rated at the same amount. This showed the great inequality of the tax; in addition to which there were in the Metropolis restrictions as to occupancy, which made the impost still more harsh and galling—restrictions, he meant, such as that which compelled the occupier of a large block of warehouses and offices to pay Inhabited House Duty on the whole in the event of his allowing a junior clerk in
    226
    his employ to sleep on the premises in the capacity of caretaker. In Scotland, where the people had long been familiar with the flat system, each occupation was treated as a separate house; but it was not so in England. This tax was chiefly paid by the Metropolis, where the amount which it yielded was £982,676, the whole amount paid by England and Wales being £1,814,870; and by Scotland, £118,660. The half of the whole House Tax was £966,000, and London paid £982,000; and it was in London that the buildings occupied by the working classes were of the most wretched character—hot-beds of crime, vice, disease, and misery. The whole tax, he con-tended, was a tax upon health, morality, and decency, and ought to be repealed, in order that private individuals might be encouraged to invest their capital in the erection of dwellings suitable for the occupation of all classes in the community, with a reasonable hope of being able to secure a fair and remunerative return upon their outlay. He was satisfied that the full advantages of the abolition of this tax could only be ascertained after it was put an end to. It must be remembered that this was the only tax remaining on the Statute Book which interfered with the mode or manner of construction of the article taxed. The loss occasioned by the repeal of this antiquated and injurious tax might easily be made good out of the very handsome surplus which was certain to be realized at the end of the financial year. He trusted that the matter would receive the best consideration of the Government. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. J. HOWARDseconded the Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to afford facilities for adapting buildings and parts of buildings for the occupation of the labouring poor, and in order to offer inducements for the erection of houses and blocks of buildings specially suitable for artizans and labourers, it is absolutely essential that the restrictions as to size and mode of contruction at present entailed by the Inhabited House Duty Acts should be removed, and the tax repealed,"—(Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to call attention especially to that portion of the hon. Member's speech which was an allegation that a distinction was made by the Treasury and the Inland Revenue between blocks of buildings erected by Associations and buildings of precisely the same character and object erected by individuals. If this were the case, he ventured to say it never was intended that the Treasury or the Inland Revenue Department should have the power of imposing or remitting taxation; but it was intended that they should intelligently apply the law to the public at large. It was clearly for the benefit of the community not to tax the smaller houses; and he thought it was a mistake to compel all who wished to improve the condition of the working classes by the erection of dwellings to form costly Companies. There were many persons who desired to improve the dwellings of the working classes, and where the conditions were alike the treatment ought to be alike also.
    MR. COURTNEYcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for the City upon having on various occasions pointed out defects in the law. Some of the defects of which he had now complained had been remedied. With respect to buildings for the working classes, a distinction was at one time directed to be drawn between the case of buildings like those erected by the Peabody Trustees, in which no pecuniary benefit was derived by those who constructed them, and the case of other buildings. In the former case the buildings were exempted from the tax. But of late the only distinction drawn with respect to working-class buildings turned upon the form in which they were built, whoever might build them; and blocks were exempted from duty provided they fulfilled the condition that each particular part of the building should be a separate house of less than £20 a-year. The matter was brought before the Treasury in August last by a gentleman who had built a block of dwellings in the East End for the accommodation of the working classes. The officers of the Inland Revenue reported that, although all the conditions were not fulfilled, it was certainly true that the block was built for the accommodation of the labouring classes, and that it would be let out in tenements, each of which would be under £20 a-year; and they submitted
    228
    to the Treasury the question whether it was necessary to insist on the condition that the staircase should be open to the outer air. The Treasury took this matter into consideration. They felt that the position was untenable, and that the intention of the law was fulfilled, whether the houses stood side by side or were placed one over the other, or whether they were to have a staircase open to the street or closed, provided only that the conditions were satisfied that the block consisted of tenements each of which was under £20 value. The Treasury had issued an Order on the point, and so far, therefore, his hon. Friend's object had been attained, subject to this condition—that if some parts of such building were let at more than £20 a-year, and other parts were let at less than £20, the tax would be confined to the former premises, and the latter would be exempt. His hon. Friend's objection that the House Duty tended to prevent the construction of dwellings for the poor would for the future, therefore, be entirely removed. Having thus dealt with the incidence of the tax as it affected the poorer classes, he hoped that his hon. Friend would feel that his object had been entirely attained. The unequal assessment of the houses of the rich was a subject which the Treasury had under their consideration; but the principle was regulated by the Act of Parliament, and the assessment was conducted by District Commissioners, who were out of the control of the Central Department. He admitted the entire force of the objection as to the unfair exemption in the levying of this tax on the houses of the rich, and it was a matter which he hoped to see rectified.
    MR. GRANTHAMremarked, that one of his own constituents had quite recently been threatened with a prosecution unless he paid the tax, although the houses concerned had been built by him for the express purpose of providing wholesome accommodation for the working classes. Yet it seemed that the same class of houses were exempt, under the Order of 1866, when they were built by Companies.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied, that the exception in the case of individuals was removed just before the end of the Recess, so that Companies and individuals were now on the same footing.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was extremely glad his hon. Friend and Colleague

    229
    had brought this subject before the House, because it was one of many instances which exhibited the imperfection and chaotic condition of our fiscal legislation. When be first entered the House of Parliament there were no less than three taxes on houses—the Inhabited House Duty, the Income Tax, and the Fire Insurance Duty. Against the latter he immediately set on foot an opposition, and after moving again and again for its abolition was at last successful. Some day or other there would be, perhaps, only one House Tax. There were some good features in the Inhabited House Duty, apart from its being a secondary tax upon the same material; and it had this primary recommendation—that people generally spent something like a fixed proportion of their income upon house rent. That, after all, was but an imperfect test; and he believed that in a revised, and improved, and well-adjusted Income Tax would be found a substitute for the present most imperfect and unequal charges on the revenue of individuals. Since the tax was first imposed successive exemptions had been made in favour of warehouses, premises wholly used for purposes of business, and premises inhabited only by a caretaker and his wife and family; but if the Inland Revenue Department found in one of the palatial buildings in the City of London, which were let off in flats for offices, that a person slept on the premises who could not be considered as a caretaker in the distinct terms of the enactment, they held that the exemption was absolutely cancelled. He considered that this was a great grievance. It was a monstrous misapprehension of their duty by the officials of Somerset House, and it was a subject to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should direct his attention. The duty of these officials was frankly and fairly to carry out the provisions of the Legislature with regard to the exemption of all buildings occupied industrially for the purposes of trade. If that rule were followed, it would save the officials and the taxpayers of the City of London a vast deal of trouble and complication. He asked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to use his influence, in order that this question might be fairly considered and fairly treated. With regard to the future of this tax, he was not so sanguine as his hon. Friend in
    230
    looking for its immediate repeal. It would not, of course, live for ever; but it could only be dealt with in connection with the other great taxes which were in affinity with it, especially the Income Tax. A good Valuation Bill was also much needed. Complaints had frequently been made of the inadequate valuation put upon buildings in the country, and he considered these complaints were perfectly justifiable. He saw the other day a paper which professed to be a statement of the valuation put upon buildings in different parts of the country. In looking over that statement he observed that in a place with which he was familiar, buildings that were quite palaces, and which were worth thousands of pounds, appeared as having been valued at £500 a-year. He regretted that the country bad been allowed to run back during the last 12 years on the important questions of assessing and raising Imperial and local taxation. It was a scandal that while we were spending thousands and millions on wars here, there, and everywhere, we had not yet settled how to raise our Revenue, or the system of assessment which ought to be carried out. He urged the Government, in conclusion, to consider this matter, with a view to introduce a complete system of valuation throughout the country.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the House was indebted to the hon. Member who introduced this subject for his continued efforts in directing attention to the injustice of the Inhabited House Duty. He was glad to have heard the statement of the Financial Secretary (Mr. Courtney). It showed that one very important point had been gained—that, namely, of removing a restriction on the erection of houses for the working classes. He was sure this was a worthy object of attention, and all who took an interest in the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes in London should endeavour to come to some arrangement by which the benefits of diminished taxation might be conferred upon houses of that kind as well as upon others. What the working classes required was that the advantage of the modification that had been mentioned by the Financial Secretary should be extended not only to new buildings erected for the accommodation of the working classes, but to old buildings which, though now occupied by them,

    231
    had originally been built for the accommodation of single families. The old houses were constructed in a different manner from the new tenements that were being erected. The new tenements were provided with separate outside stairs, and this provision could not be made in the old houses. Working men, however, must live in them, and they were, in consequence of the construction of these houses, prevented, not only now, but in all time coming, from having the benefit of the exemption from the tax. He hoped some endeavour would be made to come to an arrangement by which the benefit of diminished taxation could be secured by these persons. He understood, from the statement that had been made on the part of the Government, that they were fully alive to the question. This was an old story; but it was in the nature of all these things that they had to be reiterated year after year before the Government would take them up. The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Resolution, referred to the inequalities of the tax. He had no intention to go into the details of the subject, because the Financial Secretary had shown that he was ready to make improvements; but he believed the attention of the country could not be too frequently called to the gross injustice inflicted on all the lower and middle classes by the almost total exemption from this tax of the great houses in the country. The tax was instituted in 1851 in lieu of the old Window Tax, which, however objectionable in other respects, was an equitable tax, as it increased in accordance with the size of the house, and not according to value; but the result now was that the large houses paid much less in proportion than the houses of the poor. For example, upon a large country mansion, say with 180 windows, under the Window Tax the duty would have been £93 2s.; but now they found that on all the valuation rolls there was hardly an instance of a country house being valued at more than £500, and the duty upon a valuation of £500 was only £19, so that these large houses had benefited to the extent of three-fourths, and in some cases even four-fifths, by the reduction of the tax, while the houses of the working classes had derived no benefit whatever. As they came down the scale, the sums paid by large houses became less; whereas the tax pressed more heavily on the poor. He thought the
    232
    House should bring the subject under the notice of the Government year by year until the Government took some steps to remedy the existing inequalities. The House Tax, if it were equitably adjusted, would not be a bad tax, it being a rough but tolerably fair mode of determining a man's situation and means to ascertain the kind of house in which he lived.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had been appealed to by several Members, and he wished now to answer that appeal. It had been asked whether the exemption from the payment of this tax which had been granted in 1866 to houses built by Corporations for housing the working classes applied now to houses built for the same purpose by private persons; and whether that exemption, so extended under the Order issued during the Recess, applied not only to future houses, but to houses that might have been built in the past? His hon. Friend (Mr. Dick Peddie) had specially referred to some houses constructed at a former date. He thought he could give a satisfactory answer to his question. The Order was retrospective as well as prospective. If the tenements were really separate, and under the value of £20, the exemption would apply. If they were not separate tenements, then, of course, it would be impossible for the Order to apply. The reason why, in 1866, the exemption was only granted to houses built by a Corporation or institution for the erection of improved dwellings for the working classes was because at that time no houses of this character had been built by other than Corporations. Since that time, however, a custom had arisen in certain cases of private persons building houses of this character, those persons not being Corporations or public Companies. The question of the duty on mansions had been introduced into the debate, and it had been supposed that they were differently treated in the Metropolis and in the country; but that was not so. All houses were assessed according to their letting value by the year, whether in London or elsewhere. That was the law as to the Inhabited House Duty and as to local rates, and he doubted whether anybody would find it a very easy task to alter it. Something had been said as to the hardship of persons paying duty who lived in a part of a counting-house on the scale of a partner

    233
    or manager. But it certainly did not seem reasonable to exonerate them on that account from the payment of Inhabited House Duty. He would, however, look into the matter. As to the proposal generally, he should ask his hon. Friend to allow the Resolution to be negatived. Whatever he might feel with reference to some details of the tax, it would be absurd on that account to throw away £1,800,000 a-year. Some day, probably, whether in connection with Imperial taxation or in some other way, the duty might be amended in some details. But beyond that he could not go. Objection might be taken to almost every tax, and he could not agree to that Resolution.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer revised the tax in regard to counting-houses, warehouses, and banks, and other buildings of great value, he would find it necessary to put on imposts which had been taken off; for at present the assessment of such buildings was not in a satisfactory condition. Houses in the Metropolis were fairly assessed one with the other; but in the country great discrepancies occurred with regard to the Inhabited House Duty, and the City establishments seemed to him to get rid of a fair share of their legitimate burden.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and thanked the Government for what had been conceded with respect to the House Tax, although the top and bottom of the scale were left in the same state as before—namely, the very poor, living in old houses, were not affected by the concession.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—FEVER HOSPITAL AT WINCHMORE HILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in rising, according to Notice, to call attention to the conduct of the Local Government Board in placing a permanent fever hospital at Winchmore Hill without giving an opportunity to the local authorities, who had written to the Local Government Board on the subject, of stating their objections to the hospital; and to move—
  234
  "That the action of the Local Government Board in declining to hear the objections of the inhabitants of Winchmore Hill, expressed hrough their local sanitary authority, against the establishment of a fever and a small-pox hospital in their district, is a course calculated to bring the principles of self-government into disrepute, and to establish a dangerous precedent for the exercise of that controlling power over local boards entrusted by Parliament to that Department,"
  urged that the action of the Local Government Board in declining to hear the objections of the inhabitants of Winchmore Hill, expressed through their local sanitary authority, the Local Board of Southgate, against the establishment of a fever and small-pox hospital in their district, was a course calculated to bring the principles of local self-government into disrepute, and to establish a dangerous precedent for the exercise of that controlling power over Local Boards intrusted by Parliament to that Department. A proposal having some time ago been made to place a permanent fever hospital in the midst of that district, the inhabitants naturally objected to such a proceeding, and the local sanitary authority addressed a request to the Local Government Board that their objections to it might be heard. On the 10th of January the local sanitary authority wrote to the Local Government Board, stating that the inhabitants were strongly averse to the proposal; that they, themselves, concurred in their objections to it; and that they hoped the Local Government Board would consider them. On the 16th of January the Local Government Board wrote, in reply, stating that the proposal referred to had not yet come under the consideration of the Department. Such a reply naturally conveyed to those who received it the impression that when the proposal came before the Board it would be ready to hear their objections. The Local Government Board was asked to receive a deputation on the subject as soon as it came officially before them. Then they had received the astonishing communication that the Board had already assented to the scheme, which a few days before they had been told was not under its consideration. The result of this had been that the opinion of the locality had not been heard, and the inhabitants would naturally attribute any ill-effects which might follow the placing of a fever and

  235
  small-pox hospital in the midst of a thickly-populated district to the action of the Local Government Board. He thought that this would have a bad effect upon local authorities generally. The object of establishing Local Boards in connection with the Local Government Board was that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood should be able to address the Local Government Board through the Local Board. But in this case the Local Government Board practically refused to hear them, although they had applied to be heard; and when attention was called to the matter, the reply of the Local Government Board was that they had considered the matter, and had thought that there was so little to be said on the other side that it had not been worth while to receive a deputation. Surely the inhabitants of a district in which it was proposed to place a hospital of this nature had a right to be heard. In Middlesex they had had an unfortunate experience of fever and small-pox hospitals, as instanced in the long controversy concerning that at Hampstead. Everyone must admit that hospitals of this kind were a necessity, and must exist in some locality, and in this instance the inhabitants were quite ready to make sacrifices, provided that the necessity was clearly proved to them; but their request to have an interview with the Local Government Board on the subject had been refused with an extraordinary celerity. Their wishes could not now be heard, but he was anxious to obtain some declaration from the Local Government Board that this was not the principle on which they were going to act in future; and he had called attention to the matter in the hope that he would obtain some disclaimer, or some explanation, of the extraordinary course they had taken with regard to the local authorities in this case.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLacknowledged the courtesy with which the noble Lord had approached the subject, and the almost complete accuracy of his facts. There was one point on which he thought the noble Lord was misinformed. On the 11th of January a communication had been addressed to the Board by the Southgate Local Board, stating that they had received a memorial from the inhabitants of the district, expressing an opinion that the erection
  236
  of a hospital for fever and small-pox patients on the site in question would be prejudicial to the health of those residing in the neighbourhood, and would be prejudicial to the district, and that the Local Board concurred in these views. The Local Board, however, did not express any wish to be heard; they expressed their views upon paper; but did not ask that any deputation from them should be received. On the 16th of January the Local Government Board replied that the proposal was not yet under their consideration. The Metropolitan Asylums Board had not, in fact, at that time determined to acquire the site. On the 19th a resolution had been passed by the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board that the site should be secured. The Board then received Reports from two of their Inspectors, from which it appeared that the site was about as free from the objections generally urged against all sites, more or less, as any site could be, and that it was peculiarly suitable for a hospital for the reception of such cases as it was designed to receive. On the 23rd of January the Local Government Board arrived at the decision that the site should be approved; and it was not until the day following that on which the consent was given that the Local Board of Southgate applied for an interview. Therefore, the Local Government Board should be absolved from any charge of discourtesy, and, of course, such a thing was never intended. He thought it was wholly impossible to choose a site for a fever hospital without stirring up some amount of local prejudice and dissatisfaction; but in this case every precaution had been taken, all objections had been set forth on paper, and these had been carefully examined, and the Inspectors had reported favourably on the subject. It should also be remembered that it was another body—the Metropolitan Asylums Board—that had decided upon the site; all that the Local Government Board had had to do had been to weigh the propositions of one representative body against those of another similar representative body. In his judgment, the principles on which local government were conducted, and on which the authority of the Local Government Board was founded, were less likely to be brought into disrepute by a

  237
  careful and quiet review of the circumstances of each case, and by a calm decision, than by any action on their part which opened the door to a prolonged and acrimonious discussion and final dissatisfaction with the decision arrived at. The Board were not asked to receive a deputation from the Local Board until after their sanction to the purchase of the site had been given, and he had no hesitation in saying that any local dissatisfaction which might exist could not be weighed against the substantial advantages to the health of the Metropolis which were secured by the sanction of the Local Government Board to the erection of the fever hospital in question.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that his noble Friend had been entirely justified in bringing forward this question. In a case of this nature it was the duty of the Local Government Board to take care that no ground for dissatisfaction should exist; but here the Local Board had received rather a snubbing. Everybody must feel that the hon. Member had stated the arrangements of the Local Government Board very fairly; but it was impossible to refrain from saying that the comparison he had given the House of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the Local Board at Southgate was not altogether a just one. The Metropolitan Asylums Board was not representative of the place in the same sense at all as the Local Board. He thought, however, his noble Friend would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmerely wished to say that he agreed in thinking that it would have been advisable to have had a paragraph in the letter stating that the representations of the Local Board had received full consideration.
  EARL PERCYconcurred in thinking that a communication from a Government Office, stating that a certain matter had not come under their notice, would have the effect of silencing any person applying for information, and would lead him to suppose that no action would be taken. If, however, he was informed that the matter, though it had not then come before the Department, would shortly be considered, it would then be in his power to take such further
  238
  steps by deputation to the Department, or otherwise, as he might be advised.
  [The subject then dropped.]

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—ZEBEHR PASHA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Prime Minister, Whether he had received any notice of the intention of the authorities in Egypt to appoint Zebehr Pasha Governor of Khartoum? He was distinctly informed that it was the intention of the authorities—whether Egyptian or English he knew not, or both—to so appoint this man, who was well known to be the greatest slave dealer in the Soudan. He was, in fact, the arch-type of slave dealers. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed it was originally intended—he did not know whether by General Gordon on his own motion, or by some of that underground communication which had gone on between the English and Egyptian authorities—to send Zebehr Pasha with General Gordon to Khartoum. Reasons occurred which prevented that; but now he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was assured, on authority as good as a private individual could have, that Zebehr Pasha was to be appointed to the Governorship of Khartoum. He asked that the Prime Minister would give some satisfactory answer on the subject. If this terrible scourge were to be sent back to the Soudan, from which he was driven away by General Gordon himself some years ago, the House would consider that the remedy to be applied to the Soudan would be as bad as the disease it was intended to remove.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the very few words in which I shall answer the Question of the hon. Member, I beg my reply may not be understood as assenting to the collateral proposition which he dropped in the course of his remarks. What he asks is, whether the Egyptian authorities intend to appoint Zebehr Pasha Governor of Khartoum? My reply is that no arrangement has been made with respect to the Governorship of Khartoum, from which, at present, General Gordon—the person in authority—is conducting the great operations with which he is charged. Until the arrangements have been made, it is inclusively implied in that statement

  239
  that no intention has been formed by the authorities that Zebehr Pasha or anyone else should be Governor of Khartoum.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—WEDNESDAY SITTINGS.
    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. WARTONwished to call attention to the subject of Wednesday's Sittings, which were often occupied in the discussion of Bills about which nobody eared twopence. The House was often not made until half-past 12, and he had taken part in keeping Members out of the House to prevent a House being made, as hon. Members seemed to care much more for their own Private Bills than for the finances of the country on questions of taxation. A limit should be fixed; and if hon. Members were not present in sufficient numbers—say by half-past 12 or 1 o'clock on Wednesdays—the House should stand adjourned.

  ARMY-WOOLWICH ARSENAL—SURPLUS STOCK.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Government, Whether they were prepared to furnish to the House, either by means of a Return or by consenting to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, with information with regard to the state of things which at present existed in the Dockyards, and especially at Woolwich, where, he alleged, millions upon millions of money were wasted? There was an accumulation of war material there of which no stock had been taken for 25 years. The military authorities, he believed, had not the least idea of the prime cost of the material which, in varying quantities, was, from time to time, sold by auction from the Dockyard. He asked, also, for an account of the stock-taking which was now going on, and whether some War Office official would be appointed to check it?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that his hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) did not think this inquiry would have been addressed to him, and was, therefore, not in his place.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I did not expect it myself.
  MR. COURTNEYpromised to communicate what the hon. Member had
  240
  said to the Surveyor General of Ordnance.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (1.) £1,454, Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
  (2.) £7,862, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
  (3.) £11,901, Public Offices Site.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked what was the present state of the arrangements with regard to the new Admiralty and War Office; and whether it was intended to present any Estimate for the building this year?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was not in his place; but he (Mr. Courtney) thought he would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. Sketch plans had been invited to be sent in, and a small Committee had been appointed to select 10 competitors from those who sent in such plans. The 10 competitors would be invited to send in more detailed plans from which a selection would be made. There would be a small allowance in the Estimates this year, not, however, for the actual expenses relating to the building, but to meet the expenses of the Committee.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £290, Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.
  (5.) £5,005, New Courts of Justice and Offices.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it seemed to him that the description of the Vote did not altogether correspond with the account given in the foot note. The sum of £5,005 appeared to be required to—
  "Reimburse the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn for the sums expended by them since 1840, out of their own funds, in the erection, and

  241
  fitting up of Courts for the use of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, and otherwise for the benefit of the said Courts,"
  and not to meet expenses incurred during the erection of the New Courts of Justice.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Courts of Justice Act provided that this sum should be repaid to the Society of Lincoln's Inn, and, in that sense, the sum became part of the expenditure involved in the erection of the New Courts of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman would be aware that two Vice Chancellors were appointed a considerable number of years ago, and the Society of Lincoln's Inn undertook to find the Courts in which the Vice Chancellors should sit. The Courts, however, were of a temporary character, and it was understood that by the scheme for erecting new Courts of Justice the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn should be repaid the actual expense to which they had been put in fitting up the two Courts in question.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that, as a member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, he was astonished at the smallness of the sum to be paid to the Society considering the amount of good it had done. For 40 years it had consented to the appropriation of part of its dining hall for the purpose of the Courts in which the Vice Chancellors could sit. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that the Vote under consideration was not very clearly explained. He earnestly hoped that they had not yet got to the end of the expenditure upon the Royal Courts of Justice. It was his misfortune last month to sit in one of the Courts, and the discomfort which he suffered was such as he had never experienced in any Court of Justice previously. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to visit No. 5 Court some day and sit for an hour behind the Queen's Counsel. The right hon. Gentleman would find a door on each side of him from which came a most cutting draught. The counsel felt the full force of the draught—indeed, their position was a most unhappy one. The whole furniture of the Courts was of the shabbiest and poorest workhouse style. The woodwork was of a very poor and indifferent description—indeed, it had not that quiet
  242
  and respectable appearance it was fitting it should have. The accommodation for counsel was positively disgraceful. There was not sufficient space in which to open a brief—indeed, the arrangements throughout were exceedingly bad. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would cause the woodwork to be toned down in colour or grained. The country had been put to tremendous expense in the erection of the new Courts. The public, therefore, had a right to expect that their convenience would be consulted in the interior arrangements of the Courts.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, prevalence of draughts in the new Law Courts had, no doubt, been a source of great trouble to the officials. They had made great efforts of late to cure the draughts, and in the case of most of the Courts their endeavours had been successful. With the experience they had gained the authorities hoped they would be able to mitigate, if not to totally remove, the evil in all the Courts. He did not think the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) was quite correct in saying that the furniture of the Courts was of a very poor and shabby character. The desks and whole fittings of the Courts were arranged by the late Mr. Street, and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed that it was at Mr. Street's instance that the woodwork was not grained as the hon. and learned Member had suggested. From an artistic point of view the fittings and woodwork were considered satisfactory.
  MR. WARTONasked that the desks should be covered with red baize if they were not to be grained.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £2,003, Shannon Navigation.
  (7.) £1,000, Lighthouses Abroad.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (8.) £1,766, Treasury.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked for an explanation of the item of £314 for—
  "Special work, out of office hours, in connection with the destruction of valueless records; allowance to an assistant private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; extra pay to messengers for attendance during the Parliamentary Session."
  It appeared to him to be a very objectionable habit to lump all these items

  243
  together. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have an assistant private secretary, but the salary paid him should be distinctly set forth. It might be that his salary was £300, and that all the other expenses amounted to only £14. When additional offices were created there should be some understanding as to how they were created and what the salaries attaching to them were. There had been a great many additional private secretaries appointed lately, and he intended shortly to raise a point concerning them. Gentlemen who had not passed the Civil Service examination had been promoted over the heads of other gentlemen who had passed. At present he would content himself by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury to inform them as to the separate items in the sum of £314. If assistant private secretaries were to be appointed and their salaries not clearly set forth great abuses might result. He would like to know how the sum of £314 was sub-divided?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he could only answer as to part of the item. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always had an assistant private secretary, and the one he (Mr. Childers) had received a salary of £100 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had an assistant private secretary, to whom was paid £150 a-year; his (Mr. Childers's) assistant private secretary only received £100 a-year.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had always had an assistant private secretary, why the salary given was brought up in the Supplementary Estimates?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that was more than he could tell.
  EARL PERCYasked what was the reason of the increase in the fees to Parliamentary counsel? Had the drawing of Bills been so arduous a task that, in respect of it, it was necessary to ask for a supplementary allowance?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was only the supplementary fees that were included in the present Estimates.
  Vote agreed to.
  244
  (9.) £500, Home Office.
  (10.) £100, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
  (11.) £2,350, Charity Commission.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must make one observation, however trivial it might seem. It was illustrated by the Vote they had just passed. Last year he drew attention to what appeared to him objectionable on the part of the Government in framing the Estimates on the principle of the net sum required, and not the gross amount. Under the head of Charity Commission he noticed there was a new Department—City of London Parochial Charities Department—for which a sum of £600 or £700 was demanded. In the foot note it was stated that—
  "The expenses of this Department are to be repaid to the Exchequer under Section 44 of the Act 46 & 47 Vict., c. 36, out of the Funds of the Charities dealt with."
  Why, in that case, was the outgoing sum placed on the Estimates at all? If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would turn back to the last Vote he would see that £100 was only asked for out of a total cost of upwards of £9,000.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in the case of the last Vote the receipts and expenditure fell during the same period. The repayment of the expenses of the City of London Parochial Charities Department could only be made at a certain time.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked when the duties of the Commission would terminate?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he believed the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was passed for three years.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £7,950, Local Government Board.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) made a very brilliant speech in favour of vaccination, and completely carried the House with him. The question of vaccination was exciting a good deal of attention just now; indeed, it was expected that the anti-vaccinators would turn the scale between the Liberals and Conservatives in the

  245
  contest which was now proceeding at Brighton. Upon the occasion of this Vote he wished to call attention to the supply of calf lymph. The notion was held by some people that disease was often promoted by vaccination. If, therefore, it was known that calf lymph would be supplied, he had little fear of the anti-vaccination agitation making much headway.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that there was nothing in the present Vote which bore in the least upon the vaccination establishments. It would be well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to call attention to the question when the ordinary Vote was brought up; but, in the meantime, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be very happy to confer with the hon. and learned Member.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £5,000, The Mint, including Coinage.
  (14.) £1,453, Patent Office, &c.
  (15.) £30,629, Stationery and Printing.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that this Vote was an old offender with regard to the Supplementary Estimates. Almost every year since he had been in Parliament the Stationery officials had made inaccurate estimates of what sums would be required within their Department to meet the charges for the Public Service. He had often thought it would be extremely useful if the Secretary to the Treasury would refuse to present Supplementary Estimates in certain cases—in cases, for instance, where only small sums were involved. This, no doubt, was a case in which a very considerable sum of money was required to complete the Services of the year; but if the Secretary to the Treasury would only have the courage to decline to submit Supplementary Estimates in order to save Public Departments from the ordeal of the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination, he would be much more likely than he was, under present circumstances, to bring his expenditure within the Estimate. He (Mr. Solater-Booth) was surprised that the Stationery officials did not profit by the repeated warnings they had received in regard to the excess of their expenditure over their Estimates. If the Secretary to the Treasury refused to present these Supplementary
  246
  Estimates from the Stationery Office, the Office would be reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the conditions of the Office would be fully inquired into, and the reasons of the excess would in due course be reported to the House. £30,000 was rather a heavy sum for the Committee to be asked to vote in the Supplementary Estimates. The Auditor General ought certainly to have an opportunity of examining carefully the details of the amount.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would involve a very grave step, which he feared the right hon. Gentleman himself would hardly take were it in his power to do so. The Stationery Office was not quite so bad as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it was. It was quite true that Supplementary Estimates were always presented from the Stationery Office; but it did not follow that the Office was extravagant. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to go into details, he would find that the excess was due to causes entirely beyond the control of the Office—due, in fact, to the legislation of that House. Legislation involved great expenditure on the part of the Stationery Office. For example, the two large items in this Supplementary Estimate were—Printing for Public Departments, £13,000; paper, £10,500. About two-thirds of the Supplementary Vote asked for printing and paper was on account of the General Post Office, owing mainly to the introduction of the Parcel Post, and the Patent Office, owing to the new departure taken under the Patents Act of last year. It could hardly be expected that the House of Commons would assume beforehand what the proposals of the Executive would be. They were driven to the necessity of putting before the House Supplementary Estimates in the spring to carry out the legislation which the House had sanctioned, if they wished to limit the Estimates put before the House, so as to ensure the economy they all desired. This was the explanation he had to offer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and he submitted that the lesser of the evils confronting them was the following up of the legendary practice of presenting Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, no doubt there was a good deal of truth in what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney); but he seemed to forget that it was invariably the practice to submit Supplementary Estimates at the end of a Parliamentary Session. There was an Estimate of £250,000 or more habitually presented to Parliament in July, in consequence of the legislation of the year. In his opinion, Supplementary Estimates presented in February were nothing more or less than covers for extravagant expenditure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if it was usual to have a Supplementary Estimate presented in respect of the Secret Service? Of course, they could not inquire how the money was spent, but they were to suppose that the Government spent it properly. At the same time, it would be far wiser if the Government were to ask for the sum at once, and not trust to anything in the shape of a Supplementary Vote. The voting of Secret Service money was a very delicate matter; but his own experience convinced him it was an absolute necessity, and he did not mean in any kind of way to weaken the hands of the Government in respect to it. But £23,000 was voted last year, and now an additional sum of £10,000 was asked. The Committee ought to be informed why the whole £33,000 was not asked for last year. His idea was that formerly the sum voted was £33,000. ["No!"] Then he was under the impression there was another item for Secret Service. He thought the practice now adopted was a most inconvenient one, and it would be far better to take the entire sum that was likely to be required in one Vote rather than ask for an additional Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, that he was specially responsible for this Vote, as any excess on the Estimate was the subject of conference and settlement between
  248
  him and such of his Colleagues as spent Secret Service money. When the Estimates were prepared last year, it was not believed that so large a sum as £33,000 would be required, and the additional sum now asked for had since become necessary.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the Vote on which the Committee were now engaged was not one which they ought to pass without some discussion. It was a very objectionable practice to vote money for Secret Services, and the Irish Members had felt themselves called upon to raise a discussion whenever the Vote was presented for the sanction of the House. Certainly there had been some episodes recently which led to the conviction that the money voted for this purpose was often used in questionable methods and for dubious ends. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had called attention to the extraordinary addition now asked for to the Vote. It seemed that when the Estimates were framed the Government were of opinion that the sum of £23,000 was quite sufficient for Secret Service money, and it was only by extreme courtesy that the observations which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be termed an answer to the Question put to him. The Government, or some Member of it, was now asked to say, as far as they considered it consistent with the interests of the Public Service, what had occurred in the interval to render this very large additional expenditure necessary? The Irish Members took exception to the Vote in the present circumstances of their country, and he certainly did not think it ought to be passed in the absence of the Irish Representatives, and in a House of less than 20 Members. He would, therefore, suggest that the further consideration of the Vote should be postponed.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had recently seen in the London papers an account of the trial of some Germans upon a charge of conspiring to blow up the German Embassy, and since then there had been a prosecution for perjury in connection with that trial. It seemed to him that a more absurd prosecution could not be imagined. It appeared that the persons to whom he referred were in daily communication with the police, and the whole object of these men was

  249
  not to commit any outrage, serious or trifling, but to obtain rewards from the Government out of some part of its Secret Service money, or some money from a similar fund. In the way in which these matters were managed, it certainly appeared to him that it was an absolute waste of money to vote grants of this sort, because it did not appear that either reason or common sense was exercised in the expenditure of it. The case of these Germans afforded a fair illustration of the way in which the money was spent, and he certainly thought that the money ought not to be voted at all. Probably there would be no objection if the money were spent in a reasonable manner, and surely hon. Members were entitled to some explanation as to whether it was not a fact that the fund was merely used for the purpose of inducing persons to perjure themselves and to reap rewards without giving anything in return.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to say a word in answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He was not able to agree with the hon. Member in the principle he had laid down. The hon. Member thought that Secret Service money was eminently a subject unfitted for Supplementary Estimates. He was not disposed to agree with the hon. Member, although the doctrine he had laid down would be of great convenience to the Government if it were followed. The view of the hon. Member was that, in the case of Secret Service money, it was necessary to frame the Estimates on a very high scale, so as to leave a considerable margin for unforeseen contingencies arising in the course of the year. The cause of these Supplementary Estimates was that the Government had proceeded upon the opposite principle, and had decided not to ask for money in excess of the amount which, at the time the Estimates were framed, they might believe to be the probable demands of the Public Service under this head. It was in consequence of following that principle that a Supplementary Estimate had been rendered necessary. It was a fair matter for the House to consider whether the principle of strict estimate or the principle of liberal estimate would be the more advantageous in regard to this subject; but, certainly, the liberal estimate was the one which,
  250
  in most cases, would be for the convenience of the Government, and which the Government might be willing to adopt. In regard to the excess in the Vote itself, it was impossible, he was afraid, to give any account of the matter which would throw any light upon the details. As he understood the case referred to by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), it did not lie in the region of Secret Service, but belonged to a different class altogether. It was a case where an open reward was promised by the Government, or by other parties, and therefore it was entirely outside the question of the present Vote. The Vote for Secret Service was a Vote of Confidence, and if there was an excess hon. Members might, perhaps, be allowed to ask themselves whether there had not been circumstances in the history of the past year or two which would naturally account for it. There might be presumptive evidence to account for the excess, but these questions were of such a nature that it was impossible to enter into them. The Government must be left the masters of their own actions, and the distribution of the money was a matter of conscience. He would repeat that the Vote was altogether a Vote of Confidence, and that the only ground upon which the Government asked for it was the ground of confidence. He must, therefore, decline to give explanations which would wholly destroy the character of the Vote.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies had a special right to ask for an explanation of this Vote. From their experience they did not find that the Secret Service money was applied to the purposes for which it was really intended. They did not believe that the appropriation of the money contributed to the maintenance of law or the repression of crime. On the contrary, they found that the men who had been engaged in distributing the money were the very persons who were interested in covering and cloaking crime as far as it was possible to do so. He could give a case in point. An accusation had recently been made by an Irish newspaper against one of the County Inspectors of Constabulary in Ireland. It was one of the functions of this County Inspector to detect crime; but he had been dismissed from the Service

  251
  of the Government on account of certain defalcations in regard to the payment of Secret Service money intrusted to him. Now, it was extremely difficult to prove whether this gentleman was dismissed from the Service or not; but, at all events, he was for a time under a cloud at Dublin Castle, and was not in actual attendance upon his duty. Whether dismissed, or only suspended, he was relieved from the performance of his duties; but as soon as this Irish newspaper called attention to the facts of the case he was restored to the position he had previously occupied, and he was placed in a position which enabled him to bring an action for libel, not with standing that the accusation made against him was one of mal-administering the public money.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the hon. Member was not prepared to connect his observations with the present Vote he should take them to be irrelevant.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he intended to show that this person had been intrusted with the distribution of a portion of the fund which this particular Vote was intended to meet. He was speaking of a County Inspector charged with the detection of crime, who had been intrusted with the employment of persons under this Secret Service Fund; and he wanted to show that not only had this man misapplied the funds he had been intrusted with, but now, at the present time, when a plain accusation was made against him for crimes which he (Mr. Harrington) could not attempt to name in that House, he had been restored to the Service, for the purpose of enabling him to bring an action against a newspaper; and this Secret Service money was being used to shield him from the consequences of his outrageous conduct. He wanted to show that this man had been compelled to bring an action against an Irish newspaper, and various dilatory motions in Court had been made in order to enable him to draw his salary as long as he could, and to avoid coming to the scratch. In the meantime, every advantage was being taken of the postponement to intimidate the witnesses, who were prepared to give evidence against him, when the case came on for trial. Under these circumstances, he contended that there was nothing that could have a more immediate bearing
  252
  upon the Vote now under discussion in the House than this case. It was the case of a County Inspector who had been taken away from the discharge of his ordinary official duties for the performance of other duties, against whom an accusation had been made that he had not accounted for the funds which had been placed his hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was the person most accountable for the Vote, and for the manner in which it was disbursed; but he (Mr. Harrington) presumed that it was administrated by other persons who were not accountable to the right hon. Gentleman for what they did. The right hon. Gentleman might be accountable for it as regarded this country'; but that portion of the sum which was expended in Ireland passed altogether out of the hands of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman had no means whatever of dictating how it was to be applied. He was sorry that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not in his place, because the facts which he (Mr. Harrington) had drawn attention to were so notorious that they could not have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the charge had been brought over and over again in Ireland—namely, that this County Inspector of police, who had been engaged in the administration of this Secret Service Fund, had been guilty of defalcations, and also of various abominable crimes; and the complaint he (Mr. Harrington) now made was that the Secret Service money was being given to persons in Ireland who were employed in shielding this man from the consequences of his crime. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, who knew the manner in which this fund was worked by the Dublin Castle authorities, to explain what the facts of this case were. He (Mr. Harrington) believed that formal complaints were made of the witnesses engaged in bringing home these crimes to the County Inspector in question having been intimidated by detectives, and followed from one place to another in Ireland. He (Mr. Harrington) was well acquainted with the facts of the case, and there could not be the smallest shadow of a doubt that when this Inspector, who had been engaged in the administration of the Secret Service

  253
  Fund, was compelled to meet his accusers in Court, it would be made perfectly clear that not he alone, but others, had used the Secret Service money for the very vilest purposes—not for the detection of crime, but in the commission of abominable and unmentionable crimes which it was impossible to mention to the Committee.
  MR. E. POWERsaid, he found that this year an additional sum of £10,000 was required for the Secret Service Fund, and he did not think the Committee had had a satisfactory explanation of the reason why this additional sum was required. He trusted that a full explanation would be given, and he should further like to know how much of the total sum of £33,000 was spent in England, and how much in Ireland? He thought that was a very important point—namely, how much was spent for foreign purposes, and how much in Ireland? His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had made a very serious charge, indeed, against one of the County Inspectors in Ireland. He (Mr. B. Power) knew nothing about the merits of the case, but he sincerely hoped that some hon. Member on the Treasury Bench would get up and offer some explanation. He was sorry that the Chief Secretary was not in his place, so that he might have informed the House whether the facts mentioned by his hon. Friend were correct or not. There was one thing that was quite certain, and it was that in Ireland the distribution of this money was looked upon with the greatest suspicion and distrust. He himself believed the distribution of Secret Service money in Ireland had done more harm than any good which could possibly accrue from it. No matter what charge was brought, and no matter what the antecedents of the accuser were, if he was only prepared to say he would sustain the charge, he was at once paid out of the Secret Service money. He thought that was a very evil thing, and if some hon. Member on the Treasury Bench would tell him the amount that was expended in Ireland, he ventured to say that the Irish Members would soon tell him the purposes for which it was expended. He further wished to know from the Government whether the charges which had been made by his hon. Friend against the County Inspector
  254
  were true or not? If they were not true the sooner they were contradicted the better, and if they were true, then the sooner their correctness was admitted the better, and the sooner all such evils as this were remedied the better it would be for Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was inclined to believe that the Prime Minister knew absolutely nothing about this Vote. He believed it would be entirely repugnant to the right hon. Gentleman's character of mind, and the position he occupied, for him to have anything whatever to do with such a fund. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman took the same course as Mr. Fox, who, when Minister, said that he wanted to have nothing whatever to do with the Secret Service money, and to know nothing whatever about it, more than was necessary to prevent him from making a fool of himself in the House of Commons. He believed that was very much the position of the Prime Minister; but he did not think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could be in ignorance of the manner in which the fund was distributed. The Prime Minister had said that the very nature of the Service precluded the possibility of the Government communicating any details to the House as to the mode in which the money was spent. Anyone could understand the force of that argument, because, if they could elicit from the Treasury Bench how, when, and where the money was spent it would not be Secret Service money at all. But, although they knew very little about the use of the money, they did know that, until a very recent date, this fund was distributed between the different Secretaries of State; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had probably before now, as Secretary of State, had something to do with the disbursement of the money. Probably he had received a portion of it for his own Department, if he had been fortunate enough to require any of it. It was very well known that it was made use of by the Foreign Office, and there was good ground to believe that although some part might be used for the Foreign Office a larger proportion of it was now used in Ireland. The Committee were now asked to vote an extra sum of £10,000 for the financial year about to close, and from the bald statement in

  255
  the Estimates it might be supposed that the £23,000 voted last year, together with the £10,000 they were now asked to vote, exhausted the whole Service for the year. But that was not the case, because £10,000 more were charged on the Consolidated Fund, which never came under the ken of the House of Commons at all, but were expended according to Statute. Therefore, they were voting this year £43,000 for this Secret Service. Now, when they considered that the amount voted last year was £23,000, and that it was more than sufficient for the purpose, because, according to the Appropriation Accounts issued last week, there was no less a sum, speaking from memory, than £4,863 returned into the Exchequer, it was perfectly plain that some very sudden, but considerable development, had recently taken place with regard to this Secret Service money. He should like to know whether any portion of it had been used in the Red Sea for the purpose of obtaining information as to the movements of the Mahdi and Osman Digna? One could understand that that might be a reasonable excuse for an increase of the expenditure; but he thought it would be difficult to persuade hon. Members sitting upon those Benches that that was the reason for the increase of the amount. They believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that the excessive expenditure was duo to an increase of expenditure in the dark Departments of Dublin Castle. He should like to know in what proportion the fund was distributed between different Departments of the State; and whether the information was given to the Comptroller and Auditor General? That officer would have to give discharges for the money expended to the Secretary of State; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to know if he was made acquainted with the different proportions in which it was distributed? He did not ask for a complete Return; but Irish Members were entitled to ask whether their country was subjected to the baneful influence of this Secret Service Fund? In the last Appropriation Account, rendered a few days ago, there was a singular item. The sum of £19,000 figured as Exchequer Extra Receipts under this Vote. It was, therefore, perfectly plain that, some way or other, and by somebody who had the adminis
  256
  tration of this fund, a certain amount of expenditure was incurred which was not recognized as an admissible charge against the Vote. Under no other circumstance was it conceivable that there could have been Exchequer receipts under the Secret Service Fund. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was that he had to pay back the £19,000, and why it was that the sum was issued? It was quite plain that the person by whom it was issued had the Secret Service money at his command. He did not say that it was issued in Ireland, but it showed great laxity in the administration of the fund that it should have been issued at all, and he would like to know what particular Secretary of State was responsible for it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that several questions bad been put to him in the course of the discussion, and be would answer them as far as he was able. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) asked a question in connection with some public officer, and had asked for further information upon the subject. He bad listened carefully to the hon. Member, in order to ascertain, if possible, whether the matter was one connected with the Public Service; but he had altogether failed. He, therefore, was unable to say anything upon that subject, especially as he had nothing whatever to do with the administration of Irish affairs. He had been asked what portion of the Secret Service Fund was expended in Ireland, and several hon. Members bad asked how much went to particular public officers. That was a question which it would be improper for him to answer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, be did not think he had gone as far as that. What he bad meant to ask, and what he thought it was reasonable to ask, was, what proportion of the fund went to Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES)said, the question was, out of the whole fund, what portion went to one part of the country, and what to another? It would be most improper to state what proportion of the Secret Service money was employed in Ireland. It was not his duty to give to the House any information, direct or indirect

  257
  which would indicate in what manner, at what time, and in what place Secret Service money was expended. Therefore, with every respect, he could give no assistance to hon. Gentlemen who asked for this information, the very condition of secrecy precluding him from giving it. In regard to the item of £19, to which reference had been made, if the Appropriation Accounts included an item of that nature, he could only say that it indicated great care on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that the entire sum voted for the year 1882–3 was not expended.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the probable reason was that when the account was closed, there had come back an old repayment of a former year. As he had said already, he must point out to hon. Members who were criticizing this Vote, that the very nature of it precluded him from entering into any details. The amount required varied from year to year, and if all the money voted was not wanted, it was returned into the Exchequer as an unused balance. In fact, the amount required was constantly varying. In former years it was generally much larger than it was now. In his time he recollected when, instead of being £23,000, the same Vote was over £30,000. The amount had now been reduced to £23,000, because it was found, on an average of years, that it had not been necessary to expend the whole of the fund. This year it had been necessary to expend more than the amount voted; and just as they did right in returning into the Exchequer £4,800 which was unspent last year, so they felt themselves to be right in asking for a larger sum this year, finding that it was likely to be required.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 14: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
  (17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,733, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland, in-eluding various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out that there was a charge under this Vote of £640 for 20 inquiries under the Labourers' Act of last Session, and he wanted to know what was meant by it? Would the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury give an explanation? It would be interesting and valuable if the hon. Gentleman was able to give the Committee any indication of the success of the Labourers' Act under the administration of the Local Government Board last year. There were 32 counties in Ireland, and in most of them efforts had been made to bring the Act into practical operation, but without success. He would like to know how many applications for inquiry had been made by local Boards of Guardians, and how many of the 20 inquiries mentioned in the Vote had resulted in the successful launching of schemes for providing labourers' cottages? He was afraid the Local Government Board had not responded to the voice of Parliament in this particular, and there was every reason to believe that the Local Government Board had rather been an obstruction than a help to Parliament. He would, further, like to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury which was of great importance, and which referred to the conduct of the relieving officer of the Belmullet Union. The attention of the House had already been directed to the conduct of this officer, who, under the Government emigration scheme, by collusion and fraud, had aided in taking away a young girl of 17 from her parents. He should like to have an assurance that this relieving officer would be immediately dismissed from the Public Service. They had been told that, in the case of a public servant, an inquiry was more necessary and was of a much graver character than in the case of a private gentleman. He very much doubted whether that was so; but he hoped the Government would give an assurance that an inquiry would be made, and, unless this relieving officer could give a satisfactory answer to the charges preferred against him, that he should no longer be permitted to disgrace the Public Service of Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, there was one point connected with the Local Government Board which he thought it would be of great advantage to bring under the notice of the Committee. ["Order!"] He

  259
  had already asked a Question about it that day, and he had given Notice of another; but he thought that there was a much better opportunity of raising the matter in Committee of Supply. The Committee were aware that all the Poor Law Unions in Ireland were under the Local Government Board, and all the rules by which they were governed emanated from the Local Government Board. Therefore, it was perfectly in Order to discuss anything that related to the Poor Law Unions in the House of Commons under this Vote. He might move the reduction of the Vote; but he did not wish to take that course, because he had no general charge to make against the Local Government Board at all. There were only one or two questions to which he desired to call attention. The first was the question of the seed rate in Ireland.
  MR. COURTNEYrose to Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had misunderstood the exclamation he (Mr. Courtney) had made just now. All he meant was that it would not be in Order to discuss the general administration of the Local Government Board under cover of the particular items of expenditure included in the present Vote.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was not prepared to acquiesce in the rule laid down by the Secretary to the Treasury, and that he was entitled to appeal from the ruling of the Secretary to the Treasury to the ruling of the Chair. There was an item down in the Vote of £240 for a temporary Inspector who had been imported under the Seed Act, and he knew that there had been an Inspector present in his part of the country, but whether a temporary Inspector or not he was unable to say. The question of the seed rate had been discussed in many Unions with the Inspector, who was an amiable and well-informed gentleman, and nothing but the rising of the Secretary to the Treasury would have induced him to move the reduction of the salary of this gentleman. Indeed, it would be a pity to move the reduction of his salary, because he was a valuable public officer, and the only thing that told against him was that he was under the Secretary to the Treasury. If he (Colonel Nolan) made a Motion for the reduction of the Vote it would certainly put him in Order, and enable him to continue the discussion, which was thoroughly germane to the Vote,
  260
  because in Committee of Supply they could raise all these questions, and bring them in easily, one after the other, whenever the Secretary to the Treasury thought fit to raise a point of Order. He (Colonel Nolan) challenged the whole administration under the Local Government Board; but he did not wish to complain of the Board generally, because they had behaved wrongly in connection with the seed rate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he must confine himself to the items to which this Supplementary Vote refers. If the point he wishes to raise has reference to the salaries and wages provided under this Vote, he will be entitled, under the head of Salaries and Wages, to allude to the subject.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he believed the gentleman to whom he referred was connected with the working of the Seed Kate Act, and he would move the reduction of that gentleman's salary in order to put himself in Order in raising the question. He did not object to the seed rate, although there had been a great many disputes under it. He believed a number of the complaints under the rate were really complaints against the fairness of the rate; but the rate itself was demanded with the poor rate, and in many cases where it was not paid the ratepayer's vote had been taken away. He would give as a case in point the Union of Loughrea, where the ratepayers objected to pay the seed rate, but offered to pay the poor rate. It would be remembered that in the debates upon the seed rate the Irish Members were anxious that the rate should be paid, but they were also anxious that no man should be disqualified because he did not pay it. A great many persons refused to pay the seed rate because they were of opinion that they did not get full value for their money, and he thought it was wrong that the Local Government Board should deprive a man of his vote because he challenged the seed rate. He should like to have an opinion from the Solicitor General for Ireland upon the subject. His own belief was that if a man offered to pay the ordinary poor rate he did not forfeit his vote, and he knew that it was never intended that the ratepayers should be so situated. From his own constituency he had received strong complaints upon

  261
  the subject. He, therefore, thought it his duty to bring the matter before the Committee; and he should like the Solicitor General to say whether the Local Government Board were not going beyond the full length of their tether in ordering a prosecution where the ratepayer had refused to pay the seed rate but had offered to pay the poor rate?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) asked him for an opinion. If the hon. and gallant Member pressed the question, he was afraid that he should have to decide against him, because, under the Statute, the seed rate was imposed and collected as part of the poor rate, and all the incidents of the poor rate were attached to it. It would, therefore, follow that the non-payment of the rate would result in the loss of the vote on the part of the person refusing to pay it.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a question had been put to him by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member would be aware that the Local Government Board was not under his (Mr. Courtney's) administration. He was only casually brought into relation with it on questions of finance. With regard to the question of the hon. Member in reference to the Belmullet Union, he believed that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had the matter under his examination now; but he apprehended that it would require a very careful investigation before an answer could be given to the direct appeal of the hon. Member. He believed the accuracy of the statement which had been made in reference to the relieving officer was disputed, and it would be necessary for some time to elapse while communications were passing between the authorities. At the same time, he would assure the hon. Member that the matter would not be lost sight of. In reference to the Labourers' Act of last Session, that also was under the administration of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He believed it was the fact that the Local Government Board did not put the Act in motion, but that it was put in motion by the Boards of Guardians themselves. He had seen a coloured map of the country showing those parts in which the Act had been
  262
  put in motion, and he found that it covered a considerable part of the South. The schemes that were passed by the Boards of Guardians were sent up to the Local Government Board; but it required time before full effect could be given to them. The expenditure attending the schemes already sent up would amount to more than £500,000, so that it was not correct to say that the initial step had only been taken in a small degree, because it had been taken in a large and very considerable degree. The hon. Gentleman had asked a question in reference to an item which appeared in the Vote for the cost of inquiries. That item had no reference to the Labourers' Act, but applied to the incidental expenses of the Local Government Board. These money advances had been made, not in connection with the Labourers' Act of last year, but for conducting the ordinary inquiries of the Board. There were other incidental expenses for which provision was made last year, and the sum now asked for was the difference between the amount voted in the Estimates and the expense of the inquiries—the difference between the actual cost and the sum they were originally expected to cost. There would be a further sum in connection with these inquiries, because the expenses referred to in the Vote only related to inquiries held before the 31st of March. There had been no want of action on the part of the Local Government Board. As soon as a scheme was brought under their notice they had the right of inquiring into it, and already inquiries had been made into a large number of schemes.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he thought the hon Member had given the Committee as much information as it was possible for him to give under the circumstances, seeing that the hon. Gentleman, as he had himself said, was in no way connected with the Local Government Board. The difficulty the Irish Members had to contend with was that there was nobody connected with that Department in the House, He had expected upon the last Vote that the Chief Secretary would have been present to give the Committee some information. When the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) spoke of the disqualification of a ratepayer because he declined to pay the seed rate, although he was not unwilling to pay the poor rate, he understood

  263
  the Solicitor General to say that he could not give an absolute opinion. Now, what the Irish Members wanted was an opinion. If the ratepayers were to be disqualified from voting because they did not pay the seed rate, the sooner they knew it the better, and they ought not to be left in the dark upon the question. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not answer two of the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). One was, how many applications had been made under the Labourers' Act? and the other was, how many of those applications had been successful? If the hon. Gentleman could give them an answer to those two questions, he might be able, to some extent, to satisfy the curiosity of the Irish Members as to the items contained in this Vote. But what he principally wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury had reference to a matter which was referred to some six months ago. About that time a deputation waited upon the Secretary to the Treasury. They did not want to borrow any money from him, although they understood that he was willing to accede to such a request, but they only asked the hon. Gentleman to consult the Local Government Board and ascertain if it was a fact that the Corporation of Waterford had exceeded their borrowing powers or not? That was a simple question and it was asked six months ago. Application for an answer had been made day after day to the hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Board, but up to this day the Corporation of Waterford had received no reply, either from the Local Government Board or the hon. Gentleman. He should be glad if the Solicitor General for Ireland would give his opinion whether the Corporation of Waterford had exceeded their borrowing powers or not? It was too much to ask them to wait for six months before they could get an answer to a simple question of that sort from the Treasury. He believed that there was no more incompetent authority in Ireland than the Local Government Board. This question was raised originally in April last, and the Corporation were put to the expense of sending a deputation over from Ireland. That deputation had an interview with the Secretary to the Treasury who, no
  264
  doubt, behaved in the most courteous manner, and who said he would do all he could to give them information on the subject, and that he would communicate with them immediately. Six months had now gone by, and they were in exactly the same position they were six months ago. He, therefore, appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to give now the information for which they asked.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had been in constant communication with those who attended to these matters, and only last week had gathered that negotiations were taking place which it was believed would lead to a settlement of the question referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan). The difficulty with regard to the Corporation of Water-ford had arisen from a series of transactions; but whether the Corporation had, or had not, exceeded its borrowing powers, he was unable to state. Then with regard to the applications under the Labourers' Act, he believed that applications had been made from 70 or 80 Unions, and that the amount applied for exceeded £470,000.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he regarded the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the question of the borrowing powers of the Corporation of Waterford as not quite satisfactory. He would not enter into the legal question involved, but would merely say that, in his opinion, formed upon reports which had reached him, the Corporation must be a very extravagant one if those borrowing powers had been exceeded. He would recommend the hon. Gentleman to inquire into the facts very closely, because his experience was that the Treasury did not move very briskly in inquiries of this kind. He would remark, with reference to the question of a more limited character raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway as to the solvency or capacity of some of the ratepayers in the Union mentioned to pay the seed rate, that although he (Mr. Synan) did not know much about, their solvency or insolvency, he regarded the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend as perfectly conclusive on the point. He thought it a hard thing that the ratepayers should be disqualified, and he trusted the Local Government Board would, at once, inquire and

  265
  ascertain whether the rates were refused because the ratepayers were insolvent so far as the seed rate was concerned. But then came the great Constitutional question which the Solicitor General for Ireland refused to answer, because he was afraid, as he said, to place his hon. and gallant Friend in a difficulty. He was quite sure his hon. and gallant Friend was not afraid of that difficulty, and his (Mr. Synan's) answer was that the collector might take the poor rate, and that if he took the poor rate and gave a receipt for it, but did not get the seed rate, the individual would not be disqualified. He thought that the Local Government Board should come to that conclusion, and that the Solicitor General for Ireland should give his opinion on the subject. He believed the Solicitor General for Ireland would find that disqualification arose from non-payment of the poor rate, and unless the Seed Act contained some provision to the contrary he (Mr. Synan) maintained that the Local Government Board acted unconstitutionally in disqualifying ratepayers for non-payment of the seed rate. His contention was that if the Guardians gave a receipt for the poor rate the ratepayers ought not to be disqualified. Then came another question with regard to this vote—the charge for what were called Incidental Expenses. Now there were a certain number of persons going about Ireland at that moment with the object of making inquiries under the Labourers' Act. He asked what were they doing? Had any information been furnished as to what they had done? In his own county he was in a position to say that they had done nothing; he had watched the progress of these inquirers, and he had seen that only one enquiry had taken place, and that inquiry was only half performed. But by this Vote the money was taken beforehand; the persons in question had to be paid beforehand; the Local Government Board obtained the money to pay them before the work was done. In his opinion, until they had done the work they should not be paid. The work to be done by these 20 inquirers in Ireland was incomplete, or, rather, he would say that their inquiries up to the present moment had led to no result whatsoever, and were not likely to do so. The Local Government Board told the Guardians in Ireland that they could
  266
  not build labourers' cottages unless they paid £5 7s. 6d. per cent on the loan; the Guardians naturally refused to pay that percentage; the Local Government Board threw them back upon the Treasury, and Irish Members heard from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) that the Treasury and the Local Government Board had nothing to do with the matter. They had, therefore, a proof that the Act was a nullity. The Committee was asked for money to pay for inquiries which had led to nothing and would lead to nothing so long as this Minute lasted, and so long as the Local Government Board sheltered itself behind that Minute. Returning to the question of the seed rate, he said Irish Members were entitled to an answer from the Treasury Bench as to whether the ratepayers, although they might be insolvent, having paid the poor rate, were or were not entitled to vote. The Committee would know perfectly well that, when the Seed Act was passing through the House, it was generally considered that some of the ratepayers would be insolvent and that some of the money would be lost, and he repeated that the Local Government Board had no right to disqualify persons who, having paid the poor rate, were, in his opinion, clearly entitled to vote. He did not know what opinion or position the Solicitor General for Ireland held with relation to this matter; but he presumed, from his unwillingness to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), that he was in communication with others upon the subject. Under the circumstances he should feel it his duty to support his hon. and gallant Friend in any course which he might think proper to adopt, because no explanation had been forthcoming, and he (Mr. Synan) held that the Local Government Board had acted unconstitutionally.
  MR. MAYNEsaid, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was President of the Irish Local Government Board, was not in his place. The right hon. Gentleman might reasonably have assumed that questions would present themselves during the discussion on this Vote which would require his attention

  267
  and explanation. Now, with regard to the Inspectors under the Labourers' Act, the investigations which were on foot in connection with that Act were only at their commencement, and it was clearly necessary that whatever the result of these investigations might be—whether the applications of the sanitary authorities were granted or refused—public confidence ought to be won for the decision arrived at.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MAYNE, continuing, said, that it was most essential that the result of these investigations should carry with them public confidence. But, so far as he was aware, the decisions arrived at up to the present time had not secured the confidence of the public in Ireland. And, therefore, he said it was both advisable and necessary that steps should be taken at the commencement of the proceedings to ensure that justice and fair play should be administered throughout these investigations. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had complained that no investigations had been held in his county; but in his (Mr. Mayne's) county—Tipperary—at least one had been held. With regard to that inquiry, which was held on the 20th of February last, the impression upon the public was that it was most one-sided and partizan in its character—strong terms, indeed, to be applied to an investigation of the kind. It was stated, also, that the Inspector, Mr. Burke, had been rude and discourteous, and that of itself was a matter of considerable importance; investigations of this kind, just like those which took place under the Arrears Act, would not admit of being approached or carried on in any such spirit. Mr. Burke had permitted the landlords who appeared to be interested in the investigations to examine and cross-examine the Poor Law Guardians; but he refused to those Poor Law Guardians the right to examine the landlords who stated themselves to be interested, and he prevented gentlemen who were present and who felt a strong interest in the question under consideration—clergymen amongst them—from intervening on the ground that they were non-professional men. These gentlemen had performed very useful work preliminary
  268
  to these investigations, and had succeeded, in many cases, in bringing them to a successful issue. These non-professional gentlemen, however—clergymen amongst the number, three or four of whom were, he believed, Catholic priests—had been refused permission to interfere or ask any question whatever at the investigation itself. This was all calculated to cause a very unfortunate feeling in connection with these investigations which, as he had said, were only now commencing. If the present spirit were to be allowed to continue, there could be no doubt that incalculable mischief would be the result. The Act of last Session would be largely inoperative, because the confidence of the people would be shaken in its administration. The expenses of the investigations, according to the items set down on the Estimate, were very serious. Each inquiry, it seemed, cost £32—£20 for advertising, and £12 for shorthand writer. The total was not very great; but, if Mr. Burke's ideas were to be carried out, it would involve on the parties who had created the inquiries a much larger expenditure than the Government were prepared to incur in connection with them. If the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—who was the President of the Local Government Board in Ireland—had been in his place, he would, probably, have been able to say something in this discussion to reassure the public in those places in which the investigations were held, and to induce them to refrain from too hastily condemning the inquiries, which they undoubtedly were doing at the present time. He held in his hand a letter from a clergyman, who spoke in strong terms of the proceedings which had taken place. It was neither necessary nor desirable to read the letter; but, certainly, to judge from its contents, it was plain that the steps which had been taken, and which had produced the unfortunate feeling to which he had referred, should be reversed; it was plain that the investigations should be approached in a spirit altogether different from that in which they had been approached hitherto, unless the legislation of last Session, which was intended to produce such good results, were to be allowed to become a failure.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought that there was a good deal in

  269
  what had fallen from the last speaker which was deserving of attention; but he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) rose mainly for the purpose of expressing regret that on this occasion, when they were discussing the Public Expenditure, they had not the advantage of the co-operation of the great Conservative Party. Throughout the whole of last Session there was no subject on which Members of that Party had more frequently risen to complain of the action of the Government; and at the very commencement of the present Session the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had declared that, above all things, the Estimates required to be sifted and examined by the great Conservative Party. Her Majesty's Government had been, and were, being called on from time to time to give up the time at their disposal in order to enable the noble Lord and his Friends to investigate the extravagant habits of Her Majesty's Government. He rose for the purpose of saying, however, that in spite of what had been said to the contrary, the confidence of the Conservative Party in the Government was so complete that on this, the very first night on which the Estimates were before the House, they were con-tent to allow those Estimates to pass unchallenged.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he should like to add a word or two to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because that hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention a subject which was rather important. He had omitted to mention the fact that the "Count" was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and that that hon. and learned Gentleman, immediately he had moved it, left the House. This course on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport showed that even ho, who was sometimes left to act as Leader of his Party—[Mr. WARTON: No, no!]—yes; to show that even he did not desire to remain in the House to hear the Estimates discussed.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, the Conservatives were not the only persons who deprived the Committee of their company on this occasion. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan), who was President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, was also absent, and the Committee were discussing these
  270
  Votes without the information and assistance of the only official who could throw any light on the details of the expenditure. It was evident, from the answers of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to-night, and on various other occasions lately when he had had to step into the breach to supply the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that it was not his forte to go into details on this subject, and the consequence was that the Committee were left very much in the dark as to the details. There were two sums in the Estimates to which he (Mr. O'Brien) wished to call attention—namely, £429 and £334—sums asked for for temporary Inspectors engaged in carrying out a system of enforced emigration, which the Local Government Board of Ireland had been practising for the past year. If he (Mr. O'Brien) was right in his surmise, he thought no Irish Member was justified in voting one penny towards the salaries of these Inspectors or those who employed them. To his mind there was nothing more appalling shown by any Return supplied by order of the House than that which was disclosed by the Return put into the hands of Members only yesterday, showing the rate at which emigration was going on in Ireland. As if the amount of voluntary emigration going on was not enough, they had this House granting £50,000 for the depletion of the country—for the purpose of assisting the Irish Local Government Board in the carrying out of a wholesale system of transportation from whole baronies or counties in the West of Ireland, without any sort of satisfactory statement to the House as to what became of the unfortunate people so transported. The Queen's Speech had said something about substantial improvement in the state of Ireland. He did not know whether what was meant by that was that 108,000 of the decreased population of Ireland had been sent away from that unfortunate country last year—21 out of every 1,000 of the inhabitants. The emigration from the other Provinces of Ireland was bad enough, but that from Connaught was something fearful, and was, he believed, entirely attributable to the system of forced emigration which Her Majesty's Government had been carrying on through the instrumentality

  271
  of the Local Government Board. What did he find? Why, that whilst in 1882 there went from Con-naught only 18,150 persons, in 1883 28,819 emigrated, or 35 out of every 1,000 of the inhabitants. What had become of this 10,000 people—for he took it for granted that the excess of emigration in 1883 over the figures for 1882 simply represented the number of people who had been kidnapped out of the country by Mr. Tuke's Committee, with the connivance and the help of the Local Government Board? He thought the Committee had a right to some sort of information as to what had happened to the people whom the Local Government Board had driven or seduced out of the country. The only thing they did know was that something like 50 unfortunate families had had to be sent back from the other side of the world, and that in America official after official, including the President of the United States and his Minister in England, had had to remonstrate against the cruel system of deporting the unfortunate paupers of Ireland to the coasts of America. They had heard, as he said, of a few of these miserable people being sent home again. But what happened to the bulk of the emigrants? Those who had been sent home had been driven to the workhouses, after parting with every little bit of property they had in the world, some of them after selling their interest in some little piece of land or other property. Many of those who returned came back of themselves, parting with everything in the shape of property to enable them to do so, and, on their arrival in Ireland, their fate was to go to the workhouse. He contended that in the case of every one of these people there was a direct criminality attaching to the Government—to the Local Government Board of Ireland, and Her Majesty's Ministers, who had warranted this system of deportation. He, certainly, should be no party to letting the Irish Local Government Board out of any little difficulty they might be in in connection with this emigration business, and ho, therefore, begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £750, which would cover the charge for these two Inspectors, who, if he suspected rightly, had been engaged in this work of emigration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,983, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, there were two items in the Estimates which he must admit he did not understand, and which he, therefore, would ask Her Majesty's Government to explain. The items were "£12 for fees to legal adviser for opinions as to the operation of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883," and "£640 for 20 inquiries under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883." It was within the knowledge of a good many people that a Bill had been introduced this Session on the subject of the Labourers' Act. What the opinions of this "legal adviser" were, and what were these inquiries, should be made public, or, at least, if not made public in the widest meaning of the phrase, should be communicated to hon. Members. He had not seen them, nor had he heard anything about them. As to emigration, there was one aspect of the question which he did not think had been mentioned yet. He had made a search last year for some statistics on the subject, but had been unable to find any—had discovered that in this country there were no statistics of emigration. Statistics, however, had been prepared in Germany, and from them it was easy to calculate that the sum of money taken out of the country by the emigration of 108,000 people amounted to £10,800,000. He should like the Government to give them some explanation on this point, if they could, or, at least, to give some opinion with regard to it.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he did not doubt that the "legal adviser" who had been employed by the Government to give an opinion as to the Labourers' Act was a very eminent person; but he (Colonel Nolan) believed the counsel had given the Government a wrong opinion. He was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was not with him when he said that the opinion the Government had secured was a wrong one; but he did not rely upon his own view of the matter. There had been an opinion given by an eminent counsel in Dublin,

  273
  Mr. White, which was to the effect that there was a great blot in the law as it at present stood. Let the Government look at the case of Tuam, which was very exceptionally placed. The town hall was burnt down; the tolls produced some £800 a-year, and it was desired to raise a very moderate sum—say, £1,200 or £1,400—for the construction of a new town ball, the money to be paid back by means of the toll in two or three years. It was declared, however, that there was not the necessary machinery for undertaking the work of building a town hall, and that, therefore, the money could not be raised for the purpose. That declaration was made owing to a defect in the law or in the opinion of a learned Queen's Counsel—perhaps the latter. At any rate, that was what was said. The contention was that because the town had no sanitary authority it had no use for a town hall—that it might have such a building if it had such an authority. Well, to his mind, the question as to whether or not the town possessed a sanitary authority of its own had nothing whatever to do with the question as to the desirability of its having a town hall; and to his mind it seemed that the contention of the authorities landed them in an absurdity. It seemed it was owing to the legal opinion which the Government had obtained that the town hall was not constructed. He wished to call the attention of the Government clearly to this matter, and to show them that they ought to correct the blot in one of two ways—either by interpreting the law differently, or by reconstructing it. Surely, such a town as Tuam should be allowed to raise money for the building of a town hall—a most useful purpose. What he would ask was, whether the statement of fact he had made was correct; and, if so, whether the Government intended to take steps to remedy the evil he had pointed out?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to answer the legal question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; at any rate, he (Mr. Courtney) did not feel competent to do so. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had put a question to him about emigration, and he had understood the hon. Member to say that he
  274
  had searched in the Library for some statistics in regard to emigration without being able to find any. This he (Mr. Courtney) had been very much surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman, because, as a matter of fact, there was a Report on the subject of emigration issued annually by the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Courtney) had received a copy of it, and he should have thought the hon. Member would have had one also, or, at any rate, that he would have been able to find one for the purpose of reference.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the question he asked the hon. Member was, if he knew whether there were any statistics in this country similar to those published by the German Government, showing the loss which accrued to a country through emigration? In Germany the cost to the State of every individual up to the age of 14 was £100. If the cost to the State was the same in Ireland, and if the amount of emigration was as was stated—as there was no reason to doubt it was—namely, 108,000 last year, it was clear that the loss to the State owing to the emigration of those people, each of whom had cost £100, was £10,800,000. This £10,800,000 was money paid in the shape of rates and otherwise expended on the emigrants at home, and rendered, by the emigrations, a complete loss. He took the age of the emigrants at 14 or 16, or at the time when the human machine became productive. His main point was that the statistics applying to Germany in this regard were to be obtained, but that there were none such to be discovered in reference to Ireland.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in this country we possessed no statistics of that kind, having no bureau, or office, through which such information could be obtained. As to the inquiries which had just been made concerning the legal adviser of the Local Government Board, he (Mr. Courtney) was sorry the hon. Gentleman who put them had not been present earlier on in the discussion of the Vote, for if he had been he would have heard the explanation which had been given concerning the investigations which had taken place. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House when the Labourers' Act was passed, and should have remembered that under that measure it was necessary for the

  275
  sanitary authorities to prepare a scheme, for that scheme to be advertised in the newspapers, for persons who might be affected by it to be communicated with, for the scheme to be sent down to the Local Government Board, and for that Board to send down an Inspector to make inquiries. With reference to the exact items for advertising, the price of the advertisements was regulated—it was fixed at a certain sum. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was an evidence of the strong view that hon. Gentleman took on the question of emigration. The hon. Member evidently entertained a strong opinion against emigration, and desired to record a protest; and that being the case, and seeing that the policy of the Government on this matter had been discussed over and over again, he (Mr. Courtney) hoped it would not be unbecoming to abstain from a debate and go to a Vote.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that he had raised the question whether the Committee and the country were not entitled to some official information as to what became of the emigrants whom the Local Government Board deported from Ireland. Up to the present, the only information which the Irish public had in reference to the fate of these poor people was, in the first place, the admitted fact that a large number of them had had to come home to the workhouses after being sent out paupers to the other side of the world, and, in the second place, the report of Mr. Tuke's Committee. He did not care, at this moment, to animadvert on the motives of Mr. Tuke's Committee. He was sure that, in their own way, the gentlemen forming that Committee had philanthropic ends in view; but he was equally sure that, in striving after the attainment of those ends, they were doing incalculable mischief to Ireland—more harm than if they were committing acts openly to the detriment of the people. All the official information vouchsafed was contained in the Reports of the Committee—Reports more or less coloured by the prepossessions of their authors. The Government had given £50,000 for the purpose of assisting emigration; and having given that sum through the Local Government Board, which was the Department officially interested in the subject of emigration in Ireland, he contended that
  276
  the House and the country had a right to some official information as to the results of that expenditure.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) seemed to think that hon. Gentlemen had no right to speak deprecatingly of Mr. Tuke's Committee; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought he was right in declaring that Mr. Tuke's Committee were malicious in their objects. The main object of the Committee was to drive away a large portion of the population from Ireland—to drive away from their homes people who were sure very soon to die in the country to which they were sent from the effects of the climate. Railway contractors and Steamship Companies were the persons Mr. Tuke's Committee sought to benefit. The emigrants were sent to places where railways were being made in order that the contractors might have labour at a cheap rate—railways were, in fact, being constructed in other countries partly at the expense of the Irish ratepayers. He contended that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was a party to this conduct on the part of Mr. Tuke's Committee, and that Her Majesty's Government in this House were also to blame for lending their countenance to the Lord Lieutenant and Mr. Tuke's Committee. All the Irish Members who took an interest in this matter had protested again and again against the system of kidnapping the people and driving them into Canada. It was clear enough to him, although it did not seem clear to some people, that the Government were determined to drive the people out of Ireland—to depopulate that country. He believed they would fail in their attempt, however determined they might be; and, so far as he was concerned, he believed it to be the duty of Irish Members to protest, as strongly as they could, and to point out, as clearly as possible, what their opinion was as to the gross misconduct of the Government, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and all the parties concerned in these transactions. They knew very well that this "Mr. Tuke's Committee" belonged to a gang of philanthropists, or pretended philanthropists, who were against slavery and that sort of thing, and in favour of the moral and social improvement of the people, and yet these were the persons most anxious to bring about the eviction of those who were unable to pay the

  277
  rents which it was shown it was impossible for them to pay. He had great pleasure in voting for the reduction of this Vote, and was only sorry he was not able in a more effective manner to mark his opinion of the misconduct of all parties who had to do with this enforced emigration.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was very sorry to have to comment adversely on the conduct of the Government in the absence of such an Official as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Irish Members, he thought, had reason to complain that, when Irish statistics were brought under the notice of the Committee concerning almost every question of policy which had occupied the attention of the Irish Government, the Chief Officer of that Government was not in his place. The reason they had great ground for objection and complaint was this—that, at the present moment, Ireland was governed practically by a despotism which was irresponsible to Parliament. The way in which the Government regulated the work of Ireland in Parliament was this. There was in this House a Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was not a Member of the Cabinet, and who was not primarily responsible for the Government of Ireland, but who acted as the mouthpiece of another Representative of the Government who was not in this House, but in "another place," and could take advantage of his position. He rejoiced that his hon. Friends had taken advantage of this opportunity to raise the question of emigration. He thought it was the duty of Irish Members to urge the question of emigration in this House, in season and out of season, on every occasion on which the question could be brought before the House on good or on bad grounds. What was the position of the House with regard to this question? Allusion had been made to the money voted last year by Parliament for the promotion of emigration from Ireland; and he would assert that the money which was obtained from Parliament for promoting emigration from Ireland, judging by the manner in which it had been spent, had been obtained on false pretences—for what was the ground upon which the money was obtained from Parliament? The ground upon which it was obtained was that there were certain districts in Ireland
  278
  in which the population was congested, and where the holdings were so small that it was impossible for the people to make a living, and, therefore, it was necessary to transfer the people to a country where there was as much land as was necessary, But the money which had been so obtained to send people away from the congested districts in Ireland had been frequently spent to send away comparatively well-to-do artizans in the towns. In his own constituency the Rev. Father Dooley, who, he believed, had done as good and as great work as any man in Ireland—who had established a building society which served the double purpose of erecting better dwellings for the working classes, and providing means of investment of their money—had assured him that a native of that town—Galway—had come to him the night before he was to leave Ireland, and drew out £200 which he had invested. On the following day that man, with his wife and his mother-in-law and six children, were emigrated at the expense of the ratepayers out of the money voted by Parliament for the relief of the really poor and suffering people. He had been further informed that one of the officials who were carrying out this policy of emigration went to the barracks when the Militia were being disbanded, and invited any of the enterprizing and discharged warriors to take passage to America as tenants from the congested districts. In view of these things, he maintained that it was the duty of the Irish Members to raise this question in season and out of season; and one reason why he said this was that he did not think the Irish people had yet grasped the largeness and the significance of this problem. He was reading an article some time ago in a Conservative English newspaper, which gave some statistics with respect to the emigration from Ireland, and drew attention to the extraordinary fact that the emigration from Ireland was not only larger than from anywhere else, but that it was confined almost exclusively to the young and the energetic and the strong. This was proved by the fact that the marriage and birth rates in Ireland were lower than almost any where else. What did that show? Not only that the Government were largely diminishing the population of Ireland, but were

  279
  taking away from that population the heart and core of a nation's strength—namely, the young, the energetic, and the strong. He did not always agree with his hon. Friend; but on this occasion he joined with his hon. Friend, for, watching the whole of the proceedings of the Lord Lieutenant, he was driven to the conclusion that the object of Lord Spencer had been further to deplete the population of Ireland. He was led to the same conclusion with respect to other Members of the Administration. A prominent Member of the Government—its most recent and distinguished convert—had declared that to spend a few millions on Irish emigration would pay them well. In other words, the noble Lord who had made this cold-blooded miserable declaration, ventured to lay down the principle that this country would be justified in spending money to weaken the forces of the Irish people. The present Lord Lieutenant had, he thought, done his best to act on the principle laid down with brutal frankness and candour by his distinguished Colleague. There were two lines of policy. The first was to offer every possible bribe to the people to induce them to emigrate; the other was to make Ireland so intolerable to men to live in that they would be anxious to go to America or anywhere else, provided that they could take an everlasting farewell of Ireland under the rule of the present Lord Lieutenant. He held to the opinion that it had been the deliberate policy of Lord Spencer, the Grand Master of the chief Orange Lodge of Ireland, to adopt the principle of emigration, and to use the money placed at his disposal by this House, not for the good of the Irish people, not to provide happier homes for those who were in need, but to reduce the Irish people in their struggle for the restoration of their national independence.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he thought it would be contrary to Lord Spencer's whole opinions, and to the traditions of his own Party, if he pursued any other policy than that which he had adopted. He remembered well that when Lord Kimberley went to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, he declared that the best policy for Ireland would be to turn it into a large pasture farm for the benefit of people in England. It had been said that, perhaps, from his own point of
  280
  view, the noble Lord was quite right, because cows and sheep had never any grievances, and never made any row about anything that happened in Ireland. He considered that his hon. friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was quite right in raising this question to-night, and he hoped he and his Friends would go to a Division upon it. He could not understand why the Government refused to tell them what became of these unfortunate people who had been enticed out of Ireland. They knew that the people had gone; they knew that 50 families had gone from the workhouses in Ireland to America; that they had been landed, and, after remaining there a few days, had come back, and been sent again to the workhouses. Surely the Government ought not to persist in a course which brought misery and hardship upon many poor people, and could bring no advantage to the country. When it was found that there was an increase of £19,350 for emigration this year over the amount last year, surely the Irish Members had a right to protest against this system being carried on any further, seeing that the Vote of this money to promote emigration—against which many protested at that time, for in those days, though they could do little of what some hon. Members called Obstruction, but which they called free discussion, they discussed the matter night after night—was granted for the relief of the congested districts. Had the money been spent in that way? The statistics proved that it had not. They proved that from Connaught, where there were congested districts, but which he believed ought to be relieved by migration rather than by emigration, there had been 28,819 emigrants, but from Protestant and loyal Ulster there had been 29,918; so that, in fact, the policy of the Government had been this—they had drawn a greater number of emigrants from loyal Ulster than from disloyal Connaught. Looking at these facts, the Irish Members had certainly a right to ask the Government to pause before they went further with this system of emigration. It was a system which had brought a great deal of ruin, not only upon the farmers, but upon the landlords; and it was a system against which the Irish Members were bound to protest, for they went on the broad principle that in Ireland they had a

  281
  right to a population of 8,000,000 or 10,000,000; but the English Government had now, after 80 or 85 years of what they called Legislative Union, to confess that they found the population decreasing every day. They had done everything they could to decrease the population; but although they had tried to scatter the people all over the world, they found the people still disloyal. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide upon this question, and offer every resistance to the Vote.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that, as he understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland was only temporarily absent from the House, and was expected to return in the course of an hour or an hour and a-half, he, therefore, wished to put it to the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would not postpone this Vote until the right hon. Gentleman returned? It was an extraordinary thing that the House was asked to grant this money for the Local Government Board during the absence of the Chief Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman was absent in Ireland, he could understand this course; but as the Chief Secretary was only temporarily absent, he would appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the Vote. He was sure the hon. Member was anxious to give any information he could on the subject; but, unfortunately, he knew nothing whatever about the Local Government Board. There was a question he wished to ask the Chief Secretary on the matter which had agitated the public mind in the Recess—namely, by whose authority the famous Emigration Circular was printed and published? Was it paid for out of the Secret Service Fund? The hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, be anxious to answer the question if he knew; but he did not know. The only person who knew was the Chief Secretary, and the Committee were entitled to information before they allowed this Vote to pass. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the question of emigration had been fully discussed, and the English Members had already given their answer and decision on the matter.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that what he had stated was not that the English Members had given their decision, but that the matter had been often discussed.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated that those who were in favour of emigration must be held to have a kindly feeling for the Irish people. It was possible they might have that kindly feeling; but it was quite certain that they wanted to get rid of the Irish people. St. Patrick, no doubt, had a kindly feeling towards snakes; but he banished them from Ireland all the same. Mr. Tuke was, possibly, a philantrophist, whose sole desire was to benefit the Irish people; but it was an old maxim that charity began at home. It was true there were congested districts in Connaught; but there were also congested districts in the East End of London, as was shown by the present cry as to how the poor lived. Why did not Mr. Tuke go there and put forward a scheme for taking the people away to the West, where they could get employment and find a better chance of making a living than they could here? Not at all; he must experiment in Ireland. Ireland was the grand ground of experiment by all English men. If only they could find out from any English Member when it would be considered that the Irish population had been sufficiently reduced, that would be some comfort. When the population was 8,000,000, the English Government said—"Let us get rid of 2,000,000, and we shall be all right." Two millions had gone away, but English Ministers were still crying out. When would they be satisfied to stop, and what did they gain by this system? Irish Members, like the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, had said, and said truly, that there was to-day more widespread discontent in Ireland than there had been at any time since England first put her yoke upon that country. The Government sent the people away, and hoped by lessening the number of the people to break their spirit; but in that they had failed. Were the people loyal because they had gone to America or Australia? Did they look back with gratitude to England because they had sent them away? Did these people, who were now far away from her rule, look back and say they thanked English Ministers for sending them away? The Government knew very well that, when these people made money away, they looked back with hatred to the men

  283
  who had sent them away, while the people at home were more discontented than over. If the Government could only show anything at all to justify their policy, or when they would be satisfied that a sufficient number had gone away, there might be something to justify the policy of Mr. Tuke. Whatever might be the question now, he wished to know why there was not someone present to give the information required? And he was surprised to find that this question had been raised at all. Even though the question under this Vote was the salaries of the gentlemen who worked this system, no answer could be got to the questions asked. As there were several other Votes to be taken to-night, he thought this Vote might very well be postponed until the Chief Secretary, who, he believed, was within the precincts of the House, returned.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he wished to join in the appeal of the hon. Member that this Vote should not be taken in the absence of the Chief Secretary. He could answer for it that the greatest discontent would be aroused in Ireland, not only in the National Press, but largely among the hierarchy of the West, who were so much interested in the question of emigration. In the alternative scheme of migration, in which, in conjunction with friends belonging to both political Parties, they had borrowed from the Land Commission the services of Professor Baldwin, the question of the latter's salary must be considered; but it seemed useless to discuss the question of the Local Government Board when the President of the Board was absent. Such a course would be very much resented in Ireland, and he sincerely hoped that what he supposed was a mere accident would not be allowed to develop into a grievance in Ireland.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he did not wish this discussion to close without saying a few words upon the question. He thought what had now taken place justified some observations that were made a few nights ago as to the mistake that had been committed in not giving greater prominence to this question of emigration at a time when a distinct Motion might have been submitted to the House upon it, and some clear recommendation could have been made with a view to retarding the process of emigration by providing a better
  284
  means of livelihood for the crowded populations of the West of Ireland. He considered that the proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), that this Vote should be for the present postponed, was a very reasonable proposition. It was, he was sure, not at all in accordance with the wish of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a question affecting the Department of which he was the Chief Officer should be raised and disposed of in his absence, especially when it was a question of such vital importance to the people of Ireland generally. However, when they looked at the figures which had been quoted by the senior Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power), they could not be expected to accept the arguments which had been put forward by earlier speakers. It had been said by one of the earlier speakers that the object of getting rid of the people of Ireland was to get rid of a troublesome and disloyal and discontented people. The hon. Member for Waterford had proved that the people who had gone from loyal Ulster were far greater in numbers than those from what was called discontented Connaught; so that, if Lord Spencer's object was to get rid of those who were troublesome, and if he was responsible for the whole tide of emigration, what he was doing was to deport the population of loyal Ulster to a greater extent than from the disloyal South. No good could be done by imputing motives of that character; but the fact that no less than 108,000 people had loft Ireland last year was an appalling fact, and he must say it reflected great discredit on the statesmanship of this House, and would reflect lasting disgrace on those Irish Members who had been sent to this House if they could not devise some means of putting a stop to this system, and find some means of comfortable livelihood for the mass of people on the Irish shores. He quite agreed as to the economical disadvantages that Ireland must suffer through parting with so large a number of its population. As the hon. Member for Waterford had pointed out, no time would be lost to Public Business if this Vote were postponed and the other Votes proceeded with; but, at the same time, he must say that he did not think this question of emigration could be satisfactorily deal with in a discussion upon the Estimates. He was glad that every opportunity,

  285
  be it great or small, which presented itself for raising this question was taken advantage of; but he must confess that he was not content to see it raised now piecemeal and fragmentarily. He should himself have put a Motion on the Paper dealing with this question, but that he expected that something of the kind would be done by hon. Gentlemen near him, who represented a large body of people in Ireland, and who could speak with an authority which he did not pretend to possess. In all sincerity he expressed his regret that no Resolution of that kind had been formulated; and he trusted that, whatever might be the result of this discussion, some Resolution of a practical kind in that direction would be submitted, and that the House would have a full and thorough discussion on the whole subject. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to see his way to postpone the consideration of this Vote, and to proceed with the other Votes, which could be adequately and satisfactorily discussed, because the responsible Officers of other Departments were present to answer any questions put to them.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid he thought that the request which had been made for the postponement of the debate was only a reasonable one. As far as he was acquainted with the emigration from Ulster, it had not been an enforced emigration, but voluntary, except in one or two districts in Donegal. He strongly objected to anything like enforced emigration in Ireland; and he trusted that, as far as the Government were concerned, they would abandon anything in the nature of enforced emigration, whilst assisting such emigrants as were willing to go. Mr. Tuke might emigrate people if they were willing; but it would be better for the Government if they took no part in any emigration scheme whatever. By aiding in emigration schemes the Government were putting themselves in a position adverse to all public opinion in Ireland. He would recommend the Government to withdraw this Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that in the absence of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it was not desirable that the Committee should proceed with the Vote. He would, therefore, suggest
  286
  that they should go on with the next Vote and proceed steadily with the remaining Estimates.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that if he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the Irish portion of the Estimates should be passed over, he had no objection.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that was not what he had proposed to do. There were other portions of the Irish Estimates which might very well be discussed. All that he suggested was that they should go on to the next Vote in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid the next Vote would be open to the same objection; but he saw through the glass-door that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was about to enter the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that as his right hon. Friend was now present, it would not be necessary to postpone the consideration of the Vote.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman had returned to the House. His absence during the last hour or two had been the subject of some comment, because there was no one else who could supply the information which the Irish Members had asked for. He fully acknowledged the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; but in questions of this kind courtesy was only one of the elements of debate, and they wanted something beyond, in the shape of a little knowledge of the facts. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had suggested that it would be more useful if this question of Irish emigration were raised in the form of a substantive Motion. It was intended originally to raise the question upon the Address, and the feeling of some of the Irish Members was that, if it were so raised, it might be possible to gain some of the Radical votes. In the end it was found that they were not likely to gain any Radical or English votes, and as they received no support, the proposal to raise the question on the Address was wisely

  287
  abandoned. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had suggested that it might have been possible to gain some Radical votes if the Amendment had been pressed.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had not suggested anything of the kind.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that if that were not so he failed to see what advantage would have been gained by moving the Amendment, or by continuing to discuss the question. The hon. Member for Mayo had also raised a point in reference to the relative emigration from Ulster and Connaught.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had quoted his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that fact might perhaps induce him to receive the statement with more regard. The hon. Member had spoken of loyal Ulster and discontented Connaught, and he (Mr. Sexton) had not been able to find from the records that the emigration from Ulster differed in any respect from the emigration from Connaught. The hon. Gentleman appeared to feel himself justified in drawing the inference that the policy of emigration in destroying discontent had not succeeded. He would give the hon. Gentleman a plain unvarnished story. The emigration from Ulster, heavy as it was, was not appreciably greater than in the year before, and, as the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had pointed out, it was voluntary and not enforced. Nevertheless, it had not increased appreciably in the course of the year. But when they turned to Connaught, and examined the figures relating to emigration in connection with that Province, what did find? They found it had increased from 16,000 to 29,000. Emigration, therefore, had been greatly stimulated in that Province, and the hon. Gentleman's argument did not touch the facts, because the energy, skill, and tact of the Irish Office was being applied in getting rid of the disaffected in Ireland, and forcing them to accept emigration to Canada. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tell the Committee why these emigrants from Ireland should always be forced to accept emigration to Canada? He (Mr. Sexton) thought that when Parliament voted the money, it was intended to be used for those who could not obtain a decent living in
  288
  their own country, with the object of enabling them to obtain a decent living elsewhere. But why should they be compelled to emigrate to Canada? He noticed a remarkable fact in the statistics issued yesterday morning that, for every Englishman who emigrated from this country to Canada, four left the country to go to the United States. Then, if the United States offered, so much more than Canada, an opening which inspired an emigrant with energy and hope, and if Englishmen who desired to become the architects of their own fortunes, and to choose their own country, went to the United States, why did they compel the poor Irish emigrant, under their forced system of emigration, to settle in Canada? Was it because they cherished the delusive hope that he would still be kept within the pale of British influence? It would not be by any such puny and pitiable system that they would be able to overcome that gravitation of events by which he believed the American Republic was destined to absorb the British Possessions there. There were two things that told against the detestable system of emigration enforced in Ireland. No doubt they emigrated persons who were very poor; but they were bound to do something more than emigrate these poor people; they were bound, in morality and in statesmanship, to see that these people had some means of living in the future—that they should not throw them as waifs and strays on a foreign land, but give them some security that they would not be left helpless, as had been the case in too many instances, and that they should not be re-shipped and sent back again to the same workhouse from which they were originally sent out. There was a charge against the Government that they had abetted fraud by assisting in emigrating persons from the West of Ireland who were able to pay for the expense of emigrating themselves. He referred to the case of Belmullet. Out of 360 families which had been emigrated from the Belmullet Union, fully one-half were able to pay the cost of their own emigration. But not only had the money of the State been employed in emigrating these people, but they had been actually enabled to cheat, to rob, and to ruin the trades people of Belmullet by leaving the country and evading the payment of

  289
  their just debts. In many instances the tradesmen had lost a further chance by the emigration of persons who had been security for others. The Chief Secretary had informed the House that the agents of Mr. Tuke considered that they were not agents for collecting debts; but ought they to avail themselves of a system by which the money provided by the State was made use of by persons to enable them fraudulently to evade the payment of their debts? Not only had many persons gone away with the money they ought to have paid to their creditors, but many of them had purchased articles to assist them in emigrating which they had never paid for. From every point of view this forced system of emigration in Ireland was greatly to be condemned; and whether he looked at that aspect of the exertions of the Tuke Committee, which emigrated, at the cost of the State, persons who were able to emigrate at their own cost, if they chose to do so, or at that other aspect, by which poor people, unable to live on this side of the Atlantic, were deposited on the other side in a hopeless state of destitution, he could not help regarding the system as detestable. The voice of every authority of any competence and knowledge was raised against it in Ireland. The Press, the clergy, the Representatives of the people all condemned it with one accord; and the Irish Members would certainly avail themselves of every occasion which offered facilities in that House to expose the evils of the system to the judgment of the House, and the condemnation of the Irish people.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he must apologize to the Committee for having been absent during part of the discussion; but he had not anticipated that this Vote would have come on at so early a period. If he had been present, however, the discussion might have been cut short at a comparatively early period; because, as a matter of fact, this Supplementary Vote for the Local Government Board in Ireland did not raise the question of emigration at all, as not one single halfpenny of the £2,700 required for the Vote had been spent upon emigration. The two temporary Inspectors, whose salaries were included in the Supplementary Estimates, were employed during exceptional distress in the West of Ireland.
  290
  One of them was appointed for a district in Donegal, and another for a district in Clare, and they were not in any respect connected with emigration. They were appointed because the Local Government Board were informed that the bulk of the population in those districts was distressed. The other items, if the hon. Member would look at the Vote, would be found to have no reference whatever to emigration.
  MR. O'BRIENwished to point out that there were two sets of cases to which the Papers placed in the hands of Members applied.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. Both of the cases of the Inspectors were, as he had mentioned, cases of gentlemen employed entirely in the relief of distress. The whole Estimate for the expense attending emigration was paid out of the £100,000 voted in the Arrears Act of 1882. It was not for him to question the right of hon. Members to raise the subject of emigration upon the Supplementary Estimates; although it had nothing to do with them, notwithstanding the fact that the Supplementary Estimates were voted for the Department which was concerned in administering the State emigration of the country. With regard to the charges which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had brought forward against the Administration, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had, in reply to Questions put to him in the House, already stated that, in his belief, they were unfounded.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had refused to answer the Question put to him in regard to Belmullet.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the charge of the hon. Member was that a large number of people were emigrated who were well able to support themselves, and to pay their own passage. His answer to that charge was that if they were able to support themselves they would not have wished to emigrate.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that they were, at any rate, able to pay the cost of their own passage.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, his answer to that was that if they were able to pay the cost of their passage and desired to emigrate they would have emigrated long ago. People were actuated by ordinary human motives, and would

  291
  not hesitate to spend money in order to place themselves in a position they desired to obtain. It was not likely, however, that a population, where the valuation only amounted to 17 s. or 18 s. per head, would be able to pay £6 or £7 for passage money to a foreign country. The hon. Member said that these people had been sent off in debt to many of the tradesmen who remained behind; but the hon. Member had not brought forward any evidence to show that such was the case. It was certainly true that these poor people were very often very deeply in debt to their tradesmen. Many of them were painfully ignorant and illiterate, and when one of them ran into debt with an influential tradesman in his vicinity, he rapidly found himself deeply in debt. He found himself altogether unable to check the accounts against him; and it was unfortunately true that many of these poor people held, in regard to the big tradesmen in the vicinity, very much the same position as that which was held in olden days by working men in regard to the truck shops. The question was, whether the members of Mr. Tuke's Committee, who superintended the system of emigration, were bound to refuse to emigrate any man who was supposed to be in debt to one of these tradesmen, the tradesman having already got out of him very much more than the worth of the goods he had provided? His own opinion was that Mr. Tuke's agents were not bound to refuse to emigrate these persons, so long as they did not emigrate them surreptitiously; and there was no proof that any of the gentlemen employed in emigration had used any surreptitious means to get out of the country any poor people who were really or nominally upon the tradesmen's books. The hon. Gentleman talked as if this system of emigration was very offensive to the Irish people. He was not going to argue whether the system was offensive to certain hon. Members who sat in that House. They were actuated by broad and strong considerations of public policy with which he did not quarrel. He understood their point of view; but in disposing of the sums of money which Parliament had placed at the disposal of the Local Government Board, he maintained that there were two classes of people to whom they had to look; one was the actual individuals
  292
  they proposed to emigrate, and the other was the local authorities who were the representatives of the districts from which those people emigrated. Now, with regard to those two classes of people, it was idle to say that emigration was unpopular. The people were not forced abroad. There was no process by which they could be forced to emigrate. [An hon. MEMBER: The pinch of hunger.] He had expected some such answer as that, because he understood the line of reasoning which was running in the minds of hon. Members opposite. He had expected some such answer, but not exactly the one which had been given. He had expected hon. Members to say that these poor people emigrated abroad under pressure from the landlords, and perhaps what the hon. Member called "the pinch of hunger," or whatever else it might be—that was to say, under the pressure of distress, under the conditions of the Poor Law as at present administered, or where they took the question of rents with the contingency of eviction. Now, both of those conditions had existed for many years before this; and, therefore, it was not that state of things which drove the people abroad, because, if it had been so, as it had existed for many years, the people might have gone abroad at any moment. It was only within the last 18 months, however, that an opportunity had been given to the people of withdrawing themselves from the influences, which hon. Members opposite deprecated, by means of emigration; no compulsory power had been applied in order to drive them from the country; but he allowed that a method had been given to thorn of escaping from that which hon. Gentlemen seemed to regard as a state of terror. So much in regard to the people themselves; but now in regard to those who represented these people—that was to say, the Boards of Guardians. In dispensing the money which had been placed at their disposal by Parliament, the Local Government Board were at first determined not to place themselves in the condition of receiving a rebuff from any Board; and, therefore, they had only communicated with those Boards of Guardians who showed a very decided willingness to accept the grant for emigration. It so happened that there were 10 Unions

  293
  which appeared to the Local Government Board to be sufficiently depressed to justify them in allotting a portion of the grant to them, and all of these 10 Unions represented Boards of Guardians who were glad, and very glad, to receive a portion of the grant. There was no unwillingness whatever among these bodies, which were distinctly representative. He quite allowed that, of course, there were ex officio Guardians upon these Boards; but the ex officio Guardians did not sit in anything like a proportion, in these distressed districts, to that which was the case in more prosperous districts in the North and East of Ireland. There was nothing whatever to induce the Local Government Board to believe that either the representative or the ex officio Guardians were in any way averse to sharing in the advantages, as he ventured to call them, of the money placed at their disposal by Parliament. In regard to those districts Mr. Tuke's operations were carried out; but the money was provided either by the Exchequer, or by Mr. Tuke's Committee, only in cases where there was no unwillingness, as far as could be ascertained, on the part of any representative body, to accept the proffered assistance. There was one Union which originally showed unwillingness to accept assistance from Mr. Tuke's Committee—namely, the Union of Swinford. That Union was approached carefully, because the Local Government Board were very anxious not to raise any controversy; and he would read to the House a Minute, dated January 22 of this year, which emanated from the Guardians of the Swinford Union—
  "With reference to the letter from the Local Government Board, dated January 25, it was resolved that as to the expense of emigration of suitable persons from the Swinford Union to he selected and confided to Mr. Tuke's Committee, proper precautions should be taken that no expense whatever in connection with emigration was to be borne by the rates, the proposal should be accepted."
  MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what happened at the next subsequent meeting of the Swinford Board?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not know; but the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee himself, seeing that he could speak as often as he liked when the House was in Committee. He would only remind the hon.
  294
  Member that the Minute he had read was a Minute which emanated from a hostile Board; but they accepted the assistance of the Government on the condition that no expense should fall on the Board, and that care should be taken to select the right sort of emigrants. He had made these remarks about emigration because it was a subject which interested hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion; but he was bound to call the attention of the Committee again to the fact that the Supplementary Estimate they were discussing did not in any way raise the question of emigration. Indeed, it was absolutely impossible that it could raise the question of emigration, because the entire expenses of emigration were paid out of a single Vote, the first two-thirds of which were provided for in the Arrears Act, and the remainder in an Act entitled the Tramways Act. The only item in the Vote which applied to recent legislation was the item of £370 for expenses under the Labourers' Act in Ireland. It had been the duty of the Local Government Board to carry out to the best of its abilities not only the Tramways Act and the Labourers' Act, but every other Act which had been passed by Parliament for the benefit of the people of Ireland. He trusted that, having listened to the remarks he had made, hon. Members would allow the Vote to be taken.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had cited Swinford Union in support of his contention that the emigration policy of the Government was popular with the Poor Law Guardians in the West of Ireland. He would point out, however, that the resolution of the Swinford Board of Guardians was passed at a meeting of the Board attended by only six or seven Guardians, and that on the next day the Board saw the fallacy of its conduct, and made the resolution the subject of indignant language, and the Chairman himself apologized for it, saying that he was not in favour of the emigration scheme.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), The hon. Member drew a very sad and dreadful picture of the condition in which a good many emigrants from Ireland found themselves on arriving at the other side of the Atlantic; and he

  295
  charged it on the Government that if they did send the people out of the country they ought, at least, to place them in such a position as would enable them to avoid sinking into the miserable state which he described. Now, he thought his hon. Friend knew very well that, in spite of everything which he could do or say—and he believed that the hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were prompted by the very best motives, and so far he agreed with them—a certain amount of emigration must go on. There were two points on which he differed from the hon. Gentleman and his Friends on this important question. He believed his hon. Friend would agree with him that there always would be a certain number of persons induced by love of adventure, fondness of change, or the desire of seeing their friends, to leave Ireland; and he was sure that all hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would desire that the condition of those persons, on their arrival in America or Canada, should be as satisfactory as possible. That being so, the question was to consider the best means by which this could be insured. It would be in the recollection of the Committee—for he had brought it before the House very pointedly on two or three occasions—that the Marquess of Lome, when Governor General of Canada, at the instance of the Dominion Government, sent a despatch to the Prime Minister in this country pointing out the generous desire which the people of Canada had for the amelioration of the condition of the poorer class of the Irish people at the time when great distress existed in Ireland; and he said that the Government of Canada were willing to grant 160 acres of land to selected persons, provided that the Imperial Government would contribute sufficient money in each case to enable those persons to purchase a milch cow, a horse, and what else was absolutely necessary to enable them to subsist on the land at first. He had brought this subject under the attention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues; and he was bound to say that, with hardly an exception, they had stated their willingness that emigration should be carried on, to a certain extent, under such circumstances as he had described. But the Government, unfortunately, had turned a deaf ear to the
  296
  proposal. He had entreated the Government to consider favourably the generous message sent from Canada on behalf of the people of Ireland, but without success. Then, again, during the last 12 months, the Chairman of the Pacific Railway Company made a proposal to the Home Government that if £1,000,000 was given to the Pacific Railway Company in seven years, for which they would give ample security, they would be willing to take out a certain number of Irish families, put them in a most favourable position in Canada, give them 160 acres of land, and do everything that was stipulated in the despatch of the Governor General. This proposal also fell through, owing to the conditions imposed by the Imperial Government, one of which was that the Dominion Government should join in the security to be given to the Pacific Railway Company. Thinking that it was desirable that the people who emigrated should do so under proper guidance, he had several interviews with the Agent General of Canada, with the view of making an arrangement with him; but the Imperial Government insisted on a most needless proviso, and refused to assent. It would have been better to leave this matter in the hands of the Pacific Railway Company, because, as the Company was to be paid £1,000,000 in seven years, it was necessary that the people who emigrated should be put into such a position in Canada that they would be enabled to keep up the instalments. What had become of that proposal of the Pacific Railway Company? It was one of the most advantageous that could be made in behalf of the persons it was desired to benefit, and if it could be carried into effect he believed the Imperial Government would not have lost one shilling by its adoption; and he was disposed to think that his hon. Friends behind him, and the people of Ireland themselves, if they had seen that their fellow-countrymen were being placed in the position proposed by the Pacific Railway Company, would willingly have assented to it. He had been in the United States, and he could imagine nothing more wretched than the position of persons landed in New York with only £1 in their pockets. It was true that Her Majesty's Government had said they would give £2 to each emigrant; but

  297
  that was still a ridiculous sum, and upon such conditions he should himself be glad to keep as many people at home as possible. There were, as he believed his hon. Friends would admit, a certain number of people in Sligo, Cork, and elsewhere in Ireland, whose position would be considerably improved by their going away on proper conditions, and it would be better for themselves and the country that they should do so. But he joined his hon. Friends on those Benches in offering every possible opposition to any further emigration, unless it were conducted on such principles as would insure to the people landed in the United States or Canada their being placed in such a position on arrival as would enable them to get a comfortable living; and, therefore, he applauded the attitude which his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo had taken up towards the existing system.
  MR. BARRYsaid, he had been surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland defending the course of action pursued by the Local Government Board, and by the Boards of Guardians in Ireland last summer; and he was also surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman denying that there had been any such thing going on as compulsory and surreptitious emigration from Ireland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the great amount of evidence that had been collected last autumn as to the compulsory emigration that was taking place. He (Mr. Barry) had been in New York last summer, and saw some of the emigrants landing from the steamers, and anything more pitiful than the condition of those people he had never seen. The United States Commissioners had taken very practical steps to demonstrate the truth in this matter, and he held in his hand an affidavit which showed the condition of the people and the circumstances under which they were sent away. The affidavit was as follows:—
  "STATE OF NEW YORK.
  "Offices of the
  "Commissioners of Emigration,
  "Castle Garden, N.Y.
  "Nano Sullivan, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is a native of Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry, Ireland, and arrived at the port of New York, June 24th, 1883, per S.S. Furnessia, from Liverpool, viâ Valencia, Ireland. That
  298
  she has her illegitimate child with her, aged 3 years. That she has been an inmate of the workhouse in Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry, Ireland, for the last three years. That she did not want to come to America, and on her so stating was told by Mr. O'Neill, one of the Guardians of said workhouse, that if she did not she would be put out of the institution. That she wanted to have her child with her married sister, who was willing to care for it; but was not allowed to do so. That herself and child's passage was paid for by Mr. W. O. Driscoll, Clerk to the Union, who also gave her money order for £1, on Henderson Brothers, No. 7, Bowling Green, New York City, agents of above vessel. That she had no relations or friends in America, and that she wanted to be sent back to Ireland."
  He would not trouble the Committee by the whole series of affidavits in his possession, but would remark that they were all of a similar character. Some of the scenes he had himself witnessed in New York were of the most heartrending description. One man, whom he saw land with six children around him, said that he had protested earnestly against being sent out of the country; but he was told that unless he made up his mind to leave in two days he and his family would have to go out of the workhouse; he protested that his wife was ill and about to be confined. The child died on the voyage, and he (Mr. Barry) saw the poor woman a raving lunatic held down by two or three officials in Castle Garden, New York; the man insisting upon being sent back to Ireland because he had no relatives or friends in America. He (Mr. Barry) asked, how, in the face of unimpeachable evidence of this kind, could the right hon. Gentleman get up and gravely assure the Committee that there was with regard to the poorer people of Ireland no such thing as compulsory emigration? It existed beyond all doubt, and its odious character, and the odious conditions which surrounded it, made it detestable in the eyes of the people of Ireland and their Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman had made in his speech a sweeping charge against the small shopkeepers in Ireland, describing them as tyrants over the people; but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman's historical recollection of Irish matters was somewhat limited, because he would otherwise have remembered that, whilst Irish Members in that House in 1879 were striving by every means in their power to direct the attention of the Government to the approaching famine, the shopkeepers were the people who, at a

  299
  great sacrifice of their own interest, gave the poorer classes unlimited credit. He was, and should always be, opposed to the truck system, either in this country or in Ireland; but for the right hon. Gentleman to insinuate that the assistance given by the shopkeepers in Ireland during the famine partook of the character of that odious system, to say the least of it, very much surprised him.
  MR. A. PEASEsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) appeared to be based upon incorrect information. It must be obvious to everyone that Mr. Tuke's Committee, of which he was a Member, were not open to the charge of having used their powers, as had been stated, to encourage landlords to evict their tenants, or to do anything that could be described in that way. The hon. Gentleman said he had the authority of Catholic priests for the statement; but he (Mr. Pease) was bound to say that the Committee had the assistance of Catholic priests in the districts in which their work was carried on, who gave information as to the families living in the localities. They had, moreover, the assistance of the Relieving Officers of the districts, who were certainly most likely to know the circumstances of the families, because it was to them that they made applications for relief. Under the circumstances, he did not see what more could have been done, and he doubted very much the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member when he said those persons were in possession of considerable means. Then with regard to what had been said about the shopkeepers. The Committee knew that many persons were in debt to this class, but they had no money wherewith to pay; and it could not, therefore, be any disadvantage to the localities that they should leave because there was no prospect of their paying the shopkeepers unless they starved in the attempt. He would point out that after the emigrants had settled in Canada they had sent back no less a sum than £10,000 to the district to pay the shopkeepers, to assist their friends to pay under the Arrears Act, and also to enable friends to join them in more happy circumstances in America. Then with regard to the statement that people were being thrown helplessly on the shore of America. Mr. Tuke's Committee made arrangements in Canada of
  300
  such a kind that there was not a single family landed there without employment, or which was not placed with relatives who had written letters promising to give them either assistance or employment on arrival. Therefore, he thought the observations of the hon. Member were based upon incorrect information. There seemed to have been some want of discretion, or, perhaps, of humanity, on the part of some Boards of Guardians in Ireland; but for that Mr. Tuke's Committee was not responsible. In conclusion, he was in a position to state that not one emigrant sent out by that Committee had been refused by the American Government.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he regretted the sweeping accusation that had been made against the shopkeepers in the West of Ireland, because everyone having experience of them must know that many of this class acted not only with very great forbearance, but with charity towards their distressed neighbours.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he did not know whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had succeeded in convincing the Committee that there was no direct connection between the Vote under consideration and the question of emigration; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might be assured that on every opportunity of the kind hon. Members on those Benches would protest against the miserable policy, of which he was the arch-apostle in Ireland. The Committee had had proof that evening that, so far from having altered his opinion, he had the deliberate intention of pursuing that policy to the furthest extent, and of aggravating the feelings of the Representatives of the people of Ireland. The arguments employed by the right hon. Gentleman were singular indeed. He took the Poor Law Boards as those whom he regarded as the representatives of the poorer people of Ireland, and whose co-operation he considered necessary in carrying out this policy. Everyone knew that the Boards of Guardians had a direct interest in sending poor people from Ireland, and if the right hon. Gentleman had not made himself acquainted with that fact, it was but another instance of his ignorance of Irish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman said that in many instances the Boards of Guardians were quite willing to avail themselves of the assistance of the emi-

  301
  gration scheme; but he did not say that the alternative giving employment to the people in their districts was offered, or that the Guardians must either support the people out of their slender rates, or submit to his "pinch of hunger" policy. With regard to the local traders in the West of Ireland, he thought there was no expression in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which more completely demonstrated his ignorance of Irish affairs and the relations between classes in Ireland than the statement he had made with reference to the local traders, which he (Mr. Harrington) could only account for by the fact that his knowledge of Irish matters was simply nil. But everyone acquainted with the West of Ireland knew that the small traders had, during the past five years, liberally contributed both in goods and money out of pocket to enable the unfortunate tenant farmers to pay rack-rents to the Irish landlords, and that the debts due to them and the money so advanced had led them to ruin and bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no compulsory emigration from Ireland; but did he forget that he had refused Irish Members the opportunity of arriving at the truth when challenged in that House for inquiry into the matter? The right hon. Gentleman had at all times refused such inquiries, and then he said the Irish Members were not able to give him proof of the maladministration with which this system had been conducted. He thought, however, his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Barry) bad given proof that the people who had left Ireland had been forced out of the country by the Boards of Guardians, owing to the interest which those Boards had in reducing their rates. Did the right hon. Gentleman forget, when he relied on the information of the Boards of Guardians, that those Boards were the recruiting sergeants, so to speak, to pick up emigrants in the poorer districts of Ireland? The hon. Member opposite said that the Committee went into the cities and towns and tempted as many idle men as they could get hold of to emigrate. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman thought he was arriving at the solution of the Irish difficulty by that policy; but he could tell him that, so far from conciliating the people by
  302
  this means, he was only raising up bitter feelings amongst them, and raising up greater difficulties for those who would have to succeed him in his Office. He could assure the Committee that so long as hon. Members on those Benches represented Irish constituencies they would protest against the miserable policy which was being pursued, and of which the right hon. Gentleman was champion—namely, that of thinning the population of the country. If it was true that 21 out of every 1,000 of the people had been emigrated during the past year, and that, whilst that emigration was going on, the area of cultivation was diminishing, it was the duty of the Irish Members to protest. He was assured as an undoubted fact that land was going of cultivation, and that the young and able-bodied who were capable of working were being driven into a foreign land. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had mentioned a significant fact—namely, that while all the voluntary emigrants went to the United States to seek a living, the unfortunate people who were transported by the Government and Mr. Tuke's Committee were sent to Canada; and they had clear and undoubted proof from the newspaper reports that the condition of these people, when they landed in Canada, was a scandal to the country which sent them out.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was sure it was not the fact that the people who had emigrated had left the shopkeepers of their native places in debt. In almost all cases the people had sold all they had to be able to pay the shopkeepers before emigrating. He must repudiate what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said against the shopkeepers. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would qualify what he had said. Some of them made money—here and there one or two in a town—but, as a rule, they had had to struggle very hard for a living, and had been very little helped by the country. The great bulk of them very much preferred the ready-money system, and gave as little credit as they could. In the very hard times, no doubt, they had been obliged to adopt the system which had been referred to. They did not like to lose their money any more than any other class, and he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to make a

  303
  complaint against them as a body. The commercial condition and the commercial wealth of Ireland was by no means what it ought to be; but he trusted it would improve. As to emigration, he looked upon it as the fault of the policy of the Government that so many people were leaving Ireland. He did not complain so much of what they had done in the matter of emigration as of what they had left undone in other respects. If they would take measures to give employment to the poor, they would not be so much to blame; but they did not—they had given this money for emigration, and had done little or nothing else. Whatever good emigration might have been able to do in years gone by, it had now spent its force. All the good that could be done had been done; and if the system were extended in the future, the result, he was sure, would be nothing but unmixed evil—they would not do as much good as they had been doing, and would produce still more evil.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, it seemed to him the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was tantamount to declaring that all the people who had been sent away were delighted to go, and that all who remained behind were delighted that they should be sent. He (Mr. O'Brien) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not availed himself of a couple of opportunities which had presented themselves of testing the opinion of the country on this matter recently—he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not sent down a "pinch of hunger" candidate to a constituency in order to try the popularity of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his case for emigration was complete, because 10 Boards of Guardians in the poorest districts in the West of Ireland had more or less countenanced it. The fact was, however, that in only two—he himself believed in only one—of these Boards of Guardians had the representative members a majority. This single Board was the Westport Board, and that, within the last three months, had passed a resolution distinctly refusing to spend a shilling of the rates in helping the transportation of the people. The rest of the Guardians ex officio were "rings" of landlords, who had a direct interest in getting what one of them, with good taste and humanity, recently
  304
  described as "pauper warrants" from the Government. These men would be more than human if they resisted the seductions which were thrown in their way by the combined philanthropy of Mr. Tuke's Committee and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. They had been promised that the. whole of the workhouses should be cleared of paupers; and he verily believed that if the United States Government had not sent back with ignominy the poor people home Her Majesty's Government had allowed to be deported, the more helpless pauperism of Ireland would have been flung on the coasts of America. The Guardians, of course, jumped at the offer. He might point out that in the few cases in which the United States Government had inquired into the condition of the people upon landing, they had found, what was perfectly notorious—namely, that these unfortunate people, many of them not even speaking English, used to a most primitive kind of life, and as much strangers to that new country as Bed Indians would be to the Western world, had been thrown upon their shores with sums of £1 or £2 at the outside in their pockets to begin life with anew. This was the ground on which he had originally called this Vote in question to-night. He had pointed out that there was an increase of over 10,000 emigrants from the Province of Connaught last year over the year before, and it was certain that that was almost entirely caused by the assisted emigration of the Government. What he wanted to know was whether the Government had any authentic information to give the Committee as to the fate of those 10,000 people. They had heard what had happened to the wretched creatures that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Barry) had seen at Castle Garden; they had heard of emigrants being sent back to their prisons—the Irish workhouses; and they had heard the story of the miserable emigrants wandering about the Canadian towns without a prospect of work; whilst on the other side they had the testimonials referred to by the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Pease). He need not say that there never had been a philanthropic enterprize, liberally supported, whose agents were not able to produce plenty of testimony to prove that white was black, or black was white,

  305
  just as was desired. Quack doctors had never been in want of very eloquent and forcible words in which to recommend their medicines. These English philanthropists went over to these wretched districts, just as another race of philanthropists in the last generation had gone over to convert the benighted Papists. Most pathetic stories used to be sent over to England as to the progress of the work of enlightening the unfortunate Irish, and the letters in which these stories used to be told used to be quoted at all the Exeter Hall meetings amidst the most earnest applause. He must say he had not heard more self-congratulatory testimony, even in the printed Report of Mr. Tuke's Committee, than he had heard a thousand times over in the Reports of the Missionary Societies in the West of Ireland, relating to districts with which he was familiar, and in which he knew that the success of those Societies had been absolutely nil. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some sort of information as to what had really become of these 10,000 people. Where were they? He charged the Government with the transportation, under false pretences, of these people. What had become of them? All he could say was that if that House would not see, by argument, the madness of the policy of Irish emigration, these Irish emigrants, whom they were sending away, would yet teach them that madness.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Committee had not gained much enlightenment from the arrival of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan), and from the statement of the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Pease). Some scraps of information, however, had been gleaned from these Gentlemen. The Committee found that the Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Whitby, and Mr. Tuke's Committee belonged to what they might call the "Long Firm." In the first place, the Chief Secretary refused to allow the Poor Law Guardians to give outdoor. relief to the poor families in districts impoverished by famine; then he sent out a pamphlet to the Relieving Officers asking them to tout for emigrants for Mr. Tuke's Committee; then Mr. Tuke's Committee came and said the people would be delighted to emigrate—because the Chief Secretary had told them some of them would like
  306
  to go abroad—and the ratepayers in the districts in which these poor people resided had been impoverished by the existing system of charging blood money, and by the extra police tax, and did not know what to do. The Guardians could not get the people to pay their rates, impoverished as they were; and they were, therefore, glad to resort to any means they could to lower the rates. The result was the emigration of poor families—that was the way the system of emigration was carried out, by false pretences and fraud amongst these members of the long firm. He really thought the Chief Secretary should get up and make a clean breast of it, telling them the whole facts from top to bottom. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them that the whole system was one of which he was heartily ashamed. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the Guardians to assist the people, then he sent the people out to Canada, where the climate was such that it was not possible for more than a small proportion of the poor creatures to live, and then he lent his countenance to the reports which had been referred to. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that the Poor Law Guardians, who were at their wits' ends to support the paupers in their districts, were—especially, no doubt, ex officio members, who wished to lessen the rates for themselves—better authorities than the Catholic Bishops and clergy who had raised their voices in the matter, and had all protested in the most vehement terms against this system of forcible emigration. The Government, who thought they were doing a grand thing in emigrating the Irish peasantry, were not adding much to their popularity, or to the probability of their getting the support of the Irish Party. The Irish Party had voted against the Government on their Egyptian policy, and why did they do so? Simply because of the government of Ireland by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. If it had not been for that, he certainly did not think the Irish Party would have voted against the Government. In all probability they would have voted with them. The right hon. Gentleman had the result of mis-government in Ireland before his eyes—he knew what had been the effect of mis-government under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford

  307
  (Mr. W. E. Forster); and could he not imagine that the fate of the right hon. Gentleman might also be his own? Could he not imagine that he might also be thrown over by a Government which found that it did not pay to retain such officers?
  MR. LEAMYwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had heard to-night for the first time the affidavit which had been read over by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Barry)? It was possible that the Irish Executive had not taken the trouble to ascertain on what ground the people who had been sent back from America had been returned. If he had not heard the affidavit and the facts stated by the hon. Member for Wexford for the first time, how could he explain his statement that there was no forced emigration from Ireland?
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he supposed, from the course Her Majesty's Government were taking, they were anxious to increase the sale of The Irish World; otherwise, what object could they have in sending out to America, to make desperate characters of them, people who, if allowed to remain at home, would continue quiet and peaceable citizens? He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to lay down the maxim that, for such a good purpose as emigration, people had a right to run away and defraud their creditors. ["No, no!"] Yes; he understood the Chief Secretary to defend the practice of so defrauding creditors, and to admit that there were a number of traders in Ireland whose debtors Her Majesty's Government had helped to run away out of the country. He understood that after all the denunciations of the immorality of the "no rent" policy they had heard coming from the Ministerial Benches "no rent" of an aggravated form was now a part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland as well as in Khartoum. The present Cabinet might be described as a Cabinet of Repudiation—repudiation always, of course, for an object, for Her Majesty's Government had accepted the maxim that "the end justifies the means." However, this was no jesting matter. The Government was still keeping up the policy of emigration, instead of adopting one of beneficial legislation. The glittering promises
  308
  of the Government about allowing a larger share of electoral power to the Irish people sounded rather strangely in view of this policy—carried on simultaneously—of removing from the country the people who would be capable of exercising the electoral power. He certainly agreed with the criticisms passed on Lord Spencer and on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; however, he could not but regard those Members of the Government as the hands rather than the heads; and it was on Her Majesty's Government in general, and their English supporters in particular, which rested the responsibility for this policy of extermination. He did not know how far Her Majesty's Government thought they were entitled to trifle with the sensitiveness or the indignation of the Irish race; but, most assuredly, at the present moment, when so many dangers surrounded this Empire, it was, to his mind, a foolish policy, even from the point of view of English common sense, to continue irritating and exasperating the Irish race, which was so widely spread and capable of exercising influence in so many directions. On the Irish Benches hon. Members could do no more than utter verbal protests; and in the Lobby they could do no more than register votes against Her Majesty's Government; but, for every Irishman emigrated by the policy of Her Majesty's Government from Ireland, when a wise policy would have firmly planted that man and his family in his own land, he did not shrink from taking the responsibility of wishing that a corresponding evil might fall on the Government of this Empire.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 92: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BIGGARwished to ask the Chief Secretary a question with regard to the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that an extra Inspector had been sent down to County Donegal and County Clare. Was this person Mr. Macfarlane, who had been guilty of the misconduct of travelling with an expired ticket? In the next place, he should like to have some explanation with regard to Sub-head E and Sub-head I. He

  309
  should like some explanation as to the increase in the Vote, for under Sub-head I there was no explanation whatever. These two sub-heads represented the salaries of medical men in Ireland, and with a decreasing population in that country, he should like to know on what ground increased salaries were given to those medical men? In Dublin there was a society, headed by Doctor Jacob, which constantly made representations to the Local Government Board with a view to robbing the ratepayers; and he wished to know whether this Doctor Jacob and his confederates were going to get leave to plunder the ratepayers of England and Wales as well as of Ireland? These persons were particularly industrious in their mode of action in these interests. They were constantly seen in deputations. They were seen in the Lobby of the House at different times; and he should like to know whether the Chief Secretary could give any explanation respecting this increase of the salaries of the medical officers in Ireland?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked, what was the meaning of a comparative sliding decrease?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, with regard to the Inspectors, Mr. Macfarlane was the permanent Inspector for Donegal; but he would not enter into any personal question with regard to that officer, because it was not his salary that was being questioned, but the salaries of temporary Inspectors. A variation of a few hundreds in the course of a year in the salaries of medical officers, which amounted to something like £74,000 a-year, was not a very great variation. He thought that was about as much explanation as he could be expected to give, and he could not go into a discussion of the details of this large sum.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation satisfactory. It was, in fact, no explanation at all; and he should move to reduce the Vote.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he remembered having a good deal to do with this question of medical officers in Ireland when he was Chief Secretary, and he found that there was always that difficulty to which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had referred—namely, the contest between the medical officers on the one hand, and the Board of Guardians on the other;
  310
  the officers, of course, being desirous to have larger salaries, to which in many cases they were entitled, and the Guardians being anxious to reduce the salaries. But he also remembered that under the Public Health Act, by arrangement with the Treasury, there was a certain scale of salaries fixed which was to be enforced throughout Ireland. He believed that if that scale had been adhered to, such a fluctuation as appeared in this Vote would have been impossible. He hoped the Committee would receive from the Chief Secretary some explanation as to whether that scale had been adhered to, or whether there had been some alterations which had caused this increase. If so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what the alteration had been.
  MR. O'BRIENasked under what head the salary of Dr. Wodehouse appeared?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that the salary of Dr. Wodehouse was under Sub-head C.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned Dr. Wodehouse's name, because he should be under the necessity of moving that that officer's salary be reduced by £247. Mr. Macfarlane was an Inspector who had rendered himself exceedingly unpopular in Ireland; but Dr. Wodehouse had rendered himself still more obnoxious by his conduct in Donegal last year. He believed Dr. Wodehouse was entirely responsible for the misconduct of the landlord Board of Guardians in Donegal last summer, in refusing to minimize the distress, and in misleading the House. He did not think the Irish Members ought to let any portion of Dr. Wodehouse's salary pass without a protest against his persistent attempts to deny, what to all the rest of the world was only too evident—namely, that thousands of people were left for months dependent on the very precarious chances of charity. He not only tried to deny that distress existed, but he did all that he possibly could to dissuade the English people from contributing to charitable funds. For these reasons he should move that Dr. Wodehouse's salary be reduced by £247.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,486, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of

  311
  March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, in reply to the right hon. Member (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that the amount of money asked for under Sub-head II was easily explained by the cost of medicines, which had increased by 7 per cent. The next Sub-head—I—dealt with the salaries of officers under the Public Health Act for the year ending September 29, 1882, the officers not having sent in their accounts earlier. With regard to Dr. Wodehouse, he could make no answer that would satisfy the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He was appointed by the Irish Government to carry out a policy which was frequently discussed in that House, very warmly and energetically, by the hon. Member and some other Members, but which met with the approval of the great majority. In carrying that policy through, Dr. Wodehouse had proved himself very faithful to his duties; and although the hon. Member might justly challenge his salary in condemnation of the policy of the Government, the Government must defend his salary as a protest in favour of their policy and of Dr. Wodehouse; he having carried out that policy energetically and loyally.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the exposition the Committee had just heard of the Irish policy of the Government last year was very extraordinary. The conduct of Dr. Wodehouse was defended on the ground that he had behaved contrary to the local wants, and contrary to the wishes of those who were the Representatives of the people; and contrary to the cry of distress which rang on every side, and contrary to the protestations of every English visitor to Donegal. What was the defence made by the Chief Secretary? It was that, whatever Dr. Wodehouse's offence might have been, he was carrying out the policy which the Chief Secretary, from his lofty position of official and centralized Government, imposed on the local officials; and then, in defence of that policy, the Committee were told that it had obtained the approbation of the majority of the Members of that House. The Chief Secretary's contention, that that policy with regard to the county of Donegal, or any other Irish county, had obtained the approba-
  312
  tion of a majority of Members, was just worth as much, from every Irish and every common-sense point of view, as if he had stated that the policy Dr. Wodehouse had been ordered to execute had been approved by a majority of the inhabitants of the Chinese Empire. What did the majority of Members know about the state of Donegal? What did the Chief Secretary, when he was going over Donegal in a closed carriage, and with a luncheon basket, know about the condition of the county? When he was waited upon by the priests and curates, he saw—and admitted in that House that he saw—the starvation, and he said that the only result of that view was to convince him that the time had come to give the screw of misery just an additional turn. To make hunger a little more pinching was to give the population no alternative but the workhouse or emigration. But to come back to the original question. If a local official in England acted contrary to the wishes of the locality and to the wishes of all who had a right to speak, would any English Member defend that official on the ground that he had satisfied a majority of Members of that House? English Members would Bay that it was his duty to see that he satisfied the wishes of the locality, and not to attempt to defend him because a majority of Members were satisfied. If any English Member offered such a defence as that he would be scouted out of the House; but if in an Irish county, in a time of starvation, an official of the English Government went directly against the interests to which he was appointed to minister, the defence was that he had carried out the duty imposed upon him. The whole theory of centralized government was reduced to an absurdity by such a defence. It was no use to point out to the House that an official was negligent and hard-hearted, for the Chief Secretary replied that it was his duty to be negligent and it was his duty to be hard-hearted. The complaint against Dr. Wodehouse was that he had neglected his business and derided the wants of the locality, although his salary had to be paid by Irish ratepayers and other contributors. He had gone against every representation made to him in Donegal by such men as Father M'Fadden, of Gweedore, and well known to be a centre of distress; and the only

  313
  satisfaction that Irish Members got was, that he was appointed, not to carry out the needs of the locality, but a policy settled by the Government of this country and approved by a majority of the House. That policy of justification, set forth as the theory of Irish administration in such a cold-blooded and cold-hearted way by the exponent of the Government, would produce sentiments of revolt and rebellion in any Assembly less civilized than the Assembly which he had now the honour to address. It seemed to him that there were certain forms and topics of civilization which dulled modern sensibilities; and, judging from the manner in which the Government were supported in matters of this kind, he should say that the civilization of their supporters must have reached a very high point indeed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to the form of this Vote, as it seemed to him to be rather a dangerous form. Under Subhead E, it was stated that £640 were for inquiries under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, at the rate of £32 per inquiry—£20 for advertising and £12 for shorthand writing—less £243, anticipated saving on the ordinary expenses. He should be glad if the Chief Secretary, having given so much explanation, would go a step further, and explain what were the ordinary expenses on which the saving was anticipated, because, in point of fact, the House was unable to know whether it was required to sanction £643 or £397. He thought there should be some means by which the House could tell where the saving was to come from. Did the right hon. Gentleman expect to recover £243 under this particular sub-head?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had intended to draw attention to the same subject, and to show that there ran through the whole Estimates the same objection he had already pointed out. He thought some explanation was required, and that Supplementary Estimates should not be proposed except in a form which would show Parliament exactly what was to be done.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him that the way in which this Vote was presented was very improper. The Government
  314
  had made a miscalculation as to the amount they required for the Public Service; but they ought to be able to give some more distinct idea of what would be needed. It was a little too bad that after the miscalculation last year there should be a miscalculation now. Why were the Treasury speculating upon the possibility of having this saving of £243? Were they quite sure there was no other expense incurred in connection with the emergencies than £20 for advertisements and £12 for shorthand writing? How did the Committee know that the persons charged with the inquiry had not had to call someone before them? Were the Committee to expect that the poor labourers of Ireland were to be brought before the inquirers, and that they were to be told—"There is nothing for you; we can't give you anything; all that we are allowed is £32—£20 for advertisements, and £12 for a shorthand writer?" It seemed to him that, instead of looking forward to a reduction, they might very properly expect an expenditure greater than the Estimate.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, this item "E" had been explained several times, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), possessing the experience he did of the Estimates, should have made the criticisms he had just addressed to the Committee. Under Sub-head "E," £640 was asked for certain expenses which could not have been foreseen at the time the original Estimates were before the House. Indeed, the emergencies in respect of which the expenses had been incurred arose under an Act which was passed long after the original Estimates were submitted to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) complained that they were now seeking to put Supplementary Estimates before the Committee for expenses which ought to have been foreseen. [Mr SCLATER-BOOTH: No.] Was it the form in which the Estimate was presented, or the fact of its being presented, that the right hon. Gentleman objected to? [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: The form.] Well, the form appeared to him (Mr. Courtney) to give most ample and complete information as to the character of the expenses incurred. If the additional expenses had

  315
  not increased the expenditure under the Vote beyond the original sum granted, there would have been no need to come to Parliament with a Supplementary Estimate. The Treasury had put before the Committee the exact additional expenditure which was anticipated under each sub-head, the saving expected, leaving the balance to be provided for. There happened to be a Sub-head "F," under which there was a saving anticipated, and they deducted £300 in respect of that sub-head. In fact, they put the Committee in the most absolute command of the facts of the case. Full information was given. Indeed, no better information could possibly be given than what appeared in the Estimate.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that, perhaps, he did not explain his meaning sufficiently to make it clear. He objected to permission being given to Departments to ask for very small sums, in order to incur new expenditure and to deduct estimated saving, because it was productive of extravagance in the Department. There were strong instances further on which he intended to bring under the notice of the Committee in due course. He did not say the Committee was in full possession of the facts; all he did contend was, that the facts were stated in a very complicated way.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he had heard some thousands of explanations from Secretaries to the Treasury when their Estimates had been challenged; but he did not think he ever heard one more imperfect or more unsatisfactory than that just given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney). The point to which he ventured to call attention was, the estimated expenditure under a particular Act, which, as the hon. Gentleman told them, was passed after the Estimates for last year were framed. The objection which he (Mr. Raikes) took to the Estimate was, that there was a confusion of the expenditure under the Labourers' Act with the expenditure which had been authorized by Parliament before that Act was passed. The hon. Gentleman offered no satisfactory explanation of the Estimate, and he (Mr. Raikes) protested most strongly against this attempt to confuse the public mind by mixing up transactions under an Act of Parliament passed at the latter part of last Session with the sums
  316
  authorized by Parliament at a time when the Act was not passed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) should take exception to the form of this Estimate, because, as far as he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) remembered, it had never fallen to the right hon. Gentleman's lot to lay any Estimates before Parliament. It was, however, a matter of surprise to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had had charge of a Department, should take exception to the form in which the Estimates were presented. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to find a precedent for such Estimates as the present he only had to refer to the Supplementary Estimates brought in from time to time by the late Government, and there he would find the same plan adopted. The right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind the character of his own Estimates. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan)—he was afraid the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) could not answer the question—if he would explain how it was that the advertisements which were charged for under this sub-head somehow or other always managed to get into the papers which advocated the political views of the landlords, and very seldom got into the papers which advocated popular opinions? The public money was expended upon these advertisements; but the popular papers hardly ever got a single one of the announcements. He spoke from personal observation. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could answer the question; but unquestionably this was a matter which excited a considerable amount of comment in Ireland. As to the accuracy of the complaint he made, he would be happy to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with abundant proof from papers circulated in the county which he represented?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that when he had the honour to be connected with the Admiralty his attention was frequently called to the question of advertisements, and he went into it very closely. He gave orders that the advertisements

  317
  for each of the towns in England where they wished to have their wants and requirements made known should be distributed to the papers, without any regard being had to the political views advocated by the papers; that the advertisements should be distributed in exact proportion to the sale of the different papers. That seemed to him to be the only true principle upon which they ought to proceed in the matter. This was what he did at the Admiralty; but he had frequently expressed the desire that the same principle should be carried out with regard to advertising in Ireland. He should be very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) if he would give him some specific instances in which those orders had not been carried out, because both in England and in Ireland he was perfectly certain that there was that amount of good sense in the public mind that no newspaper would have a very large circulation which did not display some common sense in the advocacy of the opinions it espoused. He considered that in Ireland, as in England, the only safe standard by which to judge the right of newspapers to advertisements was their circulation. He would feel indebted to any hon. Gentleman who could supply him with instances of advertisements having been given to newspapers with small circulation, and with held from those enjoying large circulation.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Committee must have sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) in the surprise which he expressed at the propositions laid down by the Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman, when Chairman of Committees. was present at so many Ministerial explanations that he must be familiar with the Ministerial mode of setting forth Estimates. There was no doubt that the Committee expected a good deal from the presiding authority; but it had never yet occurred to any portion of the House to lay the burden on the Committee of understanding Ministerial explanations. He had been impressed with the explanations he had heard so far; he had now merely to ask for an additional one. Could not Item "H" be constructed on some more
  318
  business-like plan? Item "H" related to the salaries of medical officers and to the cost of medicines, &c. It seemed to him that nothing could be more indefinite than such an item as the "Supply of Medicine, &c." Amongst other reasons, he believed the salary was administered to the medical attendants, and the medicine was usually administered to the patient. But besides that distinction he conceived that they would have a very considerable clue to the amount of attention the patients received if they knew something of the amount expended on medicine. Neither in the Vote nor in the explanation was there anything to guide them as to how much of the sum of £1,552 represented salaries, and how much represented medicine. All they were told under the sub-head was that it represented a comparatively slight increase in the salaries of medical officers, and an increase of over 7 per cent in the cost of medicines. Could they not have placed in the Vote a separate item for salaries for medical officers, and a separate item for medicines? He could see no reason whatever—except the judicial reason that Ministers had an object in maintaining this confused state of things—in presenting Estimates in the present form.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmoved that the Chairman do now report Progress. He said it was rather early in the Session for the Committee to begin voting away public money in the small hours of the morning; besides, anyone who had watched the conduct of the Government to-night must have realized the fact that the Government themselves were not prepared for the consideration of these Estimates. It was amusing to witness the Secretary to the Treasury make as plausible a show of explanation on every point suggested when he had no material to work upon; the hon. Gentleman had, in fact, only his imagination to work upon, for apparently he had no access to anything which could help him on any point which was broached by any hon. Member. It was a pity to continue such a performance merely for the sake of enabling the Government to get through these Votes in a perfunctory fashion, and in a weary Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped they would be allowed to take the next Vote—namely, that for the Irish Public Works Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the reason why he was anxious to have the next Vote postponed was that he had some reason to suppose that the hon. Gentleman was not in a position to give him information with reference to a matter which he regarded as of the first importance to his constituency—he referred to the state of the Barrow Basin, for which the Public Works Office was responsible.
  MR. COURTNEYremarked, that the next Vote had no reference whatever to the Barrow Basin.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg your pardon. I could show it.
  MR. COURTNEY: I do not see it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped that when the Vote was taken the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government, would give them some particulars of the measures taken to improve and develop the piers and harbours of Ireland.
  MR. BLAKEgave Notice that when the Vote was taken he should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Vote included any portion of the expenses of the piers and harbours? He wished for one moment to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that last year the Parliament voted out of the Church Fund——
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the Question before the Committee was to report Progress. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to the Question.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he desired to know whether the Board of Works had pre pared rough Estimates with respect to the improvement of the piers and harbours? The Grand Jury of County Clare would meet on Monday next——
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that he was departing from the Question before the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  BANKRUPTCY APPEALS (COUNTY COURTS) BILL.— [Lords.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)

  [BILL 118.] SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that, when the Bill was mentioned last night, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) expressed a desire to receive some explanation of its provisions. He (the Solicitor General) had given the hon. and learned Gentleman explanations which were perfectly satisfactory. The Bill was introduced for the purpose of providing that, in case of an appeal from a County Court exercising its jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act, the appeal, instead of being taken to the Court of Appeal, should be taken to a Divisional Court, consisting of the Judge in Bankruptcy and one other Judge. There was now a considerable block in the Court of Appeal, and it was felt that the Judge in Bankruptcy, with another Judge, would form a very satisfactory tribunal for the hearing of bankruptcy appeals. The Bill provided that from the proposed Divisional Court there might be an appeal in the same way as now to the House of Lords.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was gratified to hear the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) urged, but in vain, similar views to those the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed to the House in the Grand Committee which sat last year; but neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) could see the least force in the arguments which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) advanced. He pointed out that the bankruptcy appeals would unquestionably

  321
  block the Court of Appeal, and the suggestion he made was that an appeal from the County Court should lay, not to the Court of Appeal, but to a Divisional Court. That was precisely the plan which the Government had found it necessary to adopt; and, under the circumstances, he, of course, could not object in the least to this amending Bill. He had no doubt that other Amendments which were opposed in the Grand Committee would, in due course, find a place on the Statute Book.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYwas of opinion that the time of the Judge of the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court of Justice was spent in trying Quarter Sessions cases on Circuit with very little advantage to litigants.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Solicitor General would support him when he said it was not always of advantage to have a Judge who was an expert in the line of professional business which came before him. The present system, in some respects, was a weak one. It was inconvenient that, instead of there being a direct appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, the Act provided for a still further appeal. There was an appeal to the Bankruptcy Judge in cipher, and then an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This seemed to him to be an unnecessary extension of litigation in the case of just those who were least able to pay for it.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate; but he certainly thought there was one observation which should be made. They had been treated more than once on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to an eulogium of the work of the Grand Committees, and the particular work which had been singled out for special praise had been this Bankruptcy Act. It was worthy of remark that, at almost the commencement of the Session, one of the few Bills it was absolutely necessary to bring in to prevent a block of business that was intolerable was a Bill to amend the Act which was the result of so many anxious weeks' work in the Grand Committee on Trade. He was not one of those who regarded the Grand Committees as having been a successful experiment. There was one Committee that was absolutely useless, and they had another the result of which they were able now to test for the first time.
  322
  The ink of the Statute was hardly dry when down came the Government to say that the state of things which existed was intolerable, and that they were bound, at 1 o'clock in the morning, to ask the House to say nothing, but, for goodness sake, to let them bring in a Bill to amend the work of the Standing Committee—the one work which they had been so ready to praise as establishing the success of the Grand Committees. He did not give any opinion as to the value of this amending measure; but it might be found by experience that the work of the Grand Committees in many other respects was a failure, and required amendment, and that this was only the first of a series of amending Bills which were necessary to put into shape the unsatisfactory fruits of the labours of the Grand Committees.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to one class of appeal. There was an appeal from the County Court to the Divisional Court, and then the appeal section, in the last line but one, said—
  "Unless it seems fit to the Divisional Court or Court of Appeal to appeal to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal."
  There was no special Court of Appeal described in the section, and he did not understand the thing. There seemed to him to be some mistake.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he observed the language referred to by the hon. Member, and would look into the matter. The meaning of the section was clear, and several Acts of Parliament contained words precisely similar. What was meant was, that there was not to be an absolute right of appeal, but that permission to appeal must be obtained from the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTION.
  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave he given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the Revision of Lists of Jurors and

    323
    Voters, and the Registration of Voters, in the county of Dublin."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. SEXTONasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain to the House what was meant by the Bill?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the object of the measure was to transfer from the Recorder to a Revising Barrister appointed by the Lord Lieutenant the duty of revising jurors' and voters' lists. The work was now performed by the Recorder, but his duties had become too onerous for him to continue it. The Bill was the same as that introduced in 1881, which it was found necessary to drop, on account of pressure of Business, as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite would, no doubt, remember. He could enter into a more detailed explanation of the Bill, if necessary; but it did not appear to him requisite, seeing that it was the same measure as that of 1881.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he wished to know whether any part of the Bill would extend the number of the polling places in Ireland?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It is not necessary. The power of extending the number of polling places is vested in the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. HARRINGTON: The number of revising places, I mean.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): That is already provided for in an Act of Parliament. There is to be a revising place in each polling district.
    MR. HARRINGTON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be able to give the names of the Revising Barrister or Barristers to be appointed before the second reading?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I am not in a position to say.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. TREVELYAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

  QUESTIONS.

    EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—STATE OF AFFAIRS AT SUAKIN.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Before the House adjourns, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in his place, I wish to ask whether, since the House met, Her Majesty's Government have received any further information as to the state of affairs at Suakin, and of the operations of the forces?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have seen the telegrams received from Reuter's Agency, which contain information that has not been confirmed by the Government telegrams. The latest telegram that has been received is one from Consul Baker at Suakin, dated 1st March, 1 A.M., and received at the Foreign Office at half-past 12 to-night. The telegram is as follows:—
    "Suakin very quiet—town and camp. No appearance of enemy in the direction indicated—namely, beyond outposts. No news of results of engagement, but may be expected at daybreak."
    There is no reason to suppose, otherwise than from this telegram, that there has been any engagement at all. On the other hand, Reuter's telegrams seem to contradict that statement.

    DYNAMITE OUTRAGES—REPORTED EXPLOSION AT ST. PANCRAS STATION.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTT: Before the House adjourns, I will take the liberty of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any information of the rumour which has spread all over London that St. Pancras Station has been blown up to-night?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No such information had reached my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary up to a quarter past 12 o'clock to-night.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
    Resolution [Feb 28] reported, and agreed to, Nemine Contradicente:—Bill ordered to be

    325
    brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS (PERPETUAL ANNUITIES), INDIAN LOAN ACT 1881 (TERMINABLE ANNUITY).
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    1. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the terms upon which Perpetual Annuities held on Account of Post Office Savings Banks may be converted into Two and a Half per Centum Perpetual Annuities.
    2. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the redemption from time to time of the balance outstanding of the Terminable Annuity granted in pursuance of "The Indian Loan Act, 1881."
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

    DUBLIN MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, which may be incurred under the provisions of any Act of Parliament of the present Session for conferring further powers upon the said Commissioners of acquiring lands in Dublin for the purposes of the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act, 1877.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Marriages Legalisation (Stopsley, Beds.) * (18); Matrimonial Causes * (20), and passed.
EGYPT—(AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN) POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE SLAVE TRADE.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Papers or Correspondence can be laid upon the Table of the House, showing what understanding exists between this country and the Porte with regard to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in Egypt proper and the Soudan; and to move—
  "That a copy of the Convention of 1877, relative to the traffic in slaves in Central Africa, be reprinted."
  said, he had listened with great attention to the recent debate upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to Egypt; but, with the exception of what fell from the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury), he did not remember that any allusion was made to the subject which he desired now to bring under notice—he did not think it was even mentioned by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville)—he meant, whether any understanding existed between this country and the Porte with regard to the action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt and the Soudan? There was a time, and not very long ago, when the foreign policy of this country was conducted upon very different principles from those which regulated it now. It would then have been impossible that events which were at this moment pressing upon the country could have taken place. Turkey at that time was, and had always been, one of the truest and most faithful Allies of this country, and would still be so; but, unhappily, there was no response of sympathy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. If they could not gather much from official documents which had been placed in their hands, they learnt, at least, that the Government had been

  189
  virtually responsible for the government of Egypt from the time of the bombardment of Alexandria. The country was shortly afterwards occupied by British troops. That was followed by the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. The Egyptian Army which was left was disbanded, and the Government was entirely disabled. And what happened afterwards? When Lord Dufferin was sent to Cairo, was anything done without his advice? Had it not been the same since the arrival of Sir Evelyn Baring? As the climax, showing where the ruling power really was, the Government of the Khedive was dismissed by a telegram from Downing Street. Then followed the fatal expedition of Hicks Pasha. True, Lord Dufferin said he did not advise it; but would not a word from Downing Street have stopped it? And so, also, in the case of the disastrous attempt of Baker Pasha. And now the danger of the Soudan had suddenly broken upon them—the greater part of that extensive country was in open rebellion, and the decision of Her Majesty's Government was that it must be abandoned. The conquests of Mehemet Ali, the greatest of recent Rulers of Egypt, must be given up. What he did, and what the Khedive Ismail did, to suppress the traffic in slaves must now give way to slave-hunters and slave-dealers. But there were found still in Egypt conscientious and independent men. The Prime Minister, Cherif Pasha, and his Government refused to do that, and they were dismissed by a telegram from Downing Street; and all that was done, so far as they were informed, without the knowledge and consent of the Sultan. He could not conceive any state of affairs which could give rise to more serious apprehensions than the present condition of Egypt and the dependencies of the Soudan. He wished to know whether the Ottoman Government had been consulted at all in the matter? It might well be asked, What had become of Treaties? What had become of International Law? Were they to follow in Egypt the example of France in Tunis? Were they to take possession of, and then give away to those in open rebellion, the territory of a friendly Power, without any sanction or consent on the part of that Power? And were they to continue to impose conditions as to where the troops of the Sovereign of
  190
  the country, in the event of their being sent, were to be disembarked—to dictate where they might go and where they might not go? Her Majesty's Government did not seem to have realized the fact that they had been the Government of Egypt, rightly or wrongly, for the last 18 months, and they still had not become awakened to the fact that the Government of Egypt, whoever they might be, had not the power of ceding the smallest portion of Egyptian territory. The result was that a country equal in size to more than the half of Europe had been ceded to those who were in open rebellion against their Sovereign, and by a Proclamation of General Gordon their leader had been made Ruler of Kordofan, while large sums of money had been sent by this country which might possibly be employed to encourage the revolt. He thought they had reason to ask for some explanation of the course which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
  Moved, "That a copy of the Convention of 1877, relative to the traffic in slaves in Central Africa, be reprinted."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I do not quite admit the accuracy of the historical narrative the noble Earl has given of our conduct during the last 18 months, yet I think your Lordships will see that I cannot be called upon night after night, in answer to separate Questions, to go over the arguments in defence of our conduct which were used on the first night of the Session and afterwards, when the Vote of Censure was moved by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). A debate followed, which I think, on one side and on the other, was not unworthy of the character of this House, and it was closed, to my great regret, by a majority condemning the conduct of the Government. With regard to the Question which the noble Earl has put, I have only to state this—that it is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that when the Government first asked the Porte to interfere in Egypt the natural course, no doubt, would have been that the Sultan should have intervened and assisted the Khedive in putting down the rebellion. But, under circumstances which I need not advert to, that course was not taken, and the task was left to England alone. That

  191
  task having been undertaken, the fact of our subsequent armed occupation of the country, although for a time only, no doubt threw very great responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government. In discharge of that responsibility we have endeavoured to do nothing which would infringe the Sultan's powers, limited as they were. But your Lordships must be aware that under the very pressing circumstances arising from time to time, and bearing in mind that hitherto the reproach to the Government had been that they had acted too slowly instead of too fast, it is perfectly impossible that we could have consulted the Sultan upon those steps. With regard to the Correspondence that has taken place, some little time ago I received a very courteous despatch from the Porte, stating that the Sultan had a great desire to come to a complete understanding with England on the subject of Egypt. I answered it, I hope, in the same tone and with the same feeling, saying that we on our side would be very glad to come to such an understanding, and that I wished to know on what basis the Sultan proposed that the understanding should be arrived at. These letters will, I hope, be in your Lordships' hands next week. In answer to my communication I received a long despatch from the Porte, in which a basis for an understanding was laid down, which, however, Her Majesty's Government did not consider a practicable basis, and though I cannot go into details, I may say I do not think it is a basis which any of your Lordships would have thought a practicable one in the present case. The general purport of the despatch was to ask for the views of Her Majesty's Government. Our views have now been sent to the Porte, and in due time they will certainly be made known to your Lordships. With regard to the demand of the noble Earl for copies of the Convention of 1877, I have to state that copies of it were presented to this House at the time. I hardly think that it would be worth while to reprint the Convention now; but we have some copies of it still unused at the Foreign Office, and I shall be happy to make arrangements for the supply of a certain number to your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not wish to trouble the noble Earl with any renewal of the arguments
  192
  which had been used in the past; but the point upon which he was concerned was one which he thought had not been discussed in either House. The noble Earl had referred to the Convention of 1877 relative to the slave traffic, and he understood the noble Earl to say that there were copies of that Convention in existence which would be distributed. The point of importance in regard to the Convention arose from the extraordinary Proclamation of General Gordon which had found its way into the public Press. There were several versions of it, but he supposed that printed in the Parliamentary Papers might be accepted as the authentic one. That Convention of 1877 was a very grave and important document. It laid down the direct prohibition of the slave traffic, and provided that anyone who was either directly or indirectly engaged in that traffic should be punished. General Gordon's Proclamation, if its meaning was properly understood, was certainly a very startling commentary on that Convention. It was not his wish to utter a word which might be construed into a detraction of the high character of General Gordon, whom he regarded with the greatest respect and admiration; nor did he for one moment wish that anything should be said in their Lordships' House which could have the effect of hampering General Gordon in the military operations in which he was engaged. But, whatever might be one's regard and admiration for a person placed in these actual circumstances, he thought that, if their Lordships were to remain absolutely silent about the Proclamation, they would not be fulfilling their duty. General Gordon, it was to be remembered, did not speak as a private individual. He had been intrusted, in a great emergency, with an important foreign Mission. He had been sent out to Egypt by the Government, and it must be assumed that he had gone out in full possession of their views. It was a matter of grave importance that a man who spoke as the mouthpiece of England should have held the language which General Gordon used in this Proclamation with regard to the Slave Trade. In a reported explanation of the matter, which might or might not be authentic, General Gordon was represented as drawing a distinction between slave traffic and slave holding. Now there was, of

  193
  course, a distinction between the two, but in practice it would be found extremely difficult to draw the line. He would challenge anyone to read the Proclamation through and to say that, taken as a whole, it did not include traffic in slaves as well as slave-holding. What, he should like to know, was to be the policy of the Government on this subject? If there was any one point on which the judgment of England had been clear and emphatic, it was in its utter abhorrence of anything approaching to the Slave Trade. Now, either the Government must approve or disapprove of General Gordon's Proclamation; and, whatever might be said of it, this was certain—that if they approved of it, they ought to have no objection to stating their reasons for that approval. But if they disapproved his conduct, it was clear that they must have allowed him to go to the Soudan without clear instructions about a question which was certain to come to the front. Some years ago, a Circular in regard to slavery was issued by the late Mr. Ward Hunt. Although that Circular might have contained some incautious expressions, no one in his senses imagined that Mr. Ward Hunt intended to do anything that would have the effect of encouraging slavery; but the Circular was subjected to very severe and bitter criticisms on the part of the noble Lords opposite and their Friends in "another place." Now, by a strange revolution in the wheel of accident, Nemesis had come upon the Government who, at the time to which he referred, were in Opposition, for they found themselves placed in circumstances similar to those in which their opponents were. He did not intend to criticize the Government bitterly; but, if Mr. Ward Hunt was severely censured for an incautious expression in a Slave Circular, what might not be said about the formal and open recognition by the Representative of the present Government of that which had hitherto been denounced in England as something approaching nearly to piracy and murder? There was only one other matter to which he wished to refer. In the explanation which General Gordon was supposed to have given, he was represented as stating that—
  "The Government, with the consent of the Khedive, has decided to separate the Soudan
  194
  from Egypt, and the two Governments have sent me to carry out the evacuation and to restore the Native Government."
  He was also supposed to have made the extraordinary statement that the separation of the Soudan abrogated all Treaties made with reference to it between the authorities at Cairo and Foreign Governments. The state of things to which he had called attention required explanation, and if it were passed over in silence their Lordships might be considered guilty of neglect. He would only add that he was sure it would be welcome to their Lordships to hear from the Government that the interpretation which he had reluctantly put on the documents submitted to the House was not a correct one.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, my noble Friend has asked whether Her Majesty's Government approve or disapprove the Proclamation recently issued by General Gordon? The only answer I can give at the present time is a very short and simple one. Your Lordships know, for they have been published in the Blue Book, the instructions which General Gordon received—they were of the briefest possible character—and apart from those instructions Her Majesty's Government have left him a discretion practically of an unlimited kind. This Proclamation was not issued in obedience to any instructions sent from here, and, in point of fact, the first intimation which the Government received on the subject was derived from sources with which your Lordships are familiar. We have no doubt that the newspapers contain the accurate text of the Proclamation itself. We have had some brief telegraphic statements regarding it; but we have not got that full information of the circumstances which led to it, of the condition of the people to whom it was addressed, and of the general state of the case with which General Gordon had to deal, which, as your Lordships will, I think, agree with me, is absolutely necessary before we can form a judgment on the action of General Gordon. In saying this, I express no doubt whatever as to the action of General Gordon. Everybody is aware, not only of his devotion to the cause of freedom, but of the detestation which his whole life has expressed of the Slave Trade. Looking to what he has done in China and elsewhere, and to the mar-

  195
  Vellous influence which he has exercised over the minds of Natives in various parts of the world, I think we cannot entertain any doubt of his great capacity for dealing with persons of this kind, and, in the absence of more information than we now possess, he is entitled to the confidence which is reposed in him by the Government and the country. If I were to put forward a theory of the circumstances of the case, I should suppose what occurred to be something of this kind—that General Gordon found a very strong opposition to the present Egyptian Government, as being under European influence and to the English Advisers of the Egyptian Government. Most likely one of the favourite topics of those who endeavoured to create hostility to England was the well-known opposition of England and the English Government to slavery and the Slave Trade, and I think it extremely probable that the emissaries of the Mahdi were telling these people that the English had taken possession of Egypt, and that their property in slaves would be at once taken from them. It is quite obvious that any report of that kind would operate disadvantageously to the cause General Gordon was endeavouring to promote, and it would be only natural that he would take the most public means of contradicting it. It has been said that the Proclamation legalizes slave-hunting. That to my mind is simply impossible. The circumstances do not require us to resort to any explanation of that kind. Your Lordships will acknowledge that there is a very wide distinction between the institution of domestic slavery and the Slave Trade carried on by force in the adjoining countries. What I suppose his Proclamation refers to is simply the right of owning slaves, which by the law of the country they now possess. If anyone had been trying to put into the minds of the people of Khartoum and the Soudan that their property in slaves was to be confiscated without notice and without compensation, a proclamation would be necessary to give them the assurance that they would not be disturbed in the exercise of their present customs, but that which was legal now would continue to be legal. With regard to the other charge, that the abandonment of the Soudan is fatal to all the efforts made of late years to
  196
  put down the Slave Trade, I do not at all admit that that is its necessary or probable effect. I have read General Gordon's book, Sir Samuel Baker's book, and almost everything written of late years on the subject, and nothing, I think, can be more clear than that all the efforts made to keep down the Slave Trade in the Soudan in recent years have ended, if not in complete failure, at least in very partial and doubtful success. Wherever the Governor General was present the trade was checked; but whenever he left one part of the country to go to another the evil sprang up again in his absence. I do not believe you will be able to put an end to the Slave Trade in the Soudan by direct measures. What you can do is to stop the traffic of slaves across the Red Sea; you can stop the introduction of slaves into Egypt and into Arabia; that is the only method by which you can make effectual progress. There is nothing unreasonable in thinking that the Proclamation of General Gordon is in no way contrary to that object. As to the question whether the Egyptian Government, without the consent of the Sultan, had a right to give up these Provinces of the Soudan, I think the answer is quite conclusive. Whatever may be the nominal relations between the Porte and the Government of Egypt, you can not force Egypt to retain a part of its territory which it is absolutely unable to hold. I do not admit that our relations with Egypt have had anything to do in reality with the evacuation of the Soudan. I believe that the insurrection of the Mahdi would have made the evacuation of the Soudan fully necessary whether we had been there or not; and it is not fair to charge upon our temporary occupation in Egypt the abandonment of a Province which Egypt would have been very much stronger in not attempting to conquer or to hold.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he did not wish to say anything on the subject of General Gordon's Mission, because anyone who should do so at present would subject himself to a great responsibility. Anyone, he thought, who read the Proclamation must own that General Gordon had reserved to himself the light to exclude slave-hunting, and that it was only to the domestic institution of slavery his Proclamation referred. But it was a very different thing for an English

  197
  Governor General to say nothing about slavery, which was not under his control, and which he could not prevent, and in the name of England to say that slavery should be legal. The reason why he rose just now was to push a little further the question raised by the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr), who asked what was the position of the Porte with regard to England in the Soudan at this moment? Another question of equal importance was, what was the position of England in the Soudan and the Bed Sea littoral? We were sending out a military expedition of considerable extent and importance, and we had a right to ask what was the object of that expedition, and what were we going to do? At the time of the battle of Teb, when General Baker was defeated, we certainly were at war in the Soudan; but the circumstances had changed, and Her Majesty's Government, acting through the Governor General, had proclaimed the Mahdi Sultan of a great portion of the Soudan. They did not know the geographical limits of that district. If a line had been drawn between the Soudan Proper and that part of the Soudan which Her Majesty's Government was supposed to hold, he should like to know whether Osman Digna had been informed of the limits of the district which had been conceded to the Mahdi, whether he had been informed that there was a line which he must not cross, and that the fact of his having crossed it was a declaration of war against England? It seemed to him that as the Mahdi had been formally recognized by the English Government, and as slavery had been allowed to exist in a modified form, the whole difficulty between this country and the Mahdi had been solved. The difficulty had been solved in a most practical way by the almost unconditional surrender of the English Government, and by the Proclamation of the powers spiritual and temporal of the Mahdi. There was only one thing which had been reserved by the English Governor General, and that was the right of getting himself and the garrison out of Khartoum without fighting if he could, or, in the last resort, by force of arms. It was quite possible that the Mahdi, flushed with his victory, and elated by the recognition which had been given him, resented this reservation, and in
  198
  that case he might order Osman Digna to continue his military operations. Under those circumstances it was to be regretted that this country had not an Army on the spot large enough to enforce the Mahdi to accept terms. But it might be that Osman Digna was making war on his own behalf. In such a case as that, why did not the Government make peace with him in the same way as they had done with the Mahdi? He did not recommend the Government to adopt that course; but he wished to know what the difference was between the case of the Mahdi and the case of Osman Digna? It was quite true that the Mahdi had about 30,000 men, and that Osman Digna had only 4,000 or 6,000 men. The man who had the 30,000 men the Government made a Sultan, but the man who had the 4,000 or 5,000 men they endeavoured to cut to pieces. So far as he could see, the circumstances of the two cases were the same, and he should like to know why a line had been drawn? What was that line? If it was a geographical line, the House should be told where it was. If it was a numerical line, they ought to know what number of men had been fixed upon. If it was a moral line, the Government should tell them where the difference was to be found between the two cases. Why was Osman Digna to be destroyed while the greater culprit was left alone? At the present time this country was fighting with Osman Digna. But the Government had not stated why the military operations were being carried on and to what extent they would be conducted. British blood and treasure were being poured out. Why? He supposed it was to relieve the garrison of Trinkitat; but it appeared to him that if the Government were now right in taking that course they were wrong when Sinkat fell. Why was not Sinkat defended? Why did they allow Hicks Pasha to go forth into the desert to be cut to pieces? Why did they allow Moncrieff to be murdered? Why was Baker Pasha sent into the desert with an insufficient force? It had been stated that there was no inconsistency in the policy of the Government; but how did they reconcile the two points he had raised? Why did they hold their hands and watch those brave men fall? Why did they at one time look on unmoved when horrors, worse than Bulgarian

  199
  horrors, were being perpetrated, and now advance into the Soudan? He hoped the Government would inform the House what the expedition now being sent out was intended to do.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the capacity of Her Majesty's Government for answering Questions appears to be exhausted. I shall, therefore, merely venture on one or two comments on this interesting conversation. One of the subjects we have been engaged on is the curious Slave Trade Proclamation of General Gordon, and the question that is occupying our minds is an interpretation of the very strange words it contains. I admit that, if you are to judge it merely by the antecedents and character of General Gordon, it is improbable, and may, indeed, be treated as impossible, that he should designedly give encouragement to the Slave Trade. On the other hand, the words, as they stand, are perfectly unmeaning unless they do give that encouragement. What does General Gordon say—
  "Knowing that you regret the severe measures taken by the Government for the suppression of the slave traffic by decrees and conventions, I confer upon you this right, that henceforth none shall interfere with your property."
  If the words "none shall interfere with your property" stood alone, it would be open to you to contend that it was merely the property in slaves which was in question; but the preamble is wholly unmeaning, and entirely out of place, if there is no reference to the slave traffic in the Proclamation. What strikes me as remarkable is that we should be discussing the meaning of General Gordon as if he were an ancient author, or far removed from us in time or place, or as if there was no possibility of ascertaining his meaning except by puzzling over the words he has used. The noble Earl advanced what he calls a theory upon this point which is very ingenious, but which is inconsistent with the words of General Gordon. Does it not seem to strike everybody that, as we are within six hours' communication with General Gordon by telegraph, and that as this Proclamation has been known for a fortnight, there would have been no difficulty in ascertaining what General Gordon's reasons were, and what he meant? A word to a clerk at the Foreign
  200
  Office would have obtained the information, and I can only conclude that Her Majesty's Government think it much better to be without that information in order that they may indulge in interpretations of General Gordon's meaning, and shelter themselves behind his well-known character. I do not in the least dispute, I render all homage to his high character; but I think I may, without irreverence, suggest that it is possible that General Gordon may make a mistake, especially when he is acting under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I cannot accept an interpretation which is simply based on a reference to his character; and I must regret that Her Majesty's Government did not take the very obvious means of ascertaining the truth of this matter by conferring with General Gordon himself. The other part of the conversation refers to the position of this country towards the rights of the Sultan, or, as I shall put it more strongly, towards the rights of Europe as guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris. General Gordon's Proclamations, about which we know so little, and about whose meaning we have various interpretations, are very far-reaching. It not only re-establishes the Slave Trade, but it tears up the Treaty of Paris. Her Majesty's Government announced in those Proclamations that the Soudanese were to be handed back to Native Rulers, thus detaching the Soudan from the Ottoman Empire, and, therefore, violating the guarantee which Her Majesty, in concert with the other Powers of Europe, gave, under the Treaty of Paris, and which was again sanctioned by the Treaty of Berlin. I shall be curious to know what negotiations have taken place with the Powers, what negotiations have taken place with the Sultan, and to what extent these announcements are authorized by Her Majesty's Government. According to a telegram in The Observer, General Gordon has issued a Proclamation informing the inhabitants of Khartoum that the Commander of the Faithful intends to send a great army to conquer the country. To conquer the country! Why, it is a part of the country which belongs to the Sultan. This is equivalent to a Gorman officer going to Ireland and telling the people that the English are going to conquer that country. The English Government

  201
  is more powerful in the Soudan than the Turkish Government; but the question of International right remains exactly the same. There is a further consideration that I would impress on the noble Earl. In 1870 Russia thought fit to do what General Gordon tries to do now, to tear up the Treaty of Paris; she claimed for herself the right which the Treaty withheld of putting ships on the Black Sea. England protested, and England was finally satisfied with forcing Russia to acknowledge and join in a general declaration that no one Power was able, without the consent of the other Powers, to withdraw from an arrangement into which all had commonly entered. Her Majesty's Government made a good deal of this diplomatic victory, and said it was a great moral triumph, that though they had not been able to induce Russia to go back from a course upon which she had entered, they had, at least extorted from her this homage to the public law of Europe. But now you have done exactly what Russia did in 1870; you have done it, not only by tearing up the Treaty of Paris, but also by tearing up the moral declaration you took so much credit to yourselves for having extorted from Russia at the time. I quite understand that in his practical executive action, General Gordon should be allowed a free hand, and should not be interfered with; but in this Proclamation he speaks in the name of the Queen of England. That which he sanctions now is not simply a measure for the pacification of the Soudan; this Proclamation will bind us in the future; it will be quoted against us in the future as involving the honour and good faith of the course which England may afterwards follow. You may depend upon it that, if for the sake of a temporary advantage, however important, you have tampered with the Slave Trade, your moral authority will be much diminished when you appeal to other Powers on the question. You may depend upon it that if, for the sake of solving a momentary difficulty, you have violently torn up one of the Treaties which are the bases of the public law of Europe, you will find that in other parts of the Turkish Dominions other Powers will not be slow to follow your example.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help expressing some regret that the noble Lord should have
  202
  thought that any public interest could be served by endeavouring, during the course of the arduous Mission of General Gordon, to call attention to every report and rumour, more or less authentic or otherwise, which comes to this country by letter or private telegram of General Gordon's sayings and doings, and to criticize them as if the Mission were over, and as if we had arrived at definite results. Your Lordships are not in a position at present to pass judgment upon them, and if such things are to go on, I am afraid that the opinions of not a few of us as to the advantages conferred upon the world by the invention of the electric telegraph may be a little altered. There never was a case in which a political mission of a more arduous and difficult character, more demanding reasonable confidence and forbearance, was confided to any man; but from the beginning of the Session the noble Marquess has, unfortunately, thought it his duty to say a good many things which, in our opinion, are calculated to throw difficulties in General Gordon's way. Yet the noble Marquess expresses great confidence in the high character, the upright purpose, and the great abilities of General Gordon, and entertains a hope that in the end all these things may turn out right. Her Majesty's Government must decline to be cross-examined upon everything General Gordon says or does. We continue to place confidence in him, the same confidence which we placed in him when we originally sent him out. We believe that General Gordon knows the people he has to deal with, their manners, their language, and their habits of mind, and that the Proclamations which he addresses to them are much more likely to be well understood there than they are here, and to be adapted to meet the necessities of the case he has to deal with; and I do think the criticisms which have been passed upon this particular Proclamation are as devoid of reason as they are of political wisdom. I confess I was very much struck by the difference between the views of the noble Marquess and those of the noble Viscount who preceded him as to the meaning to be attached by reasonable men to the words of that Proclamation dealing with slavery; both desired to be reasonable and to do justice, and yet no two views

  203
  could possibly be more different. Applying his great powers of criticism to the document, the noble Marquess more than suggests that the natural meaning of it goes beyond the subject of domestic slavery and enters upon the larger field of the slave traffic. To the noble Viscount, on the other hand, nothing was more clear—there was no question about it—than that General Gordon referred to domestic slavery only, and did not intend to give any sanction to the slave traffic. I agree with the noble Viscount. The words which the noble Marquess adverted to in the preamble of the Proclamation give emphasis to the difference of the language in what I may call the operative part. What General Gordon says, in effect, is this—that he has the sincerest desire to adopt a course of action which shall lead to public tranquillity, and he knows the uneasiness of the people at the severe measures taken by our Government for the suppression of the slave traffic, and the seizure and punishment of all concerned according to certain Conventions and Decrees; and then, in order to allay the consequences of that alarm, he says—"I confer upon you these rights"—not to carry on the slave traffic, not to do the things against which the Convention and Decrees were directed—but
  "That henceforth none shall interfere with your property; whoever has slaves shall have full right to their services and full control over them."
  To my mind, it is perfectly clear that that refers to the right to existing property in slaves which the Egyptian Government had not abrogated, which the proceedings taken by our Government had not abrogated, and which it would have been most dangerous to the objects of his Mission to have interfered with. I venture to say, distinctly, that these, and these only, are the rights which General Gordon declares it is his intention not to interfere with. Is not that distinction one which we ourselves have always recognized? Everyone all over the world has recognized the distinction between the actual holding of slaves in a country where unfortunately the institution of domestic slavery does exist, and the prosecution of the traffic of which the object is to reduce free men to slavery. When we acquired a Protectorate over certain territories in the Malay Peninsula, domestic slavery existed there, and we
  204
  did not imagine that it was wise or possible summarily to abolish it; accordingly, it was continued for several years, partly under the late and partly under the present Administration. The noble Marquess says—" Have you no communication from General Gordon as to the meaning of the Proclamation?" Why, the noble Lord who introduced the subject referred to communications which had been published in the newspapers, and in these it appeared that General Gordon himself drew the same distinction, and said it was the domestic institution already existing, and not the Slave Trade, or slave-hunting, to which the Proclamation referred.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not ask whether the newspapers had received such despatches. I asked whether the Government had not received any.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; we have received, in an authentic form, the same information. As to the suggested abrogation of existing Treaties, when we are called upon we will discuss the precise meaning of any words supposed to have that effect; but to my mind it is obvious that General Gordon could have meant, and did mean, nothing but this—that when Egypt withdraws, as we have advised and urged her to do, from the attempt to govern the great territory of the Soudan, Egypt can no longer by any possibility be required to enforce those Treaties in the territory from which she has withdrawn; and, therefore, as between us and Egypt, no Treaty is abrogated, but the execution of these Treaties by Egypt in the Soudan will simply have become impossible when she has withdrawn from that territory. As to the supposed interference with the Sovereignty of the Porte, nothing has been done by this Government or by General Gordon to prevent the assertion as to the Soudan of any rights the Porte may have had. They were nominal rights; as far as they had any reality, they existed only by delegation to the Government of Egypt. It cannot maintain them; and by the agreement of all, including the noble Marquess, it ought not to have been advised to maintain them. If I rightly understood the criticism upon Her Majesty's Government in a former debate, it was tills, that we ought, much sooner than we did, to have advised the Government

  205
  of Egypt to withdraw from the attempt to assert authority over the Soudan. Perhaps of all criticisms, after the light which we have obtained by the course of events, that may have been the most plausible; but now, at all events, Egypt can no longer exercise a delegated authority in the Soudan. The Ottoman Porte has not, that I am aware of, expressed any desire that Turkey should, at its own expense, and with its own troops, and without charge upon Egypt, reconquer the Soudan. I cannot think myself that any friend of the Ottoman Empire would advise such a course. At all events, no such thing has been attempted, or hitherto proposed. We have to deal with the actual position in the Soudan as it is, and we must look to the local circumstances and the necessity of the case to redeem the Egyptian garrisons from their position there, if that is possible, and to give a chance of settled order. In the interests of humanity, in the interests of the peace of Egypt, and in the interests of the Ottoman Empire itself, we must endeavour to use such local resources and local means as we can find for the purpose of doing the best that can be done in this difficult situation. We have confidence, and we believe the country will have confidence, in General Gordon. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) would, as it seems to me, have produced most of his questions with better effect in the debate upon which the House lately divided than now. He says that is what he actually did; and, if that is so, why did the noble Viscount reproduce them now? Seeing that military operations may now be going on in the Soudan, when we are asked why we have done this or that, or why we do not do one thing or another, and when General Gordon is called in some of these questions an English Governor General in the Soudan, and a number of other assumptions are made, the accuracy of which we cannot admit, and which are contrary to our declared intentions and policy, we decline to enter into those questions at all. Everyone knows that our present task on the Red Sea Coast is to defend Suakin, which is threatened with attack. We desire also, if possible, to relieve the beleagured garrisons. It is, and has been throughout, the policy of Egypt and of this country to retain Suakin and the
  206
  Red Sea forts, and it is in furtherance of that policy, and of that policy only, that we are now carrying on military operations in that portion of the country.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that all the difficulties which the Government had encountered in the Eastern Soudan were difficulties of their own creation; but though the Government were open to attack in many directions, and had many joints in their harness, he did not think that any attack should be made upon them in consequence of the Proclamation of General Gordon. It ought to be remembered that it was not a normal state of things which existed in the Soudan, and that General Gordon had gone out on a forlorn hope, and that he had succeeded in his Mission beyond all expectation. General Gordon was a single-minded man, whose whole life had shown him to be of all men the most vehement enemy of slavery.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT BURYgave Notice that on Monday next, the 3rd of March, he would ask the Government, Whether this country is engaged in war on the littoral of the Red Sea, and, if so, with whom; and if it is not engaged in war, what is the character of the operations in which English forces are now employed?

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—TELEGRAMS.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there was any truth in the report which had been circulated during the day that fighting had been going on since 7 o'clock in the morning?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, he had seen a Reuter's telegram which stated that there was a vague—he believed the word "vague" was used—report at Cairo that fighting had been going on this morning at El Teb, but that nothing confirmatory of this had been received. As far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned they had no information at all.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.