Sitting of 25 March 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)— Withdrawn—London, Reigate, and Brighton Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trustee Churches (Ireland; * [157].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals), [120], debate, adjourned.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1), and passed, with, a New Title.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. M'CORKELL, CROWN PROSECUTOR FOR TYRONE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. M'Corkell is to be retained in the service of the Government as Crown Prosecutor of the county Tyrone?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the nature of the position of a Crown Prosecutor. It was not an office. It meant that the Attorney General gave directions to the Crown Solicitor to send briefs, in cases prosecuted by the Crown, to the gentlemen designated; and, as a matter of course, the direction so given was not interfered with by succeeding Attorney Generals, so long as the duties were efficiently discharged, and no occasion arose for a change. Mr. M'Corkell was assigned in that way by the late Government to prosecute for the county of Tyrone, and he had discharged his duty efficiently and honestly. [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh !] He was speaking of the opinion of the Attorney General as to the manner in which Mr. M'Corkell discharged his duties as Crown Prosecutor. The Attorney General had no doubt he would continue to discharge his duties in the future in the same manner. While he considered that Mr. M'Corkell had acted within his discretion in attending at the Corporation Hall at Derry, on the 1st of November, he did not consider he ought to interfere with the gentleman's employment us Crown Prosecutor.
  MR. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the associate of a gang of murderers, one of whom was convicted of an attempt to murder, is a fit and proper person to hold briefs in the county Tyrone, and to prosecute Orangemen?
  [No reply.]

  POOR RATES—RAILWAY BOOK-STALLS.
  MR. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board. Whether,

  737
  when the promised Local Government Bill is introduced, he will be prepared to amend the section of the Public Health Act which defines property liable to be rated in such a way as to bring Railway book-stalls within the definition?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL, in reply, said, that under the Public Health Act, only such property as was assessable to the poor rate could be assessed to a general district rate. It was held by the Court of Appeal, in a case which came before the Court in November, 1882, that the occupier of a railway book-stall was not liable to be assessed to the poor rate. When a Bill was pro-pared to alter the law of rating, the question whether such occupations as those referred to should be made liable to assessment would be considered.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVER-PRESSURE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that inquiries have been made through the Inspectors as to the alleged existence of over-pressure in Elementally Schools; and, if so, whether lie is in a position to state generally the tenour of the replies?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; we have consulted Her Majesty's Inspectors as to the alleged existence of over-pressure in Elementary Schools; and the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that, so far as the children and the requirements of the Code are concerned, it does not exist. We are, however, satisfied that cases of over-pressure may occur under any Code that could be devised; and we have taken every possible precaution against this in the Code which now lies on the Table. We are, however, confirmed in our opinion that the reduction of the hours of teaching by female pupil-teachers was absolutely necessary, and we should be glad if still farther relief could be given to them. I would remind the House that I have caused every complaint of overpressure alleged to be duo to the Code to be inquired into, and in every instance the case has broken down.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman intended to publish the Reports of the Inspectors as they were received?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, in all cases of special investigation the details would certainly be published.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: But the Reports of the Inspectors, will they be published?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly not. They are confidential documents made to the Department, very often reflecting on managers. It would not be conducive to the work of the Department to publish them.

  THE IRISH PRIVY COUNCIL—THE VETERINARY STAFF.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Whether, out of twenty-eight members of the Irish Privy Council Veterinary Staff, seventeen are Englishmen or Scotchmen, and that only one is a Catholic; and, if he will state how those gentlemen are appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The official records afford no means of answering the inquiry as to the nationality and religious professions of the Veterinary Staff. The appointments are made by the Lord Lieutenant, and regard is had only to personal fitness.

  BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury. Whether it is the fact that Ireland has lost one collector, one clerk, six supervisors, thirty division officers, and fifty-seven ride officers since 1879, making a total of ninety-five men, at salaries averaging £17,256 per annum, owing to Revenue re-arrangements; and, if he will have any objection to furnish a Return of Disbursements for Inland Revenue purposes for the last four years, showing England, Ireland, and Scotland separately?
  MR. COURTNEY: The figures given by the hon. Member are approximately correct. The Board of Inland Revenue lose no opportunity of making economics in the cost of collecting the Revenue wherever and whenever it may be possible to do so. It is practically impossible to state separately, with any approach to accuracy, the cost of the collection of Revenue in the Three Kingdoms. I observe, however, from a recent Return, that the amounts spent in Ireland and Scotland respectively in the collection of the Inland Revenue are

  739
  nearly proportionate to the amount of Revenue collected.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— AGE OF CADETS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any alterations arc contemplated in the conditions of admission to cadetships in the Royal Irish Constabulary, especially with regard to age; and, whether there are at present many vacancies?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The present limits are 21 years, which is the lowest, and under 26 years, which is the highest, for gentlemen not being sons of Constabulary officers. For gentlemen who are the sons of Constabulary officers the minimum limit of age is 19 years. It is not contemplated to make any change with regard to the minimum limit; but I am considering whether the maximum ago is not too high. I am in communication with the Department in Dublin. No other changes are contemplated. I may say, however, that I have endeavoured to introduce a system of examination at stated periods instead of examinations at irregular intervals, as previously. I do not, however, think it at all probable that there will be an examination before December next, and I doubt if there will be one before June, 1885. An exceptionally large number of vacancies occurred last year, owing to the effect of the Constabulary (Ireland) Amendment Act of the previous Session.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—WELSH JURIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in The. Liverpool Mercury of the 6th ult., that more than half the jurors at the Anglesey Assizes did not understand English—
  "In consequence of which those that did were obliged to explain to the others, and expatiate on the evidence pro and con, in the vernacular;"
  whether the juries had to retire into a cupboard to consider their verdicts, and, there being no gas in the cupboard, two farthing caudles were brought in and deposited on the floor; and, if these allegations are well founded, whether any assurance can be given that interpreters and suitable accommodation will be provided in future?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, it was true that there were inconveniences in connection with the administration of justice in Wales, on account of the fact that some persons did not understand the English language; but in all those cases interpreters were employed. He was, however, informed that the state of things now was much better than it was in former days. In regard to the latter part of the Question, all that the hon. Member had said was well founded. The accommodation provided at Anglesey, and which had been provided ever since 1614, was not only insufficient, but positively shocking. He hoped that after the lapse of two and a-half centuries those responsible locally for these matters would, now that attention had been drawn to them, do something to improve the accommodation.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROVINCIAL SITTINGS) BILL.
  MR. SLAGGasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, as the Government arc unable to support the High Court of Justice (Provincial Sittings) Bill, any steps are being taken with regard to the statement made by him, that—
  "The Lord Chancellor was now engaged earnestly considering how far arrangements might be made whereby the expenditure of the judicial strength in localities where it was not required might be removed and applied to the more populous districts of the Country?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the subject was under consideration.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 (PROCLAMATIONS).
  MR. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government had been called to the charges of the Judges in the Counties of Fermanagh, Derry, Tyrone, and Armagh, animadverting on the absence of crime and quiet peaceable state of those counties, which contain more Orangemen than all the rest of Ireland, and for what reason Lord Spencer has proclaimed those counties?
  MR. TREYELYAN: These counties were proclaimed under the 8th section of the Prevention of Crime Act, so that any cases of rioting which might occur

  741
  could be dealt with summarily under its provisions. The general state of crime referred to in the Charges of Judges would not come within the motives which induced the Government to proclaim those counties. Those motives were that in cases where riots had occurred considerable doubt was felt as to the tribunal by which the cases would be tried on account of the supposed partiality of the Justices.
  MR. SEXTON: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement he has just made with the proclamation of the County Louth, where no case of riot whatever has occurred?
  [No reply.]

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS AT ANNAKISSY, MALLOW—INTIMIDATION BY A LAND-LORD.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a notice in the following terms, served on Patrick Cotter and other tenants on the property of Mr. Hamilton, at Anna-kissy, near Mallow, with respect to the pending election of Poor Law Guardian for that division: —
  "Ballyfree, Glenealy, county Wicklow, "11th March 1884.
  "Patrick Cotter,—Mr. Hamilton hopes and expects you will vote for John Buckley, as Poor Law Guardian. I will expect to hear that you will do so. Your friend, E. Smyth Dickson.
  "Mr. Hamilton and I have requested Mr. Roche to let us know you vote;"
  whether Mr. Dickson is the landlord's agent, and Mr. Roche the sub-agent; whether he is aware that some of the tenants so noticed owe arrears of rent, and are thus in the power of the landlord, and that Patrick Cotter has declared that, in consequence of the notice, he will be obliged, against his will, to vote for Mr. Buckley; whether he is aware that, since receipt of the above notice, and while the voting paper for the election was in his house, Patrick Cotter received a solicitor's letter demanding sixty-one pounds, arrears of rent, at the suit of the landlord; whether steps will be taken to prosecute, under the Intimidation Clause of the Prevention of Crime Act, the persons responsible for suggesting, writing, serving, or enforcing the notice; whether the Mr. Roche who is charged with seeing that the tenants obey the direction
  742
  of the landlord was a Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, and, as a Justice of the Peace, signed a protest against the dismissal of Lord Rossmore; and, what notice will be taken of his conduct? The hon. Member further asked, without Notice, whether it was true that the sub-agent was present during the counting of the votes?
  MR. TREYELYAN, in reply, said, the hon. Member must imagine he had the power of ubiquity if he supposed that Question could be answered without Notice. With regard to the Question on the Paper, it was the fact that three tenants had received such communications, and that two of them were in arrcar, and that one had received a solicitor's letter. He had on a previous occasion stated, in answer to the hon. Members for Cork (Mr. Deasy) and Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) on the one hand, and the noble Lord the Member for Down (Lord Arthur Hill) and West-meath (Mr. Harrington) on the other, that the Government did not think these a class of cases the Prevention of Crime Act was intended to meet. He intended to bring the conduct of Mr. Roche, who was a Justice of the Peace, before the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can a fiord any information as to the pending Commercial negotiations with Spain, and the contingent trade arrangements at the Port of Gibraltar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are awaiting the action of the Spanish Government on the Protocol of the 1st of December, 1883. Any arrangement between the two Governments with respect to trade at Gibraltar will form part of the negotiations to be carried on after the Protocol has received the sanction of the Spanish Legislature.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CORK DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM—DISPOSAL OF DECEASED PATIENTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that subjects for dissection are supplied to the Queen's College, Cork, from the Cork District Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, whether it

  743
  has been done with the sanction of the Board of Governors; and, if such be the case, what was the total number supplied during the College Sessions 1881–2 and 1882–3, and the average expense of each?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the difficult subject of the supply of anatomical subjects for the purposes of Schools of Anatomy is strictly regulated by statute, and that Inspectors of Anatomy are appointed to insure that the law is complied with the rules for the management of district lunatic asylums require that on the death of a patient immediate notice should be given to the relatives of the deceased, in order that the body may be removed for interment. In the case of unclaimed bodies only the Governors have authority to authorize anatomical examinations if they see fit. In all cases remains are subsequently removed for interment in consecrated ground, as required by the statute, and certificates to that effect forwarded by the Inspector of Anatomy. I have satisfied myself that the law is fully complied with at Cork. But the subject is one with regard to which the law, while requiring for the protection of the public that particulars shall be regularly laid before Government, does not require the publication of details; and I do not think details should be given in Parliament. I trust the hon. Member will not press his inquiries.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether he was right in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman declined to say whether the bodies of these unfortunate deceased Irish lunatics were given over for dissection? He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman considered such a practice scandalous.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cork District Lunatic Asylum receives any money consideration for the bodies of lunatics?
  MR. HEALY: Hear, hear! Skin em' alive! ["Order!"]
  [No reply.]

  EXCISE—FOREIGN-BOUND SHIPS' STORES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the law that a master of a merchant vessel,
  744
  bound foreign, leaving an Irish, port, and having to call at another Irish, or a British port, for orders or otherwise, before proceeding on his voyage, is not allowed to take on board the ship's stores of excisable articles unless at the port lie clears out from; or whether he may take the stores on board at the former port on condition that they remain under seal until after he has cleared out?
  MR. COURTNEY: As I understand the case put by the hon. Member, the vessel would be allowed, under conditions, to take on board dutiable goods at any British port, provided the clearance is for a foreign port. Of course, English and Irish ports are all equally "home" ports.

  EGYPT—BRITISH OFFICIALS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table a Statement showing, for each year, the amount of the Salaries and Emoluments drawn from Egyptian Revenues by British Officials since the 1st May 1880?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir Evelyn Baring will be instructed to send home a statement for presentation to Parliament, containing the statistics asked for by the hon. Member, with regard to British subjects and other foreigners also in the employment of the Egyptian Government.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will lay upon I the Table, and cause to be circulated, Copy of the Bill now pending in the Parliament of the "Dominion of Canada," which provides for the political enfranchisement of women possessing the qualifications fixed for men; and, also Copy of the Ordinance passed by the "House of Keys" of the Isle of Man, which provides for the political enfranchisement of women?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I do not know why the hon. Member has selected me to answer this Question.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINexplained that he had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman because his name was on the back of the Representation of the People

  745
  Bill, and as the Prime Minister was absent.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he saw no reason why the printing of these documents should be gone into. Any private person could have access to them.

  THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ACT, 1879.

    RULES OF DEBATE.
    MR. MONK: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true—
    "That no single action has been taken by the Law Officers of the Crown in order to put the Act of 1879 (the Public Prosecutor's Act) properly in force, and that the operation of the Act has been left entirely without the guidance of the Attorney General;"
    and, if it is so, whether he would explain why such is the case?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity of answering the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on Friday last——
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg pardon for interrupting. I must rise to Order. The Question put down on the Paper is a verbatim quotation from a speech delivered in a debate on Friday last; and I want to know whether it is not directly contrary to the Rules of the House?
    MR. ONSLOW: On that point I beg to point out that the Clerk at the Table has on more than one occasion prohibited me from putting a Question because I had put in it a quotation from a speech made in debate in exactly the same way. I would ask you, Sir, whether there should not be some symmetry in the conduct of the Clerk?
    MR. SPEAKER: If a verbatim report has been quoted in the Question in the manner referred to by the noble Lord, it is out of Order.
    MR. MONK: Then I would beg to withdraw the Question, and to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, whether it is true that no action has been taken by the Law Officers of the Crown? ["Order!"] The Speaker will stop me if I am not in Order. I wish to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether it is true that the operations of the Public Prosecutor's Act have been left entirely without his guidance?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is exactly the same thing.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I will answer the Question very shortly. The facts are these. When I came into Office I found certain Rules drawn up for my guidance by my Predecessor, which had been approved of and bore the signature of the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). I have considered those Rules very carefully, and they seem to me the best that could be drawn up as applied to the limited staff at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor. I have considered them from time to time, and when I have given special directions to the Director of Public Prosecutions, I have consulted him whether the rules required alteration, but found such was not the case.
    MR. WARTON: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever considered the subject with regard to the extension of the staff of employés in the Public Prosecutor's Office?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The whole matter is under consideration. I have considered it in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary; and we have thought it better that a Departmental Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).
    MR. R. H. PAGET: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to lay on the Table the instructions which have been issued in regard to the employment of the Public Prosecutor in cases of indictment for perjury?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No instructions have been given by me; but I see no objection to making public any instructions that may be given.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE CHELSEA LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has boon drawn to a circular issued from the offices of the Chelsea Liberal Association to every elector in the borough, inviting subscriptions to a fund to be raised for the purpose of returning the Right hon. Sir

    747
    Charles Dilke and J. F. B. Firth, esq., free of expense; which circular is accompanied by a printed form of cheque, and a stamped and directed envelope; whether he is aware that the expense of such a circular would amount to over £150; whether such sum of money would have to be included in the election expenses return, under the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act; whether the treasurers mentioned in the circular who receive, and the persons who pay, any sums of money on account of the election expenses of Sir Charles Dilke and J. F. B. Firth, esq., will, under the 28th section of the 47th and 48th Vic. c. 51, be guilty of an illegal practice; whether he is aware that the circular is signed, amongst j others, by a Lord of the Treasury and by the Vice President of the Council; and, what stops he proposes to take should it be found that the signatories of the circular have committed an offence J against the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act?
    MR. FIRTH: Before my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General answers the Question, perhaps may be permitted to make a personal explanation. The necessary effect of the Question of the noble Lord is to make the subscription a success. It has consequently been suggested that the Question has been asked at my suggestion. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to make a personal explanation he is at liberty to do so; but he is not entitled to make a speech. He must confine himself within the limits of an explanation.
    MR. FIRTH: I only wish to say that there is no ground whatever for that statement with regard to the circular. I wish to say that I have no knowledge of the circular having been issued, and that I have not seen it—in fact, I was not aware that it had been issued, and I do not know who has signed it; but I think it is a very useful circular.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): With regard to the circular, I think we may assume that the statements of the noble Lord are correct—I mean on this occasion.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I rise to Order. I beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that an offensive expression has been used by
    748
    the hon. and learned Attorney General towards my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Chruchill). The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that it may be assumed that the facts as stated by the noble Lord are correct "on this occasion." I wish to ask you, Sir, if a Member of Her Majesty's Government has any special prerogative to insult other Members of this House?
    MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the point of Order, I should say that the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of Order.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I had no intention of saving anything offensive to the noble Lord. The fact seems to be that some influential electors of the borough of Chelsea appear so highly to appreciate the Parliamentary services of their present Representatives that they wish to relieve them from the burden of any expenditure at the next election. I should be very sorry to think that such an act should for one moment be looked upon as an illegal or corrupt practice—in fact, I think that, to a great extent, it would be deserving of encouragement. The noble Lord, in suggesting that such an object is illegal, does not seem to have availed himself of that able legal assistance so immediately at his command, and to which he owes so much. As to the question whether the expense of such a circular as that referred to should be included in the Return of the election expenses, I can only say that if events should arise which render it necessary to determine that question, I shall be very happy to give my opinion to those who may need guidance on the subject; but at present I am afraid that I am unable to discover any likelihood of the noble Lord being placed in a position to require advice on the subject.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE EDUCATION CODE, 1884
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Government, Whether, since the new Education Code will become law in the course of a few weeks, unless an address be presented to the Crown to withhold its consent, and since at Motion for such an Address is on the Notice Paper, he will either afford an opportunity to the House of considering such Motion, or else cause the withdrawal of

    749
    the Code until after the Education Estimates have been considered?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Member can move a Resolution to reject the Education Code without the aid of the Government. He can bring it on at any hour, and it cannot be blocked. The Code is laid on the Table in compliance with the Statute, and cannot be withdrawn. If the hon. Member should succeed in carrying his Resolution, the Department would continue to administer the grant under the existing Code.

    EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated by The Times Correspondent in Khartoum, that the tribes along the hill north of Khartoum are in open rebellion, that Khartoum itself is besieged by 6,000 of the Mahdi's followers, and that General Gordon has had a serious engagement with these Arabs; what is the present position of General Gordon; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to accede to General Gordon's request for the despatch of British troops to Khartoum?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the information which we have received from General Gordon is less full, and apparently not of so recent a date, as that which is contained in the telegram of The Times Correspondent. As far as it goes, it is substantially to the same effect. It gives an account of the relief of the garrison of Halfiyeh, and it speaks of a body of Arabs who were captured; but it does not make any reference to the reported intention of General Gordon to attack a large body of Arabs in the vicinity of Khartoum on the 16th of this month. We have no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of The Times telegram; but we have no further information—no information further confirming it. I shall be very glad to answer any Question which the hon. Member may desire to put to mo, as far as I am able, as to matters of fact. As soon as we receive information from General Gordon, no doubt we shall be prepared to communicate it to the House; but as to the intentions of the Government, I explained a few days ago the reason why, from a military and politi-
    750
    cal point of view, we do not think it expedient or necessary to make at present any declaration as to our intentions; and I do not think the circumstances have altered in such a degree as to justify me in departing from that resolution.
    MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I quite accept the latter part of the noble Marquess's statement; but in view of the fact that General Gordon has been cut oil from all communication with Cairo, and, in fact, with this country, for the past 12 days, I wish to know whether, in order to relieve the anxiety of the public, he could not state whether some steps are being taken to re-open communications between Berber and Khartoum?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the noble Marquess also state whether he holds that General Gordon represents British or Egyptian authority?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Gordon, as the House is perfectly aware, received a commission from Her Majesty's Government, and on arriving at Cairo he received also a commission from the Egyptian Government as Governor General of the Soudan. I do not think I could answer the further Question which was put to me by the hon. Member for Eye without entering into a statement which I have already said I could not make, as it would be prejudicial.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE— EVENING SITTINGS — KEEPING A HOUSE.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Leader of the House, Whether, in view of the fact that a Motion of mine, which occupied the first place on the Paper to-day, has been seriously affected by the appointment of a Morning Sitting, and of the fact that this is the fourth occasion on which the Government have taken my day, and thereby prevented the important subject to which my Motion relates from being brought forward, and in view of the gravity of the news received this morning with regard to Madagascar, that the French intend to send 6,000 troops to drive the British traders and missionaries out of the country, the Government will assist me, not in keeping, but in making a House at 9 o'clock this evening?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated yesterday that I regretted very much that the Government should, on account of the peculiar position of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, have been compelled on several occasions to ask the House to give a Morning Sitting at a very much earlier date than is usual. The House has consented to do so, as I understand, entirely in consequence of the general opinion which prevails as to the necessity of pressing forward that Bill with as little delay as may be possible without interrupting the other Business before the House. It was for the House to say whether or not it would accept the suggestion made by the Government on j that point; and the House has, with considerable unanimity, thought it desirable to make that sacrifice. In the circumstances, I do not think the Government are called upon to make any unusual or extraordinary exertions to facilitate the making or the keeping of a House in the evening for private Members. It is generally understood that on Tuesday evenings Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper rely on the attendance of their own Friends, and the interest of the subjects they bring forward. I do not think it will be in the power of my noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to put such pressure on our Friends on this side of the House as will justify us in saying that it will be in the power of the Government to secure the making of a House if the hon. Member's own Friends will not help him to do so.
    MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTsaid, that in consequence of the unfair reply of the noble Marquess he would call attention on an early day to the way in which the Government infringed upon the rights of private Members and obstructed the Business of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE EASTERN SOUDAN)-POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—RESOLUTION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That this House is of opinion that it would be inexpedient to assent to the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, before receiving further information as to the military operations in the Eastern Soudan, the position of General Gordon at Khartoum, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt Proper,"
  said, that when he gave Notice of the Amendment last night the Secretary of State for War made use of some kind of menace to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, and said that the Motion would be made on behalf of the Conservative Party. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) should have thought that the noble Marquess was aware that whenever he asked the indulgence of the House, either to address the House or to submit a Motion to its consideration, he had always done so on his own behalf, and on his own behalf alone, representing no one but himself, claiming to represent no one but himself, and accountable to no one but himself inside that House. Therefore, if the noble Marquess had not, with his experience of the House, mastered that elementary and A B C House of Commons fact, the noble Marquess displayed a want of knowledge which he regretted to say was a very deplorable augury for the success of his future Leadership. the noble Marquess also said that he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would be imperilling the position of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. Now, he had observed that when Liberal Members brought forward Motions about Egypt they were told that they were imperilling the position of the Representation of the People Bill, and that when Members on the Opposition side brought forward Motions about Egypt they were told they were imperilling the position of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. It appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that because they had introduced into that House two extremely indifferent measures, therefore they wore to be enabled to perpetrate in every quarter of the globe every kind of atrocity with the utmost im-

  753
  punity, and that every Member of that House was to be precluded from calling them to account. That was a plea which was quite nonsensical. It would not be tolerated by the Opposition, and he did not believe it would be tolerated on the other side of the House. All this raised the question whether the continual protest of the Government against discussing Egyptian and other foreign affairs was not founded upon the utterly erroneous idea that legislation was the first Business of the House of Commons. He did not think hon. Members ought to lose an opportunity of protesting against that idea. Legislation was not the first Business of Parliament; it never had been, and he hoped it never would be. The first Business of Parliament was to grant Supply to the Crown; and it was the duty of the House of Commons, when that Supply was asked for, to inquire with care for what purposes that Supply was required, in what manner that Supply would be expended, and by what methods that Supply would be raised. That was, undoubtedly, the first duty of the House of Commons; and it was because of the persistent, continual, and studied neglect of this principle by Her Majesty's Government that the finances of this country were in such disorder. It would be well for the country if the House were to recognize this Constitutional practice in a Standing Order, and to lay down that legislation should not be proceeded with until Supply had been almost entirely disposed of. Such was the contempt of so distinguished a master of Constitutional law as the Home Secretary for this most ancient Constitutional doctrine, that when a few isolated and independent Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House, a little more than a week ago, chose to act upon this principle, and to inquire for what purpose Supply was wanted, he stigmatized such a proceeding as a "dirty trick." He dared say that if he were much pushed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would describe his conduct to-day in venturing to put a few inquiries about Egypt as a dirty trick. The full recognition of the doctrine that Supply was the first Business of Parliament was quite as essential to Parliament and the country as ever it was at any time. He did not believe the Commons
  754
  of England had ever been treated with more studied contempt by Elizabeth, Henry VIII., or Charles I., than it was now by Her Majesty's Government. He laid down tins in utter indifference to the mockery of the Radical Party opposite—that the guarantees afforded to the British people by the doctrine he had alluded to about Supply were quite as necessary for the House of Commons to preserve as a defence against an arbitrary Minister as ever they wore against the most arbitrary Monarch. He would always protest against the slightest want of recognition of what must be called the foundation-stone of English liberty. He ventured to make these remarks on account of the extraordinary charges made against Members who ventured to interfere with the rapid progress of the legislation brought forward by the Government. In moving his Resolution the House would perceive that he asked for information under three heads. As it were, he gave the Government three chances of affording to the public some information as to what was going on in Egypt. With respect to the military operations in the Eastern Soudan, the situation was still extremely critical. Four weeks had passed since it was announced that troops were to be sent to Suakin. Two battles had been fought; the troops were still at Suakin; and no tangible result, as far as they know, had been derived from those battles. the House had heard of a telegram from Suakin just before they met, to the effect that General Graham had started on what might almost be called another hunting expedition after the unfortunate Osman Digna, and intended to deliver, if possible, a third bloody battle. In the face of those events hon. Members ought not to lose the opportunity of asking the Government the object of these military proceedings. It could not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that in the papers that morning it was stated that after General Graham had chased, possibly captured, or probably killed the unfortunate Osman Digna, he would immediately re-embark for Cairo, leaving Suakin to take care of itself. He did not believe that military operations of so fruitless, wanton, and bootless a kind had ever before been undertaken by a British Government. At any rate, it should not be said that the House of Commons, as a

  755
  whole, had allowed those operations to be carried on without persistently asking for information. What were the troops doing at Suakin now? What were the intentions of the Government with respect to their detention in the Soudan and the retention of Suakin? It was perfectly clear that if General Graham re-embarked from Suakin the tribes would receive notice of that re-embarkation; and the effect produced—whatever the effect was—by those battles would be utterly lost. Suakin would again be surrounded, and possibly fall into the hands of those whom the Government were pleased to call "rebels." In a very few weeks' time he would venture to prophesy that Suakin would be in exactly the same position as it was when the expedition of General Graham was first despatched. What, then, was to be the position of the Government with respect to the House of Commons? But there was a much more serious matter which he desired to bring before the House of Commons, which was referred to in the morning newspapers. Were the forces j of this country, the flag of this country, the name of this country, to be used to keep in force that most odious of all institutions, slavery, in Egypt? It was stated, on the authority of every newspaper Correspondent at Suakin, that the British Admiral and the British authorities considered it their duty to enforce laws permitting slavery in Egypt, and that they absolutely considered it their duly to use their forces to re-capture slaves who had been fortunate enough to escape. It was said at the battle of Tamanieb our forces had as allies certain Abyssinians, who rendered valuable services to the troops as scouts. It was discovered that an Abyssinian woman was a slave, and the Abyssinians took the law into their own hands and liberated their fellow-countrywoman. It would hardly be believed that Sir William Hewett had actually disbanded the Abyssinians, confined them in prison, and refused to avail himself of their services. He had referred over and over again to the atrocities committed last year and the year before under the British flag; but it did not appear that anything had any effect upon the Government. They seemed utterly callous to what extent and in what manner the British name was associated with the
  756
  most monstrous acts that could disgrace humanity. He wished to know if the Government had given up all intention of opening up the communication, between Suakiu and Berber this year? The Secretary of State for War, last Saturday week, stated that he could not at that time say what they were going to do on that point. Ten days had now elapsed without any further Questions being asked on the subject, and there was nothing unreasonable in repeating the request for information, because 10 days in these times was equal almost to an ago. Had any instructions been issued to General Graham on this matter? The House had a right to pronounce an opinion on the policy of re-embarking the troops at Suakin, or of leaving them at Suakin to open the road to Berber before either of these steps was taken. The question was of apolitical rather than of a military nature. Military reasons might be adduced in support of either course; but the matter was one of politics, and ought not to be settled until the Representatives of the British people had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He then came to the second head of his inquiry, which was Khartoum and the position of General Gordon at Khartoum. That was the most serious feature of the whole question in Egypt at the present moment. General Gordon was sent to Khartoum as the last card which the Government could play. It was exactly the case of the ruined gambler who found by chance that he had a piece of gold in his pocket, and chucked it on the table to see whether it would bring back some of his lost credit and his lost coin. He had often watched that operation at the gaming tables of Europe, and he had never seen it succeed. It had always appeared to him that General Gordon had been discovered and utilized by Her Majesty's Government much in the same way as the stray piece of gold. The House had now the knowledge absolutely before them—and he defied Her Majesty's Government to contradict it,—that General Gordon had failed. The mission of General Gordon was now an acknowledged and accomplished failure. That being so, the question at once arose, What did the Government propose to do? There had been no Papers issued since the meeting of Parliament as to the proceedings of General Gor-

  757
  don. No information had been vouchsafed to the House except that which came from newspaper Correspondents. Fortunately, however, The Times news paper had a Correspondent at Khartoum, who was Tier Majesty's Consular Agent, who had daily, hourly communication, with General Gordon, and who had been able to furnish the British public with considerable information as to General Gordon's proceedings. It was idle for the Government to say it was inconvenient for them to furnish official information when the public bad received a few days ago information that was almost as good as official. It was idle to say they could not disclose General Gordon's plans to Parliament when there was an official at Khartoum who had constant interviews with General Gordon and telegraphed the result to England. Was it not inconceivable, was it not intolerable, that the Government should, under these circumstances, say that on political and military grounds they would rather not make any communication with respect to General Gordon? The excuse was simply ridiculous. The fact was that General Gordon's mission had conspicuously and utterly failed. The Prime Minister had stated that General Gordon had been sent on a mission which was essentially pacific. They now know that what remained of General Gordon's mission was a mission which was essentially warlike. General Gordon had already commenced military operations; was now probably carrying on military operations—operations which might possibly be over, and possibly Gordon himself might be no more. He did not know whether the House had observed that Colonel Coetlogon had stated, on his arrival at Cairo, that Khartoum could be very easily taken by the rebels. That being so, and General Gordon being surrounded by hostile tribes, and being utterly cut oil from all communication with Cairo or London, they had a right to ask what everybody in the country was asking—what the Government was going to do to relieve General Gordon, or to rescue him? Were they going to remain indifferent to the fate of the one man on whom they counted to extricate them from their embarrassments? Were they going to let him shift for himself? Were they going to let him trust to traitorous troops, and to the weak de-
  758
  fences of Khartoum, or did they intend to relieve him? The reason why he asked that question to-day was because it was the last opportunity he or anyone else would have before Easter of eliciting information from Her Majesty's Government, except in reply to Questions which Her Majesty's Government might or might not answer. Having before them the dangerous position of General Gordon and the failure of his mission, he thought they had a right to criticize the stops which the Government had taken. Her Majesty's Government had taken, so far as he could make out, the surest and most certain course to insure the failure, and perhaps the death, of that distinguished man. They despatched him on a mission which was essentially pacific, and he proceeded to Khartoum. General Gordon entered into negotiations with the Leader of the enemy's forces, and at the same time the Government authorized offensive military operations against a portion of those forces. Did the Government imagine that General Gordon's mission would be successful while they themselves, in a region not far distant, were carrying on military operations of the most bloody and offensive character? He thought it was obvious to everyone, even to the benighted minds of those who at present presided over the destinies of this country, that there was no precedent that while peace negotiations wore being carried on one of the negotiating parties should attack and slaughter the troops which were commanded by the enemy's General. Such a thing had never happened—that was to say, where boná fide peace negotiations were pending. The expedition of General Graham was sent to relieve Tokar; but before it started the Government knew that that garrison had fallen. In such a case as that, why did they not, after having instructed General Gordon to negotiate for peace, abandon military operations and confine themselves strictly and solely to the defence of Suakin? He made the remark in the House a short time ago that it seemed to him that the Government was a Government of "blood at any price." [Murmurs from the Radical Members below the Gangway.] He could not undertake to interpret the inarticulate noises of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he supposed he would be right in saying that

  759
  these noises were signs of discontent. Since he had made that statement its truth had boon borne out by facts, because, having failed to rescue Tokar, they suddenly altogether changed the character of their military operations in the Soudan, and those operations assumed a character which was at once offensive and vindictive. They fought two bloody battles without any object at all. Certainly, the object had never boon stated to the House, and the result had been to place General Gordon in his present position. These operations had, as far as we were concerned, had no result; but they appeared to have had a very decided result as far as General Gordon and the Mahdi were concerned. After General Gordon had left this country the whole of the region, about Berber and Sennaar was in a state of quiet, and continued so until shortly after two bloody battles were fought by Her Majesty's Government. Then in this country they hoard for the first time that the telegraph wire had been cut; that it was mended, cut again, and remained cut; and that the whole country between Berber and Khartoum was in a state of rebellion. He thought there was something like cause and effect there. At all events, there was nothing illogical in the displeasure of the Mahdi at the conduct of Her Majesty's Government towards his Lieutenant, and his consequent determination to enter upon a course of reprisal. Why had military offensive operations been carried on at the same time as negotiations—boná fide negotiations—for peace? Had anything more unnecessary or more ineffably silly over been brought under the notice of Parliament? General Gordon's mission had deservedly failed, over if he had not supported the Government, in undertaking military operations. The Government did not toll them much; but this they did know—that the first act of General Gordon on arriving at Khartoum was to proclaim free trade in slaves. The Government did not telegraph to him at once, as they had done to Admiral Hewett, in the case of the latter's Proclamation, to the effect that such a measure would never be tolerated by the British Parliament. General Gordon's second act—also admitted by the Government—was to demand that, for the pacification of that part of the Soudan, that most abandoned scoundrel,
  760
  Zebehr, the slave dealer, should be sent to him, in order that he might be made King or Governor of Khartoum—a wretch whoso record and tale of crime could not be surpassed even by those bag bears of the Prime Minister—Achmet Aga and Chefket Pasha. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) admitted the gallantry of General Gordon and the devotion with which he had come to the rescue of a dying Government; but General Gordon occupied exactly the same position towards the House of Commons as any other man employed by its authority. General Gordon was subject to the British Parliament, and those two acts of his deserved the severest censure of that House, as any mission supported by such acts deserved to fail. Such a policy as that of permitting free trade in slaves and setting up the most notorious slave dealer in the East to be King over the countries Her Majesty's Government intended to abandon had never before been undertaken in the name of Great Britain; and any British officer owing allegiance to his country and to Parliament who could ratify such proceedings as these must be either utterly incompetent to be employed in a position of authority or must have been bereft of all the reason he over possessed. What had been the result of the policy of the Government up till now? They had perpetrated massacre and perpetuated slavery; and the House wanted to know, before parting with that handle of offence against the Government, what they were now going to do? Which of the two policies was going to be adopted—the "rescue" or the "retire"? There was one rescue which the Government, if they did not adopt it very soon, would be compelled to adopt, or they would have to make way for other people—the rescue of General Gordon. He did not believe that hon. Members, who were in favour of a pacific policy carried to an extravagant degree, would object to strong measures being taken without loss of time for the rescue of General Gordon. [An hon. MEMBER: Some of us.] If the matter were left to chance, and the life of General Gordon was sacrificed owing to the neglect and indifference and callousness and heartlessness of the Government, then they would not keep their seats for 24 hours after the news was known in England. In asking Her

  761
  Majesty's Government for information on these questions, he quite admitted that, in ordinary circumstances, the House ought at critical moments to have confidence in Ministers, and leave them a large amount of discretion. But these wore not ordinary circumstances, and this was not an ordinary Government. The Government had proved utterly incapable of foreseeing catastrophes which the most ordinary spectators could not fail to foresee, or of taking the most ordinary precautions to provide against those catastrophes. They never foresaw the results of the overthrow of General Hicks and Baker Pasha, and how the whole of their plans would be hopelessly upset by those catastrophes. The Government left the defence of Sinkat to Baker Pasha, and Baker Pasha was defeated and Sinkat was taken. And so it was in the case of General Gordon. All the Government plans had been founded on the supposition that General Gordon must succeed in the maddest journey ever undertaken since Mahomet made his journey to the Seventh Heaven. The Government left everything to General Gordon. General Gordon had failed, and Her Majesty's Government had made no provision either for the safety of General Gordon or for something else which they declared to be a cardinal point of their policy—the rescue of the Egyptian garrison. Under these- circumstances, they had a right to take airy course—aye, and even to adopt "dirty tricks"—to bring the Government to some sense of their responsibility with regard to the situation. Perhaps the House would allow him to quote a few lines from Henry VI., of Shakespeare. He did not often, like Mr. Silas Wegg, "drop into poetry;" but he thought the quotation was so appropriate a description of the present position and policy of Her Majesty's Government that he ventured to read it to the House—
  "Among the soldiers this is muttered—
  That here you maintain several factions;
  And, whilst a field should be despatch'd and fought,
  You are disputing of your "policies."
  One would have ling'ring wars, with little cost;
  Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings;
  A third man thinks, without expense at all,
  By guileful fair words peace may be obtain'd."
  One word before he concluded with regard to the third head of his Motion—
  762
  Egypt Proper—because the crisis there was just as serious. What was being done to carry out the policy announced to Parliament by Her Majesty Government—to set tip in Egypt a stable Government which would enable them to retire from that country? Was anything being done to deal with the financial embarrassments of Egypt?—for upon that the whole question of Egypt Proper turned. The whole thing was a question of finances. Until they liberated and re-arranged the finances of Egypt it was impossible for a stable Government to be established there. The Rothschild million advanced a while ago had probably by this time been spent. The Egyptian Government was absolutely without resources, as they had learned on good authority. They had also learned that those large Alexandria indemnities had got to be provided for, an also the very awkward fact that the Great Powers of Europe were getting extremely impatient for a settlement. It was announced in the papers that morning that those Mixed Tribunals, which were the curse of Egypt and the obstacle to anything like a definite arrangement of Egyptian affairs, had pronounced in favour of the claims against the Government with respect to the Alexandria indemnity—no doubt instigated by French intrigue. Let them look at what a difficulty was at once being raised—a difficulty which Her Majesty's Government had shirked and evaded for months, but which was now absolutely before them and must be settled in a short time. Was there anything unreasonable or unpatriotic, then, in asking the Government now, after so many months, whether they could give an outline, a slight sketch, of the policy they meant to pursue with respect to the financial embarrassments of Egypt? Was Her Majesty's Government going to propose anything in the nature of a guarantee, or of relief to the Egyptian finances, by exempting the country from the payment of the Army of Occupation, or from the payment of interest on the Suez Canal shares held by England, or by abolishing the Native Army? Or, on the other hand, would Her Majesty's Government announce that they were endeavouring to carry out a policy which would have for its object the repeal of the Law of Liquidation, and the total abolition of the Mixed Tribunals? They

  763
  ought to have some indication that Her Majesty's Government were not allowing, as they had allowed, things to drift. He had stated before that it was impossible to settle these matters without a Congress of the European Powers. He believed that the first originating fatal mistake of the Prime Minister was when he abandoned the policy which he laid down before he came into Office—the Concert of Europe. Unless England secured once more the Concert of Europe no definite settlement with regard to Egypt could be made. He thought they had a right, to require some statement of the policy of the Government. He did not expect to got much information from the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), as he dared say the noble Lord occupied the same position that he did himself—namely, a position of hopeless ignorance with regard to the intention of Her Majesty's Government. He was painfully and sorrowful by aware that it was useless for any independent Member by himself to expect to elicit information on any one of those matters from Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War might say—"What, then, is your object is taking up the time of the House? Your object is probably to embarrass the Government, or to do what you can to destroy them." If anyone advanced any such supposition they were hopelessly wrong. He had no wish whatever just now to do anything which would destroy the present Government. He was quite content that the present Government should sit where they were. There were some silly people who had supposed, and other silly people who had said, that there was a want of cordiality between those right hon. Gentlemen who sat there (the Front Opposition Bench) and himself, and that there was no love lost between them. Such a statement was too idiotic to require comment. He would only say that if he were the bitterest, the deadliest enemy of those right hon. Gentlemen, lie could not wish for them a worse fate; he could not prepare for them a greater feast of mortification; he could not sow for them a more bountiful harvest of curses and anathemas and ruin, and disgrace, than by imposing upon them, or causing, contriving, or procuring to
  764
  be imposed upon them, the odious responsibility of succeeding to the task of clearing up the mess and the muddle which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and his Colleagues had so mischievously manufactured on the banks of the Nile, by imposing on them what he might call the abominable enterprise of letting in some daylight upon, of introducing some order into, the chaos and confusion which the noble Lord and his Colleagues day by day and hour by hour had rendered darker and worse confounded. No; he would be no party to joining any who would lead those blameless and respectable right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench into such a pit of perdition. His object was, not to elicit information, because he knew that to be useless; but to do what little he could to arouse and stimulate public opinion. He know that Her Majesty's Government had the greatest and most ineffable contempt for the House of Commons; and he could not blame them, considering the attitude winch the House of Commons had adopted towards Her Majesty's Government. But there was one power which had some little influence over Her Majesty's Government, and that was the power of public opinion. It was by discussions, by debates, by questions, that they did, more or less, contribute to arouse and to excite public attention, and to form public opinion. For those interests which were now called in question in the East, interests more vital to the existence of this Empire than any that had boon called in question since the Indian Mutiny or the Crimean War, public opinion was their only safeguard, and their only hope. It was with the object of arousing public opinion that he had laboured since the Session began. It was for that object he would continue to strive—whenever the noble Marquess, in regulating the conduct of Public Business, should afford him an opportunity of so doing—perfectly regardless of any denunciation or censure that might be heaped upon him from any quarter, on the ground that he was interfering with the progress of public measures, for which neither he nor the country eared two twopenny bits. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Amendment.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it would he inexpedient to assent to the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill before receiving further information as to the Military operations in the Eastern Soudan, the position of General Gordon at Khartoum, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt proper,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the noble Lord, in the course of his observations, had distributed throughout the House a very great number of blessings of a very doubtful character. He talked about anathemas, but he also used them. He attacked his own Friends on the same side of the House, and he proclaimed, in an ostentatious manner, that he had very little to do with their collective action. He washed his hands of it, and then he went on, as was to be expected, to address a few complimentary observations to Her Majesty's Government, and also to express—what he had already done on the public platform—his great dislike to the Radical Party. It really seemed to him that the noble Lord's principal object in making this speech that day was that it might be publicly known that he belonged to no Party at all, being superior to all Parties; and the Business of the House and the country had been interrupted simply and solely in order that the House should listen to that interesting declaration. It seemed to him that the circumstances of that day somewhat resembled those of the memorable Sitting of Saturday week, when the Business was interrupted by the famous debate which now lived apparently under the name of the "dirty trick debate." [Cries of "Oh !"]
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether the noble Lord has any right to use such an offensive epithet in regard to a debate in this House, especially when he is aware that the expression itself was withdrawn and apologized for?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the expression had better not be used.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Then, Sir, I withdraw it at once; but
  766
  I was merely quoting what fell from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never called it "the dirty trick debate."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was within the recollection of the House that the noble Lord so alluded to the debate on Saturday week—[Lord REANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.]—and in connection with that question to the observation which had been made by the Home Secretary.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is quite different.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEcontinued. He was replying to the observations the noble Lord then made. The noble Lord used expressions showing his own political independence; but that was evident enough, as the Leader of the Opposition on the previous day had come down, with some circumstance, to put a Question to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, and was apparently satisfied with the answer. His noble Friend stated that it would be impossible at present to make any further statement regarding the policy of the Government in Egypt, and the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday. Under these circumstances, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was surprised the House was not allowed to proceed with the Business of the nation. But to-day the noble Lord came down to the House and made a speech, in the course of which he said he did not care whether he was answered or not. Therefore it came to this—that the whole Business of the House was to be interfered with in order that the noble Lord might make a speech to which he did not much care whether an answer was returned or not. The noble Lord, indeed, concluded his observations by a great appeal to the people. The phrase "appeal to the people" was now to be the watchword of the Party opposite. The noble Lord said that he did not care very much about the House of Commons, because it showed an improper servility to Her Majesty's Ministers. He was not sure that the state of Public Business was such as would quite cause Her Majesty's Ministers to indulge in a similar belief; but, letting that be, all he could say was that they on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had no

  767
  objection whatever that the attention of the people should be called in the fullest manner to the proceedings of the noble Lord that day and on other occasions, and not only to the proceedings of the noble Lord, hut to those of many of his Friends. The way in which debates on foreign policy were beginning to be interposed to prevent Public Business was exciting the alarm and indignation of the country; and he echoed the words of the noble Lord, and hoped the question, would not be looked upon merely as a House of Commons question, but that it would be discussed in the newspapers, and that the British public in general would take it up. If debates like this were to be raised on every Vote at every stage of the Consolidated Fund Bills, legislation would become impossible; and it struck him that the real sting of the noble Lord's observations, notwithstanding his plea that legislation was not the most important duty of the House, was that the House of Commons might sit from beginning to end of a Session without passing any measure of legislation of importance for the good of the country, except, perhaps, Provisional Orders. That was a dangerous doctrine; and he hoped the public outside would take the noble Lord at his word, and would thoroughly understand what the policy of the Party opposite was in regard both to foreign and homo affairs. Now, although the noble Lord had said that he did not expect an answer, or care whether he received one, there were one or two points in his speech which he wished to notice. In the first place, the noble Lord touched upon the points mentioned in a telegram which bad appeared in the newspapers that day in regard to certain alleged occurrences at Suakin—namely, the rescue of a slave woman and the mutiny of certain Abyssinian troops. The First Lord of the Admiralty had immediately telegraphed for au inquiry into the circumstances, and for a statement of the facts to be sent homo, and until that had been done it was not in his power to make any further statement upon the subject. Then the noble Lord inquired as to what was the object of the reported movements of General Graham's troops. He would remind the House that the object of General Graham's operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin was to relieve that town from the danger in which it lay from the
  768
  presence in its neighbourhood of a large force of rebels. Hitherto, these operations had been successful in their object. In two encounters the rebel Army had been defeated, and a great blow, both materially and morally, had been struck at their power. But, nevertheless, it appeared that Osman Digna and a certain body of his followers, not believed to be very considerable, were still in the neighbourhood; and it had been decided that it would be wise not to allow the Chief to gather Ins forces to a head, and that General Graham should advance on Tamanieb, and should disperse the small and disheartened force which Osman Digna had gathered around him. the operation, it was believed, would have a very important result in this way—that from the information which had been received it was believed that when the force was dispersed there would be no great difficulty in opening the road between Suakin and Berber by means of communications with friendly Sheikhs and others, who, no doubt, would be brought into communication with the British Commanders by the force of success. When they saw that Osman Digna's force had been finally dispersed they would be ready, not only to interfere with the road between Suakin and Berber, but to enter into communications, and even into engagements, by which they might be able to keep that most important communication open. He did not need to point out to the House the great importance of this subject in connection with the position of General Gordon. One thing was perfectly certain, that it was of the very greatest importance, with a view to keeping open communications with Khartoum, that the road between Suakin and Berber should itself be open. The noble Lord ridiculed the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in being engaged in these operations, because, he said, they were a source of danger to General Gordon. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not believe that they were; but he was satisfied to leave the noble Lord opposite to settle that question with his own Friends, with whom it was a common-place to say at the beginning of the Session that if the Government would send a force to relieve Tokar it would not involve the smallest danger to Khartoum or to General Gordon. The noble Lord had again pressed for information with regard to General Gordon. A Question

  769
  was asked at Question time, of the Secretary of State for War, by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and the noble Marquess replied that it was not in his power to make any additional statement. It was not, therefore, in his power to reply to the question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord also asked whether Her Majesty's Government would send au expedition to Khartoum to relieve General Gordon, and stated there was a great deal of anxiety in the country with regard to that gallant General. Well, the noble Marquess had said that until the time came when it would be in the power of Her Majesty's Government to place before the country a statement of their intentions and operations, with regard to this part of the question, it was not in their power to give small snippets of information from day to day. Whenever such a statement was made it must be full and complete. It had been an old and immemorial practice of Parliament to trust Ministers in their foreign policy, and to wait until the day of reckoning came, and then judge them by their policy. Ministers would not shrink from that day; but until that day came when they could make that statement there must be a certain amount of trust shown in her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Lord concluded his speech by drawing a harrowing picture of the condition of Egyptian finance, and he asked for information with regard to it. The noble Lord knew perfectly well that if there was any Egyptian subject at this moment on which it was perfectly impossible to make any statement it was Egyptian finance. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Why?] Why? Because it was a large and complicated question; and because Mr. Edgar Vincent, Financial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, had come to England to consult with Her Majesty's Advisers on the question. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] Why? Because they had asked him to come here with that object; and it was quite clear that pending the result of the communications passing between Mr. Vincent and Her Majesty's Ministers it was not possible to make a partial statement either of his or their views. The noble Lord had alluded to the necessity of gathering together a European Congress on the Egyptian Question. How long had he
  770
  and his Friends been converts to the Prime Minister's doctrine of the European Concert, which formerly was a favourite subject of their attack and ridicule? [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: What about the Treaty of Berlin?] He did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant. The Berlin Treaty was not a matter before the House. The subject on which they were engaged was the Egyptian Question. The noble Lord said that the International Tribunals were the curse of Egypt. Those Tribunals wore the outcome of the European Concert which he now asked for; and therefore he was in the position of advocating the application to Egypt of machinery that had produced results which he said were the curse of the country. The amount of care and attention which the noble Lord had given to the subject were shown by the fact that in the same speech he made remarks which were mutually destructive, lie hoped the noble Lord would now be satisfied, and that he would allow the House to proceed with the Business before it. If they were not allowed to proceed, he, for one, and he believed everybody upon his side of the House, would hope that the attention of the country would be called in the most marked manner to the way in which these irrelevant discussions were introduced by the noble Lord and others, with the view of showing, what the noble Lord had told them, that legislation was not the business of the House, and in order to interfere with the course of Public Business, and thereby to gain a short electioneering advantage over Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. GORSTsaid, there was no mystery as to why the noble Lord who had just sat down showed peevish anger. The Government had no policy which he could announce. There was nothing more aggravating than that. One important statement, however, had been extracted from the noble Lord which alone amply justified the course taken by his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) in extracting that information. This was the first time the Government had hinted to the House that they intended to open the road to Berber.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In explanation, I did not use that expression. What I stated was, that it was hoped that the result of these operations of General Graham would be the dis-

  771
  persal of Osman Digna's followers and the bringing of the Sheikhs into communication with the British Commanders on the Berber road, and thus clear the way. I did not say that General Graham was going to send a force.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he could not follow the noble Lord through all his qualifications, and he knew it would be quite contrary to the genius of the Foreign Office to say anything so straightforward as he (Mr. Gorst) was saying it. But it came to this—that the Government were thinking of opening the road to Berber, and that was the reason why the Government were keeping their forces at Suakin. The Government put on a sort of virtuous air of martyrdom, as if they wore being hardly dealt with by that side of the House; but surely after their extraordinary vacillation in regard to Egypt and the Soudan they did not expect to be treated as a Government deserving of confidence. Each of their explanations with regard to their policy in occupying Suakin had been false. First, they said they went to Suakin in order to relieve Tokar. Did anybody now believe that statement? Next, they explained that they remained at Suakin because Osman Digna was threatening the place; that explanation also turned out to be false, for when Osman Digna ceased to threaten Suakin they still remained there; and now the explanation was that they remained at Suakin because they wanted to open the road to Berber. The noble Lord had not only failed to answer the speech of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock, but had failed to understand it. The noble Lord was one of those officials who never looked beyond their own noses, and seemed to think that the Concert of Europe was an invention of the Prime Minister; but if there was any sort of patent right in the phrase which described the intervention of the European Concert it was to be claimed for the late Lord Beaconsfield. The noble Lord seemed to know very little about the International Tribunals in Egypt, or he would have seen that, though the present arrangement was bad, is was yet an improvement on what preceded it, and had been instituted with some success, notwithstanding the opinion of so eminent an authority as Nubar Pasha, who held that there were great obstacles in the way of instituting a sound system of
  772
  judicial proceedings in Egypt. If they did not know by sad experience that in a few days hence the Government would have to confess that they had been throwing dust in the eyes of the House of Commons, such a statement as that which had just been made by the noble Lord was a sufficient justification of the debate which had been raised. The Government must expect, so long as they exhibited vacillation and reticence in their Egyptian policy, that every opportunity which the Forms of the House would allow would be used to help them to extract information from Her Majesty's Government. They had extracted a little information that afternoon, and now he thought they might, perhaps, rest and be thankful. If nothing else was gained out of this debate than the information that the Government intended to open, up the road to Berber, that alone was a great point gained.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to make one remark. At first he was disposed to condemn the action of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) for raising another discussion on Egypt. It struck him as likely to be ineffective, as well as inopportune and inconvenient. That was the opinion he held while listening to the noble Lord's speech. But he altered his opinion after hearing what the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said. The noble Lord had made a most important announcement—nothing less than a new departure in the Egyptian policy of the Cabinet. He said it was the intention of General Graham to fight another battle with Osman Digna, with the view of opening out the road to Berber. In other words, General Graham was about to make another move in the march to Khartoum. No one could deny the significance of such a statement. It was commencing a now chapter in their Egyptian enterprize—a chapter that might contain untold and far-reaching liabilities. He was not condemning what the Government had done. There was a good deal to be said in support of the action they seemed resolved to take. Certainly, there could be no conceivable justification for the carnage they had caused, if they had not meant all the time to reconquer the Soudan. They could not have killed all the people they had killed if they simply meant to remain at Suakin. This tardy announcement was only wrung from the Govern-

  773
  ment by the action of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), and it had been communicated in a very faltering and hesitating manner. But that did not weaken its importance. He thought the Leader of the Opposition would have some ground for complaining that when he asked for a statement of the Government policy on Monday, they did not then frankly avow what their designs were. They concealed them until after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He did not see the force, and certainly he did not recognize the application to hon. Gentlemen beside him, of the censure that the Under Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs had passed upon them. If Members were not to be permitted to obtain from the Government information as to their foreign policy when the means for carrying out, that policy were being voted, he would like to know when they were to get it. The threat that public opinion would be arrayed against the critics of the Ministry had no effect upon him. He respected public opinion when it was genuine. It was a useful, and in some instances a potent, factor in political life. It had shaken Constitutions, and had overturned Thrones. But public opinion might be wrong, and in some instances it was very far wrong. What he had to say was that he was there as a Representative of the people to speak his mind on public matters, and he would neither be browbeaten nor intimidated by the Ministers or Opposition. Instead of being afraid of the public knowing what was done, his main anxiety was that the public should know everything that was going forward in their name, not only in that House but in distant lands. He had never been a party to factious or ill-timed opposition; but he protested against the everlasting threat to bring some invisible outside influence to prevent any Member expressing his honest opinions candidly and straightforwardly. The country would learn through the action that had been taken by the noble Lord what the Government meant to do; and they would not have learned it if that action had not been taken.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYurged that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) should be satisfied for the present, and should allow the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill to by brought
  774
  forward. The agriculturists would not understand any further delay with that measure.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not think the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill very necessary, nor, judging by the course taken by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), was it so regarded by many Members of the Opposition. He (Mr. Labouchere) protested against the remarks which had been made from his side of the House respecting what they were pleased to call Obstruction. At the last General Election the issue turned on two points—the reversal of the foreign policy of the Government, and the reduction of the franchise in the counties. Both were considered of equal importance. Now, perhaps, he was a more simple and ingenuous person than most Members of the House; but he could not admit that, because Her Majesty's Government had brought in a Bill for the reduction of the franchise, they had a right to do what they liked abroad, and to violate every pledge and assurance given in the Mid Lothian speeches of the Prime Minister, and then to toll them that if they, in this crisis, wished to protest against this, they were not sound Liberals or sound Radicals. The noble Lord had asked for information on three points—the policy of the Government in Egypt, its policy in the Eastern Soudan, and its policy at Khartoum. He had, however, chosen the wrong moment to do this, because of the absence of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Labouchere) confessed there had been a certain, amount of obscurity on the part of other Members of the Government in regard to Egypt, which led him to question whether they could have absolute confidence in any statement the Government might make. He thought they did know from the Prime Minister what the policy of the Government was to be. The Prime Minister had told them at the end of last Session that his policy was to place the Khedive on his legs, and then withdraw entirely from Egypt. Since that the terrible occurrences had taken place in the Soudan, and the Prime Minister had said this Session that these had delayed the immediate evacuation of Egypt, but that the Government had not changed one iota their policy in Egypt against the establishment of a Protectorate or the annexation of the

  775
  country. Until the House had some more specific statement from a responsible Minister of the Crown than had yet boon vouchsafed, they might rest assured that the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister would be carried out. With regard to Khartoum, Her Majesty's Government were right in refusing to give any information, because, in the first place, they knew nothing. The fact was, however, unquestionable that General Gordon was. In a very difficult and even a dangerous position there; and everyone was anxious that, he should be got out of that position. They knew, at any rate, this much of the policy of the Government as regarded Khartoum and that part of the Soudan—that General Gordon was to withdraw himself and withdraw the garrisons. He presumed that was the main policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Khartoum and the part of the Soudan surrounding Khartoum. With reference to the Eastern Soudan, the Prime Minister had stated that the policy of the Government was to rescue the garrisons and then retire; hut that policy had since been modified to some extent, and now it appeared to be to ravage and remain. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said that it was intended to push forward and to disperse the forces of Osman Digna. He did not know whether that was entirely in accordance with the policy of rescuing and retiring; but after the first battle which took place they were told that Osman Digna had dispersed. Then there was another battle, and they were again told that Osman Digna had disappeared, and that his forces had dispersed. Consequently, he did not ascribe any great importance to the statement of the noble Lord that if they once more dispersed the forces of Osman Digna the road from Suakin to Berber would be open. But was that the intention of the Government when they sent out that force? He distinctly asserted it was not; indeed, the Prime Minister said they did not intend to go beyond the necessary of defending Suakin. The Government had no right to complain of discussion being raised if every day they came down with a now story as to what they were going to do. He thought the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was justified in calling attention to this subject after the statement they had read in The
  776
  Times of that day with respect to the action of General Graham and his forces in Suakin itself. The statement was that certain Abyssinians had gone there to aid us; that they had boon employed by us; that they found in the town an Abyssinian girl who had been abducted and sold into slavery; that they endeavoured to free her from slavery; and that for this crime and misdemeanour they had been disarmed by officers serving under General Graham. If an English force were to go into any town in the world, and if they found that an English girl had been abducted and sent into slavery, would they be blamed if they attempted to release that girl? Then they were told that General Graham, when not occupied in dispersing Osman Digna's troops and in slaying the Arabs, was engaged in taking care that the slaves in Suakin did not escape from their masters. That was also stated in The Times, whose Correspondent knew his business, and was well informed. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that telegrams had been sent to General Graham and Admiral Hewett for information concerning these Abyssinians. Nothing, however, had been said about inquiries being instituted respecting the slaves. Could anything be more monstrous, or more contrary to Liberal principles, than that an English Army should be employed in forcing back these people into slavery when they attempted to escape? The Government, instead of merely asking for information, ought to telegraph, to General Graham and Admiral Hewett ordering them to put a stop to it at once. He (Mr. Labouchere) had risen for two objects mainly. One was to protest against the course of action of Admiral Hewett; and the other was to protest against the Government meeting all objections to their policy by saying that those who called it in question were obstructing either the Representation of the People Bill or the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, these questions were raised again and again, because the Government were never able to announce that they had a definite policy at any stage of these Egyptian complications. They were once more drifting into a fresh line of polity. If the Government were pre-

  777
  pared to tell the House that they really intended to open the Berber road, and to despatch a sufficient force in order to rescue General Gordon, no more questions need be asked, and no more debates would be raised on this question. These debates were caused by the dissensions in the Cabinet. It was the fact that Egypt was being plunged into anarchy, that the Soudan was drifting into ruin and slavery, and that disgrace was being brought on this country because the Cabinet could not make up their minds as to a policy. From the deserted appearance of the Front Ministerial Bench at that moment, it would seem that the Members of the Cabinet were engaged elsewhere in squabbling over their internal dissensions. The Government were waiting for something to turn up. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said that the patience of the Government and of the country was exhausted. Most assuredly the patience of the country was exhausted with regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government were bound to relieve General Gordon. They had sent him on a difficult and dangerous mission, and had taken advantage of his courage and chivalry in order to shelter themselves behind those qualities in him which they showed they did not themselves possess. The Government sent General Gordon alone, without a force, and thereby compelled him, for his own protection, to issue a Proclamation which was disgraceful, not to General Gordon, but to the Government which sent him out. He trusted the Government would no longer continue in this helpless, helter-skelter course of inaction. If they were to give General Gordon £250,000 and 2,000 or 3,000 good troops, he would restore peace, develop trade, and save the honour of this country. Let them at once tell the House and the country what they meant to do; and if they were paralyzed by some Members of the Cabinet, particularly by one who formerly embarrassed the Conservative Party, let them get rid of him without delay. If the Ministry wished to put an end to Egyptian discussions, let them at once determine upon a definite and manly policy, and adhere to it.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONbelieved that the Representation of the People Bill and the Contagious Diseases (Ani-
  778
  mals) Bill were both very good measures; but he thought that the lives of men were of more importance than cattle, and it was because the lives of men were now in jeopardy that Members of the House were entitled to raise the question of our Egyptian policy whenever they had an opportunity of doing so. It was all very well to talk of a Representation of the People Bill and of enfranchising people at homo when they were sending out Armies to enslave and destroy people abroad. The House would abandon its first duty if it did not take every opportunity of finding out why the Government were calling for the money of the nation, and for what object they were carrying on that war. It was all very well to shut their eyes and bury their head in the sand like the ostrich; but if they continued to do that there would come a very unpleasant day, both for the House and the country. That was not a military but a political Motion, and its supporters did not wish to interfere with the military operations. Let the Government kill those unfortunate people in their own way and at their own time; but let them state what they were killing them for. While in that House he had never before known the case of a war—and they had had plenty of wars—in which the House was not told some reason or other why it was carried on. He had been strongly opposed to the Afghan War; still hon. Gentlemen opposite, when in Office, gave a reason for it; they told them that they wanted a scientific frontier. Then they had the Zulu War. Which he also opposed, in common with everybody who sat near him; and the President of the Local Government Board explained that the reason for that war was that the Zulus had stolen a pipe and a pocket-handkerchief. Then the reason for the war in the Transvaal was that they had stolen that country and they wished to keep it. But in the present case they had no reason at all given why the Government had sent their Army to slaughter and massacre those unhappy Arabs with whom they absolutely had no quarrel. It was said that in this discussion they were going over old ground; but they must do that until they got some answer from the Government as to their policy. When General Gordon went out they were told that lie was sent on a peaceful mission;

  779
  he went to the Soudan unarmed, and I was hailed with enthusiasm because he I vent out like a gallant, noble hero with his life in his hand to do good. But all the romance about him was gone if an Army was now to be sent to Khartoum. He, for one, was opposed to any troops being sent to rescue General Gordon if he got into a mess. General Gordon went on his own responsibility, and on that of the Government; and the people of this country ought not to be saddled with the expenditure of large sums of money and the shedding of torrents of blood, as General Gordon had undertaken his mission at his own risk. The House had been told by the Government that General Graham's Force was sent to rescue Tokar. When Tokar fell, their next excuse was that they must disperse the rebels, and they accordingly killed thousands of people who were quietly inhabiting their own country. Having twice committed that horrible slaughter, they now saw from the papers of that day—and that fact made this Motion justifiable—that another attack was contemplated upon those unfortunate tribes, whom they seemed to be pursuing for the sake of slaughter and nothing else. They were all Englishmen in that House, on whatever side they sat, and their blood must boil when they heard of what the troops were going to do. A newspaper correspondent at the seat of war the other day stated that, unless they were prepared to take it definitely in hand, all their could do now was to make raids all about the country—one of which raids on a large scale was now in contemplation—and to capture the cattle and even the women; and they might then drive the population away from the neighbourhood. Did not hon. Members feel ashamed at the idea of their troops being employed in that way against a people who had done them no harm? All that was done without explanation; and they were thought impertinent persons below the Gangway if they dared to ask what the policy of the Government was. It was really a most extraordinary state of things; he had never known the House to be in such a position before. They had a war, or, if they preferred so to call it, a warlike operation, and no information was given them for what it was carried, on. He I appealed to the Government to take the
  780
  House info its confidence—to be leaders in that matter, and not to follow the newspapers and the Jingoes with their outcry for glory, prestige, revenge, and all that sort of thing. Let them lead the people aright. He knew it would not be easy for the Government, after they had once embarked in this evil course, to retrace their steps. There was an old Scotch proverb which said,—" If you take the devil on board, you must cross the Sound with him." Having; taken the devil on board, it was difficult for the Government to get rid of him. He did not condemn the Government only, but he also condemned the people who had supported them during the last two years in those extraordinary proceedings, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had described as a violation of International and Moral Law. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in the House of Commons; but nobody cared two straws about what he said. It seemed at the time as if its only effect was to make the Government policy more popular than ever. Nobody followed the right hon. Gentleman, not even his own Friends—not even his own religious Friends—of whom there were about a dozen in the House. Did they raise their voice against slaughtering Arabs? No; when it came to a vote, they took the patriotic and prudent course of walking out of the House. Public opinion was in a very unsound state, because he was afraid everybody was now against them. The Press was against them—the Press was always for bloodshed; the great speakers, Liberal as well as Tory, were for war, and so was even the pulpit itself. They got very little help from the Christian ministers of this country. He read in a religious paper, The Christian World, the other day, an article which, after a violent attack on anybody who dared to talk of peace, concluded thus—
  "Let us take no part with the screaming chorus of objectors, but trust in God and His Ministers—Gordon and Gladstone."
  They had heard lately a good deal about political blank cheques. He thought the people of this country had given a political blank cheque to the present Government, who had filled it up with letters of blood. What a horrible state of things they were living in the midst of now! What must their children think

  781
  of the slaughter of those brave savages who were defending their country? Let them look at The Illustrated News of last week. Had they seen the pictures with the indications of the different parts of the battlefield printed underneath? Here were "heaps of dead and dying rebels," and there "English troops shooting wounded rebels." For such things to go on in a Christian nation was absolutely disgusting and sickening; and yet they talked about this murderous work being clone for Christianity and civilization! If he were a savage in one of the tribes in the Soudan, he would pray day and night to whatever Deity lie supposed ruled over his life, that he might to protected from Christianity and civilization. But he was disposed to hope that a discussion such as that might help to bring public opinion round to the right side. Surely that had been satiated with slaughter. The people who had held great meetings to denounce the Bulgarian atrocities were surely not so dead to shame as not to do something to stop these British atrocities of which they had so many. The House was doing its duty in discussing these matters; and he asked some Member of the Government to tell them something about what their policy in the Soudan was, where all that slaughter was to stop, and why their troops were engaged in it. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) told them nothing. He never did; but he was not to blame, because he knew nothing, lie asked some other Member of the Government to do it. [Cries of "Dodson!"] Well, he would not press the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because he knew the right hon. Gentleman was occupied with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill; but he wished to hear from some authoritative source what their future proceedings in the Soudan were to be. By making those appeals they had at least cleared their consciences. He did not know that they could do anything more, because the House was subservient to the Ministry. He was quite sure that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had done great service in calling attention to this matter, and trying to find out why the torrent of blood had been poured out for entirely inadequate reasons.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, after what had passed he did not
  782
  wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with a New Title.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, who had given Notice to move the rejection of the Bill, said, that, for his own part, he should be glad to see it rejected or abandoned; and he therefore did not sympathize very greatly with the somewhat inordinate zeal of the Government in pressing it upon the attention of the House. He very much agreed with the noble Lord who said the country did not care for the Bill two twopenny bits. His Notice of opposition had been placed ou the Paper in order that the House should have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments proposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before the Speaker left the Chair. The House had now seen these Amendments, and there could be no doubt that their effect would be to substantially restore the Bill to its original state. He would not, therefore, ask the House to reject the Motion for going into Committee; but he would ask his right hon. Friend to assure those who took an interest in the Bill that a sufficient time would be allowed to elapse before considering the Bill in Committee to enable them and the country to consider the important matters involved in it. If it had not been for the action of some hon. Members in delaying the measure they would not have had the important statement made by the Lord President on the previous day, when he informed a great deputation that hon. Members were justified, in using any means in their power to resist the Amendments which had been introduced in "another place," nor would they have had the still more

    783
    significant statement of the Lord President that the Bill in its present form would be wantonly mischievous to the interests of the consumers. He hoped the consumers would lay these matters to heart, and that when the House came to a Division there would not be found a single Member representing the consumers who would not protest against these Amendments, He trusted the Bill would not be brought forward in Committee until that day week at a Morning Sitting, and that if it could not be taken at a Morning Sitting it would be taken at the beginning of a Sitting of the House. If this were agreed upon, lie should not be disposed to offer further opposition to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had felt some difficulty in deciding as to the course he should pursue in regard to this Bill. Hon. Members opposite who pressed the Government upon this question hardly realized the great feeling throughout the country as to further restriction on the importation of cattle. He recollected that in 1878, when the idea of imposing restrictions was proposed, that a very strong feeling was shown to exist in the country against such a course. But while his own feeling was against further legislation on this question, and certainly against carrying restriction one step further than that proposed by the Government, he did not feel disposed to object to going into Committee. If hon. Members refused the compromise which the Government had offered, and insisted upon maintaining the Bill in the shape in which it had come from the House of Lords, then he hoped the Government would not only use all their power to pass the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had placed on the Table, but that if, by any misfortune, these Amendments should not be adopted, the influence of the Government should be used to prevent any measure of the kind becoming law. The Government in this matter were necessarily placed in a position of great responsibility. If they allowed a measure of this kind to pass, and if the Privy Council, acting upon that measure, were to act stringently in carrying out its provisions, he had no hesitation in saying there would be a large amount of feeling and discontent excited in the country against the Go-
    784
    vernment. They had had a decided expression of opinion on the part of several Members of the Government against the proposed legislation as it stood in the Bill; and he could not conceive how it was possible for the Government to allow such a measure to become law when they knew it would be productive of the greatest mischief in the country. He thought that sufficient time ought to be given before going on with the Bill for public opinion to make itself heard on the subject; the people wore now only beginning to realize the disastrous effect which the Bill as it stood would have upon them. No doubt, other Members besides himself had received from their constituents evidences of their dissatisfaction with the proposed interference with the supply of food, and the deputation of the previous day showed how vapidly that feeling was spreading in the country. He, therefore, appealed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not to take the next stage of the Bill until after Easter.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHrecognized the forbearance of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold) in not unduly pressing his objections to the Bill; and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was in a position to name that day week, at a Morning Sitting, for the further consideration of the Bill, he thought that would be an entirely satisfactory arrangement. He could only say, in regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that public opinion had become very much changed since 1878, when, undoubtedly, dissatisfaction was expressed at the effect which the restrictions on importation, in the interest of cattle disease prevention, might have on the food of the people. He was of opinion that the provisions of the existing Acts, as carried out, had thoroughly disgusted the people of this country, and had prepared them to submit to greater stringency in respect of imports, in the hope of getting rid of them more speedily, lie did not believe that there was any serious apprehension that the price of meat would be unduly interfered with; and he thought consumers would be quite satisfied to have the legislation proposed in this Bill carried into operation.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the House was certainly placed in a novel position,

    785
    for only that day had they the real Bill before them, because the Bill brought from the other House was not the Bill which the Government approved. That day they had the Bill which the Government approved in the Amendment they had placed on the Paper. In fact, that Amendment made the solo difference between what the Government approved, and which they were willing to support, and what came down from the House of Lords. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold) in the course he had taken; but he thought hon. Members who did not agree with him must admit that he had shown great moderation. A large number of Members on that side of the House were of opinion that this Bill, even in the form in which it was brought in by the Government, was not necessary; but while it might not be necessary in itself, it might be necessary as a concession to the feeling of a very important interest and to the Resolution passed last year. They were, therefore, willing to give way and support the Bill as originally introduced by the Government into the House of Lords. But, in the House of Lords, it had been so changed as to become a Bill which would be totally unnecessary, and also a very great interference with the food supply of the people. That day they were willing, under all the circumstances, to assent to the Speaker leaving the Chair, which, he need not remind the House, was a most important step, because, after it had been agreed to, the Half-past 12 Rule would not apply to it. He only mentioned this to show in what a moderate manner they were opposing the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) stated the other day that the agitation against the Bill was a sham and a misrepresentation. Those words were unfounded in an unusual degree, as lie would have been convinced if he had boon present at the deputation which yesterday waited on the Lord President. It was rare to see any movement in this country so real and hearty and determined, and, at the same time, so moderate, as was that large representation of the great body of the consumers. He was very anxious that this question should be settled by arrangement between the Representatives of the consumer and producer; and he would ask those who supported the Bill
    786
    in its present shape to consider whether, in ifs original shape, it would not do all that they wanted? It the object of the opponents of the Government had reference to an Election, he doubted whether it would be successful, for their policy would be as dangerous to them in the towns as it might be useful to them in country districts. He appealed to the Government to let sufficient time elapse in order that the country might know the altered position of the question, and also to take care that those Amendments were fairly and fully discussed. If they were not taken at a Morning Sitting, they ought to be taken at the beginning of an evening. He also hoped—and he thought not unreasonably—that if the Government did not succeed in carrying their Amendments they would cease to take any further responsibility for the measure. He understood such an intention was expressed by the Lord President yesterday, and he hoped lie would adhere to it. The Government had said they agreed with the objects of those who were opposing the Bill as sent down from the other House—that the measure was unneccssaiy—wantonly unnecessary—that it would raise the price of food. ["Oh!"] Well, he did not wish to discuss that question at present; but he believed he could prove it. He merely said that was the line the Government took; and as the Representative of the Government had declared that opinion, they should not, under any circumstances, allow themselves to be responsible for a measure which they declared to be wantonly unnecessary, and to be an unreasonable interference with the supply of food.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he had a Notice of opposition on the Paper; but he did not intend to press it, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) promised that the Bill would not be taken at an unreasonable hour. All he was anxious to insure was that proper measures should be adopted to prevent the re-infection of Ireland with disease; and when the proper time came he would be prepared to submit an Amendment to secure that object.
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, he thought it reasonable that sufficient time should be given for considering the effect of the Amendments to be proposed by the Government; but there should be no unnecessary delay. That day week

    787
    ought to be the latest day, on account of the Quarter Sessions.
    MR. PELLsaid, his object in rising was, if possible, during the next few weeks to induce English cattle owners and cattle breeders to view the question of internal restrictions in a different way to what they did at the present time. There was no doubt that the intention of the Bill, even in its amended shape, was to impose severe restrictions upon the foreign cattle trade. If the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and those who supported him in his proposal were really desirous to see effect given to their views, they should, at the same time, be prepared to urge upon the Government, as far as they possibly could, the institution in this country of some regulations in reference to the home cattle trade similar to those sought to be imposed upon the foreign trade. As it was now, if a cargo of animals from America were unloaded at Birkenhead the animals would at once have to be slaughtered; while, in Lancashire, perhaps even within a mile of the spot where that cargo was unloaded, a farmer might have a diseased animal breathing contamination over the hedge, and that animal was to live while the foreign cargo of healthy animals was to be slaughtered. He failed to see any reason for such inconsistency.
    MR. ANDERSON, as representing a very large community of consumers, desired to say a word or two in support of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). His constituents did not consider there was any necessity for any further restrictions. They did not want this Bill; they did not like it. At the same time, they acknowledged that after the vote of the House last year the Government wore bound to introduce a measure; and he and his Friends were willing to accept the Government measure in the form in which it was introduced, as it was a compromise of the question. But the House of Lords had not treated it as a compromise. They had altered it very seriously, to an extent that made the measure altogether abominable to those who represented the consumers, and they could not accept it now without the most strenuous efforts to alter it. If hon. Members on the opposite side, like the House of Lords,
    788
    declined to accept the Government measure, as the Government meant it, as a compromise, and attempted to confirm and carry out the Amendments of the House of Lords, there would be an excitement over the country among the large communities such as had not been seen yet. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members opposite would be content with the Government Bill as it was originally introduced, and would not attempt to go further; and if they did attempt to go further, he hoped that the Government would abandon the Bill entirely.
    MR. DODSONsaid, it would be irregular for him to anticipate the discussion on the Amendments at that stage. As to the form of the Bill, he had nothing to add now to what he had said when he moved the second reading. He only wished to answer the observations made with regard to the further progress of the Bill by Members on both sides of the House, and to acknowledge gratefully the favourable manner in which the proposal of the Government had that day been met. Their object in getting the Speaker out of the Chair was to save time, and to advance the progress of the Bill. They felt that the real discussion on the Bill must be taken in Committee, and this would enable them on the first opportunity to at once proceed with that discussion. If the Motion were assented to, he assured hon. Members there was no intention on the part of himself or his Colleagues to take advantage of any section of the House in regard to the further progress of the Bill. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had said on Monday night that it was not the intention of the Government to make any progress with the Bill that day. The Government were asked not to bring the Bill forward before that day week. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to proceed with it in Committee at an earlier period. He did not know whether the House would assent to a Morning Sitting; but he proposed, in the event of this Motion being agreed to, to put the Bill down for Monday evening, not with any view of taking it that evening, but with a view of seeing, meanwhile, what arrangement could be made for taking it on as early a day, and at as convenient an hour, as possible. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Ennis

    789
    (Mr. Kenny), the Bill dealt with Ireland in exactly the same way as with Great Britain. They had not the slightest intention of putting any impediment in the way of the Irish trade; but they thought that any provisions which tended to secure Great Britain against foot-and-mouth disease would also tend to secure Ireland against it.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was glad to hear the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. All the Irish Members were determined that precautions should be taken to prevent the re-infection of Ireland with foot-and-mouth disease. It was well known that when England became infected Ireland would, in the course of time, be also infected. He thought the Irish farmer deserved the highest commendation for the patience with which he submitted to the regulations during the past 12 months; and they were most anxious that the small farmers of Ireland should not be again obliged to suffer by restrictions as they were during that period.
    MR. R. H. PAGETprotested against the monstrous doctrine of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that if the Amendments which the Government had put upon the Paper wore not adopted by the House, they should stop the further progress of the Bill. He (Mr. E. H. Paget) maintained that the farmers and agriculturists of England were wise enough to know that if the effect of this Bill was clearly to be that predicted by its enemies—namely, to force meat up to famine prices, it would not stand a day. They would not be so unreasonable as to ask for a measure which would have the effect of increasing the price of meat in this way. He believed the action of this measure would be to keep disease out of the country, and, by keeping it out, to give freedom of operation to the farmers of the country, and to increase the flocks and herds of the country. So far from raising the price of meat, if anything was ever to tend to reduce the price of meat, it was clearly that which would keep out disease. With regard to internal regulations for the prevention of disease, he held that it would be wise to invest Local Authorities with a discretionary power of slaughter. Of course, he did not mean that whenever an infected animal was found it should be killed then and there. Slaughter could only
    790
    be regarded as an effectual remedy just at the beginning of an outbreak, or just at its close. The existing system of compensation to owners was inconvenient, and he would venture to suggest that some modification should be made in it.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYconcurred in the views of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). There was no doubt whatever that when foot-and-mouth disease got into a small compass, the most economical way of dealing with it was to slaughter the animals and compensate the owners. The cost to the ratepayers would be much less than under the existing system. He would go further, and recommend that when once foot-and-mouth disease was stamped out in the country, and if it happened to be brought in again from abroad, it should be dealt with in the same manner as rinderpest was dealt with. If that were done, he believed very little more would be heard of foot-and-mouth disease. It would occasion but slight loss to the country, and would be of advan-to the consumers no less than to the farmers.
    MR. GREGORYsuggested that it might be desirable to have the now clause of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster printed separately in extenso, and to have the two proposals side by side, so that Members might readily understand what the new proposals were. He represented a county (East Sussex) largely interested in Irish stock, and he hoped the Government would take measures to have vessels carefully watched in which American stock was imported, so as to prevent the importation of the disease from America.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that an important point in connection with this matter was that the Government should insist upon proper regulations in the vessels in the cattle trade between Ireland and England. The Lord Lieutenant, speaking on the question, said that the Irish animals going into these vessels might be healthy, but owing to the condition of the vessels the animals left them infected with disease. Now, he thought, under those circumstances, that the Government ought to take powers under this Bill to throw such vessels out of trade for a certain time, until it was shown that they were again in proper condition.
    MR. J. HOWARDwas understood to say that the Privy Council, under Section 32 of the Act of 1878, had such powers—indeed, plenary powers.
    COLONEL NOLAN: If they had, why were they not used? If the Lord Lieutenant complained that disease was generated in those vessels, why did he not use the powers he possessed to prevent animals from being infected by disease in that way? He (Colonel Nolan) thought they were entitled to an answer from the Government on that matter.
    MR. STORERsaid, he could not assent to the doctrines which had been propounded by hon. Members as to the slaughter of cattle—particularly when it was proposed that it should be accompanied by the payment of compensation out of the rates, which he considered to be most unjust, inasmuch as persons who had bred and reared cattle at home, and thus carefully excluded disease, would be liable to contribute to the compensation to be paid to others who had recklessly purchased cattle which had imported disease. He thought the cost should be thrown, by way of a penalty, on those who imported the disease. Delay was exceedingly dangerous, and if the Bill were not speedily passed the farmers would not submit to the restrictions to which they were now subject.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Veterinary Profession were practically agreed that disease was not communicated by the meat, but by the hides, hoofs, and offal of slaughtered cattle. He ventured to suggest to the Government that some measures should be taken with a view to dealing with this branch of the question.
    MR. HEALYcomplained that the Government had not answered the questions put to them by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan). Of course, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had already spoken; but why was not some Member of the Government present to reply to those important questions? The Government, he was informed, had the power to throw out of trade for a certain time all vessels carrying foreign animals that were infected with foot-and-mouth disease. Well, why did not the Government seek for such powers in this Bill with regard to the vessels plying between England and Ireland in the cattle trade? The Lord Lieutenant spoke of the necessity
    792
    for such powers; but it was not at all clear that he did not possess such powers already; so that it came to this—that the officials in Dublin Castle did not know the powers under which they were acting. He thought that if strong measures had been taken with one or two shipowners it would have acted as a deterrent upon others. If a shipowner had onto had his vessel branded as a place of contamination his brethren in the trade would be very careful as to the course of action they pursued. Something would be gained if shipowners were compelled to compensate the owners of cattle for any loss they might sustain by the passage of cattle in their boats. With reference to the Irish cattle ships, he thought it was the duty of the Privy Council to institute a proper system of disinfection. Ireland was entirely at the mercy of the larger country in the matter of disease. In the first instance, the disease was imported into Ireland from England, and there was a number of hungry veterinary surgeons in Dublin who were not sorry to see it spread, because it increased their business. A bull belonging to Lord Carbery was introduced into the country, and was allowed to remain in Dublin for some days. That animal was a great source of infection. If it had belonged to John Smith, no doubt it would have been slaughtered; but, as it was, the animal was under the protection of the coronet of Lord Carbery. He contended that the Bill failed to deal with disease in a proper manner. It had been pushed through the House at Morning Sittings, and hon. Members had not had a proper opportunity of discussing the matter. He asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for some statement on behalf of the Government with, regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that the Bill before the House dealt entirely with the importation of foreign animals into the United Kingdom, and had nothing whatever to do with internal restrictions upon their movements. With regard to the Irish cattle ships, the Privy Council had power to order any amount of disinfection, and in that way indirectly to prevent a vessel being used for a certain time; but they had no direct power to order that a ship should not be used for any

    793
    stated period. He would point out, however, that the Irish Privy Council, with the full concurrence of the English Privy Council, had recently issued fresh instruction as to the disinfection of vessels employed in the cattle trade between England and Ireland; and had added as a suggestion that, for the purpose of thoroughly securing; disinfection, each vessel should be withdrawn from the trade for a certain period of time. He might say that he had been informed that the owners of the vessels concerned had generally accepted and acted upon that suggestion.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, what they desired to know was whether, if some Amendment giving power to the Privy Council to order infected vessels out of the trade were proposed in Committee, the Government would accept it? This Bill was the beginning of Protection. Today they were asked to protect the cattle trade; to-morrow the great communities in the towns, when they found that they had got a dearer dinner table, would cry out for Protection for their industries. Irish Members would insist on such Amendments as they thought necessary to save the cattle trade of Ireland from ruin.
    MR. DEASYsaid, that at present the Irish cattle trade was almost rained. Farmers had been subjected to the most vexatious restrictions, and he hoped the Government would give an assurance that no such restrictions should in future be imposed. From the city which he represented (Cork) there was an extensive export trade in cattle; but that trade had been crippled owing to the manner in which the authorities at Bristol and other ports had treated Irish cattle. He believed that the restrictions had led to more loss than would have resulted if there had been no restrictions of all. What he would ask for was that a clause should be put into the Bill to enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to order the laying up for a certain time of any ship in which infected cattle had been conveyed. He wished to know why the Lord Lieutenant hunted with hounds from infected into uninfected districts? As far as Ireland was concerned, no greater mistake could be committed than compelling the slaughter of cattle in infected districts. It was ruinous to the ratepayers, who were already weighed down by rates.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the Irish Party had not yet decided as to the course they would take with regard to the Amendments; but if it were left an open question he should be very strongly in favour of those which had been introduced in the House of Lords. Their policy was to increase the working farmers who bred the cattle, and not diminish that class by getting the cattle bred elsewhere. The great outery was not raised by ordinary breeders or fatteners, but by the rearers of fancy stock.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  MADAGASCAR—PROTECTION TO BRITISH INTERESTS AND SUBJECTS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTrose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to recent events in Madagascar; and to move—
    "That Her Majesty's Ministers have failed to protect British commerce and the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in Madagascar, and to obtain adequate reparation for the affronts offered by French Commanders in that Island to the British Flag."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he was glad that the machinations of the Government had signally failed on that occasion; and it was extremely unworthy, in his humble judgment, and he believed in the judgment of the country at large, that a Government possessing such resources and such a majority as the present Government commanded, should, after taking from private Members their proper rights on Tuesday, be forced to resort to such expedients as they had had recourse to that evening. On three previous occasions he had attempted to bring forward that question; but the Government had succeeded in shelving it by tactics similar to those that had

    795
    been adopted that night. By the action of the French Government and of French Agents British trade in Madagascar to the value of nearly £1,000,000 a-year had been destroyed, and many hundreds of British subjects had been deprived of their livelihood and their property with out compensation. From the debate which took piano the day before in the French Assembly, it seemed probable that an expedition consisting of 6,000 French troops was to be sent to conquer Madagascar; and the object of that expedition was openly avowed by the speakers in the Assembly to be to drive out of the Island British traders and Protestant missionaries. The particular hostility of the French was directed towards what they described as "Independent Methodism" on that Island. It was interesting to notice how many Representatives of the Nonconformist Bodies, and of the trading communities of the North, for whom the Malagasy markets were so important, had taken the trouble to be in their places to-night. He hoped that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Cotes) would cease trying to persuade Members to leave the House. A wanton and unprovoked attack had been made on Madagascar by the French; gross insults had been offered to British officials and British subjects in that Island; and no adequate reparation or apology had been tendered. If Her Majesty's Government denied any of his facts, the responsibility for any inaccuracy rested with them, because they had furnished to the House a Blue Book which was one of the most disgraceful official compilations over presented to Parliament. The Government had suppressed every item of information they possibly could, and tilled the Blue Book with irrelevant details as to Treaties with the United States, and other matters of comparatively little importance. He did not blame the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for that compilation, but was rather disposed to ascribe it to the President of the Local Government Board, whose powers of concealment and inaccuracy had been so largely developed since he had held an official position in that House. Mr. Pakenham, the British Consul at Tamatave, was ordered to haul down his flag within 24hours and to leave his Consulate. His secretary was arrested in his presence, and Mr. Pakenbam's death
    796
    was undoubtedly accelerated by the insulting treatment to which he was exposed. The British Flag was hauled down by the French. The gallant Commander of Her Majesty's ship of war Dryad and his officers were treated with the utmost indignity. All communication with the shore was forbidden to them, and they were not allowed even to write to Mr. Shaw, a British subject, unjustly and cruelly imprisoned. Admiral Pierre sent several insulting letters to Commander Johnstone, adopting a tone to which no British officer had been subjected without reparation for many a year. The Taymouth Caste, a British packet ship, was boarded by the French, and sentries placed on her decks. Her mails were taken by the French Admiral and overhauled by him, and the outgoing mails treated in the same way. Even the Consular despatches were demanded by the French, and the captain of the packet ship was forbidden to receive them. Commander Johnstone then ordered the Taymonth Castle to get up steam and follow him. With his decks cleared for action, he steamed through the French Fleet into the offing, and there sent his despatches on board on a man-of-war's boat. This was a noble example of courage and resolution, and one which it was a pity Her Majesty's Ministers could not sometimes imitate. These events were at first justly described by the Prime Minister as being very grave and painful circumstances, yet no sufficient apology had been made for them by the French Government. Their despatch merely declared that the legitimacy of the measures taken by Admiral Pierre could not be contested, while they admitted that the tone of the communications from him ceased to have that friendly character which was to have been desired. There had been no salute of the British Flag, no recall of Admiral Pierre, and no distinct retraction of the acts of hostility that had been committed. With reference to the affronts that had been offered to Mr. Shaw, which was a distinct question into which he did not intend to go, if the Government were satisfied, if Mr. Shaw was satisfied, and if the country was satisfied that an English missionary—a man of blameless character—should be imprisoned in the hold of a French ship, fed on the bread and water of affliction, forbiddern access to any means

    797
    of legal defence, prevented from seeing his wife, and from receiving letters from the British officials, without apology from those who had been guilty of such treatment, all he could say was that such conduct would not have occurred in the time of Mr. Pitt, Lord Palmerston, or Lord Beaconsfield. If the Government thought that affronts of that kind could be atoned for by the payment of £5,000 without any apology at the same time being offered, he thought a large number of foreign Admirals and Commanders would take a cheap satisfaction in vindicating their potty authority on British subjects in a similar manner. Before leaving the case of Mr. Shaw, he should like to call attention to one or two instances of inaccuracy he had lately discovered by comparing the Blue Books with the answers of the Government. They were cases of almost incredible inaccuracy on the part of the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government. The Prime Minister, on the 21st of August last, informed the House —
    "I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that Mr. Shaw has perfect means of providing himself with legal assistance."—(3 Hansard, [283] 1509.)
    The House, however, would note that, according to the official despatches and from other information, Mr. Shaw was not allowed to have any communication with anyone off the French ship or with his wife, and that he was refused all means of communication with the British Commander's Acting Consul. At the timo the Prime Minister made answer this information had been in possession of the Government for at least a fortnight. Another remarkable statement was made by the Prime Minister. Some Member pointed out that Commander Johnstone was the Representative of the Queen. "With regard to that the Prime Minister said he—
    "Is not Acting Consul at all; but he is a gallant Officer, who had no authority to net in. a civil capacity."
    He (Mr. Ashmead Bartlett) desired to point out that the Foreign Office had been in possession for three weeks of despatches, showing that Commander Johnstone had authority to act as the representative of Consul Pakenham. He had been appointed his Vice Consul and successor by Consul Pakenham.
    798
    He had been recognized as Acting Consul by Lord Granville, and formally thanked by the Foreign Office, and yet the Prime Minister was so badly informed or so reckless that he could deny in the House that Commander Johnstone had any civil authority at all. That was only a specimen, too common, he regretted to say, of the way in which Ministers deluded the House and the country. All these despatches were in the Blue Books. Had there over been such an instance of official ignorance? It showed, in his opinion, the recklessness with which statements were made in the House even by persons of the highest authority.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Rending—Consolidated Fund (No. 1): Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment* (43).
Committee — Report — Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment * (31).

PARLIAMENT— THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked whether the Government could give any information as to when the House would rise for the Easter Holidays?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he would propose that their Lordships should adjourn on Friday, April 4, and meet again on Monday, the 21st.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  The Duke of BEDFORD chosen Speaker in the absence of The LORD CHANCELLOR and the Lords Commissioners.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1.) Bill.
  Read 1ª and to be read 2ª on Thursday next (The Earl Granville) and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.