Sitting of 1 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Royal Military Asylum Chelsea (Transfer) * [267]; Great Seal* [268].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * [259].

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—KILDYSART BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Land Commission has been called to a resolution of the Kildysart Board of Guardians, complaining of the inconvenience and expense to fifty-six suitors in that union, who were obliged to travel distances of twelve to seventeen miles to have their land claims heard at the late sittings of the Sub-Commission at Kilrush; whether, in consequence of the complaint of inadequate accommodation at the Kildysart Courthouse, the guardians of the Kildysart Union have placed their board-room at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners; and, whether they will be requested to arrange for the future to bring their court within easier reach of poor suitors?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Chairman of the County Clare Sub-Commission reports as follows:—
  1782
  "Last September we sat at Kildysart, to save the tenants the journey to Kilrush, and found the Petty Sessions House there quite insufficient for the accommodation of the Court. We received no intimation that the Guardians had placed their Board room at the disposal of the Sub-Commission. The Kildysart Union is of large area; accordingly, with a view to the convenience of the parties, and with the approval of the solicitors on both sides, we arranged that the cases nearer Kilrush should be taken up there, whilst those nearer Ennis should be heard at that town. The tenants all received notice of the time their cases would be heard at Kilrush, and they were, in fact, not delayed an hour from the time mentioned in the notice. None of the tenants expressed the slightest dissatisfaction at having to come into Kilrush."
  MR. O'BRIEN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the arrangement of the Sub-Commissioners was made entirely to suit the convenience of the tenants?
  MR. KENNY: Relative to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether, at this season, Kilrush being within easy drive of Kilkee, a well-known seaside resort, if the convenience of the Sub-Commissioners, for the purposes of personal enjoyment, is of greater importance than the convenience of the tenant farmers of the county Clare; and if he is aware that this arrangement is come to annually by the Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer that Question with Notice. In reply to the hon. Member for Mallow, I may say that I have given him all the information I have on the subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF — GARDINER.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a man named Gardiner, of Kilmoon, Lisdoonvarna, county Clare, was sentenced, on June 19th last, at the Ballyvaughan Sessions, to a week's imprisonment for waylaying and assaulting a man named Edward Mulqueeney; if Gardiner has been for some considerable time under police protection, having a police hut and five policemen stationed near his house, on his own representation that he was in personal danger; if Gardiner is also permitted to carry arms; and, if it is the intention of the Government to continue police protection to him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not a fact that Gardiner was sentenced to a week's

  1783
  imprisonment for waylaying and assaulting Edward Mulqueeney; but he was fined 2s. 6d. for a trifling assault. Gardiner has for some time been under police protection, but not, as stated in the Question, on his own representation. On the contrary, he rather objects to it. But the police authorities consider it necessary for his safety, as his house has been fired into, and he has been the object of other outrages. He is licensed to carry arms.
  MR. KENNY: Is it not a fact that this man Gardiner only got the option of a fine, and that he really was sentenced to a week's imprisonment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not informed.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND)—CHATHAM CONVICT PRISON — VISIT OF MAJOR BLAIR, R. M., TO ONE OF THE CROSSMAGLEN CONVICTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With what object did Major Blair, R. M., recently visit one of the Crossmaglen prisoners in Chatham Prison?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Major Blair visited the prison, and saw one of the convicts, not by direction of the Executive, but because he expressed a wish to see him. I understand that he desired to learn something about his wife and neighbours, and endeavoured to have himself transferred to some Irish prison.
  MR. HEALY: Are we, then, to understand that this visit was undertaken purely at the man's own wish, and not at the instigation of the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was, Sir.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE POST OFFICE AT ATHLONE.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the assistant divisional magistrates of Athlone overlook and open letters received in Athlone; whether they have their residence over the post office; and, whether they are so acting in accordance with the instructions of the Executive?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A Constabulary officer has private apartments over the Post Office at Athlone. He lives there to suit his own convenience, and not by direction of the Government. He enters
  1784
  the house by a private door, and his rooms are quite separate from the Post Office, with the business of which he never interferes in any way.

  WEST INDIES—THE ENGLISH CHURCH AT GRENADA.
  MR. HEALYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What reply has been sent to the Petition addressed to Lord Derby by the taxpayers of the Island of Grenada against the vote of £260 by the Legislative Council for the repair of an Anglican parsonage at St. George; and, is it the fact that three-fourths of the Islanders are Catholics; that the Protestant Church there has been disestablished; that the vote was carried against a majority of the unofficial members of the Council; that the Petitioners cite the local Act of 1874 against the validity of the vote; that, although the Anglicans form only a fourth of the population, they comprise amongst their number some of the wealthiest inhabitants; and that they have hitherto had a monopoly of all religious endowments?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have only received a copy of the Petition referred to. The original, which must come through the Governor of the Windward Islands, has not yet reached us. We have, however, already sent a despatch to the Governor asking for information as to the obligation of the Colonial Government to undertake the repair of this parsonage. We have further directed him not to allow any part of the money to be expended without further instructions. But we are not yet in a position to give a final decision. The statements contained in the second part of the Question are, in the main, correct; but we have no official knowledge of the relative wealth of the different communities.
  MR. HEALY: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly state how soon the Government can give their definite decision?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYwas understood to say that it would be given in about a week.

  NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES—MR. CORRY CONNELLAN'S PENSION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, The name of the person

  1785
  in receipt of the pension of £436 at page 545 of the Estimates of 1883–4; and, if he can say whether it is or is not the fact that Mr. Corry Connellan receives any sum out of the public purse?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, the name of the person referred to was Corry Connellan, and he was in the receipt of the annual pension stated.
  MR. HEALY: Then I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to this subject as a public scandal. I shall ask the Government, whether it is a fact that this person, who was hunted out of Ireland for being guilty of a disgraceful offence, which cannot be mentioned, is at the present moment receiving from Her Majesty's Government a pension of £436 per annum?

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT BALLINROBE.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory state of the postal arrangements now existing in the district of Partry, Ballinrobe, county Mayo; whether it is a fact that there are only two sub-offices in the vicinity of Ballinrobe, one of them being four miles from the last-named place, and the other seven miles further on, viz. at Tourmakeady; whether it is a fact that there is no office between Tourmakeady and Maam, a distance of twenty to twenty-five miles; whether all the inhabitants of Maamtrasna, Derrypark, and the Partry Mountains, including the police of at least a dozen barracks, huts, and "protection posts," are compelled by the absence of postal accommodation to drive to the Tourmakeady office; whether it is a fact that there is no money order office at Tourmakeady, and that the poor people in that district, and to the west of it, who desire to change money orders are obliged to go into Ballinrobe, a distance in some instances of at least thirty Irish miles; whether it is a fact that only one postboy, at a salary of 18 s. a-week, is employed in the delivery of letters and parcels between Ballinrobe and Tourmakeady, and is compelled to travel twenty-two Irish miles every day, on some days carrying a weight of nearly 56 pounds; whether the smallness of his salary precludes such postboy from obtaining assistance in the carry-
  1786
  ing of heavy parcels; whether the Postmaster General is aware of the inconvenience resulting to the inhabitants of the district of Partry, Ballinrobe, from the non-existence of a Sunday post, while Sunday postal services are in existence in the rural districts surrounding Partry; and, whether he will inquire into the grievances set forth in this Question, and will take steps to insure the speedy removal of such grievances?
  MR. FAWCETT: I have received no complaints as to the unsatisfactory state of the postal arrangements in the district of Partry, county Mayo. It is true there are only two sub-offices in the vicinity referred to—namely, at Partry and Tourmakeady; but the vicinity is very sparsely populated, and the amount of correspondence is very limited. It is a fact that there is no office between Tourmakeady and Maam in a direct line; still the sub-offices at Aasleagle, Leenane, Clonbur, and Curnamona supply parts of the district lying between the two places. As regards the want of postal accommodation felt by the inhabitants and the police at Maamtrasna, Derrypark, and the Partry Mountains, I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to supply me with more definite information on this subject. A money order office has been authorized at Tourmakeady, which will be opened on the 1st of August. The wages of the rural postman between Ballinrobe and Tourmakeady have been raised to £1 a-week, and as he uses a horse the weight carried is not beyond his ability. In regard to the absence of a Sunday post to Tourmakeady, if a Memorial on the subject be forwarded, and it should be found that the Memorialists receive as much as two-thirds of the correspondence, the proportion required by the rule affecting the establishment of Sunday posts, I shall be happy to comply with their request.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF BRYAN MERRIMAN.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that a labourer on the estate of Earl Fitzwilliam, named Bryan Merriman, was evicted from his dwelling on the 16th instant, at Newcastle, county Wicklow, with wife and eight children;

  1787
  whether Merriman Look an active part in getting up a requisition to the sanitary authorities for building labourers' cottages under the Act; whether Earl Fitzwilliam opposed the project on the ground that additional cottages are not wanted; whether Merriman was proceeded against by means of the Sanitary Act; whether the sanitary authority refused to evict him; and, whether there are any vacant cottages in the district for labourers of the class to which Merriman belongs?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Merriman was not a tenant of Earl Fitzwilliam's; nor, indeed, was he a tenant of anybody. He lived in the gate lodge of a widow lady, who is a tenant on Earl Fitzwilliam's estate. He had no legal right to this lodge, and he refused to pay rent for it. Although he had no claim on Earl Fitzwilliam, he has, through that nobleman's agency, been provided with another house, which he occupies as caretaker at 1d. a-week, until such time as one can be built for him. I am not aware that Merriman took an active part in getting up a representation under the Labourers' Act, beyond the facts which I mentioned in replying to a former Question—namely, that he took some steps to obtain the benefits of the Labourers' Act himself, but that his application did not fulfil the requirements of the Act, and could not be complied with. As to Earl Fitzwilliam's action with regard to the proposed schemes under the Act in that district, I am informed that he dissented from the taking of his lands; but having undertaken to build himself, the Sanitary Authority accepted his proposals, and did not proceed with those cases in which they had intended erecting cottages on his property. On a previous occasion I stated that several months ago proceedings were taken against Merriman under the Public Health Act, and an order was made for the closing of his house on sanitary grounds; but that subsequently the Sanitary Authority did not desire that the order should be carried out, and the matters complained of having been abated, the man was not at the time disturbed. Though I have no positive information, I think it unlikely that there are many vacant cottages in the district; but it appears that one was made available for this man, and I hope that through the operation of the La-
  1788
  bourers' Act other deficiencies are in course of being supplied.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—THE GRANARD JUNCTION TRAMWAY COMPANY.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that at the Spring Assizes for the county of Longford, in this year, the Grand Jury of that county granted a guarantee of five per cent to the Promoters of the Granard Junction Tramway Company, on a certain small portion of the barony of Granard, without giving previous notice to the occupiers of said small portion that this large guarantee would be imposed upon them; that, inasmuch as the presentment was thrown out by the Privy Council for informality, and a new application will be before the same Grand Jury, on next Friday, for a new guarantee in respect of same, and the public notion again not specifying any portion of the barony to be charged, whether the Lord Lieutenant will issue instructions to said Grand Jury that some notice should be given to the occupiers of the portions of the barony proposed to be charged with this heavy responsibility; and, further, that, inasmuch as the only substantial means of profit to pay the said Promoters five per cent on the paid-up capital of said Company will be the carriage of goods from the proposed station on the Midland Great Western Railway Company's Line to the town of Granard, he will ascertain, for the information of the cesspayers, what has been the average delivery, either by freight or tonnage, of goods out of Ballywillan (the present station on said Railway for Granard goods) per month, or for the last three or any three months?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), in reply, said, that this Question only appeared on the Paper to-day, and he was unable to make a full statement on the matter. He might say, however, that it was not the province of the Lord Lieutenant to issue instructions to the Grand Jury under the Act. With regard to the 3rd paragraph of the Question, the information sought for could only be got on application to the Railway Companies, and the Government had no means of obtaining it.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — EVICTIONS AT GWEEDORE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that some eighty families are to be evicted this week on the Olphert, Nixon, and Stewart estates, in the parish of Gweedore, county Donegal; whether the greater number of these families are excessively poor, and were preserved from starvation by charitable relief during the summer of last year; whether one of the landlords is Chairman of the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians, and the son of another Vice Chairman; and, whether, in view of these facts, and of the repeated refusal of the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians to give out-door relief, the Government will take steps to insure that out-door relief shall be available for the evicted families during the month following the evictions, according to the power vested in the Guardians by the 11th and 12th Vic. c. 47?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Evictions are, I understand, about to take place, as stated. The district is a very poor one, and a number of the people received a good deal of charitable assistance last year. Mr. Olphert is Chairman of the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians. I am not aware whether either of the other landlords mentioned is a son of the Vice Chairman. The power to give out-door relief, to which the hon. Member refers, is expressly vested in the Guardians, "if they see fit." The decision rests absolutely with them, and the Local Government Board cannot interfere.
  MR. O'BRIENasked, was it not a fact that the Sub-Commissioners have made very large reductions in the rents on the farms of the persons to be evicted; and, whether, as it was in order to deprive the poor people of the benefit of these reductions they were now being evicted, the right hon. Gentleman would not think fit to interfere in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware about the question of redistribution; and I have no means of interposing in the matter, except by extra official advice.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—MEDIATION.
  MR. BORLASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to the commer-
  1790
  cial interests of England in China, and to the fact that hostilities have been renewed between French and Chinese troops, Her Majesty's Government will use their best endeavours, as an intermediary between the two Powers, to bring about an understanding, and thereby to prevent bloodshed, and the international complications which may follow, should it be in contemplation (as reported in The Observer of Sunday last) to subject a Chinese Port to bombardment in retaliation for the attack on the French convoy at Langson?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The French and Chinese Governments are aware that our good offices would always be at their service; but to offer mediation, unless at a time when Her Majesty's Government had some reason to suppose that it would be acceptable to both Governments, would do harm, and not good.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the noble Lord could give the House any information as to what had recently taken place in Tonquin between France and China?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not think it would be at present desirable to enter into that matter. The Notice of the Question strictly referred to mediation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE — THE COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it will not still be possible to make further arrangements for the trial of Admiralty and Probate cases in the County Palatine of Lancaster?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he had already answered this Question. If there had been sufficient judicial strength a Judge would have been appointed for the purpose, because it was felt that Lancashire had great claims.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR—HOSTILE OPERATIONS — THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a credit has been proposed by the French Government for the blockade of Madagascar and for the permanent occupa-

  1791
  tion of Tamatave. Majunga, Vohemar, and other Malagasy ports; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers are taking to protect British commerce and to obtain compensation for the serious injury inflicted upon British subjects by the French invasion of Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are not aware that such a credit has been proposed. At the same time, I am not wishing to throw any doubt on the report to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I made to his similar Question on the 10th of June—namely, that an efficient Consular staff is watching over the interests of British subjects, and that claims for compensation cannot be settled till the conclusion of hostilities. If the hon. Member desires any information respecting Her Majesty's ships on the station, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to supply it?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I understand from the answer of the noble Lord that it may be taken as a fact that a credit has been proposed by the French Government for the permanent occupation of what practically amounts to the East Sea Coast of Madagascar. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government acquiesces in this occupation of Malagasy territory by the French?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; what I said was, that the Foreign Office had not received any information on the subject. At the same time, I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the Foreign Office is not necessarily obliged to have information as to every subject of which the hon. Member reads an account in the newspapers.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then I beg to give Notice that when Her Majesty's Government introduce their proposal for the neutralization of Egypt and the Suez Canal, I shall move to add the words, "Madagascar, Tonquin, and Tunis."

  HAMPSTEAD HEATH ACT, 1871.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Why the public highway on Hampstead Heath, described in section forty-one of
  1792
  "The Hampstead Heath Act, 1871" (34 and 35 Vic. c. 77), as the "road or public way on the Heath leading from Telegraph Hill to Golder's Hill," has been in part converted into a bridle road and closed to carriages, and in another part is so badly kept as to be useless or dangerous; and, whether there is any reason why the right of user, reserved by the same section of the Act to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to Sir Spencer Wells, should not be extended to the general public, if such right did not previously exist?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform the hon. Member, in reply to his Question, that although the words "road or public way" are used in "The Hampstead Heath Act, 1871," the road to which he refers never was anything but a rough bridle or cart track across the turf of the Heath, and it still exists in the state it always has been in, except that a portion of it, which was utilized by the Board when they made a ride for the use of equestrians, was improved, and this is, of course, in a better condition than the part which the Board did not utilize. No vehicular right of way exists over the Heath, except, perhaps, as regards certain vehicles going to Sir Spencer Wells's or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' property; and the Board do not consider it to the public advantage to allow vehicles generally to be driven over the Heath.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE MAHDI.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Great Kabbalish Tribe have joined the Mahdi, and that the 46th Regiment have been ordered to Keneh?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No information of the kind referred to has boon received. The General Officer Commanding has not reported any actual orders to the 2nd Battalion Cornwall Light Infantry; but the following telegram received from him on the 22nd June shows that such a step was in contemplation: —
  "Cairo, 22nd June, 1884, 5.40 P.M. Tribes in front become troublesome. Sussex Battalion leaves Assiout for Assouan, Wednesday, to support Egyptian troops and give confidence to Natives. Shall send, if necessary, another battalion to Kench, where tracks from Eastern

  1793
  Soudan abut. Rumours current of tribes threatening Korosko, Assouan, Keneh. Friendly tribes in desert east of these places watching enemy, and behaving well up to last accounts."

  EGYPT—STATE OF THE PRISONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to prevent cruel injustice in Egypt, and especially cruelty in Egyptian prisons and the imprisonment of innocent people, while Her Majesty's troops kept the Egyptian Government in power?
  MR. HEALY: Before the Prime Minister answers that Question, I wish to ask him whether it is a fact that the alleged cruel injustice rests solely on the statements of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? I wish to point out that these alleged cruelties must be things not unknown to Mr. Clifford Lloyd from his experience of Ireland, where many persons were imprisoned without trial, and where Her Majesty's troops enabled Mr. Clifford Lloyd to carry on a system by which men were imprisoned without any charges having been made against them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think I should advance the knowledge we possess with regard to this question by mixing with it either any reference to Irish transactions, or, indeed, any reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The Question does not refer to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and I think in my answer I had better not bring in the controversies with which that gentleman's name has, unfortunately, been connected in Egypt. My right hon. Friend is quite aware that he must be content with a summary answer to the important point he has put. At the close of his Question he refers to the presence of Her Majesty's troops in Egypt, and we entirely agree with him in what he appears to suggest —namely, that the effect of a military occupation is to impose upon us a very heavy responsibility with regard to Egypt. What I have to say is that really the substance of the description of what we shall do to prevent cruel injustice in Egypt is that we shall continue to do what we have been doing. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Oh, oh!] I am very sorry to hear that an hon. Gentleman who is totally ignorant of the question meets my declaration with marks of
  1794
  mockery. If he will permit me, I will continue what I have got to say—that we shall continue to do what we have been doing, and that we have no reason to be dissatisfied up to the present time with these results. The information conveyed to us, upon what we think very responsible and most sufficient authority, is that very great and beneficial changes have been made in the management of Egyptian prisons, and great improvements introduced, although, undoubtedly, they are, as everyone would expect, still far behind the practice and condition of prisons in civilized countries in the West. [Mr. HEALY: No, no!] With regard to unjust imprisonment and oppressive imprisonment, this great difference has been introduced into Egypt—that is, that no such imprisonment can take place, and no such oppression can be practised, without its constituting a legal offence, liable to prosecution before the Courts. Beyond this, I have to say two things. First of all, there is an important discussion now going on, and a scheme in preparation, with respect to the action of the police in Egypt, upon which we shall shortly be in communication with the Egyptian Government. Further, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) informs me, that as we have had occasion to refer to Sir Evelyn Baring recently upon the general progress made in the matter of reform in Egypt since our occupation, he hopes to be able to communicate in a short time some information rather more detailed than what I have now given to the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: With reference to the reply of the Prime Minister, I wish to ask whether Her Majesty's Government consider that the steps they are now taking are adequate and effectual for preventing this cruel injustice in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought I had stated that we thought, with respect to the condition of the prisons, which was the question immediately put forward by my right hon. Friend, that the Reports show that the changes which have been effected, considering the time, and considering the difficulties, were quite as much, or even beyond, what could reasonably be expected; and as to the amount of practical good that has been effected, speaking generally, the impression made upon our mind is that the

  1795
  progress of these reforms has been far from unsatisfactory.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to ask him whether the Government will continue to take care that the reforms which they have introduced shall be carried out under the supervision of some Englishman, and not left entirely to Native officials?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the present state of Egyptian law, it is possible to imprison 1,000 men for a considerable length of time without trial, as was the case in Ireland under the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have stated that false imprisonment or oppressive treatment is now a criminal offence in Egypt, and may, like other criminal offences, be brought before the Courts. With respect to the Question of my right hon. Friend, I think I can give no answer to it, which is really more effective than the statement that we recognize our responsibility in the matter; and that our duty is, therefore, to promote the adoption in Egypt of those measures which, on the whole, we think best calculated to attain the end we have in view. Of course, we must look, in a material degree, to the assistance which Englishmen and the Natives of European countries are peculiarly competent to render; but it would not be right for me to lay down any general rule, which would tend very much to discourage all practical improvements among the Egyptians themselves.
  MR. GORST: I should like to ask whether, when the Prime Minister says the Government is sensible of its responsibility, he includes the duty of using their influence to secure that high officials, such as Zebehr Pasha, who were guilty of cruelty, are adequately punished?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not see how that can be done; but, at the same time, if the hon. and learned Member has in view any particular case of cruelty, I should be much obliged to him if he will kindly state the particulars of the case to us, so that we may be able to give him a more direct answer.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am very sorry to be obliged to press the right hon. Gentleman; but what the House of Com-
  1796
  mons wants to know is, whether the Prime Minister will hold out any hope to Parliament that the Government will take steps more effectual than those they have taken up to the present for the prevention of the cruelties which have been described by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and which, I undertake to say, have sent a thrill of horror through the country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman will do well to withhold his judgment a little until he is in possession of fuller information on this subject. What I have to say is, that we shall persevere in the course which we have already pursued; and I believe that the results of that course have been quite as favourable — indeed, in the opinion of competent judges, more favourable—than, in all the difficulties of the case, we had reason to expect they would be.
  MR. CHAPLIN: In consequence of the extremely unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall take the earliest opportunity I can obtain to call attention to the horrible cruelties which are now being practised in Egypt under the responsibility of the English Government, as described by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The accuracy of that gentleman's account not having been impugned, I shall move a Resolution on, the subject.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire moved his Resolution on this subject he would call attention to the cruelties committed in Ireland by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and would ask whether a person guilty of such cruelties as he had committed in Ireland was not totally unworthy of credence?

  SPAIN—QUARANTINE.
  In reply to Mr. O'SHEA,
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that all vessels from France were subject to quarantine in Spain, as were also all vessels from England; but the Foreign Office were not aware of the precise number of days. Seven days' quarantine was imposed on all persons arriving in Spain by railway.
  MR. STOREYasked whether, in the judgment of the noble Lord, quarantine in the case of vessels arriving from England at Spanish ports was neces-

  1797
  sary; and, whether he would communicate with, the Spanish authorities on the subject with the object of removing a restriction so prejudicial to British shipping?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is well-known that the Spanish authorities have accepted the principles of quarantine, and therefore any general remonstrances with regard to it would be perfectly useless. When any instance of the abuse of the quarantine regulations is brought under the notice of the Foreign Office it will be examined on its merits, and representations made to the Spanish or other Government.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Prime Minister, Whether, having regard to the backward state of Supply, he would state that Supply would be the first Order of the Day on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Arrangements have already been made for taking the second reading of the London Government Bill on Thursday; and in the event of the debate not being concluded on Thursday evening we should propose to continue it at a Morning Sitting on Friday. Whether we can get on with Supply on Friday evening or not, we propose to take it on Monday. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary that progress should be made with Supply.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked what class of Estimates would be taken on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Army Estimates.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister if he could state whether the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill would be proceeded with on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to reply in the negative.
  MR. JOSEPH GOWENasked whether it was the intention of the Government to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If it had been intended to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays a Motion would have been made to that effect. The Morning Sitting on Friday next, if there be one, will be without prejudice to any future proceedings, and will only be taken in case of it being necessary for
  1798
  the purpose of carrying forward the debate on the London Government Bill. If the debate on that Bill is concluded on Thursday, the Government will not ask for a Morning Sitting on Friday.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that the debate on the second reading of the London Government Bill could not, under any possible circumstances, be concluded in one night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is the reason why I have proposed to provide a means for continuing the debate.

MOTION.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—SMALL POX EPIDEMIC.

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CAMERON, in rising to call attention to the Small Pox Epidemic in London; and to move—
    "That, in view of the alarming increase of Small Pox in London, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government at once to apply to the Metropolis those rational principles of prompt and direct preventive administration, the efficacy of which in circumscribing Small Pox Epidemics has been demonstrated by the experience of Glasgow and other large towns,"
    said, he should make" no apology for bringing a subject of such great importance under the notice of the House. The President of the Local Government Board had told them the other day that nearly 400 persons had died of smallpox in London during the present year, and that the mortality was 10 per cent; so that there must have been about 4,000 cases. Now, it might be said that there was nothing very alarming in that; but it was the way in which their experience told them how all epidemics commenced. There would probably be a decline in the mortality during the hot weather, owing to the plentiful ventilation which the warm weather promoted; but there would be a resumption of the virulence of the epidemic when the cold weather set in, and they might expect a serious epidemic in London next year. That was the case when the great epidemic of 1870–2 broke out. The mortality was much less then than it had been during the present year—not half the amount. In 1870 it was 1,000, and in 1871 it was close on 8,000. The same was the case with the epidemic of 1876–7, in the first year of which the mortality was not

    1799
    at a greater rate than it had been this year; also with the epidemic of 1880, when there was a mortality of 471, which was succeeded by a mortality of over 2,000 in 1881. The Metropolitan Asylums Board had recognized that fact, for they had accommodation for 1,600 small-pox patients, and were increasing that accommodation in view of next year. They had hired, he believed, a hospital at Poplar, and were endeavouring to purchase land for the purpose of establishing camp hospitals. The Local Government Board recognized the fact also, for in a Circular issued on the 23rd of June they recommended the appointment of assistant vaccination officers and house-to-house visitation. Now, the system proposed in his Motion was no untried system. In the present year they had had a small touch of this epidemic in Glasgow; but they had had only 10 deaths in 133 cases. The outbreak commenced last year; but the cases, instead of increasing from week to week as they had done in London, had been reduced from 10 to 5, and then almost extinguished. The population of London was about eight times the population of Glasgow; and if they multiplied the mortality in Glasgow by eight they would get the mortality which ought to have occurred in the London population, had the same system been adopted, with similar results. By the adoption of the Glasgow system they might have had a saving of 300 lives, and close upon 3,000 cases of small-pox in the present year. The British Medical Journal of January 21, wrote—
    "To those who have watched this outbreak, and have read the detailed accounts of its progress given in the different fortnightly reports, it must he quite clear that the disease has been kept within bounds and its extension limited by the energy and vigilance of the members of the sanitary staff of the city. Their promptness in tracing cases and immediately isolating those affected, together with the judicious use of revaccination in the case of those exposed to infection, has undoubtedly been the means of saving Glasgow from a severe small-pox epidemic, such as is now taxing all the resources of the sanitary authorities in London."
    The total death-rate in Glasgow per 1,000,000 during the entire duration of the epidemic of 1870–4 was 1,560; while the mortality in London during the same period was over twice as much, or 3,287. If they worked out that, they would find that if the Glasgow results had been secured, they would have saved about
    1800
    3,000 lives and 15,000 cases in that epidemic. Let them take the entire 14 years between 1870 and 1883. The average small-pox mortality in Glasgow was 115 against 400 in London; and, working out the process, they would find that the saving of life during those 14 years, had the Glasgow results been secured in London, would have been close on 9,000, and that indicated a saving of close on 45,000 cases of small-pox. The Glasgow experience was not the only case in point. He might quote Manchester. During those 14 years, while London had an average mortality of 400, the average in Manchester had been 160, against 115 in Glasgow- Taking the figures for 10 years, from 1874 to 1883, the average annual mortality from small-pox was—In London, 234; Manchester, 82; Glasgow, 46; Leeds, Old-ham, and Bradford, 42. This was not a matter of merely local importance; it was a matter of great national importance, for they were constantly sending out the disease to affect other parts of the country. What was the reason of the difference? It was simply a case of the efficacy of direct action as contrasted with circumlocution. He would explain to the House the difference between the London and Glasgow system by three illustrations. Let them take a can of dynamite with a fuse a yard long burning in it. According to the Glasgow system, the policeman who discovered it would think it his duty to pull out the fuse and put an end to the whole thing. In London, taking the small-pox analogy, the duty of the policeman who saw the fuse burning would be to report the matter to Scotland Yard, who would report to the Home Office, who would consult the Home Secretary, who would order out some officer to pull out the fuse, by which time, of course, the explosion would have taken place. Or, take the case of a mad dog, a constable at Glasgow would kill it; but in London it would be his duty to report to the parish authorities, who would report to the veterinary authorities, who would send a veterinary surgeon, who would report to the Local Government Board, who would issue a Circular calling attention to the risk of hydrophobia, and recommending the establishment of a hospital for patients. The third illustration was the cattle plague, in which the same difference between direct action and circum-

    1801
    locution would be observed. Glasgow laboured under great disadvantages in regard to small-pox. It contained a number of tenement houses, in which 100 families or more were often housed. From 1855 to 1864 the mortality from smallpox per 1,000,000 in Glasgow was 570, against 232 in London. But in 1863 a change was introduced. They had a very intelligent Medical Officer of Health, Professor Gairdner, who laid down the maxim that—
    "Vaccination should be not only freely offered but systematically pressed upon the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, as well as of the immediately infected houses."
    And he directed the arrangements to be made. Now, in Glasgow they had none of the costly vaccination paraphernalia of London. Glasgow was much worse vaccinated than London—at all events, they had no army of Inspectors, and their vaccinators did not participate in the premiums paid to vaccinators for doing their duty, at a cost to the country of some £15,000 a-year. They had no vaccination stations kept up out of the Imperial funds. But everything was under one man — Dr. Gairdner —the result being that in the 10 years in which the system had been adopted the Glasgow death-rate from small-pox fell from 570 to 194; whereas the London death-rate increased from 232 to 470. A new Medical Officer stepped into power—Dr. Russell—one of the most energetic and sagacious Medical Officers in the whole Kingdom; and that gentleman found a flaw in the system that had been adopted by his predecessor—
    "When I entered on office, "he said, "in 1872 and in the spring of 1873 small-pox again became epidemic. I saw that the system of making a note of persons ready to accept vaccination and then going with a doctor next day was not successful, while if at the first visit the operation was offered it was accepted largely. I therefore had the epidemic officers all trained, and made Dr. Carmichael responsible for the collection and supply of lymph, and any primary vaccinations necessary."
    The result was that from 1874 to June 5, 1883, they had had only 45 deaths from small-pox in Glasgow. Multiplying those figures by eight would give them 360 deaths in a population equal to London; but the actual number of deaths in London from small-pox during the same period was 8,989, or 8,629 more than it should have been on the Glasgow ratio, and that number of deaths
    1802
    signified 45,000 cases of small-pox. The expense at which these satisfactory results had been obtained was, as Dr. Russell had said, trifling. Dr. Carmichael got some £80 per annum. The revaccination was simply an extra accomplishment of the epidemic Inspector. The expense saved had been very great. He ventured to say that the law expenses which had been forced upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board had been 1,000 times the salary of Dr. Carmichael; and the cost of providing hospital accommodation, and treating the 45,000 eases which had arisen in excess of what should have arisen, must have been many thousands of times as great. The hospital accommodation provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board was 1,600 beds. The Commission which a couple of years ago reported on Small Pox Hospitals stated that there should be accommodation for 2,100 small-pox patients, capable of increase to 2,700. In Glasgow, since the system had been in full swing, the highest number of persons that had ever been in their hospital was 40. Now, that was the system that he wanted to be adopted in London. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) deprecated despotic action in this matter, "calculated to wound the affectionate feeling of the suffering poor;" but his hon. and learned Friend must be under a misconception as to what he really proposed. He did not advocate any new compulsory power; he did not ask for any compulsory notification of disease; he did not advocate any new vaccination system. He simply advocated the rational application of the existing machinery. By such application thousands of lives might be spared, tens of thousands of illnesses, and many a pang of the affectionate feelings of the suffering poor, and also of the suffering rich. He asked the President of the Local Government Board to give effect to the dictum of Dr. Seton, the Medical Officer of his own Department, that nowhere where due vigilance was used need small-pox spread. In London, unfortunately, it was nobody's business to do anything effectually in respect to the prevention of small-pox. The only thing that was done well in connection with the matter was the sending of Reports from one Office to another, and issuing circulars and handbills. He might be told that

    1803
    first-class arrangements were made for the isolation of the sick by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. He admitted it; but it was not their business to make that provision. The Board administered funds supplied by the poor rate, and they had no right to allocate Is. of those funds to the maintenance of free hospitals to persons who wore not paupers. The Local Government Board had been repeatedly asked what was the law upon the point, and they had as repeatedly refused to answer the question, because they knew that if they answered they must say that the Metropolitan Asylums Board had no right to expend that money in securing such isolation in cases of small-pox. Now, coming to revaccination, the Local Government Board maintained vaccination stations in the Metropolis at the expense of the nation; but as soon as an epidemic of smallpox arrived, the universal complaint was that there was no lymph. Among the witnesses who gave evidence on this point before a Royal Commission was Mr. Shirley Murphy, a gentleman at present employed in the National Calf Lymph Establishment of the Local Government Board, and the same evidence as that given by him was also given by Dr. Browning, the Medical Officer of Health of Rotherhithe, and it exactly accorded with his (Dr. Cameron's) own experience. He had come across a Medical Officer who, to put down small-pox at his own expense, opened a vaccination station, where persons could be revaccinated gratis at a certain hour every day in the week. A great number had availed themselves of it; but he had to give it up because he could not get any lymph. It was not the business of the Local Government Board to supply lymph. In 1880, after having pressed the matter for a good number of years, he (Dr. Cameron) had succeeded in getting the right hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dodson), then President of the Local Government Board, to introduce and start a calf-lymph vaccination station in London. Well, what occurred then would illustrate the whole policy of the Local Government Board in this matter. The subject had excited a great deal of attention abroad. In Holland they had introduced the system of calf-lymph vaccination stations. They were worked there with great success; and so interested were the Dutch medical men
    1804
    at the head of the system in the effort being made to establish it in this country, that they sent over a representative here—Dr. Van Dooremal—to wait upon the Local Government Board, with the offer that, if the Government would pay the bare outlay, they would come over and undertake to start the system, and for some time direct its working. He had the information from the gentleman himself. Well, the Local Government Board refused that offer. First, they would do nothing until one of their officers had made a tour of the Continent to visit the different calf-lymph establishments there; and then they kept the country waiting for 12 or 18 months before they established a calf-lymph station for themselves, because, forsooth, they could not get a stable in which to stable two or three calves in all London! That was a positive fact, and that was in the face of the epidemic of 1881. The cry then everywhere was that there was no lymph. Human lymph could not be multiplied, but calf lymph could. In economical Belgium a single calf would produce lymph enough to supply 500 persons; and the calves might be hired by the week for 10 s., and afterwards returned to the owner, and after a short time become lit to be fatted and killed, so that in Belgium 500 persons might be vaccinated for 10 s., or about one farthing a-head. Suppose they were twice- as extravagant, they might still vaccinate with calf lymph at a halfpenny a-head. In London, notwithstanding the expenditure on national vaccination, no effective means were taken for supplying lymph. It was nobody's business. In Glasgow they had no grant from Government; but their Municipal Authorities and their Medical Officer of Health knew that they had to deal with smallpox, and, knowing that, the Municipal Authorities at their own expense kept up a vaccination station for their own supply. In London, the Imperial Exchequer paid half the expense incurred by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the treatment of the pauper sick, including, of course, small-pox cases also. During the epidemic of 1881, a servant man of his in London, living with his family in a house with 20 other people, had been seized with small-pox. As he was not a pauper he could not be removed to the workhouse hospital, and he (Dr. Cameron) was himself glad to secure the

    1805
    man's immediate admission to Highgate Hospital on payment of £4 4s. But if that man had been friendless he might have been left in that crowded house, as far as any action of the medical or sanitary authorities went, and have thus spread an epidemic first among the other occupants of the house, and from them throughout the neighbourhood. He (Dr. Cameron), on that occasion, asked the Medical Officer of the district if he would look after the revaccination of the other people in that house, and that gentleman replied that it was not his business to do so; but that what was his duly he would do—to report the outbreak to the vaccination officer, who in turn would communicate with the public vaccinator. But he afterwards discovered that nothing was done. The custom was, it seemed, for the public vaccinator to issue bills over the neighbourhood during the presence of smallpox, actual or apprehended, intimating to those of the public who desired to get vaccinated to attend at a certain station, possibly two or three miles distant, at a certain hour on a certain day, when they could have the process performed. The consequence of such a course in dealing with a matter requiring the most urgent promptitude was that the system necessarily failed as a preventive one. Vaccination to be an effectual remedy against the disease must be prompt. Vaccination ran its course more speedily than smallpox, and, overtaking or anticipating it, it exhausted the pabulum upon which small-pox fed before the disease had time to develop. But if delayed for four or five days after the infection, then vaccination was useless to arrest a disease which had already taken hold; and, in such circumstance, the vaccinator might save his trouble. In Glasgow vaccination or revaccination was performed on the spot to everyone requiring it. In the last epidemic in Glasgow, in a tenement containing 66 families, a case of small-pox occurred, and it was not discovered to be small-pox until after the death of one of the persons. Then 24 of the occupants had caught the contagion. When the Medical Officer of Health had visited the place, upon discovering the nature of the disease, he had the 24 persons removed, the other persons, to the number of 152, revaccinated, and the place disinfected. From
    1806
    the first case 24 cases had arisen. From those 24, promptly dealt with, not a single case of infection occurred. In the present epidemic in Glasgow there had occurred 133 cases, and 1,100 persons had been revaccinated. Upon asking the President of the Local Government Board what the system in London was, he was told what had to be done was that the vaccination officer, with such assistance as the Poor Law Guardians might give him, made detailed visits to the houses and streets infected for the purpose of detecting unvaccinated children and urging on the people to have themselves and their children revaccinated and their houses disinfected. Now, that was a system which they would not submit to in Glasgow. Such a system was too inquisitorial. The object of those visits was to urge the people to present themselves without loss of time at the vaccination station, where revaccination would be successfully performed if they attended. It was a very good system in theory, but defective in practice, because the people neglected to comply. Handbills and placards were issued informing people where and when the operation would be performed gratis; but the place was too often at a great distance from the people's homes, and' the consequence was that frequently they did not go. In London the persons who were revaccinated were not, for the most part, the persons who had been exposed to infection, and whom, in the public interests, it was most desirable to revaccinate. Prior to Dr. Russell's— the Glasgow Medical Officer of Health —time experience showed that if a single day were allowed to elapse between the chance of infection and vaccination, the probabilities were against the persons infected voluntarily submitting to vaccination. In Glasgow, therefore, revaccination was offered at the time and on the spot. In the last epidemic he had found that, if a supply of lymph could only be insured, a number of Medical Officers of Health were willing to undertake the work of revaccination. It was asserted that District Medical Officers of Health were allowed to perform the duty; but the all but nominal fee payable only in the case of adults and only in successful cases, which were two out of three, would not reimburse them the cost of the lymph, to say nothing of remunerating them for their

    1807
    trouble. A Medical Officer of Health told him that on the removal of a case of small-pox from a house he told the inmates that they would be revaccinated if they would go to the vaccination station at a certain hour on the Monday or Tuesday following; but if days elapsed vaccination would be, in most cases, a mere farce. If any of the persons had taken small-pox it would be too deeply rooted in their constitutions to be checked; and the result would be that they would be sowing the seeds of infection among the mothers and children assembled at the station. While in Glasgow 95 per cent of those revaccinated were the persons whom it was desired on public grounds to have revaccinated, in London probably not 5 per cent came within that category. Dr. Bonney had mentioned to him, as a forcible illustration of the working of the London system, the case of a tailor whom he found laid up with small-pox, and having seven pairs of trousers hanging in his shop ready for pressing. These the doctor could not himself order to be disinfected, but had to communicate with the Medical Officer of Health. Ultimately the trousers had been sent home before this functionary appeared on the scene, and some of them might possibly be wearing by hon. Members of that House. The disease was propagated in a similar way by laundresses and hucksters, whose clothes and goods were dispersed before the machinery for disinfecting could be got into operation; and yet people told you that isolation, revaccination, and disinfection was carried out, and wondered why small-pox should spread. A case, illustrating the circumlocution and delay of the London system, occurred at the institution in the parish of West Ham.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is not in London.
    DR. CAMERON: No; it was on Wanstead Flats, on the outskirts of London, and was practically a part of London, and whatever affected that district, in the way of infectious diseases at all events, would affect London. It appeared that in the early part of last month three of the girls in this institution were found to be suffering from small-pox. Anxious to have them removed to an infectious hospital, the gentleman who reported the case applied to the vaccination officer, who referred him
    1808
    to the relieving officer, who referred him to the Medical Officer of Health, who could do nothing. He then wrote to the President of the Local Government Board, who wrote that an official reply should be sent. He next went to the Asylums Board Hospital at Homerton, whence he was referred back to the vaccination officer, and ultimately he had to apply to a "pay hospital" at Highgate, where the patients were taken in; but even there they had no ambulance, and he was obliged, next, to go in search of an ambulance, which he found at Netting Hill. In these proceedings a whole week was occupied, to the great danger of the spread of the disease throughout the whole institution, and a considerable number of cases occurred. In Glasgow the responsibility for all necessary action, as regarded both the suffering and the possibly infected, was concentrated upon one Authority, and all the prescribed processes were promptly carried out. The disinfection of a room might involve the destruction of the paper on the walls; but it was not obligatory on the Local Authority in London to repaper the room, and, therefore, proper disinfection was often evaded. This was a source of danger that would be lessened if a process, submitted to compulsorily on public grounds, were followed by the repair of any damage that was unavoidable. The Royal Commission, of which they remembered, recommended that the whole business of dealing with small-pox cases should be handed over to the sanitary authorities. They went far beyond what he asked on the present occasion. They had recommended the compulsory notification of infectious diseases. He did not ask for that on the present occasion. They made some important recommendations as to isolation, and these had been carried out. In accordance with their recommendations, the Metropolitan Asylums Board had taken over the ambulance system, and they had established hospital ships—the Atlas, Castaliâ, and Endymion, and the camp at Darenth. He could not help thinking it was a pity that the Commission did not visit some of the large towns where the disease had been successfully grappled with, and see what was being done there; and it was still more of a pity that Dr. Buchanan had not made himself acquainted with what had been done in these towns, so that

    1809
    he might be able to tell the Commission. If they had gone to these largo towns they would have found that the success elsewhere was greatly owing to the fact that isolation, notification, and revaccination were taken hand-in-hand and applied concurrently. Isolation, disinfection, and revaccination must be worked together. In consequence of the neglect of the two latter in London during the last epidemic, the means of isolation were insufficient; and, notwithstanding what had now been provided, the cry was still for more camps and more hospitals. He did not ask the President of the Local Government Board for any inquisitorial system. Let him authorize a free supply of lymph and the payment for prompt revaccination of infected households. Let him authorize the Metropolitan Asylums Board to spend money in this matter, as he authorized thorn to illegally expend money on the isolation of non-pauper cases. The House would protect the Board from any loss. They would provide an indemnity for the small sum that would be needed. If the President of the Local Government Board must have legislation, let him provide for giving lymph and a moderate fee for prompt revaccination of infected households during epidemic; let him constitute District Officers and Assistant Medical Officers of Health; let him legalize what was non-illegal—the reception of non-pauper cases into the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board—and let him provide for the payment for articles destroyed. That would save the house-to-house visitation which prevailed in London; it would save those willing to get revaccinated the trouble of going to the vaccinating stations; it would save any increase in hospitals, ambulance, and additional vaccination stations and officers. In Glasgow they had applied the same principles as had been applied in London, and the only difference was in the mode of administration. He had repeatedly urged during the last epidemic that something should be done. The President of the Local Government Board admitted an urgent necessity for reform; but what he wanted to do was to wait until the passing of the London Government Bill enabled him, with greater facility, to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. If he waited until the London Government
    1810
    Bill passed he might have to wait for a very long time. They knew what fascination was exercised by snakes over birds. It seemed to him that permanent officials exercised a similar power over Ministers. His right hon. Friend proposed to move the Previous Question to his Resolution on the ground that he objected to "swap horses while crossing the stream." So did he. What he wanted simply was to utilize the present machinery. As he had said, most of what he asked for could be accomplished by a stroke of the pen; everything he asked could be done by Government assuming responsibility for a few thousand pounds. No great courage was needed here, and he was sure an indemnity would be given. They rather shirked responsibility; but if they did not want to take any responsibility in the matter, the legislation would not be half so difficult to carry as the Cholera Prevention Bill. He had explained what he wanted to the right hon. Gentleman and to the officials. The right hon. Gentleman admitted what was wanted, but the officials were adverse to any change; and the officials being adverse, the President of the Local Government Board asked them to postpone the whole matter till the London Government Bill passed. He supposed when a few more epidemics had swept over London, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was in Opposition, he would advocate what he (Dr. Cameron) was strongly urging in this matter. In the name of humanity, he implored his right hon. Friend to think, and judge, and act for himself. Let him, by all means, accept the advice of medical experts on purely medical points. The principles laid down by his advisers were precisely the principles they had adopted in Glasgow. But let the right hon. Gentleman trust his own common sense for administration in a matter of the greatest importance. In the presence of a great emergency—the almost certainty of thousands of deaths next year, should present arrangements continue— he had to beg and implore the right hon. Gentleman to cast resolutely aside that fussy and expensive policy of "how not to do it" that had so long prevailed in London. Let him burst asunder the humilitating trammels of red tape, assert himself as Minister of Health, and "stand between the living and the dead, and

    1811
    stay the plague." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    DR. FARQUHARSONseconded the Motion of his hon. Friend, not in a spirit of hostility to the Government, but rather in a spirit of candid criticism. It was of the utmost importance that their institutions, from time to time, should be examined and taken to pieces, to see whether they were in harmony with the circumstances of the age in which they lived. Although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) deprecated the use of alarming statements on the approach of smallpox and other epidemics, as likely to create panic, he believed that a discussion on the subject raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would do good. It was very disheartening to the advocates of vaccination to see these epidemics sweeping over the country from time to time; and a great encouragement was often given to those anti-vaccinators who were doing such great and irreparable damage throughout the country. These epidemics which appeared from time to time showed that the protection they had at the present time was still insufficient. The question then arose, whether the protection was insufficient in itself, or whether the machinery was not properly worked? They knew perfectly well that, in all great epidemics of small-pox, those who were properly vaccinated escaped altogether or slightly. He wished to pay a tribute to the efficiency with which the private vaccination of this country was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Buchanan and Dr. Seton of the Local Government Board, through whose exertions the proportion of unvaccinated children was now reduced from 10 to 4 per cent. The question might be put, why did they have these serious epidemics, and why did one case cause the disease to spread to such an extent? The fact was, there was still a very considerable number of unvaccinated people, and of people who had been insufficiently vaccinated. He could not too strongly advise revaccination. There was no doubt that a person who had been, vaccinated in childhood ought to be revaccinated after a certain number of years. There was but very little inconvenience in the operation, and he should like to see revaccination made compulsory in this country. To stamp out small-pox
    1812
    altogether they must have early detection, and they could not have early detection in an efficient degree unless they had a compulsory system of notification of disease in this country. The extent to which small-pox was concealed in London was appalling. There must be prompt and thorough disinfection, and prompt revaccination of infected households. His hon. Friend had pointed out that the machinery in London was very defective as compared with that of Glasgow, where the system was under the superintendance of Dr. Russell; and he thought it only reasonable to give a trial to the better system. Several eminent witnesses before the Royal Commission recommended that the matter should be placed under the direct control of the Local Government Board, instead of under that of the Guardians, and that suggestion he thought worthy of consideration. He thought the question of the cause of epidemics was one which would well occupy the attention of the Local Government Board. They had a most able and most experienced staff, although it was, perhaps, already overworked. He hoped that the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to say something in this direction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in view of the alarming increase of Small Pox in London, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government at once to apply to the Metropolis those rational principles of prompt and direct preventive administration, the efficacy of which in circumscribing Small Pox Epidemics has teen demonstrated by the experience of Glasgow and other large towns —(Dr. Cameron.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in moving the Previous Question, said, that he rose as against his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who had an Amendment on the Paper, because he did not think it advisable that the House should divide upon the Motion before it. The question had been brought before the House as one of practice only, and not as a question of principle, as the principles of the Mover appeared to be the same as those of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member had not, however, placed it before the House in that scientific way which might have been expected from one of his high scientific attainments. He had compared the cases of London and Glasgow, and had

    1813
    spoken of the high mortality in London in very general terms, as if in the Metropolis alone the mortality was high. But he would remind the House that it was not alone in London that the mortality from small-pox was high. The same system prevailed throughout England as prevailed in London. That was one of the faults which he found in the speech of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) had not really said much as to the Motion he was seconding. He had made a useful and valuable speech upon small-pox generally and its statistics; but he had certainly said little in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Now, if he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) were inclined to be facetious on a serious subject, he should say that the Mover and Seconder were only agreed in the matter of trousers; and, considering that these Gentlemen hailed from the Northern portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, he should say they were animated by the patriotic intention of altogether abolishing those articles of attire. Passing to the Motion itself, he would readily admit that there was in London, as compared with the Provincial towns, a high rate of mortality. At the same time, in many Provincial towns the mortality was very high indeed. Liverpool, for instance, suffered greatly from smallpox; and he thought that it could be shown that under a single Sanitary Authority they could have a very serious state of things existing as regarded small-pox. He did not think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Glasgow was justified in picking out the case of London as standing by itself. In Paris, he might parenthetically observe, the death-rate from small-pox was greater than in London. If the hon. Member for Glasgow were only prepared to contend that there was room for improvement in the sanitary arrangements of London, and in the Sanitary Authority of London, he was perfectly prepared to agree with him. It was one of the points urged by the Home Secretary, when introducing the London Government Bill, that unity in sanitary administration in the Metropolis was a thing very much to be desired. The hon. Member said it was nobody's business to do anything effectively. Well, he was sorry to say that statement was too much applicable to
    1814
    London Government generally. The Local Government Board had gone as far as their powers extended to awaken the local authorities to a sense of their duty. Where Guardians had failed to provide accommodation in connection with small-pox, the Local Government Board had done their best to induce them to supply it. At the same time, he must observe that his hon. Friend did not seem to be thoroughly acquainted with the English vaccination system as contrasted with the Scotch system. The hon. Member had spoken of a contribution of one-half the expense from the Imperial Exchequer; but there was no such provision as he had described. More than that, he had given illustrations from the parish of Chelsea, and had declared that between the vaccination stations a distance of two or three miles intervened. That statement did not correspond with facts, because he would undertake to say that the distance was not greater than half-a-mile. Then the hon. Member had said that the District Medical Officer should be paid for the revaccination of persons in infected houses. As a matter of fact, they were paid for it. The hon. Member had, moreover, alluded to the case of a gentleman who had written certain letters to the newspapers and to the Local Government Board, and he had complained that, in face of the fact which the correspondence disclosed, the Local Government Board had refused to act; but the hon. Gentleman knew that that case occurred outside the limits of the Metropolis; whereas, as a matter of fact, there was no power at law to warrant the interference of the Local Government Board. In London, as he had pointed out to his hon. Friend in the month of May—although his hon. Friend now made the reply he then gave to his Question a matter of complaint—the great proportion of the cases of smallpox were dealt with by an authority which required, by Act of Parliament, to be set in motion by District Medical Officers, as distinguished from Medical Officers of Health. In Glasgow the first medical observer of a case of small-pox was usually the Medical Officer of Health; whereas in London it was the District Officer who became, as a rule, soonest aware of the occurrence. The hon. Member stated that in many cases

    1815
    the vaccination stations were distant from the homes of the poor. As a general rule that was not so; and although some difficulty had been experienced in the case of Hackney in inducing the authorities to provide evening vaccination places, and though there was great delay in that case in carrying out the suggestion, yet many parishes had shown themselves eager to adopt every scientific precaution against the disease. The hon. Member did something like justice to the stops taken by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in their action upon the Report of the Royal Commission; but he seemed to imply—although he did not state his alternative — that the action of the Board was unnecessary.
    DR. CAMERON: I did not say that. What I said was, that so much accommodation would be unnecessary if proper preventive steps were taken in the first instance.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Very well; he would not go into that. But the House must remember that there was a large shifting population, and also a largo foreign population, in the Metropolis, and it was not easy to secure their vaccination; and it was among them that the disease frequently appeared. But the hon. Member raised a much larger question than that merely of small-pox vaccination when he suggested that the vaccination arrangements should be transferred from the Boards of Guardians to the sanitary authorities. His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) own view was that, in London at all events, it was a great mistake that the sanitary care of the town should be divided, as it was, between three sets of authorities. Both with regard to small-pox and all other diseases it would be far better to concentrate the sanitary arrangements in a single authority. His own opinion in that matter was shown in the Cholera Bill he had introduced last year, in which one Sanitary Authority was provided for the whole Metropolis in connection with any outbreak of cholera that might occur. At the present time they had 39 distinct authorities. The hon. Member rather ridiculed the idea that such a matter could wait until the Bill dealing with the Government of London was brought forward. But it was impossible to treat this matter in anything like a satisfactory way unless in a measure embracing the whole ques-
    1816
    tion of the Government of the City of London. He could not admit that his hon. Friend had made out any case for the substitution as regarded this one matter of one set of authorities, 39 in number, for another set of authorities equally numerous. The hon. Member had spoken, too, of rational and scientific principles in dealing with small-pox by vaccination and revaccination, and had said that it was not the principle but the administration with which he quarrelled. While he was not by any means prepared to contend that the state of things in London was in practice perfect, or anything like perfect, he would point out that when, for the purpose of actual results, they compared London with Glasgow, it seemed to be exceedingly good. In Kensington, in 1881, there was house-to-house visitation throughout the parish, a vaccinating officer with six assistants being specially engaged for the purpose. The greater part of the work was done in five weeks, the whole taking rather more than three months. As the result, 1,127 primary vaccinations and 2,156 revaccinations were done at the appointed stations, making a total of 3,283 for the parish, with its population of 120,000, against an average of 720 in the similar space of time of an average year. They were done at two stations, including one temporarily opened for evening attendance, and were done in such a manner that on case was unsuccessfully operated upon. The hon. Member said that in Glasgow 100 persons were vaccinated and 362 revaccinated in a fortnight; and that in the epidemic period, which lasted four years, the Officer of Health and his assistants vaccinated 4,406 and revaccinated 8,730 persons. But Kensington, under similar circumstances of of urgency, could, and did, vaccinate and revaccinate even larger proportions of its population. The hon. Member had charged him with being under the fascination of his own Medical Department; but the fact was, that the action he had taken was without advice from anybody, and entirely on his own responsibility. The hon. Member had suggested the use of calf lymph when humanized lymph was not available. There was, however, considerable objection to the use of calf lymph. In the first place, as compared with humanized lymph, calf lymph was much less easy

    1817
    of removal from the "points;" it did not take with the same degree of certainty; in addition to which it soon lost its virtue, and great waste and expense would consequently be caused by its employment. His hon. Friend seemed to think that no good was done by house-to-house visits; but the fact was, a large amount of vaccination and re-vaccination had taken place through house-to-house visitation. The "station" vaccination had also been largely done, and done as a rule more efficiently, and also more cheaply, than by the house-to-house system. In the circumstances, he did not like to ask the House to negative the Motion of his hon. Friend, because there was, undoubtedly, existing a state of things which was not satisfactory. It was not, in his view, desirable that whilst the small-pox epidemic was raging they should during its course change the administration of the Acts. Under these circumstances, he begged leave to move the Previous Question.
    Previous Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Sir Charles W. Dllke.)
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had frequently listened with much delight and satisfaction to the speeches of his right hon. Friend on foreign affairs; but he regretted that on the present occasion he had listened to his speech with the very reverse of satisfaction. He thought it was in the highest degree unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman did not traverse a single important statement of his hon. Colleague, but took out some little points—such as the distance to the stations from the residences of the people —and spoke about calf lymph. But he did not attempt to touch any of the main points of his argument. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Liverpool; but the state of Liverpool, instead of being a justification for London, only furnished another example of a bad system—breaking down when badly worked. Why had he not quoted Manchester? Glasgow was not the only large city where things were well managed. No allusion whatever had been made to Manchester, which was a great town, and where great and good results had been brought about. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make the House believe that the state of some
    1818
    districts of London was as good as that of Glasgow, and mentioned Kensington in proof of that statement. But what were the facts? Between 1877 and 1881 the mortality in Kensington was 226 per 1,000,000. In Glasgow, between 1875 and 1884, it was 9 per 1,000,000. How could the right hon. Gentleman say that the state of any part of London was satisfactory when figures like these could be adduced? In Glasgow there was not a Government establishment to do it with national funds. In London there was. What was made of it? In London the principle was good; but the working was bad. There was too much circumlocution, too much red tape. If the right hon. Gentleman would set his mind to it, and compel officials to do their work in a different manner, he would bring out different results. If he could not do that, let him send to Glasgow and enlist the services of Dr. Russell. It would, however, be necessary, if Dr. Russell were brought to London, that he should not be smothered in officialism, and swathed in red tape. That was the curse in London. If Dr. Russell were brought to London, given full powers, and adequately supported, he (Mr. Anderson) had no doubt they would soon have in London results as good, or nearly as good, as were now brought out in Glasgow. There ought not to be, notwithstanding the fact that London was eight times larger than Glasgow, so vast a discrepancy in the percentage of mortality from small-pox. He admitted that in a town eight times larger there might fairly enough be rather more than eight times the disease; but if, instead of 9 per 1,000,000, it were 10, or even 12, there might not be much to say; but when, instead of 9 or even 12, it was 226, and that for the very best part of London, the condition was seriously wrong. The fact was, the whole country had a right to complain of London as a pest centre, and there must be some fault in the Local Government Department. The right hon. Gentleman had not informed the House, nor had he traversed the fact, that some time ago London was in a doubly better position than Glasgow. From 1855 to 1864 the mortality per 1,000,000 in Glasgow was 570. In London it was only 232. In these figures they had disclosed a state of matters in which Glasgow was twice as bad as London; and in a few years,

    1819
    by simply changing the arrangement in Glasgow, and adopting a more rational system, and getting rid of rod tape and circumlocution, they got different results. Manchester and other large towns had done the same, and why not London? Their contention was, that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see that the London system was altered, so as to improve the present condition of things.
    MR. HOPWOODconsidered it was unwise to create a panic among the people by raising such discussions, and giving vent to alarming statements. He hoped the Government would not be driven to the adoption of hasty and despotic action.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Seven o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts Amendment* (171); Post Office Protection * (172); Educational Endowments (Ireland)* (173).
Second Reading—Improvement of Lands (Ecclesiastical Benefices) * (131).
Report— Newcastle Chapter* (130).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (141); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12)* (142); Local Government 'Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13)* (143); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4)* (136); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (137); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5)* (139); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6)* (140); Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (158); Customs and Inland Revenue* (147); Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* (154), and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  EARL CAIRNS: I beg to give Notice that, on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, I shall move, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, while prepared to concur in a well-considered and complete scheme for the extension of the franchise, does not think it right to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill having for its object a fundamental change in the constitution of the electoral body of the United Kingdom, but which is not accompanied by provisions for so apportioning the right to return. Members as to insure a true and fair representation of the people, or by any adequate security in the proposals of the Government that the present Bill shall not come into operation except as part of an entire scheme."

EGYPT (TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE)—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, who had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve—
  "That the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, as indicated in the correspondence recently presented to Parliament, are such as in the opinion of this House will not lead to the establishment of tranquillity and good

  1771
  government in Egypt, and will fail to produce results adequately corresponding to the sacrifices which England has made and may be called upon to make in that country,"
  said: My Lords, before the business of the evening begins, I wish, to ask the noble Earl the (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice; and it is necessary that I should accompany it with a very few observations. Your Lordships are aware that there stands in my name, on the Paper for to-night, a Notice of a Motion, condemning the preliminary agreement which Her Majesty's Government have come to with the Government of Prance in respect to Egyptian matters; and your Lordships must also be aware that a somewhat similar Motion was intended to be moved last night in "another place." My Lords, we have the Votes of the House of Commons before us; and inasmuch as I can hardly otherwise make myself intelligible with regard to what occurred in the House of Commons I may be permitted to refer to the ordinary sources of information, and to remind your Lordships of that which is reported to have occurred in that place. You will remember that last week my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), on the part of Mr. Bruce, gave Notice of a Motion, and said he would ask Her Majesty's Government for a day on which the Vote of Censure there might be brought forward. A day was afterwards asked for, and a day was accorded at once by the Prime Minister; and, as far as I know, there was no intimation given, or a doubt expressed, of any objection on his part. Last night, when the other House met, the Prime Minister is reported to have moved for the postponement of the Orders of the Day in order to give effect to his promise; but scarcely had he resumed his seat, when certain other Members of the House of Commons alleged that it would be inopportune and injurious at this moment to raise the particular question involved in the Notice of Motion of Vote of Censure. My Lords, the Prime Minister, while admitting and implying that he was bound by the promise which he had given, used words so remarkable, if they are correctly reported, that I must refer to them; and I am not surprised—indeed, I think no one can be surprised—that they produced a very great effect upon
  1772
  Members of the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone said—
  "With respect to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, I wish him to understand that I am a most reluctant party. I have to say, on the part of the Government, that, so far from coming down here in the glee with which we may very often contemplate Party conflicts when we feel we are in the right, on this occasion I come down here with a deep sense that I am, under the pressure of circumstances, and as the choice of evils, giving facilities for bringing forward a Motion which we feel to be most inopportune and most injurious to the public interests."
  Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, when the House of Commons went to a division, those words of Mr. Gladstone largely influenced Members on the Liberal side of the House. Certainly, a most remarkable scene took place. The whole Treasury Bench voted with the Opposition; and I believe I might almost say that the whole Liberal Party, including Mr. Gladstone's personal Friends, voted against him and the Government in the other Lobby. My Lords, the House decided that the Orders should not be postponed, and the Vote of Censure consequently fell to the ground. It was a decision which has been welcomed by many persons. Some have said that it was inopportune and injurious to bring forward this question at this time. Now, being responsible for a somewhat similar Motion, I desire to give the most formal and emphatic denial that I can to such a statement as that. I do not believe that, handled with common prudence, such a question need have been injurious to the public interests. The questions with which we, at all events, should have had to deal were questions which were not before the Conference. They were preliminary to the Conference; and if they had been handled with common discretion and prudence, I can conceive no objection to discussing them; and certainly no possible mischief to the public service as likely to arise, or arising from them. The Conservative Party, as a whole, in both Houses, have already shown their emphatic reprobation of the course which has been pursued in this matter. But, my Lords, the course, on the other hand, taken by the Prime Minister was, I venture to say, utterly unprecedented in the annals and the traditions of Parliamentary practice. It is perfectly true that the Vote of Censure was shelved; an undesirable object was removed out of the way; the word of

  1773
  promise was kept to the ear; intentionally, or unintentionally, it was broken to the hope. Mr. Gladstone, I see, has been complimented on his extreme dexterity and adroitness. I think his Friends would do well to reflect before they offer him such compliments as this. They seem to me to be very left-handed. He is plainly in this dilemma—either this great and powerful Minister was unable to secure the adhesion of a single follower, or there was, or was believed, at least to be, a wish for defeat on his part. My Lords, whether it was an accident, whether it was a manœuvre, whether it was Party tactics, I repeat, deliberately, whatever it was, I will leave him to reconcile the fact that on Friday he made no opposition to granting a day for this discussion; and that on Monday evening, at the eleventh hour, he comes down to the House and tells it that it is most inopportune and most injurious to the public interests. I do not care to press this point further; but your Lordships may be sure that there are many persons out-of-doors who will speak of it in far rougher and plainer language than I have used. Now, the last point I have to put is an important one, and it is this. The real question is, is this statement made by the Prime Minister in the "other place" on his own responsibility and couched in words of greatest gravity? He believes a discussion of this question to be most inopportune and most injurious to the public interests. I am placed in a difficult position this evening, whether or not to go on with the Motion that stands in my name; but I remember what has been the practice—I might say the invariable practice, I believe, of this House—of deferring to the judgment of a responsible Minister when he tells us that it is dangerous to the public interests to discuss a particular question. My Lords, I trust it will be very long indeed before in this House we ever have reason to doubt the word of any Minister who makes such a statement to us; and, therefore, I ask the noble Earl opposite now whether he adheres to the statement of Mr. Gladstone; and, whether he will assure the House that, in his opinion, the discussion of this question would be fraught with danger, and even with public inconvenience? If the noble Earl answers this Question in the affirmative, I shall be consulting, I believe, the feelings of your Lordships'
  1774
  House on the one hand, and I shall be doing right, I believe, on the other, if I abstain from pressing the Motion at present.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to answer the Question which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) was good enough to give me private Notice of—a Question which he has prefaced with some statements that appear to me to show some soreness on the part of the noble Earl, both with regard to what passed last night and with regard to the obligation which he feels in not bringing his Motion before your Lordships to-day. As usual, the noble Earl managed to make something like a personal attack on the Prime Minister. In the most unwarrantable manner, he twice made insinuations that there seemed to be something of a manœuvre in what took place last night. I observe that a right hon. Friend of mine, in answer to a similar insinuation, answered that there was nobody but the person who made the insinuation in or out of the House of Commons who would have done it; but as I happen to have heard that a Member of your Lordships' House made a similar remark, I took the liberty of writing to Mr. Goschen to ask him to clear up the matter, and I will venture to read to your Lordships the answer which Mr. Goschen has given; and I cannot conceive its not being regarded as absolutely conclusive as to the charge of manœuvre which the noble Earl brings forward against us. Mr. Goschen says—
  "My dear Granville,—In reply to your question, you may assert in the most unqualified manner that no one connected, directly or indirectly, with the Government has had the slightest inkling of any idea on my part to oppose the postponement of the Orders of the Day, and, indeed, I had abandoned the idea myself. The whole action taken was taken in entire independence of the Government; and, as far as I am concerned, was simply giving effect to the opinion which I had expressed to the House when Sir Stafford Northcote gave Notice that some Motion would be proposed by the Opposition—namely, that any debate and Division on the French Agreement would be most injurious to the public interests."
  I trust now we shall not hear anything more of manœuvres and understandings between the Government and any of their followers. My Lords, the noble Earl has reproached Mr. Gladstone, because he said his Friends had complimented him on the adroitness of the

  1775
  course which he had taken. As far as my observation goes, I am not aware of any Friends having complimented Mr. Gladstone on any such supposed merit; it was entirely from his opponents, who tried to fix this charge of adroitness on Mr. Gladstone. The noble Earl says nothing would induce him, after a responsible Member of the Government declared that there would be injury caused by a certain Motion to the public service, to press that Motion. I am afraid that is a little indirect reproach on the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons; because he did press and vote for the Motion after that assertion had been made by Mr. Gladstone. Either he or the noble Earl cannot consistently be right in the principle they lay down. My Lords, with regard to the Question which he has put to me, I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with what Mr. Gladstone has said. More than that, I wonder the noble Earl ever had any doubt whatever as to this House proceeding with this Vote of Censure after what passed in the House of Commons last night; but, beyond that, I say this opinion of the inexpediency and the disadvantage was one which I have held ever since the Notice was given. We considered it most carefully. We all thought, not for any private reason, but for reasons obvious to all persons who had considered the subject, and which, of course, influenced instinctively the majority in the House of Commons yesterday, that it must be a disadvantage that a deliberate Vote of Censure should be proposed; that there should be a discussion begun, the House being imperfectly informed on all the questions more or less connected together; and that at the moment when the Conference was opening, and when the most difficult and delicate negotiations were going on. There is nothing more incumbent upon a Government than to show great sensitiveness whenever a Vote of Censure is bond fide brought against them, and to give the earliest opportunity for that Vote to be decided one way or the other. We considered it most carefully whether we ought to give a day. Here, no day is required; and we came to the conclusion that we were bound in honour to give a day as soon as possible in the other House, and that was done. Yesterday, the whole thing, as Mr. Goschen's letter
  1776
  shows, was a complete surprise. In truth, Mr. Gladstone did not refrain from giving expression to what was felt, and the result was a majority of 40. When you come to compare all the people who voted, against their opinions, in favour of the question of suspending the Orders of the Day, it will be found that a very large majority of the House of Commons was agreed as to the utter inexpediency of going on with the Vote of Censure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has had the opportunity of reading the letter from Mr. Goschen; because, undoubtedly, the circumstances, as they appear in this morning's newspapers, rather remind one of those valient duellists who are punctual to appear on the field, but who take care that a magistrate shall have private information of what is going to take place. Even after that explanation, while I should say that it entirely clears away any suspicion that Mr. Goschen had any kind of previous intimation, it is impossible to deny that the whole circumstances are very curious and unprecedented. The noble Earl and the Government appear to have felt that this discussion would be most injurious to the public service. Well, it has happened again and again in Parliamentary practice, that when a Government has been of opinion that a discussion upon foreign affairs would be, at a particular moment, inexpedient, they have always immediately stated their opinion to Parliament, and, according to the invariable rule of Parliament, an appeal of that kind has been listened to. But the noble Earl, having this strong belief that the Motion was dangerous and inexpedient, carefully kept that belief to himself; and if it had not been for the accidental speech of Mr. Forster, which, as it were, drew the statement out of Mr. Gladstone, we should never have known that it was inexpedient. It is very odd that in spite of the perfectly accidental character of that avowal of Mr. Gladstone there was a division; and it is curious that Mr. Gladstone's personal influence and example should not have been able to draw any of his followers after him into the Lobby. The contagion of mad rebellion seems to have seized them all; and those who never rebelled before on this occasion lifted up their heels against their master. It is very mysterious to those

  1777
  who only look on the reported circumstances of the case. There will be recorded, I have no doubt, for the benefit of future historians, circumstances, not of a private, but of a less public character, which may throw some light on the facts. I am told, on very good authority, that the two Gentlemen whose duty it is to marshal the forces of the Government were, during that division, at the door of the Lobby into which the Government and the Opposition went, and that, when asked by Liberal Members which way they were to go, instead of replying with enthusiasm, as might be expected, "Of course, you are to follow Mr. Gladstone," they immediately replied—"The bulk of the Party is going the other way." And it is remakable that after that, the Party voted against Mr. Gladstone in sufficient numbers to neutralize his formal vote, and to give effect to his expressed opinions. My noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) has been attacked for speaking of a "manœuvre." Well, we will not use any big words; we will call it a contrivance; but, at all events, it was very ingenious and exceedingly successful. It has had this effect—that Mr. Gladstone has kept his promise, entirely freed from the inconvenience that that promise might have brought upon him. It is impossible to conceive a more striking example of a strict adherence to principle, combined with a complete enjoyment of the advantages of setting all principle at defiance. Why the Government are anxious to avoid a discussion on this subject in the House of Commons—that is, of course, a matter upon which speculation will be rife; but some people will have it that the Government have had a diplomatic rebuff in the Conference, and that the Conference will disappear. I should not like to entertain such a gloomy view. I. myself, am inclined to believe that the Prime Minister has had information, as many of us have had, as to the probable results of a Division; and that the prospect of gaining even that moderate majority which he secured on a late occasion appeared to him more problematical that most of his Friends were disposed to assert. Under those circumstances, I think his prudence is to be commended. As for us, we are sorry not to have the opportunity of expressing our opinions tonight; but I cannot say that otherwise
  1778
  I regret the issue to which in this House the matter has come. I am glad that the Government should announce, in such a very distinct manner, their apprehension of the results of a full and free discussion of what they have done, and that they should show that they would like to defer it to a more convenient season, towards the middle of August. I feel, at all events, that the conduct and views of the Conservative Party on this question will record their opinions plainly before the country. No one can charge us with having touched this matter uninvited, or with having dealt with any questions not fairly placed before us. If the Government did not mean this question to be discussed, why did they depart from all diplomatic precedent by producing their Agreement in the very middle of negotiations; and why did they announce, in such a marked manner, that the Conference was to deal with no questions of policy, and only with questions of finance? The question, whether the stipulations that have been made with France are expedient or not; whether they are just to Egypt, or whether they are not; whether they are comformable or not to the honour and highest interests of Great Britain—these things are absolutely independent of any decision to which the Conference may come as to the question of the advance of a loan of £8,000,000 to Egypt, or the reduction of interest to which the bondholder may submit. The political question and the financial question are absolutely separate; and I cannot see how the discussion of the political question, how the determination of the issues which the Government themselves have placed before us in regard to the future policy of Great Britain, can affect the financial question which the Conference has to determine. But this is clearly not a matter which can guide our judgment on the present occasion. In deference to the uniform precedent and practice of this House, the announcement of the Government that this discussion would be injurious to the public service must govern our conduct.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the last portion of the observations of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) shows exactly what we should have had to encounter if we had refused to give a day

  1779
  in order to afford an opportunity for the discussion of the Vote of Censure. We should have been told, in still stronger terms, that we were running away because we were afraid to meet it. That is a position which no Government can afford to occupy. It is impossible for any Government to remain under a proposed Vote of Censure without giving to Parliament an opportunity of dealing with it. If we were to refuse, it would be inferred that the Government were not prepared to meet Parliament on that subject. The question of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) rested upon this—that he was ready to defer to the statement made by a responsible Minister that the discussion would be injurious to the public interests, and that, therefore he would not proceed with it. That has been the general rule; and I always understood that that rule meant that such statement should be accepted as decisive, and that no observations should be made, such as have now been made by the noble Marquess, the ground of injurious accusations against the Government. The noble Marquess says that the Prime Minister, having had access to the usual means of information, is acting on the principle that—
  He who fights and runs away,
  May live to fight another day;"
  and that the Government are sheltering themselves under the statement that this discussion would be prejudicial to the public service. I protest altogether against that line of argument. It seems to me that one of two things should be done—either no such rule as that which I have mentioned should be considered at all; or, when it is stated by the Government that it is prejudicial to the public service that there should be a discussion, that statement should be conclusive, and any observations or discussion—for this is a discussion—should be reserved for the fitting opportunity when the negotiations are concluded. That seems to me to be the rule that underlies the Constitutional practice of the country, and the necessities of the case. What are the necessities of the case? It is utterly impossible for Parliament itself to discuss negotiations. Negotiations must be conducted by a responsible Government, and that Government must have the confidence of Parliament while conducting them. My noble Friend
  1780
  (Earl Granville) has dealt with the notion that there was any manœuvre in this matter. What occurred in the House of Commons yesterday took the Government by surprise; but it is not entirely without precedent. If the noble Marquess searches the pages of Hansard he will find that, in 1863, the House refused to agree to the Motion for suspending the Orders of the Day in order to proceed with a discussion. The circumstances may have been unusual; but the result seems to be that Parliament has wisely refused to enter into a discussion which Parliament agrees with the Government would be prejudicial to the public service.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND)— PARSONSTOWN AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to offer facilities for the reopening of the Parsonstown and Portumna Bridge Railway, which has been closed for the last five years, and has passed into the hands of the Loan Commissioners?
  LORD THURLOW, in reply, said, the Public Works Loan Commissioners held the line referred to at present as mortgagees in possession. They had no power whatever to work the line, but only to execute, from time to time, the repairs which might be required to prevent the line from falling into a state of deterioration. It was their earnest desire to dispose of the line at the earliest possible moment, and they were prepared to entertain any reasonable offer which might be made. Some four years ago they had hoped that they were at the point of concluding a sale; but, unfortunately, and without any fault of theirs, the transaction went off. The Commissioners believed that, at the present moment, circumstances were more favourable for effecting a sale than they had been for some time past; and they hoped and had some confidence that before long they might be able to dispose of the line to some substantial people, and that it might be re-opened for public traffic.

  NEW PARISHES ACTS AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to further amend the New Parishes Acts and the Church Building Acts—Was pre-

  1781
  sented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 171.)

  POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to the protection of the Post Office, and to offences committed in relation to the Post Office—Was presented by The Lord THURLOW; read 1a. (No. 172.)

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to re-organise the educational endowments of Ireland—Was presented by The Lord PRESIDENT; read la. (No. 173.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.