Sitting of 30 June 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Police [56]; Intestates Estates [168]; Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavels [184], postponed.
Referred to Select Committee—Middlesex Registry of Deeds [169].
Committee—Medical Act Amendment [207]— R. P.
Committee—Report—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment* [231].
Considered as amended—Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [252]; Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) [124].

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT — PALACE OF WEST MINSTER— WESTMINSTER HALL (WEST FRONT).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can now state to the House how it is proposed to treat the west front of Westminster Hall?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, Sir; I cannot do so now, but I hope to be able to do so in a few days.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—VISIT OF THE LORD LIEUTENANT TO BELFAST.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state the number of extra Police drafted into Belfast for the recent visit of his Excellency to that town; whether their services were required beyond their mere routine duties; whether the conduct of the people on that occasion was unexceptionable; what has been the total extra cost incurred in connection with the movement of such force; and, further, to inquire from what source such extra expenditure is to be defrayed?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the hon. Baronet, I would like to ask him whether the demonstrations were not, to a great extent, demonstrations of armed men, such as at the- meeting at Dromore, where sackfuls of re-
  1664
  volvers were left behind; whether at the Orange meetings there were not bodies of armed men, some of whom were prepared to make murderous attacks upon the Nationalists? I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the gentlemen who were received recently as a deputation on the occasion of His Excellency's visit to Belfast were members of the organization which prepared for these counter-demonstrations; and whether His Excellency has over, on any occasion, received a body who represented armed demonstrations, calculated to lead to a breach of the peace?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there wore bodies of armed men at the Dromore and other meetings; as regards the rest of the Question, I am not prepared to answer. In answer to the hon. Baronet, I may say that the number of extra police drafted into Belfast on the occasion in question was 10 officers and 400 men. Their services were required, as the ordinary routine duties had to be performed by the town force as usual, and the extra men were employed to assist them, and to keep order at places visited by their Excellencies, and along the routes taken by them. The conduct of the people was unexceptionable. the total cost incurred in connection with the movement of such force was about £500, which will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether His Excellency received a deputation, and whether the members of it did not belong to the same Orange Society which was declared by himself to be the organization which prepared these counter-demonstrations?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Gentleman asks me several Questions on this subject. There undoubtedly have been Orangemen who prepared these counter-demonstrations; but it does not follow that all men followed the example of those of the rank and file who came armed.
  MR. HEALY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman were there any extra police drafted into Belfast on the occasion of the visit of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)?
  [No reply.]

  INDIA (MADRAS)— VIJIARAGHAVA CHARIAR.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that one Vijiaraghava Chariar, finding his petitions for redress unattended to by the Government of Madras, has sued the Secretary of State for injuries caused him by that Government in wrongfully and illegally removing him in 1882, on the Report of Dr. Macleane, Magistrate of Salem, from the post of Municipal Commissioner; whether the High Court has found the Secretary of State liable for the conduct of the Governor of Madras, liable for damages, liable for the costs of complainant, and liable for interest on both these amounts until paid in full; and, whether the Governor of Madras, or the State, is to pay the amount of the decree?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It appears from the newspapers, but is not otherwise known to the India Office, that the individual named recently brought an action against the Government to recover damages for his having been removed by the Government of Madras from his office as one of the Municipal Commissioners of the town of Salem; and that the High Court of Madras decided that the removal was illegal, and gave the plaintiff a decree in the usual form for 100 rupees damages with costs. The amount decreed will doubtless be paid by Government in the ordinary manner.

  THE CIVIL LIST—REVENUES OF THE EPISCOPAL SEES OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will state by whom and under what authority, the funds of the Episcopal Sees in Scotland which fell to the Crown at the Revolution are collected and disbursed, and if the accounts are regularly audited, and by whom; whether he will state the present position and amount of these funds and their revenue; if they are public property belonging to the Nation; or treated as being the private property of the Sovereign; and, if any account or statement of these funds, and the revenues from them, is to be found in any Blue Book or other Papers accessible to Parliament?
  MR. COURTNEY: These ecclesiastical funds form part of the hereditary re-
  1666
  venues of the Crown, the income of which is enjoyed by the public during the lifetime of the present Sovereign; they are managed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and accounted for and audited in the same way as other property in their charge; they cannot be accurately distinguished from other Crown property in Scotland, but they probably amount in gross to about £10,000 a year.

  SCOTLAND—THE CHAPEL ROYAL— WARRANT OF 9TH FEBRUARY, 1873.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state by whom, and under what authority, the funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland are collected and disbursed; if the accounts are regularly audited, and by whom; to whom do these funds belong; are they National funds or the private property of the Crown; and, on the latter supposition, in what character, and by what title; and, is the Sovereign for the time entitled to dispose of them, or of the revenues from them, at pleasure and without Ministerial responsibility?
  MR. COURTNEY: So far as I can ascertain, the facts are as follows:—The funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland are collected and disbursed by the agents of the Deans and under their authority; the agents render accounts to the Deans, who presumably audit and examine them for themselves. The funds in question originally formed the endowment of the Chapel Royal, which was a Collegiate establishment consisting of a Dean and Prebendaries; in 1688, when Episcopacy was abolished in Scotland, they reverted to the Crown, and from that date until 1858 they were bestowed by the Crown upon three Crown Chaplains, who were called Deans of the Chapel Royal. By Royal Warrant under the Privy Seal, and by Ordinances of the Commissioners under the Scottish Universities Act of 1858, which have the force of law, they have been apportioned between certain University Professors and their successors in office, as Deans of the Chapel Royal; particulars will be found in House of Commons Paper No. 167 of last Session. It appears, therefore, that they have now become permanent endowments for the Professorships.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIE: What is the annual amount of the funds of the Deanery?
  MR. COURTNEY: I think it is about £2,300 a-year.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. MURRAY KER, J.P.—CASE OF— MULLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that in consequence of some party disturbance in the village of Drum, county Monaghan, a Catholic named Mullin was committed to Dundalk Gaol without bail, by Mr. Murray Ker, J.P., although bail to any amount was forthcoming, is Mr. Ker the magistrate who advised the Monaghan Orangemen, on the occasion of Lord Rossmore's reception, "never to fire their revolvers unless they were aiming at somebody," is it the fact that in the case of the Newry Orangemen charged with the much more serious offence of shooting with intent to kill, bail has been accepted, will the Government take care, in the absence of Catholic justices in Ulster, that party cases shall only be adjudicated upon by resident magistrates; and, can he state whether the prisoner in the present case must remain in custody till the trial takes place?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that this case was not a Party one, but an ordinary street disturbance, in the course of which Mullin struck a man named Dawson on the head and rendered him insensible. Moreover, Mr. Murray Ker did at first allow Mullin out on bail; but subsequently, upon its being ascertained that Dawson was confined to bed and in a critical state, the District Inspector directed that Mullin should be rearrested and objected to bail being taken. When the injured man got better, the prisoner's friends were so informed with the view of their renewing the application for bail if they saw fit; but they did not do so. The remand was for eight days only, and the accused will be brought again before the magistrates to-morrow. As to the alleged words used by Mr. Murray Ker, I believe that he was quite misrepresented in the papers at the time. In consequence of a Question which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had upon the Paper, I looked
  1668
  at these remarks, and received an explanation of them. I was informed that the object of these remarks was to dissuade these persons from bringing their revolvers to the meeting, and I quite believe that explanation.
  MR. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what were the exact words used if these were not the words?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think it is very likely that these were the words used, but the revolvers were not brought for the purpose of being put to any practical use. It is a very dangerous and irritating practice to bring them to public meetings.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman would any Nationalist be permitted to use similar language?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Undoubtedly, if his object were the same—namely, to dissuade persons from coming armed to public meetings.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what other interpretation he could put upon the words addressed by Mr. Ker to murderous parties of men who were watched by armed Constabulary and excited to the extremest by the violent language of their leaders, who advised them "to keep a firm grip of their sticks and not to fire their pistols unless they were certain to shoot somebody," except as murderous incitement to a breach of the peace by one whose duty it was to preserve order?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that these and many other specimens of violent language had been quoted before, but upon inquiry he found that the words bore a different interpretation to what had been put upon them.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask whether in the case of the Newry Orangemen, in which the evidence was much more serious—that of intent to kill—bail had been accepted, and also in the case of the Tyrone Orangemen, and that the magistrate did not consider that the application in the case of Mullin should be accepted?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that bail was accepted in the case of Mullin, and was only refused on account of the dangerous state of the injured man. The same course would have been adopted in the other cases had there been danger.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—WICK— LOW CO.—MR. WINGFIELD.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Wingfield, who was compelled to resign his position in the Castle in consequence of a recent crim. con. action, is still a member of the Wicklow magistracy, and does the Lord Chancellor intend to continue Mr. Wingfield in his functions as justice?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Wingfield's name is still in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Wicklow; but he has not sat as a magistrate there since early in April last year, and I understand that he resides permanently out of Ireland. The matters connected with the action referred to occurred several months before the present Lord Chancellor took Office, and have not been under his Lordship's consideration. The late Lord Chancellor had the matter brought under his notice to the same extent as the Government had—namely, by newspaper reports of the trial. He, however, took no action with regard to it, and I do not propose to refer it specially to his Successor.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask if in the county of Wicklow a certain person named Charles Stewart Parnell was not removed from the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that this was the action of the late Lord Chancellor, and the object of the late Lord Chancellor had not been considered. He did not think it proper to go into or take up cases before the term when the present Lord Chancellor came into Office. Had he been in Office at the time referred to by the hon. Member, possibly he would not have taken the same view.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, MACROOM UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in reference to the supplementary election for the Macloneigh Electoral Division of the Macroom Poor La w Union, the Local Government Board will direct that the election should be conducted by a new returning officer, in view of the charge that the returning officer at the late election was absent from his office during the days when the
  1670
  voting papers were collected, an irregularity for which, under the twentieth paragraph of the Circular of the Pool-Law Commissioners, dated 17th January 1854, he is liable to censure or dismissal, and in view of the further fact that the said returning officer is the nephew of one of the candidates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board do not consider that there are grounds for superseding the Returning Officer of Macroom Union, and appointing another person to perform that duty; and the supplemental election is now proceeding. It is true that the Returning Officer absented himself from his office on two days during the last election; but the Board trust that this irregularity will not occur again. The Board are not aware whether the Returning Officer is related to one of the candidates; but, even if that should be the case, the circumstance would not afford any sufficient reason for removing him from his office.

  NEW SOUTH WALES—THE "FOREIGN SENATE."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that Mr. Combes, one of the members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, recently spoke of England as a "Foreign Country," and of the Imperial Parliament as a "Foreign Senate;" whether it is a fact that Mr. Combes is a justice of the peace for New South Wales and a "Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George;" whether the Government of New South Wales last year struck off the roll of magistrates, with the approval of the Imperial Government, three gentlemen, because they signed an address to Mr. J. S. Redmond, M.P., in which the words "Foreign Senate" were applied to the Imperial Parliament; and, whether the Colonial Office will now recommend a similar course being adopted in. the case of Mr. Combes?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have no information of the matter to which the hon. Member refers beyond the fact that Mr. Combes fills the positions do-scribed. But as to the last part of the Question, I may say that, as shown in. the Parliamentary Paper, the action of the New South Wales Government was

  1671
  based not merely on the words indicated in the Question, but also on an expression of admiration of "resolute resistance to the oppressive proceedings of the Foreign Senate." The Colonial Government acted entirely on its own initiative, and the initiative in such matters rests solely with them.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he was sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman; but he wished to inform him that it was in consequence of the expression he had mentioned that the action was taken. The words "Foreign Senate" were, he might say, the words relied upon in the case.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The action of the Government was taken after a consideration of all the facts and bearings of the case.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the Colonial Office would inquire into all the facts of the case?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: As I have already said, the initiative in such cases rests entirely with the Colonial Government.

  THE QUEENSLAND LABOUR TRADE.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to his recent statement that abuses in connection with the labour trade are "prevented in Queensland vessels by the presence of a Government agent," whether one of the persons recently tried in Brisbane in the Alfred Vittery murder case was the Government agent of the ship, one "Freeman;" whether the Colonial Office, after expressing the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the acquittal in which the trial resulted was "a failure of justice," made any representations to the Government of Queensland as to the immediate dismissal of Mr. Freeman from the office of Government agent; and, whether he can state how these Government agents are appointed, what are the qualifications required, and what class of persons generally hold the position?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I did not state that all abuses in connection with the labour trade were prevented in Queensland vessels by the presence of a Government agent, but that such abuses as were described in the Question relating to the ship Eileen, to which I was at the moment referring, would be impossible
  1672
  under the system of Government agency. As to the case of the Alfred Vittery, which represents quite a different class of cases, the Colonial Office wrote to the Governor of Queensland to the effect that the conduct of the Government agent on the occasion referred to appeared to indicate the necessity for the choice of superior men to fill situations of this nature, from which it is impossible to dissociate a large share of responsibility. These agents are appointed and removed at the discretion of the local Government; but naturally it is not a service for which it is very easy to find the men that it would be desirable to obtain. I do not doubt, however, that the Queensland Government will do their best to get good men.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—INQUIRY AT BALLYCASTLE UNION—MR, R. T. HAMILTON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Did Mr. Richard Tipping Hamilton, Local Government Inspector hold a sworn inquiry in the union workhouse, Ballycastle, county Antrim, on Saturday the 21st instant, into a complaint made by the Protestant chaplain, regarding the religious registration of two inmates; did Mr. Hamilton, at the meeting of the Board of Guardians held the same day before the inquiry, read a letter he had received from Mrs. General Boyd, Bally-castle, in which Mrs. Boyd complained that she and her daughters were pro-vented from distributing religious tracts, &c. in the workhouse by the master; is it true that Mrs. Boyd's late husband bequeathed an annuity for the support of a professional scripture reader, and that that scripture reader visited the workhouse accompanied by Mrs. Boyd's daughters for the purpose of distributing religious tracts, and was prevented from doing so by the master; did Mr. Hamilton hold two other inquiries, one on the 28th of March 1866 and the other on the 30th of October 1867, in the same workhouse, into matters of dispute arising from the evangelical visits of other ladies, and was he (Mr. Hamilton) made thereby aware that such visitations had heretofore been a source of heartburning in the Ballycastle Workhouse; and did Mr. Hamilton, notwithstanding, write a resolution at the meeting of the Board of Guardians, on the 21st instant, and ask

  1673
  the Board to pass it, to the effect that Mrs. Boyd, her daughters, and other ladies should be admitted into the workhouse for the purpose of distributing religious books, tracts, &c. among the inmates; and, did Mr. Hamilton thereby exceed his duty as Local Government Inspector; did he act contrary to the Poor Law Act (1 and 2 Vic. c. 56, s. 48 and 49), which, by enumerating only the official chaplains and other regular ministers of the persuasion of the inmates as authorised to visit workhouses to give religious assistance to the inmates, excludes all others, and contrary to the wishes of the Local Government Board; and, if so, what action does the Local Government Board intend to take in the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Hamilton held an inquiry as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. At the meeting of the Board of Guardians held on the same day, Mr. Hamilton read a letter which he had received from Mrs. Boyd complaining that the master of the workhouse had prevented her from giving books to Protestant inmates whom she visited. The master appears to have acted in accordance with a rule made by the Guardians some years ago. In the course of the conversation which ensued Mr. Hamilton mentioned the arrangements which exist in most other workhouses in his district, under which ladies are allowed to visit the sick of their own persuasion and give them books, provided that no sectarian or controversial work is given. It is not the case that Mr. Hamilton framed a resolution with the object of permitting ladies to distribute religious books at Ballycastle. On the contrary, though asked to do so, he declined, saying it was for the Guardians themselves to deal with the matter. A resolution was subsequently proposed but was not carried. Mr. Hamilton held the inquiries referred to in 1866 and 1867, and was aware of what occurred then. He did not act in the manner imputed to him in the Question, and the Local Government Board do not think that he exceeded his duty in bringing Mrs. Boyd's letter before the Guardians, or that the course suggested by his remarks would have been an infringement of the Poor Relief Acts. The Local Government Board know nothing of the alleged annuity referred to in the third part of the Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— SMALL-POX.
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state the number of cases of smallpox that have been treated in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board since the 1st of January 1884, and the number of deaths that have occurred among them; and, if he will state the total number of deaths from small-pox that have occurred in London, since the same date, outside those hospitals?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The number of small-pox patients who have been treated in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board since the 1st of January, 1884, is 2,628. The number of deaths that have occurred among them is 282. The number of deaths from small-pox that have occurred in London since the same date outside those hospitals is 107.

  BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND)—BALLYHAUNIS, CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the closing of portions of the Augustinian burial ground at Bally-haunis, county Mayo, against further interments, and of the long delay that must take place before the Board of Guardians can obtain a new cemetery, What provision the Local Government Board propose to make for the burial of members of the families of persons owning grave plots in the ground now closed against interments?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Only. a very small portion of the burial ground was closed by the order of the Local Government Board, and the Board cannot, with due regard to the public health, open it again for interments. Persons who have had members of their families buried in the part of the graveyard which has been closed, can, in future, if they see fit, inter the remains of their relatives in the portion of it which still remains available for such purpose.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE.
  MR. SMALL (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  1675
  tenant of Ireland, Whether, under the statutes of the Royal University of Ira-land, which have been, sanctioned by Her Majesty, all Senators are entitled to be present at meetings of all Committees of Senate; whether, on the 30th May, a member of the Senate requested to be informed of the date of the meeting of a Committee, so as to enable him to be present at such meeting; whether Mr. J. C. Meredith, one of the secretaries, refused to inform, him of such date, alleging that the request for information would be brought before the Standing Committee, which will not meet until July next; whether, under the eleventh section of the Charter, the statutes of the University are binding on every member thereof; whether it is the case that the statute above referred to is evaded unless information as to meetings of Committees be given to every Senator who desires to receive such information; whether secretaries of the Royal University are merely appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but are removable by the Lord Lieutenant alone, and not by the Senate; and, whether this fact fix on the Government the responsibility of taking cognisance of the acts of a secretary in an official capacity?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The statutes of the University contain a provision which gives to all Senators a right to be present at the meetings of any Committee. This right has, however, I understand, been very seldom exercised. The Senate recently appointed a Special Committee for a particular purpose. A member of the Senate who inquired the date of the meeting of this Committee was informed by the secretary that no date had as yet been fixed. The 11th section of the Charter contains a provision as stated. The question whether information as to the meeting of every Committee is to be given to every Senator is to be brought specially before the Senate at its approaching meeting on a notice given by the Senator already referred to. It may be inferred, therefore, that heretofore the secretaries have not been expected to give such general notice. The secretaries are removable by the Lord Lieutenant; and no doubt if any complaint of misconduct were made to his Excellency, it would be his duty to consider it. No such complaint has been made to his Excellency so far as I am aware.

  POST OFFICE—THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the accelerated mail service between London and Dublin will, as he recently anticipated, come into operation on the 1st of July; whether notice thereof has been given to the Irish Railway Companies; and, whether he will kindly state what progress has been made in the arrangements for the acceleration of the mails out from Dublin?
  MR. PARNELLasked the Postmaster General, If he is now in a position to state whether the hoped for acceleration of the mail service between London and Cork can shortly take place?
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Postmaster General, If he will arrange with the Great Northern Railway Company that when the mails arrive late in Dublin they shall at once be forwarded by special train to Belfast and North of Ireland?
  MR. FAWCETT: As the Questions of the hon. Members for Cork, Carlow, and Tyrone refer to the same subject, I think it would be convenient if I answer the three Questions together. The accelerated service between London and Dublin will, as stated some time since, come into operation to-morrow. With regard to the general acceleration of the mails beyond Dublin, I am glad to be able to state that negotiations have proceeded so far that I think there is now no doubt that on an early day, probably by the 1st of October, the mail will leave Dublin for Cork at 8 in the morning instead of at 9, arriving in Cork at a quarter past 12, instead of, as it now does, at 2. The mail train will leave Cork at a quarter to 2, instead of leaving, as at present, at half-past 12. When the accelerated steam service comes into operation next year, the mails will arrive in Cork a quarter of an hour earlier than the time just mentioned, and leave a quarter of an hour later. The acceleration to Cork will, I hope, improve the service to Waterford and Limerick, and generally to the South of Ireland. With regard to the mails for Belfast and the North of Ireland, the Department is now carefully considering what will be the best plan of accelerating these mails; and as to providing for those cases in which the packet arrives late at Kingstown, the suggestion of my hon. Friend

  1677
  the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) shall not be lost sight of. With regard to the acceleration of the mails to the West of Ireland, the question presents greater difficulties; but I am carefully considering whether anything can be done to improve the service to Gal way, Sligo, and to the other towns served by the Midland Great Western Railway Company.
  MR. LEWISasked if the right hon. Gentleman would include in the acceleration to Belfast the North and North-West of Ireland generally?
  MR. FAWCETT: I said Belfast and the North of Ireland generally.
  MR. SMALLasked whether there would be an improvement along the Wexford line?
  MR. FAWCETT: I hope so; I am looking over the whole service, and am considering Wexford. We are considering generally throughout Ireland, whether it would be possible to effect an acceleration.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the proposed arrangements might not be placed in the Library of the House, so as to save Members the trouble of putting these Questions?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, when they came to a decision with regard to any particular acceleration, he would very gladly communicate it to the Members who were interested in it.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked if there was any intention to accelerate the service between Portadown and Londonderry as well as between Dublin and Belfast?
  MR. FAWCETT: I should not like to give any promise; but that is one among many accelerations that are now being considered. It is a complicated question, but we will deal with it so far as we can.

  DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF ST. BRIAVELS BILL—RIGHTS OF THE FREE MINERS.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as much dissatisfaction is expressed by the free miners of the Forest of Dean with the interference with their rights and privileges contemplated in the Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels Bill, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Commission, to carry out a local inquiry into the nature and value of those rights
  1678
  before proceeding further with the said Bill?
  MR. COURTNEY: My bon. and gallant Friend will remember that, in answer to a former Question put by him, I spoke of the Dean Forest Bill rather as a scheme embodying equitable principles of settlement than as one to be insisted upon in its details; and I may say that I have always thought that in the absence of agreement Parliament could scarcely be expected to fix the amount of compensation to be given to the free miners. It is now evident that an agreement cannot be easily established; and among the means of settlement of the question a Commission is perhaps the most promising. The Government will at once consider the expediency of appointing such a Commission.

  POST OFFICE—THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in deciding on any suggestions which, in accordance with his invitation, may be laid before him by Telephone Companies, he will take care to exact such conditions as may protect the public against the evil effect of private monopolies which might be created by the amalgamation of, or by arrangements between, the Companies?
  MR. FAWCETT: I can assure my hon. Friend that the considerations to which he refers will be carefully taken into account in dealing with the question of telephonic communication.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether there has recently been appointed to the position of Stationery Clerk in the office of the Surveyor of the Midland District of Scotland, a son of the Postmaster of Edinburgh; if so, whether this gentleman, till thus appointed, held any appointment in the Post Office; and, if not, whether there were no employees in the lower grades of the Department qualified for the post; whether a son of the Postmaster in Glasgow has recently been put on the staff of the Surveyor for the Northern District of Scotland, and whether he held any prior appointment in the Department; and, whether a gentleman in the Surveyor's Department in Scotland was formerly in an Irish Militia Regiment, and is now in a Surrey Regiment of Militia; and, whether he

  1679
  draws salary both in his capacity of officer of Militia and Post Office employée?
  MR. FAWCETT: The practice has long prevailed of allowing the Surveyor to select stationery clerks from the clerks in Provincial post-offices. I find that the son, not as stated in the hon. Member's Question, of the Postmaster of Edinburgh, but of an official in that Office, was appointed a stationery clerk almost immediately after he was appointed to a clerkship in a Provincial post-office. The soil of the Postmaster of Glasgow is employed temporarily as a Surveyor's clerk; but he has no permanent appointment on the Surveyor's staff. I am considering whether it will not be desirable to introduce some change in the present mode of selecting not only stationery clerks, but also Surveyor's clerks, whether permanent or temporary. It is the case that a Surveyor's clerk in Scotland holds a commission in a Militia regiment. I certainly think such an arrangement would be undesirable if it in any way interfered with the due discharge of official duties; but I do not think this can be so in this case, as although he has held this commission for 18 years, on only one occasion has he been absent from his official duties for more than the ordinary period allowed for leave of absence. I presume that the officer in question draws the pay of a Militia officer while out with his regiment for training.

  THE GENERAL REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH—THE ENGROSSING CLERKS.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Memorial has been received by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury from the engrossing clerks in the office of the General Register of Sasines, Register House, Edinburgh, date 12th May, 1884; and, if so, when an answer to it may be expected?
  MR. COURTNEY: This Memorial was received on the 19th instant, and a letter dealing with it was sent on the 24th instant to the Keeper of the Sasines Register.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— CO. ATHLONE — RELIGIOUS PERSUA SION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS.
  MR. J. H. M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1680
  of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that not a single one of the following offices in Athlone is held by a Catholic, namely, those of,—1. Divisional Magistrate for Western Division; 2. Assistant Divisional Magistrates (two); 3. Resident Magistrate; 4. Divisional Inspector of Police; 5. Head Constable Royal Irish Constabulary; 6. Master of Workhouse; 7. Clerk of Workhouse; 8. Civil Engineer under Board of Public Works; 9. Clerk of Petty Sessions; 10. Clerk of the Crown for the County of Roscommon; 11. Clerk of the Crown for the County of Westmeath; and, whether the Government will take care, in filling up future vacancies, that Catholics are not excluded from these offices?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already more than once recently explained to the House that I could not make statements with regard to the religious distribution of the Constabulary Force. With regard to the other offices mentioned, there is no official record of the religious profession of their respective holders, and the Government must decline to make personal inquiries on the subject. Several of these offices are not in the gift of the Government at all. With regard to such of them as are, I can assure the hon. Member that, whatever may be the facts as to the present occupiers, there is certainly no intention on the part of the Government that in filling future vacancies religious profession should be any bar to the appointment of properly qualified candidates.

  ARMY—THE SMALL ARMS FACTORY AT NORTH BOW.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the advantages to the public service of having private establishments in existence which can be used for the manufacture of arms of precision for Military purposes, he can inform the House what course the War Office propose to adopt with regard to the Small Arms Factory at North Bow, which has hitherto received orders from the Government for such arms?
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the War Department has reconsidered the decision arrived at not to further employ the Small Arms Factory at Old Ford for the manufacture of rifles?
  MR. BRAND, in reply, said, that the Government had decided to continue the employment of the Small Arms Factory at North. Bow.
  MR. RITCHIEasked whether a promise of continuous employment would be given to the factory?
  MR. BRANDsaid, that the terms of the proposed contract would be sent to the Directors at once.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN.
  MR. J. STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will inform the House what steps are being taken to remove the difficulties which prevent the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty with Spain, and what prospect there is of a satisfactory arrangement being speedily arrived at?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In consequence of the dissolution of the Spanish Cortes last Spring the Protocol of the 1st of December, 1883, has not yet been discussed in the Spanish Legislature. Her Majesty's Representative at Madrid has urged the Spanish Government to seek without unnecessary delay to obtain the assent of the Cortes to the arrangement recorded in that Protocol, and will continue to press the adoption of this course.

  JAMAICA—THE NEW CONSTITUTION— THE FRANCHISE.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether information has been received at the Colonial Office of a Return by the Collector General to the Governor of Jamaica, showing that, under the new franchise in that island, the number of voters will be only 9,400, with a probable reduction through the disqualification of many, instead of 15,000, as anticipated; and. whether he can explain the discrepancy, and which is the correct number?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes; we have just received from Jamaica a Return drawn up by the Collector General, at the request of the Governor, in which he reports 9,400 as his estimate of the number of the new voters. I cannot without further information explain the discrepancy between this and the estimate made by the Franchise Commission. I am afraid that the Collector
  1682
  General is more likely to be correct than the Commission.

  ARMY—COST OF THE GENERAL STAFF.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing, by years and in sufficient detail to be explanatory, the causes which have led to the expense of the General Staff of the Army being increased from £83,993, the amount voted in the Army Estimate for 1872–3, to £173,411, the amount voted in the Army Estimate for 1885?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: With the exception of about £25,000 for the Staff in Egypt, and an improvement in pay of military staff clerks, almost the entire increase is nominal only, and represents a transfer of charge from one head to another. Before 1881–2 the emoluments of a staff officer were provided from two sources. He had staff pay under the head of General Staff, and either regimental pay or half-pay. At present he draws but one consolidated pay under the head of General Staff, These two items account for about £75,000 out of the apparent increase of £90,000. The remaining £15,000 is attributable partly to the improved pay of staff clerks referred to above, and partly to the fact that officers commanding Artillery and Engineer districts now for the most part receive pay as colonels on the Staff, whereas they were formerly paid as regimental officers. To give the Return in detail by years asked for by the hon. and gallant Member would involve great labour, and I fail to see that it would answer any useful purpose.

  ARMY — QUARTERMASTERS — CASE OF SERGEANT MAJOR WALSH.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh, 8th Battalion Rifle Brigade, was recommended for £20 a-year annuity, for highly-meritorious conduct and long service, by Lieutenant Colonel Gore, commanding 2nd Battalion 3rd Foot, 25th May, 1865, name noted in Military Secretary's Office 27th June 1865, and likewise strongly recommended for £20 a-year annuity by Colonel Pearson, 2nd Battalion "The Buffs," on 22nd December 1867; whether this Non-Commissioned

  1683
  Officer was strongly recommended for the appointment of Quartermaster in the Militia in the year 1877, and noted for the appointment in the Adjutant General's Office, but was subsequently declared ineligible, in consequence of a recent Order of the War Office limiting those appointments to Non-Commissioned Officers serving in Regiments of the Line; and, if he can hold out any hope of a reconsideration of Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh's case, and this Non-Commissioned Officer obtaining the annuity of £20 a-year?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will, perhaps, allow me to answer his Question since, it relates to the annuity of a non-commissioned officer. The recommendations and notings on this non-commissioned officer's behalf were made as stated in the early part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question. It is not now usual to award annuities of more than £ 15, and the amount allotted to men from each regiment is strictly limited. In 1881 Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh was granted an annuity of £10 a-year. and he is noted for an increase to £15 when a suitable opportunity occurs. As, however, he has no service in the field, one of the elements for consideration in awarding these pensions, there are many sergeants whose claims are stronger for the increased pension than his. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that Sergeant Major Walsh is not eligible for an appointment as Quartermaster, not being a non-commissioned officer serving on his Army engagement with the Militia.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—MR. EDWARD GREEK, A SUB-COMMISSIONER.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Greer, Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, was transferred to the county Armagh at-his own solicitation, so that he might be enabled to reside in his own dwelling-house at Moygannon; and, whether Mr. Greer receives the game allowances as other Commissioners who have to live away from home, or whether the change was made for economy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Greer's present delegation is for the counties of Londonderry and Armagh. He was not deputed to act in that district at his
  1684
  own request. His residence is in the county of Down. Neither he nor any other Sub-Commissioner receives an hotel allowance when residing at his own home. The question of economy did not arise. The Commissioners decline to make public the grounds of their action in the distribution of particular Sub-Commissions. To do so would be contrary to the principle upon which they have always acted, and would, in their opinion, be injurious to the Public Service.
  MR. HEALYinquired whether this gentleman's district was really only five miles from his residence, and whether there was any other instance of the Land Commissioners appointing a Sub-Commissioner at so short a distance from his own house?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That I do not know.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps the Government are taking with a view to the possible approach of cholera to this Country; and, whether it is not in the power of the Local Government Board, under the special circumstances of the case, to impose some stringent rules upon the local authorities in London in regard to the efficient cleansing of the streets, particularly where wood pavements have been laid down? I wish to supplement my Question by asking whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been directed to the sanitary condition of the streets surrounding some of our markets, and especially of those surrounding Covent Garden Market?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Last year, owing to the outbreak of cholera in Egypt, much attention was given to the subject. Revised cholera regulations were issued, and the attention of the sanitary authorities was drawn to the precautions to be taken against cholera. Under the regulations which were issued, and are still in force, an officer of the Customs may detain a vessel on its arrival in England, if he suspects that it is infected with cholera. He is to give notice of the detention to the sanitary authority of the place where the vessel is detained, and they are thereupon to cause the ship to be visited and examined by their medical officer of health or

  1685
  some other medical man. Moreover, without any action on the part of the Customs' officer, the medical officer of health may visit and examine any ship which he has reason to believe is infected with cholera, or has come from a place infected with cholera. If, after his examination, the medical officer of health certifies that the ship is infected, no one can leave it until he has been examined by the medical officer of health, and any person who is found to be suffering from cholera is to be sent to a hospital. Doubtful cases may be detained on board or at a hospital until it is ascertained whether the disease is cholera. Provision is also made in the regulations for the disinfection of the ship or articles which are infected. Port sanitary authorities have been established at the ports, and they have sanitary officers, whose duty it is to deal with ships bringing cases of infectious disease into the country. The Board are not empowered to impose rules upon the local authorities of London in regard to the cleansing of the streets; but the efficient cleansing of the streets, including those where wood pavements have been laid down, should be regarded by the authorities as an every day duty, and no way dependent on an apprehension of cholera, lean assure the noble Lord that the matter referred to in his supplementary Question will not escape the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked how long the regulations referred to in the hon. Gentleman's answer would remain in force?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Until they are repealed, I suppose.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE SALMON FISHERIES-EMPLOYMENT OF A GUNBOAT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Would he have any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of Correspondence between his Department and the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, or any other person, respecting the employment of gunboats or Government vessels for the protection of salmon fisheries in Ireland; and, have any such vessels been ever so employed in England or Scotland; and, if not, why have certain Irish salmon proprietors been specially favoured by the State in defending their alleged rights.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: It is the case that vessels of the Royal Navy have been employed in former years in protecting salmon fisheries both in Scotland and in Ireland. Recently, however, it has been the policy of the Board of Admiralty to confine the services of the Navy to the protection of sea fisheries, and to allow the duty of protecting fisheries in inland waters to be discharged by the Conservators of the respective fishery districts. At present no vessel of the Navy is employed on this service. I regret that as the Correspondence to which the hon. Member refers is confidential it cannot be produced.
  MR. HEALYasked if the hon. Gentleman could give them his assurance that no gunboat, or any other Government boat, would be lent to private proprietors to protect salmon?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he thought he had given in his answer sufficient indication of the policy and desire of the Board of Admiralty.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RUMOURED CAPTURE OF BERBER.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that an official report of the capture of Berber and massacre of the garrison has been received at Cairo, as stated in The Daily News of the 27th?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The statement in The Daily News refers probably to a telegram received by the Khedive from the Mudir of Dongola. He reported that a soldier who had arrived from Berber stated that on the 26th of May the rebel troops had attacked and taken that town. The intelligence, however, is contradicted by a telegram received yesterday from Consol Baker at Suakin, who states that he has received the following information from the Governor of Suakin:—
  "Pilgrims who left Khartoum May 23 and Berber June 7 report all well Khartoum. Food plentiful. Garrison numerous. All right at Berber also. Government and soldiers there. Food cheap."
  In the face of these contradictory statements, it is impossible to say that any report is "official."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given

  1687
  the whole of Consul Baker's telegram, and if it were not the fact that the story of the pilgrims was disbelieved, and that orders had been given to detain and search them, as it was supposed that they had letters from the Mahdi in their possession?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That statement is not in the telegram.

  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BUSINESS— POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the Representation of the People Bill has been passed by the House of Commons, he will now undertake to give facilities for the discussion of the Police Superannuation Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government desire to push on this Bill as rapidly as circumstances will allow. Its appearance on the Order Paper to-day may be taken as an indication of our wishes in the matter.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, the pledge of the Government to submit the result of the Conference on Egyptian Finance, and the preliminary agreement with Prance, to the judgment of Parliament, when the labours of the Conference are ended, involves the submission of the whole matter to the judgment of the two Houses of Legislature in this Country; and, whether the Government will propose to take such judgment by a vote affirmatively approving such result and agreement, or how do they propose to obtain such judgment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Without reference to the particular words in the hon. Member's Question, the language which I used was intended to convey that the whole proceedings of the Government in relation to the preliminary agreement with Franco, and the transactions that might take place in the Conference—if they do take place—will become entirely subject to the judgment of Parliament. I answer, therefore, the second part of the Question by saying that we anticipate obtaining an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, which will have the effect either of sustaining or of overthrowing that arrangement.
  MR. LEWIS: In the House of Commons only?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no doubt that in "another place" there will be plenty of disposition to ascertain whether the proceedings will be dependent upon the judgment of both Houses.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any date had been fixed for the next meeting of the Conference, and, if so, what that date was?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No date has been fixed.

  EGYPT—THE NEUTRALIZATION OF THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the proposed neutralisation of the Suez Canal being carried out, the war vessels of a Foreign State with "whom this Country might be engaged in hostilities would have the same rights as English vessels of passing through the Canal, and that the British Government would neither be able to stop these hostile men of war nor to fortify the Canal against possible injury or destruction?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to answer his Question. I may point out to the hon. Member that the word "neutralization" as applied to the Canal is misleading, the proposal being in the nature of an agreement to secure the free passage of all ships under all circumstances. The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The British Government would not be able to stop hostile men-of-war in the Canal or its approaches. It is contemplated that provision would be made for the immediate repair of any damage to the Canal caused by a war-vessel at the cost of the Power to which she belonged; but the British Government do not claim the right to fortify the Canal.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—THE CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. STOREYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether news had been received of the death of some of the crew of the Nisero?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I regret to have to state that news has been received and forwarded by the Government of the Straits Settlements, under date the 27th of June, to the Fo-

  1689
  reign Office, to the effect that letters, dated the 26th of May, had been received stating that three of the crew of the Nisero had died. It appears that an epidemic of a choleraic character has broken out among the crew. I need not say how deeply I regret to have to communicate this intelligence to the House, which will be so painful to the relatives and friends of the men; and I am sure that the House will understand how sensible the Foreign Office is of its being their duty to do all they can in the matter. The whole question is at this moment the subject of an interchange of views between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands; but I cannot communicate the details of what is passing at the present moment.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that a telegram which he had received stated that other members of the crew were sick; and he wished to know whether this was the case?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I meant to convey that impression when I said that an epidemic had broken out.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
  In answer to Sir ROBERT PEEL,
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government have received a promise from the Royal Academy that they will spontaneously frame documents in the most convenient form and address them to the Government, who will then be able to lay them before the House, giving all the information on every head that has been given from year to year, whether in the form of a Parliamentary Return, or in the form given by a Royal Commission.

MOTION.

  EGYPT (TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE)—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion with reference to Egypt has been disposed of.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion on Egypt (Terms of the Agreement with France)."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. W. E. FOBSTER: Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of disputing the Motion of my right hon. Friend. At the same time, I wish to Say that I myself and many hon. Members on this side of the House are of opinion that the discussion likely to arise from it is one which is inopportune and inconvenient. And we think so still more now that we have heard from the Prime Minister within the last few minutes that the Government intend to submit an affirmative Motion to the House approving of all that they have done, both as regards their Agreement with France and their proceedings at the Conference.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not mean necessarily a Motion setting forth everything we have done, but one that will make the whole matter contingent on the vote of the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That statement does not alter my view of the matter, since it makes it certain that an opportunity will arise for the discussion of the question. But we have collected together for a great Party fight, and I suppose that anybody trying to prevent it from coming off will be in the position of a person trying to prevent a prize fight. I shall not trouble the House with any remarks, except to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). There are some of us who, perhaps, may not altogether hold the same views with regard to the Agreement, but who still are strongly of opinion that it is undesirable at this moment to give an opinion upon it, especially considering the course taken in France and all other contingencies. The way in which we can best show that opinion is by the usual Motion of the Previous Question. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford has put on the Paper a Motion which has precedence of, or would come before, that of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and which he considers the same as the Previous Question. It is not quite so; in fact, there is a considerable difference, the difference being—
  "This House withholds its opinion upon the result of negotiations with France until it has been placed in possession of the proposals submitted to the Conference of the rowers of Europe."
  Now, that is not the view of many of us who wish the Previous Question shall be submitted to the House. We

  1691
  want not merely to know what are the proposals to the Conference, but also what is the final decision of the Conference on which it is understood the Agreement depends. Many Gentlemen who are in favour of the Previous Question would like to record their votes in favour of it before being compelled to vote either for or against the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I think there would be many advantages in our being able to do so. Upon these grounds, I venture to appeal to my hon. Friend—and I am speaking on behalf of many who agree with the proposal—that he will either himself consent to move the Previous Question, or withdraw his Amendment so as to allow some other Gentleman to move it.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I was not in the House when the Prime Minister made the statement as to the intentions of the Government with reference to Some affirmative proposal; but, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I have only to say that, while acknowledging the similarity which exists between my Amendment and the Previous Question, I regard the Motion which I have put upon the Paper as being-somewhat more intelligible, and as better expressing what I hope and believe will be the feeling of my right hon. Friend and those who act with him. With reference to the remark of my right hon. Friend as to the desire of himself and those who feel with him to know the result of what takes place in the Conference, I have no difficulty on that point, because I have absolute confidence is the pledge -which the Prime Minister gave to us on the subject. On the present occasion, while I deeply regret to differ, even in the smallest point —and it is a small one—from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, I am bound to say that I feel it my duty to persevere with the Amendment which stands in my name.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I should like to appeal to the Government somewhat in the same sense as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. I do not suppose that he and I agree very much on this particular question; but still I do think the Previous Question would be the course which, as far as I know, would secure almost the whole
  1692
  support of hon. Members on this side of the House. I have no authority to speak for anyone; but I think it quite possible that some Members on this side would not wish to vote, under these circumstances, for a direct negative, or even for the Amendment of which Notice has been given. I beg to second the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I think he has proposed a more satisfactory mode of considering the circumstances in which we are placed. If the object is to have a good Party fight, we could not have a better one than on the Previous Question.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not quite gather what the Government are going-to do upon this question. Do they meet the Motion with a direct negative, or do they intend to support the first Question put on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold)— "That all the words after the word 'that' be left out?" If so, we shall have the word "that" left alone.
  MR. GLADSTONE: 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 that we are in the right, on this occasion I come down here with a very 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. I. therefore, am under pressure; but, with regard to the Question which has been put by the two hon. Gentlemen following my right hon. Friend, what I have to say is this. It is absolutely impossible, as, I think, must be well known to the Mover of the Resolution, for us, in the position in which we stand, to enter at large upon an explanation or a defence of our policy in regard to the complicated Egyptian Question; and if I address the House after the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce), the chief part of my duty really will be to endeavour to describe accurately the Parliamentary situation, and to explain and justify the course that we propose to take in view of that situation. I am afraid I should be clearly

  1693
  deviating from the common order, at any rate, of the proceedings of this House, if I were to enter upon that subject on the preliminary Motion for postponing the Orders of the day.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirms me in an opinion which I have held during the last two or three days, and to which I should have wished to have given more formal expression if it had been possible to have given Notice, and to take the opinions of others since Friday evening. My own opinion is that, after the speech of my right hon. Friend, and chiefly looking to the circumstances of the case, the House would best do its duty if it were to refuse to postpone the Orders of the Day, with the view of giving: an opportunity of bringing on a Vote of Gen-sure which is most inopportune. I freely admit that the Government were bound to give a day for discussion when they were challenged by the Opposition, and I also admit that the Leaders of the Opposition may have found themselves in this difficulty, that if they did not propose a Vote of Censure at this moment some uncontrollable Member opposite might have done so. But I claim this, that the House of Commons at large is entitled to disregard these considerations, and that we have simply to look at what is most for the interests of the country and that which will best preserve our liberty of action and our independence of judgment which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has distinctly promised us. For, whatever may be said, this debate if it proceeds, and the Division following it, will be looked upon by Europe and by the country as decisive of the questions which are at issue. It will be wrong; but we know perfectly well how difficult it is to make these distinctions, and it will be considered decisive. Meanwhile, what has been the attitude of the French Chambers? They have said that they refuse to discuss this question; and are we, the House of Commons, to bind ourselves in advance and to commit ourselves to principles of great political and international importance while the rest of Europe refuses to commit or to pledge itself? I say, therefore, the argument is overwhelming that this debate ought not to be allowed to proceed. I dissent entirely from the argument
  1694
  which might be put forward by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if this debate and Division do not take place before the Conference then it will be impossible to upset the results of the Conference. I say that that is a position which is derogatory to this country. We are not going to be bound either as regards the neutralization of Egypt or its evacuation by a Conference assembled simply to deal with the financial question. We shall remain, and we ought to remain, entirely masters of our position and masters of our political action. For my part, I think that this House ought not to be driven into the Division Lobbies upon an incomplete case and at an inopportune time; and therefore for my part, if I have any support, I shall be perfectly ready to say "No" to the Motion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: This preliminary debate is one of rather an unusual character; but it appears to me to be absolutely necessary that I should say a few words in reply to the observations which have been made, and especially to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). When it was announced by Her Majesty's Government, some time ago, that it was intended to hold a Conference of the Powers of Europe on the Egyptian Question, very careful and very jealous inquiries were made by Members on this side of the House, and I think by Members on the other side also, as to what were to be the limits and the functions of that Conference. We were assured, over and over again, that the object of the Conference was purely financial—for the purpose of settling the Law of Liquidation. If any intimation had been given to the House at that time that it was intended to hold a Conference for the purpose of considering the question of the limitation of our occupation of Egypt, or the question of the neutralization of Egypt, or any questions of a similar character, I think there can be no doubt that this House would have desired, at the earliest possible moment, to express its opinion on these questions, and would have insisted upon doing so. What has taken place? The Conference is called together, it is true, for the single purpose, as we are informed, and as we believe, of deciding and settling financial questions, and that they are very difficult and im-

  1695
  portant questions we do not for a moment doubt; but we find that, as a preliminary measure, in order to enable the Conference to be brought forward, there has been a correspondence going on between this country and one of the Powers of Europe, and that an Agreement has been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France touching and laying down principles of the very greatest importance as to the time during which we are to occupy Egypt. What is the position of the House with regard to that? We do not take this haphazard or on hearsay. We have had Papers laid before us by Her Majesty's Government, and we have had ample time to consider them. The question is not as to what is proposed to be done, or even a part of what is proposed to be done; it is what has been done? It is a question whether that agreement ought to be accepted as a basis of any further proceedings. Serious principles are involved in that correspondence; and we have felt it our duty at the very earliest opportunity to call the attention of the House to them, and to challenge the opinion of the House as to the propriety of these principles. Of course, it is for the House to say whether they will accede to the proposal of the Prime Minister, that the Orders of the Day be postponed, for the purpose of going on with that discussion. It is a matter with which the majority must deal; but I say that our course is, in our own minds, perfectly clear. There is no question as to whether anyone would anticipate us. The question is whether, having this fact before us, we should approve it or not; and we cannot put ourselves off to consider this after the Conference has been held. Other questions may be raised then which the House and the country may have opinions upon one way or the other; but that is no reason why we should now allow this proposal to go forward without challenge.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not been altogether accurate, for he has said, or implied, with respect to the work of the Conference, that there has been some change since the Government stated to Parliament that it would be summoned and why it would be summoned. Sir, there has
  1696
  been no change whatever. What has happened is simply this. Her Majesty's Government have summoned a Conference for the precise purpose set out in the original Papers presented to Parliament. But before going into the Conference Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Government of France, and the result of those communications has been faithfully and frankly stated to Parliament. If after we go into Conference the result is an inability to bring about an agreement with the Powers, all that has been done in communication with France will come to an end. If, on the other hand, we agree in the Conference, then this House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing, not only the proceedings of the Conference, but the previous understanding with Franco; and, therefore, Sir, I claim that the Government have not departed one jot or one tittle from the promise they gave to Parliament; and I am bound to say that, although in accordance with the demand of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government agreed that a day should be set aside for the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce)—a demand that the Government could refuse—yet they think that a debate on this occasion is certain to be most mischievous.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I think the House will be somewhat astonished at the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). It appears to me that there is somewhat of communication between those observations and the refusal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to give way to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. F. Forster), and allow the Previous Question to be moved. The Previous Question is one of those vague things for which hon. Gentlemen ran vote without affecting their political consciences. The announcement of the Prime Minister, that he intended to meet the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce) with the direct negative, has evidently caused great perturbation and dismay in the minds of hon. Members both above and below the Gangway. If they had been able to afford an opportunity for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and to prevent the Prime Minister

  1697
  from directly negativing the Resolution of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; and if he had done that without absolutely endorsing the policy of the Government, of which only a portion had been presented to the House, we should have heard but little of the candid and impartial suggestion of the right hon. Members for Bradford and Ripon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon suggests that this debate should not take place; but the Party representation of this House leads to a different conclusion. It will be in the recollection of the House that on the 27th of May the Prime Minister said—
  "We can undertake and engage, in the event of any common understanding with France, of consultation with the Powers, and of any plan resulting from those communications, that those results and the whole conclusion which is arrived at shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets."—(3 Hansard, [288] 1474.)
  I should be glad that the Prime Minister's attention should be called to the words which he has uttered, and to the whole consequences of that which his own words represent. Now, for what purpose was the whole conclusion to be presented to Parliament previous to the meeting of the Conference? Surely, no mere matter of general information could be submitted as a matter of fact. But I venture to think that no general observation would produce any substantial effect amongst the Members of a Party of which I have the honour to be a Member.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that, whilst he should be willing to vote cither for the Previous Question or the direct negative should the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) move his Resolution, he considered the Motion inconvenient and mischievous; and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would take a Division against the Motion before the House, in order to protest against the most ill-timed and unpatriotic Motion he had ever seen proposed in his Parliamentary experience.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: We on this side of the House, supported by the great majority out-of-doors, regard the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) as not only inopportune, but as most mischievous. The Government had no option save to answer the challenge of the Party opposite. But I hope that the entire Party on this side of the House will take the simple
  1698
  and straightforward course of saying "No" to the proposal before the House, to enter into a discussion from which nothing but mischief can result.
  MR. RAIKES: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) to reflect what will-be the immediate effect if the course which he has recommended were adopted by the House. Will the public out-of-doors believe that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon was not in any way prompted by the Government? Will it not be thought, and will it not be said, and not merely in this House and throughout this country, but throughout Europe generally, that the one point with regard to this question upon which the great Liberal Party was united was that they were afraid to face a discussion? I think the Parliamentary course of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), if it needed vindication, has been most fully vindicated by the way in which events have shaped themselves, and has received ample justification this afternoon. When we hear hon. Gentlemen talk about a Motion being inopportune, we know very well that it is inopportune to Her Majesty's Government. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, whom we all so greatly respect, to consider whether, by the observations which he has just made, he has not given a blow to Her Majesty's Government from which it will be extremely difficult for them to recover.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will answer it in this way. I say there is no man outside this House who will believe, and I believe there is no man inside this House who would have made that suggestion except the right hon. Gentleman, who would have made a suggestion which would have been equally dishonourable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and to Her Majesty's Government. I will leave to the right hon. Gentleman opposite the sole monopoly of his insinuations. That, Sir, is the only answer which I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions and insinuations require or deserve.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 190: Majority 42.

  AYES

  Alexander, Major-Gen.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Asher, A.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Ashley, hon. M.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Hicks, E.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Boord, T. W.

  Hubbard, right hon. J. G.

  Bourke, right hon. R.

  Brand, hon. H. R.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Kennard. C. J.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Knight, F. W.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Burghley, Lord

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Cameron, D.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Campbell -Bannerman, H.

  Legh, W. J.

  Leigh, R.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Leighton, S.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  Lennox, right hn. Lord

  Christie, W. L.

  H. G. G. G.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Collins, T.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Coope, O. E.

  Mackintosh, G. F.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R,

  Crichton, Viscount

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Marriott, W. T.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Mills, Sir G. H.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Milner, Sir F.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Morgan, rt, hon. G. O.

  Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

  Newport, Viscount

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Duff, R. W.

  Eckersley, N.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Otway, Sir A. J.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Elton, C. I.

  Percy, Lord A. M.

  Ewart, W.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Power, J. O' C.

  Feilden, Lieut. -General

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Repton, G. W.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Fowler, rt hon. R. N.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Ross, A. H.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Salt, T.

  Gathorne -Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Scott, M. D.

  Giles, A.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Greene, E.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Greer, T.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  Halsey, T. F

  Stanley, E. J.

  1700

  Storey, S.

  Watney, J.

  Summers, W.

  Whitley, E.

  Sykes, C.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Winn, R.

  Thornhill, T.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Tollemache, hn. W. F.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G.O.

  TELLERS.

  Walker, S.

  Grosvenor, right hon.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Lord R.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

  Warton, C. N.

  NOES.

  Agnew, W.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Allman, R. L.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Anderson, G.

  Ferguson, R.

  Armitage, B.

  Findlater, W.

  Armitstead, G

  Flower, G.

  Arnold, A.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Forster, rt. hn. W. E.

  Baring, Viscount

  Fowler, H. H.

  Barran, J.

  Fowler, W.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Fry, L.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Fry, T.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Brett, R. B.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Bright, J.

  Grant, A.

  Brinton, J.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Guest, M. J.

  Brogden, A.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Brown, A. H.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Healy, T. M.

  Bryce, J.

  Heneage, E.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Henry, M.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Hill, T. R.

  Caine, W. S.

  Holden, I.

  Cameron, C.

  Holland, S.

  Campbell, Lord G.

  Hollond. J. R.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Howard, G. J.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Causton, R. K.

  James, C.

  Clark, S.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Cohen, A.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N.F.

  Collings, J.

  Collins, E.

  Kinnear, J.

  Colman, J. J.

  Labouchere, H.

  Colthurst, Colonel

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Courtauld, G.

  Lawrence, Sir J, C.

  Crum, A.

  Lawrence, W.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Davey, H.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Davies, R.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Davies, W.

  Lee, H.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Lloyd, M.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Dodds, J.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Earp, T.

  Lyons," R. D.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Edwards, P

  Mackie, R. B.

  Egerton, Admiral hon. F

  Macliver, P. S.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Elliot, hon. A, R. D

  M'Carthy, J.

  1701

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Richard, H.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Roundell, C. S.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Russell, Lord A.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Russell, C.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Ruston, J.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Rylands, P.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story -

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Samuelson, H.

  Mason, H.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Shaw, T.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Sheil, E.

  Moore, A.

  Shield, H.

  Moreton, Lord

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Morley, J.

  Small,. J. F.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Smith, E.

  Noel, E.

  Smith, S.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Smyth, P. J.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  O'Brien, W.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  O'Connor, A.

  Stewart, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Stuart, H. V.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Paget, T. T.

  Tennant, C.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Torrens, W. T. M.

  Palmer, G.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Parker, C. S.

  Waugh, E.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Webster, J.

  Pease, A.

  West, H. W.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Whitworth, B.

  Pender, J.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Philips, R. N.

  Williamson, S.

  Picton, J. A.

  Willis, W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Wills, W. H.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Pulley, J.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Ralli, P.

  Ramsay, J.

  TELLERS.

  Rathbone, W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Illingworth, A.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, there is one observation which, with the indulgence of the House, I hope I may be allowed to make. It is an observation of great surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on Thursday last, upon the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce), should have named this day for the discussion, without intimating, in the slightest degree, that he considered it would be injurious to the public interest, and that to-day he should come forward to announce for the first time that, in his opinion, it would have that injurious effect. [Cries of "Question!" and 'Order" from the Ministerial side, and 'Move the Adjournment!" from the Opposition Benches.] I am anxious not to move the adjournment, or in any way to interfere with the Business of the House. I think we occupy a more dignified position by merely calling attention to the fact, which I think one that will be under-
  1702
  stood in the country, and making this protest.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not think that when the right hon. Gentleman asked for the indulgence of the House, the House was perfectly aware of the use he intended to make of it. ["Oh!"] I am so accustomed-to this kind of interruption that I consider it is not to be taken notice of. But I mean to keep my remarks within the same, or even shorter, limits than those of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope I may claim the same indulgence. When the right hon. Gentleman inquired of me on Thursday as to whether we would give a day, the question had been the subject of much consideration in my mind, and in the mind of my Colleagues; because, on the one hand, we felt that it was not the business of the Government to deprecate discussion, and that, on the other, it was our business, as long as we could, to adhere to the rule which has of late been made use of to such an extraordinary extent, of giving a day when a Vote of Censure is threatened. When I answered the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly felt that, having arrived at the conclusion that a day ought to be given, I ought to give it without grudging, or giving expression to any adverse opinion, or seeming in any way to deprecate debate. But when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the exercise of his discretion, and hon. Gentlemen who followed him especially, in the exercise of their discretion, made a direct appeal to me on the subject, and I found myself saddled with the responsibility of bringing on this Motion, then it was absolutely necessary for me to give nay opinion on its bearing on the public interests, with respect to which I have never entertained a doubt.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 252.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Sir charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 252.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    MR. WARTONcriticized the action of the Attorney General in finally reverting in the Grand Committee to the principle of a maximum expenditure after having refused it before. He considered that there was one great error which pervaded this Bill—namely, that the penalties imposed by it were absurdly high. Punishments which were too great in proportion to the offences for which they were awarded had only the effect of shocking the moral sense of the country; and, in his opinion, the punishment of highly respectable solicitors under the Parliamentary Elections Bill had done a great deal to shake the faith of the public in it. Were members of Local Boards or Improvement Commissions, Guardians of the Poor in Ireland, or members of a School Board, to have their elections hedged in by the terrific penalties of this Bill? He maintained that it was their duty to oppose a Bill which they considered bad, without regard to the fact of its having passed a Grand Committee. This Bill was an attempt to carry on the experiment of last year, without giving them any time to see how the Bill of last year had worked. He objected to this legislation in the dark.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSScalled attention to the absence of the Attorney General from the Treasury Bench, and declared that it was impossible to proceed with a measure of this kind unless the hon. and learned Gentleman was present. When the Bill had been brought in by the Attorney General, he himself had maintained that it would be likely to promote bribery. In the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act there was a clause fixing a maximum expenditure; but in this Bill there was no such clause. Upon that point the Attorney General had laid great stress, on the ground that if such a clause were introduced, it would be impossible to put down bribery. What would have been the result of the difference in this respect between the two Bills? They knew that a great amount of bribery took place at municipal elections, with a view to influencing Parliamentary elections. He had himself endeavoured to have the clause inserted, but had been defeated. Now, the At-
    1704
    torney General had inserted the clause after all in the Grand Committee. He thought that some explanation was due to the House as to how this great change had come about. With respect to the question of a maximum, it was agreed that such an amount of expenditure should be permitted as would enable a candidate to make known his views. This was a question of such importance that, in the absence of the Attorney General, he had no alternative but to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. HEALY, in seconding the Motion, expressed his surprise to find Ireland included in the Bill after the promise that had been made to exclude it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." — (Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that in the absence of the Attorney General he did not think the first Order was one with which the Government could ask the House to proceed.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, before the Motion was agreed to, thought the House should know what Business the Government intended to take. It was obvious that the House was placed at great disadvantage, as the hon. Members who were interested in the opposed Bills on the Paper could not have expected that they would be reached at all that night. He hoped the Government would not proceed with any opposed Bills that evening.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that before they agreed to the adjournment of the debate they ought to have some statement from a Minister of the Crown as to what Bill they would next take. There were several very important Bills on the Orders. For instance, No. 5 was the London Government Bill, and he asked the Government to say that they would not proceed to-night with that Bill. No. 9 was the Merchant Shipping Bill, and he should like a similar assurance from the Government with regard to that measure.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwanted to know what was to be done with the Police Superannuation Bill, which had been before the House for some years?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was true that they had unexpectedly come to the Orders of the Day; but that war, true of any other night. ["No,

    1705
    no!"] He said "Yes." It was always possible that circumstances might occur to place the House in a similar position to that in which it was that night. Any Member who had been in the House for 10 years knew that, such circumstances had happened a hundred times. The natural and proper thing was to go on with the next Order. The Government were now quite prepared to go on with the first Order, the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. The Attorney General was in his place, and he hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, in the peculiar circumstances they were placed, it would be neither natural or proper to proceed with the Orders on the Paper in the absence of their supporters.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDappealed to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir B. Assheton Cross) to withdraw his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the leading Members of the Grand Committee on the Bill, and he had a large influence in moulding the measure.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out the promise made to the Irish Members to leave Ireland out of the Bill?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)denied that any such promise had been made. What had been said was that inquiry should be made among the Irish Members, and that the Government would be guided to some extent by their views on the subject.
    MR. HEALY: We have never been consulted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)apologized for not having been present when the Order was called. He had been engaged elsewhere on business connected with the House; but there was no reason why the debate should not proceed, as he believed there was no substantial objection to the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had omitted, in replying to a question put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), to state that it was intended to proceed with the second reading of the London Government Bill on Thursday next.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, that he should object to the Bill being pro-
    1706
    ceeded with at the present moment, after the pledge given by the hon. Member for Oldham. (Mr. Hibbert), who represented the Government a few minutes ago before the return of the Attorney General. A pledge was given; because it was understood in the House that when a Member sitting upon the Treasury Benches said a thing he would keep to it, and that the hon. Members who sat behind him would support him. [Dissent] He quite agreed that occasionally there were exceptions to that rule; and he believed that there had been instances when very high officials—aye, all the Cabinet—had been voted against by their obsequious supporters. ["Question!"] That was the Question. He begged to say—
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Question of Adjournment.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, his reason for speaking was that the answer given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), who had represented the Government a few minutes ago, was a pledge; and in consequence of that pledge several of his (Mr. Montagu Scott's) Friends left the House, because they considered that the Bill would not be proceeded with after the pledge of the Government. He called upon the Government to stand by their pledge. His Friends left the House, he repeated, in consequence of the pledge of the hon. Member for Oldham; and it was a gross breach of faith, after that pledge, that the Government should resist the Motion for Adjournment.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked leave to withdraw his Motion, which, he said, he made solely on the ground of the Attorney General's absence. He wished, however, to have an understanding from the Government that the opposed clauses should be dealt with on a future day.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORcomplained of the want of courtesy shown by the Attorney General to the Irish Members.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, before the Motion for Adjournment was withdrawn they were entitled to know what the Attorney General was going to do with reference to Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that nothing which might occur that evening should preju-

    1707
    dice the pledge he had given, that there should be the same opportunity of obtaining the opinion of the Irish Members as if they were not proceeding that evening.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 139: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYregretted to have to oppose the Motion for the consideration of the Bill. Irish Members had been treated very badly. It was absurd to apply the cumbrous provisions of a Bill like that to wards in Irish municipalities which contained only 15 or 20 voters. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had consulted Irish Members on the subject. Whom had he consulted? Certainly none of those who sat near him. Was the Chief Secretary in favour of those provisions? The Irish Members had relied on a half-promise of the hon. and learned Member which precluded the necessity of their moving Amendments, which they would now have to prepare. It was absurd for the hon. and learned Member, who knew nothing of Ireland, to frame a Bill of that character to be applied to Ireland. He should divide against the Motion that the Bill be considered.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTmoved the adjournment of the House, alleging as a ground for his so doing that they were totally unprepared to enter upon a discussion of a series of Bills which they had, on coming to the House, understood there was no chance of being brought on. He thought that after the character of the defeat sustained by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the dignity and character of the House would be best consulted by their not longer prolonging that day's proceedings.
    MR. WARTONcordially seconded the Motion. The Government got a very unfair advantage by having a number of Orders down which no one expected to be reached.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
    The House divided;—Ayes 32; Noes 85: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No, 141.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished to fulfil the pledge he gave on the second reading, which was that the Government would endeavour to obtain the opinions of Members for Ireland as to the application of the Bill to Ireland. He wished if he could to obtain such opinions; and if the House would consider the 1st clause, he would move the adjournment of the debate, and would not bring the Bill on again before Thursday, when he should probably be able to state whether or not it was proposed to proceed with the Bill in relation to Ireland.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he was gratified with the statement which had just been made by the Attorney General; and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to announce on Thursday that the Bill would not apply to Ireland.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hoped the Attorney General meant to consult all sections of the Irish Members.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he thought it would be much more becoming of the Government if they would at once adjourn the House than attempt to go on with the Business. He, therefore, moved that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hicks.)
    Thereupon Mr. SPEAKER, having stated his opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Forms of the House, put the Question forthwith.
    The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 83: Majority 61.—(Div. List., No. 142.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: These proceedings are of a somewhat curious description. I should like it to be generally known that a course has been taken this afternoon which is worthy the attention of the House. The Leader of the Opposition stated, when the Motion on the question of Egypt was negatived, that he should not be a party to the moving of the adjournment of the House, or obstructing in any way the Business of the country. That was the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. But, Sir, proceedings have been taken since that statement was made, which I will not characterize on this occasion. But you, Sir, have just declared from the

    1709
    Chair that such proceedings are an abuse of the Forms of the House; and, you having made that declaration, I wish the House to know that the hon. Members for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Rowland Winn), for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill), and East Kent (Mr. Akers-Douglas), who are officially connected with the Party opposite, voted with the minority for the adjournment of the debate. While some Members who sit upon the Front Opposition Bench voted in the majority, these three Gentlemen voted in the minority.
    MR. MACARTNEYwished to know whether Members on his side of the House were more bound to vote with their Leader than Members opposite? He had not the good, fortune to behold the wondrous scene; but he was informed that a Division took place in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), and those who sat upon the Government Bench, went one way and his followers went another. ["Question!"] He was speaking to the Question. He had as good a right to speak of that Division as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had to speak of the other. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed astonishment that three Gentlemen officially connected with the Opposition should have voted in the minority. No doubt they did so because they were not satisfied—no one on either side of the House was satisfied—with what occurred. The House had got into a muddle. They were accustomed to muddles; but such things were not creditable. When a great many Members thought that no disputable Business would be brought on, it ought not to be persevered with.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that as one who voted with the Government in the late Division, being anxious that Business should proceed, he should like to protest in the strongest manner against the language of the right hon. Gentleman, who had no right to speak as he had done. Hon. Members, in the exercise of their duty, had a right to vote for the adjournment on the last occasion, and they had broken no pledge whatever given on this occasion. He was quite sure the only reason why his hon. Friends voted against the Government was, that the Government would not tell them what Business they were going to take. It was quite understood that the Bill now before the House
    1710
    would be adjourned immediately—as soon as the House resolved that the Bill be considered; and it was because the House was left perfectly uncertain as to what was to be discussed for the rest of the evening that the late Divisions had been taken.
    MR. GLADSTONE and Mr. WARTON rose together—
    MR. WARTON: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker—["Order, order!"]—a point of Order, Sir. ["Order, order!"] I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker, and my point is that the observations of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order, I Sir. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERrising, the Prime Minister resumed his seat, leaving Mr. WARTON standing.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member should resume his seat when the Speaker is on his feet.
    MR. WARTON (resuming his seat): I Certainly, Sir; certainly.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order.
    MR. WARTON: So did I. I was first.
    MR. GLADSTONE: What I desire to know, Sir, is whether a Member can rise to Order on account of observations made by my right hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke), another hon. Member having since spoken?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) has risen to a point of Order I should like to know what it is.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the Speaker had power, under one of the Rules of 1882, to refuse to let a Question be put if it was not regular. He submitted that as the Speaker had allowed the Division it was regular; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not in Order in the remarks he had made.
    MR. SPEAKER: No question of Order has arisen.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman actually rose on my rising—[Mr. WARTON: Before.]—and said he wished to speak to Order; and yet he was going to call attention to a speech made by another person; since which a second speech in the regular order of debate had been made by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stanhope). A more dis-

    1711
    orderly proceeding I never saw. My object in rising was not to mix in the controversy; but to inform the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macartney) that I have never seen a more egregious mistake in point of issue than that into which he fell. He appeared to think that my right hon. Friend near mo (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had called the attention of the House to the fact that some hon. Gentlemen on that side had voted against their Leaders. That had nothing whatever to do with it. He says he was not in the House at the time of the former debate; but he might just as well not have been in the House now. It is a totally different matter, and I will not go back upon it. I rose to meet the wish of my hon. Friend opposite, who desires to know what Business the Government are going to proceed with. We propose to take No. 2 on the Paper, the Police Bill; No. 3, the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill; No. 6, the Intestates Estates Bill; Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14; No. 17, the Universities (Scotland) Bill; and No. 21, the Crown Lands Bill. I hope no one will complain that that is not an ample bill of fare.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that there would be great opposition to No. 2 Bill—not so much that the money should be taken for the police as to how it would be applied for their superannuation.
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Viscount would be out of Order in referring to the provisions of the Bill.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman should go on -with the Bill he would move the adjournment of the House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. When they came down to the House it was supposed that no other Business would be taken but the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce), which would naturally have led to a debate. Many Gentlemen might be absent who took an interest in those particular Bills. The Government would do well and reasonably, therefore, if they would not take that night any of the Bills which were seriously opposed. It would be rather a strong measure if Bills to which there was serious opposition were taken under the peculiar circumstances.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the Government would not proceed with the Police Bill that evening, as there were many hon. Members absent who were interested in it.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Police Bill had been before the House for a very long time, and it was somewhat unreasonable for hon. Members to endeavour to prevent the Order being taken. 336 Members were in the House when the Motion to postpone the Orders of the Day was defeated, and therefore 336 Members had notice that other Business would be brought on.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He wished to know whether hon. Members were in Order in discussing the Police Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the discussion was out of Order.
    Original Question put, and agreed to
    Bill considered.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

  POLICE BILL.— [BILL 56.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  POLICE BILL.— [BILL 56.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HIBBERT, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had been waiting to bring it forward since 1882; and he thought it would be unreasonable if an attempt were made not to have the discussion on it now. The Bill was introduced in the interests of a very long-suffering class—the police-constables of thiscountry— who had been waiting patiently for some years past for some way of improving their system of superannuation. It was now seven years ago since a Committee of the House of Commons sat to consider the question of police superannuation. The Chairman of that Committee was his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who, he was sure, was prepared to give his support to the proposals contained in the Bill now before the House. He fully admitted that the Bill had met with considerable opposition; but he was in a position to say that much of that opposition had been withdrawn during the present year, owing to certain concessions that had been made

    1713
    with regard to it. He had had two classes of persons to contend with in dealing with this subject. In the first place, there were those who were interested in the local taxation question, and who considered that, if anything was to be done to give the police increased superannuation, or a claim to it, such as was proposed in. the Bill, the same grant should be given towards the superannuation sums, as was now given towards the maintenance of the police in the counties and boroughs of this country. He had never been able to meet the views of hon. Members who held that opinion. A considerable sum was now paid in aid of the police of this country (something like £1,250,000 to £1,300,000), and the Treasury were not very willing to increase the amount, as suggested by those who favoured the local taxation view. In the next place, he had had to meet the opposition of those who represented the municipalities of the country. He was happy to say that, with the exception of a very few, those opponents were now willing that the Bill should pass. One reason, however, why they had assented to the Bill was that he had agreed to considerable alterations being made in the conditions of the claim for superannuation. It was originally proposed that any constable who had served 25 years should be entitled to compulsory superannuation; but a condition was inserted in the Bill, which stated that, with respect to an inspector or person of higher rank, the limit of age should be fixed at 55, and that the common constable should have attained 50 years of age. The change which he had made in the Bill to meet the views of the municipal authorities was, that the condition of 55 years should apply to all classes of the constabulary. Under the circumstances, therefore, he did think that they ought now to be able to come to some agreement upon the subject. Under the present law, a constable above the age of 60 could be superannuated, even though he had not obtained his certificate of ill-health. The evidence was, that that principle did not meet the wants and difficulties of those who entered the Police Force. There were very few police constables who entered the Police Forces of the country, especially the borough forces, who were not, to a considerable extent, worn out
    1714
    and unfit for active service after 25 years service. That was the evidence of many of the counties and of most boroughs. Probably the wearing out was not so severe in the counties as in the boroughs, and it was not so severe in some counties as in others; but there was, no doubt, a strong feeling on the part of chief constables, and on the part of many of the local authorities, that it would be to the advantage of the Police Force of the country, if there was some such system as was proposed in the Bill—that a man should be enabled to retire at the end of a certain number of years' service. The House of Commons' Committee considered whether that number of years should be 25 or 30, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that it should be 25. He, therefore, thought that the Government had the Committee on their side in respect of this proposal. It had been stated that they might have men entering the Force at 21 years of age who would be enabled to withdraw on a pension at the age of 46. There was something to be said for that objection; but 25 years' arduous work in a Police Force unfitted a man for efficient service. That was found to be the case in the Metropolis and in all large towns. The proposals in the Bill affected not less than 23,000 men in England and Wales, and something like 3,600 in Scotland. With respect to Scotland, he found that, with the exception of Greenock, there was no superannuation system in the country, and the result was that most of the best men in the English Force were drawn from Scotland. He had received letter after letter, showing how great was the advantage derived by England from drawing good men from Scotland. He had experienced that in his own county, Lancashire; and he had been told by men from Scotland, whom he had questioned, that they came down to the English Force, because the pay was better, and there was also a pension fund. What was the cost of making a policeman? Sir Edward Henderson had informed him that he could not make an efficient constable for less than £200 or £300. The loss, therefore, to those places where superannuation did not exist, and from which men were drawn or transferred to forces in England, must be great. From statistics on the subject, it would be found that the amount of

    1715
    men whore signed from the Force in boroughs was very much larger in comparison with either the County or the Metropolitan Force, being 56,000, as against 49,000 in the Metropolitan Force and 25,000 in the County Forces. That showed the advantage of having a good system of pensions in the Force. There were county and borough police forces with pension funds and no pensioners. There were 58 such borough forces and three such county forces. In some forces with pension funds they had but a single pensioner. Yet, in all these cases, a certain sum, usually 2½ per cent, was taken from the pay of the men and added to funds from which the men got no benefit at all; and was it not likely that, under such circumstances, the men would feel that they had a grievance? Parliament must consent to do something in the matter; and, unless some more regular system of superannuation was carried into effect, he believed that the complaints of the police would be even stronger in the future than they had been in the past. He considered, in fact, that the police of the country deserved great credit for their forbearance under the existing circumstances. In Ireland, last year, the police had gained what they were trying for, after taking upon themselves, in many instances, to create grave difficulties. They did not want to see the police in this country acting similarly; they wanted to meet them generously and fairly; and they would find that the police would fully repay any such attention and measure of justice being carried out in their favour. The number of pensioners out of a force of 23,000 was only 4,887, which was by no means a very largo number. They were told that if they made it a system absolutely to allow men to retire after 25 years' service, they would have a large additional sum to pay. No doubt they would have to pay a considerable sum; but he thought, at the same time, that it would be conceded that it was better that they should be able to keep their men, if they were good, than to have the constant chopping and changing about, which was the case at present, with the result that they were continually renewing their force. He would call attention to the question of how the Police Bill would affect counties. In Lancashire, out of 97 pensions granted in five years, it had been
    1716
    calculated that 35 would have received an increase, and 62 would have been decreased. The increase was in the case of all who had served for over 25 years; and those were just the men to whom they wished to give pensions, who had devoted their lives to the service, and fairly earned a generous pension. He would not go into detail as to the recommendations of the Committee; but he would like to call the attention of the House to the evidence given by men of great experience in the Force, who were chief constables. They were, practically, unanimous in recommending a pension after a fixed period of years, and that period was generally fixed at 25 years. The general opinion appeared to be that, after a service for 25 years, a constable was not fit for much, no matter at what age he might have entered the Force; and one chief constable had recommended 22 years as the length of service after which a man should be entitled to a pension. These were the opinions of responsible men who had been at the head of their respective forces for a considerable period of time, and who had the best means of knowing the lasting point of a policeman. Government had, therefore, adopted 25 years as the period after which a man should be entitled to a pension; but they had added the condition that that person, who claimed it should have reached the age of 55. That condition was, so far, against the men; but it had been accepted by them. The scheme brought forward in the present Bill conferred other advantages upon the men. At present, if a man died in active service, his widow received a gratuity; but his children were not entitled to a gratuity, or, indeed, to anything at all. They now proposed that the widow should be entitled to a pension, and also to a certain sum for each child, and, in the case where there were children but no widow, that each child should be allowed a certain gratuity. At present, again, if a man changed his force, he was only allowed to claim the advantage of a certain amount of the years he had served. It was now proposed to alter that, and to make it the rule that if a man had served three years in one force, and then changed into another, he should be entitled to count the number of years he had served. Another alteration which

    1717
    they now proposed to make was in the matter of fees. In the Bill of last year they had touched this question; but they had been, met by considerable objections on the part of counties which had strong pension funds, and also of the Scotch authorities. They had, therefore, made it permissive for those fees to be added to the pension fund. If the compensation fund of the country was in a weak condition, these fees would be added to it; but when the fund was strong, no doubt they would not be added. In respect to Scotland, the Scottish authorities would probably not add them at all; they preferred, if they were to pay those fees at all, not to take them out of the fines, but out of the rates. At the same time, the Scottish authorities approved of the reduction of pay for the men, and other small matters alluded to in the clauses of the Bill. He would appeal to the House to try to come to some understanding with the view of settling this question during the present Session. It was not a wise thing to delay the matter and make the men in the Police Force of England and Scotland think they were worse treated than their brethren in Ireland, or that the House was indifferent to the way in which their case was considered. Even in the case of hon. Members who opposed the Bill, their opposition was chiefly grounded on their dislike to throwing an additional burden upon the local rates, and their contention that additional pensions should be defrayed by the State. He believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was in favour of the Bill, except on that one point. With regard to the disabilities which men in the Police Force laboured under, it must be allowed that they had a good wage; but their disabilities were considerable. They were not allowed to enter into any trade or business; they were not allowed even to have a vote in municipal or Parliamentary elections. But perhaps the greatest disability of all was found when a man had to contribute to a fund in the force from which he saw no expectation of ever receiving anything back again. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time "—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, although he thought the introduction of the Bill, under present circumstances, highly objectionable, indeed so much so that he must protest against its being taken then, yet he did not grudge the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert) the opportunity to discharge himself of a speech he must have had in his mind for three years, or take exception to anything he had said about the desire of the House to deal generously with the force. But when he invited the House to treat the force generously, at whose expense did he propose that it should be done? Not at the expense of the Treasury, or the Government; but at the expense of the local rates. The proposal of the Government was to take away from the county police authorities the discretion which, by law, was now vested in them. It seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was never weary of telling the House that he desired to decentralize and place more responsibility and more control in the hands of the local authority, should come down with this Procrustean rule to deprive them, without exception, of their discretion in awarding pensions to their police. To require a separate pension fund where the police superannuation fund was absolutely intact was a most unwarrantable intrusion upon the finance of counties. He was far from saying the police had not a grievance in the matter; but he did not approve of the way it was proposed to remedy it. If there were counties and boroughs in which there were stoppages of pensions, let them be looked to; but to apply one rule to all, entirely irrespective of their previous conduct, was very unfair. The Government proposal was no great boon after all. If they offered a pension to a man after 25 years' service, but provided that no superannuation should take place till the age of 55, what advantage was that to men who entered the service, as many of them did, at 20, or even earlier? It was, however, impossible for him to argue the question as he should desire; because the proposition to road the Bill a second time having come upon him by surprise, the materials he had been collecting for the last three years were not by him; but he must again protest against tarring all local authorities with the same brush. There were several

    1719
    points in the Bill to which strong objections could be taken, therefore the Government could not avoid a second discussion of this question, when an opportunity would be given to go into detail. He had risen out of courtesy to the hon. Member; but considering the way the Bill had come on, and that many hon. Gentlemen interested in the question were not present, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not refuse to adjourn the debate.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to move the adjournment of the debate; but he (Viscount Folkestone) was prepared to do so, as it had not been already moved. It was a very significant fact that, while the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hibbert) was prepared with his notes and speech on this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had no expectation that the subject would come on, and was therefore unprepared. Many hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the Bill were absent, and he thought it would be most unfair to proceed with such an important Bill in an empty House. The Bill was a most objectionable one; for, though he was quite willing that a man should be superannuated, the cost of it was to be thrown wholly on the unfortunate ratepayers. He would move the adjournment of the debate. He was not hostile to the Bill; but, if superannuation were granted, it ought to come out of the right and not out of the wrong pocket.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Viscount Folkestone.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the Police Force, who have with admirable patience waited for years for the measure of justice which is due to them, will read to-morrow, with some astonishment, the manner in which their claims are treated, and the Party from which that treatment comes. Yen have had from Gentlemen of great weight and influence, representing counties in England, a treatment of this measure which I think the police of England have not deserved.
    MR. HICKS: I rise to Order, Sir. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is
    1720
    addressing himself to the Motion before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything which is not in Order.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think this in the least alters the statement, but rather confirms it. This is another form of Obstruction in addition to the Motion for Adjournment of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Folkestone). The attempt to count out by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Scott), and the interruption which now comes from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), show the obstinate determination there is to obstruct the Bill. The noble Viscount the Member for South Wiltshire has said that he does not object to the Bill generally; that he admits there ought to be a Bill, and to the general principles of the Bill he is not opposed. Then he ought to vote for the second reading, instead of moving the adjournment of the debate. I say this is not fair treatment to men who should have deserved fair treatment at the hands of this House and the country. I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) in the House until the count; but I did not see him in his place when the count took place. I say that is not a fair way of meeting a measure of this description, and it would not so be considered by the country or by the police force, in whose conduct and in whose stability I venture to say the county Members of England are as much interested as anybody. Let them not obstruct the Bill, but manfully come forward on the clause with reference to superannuation, and object, as they are perfectly entitled to do, to the provisions of the Bill. If they make out a good case, they will convince the House, and make the Bill what it ought to be in that respect.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was now travelling beyond the Motion before the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon for so doing. In speaking upon the Motion for Adjournment, I have deviated into the principles of the Bill. I was anxious to show the noble Viscount the real significance of the attitude he takes. I say again that the Motion for Adjournment ought not to

    1721
    have been moved, but that, as the objections raised are upon matters of detail, they should be dealt with in Committee, not on the second reading; and, under those circumstances, I hope the Motion will not be pressed, and the general discussion on the measure itself proceeded with.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not think the Government, and primarily the right hon. Gentleman, were treating the House fairly in bringing in the Bill at a time when no one could expect it would come on, and in forcing on a debate. ["Oh, oh!"] No one could have expected that this Bill would be under discussion tit that time, and therefore the Motion for Adjournment was perfectly proper. The right hon. Gentleman said his noble Friend (Viscount Folkestone) wished to obstruct the Bill; but the noble Viscount plainly said he was not opposed to the principle of giving pensions to the police. What was the main principle of the Bill? That the police should be pensioned out of the rates.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is not the main principle of the Bill.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, no Party was more anxious than those who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House that the question of pensions to the police of England and Scotland should be settled; but they maintained that although this scheme of the Government might be fair to the police it was not fair to the ratepayers; therefore he, with his noble Friend, was opposed to it, and he would take the sense of the House upon the Motion for Adjournment made by his noble Friend. As to the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did walk out of the House, because he did not think it was fair to discuss the Bill before so small an attendance. But when the right hon. Gentleman told them that they wished to obstruct, and that they wished to deprive the police of pensions, he begged to tell him there was no foundation for those statements.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that early in the evening, when 337 Members voted in the Division, it was known that this Bill was one of the Orders of the Day to be proceeded with that night. Those hon. Members had gone away of their own choice; and there
    1722
    was, consequently, no foundation for the allegation that the House was unaware that the question was going to be discussed.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, he would point out that when a Question was asked with regard to the Police Superannuation Bill, the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that it was amongst the Orders of the Day, and said that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to press it on.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn. He trusted, seeing that there still remained three hours during which the House could discuss the principles of the Bill, that at least one stage of it might be taken. He quite concurred with the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it would have a bad effect throughout the whole country if the Bill was not proceeded with. He spoke with some knowledge of the subject; because he was in constant communication with the police, especially with his own county, and he had presented numerous Petitions in favour of this Bill; and he, therefore, thought the Government were right in taking the first opportunity they had of passing a stage of the Bill. He could assure the House that the Police Force generally throughout the country would view with the greatest disgust the treatment they were now receiving. They all heard the other day—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now travelling beyond the Question.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he would not refer to that matter; but he would again appeal to his noble Friend (Viscount Folkestone) to withdraw his Motion, so that they might proceed with the discussion of the Bill. Why he made that application was, because he was a Scotch Member, and he hoped he should not be out of Order in reminding the House of what an hon. Member had said. In Scotland they had 3,600 constables without any pension at all, and the Inspector General of Constabulary in Scotland reported that there were many constables in Glasgow who wore completely worn out, and whom it would be a scandal and a disgrace to discharge without a pension.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that, having served upon the

    1723
    Police Committee, he also hoped that the Bill would be proceeded with, as it related to a subject which deserved immediate consideration. If the present stage of the measure were allowed to be taken, any objection to its details might be raised on its further stage. He would suggest that his noble Friend (Viscount Folkestone) should not press his Motion, but reserve discussion for a future stage of the Bill. He would remind the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that a general supposition had prevailed that the debate on the Vote of Censure was coming on, and, therefore, that the Bill would not be reached that evening.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he would also appeal to the noble Viscount to allow the Bill to proceed, as it dealt with a question. which had already been too long delayed.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he could not accede to the request that had been made to him to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that the Bill would affect the ratepayers, and that its principle must be discussed upon its second reading, and could not be properly dealt with in Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 56: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would venture to hops that those Members of the Government who were answerable for the Bill might soon return, for it was impossible to discuss the merits of the Bill without someone in authority being present to take notice of what was said. It was quite true the Bill had been before the House some considerable time, and he believed it was equally true that his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had considered the Bill, or rather a Bill of the same kind, under the late Government. But he ventured to think there was a difference in that Bill from the one now before the House; for, most assuredly, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department would never have brought in a Bill of the kind, throwing all the responsibility of the burden of the pensions for the police on the rates of the country. As the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home
    1724
    Department (Mr. Hibbert) had now returned to his place, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to protest, in the strongest language he could use, against the remarks of both right hon. Gentlemen, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Local Government Board. A most base accusation—if he might use a word the Prime Minister once used against a body of Gentlemen in the House—was it to say that those on the opposite side of the House were opposed to any pensions for the police. On the contrary, they had done their best to carry out the law as at present in existence for pensions for the police—the Superannuation Act. Especially they had taken care the police should have everything they were entitled to by the law; and it was hard that they should have to stand such an accusation, when they had never made any complaint of police pensions. He did not say there were not many policemen who would rather have the present Bill, giving them an absolute right if they remained for a certain time, if their character was good, or oven, under certain circumstances, if their character was not so good, that they should have the right to a certain amount of pension, though, in the opinion of the local authority, they ought not to be entitled to such a pension as named in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary both knew perfectly well that all the police did not conduct themselves in the same way, and that it was, therefore, a valuable provision to entrust the local authorities with—namely, that of distinguishing between the good and the bad men in the force—he should rather say those who had not conducted themselves so well. There was another class of men, who, having served their country very well, might at a certain time, or on a certain occasion, disgrace themselves and the force to which they belonged. Under a Bill such as this, there was no power of dealing with such a case, except by reducing these men—that they should not have the pension they were entitled to. Take, for instance, a superintendent who, on some unfortunate occasion, after 20 years' service, disgraced himself by getting drunk. By the Bill there was nothing for it but to reduce this man to the

    1725
    ranks. But when there was the power of giving this man only a certain portion of his pension, you got rid of such men as soon as you could, giving them a far less pension than those men who served well and creditably to the end of their time. All such power would be taken from the local authorities by the Bill. But the knowledge that the pension might be reduced would not be without its influence on the men's conduct, and the lack of power to diminish a man's pension without reducing his rank might destroy that influence, because there would be more hesitation to visit a man with extreme punishment. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had a liking for local authority, and thought that, generally speaking, local authorities discharged their duties to the best of their ability. So that in these respects the right hon. Gentleman ought to have left a little more to the discretion of the local authorities in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there should be no discussion now, except of the general principles of the Bill; but the one principle that should find discussion with a good attendance of hon. Members wag that principle of placing the whole of the expenditure on the rates. On what principle was this proposed? The Government paid half the expenses of the police force, half the cost of their clothing; but when they came to the question of pensions, "No, not a farthing," said the Government, "will we pay; you have had what was necessary out of the Police Superannuation Fund, and, if not sufficient, out of the county or borough rate, and must continue to do so," though by what they had done they had admitted to the full that the Police Force was for the benefit of the whole country—an Imperial Force that should be subsidised out of the Imperial funds. This, in the Bill, was absolutely denied. On that main principle he opposed it. However, as the question of principle could not be discussed now, he hoped an opportunity for discussing it would be afforded on the Motion to go into Committee. While pensions had been paid in England, he admitted that in Scotland the interests of the police had been neglected. He hoped the second reading would be postponed to a future day, when the House would have an opportunity of fully discussing the measure.
    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it appeared to him that the principal objection of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to the Bill was that the whole burden of police superannuation was to be thrown for the first time on the county rates.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that he had not said so.
    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he had certainly understood that that was his hon. Friend's main objection to the Bill. In point of fact, however, the rates of a county were practically liable for the whole of the police superannuations at the present moment. There were many boroughs, and one or two counties, where the superannuation funds were now absolutely bankrupt, and where the whole charge fell on the rates. The Bill had been hold over for so many years that he hoped the House would, on the present occasion, give it careful consideration, so as to settle the injury done to a large body of faithful public servants, and which they had been more than patient in bearing. If they looked at the question as affecting local authorities, they ought to consider whether it would not be necessary, supposing superannuation to be done away with altogether, to largely increase the pay in order to obtain really efficient policemen; and it appeared to the Committee which had inquired into this subject that a system of deferred pay after a given term of service, combined with direct pay, was a better method of retaining efficient men in the Force than increased pay simply. He hoped the Bill would not only be read a second time now, but would become law this Session.
    MR. BARRANsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Bill, believing it would offer a strong inducement to men to enter the Police Force who were the most eminently fitted to discharge the duties of such a position. From his experience as a member of the Leeds Corporation, he was able to say that they had, from time to time, increased the pay of their police, and he had found that the more facilities they gave them for insuring annuities, the better quality of men did they get. It was of the utmost importance to have as intelligent men as possible; and whatever expenses were incurred, he was sure the public would get a quid pro quo

    1727
    for it. He believed the Police Force in Leeds was equal to that of any force in England. They had very little trouble with their men there, and they gave them every encouragement. They were not treated as mere machines; but much sympathy had been shown them, and the result had been greater efficiency. It would have been a good tiling if the provision laid down in this Bill had been made years ago.
    MR. ROUNDsaid, he could understand that the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had himself been at the Home Office, should regard the Bill as, to some extent, his own child, and should, therefore, entertain a feeling of affection towards it. But the majority of the Representatives of agricultural constituencies viewed with disfavour the disposition of the Government to increase the charges of the local ratepayers. He, therefore, appealed to the Government not to ask them to pass the Bill in its present form, but to give them some help from the Treasury towards defraying the charges which the measure would throw upon them. In the county which he represented, the police were recognized to be an efficient and exemplary body of men. But, nevertheless, objection was taken to the increased charges under that Bill. Those local burdens fell entirely on one description of property, all personal property being exempted, although the police were as much employed to protect the owners of personal property as to protect the owners of real property. In the interest of the ratepayers of the country generally, he hoped that, before the Bill was put down for Committee, ample time for full discussion of its provisions would be granted to those hon. Members who were not there that night, and who took a very deep interest in the question of local taxation.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that there was no desire on the part of the Government to deprive hon. Gentlemen opposite of any opportunity they might wish to have for the full and proper discussion of that Bill; but if the Government had failed in endeavouring that night to advance the measure a stage, which, after all, did not conclude the matter, and which did not raise the question as to the source from which the funds were to be derived, they might
    1728
    have been blamed for not being in earnest in pressing the Bill forward. It was said that the Gentlemen who had on the Paper Notices of Motion against the Bill were absent; but there were only two hon. Gentlemen who had such Notices on the Paper—namely, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), and they were both present that night. As to the general matter, after what his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said, he thought the House would take it as established that, after lie was 55 years of age, practically speaking, the policeman had done his work; and that to keep him longer in the Force was of no advantage either to him or to the public, but was really wasting the public money by paying him a considerable salary for doing work for which he was unfit. That was the whole object and aim of the Bill. In the Metropolitan Police the men were generally enlisted at about 25 years of age. Then, at 55, the men would have had about 30 years' service; and that was the extreme time they were fit for that service. What was the use, then, of keeping them after they had reached 55, and paying them 25 s., 30 s., 35 s., or 40 s. a-week? It was wisdom on the part of the Representatives of the ratepayers, and it certainly was the duty of the Representatives of the public purse, out of which half the charge for the police was defrayed, that some system should be established by which that waste could not take place. There were a good many cases in which men were kept who really ought to be superannuated. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had reminded him that he was always in favour of the localities dealing with those matters, and so he was; and he did not think there was anything in the Bill inconsistent with that view. The Bill had been carefully framed, and he had given the draftsman instructions, as he always did, never to let the words "Secretary of State" appear in the Bill if he could avoid it. He had no desire to extend the authority of the Home Office. He hated Departmental centralization. He hated the influence of London Offices, which he believed produced a great deal more harm than good in the administration, of

    1729
    the country. He thought the more they could keep the administration of those things in the country itself the better. But, when the Government itself were making a contribution to local funds, it was a clear economical principle that they should see that the money was applied to an efficient Force; and if the local authorities of a county or a borough chose, under a miserable and mistaken policy, to keep men in the police who were worn out, rendering the Force so far inefficient, the Government ought not to contribute the large sum it did in aid of local funds for their maintenance. The Government, by that Bill, was not seeking to interfere in each county with the administration of the Police Force; it. was only laying down a general rule, which he ventured to say was consistent with sound political economy—namely, not to retain men who were, to all appearance, worn out; for of those who knew anything of the question, how many could say that a policeman after the age of 55 years, and who had seen 25 years of service, was other than worn out in his feet by the number of hours spent in walking? That was the principle of the Bill. It was said the measure would increase the rates. He did not believe it would increase them at all. If a county kept its Police Force on a proper footing, and did not give 25 s. or 30 s. a-week to cripples, he believed it would not have to pay a farthing more than it paid now. With reference to the objection that had been urged that they were putting money on the rates, he wished to point out that they were not doing that, because the money was on the rates already. For example, Gloucestershire paid £1,262, another county paid £3,000 out of the rates, while the whole contribution by the counties of England amounted to £70,000. It had been stated that there was a difficulty in getting men for the Metropolitan Police Force. They had not the least difficulty in getting men for the Metropolitan Police Force. At present they had the names of 2,000 men on the books who were ready to enter that Force any day. It was the greatest security they had for the efficiency of the Force when they put the men under the cognizance that their pensions would depend on their good behaviour. The same principle was found to operate in the Civil Service, where the thing that a man most feared
    1730
    was the loss of his pension. Under these circumstances, and with the understanding that the matter was open to full discussion afterwards, he hoped the House would now economize time, and consent to the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the altered tone of the remarks which he had addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think it necessary either to oppose the second reading of the measure, or to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman in consequence of the speech he had delivered. He was prepared to agree with all that had been said as to the economy and usefulness of a system of pensions. It did not necessarily follow, however, that because they approved of a system of pensions that, therefore, they were bound to approve the particular system which the Government had brought forward in this Bill, or the source whence those pensions were to be derived. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that full opportunity would be afforded particularly for a discussion of the latter subject. There were two points, however, which he wished to refer to. He could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was no interference in the Bill with local government. There was interference with the local authorities as to the mode of granting pensions, and as to the necessity in many cases of granting pensions at all; and he must confess that, to his mind, even with the modifications which had been made, the interference was greater than it need be. They must bear in mind the fact that the duties of the police in some parts of England were different from those in other parts, and that a man who might be properly superannuated in the Metropolis or in any of our large towns would, if stationed in the rural districts, be both at that time and for many subsequent years perfectly capable of discharging his duties. Therefore, to lay down a hard-and-fast rule, under which a man not exceeding the ago of 50 years, after serving 25 years, would be entitled absolutely without any discretion on the part of the local authority to a pension, was a provision which ought not to be

    1731
    inserted in a Bill of this kind. Then, with regard to the sources from which the money was to come, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill did not impose any burden on the rates. He would admit that in many counties, where there had been a desire to act fairly towards the Police Force, the rates would not necessarily be charged under the Bill to any very great extent more than they were at present. His own impression, however, was that they would be, because a greater discretion was given to grant a pension, and the amount would probably be increased. It therefore increased the liability of the rates to be burdened; and he hoped that when they came to discuss this point better reasons would be given than had hitherto been urged why that liability should be imposed on the rates alone. There was a strong feeling prevailing in many parts of England that no increase should be placed on the rates at the present moment. He trusted that when they came to discuss the provisions of the Bill in Committee they might have some proposal placed before them which would, at least, impose on the Treasury as great a proportion of the pensions as it now bore of the maintenance of the police. If the country benefited, as it would do, from an increase in the efficiency of the Police Force, arising from a better system of pensions, he did not think it was quite reasonable not to impose any further burden, on the Treasury.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he felt bound to return his grateful thanks to the Government for having brought forward this Bill a third time, and must be allowed to express the hope that, whatever measures they might drop, they would, at least, not allow this measure to drop. It would be much better, he thought, that the Government should not bring in a Bill of this kind at all, rather than they should raise hopes and cause disappointment by bringing it forward every successive Session only to allow it to be dropped. He hoped, therefore, that, if necessary, the Government would keep the House together till Christmas to pass the Bill. This question had been before Parliament for a long time. During the late Government a Committee had inquired into the matter, and they had agreed to the principle
    1732
    of giving an indefeasible right of pension to constables after a certain number of years' service, say 25 years. The reason for that would be seen, when they remembered that constables were forced to contribute 2½ per cent of their pay to the pension fund. This matter of police superannuation was even in a more unsatisfactory state in Scotland than in England, for the 3,600 Scotch constables had, at present, no pension at all. As a consequence, Scottish constables often left the Scotch Force, and enlisted in the English Police for the sake of getting some sort of pension. He hoped the Government would press the Bill forward, so that it might pass this Session.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought the financial basis of the Bill was unsound. Every superannuation fund was actuarially unsound, for the simple reason that the number of persons in each Police Force taken separately was too small to form a secure system of insurance, and superannuation and insurance were the same thing. The Bill proposed to maintain this unsound system. The true and economical remedy was for all the funds to be thrown together, and for the Government to guarantee the loss, which, under such an arrangement, would not be very serious. He objected to the pensions being guaranteed out of the rates. He also wished to know why the whole of the burden should be placed on land alone? The police took care of a man's personal property, and not of his land; and, therefore, it was unfair to place all the burden upon land. The Government ought to be especially careful on matters of local taxation, as they had already been beaten once or twice on that question.
    SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he was not all averse to the principle of the Bill; but he had calculated that if it passed in the state in which the House now had it before it, the loss to the ratepayers in England and Scotland would be something like £200,000. He had taken the trouble to procure a Return of 10 typical counties and 10 typical boroughs, showing how the sums now rained were appropriated. His object in procuring the Returns was to ascertain whether the ratepayers would gain or lose by this transfer, and whether any fees at present paid into the

    1733
    Exchequer would be transferred to the superannuation fund. He found that in this last respect the gain was almost nil. The total fees for 10 counties and 10 boroughs were £35,000; of this amount £14,000 only was applied to the Police Superannuation Fund, and £20,000 to the county and borough rates. If this £20,000 was transferred to the Police Superannuation Fund, an equivalent must be raised from rates. If these 10 counties were typical of the 56 counties in England and Wales, the loss of the ratepayers would be £95,000; and if these 10 boroughs were typical of the 145 boroughs, the loss of the ratepayers would be £43,000. In Scotland there was no superannuation fund at present, and he reckoned that the establishment of the proposed scheme there would amount to a tax upon the ratepayers of at least £50,000 a-year. In his opinion, that would be a very great aggravation of the grievance already existing, and he did think it a very great hardship. After all, pension was only deferred pay; and if the principle that the Government should pay half the police were carried out, the Government ought to pay half the superannuation.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

    [BILL 124.] CONSIDERATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, he desired to make it clear that there should be additional places provided for holding Revision Courts and polling in County Dublin; and, therefore, he proposed to move a new clause which would effect the purpose.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving a new clause at that stage without Notice.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be proposed on the third reading.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that some trouble would be saved if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would make a statement as to the intentions of the Government. There would then be no delay. The purpose of the Bill was to secure that voters should not be deprived of their right to the franchise by reason of any imperfection in the way the Revising Barrister did his work; and the object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) clause was to secure that end.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the Government were desirous that the Bill should pass. They also concurred in the object desired by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); and in that view they thought it desirable to lighten the work of the Recorder, and provide a separate Revising Barrister.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANrose to Order, and called attention to the fact that the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill was the Question before the House. He contended that the Solicitor General for Ireland was not entitled to speak upon any other subject. ["Order!"]
    MR. HEALYasked, as a point of Order, whether the Solicitor General for Ireland was not entitled to make a statement, in order to show the Irish Members whether or not the Motion should be made?
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN, resuming, was met by loud cries of "Order!"
    MR. HEALY: Walker, Walker!
    MR. WARTONasked, was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan in Order in mentioning the name of a Member?
    MR. SPEAKERhaving called on Mr. WALKER,
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), resuming, said, he believed it would save the time of the House if he were allowed to proceed. He was not in a position to give any pledge; but he believed he might say, now that as all the memorials had been sent in the proposals of the hon. Member for Monaghan should receive careful attention from His Excellency.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he desired to move an Amendment to meet the case of the Revising Barrister, whose salary was £100 a-year, being ill, and employing a substitute at a salary of five guineas a-day. If the duties of the substitute occupied more than 20 days, where was the additional sum to come from? He would move the omission of Clause 3.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the words of the original clause had not been altered, and the hon. and learned Member's argument had been based on a misapprehension.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsupported the omission of the clause.
    Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Courtney.)
  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 168.] SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF SAINT BRIAVELS BILL.— [BILL 184.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  DEAN FOREST AND HUNDRED OF SAINT BRIAVELS BILL.— [BILL 184.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "next," in order to add the words "21st July,"—(Mr. Warton,)— instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'next' stand part of the Question."
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read a second time upon Monday 14th July.

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

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Second Reading [19th May] read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Adjourned Debate be postponed until Monday next." — (Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the time had now arrived when the Government ought to make up their mind as to whether they intended to proceed with this Bill or not. The matter was one which affected a very large number of important interests. He understood that there had been extensive negotiations between the Government and the shipowners as to what was to be done with reference to this Bill; and after the long speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in moving the second reading of the Bill, it was quite time that the mercantile community should know whether the Government really intended seriously to proceed with the measure that Session or not. The Government had announced their intention very unexpectedly of proceeding with the London Government Bill on Thursday next. That Bill was, however, in its infancy; and if the Government were determined to have one large measure this year they had better proceed with one upon which they had made some progress, and on which there had already been discussion, rather than enter into the arena with such a Bill as the London Government Bill, in regard to which they knew it was hopeless to expect to make any material progress that Session. Seeing that the Merchant Shipping Bill was a matter which affected very important interests, the Government ought seriously to make up their minds as to what they intended to do. There had been a rumour that they intended not to proceed further with the Bill; and if they had arrived at that conclusion it was time they should take the House into their confidence, and not hang up such important interests as those which were concerned. If they had made up their minds and intended

    1737
    to proceed with, it no further, the sooner it was taken off the Paper the better.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he fully recognized the anxiety of the hon. Member and of all hon. Members who were interested in shipping to know what was to be done with this Bill; but he was not in a position to announce what course the Government intended to take in the matter. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place at that moment; and he was unable to say more than this—that it would depend on the progress made with Business during the next fortnight what measures the Government would press forward. He believed it was the desire of hon. Members that this Bill should go on; and he had no wish to throw any obstacle in the way of its farther progress so long as there was a hope.
    MR. RITCHIE: Is there a hope?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that no doubt on Monday next the President of the Board of Trade would make an announcement in regard to the Bill.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, the House were placed in a somewhat extraordinary position, seeing that there was not a single Cabinet Minister upon the Treasury Bench. They had been told that another right hon. Gentleman whom he did not see in his place—the Home Secretary—proposed to proceed with the London Government Bill on Thursday; but the second reading of that Bill could not be expected to be decided in one night. The Government would find it necessary to allow three or four nights for the debate. They had now reached another very important Bill; and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, when asked to give some information in regard to it, was able to give none whatever. Surely something ought to be done to relieve the natural anxiety of the great shipping interests throughout the country as to whether the Government intended to proceed with this Bill or not. Her Majesty's Government had had a very good stroke of fortune in the course of that evening, and had been able to get through a good many Bills. He thought they ought to have shown some gratitude in return by inducing some Cabinet Minister to remain in his place — some responsible Minister of the
    1738
    Crown, who would be able to tell the House what Bills were intended to be gone on with and what were not. The Merchant Shipping Bill was one of the most important Bills which could be pressed upon the attention of the House, and he thought the House had a right to know whether the Bill was to be proceeded with or not. If the Secretary to the Treasury could not inform them the best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman to send for one of his Colleagues who was a Member of the Cabinet in order that the House might be informed whether this was a serious Bill or not—whether it was one of those questions intended to be decided in the present Session, or one of the measures which would be sacrificed in the coming 'Massacre of the Innocents."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there were many serious questions involved in the Merchant Shipping Bill. In the first place, a great number of people believed that further provision ought to be made for the protection of life at sea. On the other hand, there were persons belonging to the shipping interest who had been very violently and almost personally attacked by the President of the Board of Trade; and there was a third class of persons who were deeply interested in shipping questions generally. All these persons were entitled to know how soon the matter would be settled. If the Bill were put on the Paper, first for one day and then for another, and the Government really did not intend to proceed with it, they were inflicting a great injury on all these three classes of persons. Above all, it must be remembered that a very violent attack had been made by the President of the Board of Trade upon different individuals; and it was absolutely necessary, whatever might happen to the Bill, that the debate upon the second reading should be continued, because the persons who had had these accusations made against them must be afforded an opportunity of refuting them. He therefore hoped that on Thursday a distinct statement would be made as to the course which the Government intended to take; and if the Government declined to state what course they proposed to follow, he should feel very strongly inclined to move that the Merchant Shipping Bill be taken as the first Order on Thursday.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he had listened with surprise to the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury on the Merchant Shipping Bill; and, as the Representative of a shipping port, he desired to make one or two remarks. He had understood that the Bill was, at any rate for this Session, dead and buried. The reason he had come to that conclusion was this—the President of the Board of Trade, during the debate on the second reading, announced that he was willing to grant a Royal Commission for the consideration of certain questions which were raised in the Bill. A few nights after his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer), who had taken a foremost part in raising objections to the Bill, asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not propose to grant this Royal Commission, and, if he did, what would be brought under its purview? He had listened very carefully to what the President of the Board of Trade said on that occasion, and the next morning he consulted The Times newspaper in order to see it his impressions were borne out. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that, practically, every question which had been raised in the Bill, even including the burning question of over-insurance, ought to be referred to the Royal Commission if a Royal Commission were granted. That being so, was it not trifling with the House for the Secretary to the Treasury to come down and say that he was not sure whether the Bill was alive or dead. He ventured to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was dead — that it was dead as it ought to be; and the only course which the Government could take, if they really wanted to discuss these great questions in a proper fashion, and to enable the shipowners of the country to give an answer to the unjust allegations made against them, was to submit the whole question either to a Select Committee or to a Royal Commission.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Bill was to all intents and purposes dead; but he could quite understand why the Secretary to the Treasury did not like to take upon himself the office of undertaker and decently inter it. If the hon. Member would put the Bill down for Thursday, the President of the Board of Trade
    1740
    would probably be able to come down and take charge of the funeral obsequies himself.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not help thinking that the course taken in regard to this Bill was an extraordinary and an unusual one. They were now in the month of June.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): For a few minutes.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, they were still in the month of June, and this was a little earlier than usual for making suggestions of this kind to the Government as to their not being entitled to keep an important measure upon the Paper in order to avail themselves of every opportunity they could for passing it into law. It was said that the measure was dead. There were a great number of persons who did not wish the Bill to be killed, although, no doubt, there were many Members who did not wish it to pass, and who desired to assist in killing it. Under these circumstances, the Government were taking no unusual course in naming that day week for the consideration of the Bill, instead of taking it off the Paper. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) himself admitted that it ought not to be taken off the Paper until there had been some further discussion with regard to it, even if the Bill were not proceeded with subsequently. He, therefore, hoped that the proposal of the Government to put down the Bill for Monday would be assented to.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  MIDDLESEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS BILL.— [BILL 169.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Attorney General.)
  MIDDLESEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS BILL.— [BILL 169.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."— (Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that upon the second reading of this Bill he had asked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury if he could offer any serious justification for going forward

    1741
    with the measure; but he had failed to obtain any information on the subject to convince him that the measure was of the slightest value. Since that time he had put a Question to the hon. Gentleman, pointing out that the Land Transfer Commissioners in their Report had unanimously condemned the proposal, and had recommended that the Middlesex Registry should be abolished. When, he put that Question to his hon. Friend he was very properly told that it was an argumentative Question, and that was the only answer he got. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince) then put a Question, asking whether under the Bill any economy was effected by the Government; and to that Question his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had not been able to give a satisfactory reply. Having regard to the fact that the proposal of the Bill to make the Middlesex Registry a Government institution had been unanimously condemned by one of the most learned Commissions on the subject of Land Transfer, and also having regard to the fact that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, on being interrogated as to whether any economy would be effected by the Bill, had failed to give an affirmative answer, he was unable to see why the Bill should be recommended to the House. He imagined that the only reason why Her Majesty's Government intended to pass this Bill was that they might shovel the Middlesex Registry of Deeds into the Office of the Land Registry in Lincoln's Inn Fields. Surely it was a very mischievous policy to retain a useless institution simply because they had in one Office a Registry of Deeds and in some other Office a Registry of Titles. Her Majesty's Government did not propose in this Bill to carry out any reform whatever, either in the direction of economy or as to the mode of registering deeds. On the contrary, the Middlesex Registry had been condemned by an important Commission, and, during the interval which had elapsed since, it had grown worse instead of better. The decision of the Commission as to the mode of registering deeds in this Court tended to show that it was absolutely worse than useless, because it put persons to a very large and unnecessary expense. The Secretary to the Treasury
    1742
    had assigned no reason for pressing the Bill forward; and he imagined that if his hon. Friend had really any reason to assign he would have stated what it was upon the second reading. Failing any satisfactory explanation tending to show that the passing of the Bill would be useful in point of economy, or in reference to the Public Service, he should feel compelled to move the adjournment of the debate, or to oppose the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill.
    MR. WARTON: Will the hon. Member move something?
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, having taken some interest in the question, he would make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government as to the mode of dealing with the Bill. He was not opposed to the Bill as it stood; but he wished to see the measure carried further, and to have a Registry of Deeds for the county of Middlesex placed in the same position as the Registry which was proposed for the county of York—namely, a real practical Registry, not only for the purpose of deeds, but for the purpose of titles. He had taken a somewhat active part on the Committee which had been sitting upon the Yorkshire Bill, and he thought the Bill which had now come out of that Committee would be a working measure, that would have a real and practical effect upon the landed property of that county. He did not see why this Bill should not be made equally efficient with that which was already proposed for the county of York. He should like to see Middlesex put on the same footing and enjoying the same advantages in regard to the registration of deeds as were afforded to the county of York by the Bill now before the House. There was another Bill extending the registration in Middlesex, which had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard). He believed that his (Mr. Gregory's) name was at the back of that Bill. At all events, he was prepared to support it, and it certainly went very much beyond the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. What he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman was this—that both Bills should be referred to a Select Committee to be dealt with in the same manner as the Yorkshire Bill. That Committee would take

    1743
    the whole subject into consideration, and would introduce such Amendments into the Bill as would provide an efficient registration, dealing not only with titles, but with every question of detail which could only be properly settled by a Committee upstairs. Nor did he think the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee would involve very much delay. The Yorkshire Bill only took up three or four Sittings of the Committee, who went through the provisions of the measure with a considerable amount of care and with great deliberation. He thought the Government could easily find Members who would devote a few days to the consideration of questions of this kind, and who would approach the subject with an earnest desire to deal with it properly and efficiently. He did not know whether his services would be of any value to the Government; but such as they were he would readily place them at their disposal for the purposes of such an inquiry as that which he suggested. He hoped the Government would entertain the suggestion he had thrown out, because he believed its adoption would really render the Bill an efficient measure, and one that would be of great benefit to all parties interested in the transfer of land in the county of Middlesex.
    MR. INCEsaid, that all he asked of the Secretary to the Treasury was to allow the debate to stand adjourned. It appeared to him that the Bill, as it stood, was utterly useless. Either the Middlesex Registry was a good institution or it was a bad one. Either it worked well or it did not. If it worked well, then why not leave it entirely alone? If it worked badly, they would do no good by simply transferring it to "another place." He could not help suspecting that at the bottom of this Bill there was something else. Everybody knew that the Land Registry in Lincoln's Inn Fields had been, more or less, impracticable, and that the people who were employed in the Office there had little or nothing to do. It seemed to him that the object of this Bill was to provide them with something to do, in order to show some reason for retaining their services; but he hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with the Bill simply for that object. He believed himself that the system carried
    1744
    on in the Middlesex Registry at the present moment was carried on very efficiently by the gentlemen connected with the Office. Since the Bill had been before the House he had made it his duty to inquire, and he found that there was no cause of complaint as to the manner in which the business was conducted. On the other hand, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the system of registration was itself capable of great improvement; and he thought the House ought to take advantage of this Bill and the Yorkshire Bill being now before the House, either for referring them to a Select Committee and dealing with them, in the same way, or, at any rate, for making the Middlesex Registry as efficient as possible.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not at all wedded to any particular manner of proceeding with the consideration of the subject; and the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was undoubtedly one which deserved attention, especially if the hon. Member would give the House the benefit of his very valuable assistance upon any Select Committee that might be appointed to consider the subject. There was no necessity for adopting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince) and adjourn the debate. He would withdraw the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair, and would move instead—"That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREremarked, that this Middlesex registration constituted one of the greatest humbugs that existed in the country. It simply existed for the benefit of lawyers and nothing more. It was objectionable whether in regard to the registry of titles or the registry of mortgages. No doubt, a lawyer, when anybody bought a piece of land in Middlesex, in order that he might get a fee for himself, sent some person or other to inquire whether anybody had registered a mortgage, and in that way put his client to unnecessary expense. The whole thing was a perfect farce, and the whole object of the present Bill was to perpetuate a farce, and to secure

    1745
    compensation to certain persons who had very little work to do, and to others who had good salaries and no work at all. He would ask the House to look at the 7th clause of the Bill, whore it was provided that certain persons, who were connected with the Middlesex Registry Office, on the passing of the Act should be entitled to compensation. The present Registrar was the son of a Lord Chancellor, and he had observed that Lord Chancellors, more than any other persons in this country, seemed inclined to job. They were constantly looking up some member of their family and giving him a fat sinecure. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh!" but what were the facts of the case? He believed that Lord Chancellor Truro was a very excellent Chancellor, and he was also an excellent father. Lord Truro had a son, and he put that son into the Middlesex Registry Office, where he had received in fees for a considerable number of years something like £5,000 per annum; and what for? For doing absolutely nothing. Indeed, he suspected the noble Lord was never inside the Office in his life; but that he employed some sort of deputy to do the work. Nevertheless, he had received from the Office a net income of £5,000 a-year. If the Government would make an alteration, they should put an end to the Registration Office altogether, and not allow this money to be paid. Was it a reasonable thing to say that Lord Truro should have received £5,000 a-year for a considerable number of years for doing nothing? Surely it was not the mission of the House of Commons to provide this large outdoor relief for pauper Peers. He could not say whether Lord Truro was a pauper; but, at any rate, the House ought to take this opportunity of declaring that no more money should be given to Lord Truro in this way. Nevertheless, there was a positive clause inserted in the Bill—the 7th clause—which provided that because Lord Truro had received £5,000 a-year for 16 or 17 years, he was, therefore, to receive a similar annual grant for the rest of his life if they did away with the Office. The proposal was simply one for retaining the salary of Lord Truro, who was to be allowed to continue to eat into the Treasury to the extent of £5,000 a-year. What was the use of putting the country, at a General Election, to the trouble
    1746
    of returning people who called themselves Liberals and Radicals, when they wore found persistently perpetrating these jobs. Politically bad as right hon. Gentlemen opposite were, he was certainly of opinion that right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House were just as politically bad as the Opposition so far as the expenditure of the public money was concerned. He should certainly like someone on the Treasury Bench to get up and explain why Lord Truro was to have £5,000 a-year for the rest of his life. If no satisfactory explanation was afforded—and he did not think it possible to give one—he should oppose this Bill, which he regarded as a simple job, in every stage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the only Motion before the House was that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. His hon. Friend had wasted a good deal of indignation and abuse upon the Treasury Bench, because, as a matter of fact, the real effect of the clause to which his hon. Friend had referred would be to reduce the emoluments of Lord Truro by one-half.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was not proposed that the noble Lord should receive half of the fees.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked that the result of rejecting the Bill would be to give Lord Truro the whole of the sum he was at present receiving.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there was a conflict of opinion between the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the Attorney General as to the effect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Northampton contended that it would give Lord Truro his full income, whereas the Attorney General said it would only give him one-half. After what had been said by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) he hoped, if the Bill went before a Select Committee, they would have power to consider the possibility of creating a Registry of Titles for the county of Middlesex; and he trusted that the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would be referred to the same Committee.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he could scarcely have believed that the Secretary to the Treasury could have

    1747
    been challenged to get up in his place and state one single reason why this Bill, which was a Government measure, should receive the sanction of the House, either on the ground of economy or of advantage to the Public Service, without being able to make a response. His hon. Friend had been challenged both by himself (Mr. Arnold), and by the hon. and learned Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince); but he had maintained a complete silence. He thought it was discreditable for the Government to attempt to pass measures in this way. If the Bill was really wanted, his hon. Friend ought to explain the reasons for it; and, if not, it ought to be rejected by the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 33: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 144.)

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL. 207.]
  (Mr. Mundella.)
  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL. 207.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEexpressed a hope that the measure would be postponed, on the ground that it had been sprung upon the House that night by surprise. He trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in getting the Speaker out of the Chair, he would give some promise that the provisions of the Bill would not be discussed at a late hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the Bill was of great interest to medical men throughout the country, and also that there was strong opposition to some of the details of it. He therefore hoped that the consideration of the clauses would not be allowed to come on, except at such a time as would allow of the discussion being reported in the newspapers.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANconcurred with the hon. Member that the Bill had been sprung upon the House—as almost every Bill had been in the course of the evening—entirely by surprise. The best proof he could give of that was that hon. Gentlemen who were most interested in the Bill with regard
    1748
    to Ireland were absent. For instance, the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who were Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket), who were seriously interested in the Bill, inasmuch as that University would be greatly affected by it, and both of whom had placed Amendments upon the Paper, were absent. The hon. Member for Carlow, who also entertained very strong opinions upon the Bill, was not in his place; and the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), who was himself a medical gentleman, was another absentee.
    DR. LYONSintimated that he was present.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was glad to see the hon. Member present; but there were a great number of Irish Members who were not in their places, but who certainly would have been present if they had had the slightest idea that the measure was intended to be brought on. Many hon. Gentlemen would have put down Amendments if they had imagined the Bill was coming on. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill shook his head; but he might inform the right hon. Gentleman that he himself had a number of Amendments to put down; but, knowing that the Vote of Censure was to come on, he had not thought it of the least use to put those Amendments down. Many Amendments had been carefully considered, and would be placed upon the Paper; and it was only right that hon. Members should have an opportunity of seeing them before the clauses came on for discussion. The Government would certainly not have been able to reach the Bill in the ordinary course of events, and the result of the collapse of the Vote of Censure was that they had been engaged all the evening in running through the Orders. He was sorry that Bills should have been run through the House without any discussion at all, and that they should have been forced, as it were, down the throats of the House by four or five of the subordinate Members of the Government sitting on the Front Bench, who, sic volo sic jubeo, had thrust Order after Order down the throats of hon. Members. They had now disposed of four or five Orders, although, at the early part of the Sitting, it was not supposed that there

    1749
    would be the slightest chance of getting rid of the ordinary Business, or even of reaching them. In the ordinary conduct of Parliamentary work, the Government knew very well that they could not have got this measure on, and the measure itself was of such importance that he did not think it should be advanced a stage under such circumstances. He knew very well that all the right hon. Gentleman wanted was to move the Speaker out of the Chair, and that he did not propose to go further that night; but that simply meant that he would be able to take up the measure on any subsequent day up to the end of July at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, when hon. Members from Ireland and Scotland were away, and when the Government could fill up the Benches with their own immediate supporters and force any Bill they liked through the House. He did not himself think that hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench could feel proud of the way they were endeavouring to push forward a measure like this. He was quite sure that if they were proud of the way in which the Business had been conducted that night, the rest of the House were not; and when the public knew what had taken place, they would not be very proud of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. In order to show that the House had had enough of this system of shoving Bills through without discussion, simply by making use of the Government majority, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Colonel King-Harman.)
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that when the Prime Minister, at the early part of the evening, gave a list of the number of Bills it was proposed to reach that night, he (Mr. Mundella) himself had stated that he had no intention of making progress with this Bill beyond moving the Speaker out of the Chair. That he should have done, and intended to do under any circumstances, totally irrespective of what had happened in the early part of the evening. He had not the least intention of taking the House by surprise. There had been no lack of debate on the second reading of the Bill. ["Oh!"] He was astonished to hear that cry, because, on two occasions,
    1750
    it had already been under discussion; on the first occasion for two hours, and again on Friday evening, when it was debated exhaustively, and the debate was not completed until 11 o'clock. It, therefore, could not be said that the debate on the second reading had not worn itself out. All he proposed to do now was to move the Speaker out of the Chair. He should then give ample time for hon. Members to put down Amendments, and he would promise the House that the Bill should not be brought on at an unreasonable hour, but at an hour when it could be fairly discussed.
    MR. BUCHANANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that, in the previous debate, several speeches were made and numerous Amendments suggested, especially by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). He thought the Vice President of the Council at that time made a promise to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) that, on the Motion for going into Committee, an ample opportunity should be given for discussing the Bill. [Cries of "Go on now!"] One sufficient reason why he could not do so was that he would be out of Order. All he wished was to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman himself as to what Amendments he was willing, on behalf of the Government, to adopt. He should like to have that assurance before they got the Speaker out of the Chair.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) to recollect the conditions under which the Vice President of the Council made the promise to him (Sir Lyon Playfair), as to affording an opportunity for discussion on the Motion for going into Committee. It was upon the first debate on the second reading, and the promise was conditional upon the debate being concluded on that day. It did not conclude on that day, however, but came on again on Thursday, when the Bill was discussed again. Therefore, the motive of the Government in offering a discussion on the Motion for going into Committee had already gone. He understood his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council to say that he did not intend to go on with the Committee until next week, so that there would be ample time for putting down Amendments. He was

    1751
    quite ready to accept the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that Members would not be taken by surprise, but f that ample time would be given for putting down Amendments, and that some time would elapse before the House would be called upon to discuss them.
    MR. MACARTNEYwished to point out the position they would be in if the proposal now made were accepted by the House. It would only be possible, after the House had gone into Committee, for hon. Members to discuss the particular clause which was proposed to them; because, according to the strict Rules of the House, they could not go through the general proposals of the Bill. Now, this was a most important Bill. Its object was to regulate the future status and education of the Medical Profession, and to make it uniform throughout the Three Kingdoms. If the Medical Profession were once made to believe that the matter had not been fairly discussed in the House it would create great discontent throughout the country. It was patent to everyone present that a great number of persons who were interested in the measure could not have expected it to be reached. It had come on by surprise, and the Government were really endeavouring to steal a march upon the House by making a proposal of this kind. He did not think the Government were entitled to do anything of the kind; and, under the circumstances, it would be much more satisfactory, and would lead to the more calm and dispassionate consideration of the clauses of the Bill hereafter in Committee, if a discussion were allowed to take place on going into Committee.
    MR. WARTONsaid, with regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) as to the promise made by the Vice President of the Committee of Council, whatever promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman, it ought not to affect the course pursued by the House. Personally, he (Mr. Warton) protested against any such promise being made at all, because the House had an absolute right to discuss every Bill on the Motion for going into Committee. He, therefore, did not want a matter to be put as a favour with regard to which they had a positive right.
    1752
    No doubt Ministers thought they were conferring a great favour upon the House, and some of them seemed to think that the House had no rights at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had moved the Speaker out of the Chair; but the House had a right to a full discussion, not only upon the second reading of the Bill, but also upon the Motion for going into Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is going away from the Question, which is that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEwished to say a word in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), and from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). His hon. Friend said they had been promised a full opportunity of discussing the measure on the Motion for going into Committee; but his right hon. Friend said that promise had fallen to the ground, because the debate upon the second reading had extended into a second day. But it must be remembered that on that second day it was only in consequence of the collapse of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill that the Medical Bill was brought on, and that it came on when Members wore unprepared for it. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) would press his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) should certainly support him.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) was justified in moving the adjournment of the debate, and for this reason—it was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to tell them on that occasion that he would not ask them to go further that night than to get the Speaker out of the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would not bring forward the clauses of the Bill in Committee, except at a reasonable hour. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not bring the Bill forward after 10 o'clock at night he could understand his promise; but a simple promise only to bring it forward at a reasonable hour was not suffi-

    1753
    cient, according to his idea, of affording sufficient time for the discussion of a Bill about which, upon the details, there was ample room for a considerable amount of difference of opinion. There were a great number of Members from Ireland who were interested in the Bill, and also a great number of Members from Scotland, and, he presumed, from England too. For that reason he thought it was a Bill of sufficient importance to be made a first Order. The Bill was one which attracted the attention, not only of the rising generation of doctors, but also of medical men who were actually engaged in medical work, and the Colleges which had been endowed for the purpose of providing medical education. The vested interests of the Professors were also largely involved in the question; and he thought hon. Members ought to use every exertion in order to secure the proper discussion of the Bill. It certainly was a measure which would require a great deal more attention than the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council seemed inclined to devote to it. It ought to be one of the great measures of the Session. Indeed, he was inclined to think that if it were passed into law, which he presumed it would be, it would be the most important of the measures which would be passed that Session. It was, therefore, only reasonable that sufficient time should be given to the House for the consideration of the details of the Bill, and that it should not be brought forward at a time when proper discussion would be out of the question.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that this was the most important Bill the Government had brought forward that Session. It was so important and valuable a measure that it certainly ought not to be rushed through the House after midnight. It was one of the Bills which ought to have the most prominent place on the Paper, and he would suggest to the Vice President of the Council that he should make arrangements with his Colleagues to have it put down on Thursday next instead of the London Government Bill. It was a Bill which dealt with the interests of the existing generation in a much more important manner than the London Government Bill was ever likely
    1754
    to do. Many hon. Members were anxious to take part in the debate upon the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill; and it was unfair to them, to the House, and to the Bill itself to make progress with the Bill in the way now proposed. He, therefore, hoped his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) would press the Motion for Adjournment to a Division.
    DR. LYONSappealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to name some day for the Committee that should be at a little distance off, so that ample time might be given to the numerous persons connected with the great Medical Corporations who desired to have a discussion [upon a question so vitally affecting their personal interests. Many of these Corporations had written to him, expressing their belief that their interests were about to be compromised in a very serious way. The propositions which were made the other day by his right hon. Friend near him the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had met with very general acceptance; and hopes were entertained that, if they were adopted, the measure would not have the destructive tendency, in regard to the Medical Corporations, which was now feared. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the, representations which had been made to him.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He thought it was desirable that the hon. Member should address himself to the Chair, instead of to the Vice President of the Council, and that he should not deliver his remarks in a conversational tone which the general body of hon. Members were unable to hear.
    DR. LYONSsaid, the principal object with which he had risen was to request the Vice President of the Council to give ample Notice to the House before proceeding to consider the details of the Bill in Committee; and, further, to suggest that if it was found necessary to take a second night for the Committee, he would take it upon the next day, for this important reason. A great number of persons were coming over from various parts of Scotland and Ireland, in order to watch the discussion; and he knew, as a fact, that a large number of persons representing Medical

    1755
    Corporations would, desire to be present. They were all men of high influence and importance in connection with their Profession; and there were, as the House could see, special reasons why they should know how long they were likely to be detained here. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would bear that circumstance in mind, and would give the House some hope that the proceedings in Committee would be continued from day to day.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had no light to speak again, except by the leave of the House; but perhaps he might be permitted to say that he had not the least intention of taking the Bill in Committee for at least a week to come. He would put it down for that day week, not with the intention of taking it then, but with a view of fixing a day when it would be taken, because it was impossible for any Member of the Government off-hand to fix the precise time when a Bill might be taken in Committee. He would promise to bring it on at some reasonable hour after next Monday week.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that, considering the nature of the Bill, and the vast importance of the principles it involved, they would hardly lie justified in allowing the House to go into Committee next week, and for this reason—that the Bill which passed the House would not be the Bill now before it, but the Bill very greatly amended. Many hon. Members were anxious to put down Amendments; and his own opinion was that it was desirable to have a complete discussion on going into Committee, and before considering the Amendments. The Bill was of considerable importance to all medical men, and it was highly desirable that before going into Committee they should have before them the Amendments which it was proposed to introduce. For these reasons he would give his support to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked that he did not often find himself supporting the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman); but if the hon. and gallant Member went to a Division, he should be most happy to support the Motion for Adjournment. Whether the hon. and gallant Member went to a Division or not, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and his
    1756
    hon. Friends around him were determined that a Division should be taken on the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council certainly appeared to think that Members of Parliament were very innocent when he supposed they did not understand the extraordinary effect which the acceptance of the proposal to go into Committee would have. Everybody knew that the moment the Speaker was got out of the Chair the time for discussion on the part of the House would be practically gone. What would take place would be this—that the right hon. Gentleman would be at liberty to go on with the Bill in Committee on any day or at any hour of the night he might choose. Therefore, the House were asked by the right hon. Gentleman to surrender their control over the Bill. He must say that he thought, to use no harsher word, that it required a considerable amount of courage on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, or of any Member of the Government, to propose to go forward with any Bill of importance that day. It was perfectly notorious that not a single Bill on the whole list of 26 Government Orders was really down for discussion. No Member, even with the most audacious imagination, could, at the commencement of the evening, have contemplated a discussion on any one of them. He quite coincided with the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in regard to the Bill which they were now asked to discuss at that hour of the night. He thought it was, with the exception of the Bill which had now passed a way from that House to "another place," the most important Bill of the Session which the Government had any chance of passing into law. In the course of three or four days they would be told that it would be necessary to abandon a number of Government measures; but this would not be included among thorn. Nevertheless, it was a Bill in regard to which hon. Members from Scotland and Ireland were justified in demanding a complete discussion at a proper time of the evening, and after due and fair Notice. What would have been said if a course like this had been proposed to be taken in regard to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill which dealt with the

    1757
    interests of a large trade and community? What would have been said if a proposition of this sort in regard to that Bill had been sprung upon the House by surprise? It would have been resisted in the most strenuous manner. But here was a Bill which absolutely revolutionized the whole system of conferring medical degrees.
    MR. SPEAKERrose—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he quite understood the object with which the right hon. Gentleman had risen. He was afraid that he was travelling somewhat beyond the Question before the House; but he did not intend to enter into the general merits of the question. He was arguing in favour of the adjournment of the debate on account of the fact that a large number of persons in whose welfare they were interested had not received due Notice that the Bill was intended to be brought on that night, and were, therefore, not there in order to organize an opposition to the measure, or, at any rate, to take steps to secure the amendment of some of its provisions. If it had been anticipated that the Bill would have come on for discussion, he imagined that the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) would have had influential deputations from the important Medical Corporations of Dublin waiting upon him in the Lobby to advise with him; and he was also sure that the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) and the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would have had their medical forces organized outside, in order to bring pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council in securing the amendment of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought the facts he had put forward, in conjunction with those which had been brought forward by other hon. Members, established an unanswerable case against the Bill being further proceeded with that night. He would only add that he and his hon. Friends around him were determined, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman persisting in his present irrational course, to offer the Bill all the legitimate opposition the Rules of the House would permit him to do.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he felt bound to support the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate. He exceedingly
    1758
    disliked the idea of passing any stage of an important Bill by what might appear to be taking the House by surprise. After the unexpected collapse of the Vote of Censure that evening the House had become so disorganized that no one expected any important Bill would be likely to be brought on. It was impossible, he thought, to proceed with the discussion of the Medical Bill, especially at so unreasonable an hour (12.30).
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he felt bound to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), and he did so because he was of opinion that it was not at all fair to those Gentlemen who were deeply interested in the provisions of the Bill, and who formed a very numerous class, that it should be sprung upon the House unexpectedly at that hour of the night. He certainly did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was acting in regard to the measure in a manner which could be regarded as satisfactory by those hon. Members who were interested in the details of the Bill, many of whom were at that moment absent from the House under the impression that there was no prospect of the measure being brought on. The Government would be setting an extremely bad precedent if they insisted upon the House entering upon so important a Bill at that late hour of the night; and he did not think hon. Members would be doing their duty if they did not rise in their places to protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in attempting to force the House under the circumstances to go into Committee upon the Bill. Not only was it the fact that Members of the House generally who were interested in the measure were absent, but many Members of the Irish Party, to which he had the honour to belong, were absent who, from the personal interest they took in the provisions of the Bill, would assuredly have been in their places, if they could have had the slightest idea that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to force the Bill on. Indeed, he could name one hon. Member who was interested in a special degree in the details of the Bill who was not in his place, owing to the unexpected manner in which the Orders of the Day had been reached. He therefore

    1759
    joined in the general appeal which had been made to the Government not to go further with the measure that night; but to consent to the Motion of the hon, and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman). He protested against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to force the measure on the House. The next thing they would have, he supposed, would be a proposal to force on the House at a late hour of night some measure of vast importance to Ireland. Such a thing, at any rate, might be expected if the Government went on in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the subject before the House, which is a Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he was about to show why he supported the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman). He supported it because he did not at all believe in the principle which had actuated the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to bring the Bill into Committee at that time of night. Though many hon. Members might not be interested in the measure, yet they knew that if they allowed an important Bill to get into Committee at such an hour a precedent would be set, and the time might come when some important measure relating to Ireland would be brought in and forced on the attention of Parliament by some Minister who took notice of the fact that there were not many Irish Members in their places. It was for that reason that he had occupied the time of the House in protesting against the action of the Government in attempting to force this most important measure into Committee now, and in endeavouring to deal in a manner that was not satisfactory or fair with so many Gentlemen who were deeply interested in the Bill, but were not now in their places. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had no wish to interfere unduly with the Business of the House; but he was most anxious that the Rules should be observed with a view to the regular progress of Business through the House, as it used to be formerly conducted. He,
    1760
    in common with a certain number of Members, had not the good fortune to be present during the short debates which had occurred upon the principle of the Bill. He, as the House knew, entertained what he considered a due deference for the House of Lords; but, at the same time, he thought it was asking the House too much to ask them to accept the principle of a Bill merely because it had passed the House of Lords. There had been protests from Scotchmen and Irishmen. Well, he was a Member representing a district in the centre of England. He was fully conscious, no one more so, of the enormous social importance of the Medical Profession. he believed there was no Profession which exorcised so important a social influence; and he, therefore, hoped the Government would allow the House, under the circumstances, to adjourn the debate, with a view to the full observance of their Rules, by securing to themselves an opportunity of questioning the principle of the Bill before being asked to go into Committee upon it.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would see that the demand for the postponement of the debate was not a very unreasonable one. On reflection, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, during the past few days, the Bill had made more progress than the Government had expected. There was a strong feeling, indeed, that the measure had been brought on unexpectedly, and to the surprise of the House. They all remembered that, according to the calculations of the majority of hon. Members in the House, a long debate was expected on the third reading of the Representation of the People Bill. That debate, however, suddenly fell through, and afforded the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council an opportunity to take up the discussion on this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider the temper in which he had been met by hon. Members on all sides of the House—hon. Members who wished to amend and improve the Bill — he would see that considerable change in the expressions of opinion, at any rate, had taken place since Thursday evening. On Thursday, all who took part in the discussion were anxious to further the Bill a stage, on the under-

    1761
    standing that due time would be given to amend it, and for consultation with the different Bodies in the country, who were deeply interested in the principles contained in the Bill. He (Mr. Harrington) was sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit himself when he came down to the House that evening he had no expectation that he would be able to advance the Bill one stage. It was not unreasonable, considering that they had had a fair discussion on Thursday, that hon. Members differing widely from the Government with regard to some of the details of the Bill should desire to have further time for consideration before the next stage was taken. Certainly there was no desire on the part of these Gentlemen, or on the part of those they represented, to obstruct or delay the progress of the Bill in any undue manner. Considering all these circumstances, and the peculiar position they were placed in that evening through having the Bill sprung upon them by surprise, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would, on reflection, regard the demand now made for the adjournment of the debate an unreasonable one. Reference had been made to the absence of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Conner); and he must confess that until he (Mr. Harrington) had heard that hon. Gentleman's speech on Thursday, he had not given much attention to the principles of the Bill. It had struck him then, however, that the hon. Member had convinced the House that he would be able to give a very valuable contribution to the discussion of the Bill on the present stage. Taking into consideration the views which the hon. Member had put forward, and the spirit in which he had met the right hon. Gentleman, even if there were no other matter to be taken into account, the right hon. Gentleman might well see that there was good ground for an adjournment. An hon. Member like the Member for Queen's County, who showed that he had studied the principles of the Bill, and who showed that he was determined to contribute largely to the improvement of the measure in Committee, had a right to expect some consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It was not reasonable to press the present stage on that day.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 87: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought he was now justified in moving the adjournment of the House. The old theory always was, that if there was a substantial minority in favour of adjournment the Government should give way. If the Government did not wish to deprive the House of the advantage of the half-past 12 Rule, they should not persist in taking the Committee stage of a Bill at that hour. At the same time, the minority had certain rights; and as no solid argument had been offered on the part of the majority, he thought he was justified in moving, as he now did, that the House do now adjourn.
    MR. MOLLOYseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn." — (Mr. Biggar.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 86: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 146.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MACARTNEYmoved that the debate be now adjourned.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." ——(Mr. Macartney.)
    MR. MUNDELLAassured the House that he had no desire to take any undue advantage. In asking that the Speaker should now leave the Chair, he was only asking what it was originally intended to ask. All he wished to obtain was the removal of the block against the Bill, and surely that was not an extravagant wish. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must admit that nothing could be more ample or exhaustive than the debate which took place on the second reading. In order to assure the House that he would not take them by surprise, he had already engaged that the Committee stage should not come on for at least a week, so that ample time would be given in which Amendments could be placed on the Paper. He would go further, and say that the Committee stage should not come on later than 11 o'clock at night,

    1763
    so that it should not be taken at the end of a late Sitting. He was persuaded he had done all he possibly could, and all he ought to do, to satisfy hon. Members. If the House would assent to the present Motion, he would immediately move to report Progress. He had already received a Scotch deputation in respect of the Bill, and to-morrow he was to receive a deputation of the constituents of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). He would take care that everybody interested in the Bill should receive proper consideration; but now that they had reached the 30th of June they could not go on wasting nights.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that the medical portion of his constituents would not be with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) to-morrow. They wrote to him a few days ago to know when the Bill was likely to come on. He, of course, concluded that to-day, tomorrow, and probably Wednesday would be occupied by the debate on the Vote of Censure; therefore, he told his correspondents not to waste their time and abandon their professional pursuits by coming over to-morrow. Only that day he had received a letter from one of the medical gentlemen concerned, asking that he and his colleagues should have ample notice of the Bill being brought forward. How could he (Colonel King-Harman) give ample notice when the Bill was brought on so unexpectedly, and at such a time of night? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had said that there was an exhaustive discussion on the second reading. As a matter of fact, he (Colonel King-Harman) curtailed his remarks on the second reading, because he had no wish whatever to talk out the Bill; but he thought that the future stages would be taken at a reasonable time, and when everybody could be present. What was the state of the Front Opposition Bench? ["Hear, hear!"] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cried "hear, hear!" It seemed to him that those right hon. Gentlemen knew very well that the proceedings that had taken place that day would cause the Opposition Benches to be empty. The cheers which had just been given were the best proof that some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the debate on the Vote of Censure would
    1764
    not go on. [Mr. WARTON: It was all arranged.] He would not go as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought they had a right to complain of the way in which it had been attempted that night to hurry this and other Bills through the House.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he could not pretend to imitate the fire and fury of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman.). All he wished to do was to appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macartney) to withdraw his Motion and allow the Bill to proceed. The House had had fair and ample time for the discussion of the Bill. To adapt their business to the convenience of Members who did not happen to be present on certain occasions would be a rather curious attitude to assume. Such a proceeding would bring the work of the House to a speedy collapse. He was persuaded that the Medical Profession of the Three Kingdoms were satisfied with the discussion which had already taken place. ["No!"] He did not speak without special knowledge of the subject. The Medical Profession were looking forward with considerable interest to the Committee stage of the Bill; because they were aware that many Amendments would be proposed which would tend to improve the Bill and make it acceptable to them. He protested against the unreasonable attitude which had been taken up towards the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, who had told them in the most straight-forward manner that he had not the slightest intention of taking the Bill at an unsuitable time; but that, on the contrary, his desire was to afford to hon. Members ample time to consult their constituents. He (Dr. Farquharson) hoped they would be permitted to carry the Bill up to the Committee stage that night.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it was rather unusual, for a Minister to expect to make progress with the 13th Order of the Day. Of course, it was very proper that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) should be as plausible as he could; but, at the same time, he should endeavour to act in a manner which would not outrage the intelligence of his hearers. Seeing that when the House met at 4 o'clock there was not the slightest probability of this Order being reached, the Government ought certainly to give way.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) made a very fair offer, when he said he would not bring the Bill on after 11 o'clock at night. Considering that they had now reached the 1st of July, and that the Government had a great deal of business which must occupy considerable time in the transaction, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was very fair and reasonable. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) suggested to his hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney) that he might well allow this stage of the Bill to be taken.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORcalled the attention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macartney) to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor (Mr. R. N. Fowler), who invited him to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, was one of the Members who had given no support to any of the previous Motions for Adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman had voted consistently with the Government in favour of the policy of rushing this important Bill through the House at a time when no one could possibly expect it to come on. He would be curious to observe whether the same moderate temper would be displayed by the Lord Mayor when another important Government measure came before the House, especially if that measure should come on on a day on which it was not expected, and at an hour when it could not undergo anything like rational or proper consideration. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Farquharson), he would like to ask what means the hon. Member had of discovering that the Medical Profession in the country generally were of opinion that the Bill had been sufficiently discussed? He invited the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that in all the Divisions in favour of adjourning the present stage of the Bill the Members who represented constituencies where doctors largely abounded had gone into the Lobby with the Members who were in favour of postponement. The Vice President of the Council had that night reached a climax he should not have expected the right hon. Gentleman to reach in reference to a Bill in progress. For what had he done? It was almost unprecedented to find a Minister resisting three Motions for Ad-
    1766
    journment, backed up by considerable minorities, especially when those minorities were made up of Members of all sections of the House, including several hon. Gentlemen representing Liberal constituencies, and who were consistent supporters of the Government in season and out of season. The right hon. Gentleman was treating the House with scant courtesy in pursuing this course. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose as a compromise? He promised not to bring on this Bill after 11 o'clock at night, and, in a moment of candour, he said what he wished to do was to get rid of this blocking system. Exactly; he wished to remove from this Bill the safeguard which was considered necessary by those who wished to see it properly managed, and to have their Amendments duly and adequately considered. He thought that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and his attempt to ride rough-shod over two-thirds of the House, was a confession which ought to make Members persevere in seeing that this Bill was brought on after due Notice, and when those who wished to have it amended would be able to do so. He hoped the hon. Member would rise superior to even the blandishments of the Lord Mayor, and proceed to a Division.
    MR. HARRINGTONwished to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought he was improving the prospects of the Bill by this proceeding? Some hon. Members had displayed hostility to the Bill which, a few days ago, they were not inclined to display when the right hon. Gentleman took them into his confidence and was more conciliatory. There was another matter the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider. He had to deal not only with Members who were now present, but with a large number who were absent that night, and who, when they found that the Bill had been taken in their absence, would be disposed to keep it a pretty long time under discussion. Considering the very calm manner in which this discussion proceeded a few evenings ago, and the desire that was shown on all sides to give it fair play, he thought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he was advancing the interests of the Bill by this action. He had proclaimed it as his

    1767
    desire to remove the Bill beyond the control of those who wished to delay its fair discussion. He thought they were entitled to pin the right hon. Gentleman to that statement; but he believed that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would see that that statement was by no means calculated to win the favour of Members who were now absent. The best attitude the right hon. Gentleman could assume with regard to the Bill, if he really wished to facilitate its progress, would be, not to spring a surprise of this kind upon Members who were now absent, but to give them a fair opportunity of consulting those who were deeply interested in the Bill. As the other stage of the Bill was taken at such a time that the discussion upon it was not reported, he thought the House was not making an unreasonable demand in asking the right hon. Gentleman not to press it now. What the right hon. Gentleman had said was all very well, and he had no doubt as to the bona fides of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was not unreasonable to ask that a week's consideration should be allowed before the Bill was again taken. The right hon. Gentleman would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill, and disarm the opposition of hon. Members, by giving them that fair and free discussion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 75: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 29: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 148.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 231.]
  (Colonel Colthurst, Mr. Findlater, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Deasy, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Shaw.)
  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 231.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Preamble be postponed."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no wish to oppose the Bill; but he should certainly like to know what the object of it was. He had never seen it, and did not know whether, as a matter of fact, it had been printed.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTstated that the Bill had been printed and in the hands of Members for some days.
    MR. MACARTNEYasked if any statement had been made to the House in explanation of what the provisions of the Bill were?
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the Bill was of a very simple nature. It was designed to remedy an error which had been committed in consequence of taking the opinion of a learned counsel in regard to five or six tramways in the county of Cork. The presentment which had been made in the cases in question had been rendered invalid through an informality; and the object of the Bill was to place these tramways in the position they would have occupied if the error had not been made.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there wore other tramways in Ireland which had run out because the Companies had not fulfilled the obligations imposed on them by the law. Why should an Act be passed simply for the county of Cork, and not extended to other counties in Ireland? He believed that in all the four Provinces of Ireland — Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught—tramway powers had run out solely because the provisions of the Act of Parliament had not been complied with. Under those circumstances, he did not see why a Bill should be brought in to remedy any defect in the county of Cork, and passed through the House at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. In the interests of the money of the ratepayers he felt it his bounden duty to protest against the Bill.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to point out that the Bill had already been read a second time, and its principle affirmed by the House, and it had now been in print for a week or 10 days before the House. Of course, it would be impossible for a private Member to bring in a Bill to remedy all the defects of the Tramways Act of last year, so far as the different localities in Ireland were affected. The mistake in this case arose from an erroneous opinion which had been given by a learned counsel, and

    1769
    until that moment he had not heard a word of opposition raised against the Bill. It was simply to correct a mistake which had been made by the Grand Jury in making a presentment.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would ask one question, with the view of saving time. He understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the Bill was introduced to obviate the consequence of a mistake which had been made by the Grand Jury. Had the Tramway Bills to which it related been passed by the Grand Jury?
    COLONEL COLTHURST: Yes.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Under a misapprehension?
    COLONEL COLTHURST: Yes; into which they were led by an erroneous opinion of counsel.
    MR. WARTON: Such misapprehension has had the effect of preventing the Bills from being proceeded with?
    COLONEL COLTHURST: Yes.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I understand the matter now, and I will withdraw my opposition.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS BILL. [BILL 255.]
  (Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Henry Allen, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ince, Mr. Elton.)
  TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS BILL. [BILL 255.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd June.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)expressed a hope that the hon. Member would postpone the second reading, as the Government were in communication with others in reference to it.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it had already stood over for some time; but at the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would not object to a further postponement.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch), after the death of his father.
Took the Oath for the First Time—The Marquess of Normanby.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Indian Marino * (170).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue * (147).
Committee—Newcastle Chapter* (130).
Committee—Report—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).
Report— Secretary for Scotland (157); Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* (154).
Third Readinq—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (127); National Debt (Conversion of Stock) * (145), and passed.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS— CASE OF R. JOHNSTON v. MARY MCATASNEY AND PATRICK MOAN.

  MOTION TOE PAPERS.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—

  "1. Copy of the shorthand writers' report of the evidence taken before the Irish Land Commission in the cases which cams before the court upon the landlord's application for a rehearing in which R. Johnston was landlord and Mary McAtasney and Patrick Moan were tenants, together with the shorthand writers' report of the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice O'Hagan, and a copy of the order of the court on the said application:

  2. Copy of the reports of the official valuers appointed by the Land Commission in the same cases:

  "3. Copy of the questions which the landlord applied to the Irish Land Commission to have stated in the same cases for the opinion
  1640
  and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, together with the order of the court refusing the said application:

  "4. Copy of affidavit of H. A. Johnston, dated 28th June 1883, on which an application was made to the court of the Irish Land Commission to have the said cases reconsidered, in pursuance of section 48, subsection 5, Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881:

  '5. Copy, letter of H. A. Johnston to Secretary of the Irish Land Commission, dated 8th September 1883, and the reply thereto, dated 13th September 1883." — (The Lord Castle-town.)

  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 157.) REPORT.
  Order of the Day for Report of Amendments to be received, read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to the Bill. He did not know whether that was the proper time to give Notice of an Amendment he intended to move on the third reading of the Bill. He had also to apologize to the House for not being present on the clay when the Bill was considered in Committee. The fact was, he had been in Scotland on business; and having mistaken the day on which the Bill was to be taken, he had not got back in time. He had only one word to say in regard to the decisions their Lordships had come to; and that was, that he thought it was a very great mistake to place the appointment of the Supreme Judges, the Judges of the Court of Session, in the hands of the new Secretary. Considering that the Judges in England were appointed by the highest functionaries of State, he thought it would do serious injury to the status of the Scotch Judicial Body, if its Members were named by an official of inferior rank. That being his feeling on the matter, he begged to give Notice that, on the third reading, he would move that the clause which had been amended at the instance of, and on the Motion of, his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), and which vested all legal patronage in the new Secretary, should be amended by the introduction of the words "with the exception of Judges of the Court of Session."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he also wished to give Notice that, on the third

  1641
  reading of the Bill, he would move that the Bill be read that day three months. He would do that mainly as a matter of form, in order to bring on a general discussion in reference to the objections against the provisions of the Bill.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  THE EARL OF CAMPBEDOWN, in moving an Amendment, to omit from the Schedule of the Bill the words which transfer the management of endowed School education in Scotland from the Committee of Council to the new Secretary, said, he was going to ask their Lordships to omit these words, because he thought he should be able to show their Lordships, in the first place, that the present arrangement had been adopted as the result of experience; and, in the second place, that there was no other system whereby he, at all events, could suggest that Scottish opinion could be better arrived at. For that purpose, he would remind their Lordships of the recent history of endowed education in Scotland. Under the Act of 1878, endowed education was placed virtually in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, in practice, when the schemes came to be dealt with, it was found that the most convenient mode of dealing with them was to refer them to the Education Department; and; therefore, although by law the administration and supervision of these schemes vested in the Secretary of State, in reality they were referred to the Education Department for advice; and the advice of the Department was in almost every case adopted. It was quite clear that that arrangement was made because it was found convenient in practice. In 1882, when a new Bill was brought in to deal with the whole subject, the entire matter was handed over from the Secretary of State to the Privy Council; and under the provisions of that Act the Commission was appointed which had worked up to the present time under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour). This system was working, he believed, perfectly well and with general satisfaction, and appeared to him to call to its assistance a body composed of the most eminent Scotsmen that were to be found. The complaint made was, that they did not arrive, by the present system, at what Scottish opinion really was;. but the Commis-
  1642
  sioners included, in addition to the noble Lord opposite, a noble Baron who was not now present, Lord Elgin, Lord Shand, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, he thought, also, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and there were one or two other Commissioners. The schemes were prepared by them, and were all forwarded to the Privy Council, and, in. the ordinary course of business, they passed through the Education Department. The present permanent head of the Department was a very eminent Scottish official—Mr. Cumin—and there were also under him other able Scottish officials in the Department. Prom them the schemes passed on to the Scottish Committee of the Privy Council. He was not quite well aware who were the Members of that Committee; but, among others, his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was one, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) was another; Mr. Baxter was also a Member, and the Lord Advocate was a Member ex officio. He believed there were other Members, and did not know whether the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) was one of them; but he had said enough to show their Lordships that those names were a sufficient guarantee that eminent Scotsmen, holding very different opinions, had the opportunity of seeing all these schemes, if the present system of administration was properly worked. Therefore, always provided that the Committee was duly called together, and that the schemes were submitted to the Committee as they ought to be, he did not know, and could not suggest, any system, whereby one could be more likely to arrive at what Scottish opinion on any subject connected with educational endowments was. Then, what was the system proposed to be substituted? It was proposed to put in the place of the Scottish Committee the new Secretary for Scotland. But that Secretary would almost be necessarily a Member of the Scottish Committee. Therefore, the proposal came to this — to substitute for the Committee which he had named one Member of the Committee, and to place the control of endowed education entirely in his hands. He was sure that the most excellent choice would be made for this Secretaryship; but, at the same time, he could not perceive how it could be more conducive to the elucidation of what was

  1643
  really Scottish opinion to place one man in control of endowed education, rather than to leave it as at present. There would be practical inconvenience in the working of the system now proposed. He had said the other day, when they were talking with respect to the transfer of Scottish education altogether to the new Secretary, that, from the best interpretation he could put on the Bill, that Secretary would require to have an educational establishment down in Edinburgh. He was told, however, that that would not be the case. If so, it seemed to him that one or two things must happen—either that the Secretary must have some small educational establishment of his own in London, or should have under his control, for the purposes of endowed education, some of the officials of the present Education Department. He could not help thinking there would be considerable practical inconvenience in the working of a system of that sort. He did not wish to put the matter on too high grounds; but it certainly seemed to him that the present arrangement was in every way better than that which it was proposed to substitute for it. It had been remarked the other evening by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) that neither he (the Earl of Camperdown) nor the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) represented Scotch opinion upon this point. Well, he did not in the least profess to represent Scottish opinion. He could not speak as to what Scottish opinion might be; he could only say what he himself thought; hut he very much doubted whether the details of the scheme had really been put before the people of Scotland, and he thought it was very desirable that all the Bodies —the Commissioners of Burghs and others—who had passed resolutions with reference to this subject, should really have these details before them, and should really understand what the change was. Their Lordships, moreover, should remember that, if they retained these words in the Schedule of the Bill, they would, after all, be plating only half, and a very small half, of the education of Scotland in the hands of the Secretary. The other night it had been argued, and, he thought, very fairly indeed, by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour), that he was quite content to accept this issue—that either all
  1644
  Scottish education should be put in the hands of the Scottish Secretary, or none of it; and, for himself, he could not understand how it would be more conducive to the elucidation of Scotch opinion to have one Scotchman in charge of the endowed schools, instead of five or six. Their Lordships had decided, the other night, that elementary education should not be placed in the new Secretary's hands; and, that being so, it appeared to him that it would be very much better to retain also the endowed education in the hands of those who were at present conducting it—namely, the Privy Council. He would now move an Amendment to that effect.
  Schedule, Part II., page 4, moved to leave out ("Educational Endowments, 45 and 46 Viet. c. 59, except Section 32.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that his own feeling had always been that, if a Scotch Department of Administration was to be created at all in England, having its headquarters in London, and superseding, or at least over-riding and over-ruling, all the various Bodies in Scotland—supposing, he said, that it was the wish of the Scotch people that such a Department should be created, he had always felt that education, above all other subjects, was one of the things that ought to be entrusted to that Department. The Scottish system of education was much older than the English; and it was regulated on different principles; and, for his part, he rather regretted that the principles of the English administration of education should have been introduced in Scotland; but that had gone to a very considerable extent, and he was afraid it could not now be undone. If a satisfactory Deportment was really to be created in London for Scottish affairs, his voice would certainly be in favour of giving it to the administration of primary and secondary education as a whole. But, then, their Lordships, he understood, had decided by a considerable majority that, for the present, primary education ought not to he entrusted to that Body; at all events, until they saw how the new Department worked. He could, therefore, quite understand the objection of those who said that as primary education was not to be transferred, secondary education

  1645
  ought not to be transferred either. He believed that the present administration of the Department in London, as regarded endowed schools, was very well conducted; and they had had the advantage, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) had said, of very able officials. They lately had the advantage of the services of Sir Francis Sandford, and they now had the advantage, not less valuable, of Mr. Cumin, to whom they were much indebted; and if education was removed to the new Department, those permanent officials should be connected with it. His noble Friend had alluded to one matter on which he did not think the noble Earl himself knew the working of the present administration—namely, the Scottish Committee on Education. It was perfectly true that he (the Duke of Argyll) and some other Members of the Scottish Peerage and some Members of the House of Commons were Members of that Committee; but those who were acquainted with the working of that Body knew that they were very seldom called together—they very seldom met. He did not think he had attended it for a very long time, and practically the administration fell into the hands of the ordinary Committee of the Privy Council and the permanent officials. He had nothing, however, to complain of in that matter. He did not know any evil that arose from the present administration; and, if any important question should arise, he had no doubt the Committee would actually assemble, and give their opinion; but as regards the practical and daily administration of the Education Department, the Scottish Committee was a non-existent Body. Personally, he should be disposed to say that the two branches of education should go together; and, as the House had already decided that elementary education was not to be committed to the new Secretary, he would agree that the words which the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) proposed to omit should be struck out of the Bill.
  THE EARL OP DALHOUSIEsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment was supported by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), because he would be glad if both classes of education were transferred to the new Secretary; whereas the noble Lord opposite (Lord
  1646
  Balfour), who had raised the question the other night, in the debate in Committee, advocated the striking out of secondary education, on the ground that he was anxious neither should be transferred. Their Lordships ought to remember, however, that this was a tentative measure; and if the question of transferring the whole education was, as it seemed likely, to come before their Lordships again, surely it was better that some step of a tentative character should be embodied in the Bill. He had explained in Committee the considerations which influenced the Government to place the educational endowments in the Schedule of the Bill. The desirability, he thought, of making some experiment in order to see how the new Department would be able to work educational matters was a clear justification of the course adopted by the Government in placing the educational endowments in the hands of the new Secretary.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not consent to passing a Bill which had in it, as the Schedule now stood, the transfer of the working of the Educational Endowments Act to the new Secretary, and leaving out of it the working of elementary education. He had said on different occasions, and would say again, that, however opinions might be divided on the general question, he did not believe that there were a dozen persons who were in favour of having the administration of general elementary education and the administration of the educational endowments separated the one from the other; and further than that, he had heard no reason given in that House by the Government, or anybody else within or out of the House, for making the separation. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) thought it would be desirable that an experiment should be made, to see how the new Secretary would deal with education. All he (Lord Balfour) had to say in reply to that was, that he rather objected to the Commission being made the corpus vile on which the experiments were to be tried. He thought he would have the sympathy of their Lordships when he said that, as the Commission of which he happened to be Chairman had been at work for about 18 or 20 months, they were at that stage when the first of their work was just coming before the Education Department, and would

  1647
  shortly be before Parliament. It would obviously be very inconvenient, if it had now to be submitted to the new Department; in fact, it was the most inconvenient time at which such a transfer could be made, They had established a modus vivendi of a most satisfactory kind with the Scottish Education Department; and he should be extremely sorry if they had all that work to go through again with the now Secretary, when he, perhaps, would take a different view of certain matters from that which the Department had taken, and the whole matter would have to be re-discussed. Upon that ground, he should deprecate the proposed transference at this time, especially as it was in the nature of an experiment, for which he could see no reason whatever. He did not wish it to be thought that the Commission had any dread or dislike of being under the new Secretary per se. The point on which he wished to found his plea was, that the separation of the two branches of education was in itself so inconvenient a thing, that it could not possibly be satisfactory, and would not, he believed, be approved of in Scotland. It would introduce a dual control of a most unfortunate kind. The real reason why some noble Lords wished this line retained in the Schedule was, that it might be a lever for hereafter getting the whole of education transferred to the new Office. He wished that matter to stand or fall entirely on its own merits. If elementary education had been transferred he would not have said another word in the matter, neither should he have dreamt of putting down an Amendment on the Paper; for he should have regarded the one decision as ruling the other. The noble Lords opposite had, in Committee, used as their most powerful argument in favour of transferring elementary education the fact that educational endowments were in the Schedule; but the decision of the Committee having gone against them, he really hoped that those who had supported it would not abandon the position that it was necessary for the two things to be transferred or not together. If it should really be the case, as the noble Earl who represented the Government seemed to imply, that they should hear of this matter again, he hoped they should hear of it as a whole. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division, he should support it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he entirely agreed with everything that had just fallen from his noble Friend behind him (Lord Balfour). He was very much astonished to hear the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) say that it was a tentative measure. What did the Government mean by a tentative measure? It would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know how long they were to be occupied in experiments; how long they were to be kept in suspense, before they knew whether a Secretary for Scotland was to be one of the institutions of the country. The noble Earl might have told them whether the Bill was to last three, five, or seven years; and whether, at the end of that time, the Act would come before the House; and whether, if the Secretary for Scotland had not acted in a manner that was very satisfactory, his Office would then be abolished. To transfer the management of endowed schools to the Secretary for Scotland would be exactly undoing what Her Majesty's present Government set up in 1882, when the Commission of which his noble Friend was Chairman was appointed. In that year, the endowed schools were placed in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and were after wards handed back to the Privy Council, because it was found the Home Department could not deal with them. The Education. Department at present dealt with all the endowed schools of £50 and under, and the endowed schools of that class were very intimately connected with primary education in Scotland. Therefore, the Education Department, who were charged with carrying out the primary education in Scotland, were the very body best able to deal with such endowed schools. If the Scottish Education Committee in London did not meet too frequently, that was the fault of the Lord President of the Council, and not of the Scottish Education Department. He would not say that it did not meet as often as it should. The mere ordinary details which went through the routine of the Office did not require any very great consideration, and did not require the meeting of any Committee. The proposal of this tentative Bill was to take all these matters out of the hands of the Privy Council, and out of the hands of the Scottish Education Department, and place it in

  1649
  the hands of one man, who might or might not know anything about the subject. In the interests of education in Scotland he protested against such a proposal; and therefore he should, with the greatest pleasure, support his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Camper-down) in keeping the endowed school system under the present Education Committee and the Privy Council Office.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the course of the debate had led to some remarks being made which he thought it was duo to his side of the House that they should take notice of. In the first place, he wished to state that, inadequate as their arguments on that side of the House might have been, they preferred them as stated by themselves, rather than as represented by his noble Friend who spoke last but one (Lord Balfour). He did not recollect that anyone—or, at most, there was only one— on that side of the House, who used the argument that the Scottish endowments and the system of Scottish primary education were absolutely inseparable. If there was any exception to that statement, there was not more than one. But passing from that, because the question of who used the argument was a very small one, he would wish to allude to another remark that fell from his noble Friend, which was, that they ought not to make this transference, because the noble Lord was Chairman of the Commission on Endowed Schools, that it had been sitting for 20 months, and that it was at the most interesting period of gestation, and that, under these circumstances, it would be a great misfortune to Scottish education generally, if the relations, so advantageous and cordial on both sides, between the Commission and the Education Department were separated. He attributed the less weight to that argument, because he recollected the circumstances which led to the appointment of that Commission, and he thought the appointment was about coeval with the separation of endowments from the Home Department. What had then taken place showed very conclusively that the difficulty of separating primary education and endowments was not so very great as it was now represented to be; because, if they were separated departmentally up to two years ago without any very serious consequences, he did not see
  1650
  that the interregnum, of two years made an absolute and impassable gulf between the present and the past. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had said the endowed schools were taken out of the hands of the Home Department, because the latter was incapable of dealing with them. His (the Earl of Rosebery's) recollection of the transaction, however, was that these endowments were separated from the Home Office, not because the Secretary of State found himself unable to deal with them, but because the Home Office had lately been overcrowded with work. If up to two years ago these endowments were in the hands of the Home Department with excellent effects on both sides, there did not seem, to be much reason, when they were forming a sort of new Home Department for Scotland, why they should not transfer the endowments in Scotland to its charge. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said that he would be inclined to support the Amendment, because he did not very well see how primary and secondary education could be separated in Scotland; and he added that, as the question of primary education had been settled by a very large majority, he, for one, did not feel inclined to support the clause as it stood. It was, no doubt, a large relative majority; but the numbers who took part in it were not such as to settle absolutely a large national question. The figures, he thought, were 37 to 18. He could not believe that Scotland or "the other place" would accept that decision as one either representing the opinion of their Lordships, or the feeling of the country at large. He inclined to think that if the battalions who were usually ranged behind the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been present when he gave his vote in reference to the question of elementary education, the decision would have been much more conclusive the other way. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had argued that the Bill ought not to be described as a tentative Bill, and that was the only remark he (the Earl of Rosebery) wished to take notice of in concluding, because his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) had not the right of reply. He (the Earl of Rosebery) took it for granted that the Bill was tentative, in-

  1651
  asmuch as it was an experiment in the formation of a Department; and the Government wished to confine the experiment in this matter of education, because they wished to see how that matter would work. That was the ordinary meaning of the word tentative, and he did not see what objection could be taken to it. He hoped that the Government, though they did not seem to have much promise of success in the Division after what had fallen from both sides of the House, would adhere to the proposal in the Bill, because he knew that the whole question of education would be raised "elsewhere," and it would strengthen the hands of those who wished to enlarge the basis of this Office.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) in wishing to enlarge the basis of the new Office, because its success would much depend on that object being carried out; but when they came to details, he did not think that educational endowments and elementary education could be separated from each other. If the House chose to reverse the decision come to the other night, he should be perfectly willing to join the two subjects; but, it being the decision of the House that the management of elementary education was to remain where it was now, he thought educational endowments ought to be in the same position, and that the two ought not to be separated.
  LORD NORTON, in supporting the Amendment, said, it had been stated that the Government wished to try how far a transference of Scotch Business to the new Office would work, and they had selected education for the purpose of that trial. He should have thought any other subject would have been better than education for experiment. In the recent Report of the Commission on Industrial Schools the disadvantage of separating some schools to a non-educational Department was noted. Education was the most special of all subjects, and one with which it was least in the public interest to make experiments in a variety of Departments. It was desirable to make endowed schools for the middle classes separate from elementary schools; but there was no more reason to put any of the schools in Scotland under the Home Department than
  1652
  under the Foreign or any other Department. Under the plan provided by the Bill, moreover, two sots of Inspectors would be required, and a different standard of education introduced.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that this appeared to be essentially a subject on which the wishes of all Scotland ought to be considered. Although it did appear, from the conversation which had taken place, that there was some difference of Scottish opinion, yet he knew that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in framing the Bill, took immense pains to ascertain, not only the opinion of the Scottish Peers, but also the opinions of the Scottish Members on this subject, and the great majority were decidedly in favour of the Schedule as it stood.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he thought there was ample evidence that the public of Scotland were in favour of the separation of education from English control; and he did not believe that public opinion would approve of the management of educational endowments and of primary education being separated. He should vote for the maintenance of educational endowments as contained in the Schedule of the Bill.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 55; Not-Contents 38: Majority 17.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Cadogan, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bagot, L.

  [Teller.]

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  [Teller.]

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Borthwick, L.

  Boston, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lathom, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Digby, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Donington, L,

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.,

  Milltown, E.

  Morton, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Powis, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  1653

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.

  Norton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Shute, L, (V. Barrington.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Long ford

  Wemyss.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.-)

  Churchill, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick

  Grafton, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Greville, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Normanby, M.

  Monson, L. [Teller]

  Oxenfoord, L. (E Stair.)

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie

  Kimberley, E.

  Minto, E.

  Reay, L.

  Morley, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rose bery.)

  Sydney, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Abinger, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Braye, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Wrottesley, L

  Amendment agreed, to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 8th of July next.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ANGRA PEQUENA.

  QUESTIONS. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising—(1) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as stated in the public prints, that a telegraphic despatch of his with reference to Angra Pequena has been communicated to the German Parliament by Prince Bismarck, and, if such should be the case, whether he will lay that despatch and others that have been made public on the Table of this House; (2) to move for a despatch or report addressed by the commanding officer of H. M. S. Valorous, a few years ago, to the Admiralty on the same subject; and, (3) to move for a, letter addressed by a mercantile house in the Cape Colony to the Colonial Office in
  1654
  July 1883, on the same subject; with the Secretary of State's answer to that document, said, that, years ago, the English flag had been hoisted on the islands close to Angra Pequena, and those islands had been granted to a firm of British merchants by the Crown. The territory on the mainland was purchased by the same firm from a duly-accredited Chief, who acted not for himself alone, but for others also. The head of the house, as he was informed, had sunk £30,000 in making improvements and putting up buildings. The firm had resigned property in Table Bay to the Cape Government entirely on the ground that they were to be allowed undisputed right to those islands. The islands were not really outside the harbour. There were one or two of them so near the mainland that at low water you could actually walk across. He was informed that H.M.S. Valorous visited the place some time ago, that formal possession was taken of the harbour, and that a Board which was set up claiming the territory was still there. About 15 months ago German settlers arrived in considerable numbers; they built a kind of fort, on which they placed cannon; and, finding that the British Government took no notice, they applied to Prince Bismarck, who they could not but admit had acted in a way in which many of them would wish our own Government should act. Immediately Germany discovered this country had no jurisdiction, the protection of that country was extended to the Colony. He was sorry that the protection of the Home Government had not been afforded to British subjects there in the manner which they had a right to expect.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of a letter addressed by a mercantile house in the Cape Colony to the Colonial Office in July 1883, with reference to Angra Pequena, with the Secretary of State's answer to that document." — (The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he believed the noble Viscount had put a Question on this subject to his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), who had replied to that part of the Question relating to the visit of a British ship to the Colony; and, if he remembered rightly, he put the same Question to himself a few days ago. He then gave reasons why he

  1655
  could not accede to the noble Viscount's Motion.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty had reference to the visit of H.M.S. Boadicea in the autumn of last year. His present Question referred to the Valorous, which was there some years ago, and to the Report of the commanding officer of that vessel.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he must ask the noble Viscount to postpone that part of the Question. In answer to the first part, he might say that he had sent no telegraphic despatch such as the noble Viscount had described; but there was little doubt that the German Embassy did send a despatch, recording the result of the communications which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the German Embassy. The result of those communications gave every reason to hope that the question was likely to be settled, which, at one time, seemed calculated to lead to considerable friction. Her Majesty's Government, after considering the whole circumstances of the case, and after considering the statements of the German Government, and more especially with regard to the declarations made some years ago by the Government as to the limits of the Cape Colony, came to the conclusion that it was not possible nor desirable for them to oppose the protection of the German Empire being extended to German subjects having establishments in Angra Pequena. Her Majesty's Government would be ready to give a formal recognition to that protection after an agreement was come to which, he had no doubt, would secure all acquired rights, would prevent any chance of a convict establishment being founded there, and would secure the interests of British subjects, whether they had had concessions from the Native Chiefs, or whether they were Englishmen trading in those parts. As to the confines of the Colony, there was no doubt that, with regard to Wallfisch Bay, which was at some distance from Angra Pequena, and also with regard to the adjacent islands, they were British.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he hoped the Government understood the importance of the subject. He would point out that these islands were practically part of the mainland, being attached to
  1656
  it at low water. There was a very valuable property involved in the possession of the islands, for they were covered with guano; and if the Germans got possession of them, they might exclude us.
  THE EARL or DERBY, in answer to the third part of the Question of the noble Viscount, said he had no objection to lay on the Table the letter referred to. He presumed that the noble Viscount wished it to be produced with the rest of the Correspondence relating to the same subject when it was complete.
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)— P. P. No. 22 (1884).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in rising to call attention to Parliamentary Paper, "Egypt, No. 22, 1884;" and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs especially as to the meaning of the first two lines of his Despatch (which comprises the whole of that Parliamentary Paper), viz., the "words—
  "As the original plan for the evacuation of the Soudan has been dropped, and as aggressive operations cannot be undertaken with the countenance of Her Majesty's Government," &c.;
  also whether any explanation can be given why this Parliamentary Paper, which appeared in the newspapers on the 12th instant, was not delivered to Members of this House until the 17th instant? said, he would recall to the minds of their Lordships the massacres of Sinkat and Tokar, and would point out that it was after those two events that aggressive operations were undertaken at the bidding of the Government. In January, when they had no policy of their own, the Government invited General Gordon to come and advise with them as to what their policy should be. The policy advocated by General Gordon was that he should be sent out to the Soudan in order to determine what should be done. The Government accordingly sent General Gordon out to the Soudan in order to create a policy for them. Turning to the Memorandum written by General Gordon, while on his way to Egypt, a document which he thought had not been sufficiently considered by either House of Parliament, he pointed out what it was that General Gordon

  1657
  undertook, how Be was aware of the difficulties which faced him, and how he proposed to encounter them. He would call their Lordships' attention to various passages in that Memorandum, and would particularly emphasize as being worthy of notice the passage in that document referring to the arrangement for the evacuation of the Soudan, the measures to be taken for the safe removal of the Egyptian employés and troops, and to General Gordon's opinion that it would be advisable to postpone any decision in the matter until such time as the inhabitants made known their own opinion in respect to the towns of Kassala, Khartoum, and Dongola. The Government, he thought, practically admitted that they had no policy of their own in Egypt until they sent out General Gordon, who was appointed Governor General of the Soudan by the Khedive under their special approbation. The question then came to be, What was he to do—what was the plan for the evacuation of the Soudan which had received the approbation of the Government, and which he was trying to carry out? After the massacres of Sinkat and Tokar, the Government thought it necessary to take active operations by sending a joint military and naval force to the Red Sea littoral. When General Gordon was asked for an opinion on the subject of attacking the forces of Osman Digna, there was only one answer which could be expected from a man like him. He had undertaken a mission single-handed, and when he had left the country he wrote and warned the Government, three times, that he did not expect to be able to execute hi a pacific mission to evacuate the garrisons of the Soudan without fighting. Then he received, either at Abu Hamad or Berber, a telegram from the Government asking whether he would approve their pursuing offensive operations on the Red Sea littoral. When asked whether he approved of these operations, General Gordon said "Yes" at once; and his natural idea, no doubt, was that the Government were prepared to send an organized force from Suakin to Berber. It would have been a wise step to have sent a Cavalry force from Suakin to Berber after the Battle of Tamanieb. That alone would, in General Gordon's own words, have "smashed the Mahdi." The Government, however, were not
  1658
  ready to follow up the advantage they had gained by a desert march of Cavalry, and thus insure the release of the garrisons, which, in. the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was the grand object of Gordon's pacific mission. They were now told that the original plan of the evacuation of the Soudan had been dropped. What was the meaning of that? Did it mean that the Government were now going to leave the garrisons entirely to themselves, and were even going to drop General Gordon? The fact was, throughout all these operations in the Soudan, the Government had had no policy at all. At the beginning of the Session he (the Earl of Galloway) had heard Sir Wilfrid Lawson describe the policy of the Government as one to be summed up in the words "rescue and retire "—a definition which the Prime Minister accepted. The rescue had not yet taken place. Was it the meaning of this despatch that the Government intended to retire without rescuing? The House had a right to demand an explanation. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he should confine to a small compass the few remarks that he desired to make; first of all, because it would be difficult to go at any length into the different points on which he should like to obtain information, without trenching to a considerable extent on the important debate which would to-morrow take place in their Lordships' House; and, secondly, because, although he expected an amiable and kind reply from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), he scarcely hoped for much definite information. The object of the Question which he had placed on the Paper was more particularly to point out a very important portion of the subject-matter of the coming debate, around which there was much doubt. He desired to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it would be possible, without prejudice to the deliberations of the Conference, for Her Majesty's Government to give any indication of the provisions they are prepared to recommend during the proposed three years' military occupation of Egypt for meeting the additional expense which maybe incurred in the event of military

  1659
  operations being undertaken to protect Upper Egypt from the advance of a hostile force under the Mahdi or any of his adherents? In the Correspondence which was lately laid before Parliament there were statements which, judging by the interpretation put upon them in the House of Commons and in the French Chamber, were by no means clear. There appeared to be two interpretations given by the two different Ministries. Nothing, for instance, showed this more clearly than those statements respecting the military occupation, which, as he had said, would form a very important portion of the subject-matter of the debate tomorrow. As regarded it, the Prime Minister's interpretation was in the form of a negative, while that of M. Ferry was in the form of an affirmative. M. Ferry said there was a positive engagement to retire at a certain date. Mr. Gladstone said there was nil engagement to retire only if culled upon to do so by the Powers. There appeared to be a great difference between these statements; and this showed that there was much doubt as to the meaning of certain passages which occurred in these Papers, and which should be made clear before the debate took place. They were, after all, only dry bones without flesh upon them—the résumé, in diplomatic language, of conversations that occurred between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and M. Waddington. To his mind it was an extremely regrettable fact that Her Majesty's Government had not taken Parliament and the country into their confidence, because it was perfectly impossible to judge of the proceedings of the Conference until they were in possession of this information. No subject in all these despatches was, it appeared to him, of so much importance as the financial question. In a letter, written by the noble Earl, to M. Waddington, on the 16th of June, it was stated that the Commissioners of the Dette Publique would be empowered to veto any proposed expenditure which would cause an excess on the Budget, except in certain circumstances of emergency involving "peril to peace and order." Supposing that during the next three years, while British troops still occupied the country, Egypt was invaded by the Mahdi or any of his followers, and the Government were forced to send an expedition, to Egypt of
  1660
  10,000 men, and to carry on a war at a great distance and at enormous expense, either the English or the Egyptian Exchequer would probably have to meet an expenditure of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, what provision did the proposals of the Government make for such a contingency? The arrangements with regard to France and with regard to the occupation were all practically minor points; but what they all turned upon was the financial question; and it was extremely important, not only in the interests of the country, but also in the interests of the Government, to put the House in a position of knowing something of the plans likely to be adopted. It was something like a public scandal that a formal statement of the arrangements between the Governments of this country and France had appeared in the daily Press; and he challenged the noble Earl to deny that it represented textually that arrangement. As an independent Member of their Lordships' House, he approached the subject with an open mind. He was himself perfectly prepared to be converted to anything, either by the late, or by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but his present wish was rather to be convinced by the noble Earl; but he must have something upon which he could form a judgment, as he could not go blindly into the Lobby and vote in favour of the Government. He should not say anything as to the merits of the financial proposal to be made; but the point he wished to arrive at was whether it had been arranged that there should be a stable and secure arrangement which should not be altered, and he thought it extremely unfortunate, in that view, that the debate should take place to-morrow without full information being in possession of the House. At the present time, the Government were not only making themselves responsible for the good government of Egypt, but also for the credit of Egypt. If not, they were doing infinite harm to that country. All he wished to ask the noble Earl was, whether, in the attempts which he had, no doubt successfully, made to arrive at an understanding with the Powers, he had considered the important matter of the exterior troubles to which he was exposed? As the Government were prepared to occupy Egypt for three years, during' those three years they might be

  1661
  responsible for £2,000,000; and he therefore wished to ask the noble Earl, what financial arrangements he intended to make to meet such a contingency; or whether the burden would fall upon the taxpayers of this country?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with regard to the Question of the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), I really do not think I have any reason to complain of anything he said in the short preface he made. He gave Notice of asking a Question on a very important matter—a matter which, I am glad to say, has been considered by the Government; for it would have been wrong if they had not done so; but at the same time, both from the words of his Notice and still more from what he has let fall in his speech, he does not expect it is likely I can give premature and somewhat piecemeal information with regard to the financial question which will be discussed by the Conference. There is one other point upon which I agree very much with the noble Duke, and which is, that it is not a very desirable thing for the public service that this House, or any other House, should discuss matters without a complete knowledge of the whole of the subject. But then there are two ways of dealing with that—either that the Government should be bound, contrary to all diplomatic usage, at the outset of a Conference announced to all the world, to show their cards on the matters to be discussed in that Conference; or whether the House should have a little patience and wait until they can properly-—as it has been pledged that they shall—discuss the whole subject. I do not think, even upon that point, there is much disagreement between the noble Duke and myself. With regard to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway), I listened with both my rather indifferent ears as much as I could, but, unfortunately, without much success, because there was such a buzz of conversation during the whole time— apparently from some information that had reached your Lordships—that I had great difficulty in following him generally so as to understand what he said. I shall therefore confine myself to answering the two Questions he has put to me. One is as to the original plan for the evacuation of the Soudan being dropped. Now, if the noble Earl will merely refer back to the instructions
  1662
  which were given, he will see that General Gordon was sent out merely on a mission to report from Suakin as to the best mode of evacuation.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Prom Suakin?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; but on arriving in Egypt he was requested to go to Cairo, where, after conference with Sir Evelyn Baring and the Egyptian Government, his final instructions were given by Sir Evelyn Baring, which subsequently received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government and in which General Gordon entirely agreed. So far those were operations in the Soudan with which Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed; but when it became a question of making Zebehr Ruler of the Soudan, and of sending an expedition to crush the Mahdi, it was quite clear the first plan must be abandoned. General Gordon was the means of enabling some 2,000 people to come from Khartoum, and arrive safely in Egypt; and I have no doubt that the effect of his name and reputation produced at Khartoum a very considerable check to the advance of the Mahdi. As regards the complaint respecting the delivery of Parliamentary Papers, I am always most anxious that they should be presented as soon as possible; but in the case referred to by the noble Duke, it appears that your Lordships' House having risen for four days, the messengers did not distribute them in the interval. I think the dates will show that they were sent round on Monday, the 16th of May; and that, if Peers were not in London to receive them, they were sent by post on the evening of the 17th. I hope the answers which I have given will be satisfactory.

  INDIAN MARINE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the regulation of Her Majesty's Indian Marine Service—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 170.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.