Sitting of 2 May 1884

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Lea Bridge, Leyton, and Walthamstow Tramways Extension *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions [May 1] reported.
Ordered—First Reading—National Debt (Conversion of Stock) * [186]; Coinage * [187].
Ordered—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)*; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)*.
Committee—Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [120].

NOTICE.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S MISSION.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to give Notice that I propose to make the following Motion:—
  "That this House regrets to find that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has not tended to promote the success of Gene-

  1149
  ral Gordon's Mission, and that even such steps as may be necessary to secure his personal safety are still delayed."
  I shall on Monday ask the Prime Minister what facilities he can offer for bringing on that Motion.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—SENTENCES ON CHILDREN—REFORMATORIES.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the following case, as reported in The Edinburgh Daily Review:—
  "On Friday April 26th, at Perth Sheriff Court, a boy ten years of age, who pleaded guilty to stealing one shilling from a lockfast drawer in the Railway goods office at Aberfeldy, was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment, and thereafter to be detained in a reformatory for five years. When sentence was passed the boy burst into tears, clung to his mother, and refused to be separated from her. It was only after the lapse of some time, and the use of force by the police officers, that the boy was separated from his mother and lodged in prison;"
  if he can say what is the total cost to the public of the maintenance of a child for five years in a reformatory; and, whether the Home Office still discourages the practice of convicting and imprisoning, as criminals, children of tender years?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have inquired into this case, and have received a report on the question. The boy seems to have been a bad boy, in the habit of thieving. This is not his first offence. He is one of five children, and his mother admitted that it was a good thing for the child to be sent to a reformatory. Therefore, there is no fault to be found in that case. But I take this opportunity of saying that I do think there are a great many cases of children sent to a reformatory for a long period for which there is no justification. It has not been sufficiently considered that it is a very serious thing to take away a child for five years from its parents, and when there has not been a sufficient inquiry made into the character of the home. Two cases have come before me recently, in one of which after the sentence had expired and the child had been taken away from its parents—and the home was not a bad one—the child was sent away for years without the knowledge of its parents, and he was sent on board a North Sea fishing
  1150
  smack. In the other case the child, who was a girl, was emigrated without the knowledge and against the wish of her parents. This seems to me to be a monstrous abuse. I need not say that I at once took steps to have the children restored to their parents. But I think that very much more care ought to be taken than is taken, and it ought not to be considered right in every case to send a child to a reformatory. My hon. Friend asked whether attention is still paid in the Home Office to juvenile offences. Yes, Sir. No case of the kind fails to come under my personal notice, and inquiries are made. I am happy to say it is very rare now that I can find a case in which, upon inquiry, there was no sufficient justification for the sentence. The magistrates have acted with me most cordially with the view of diminishing, as far as possible, the number of children in prison, and the number of children has largely diminished. In all England last week there were only four cases, and I think, therefore, that on the whole the matter may be considered to be in a satisfactory condition. A great deal has been done without legislation. But there is one thing also which I ask leave to mention. That is the habit of inflicting heavy costs in these cases of small crimes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in his Summary Jurisdiction Act, made a most admirable rule that the costs were not to be inflicted except in special circumstances. But the magistrates' clerks always press to have these costs inflicted. This is a very great evil, because the parents are often unable to pay and the children cannot be sent to school.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman issued any Circular to the Justiciary clerks pointing out the provisions of the Act so far as costs are concerned?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I shall be very happy to do that. I have written over and over again on this subject. It is an immense grievance, and contrary to the intention of the Statute. It often happens that when a fine of 1s. is imposed, the costs amount to 20 s. or 30 s., and the man goes to prison in consequence of the costs. I would make an appeal to those who administer the Education Act. The way in which children for mere truancy, which ought not to be treated as a crime, are sent for

  1151
  years to a reformatory school and taken away from their home, even when the home is not a bad one, seems to be an extremely wrong one, and I hope the practice will not be repeated.
  MR. ONSLOW: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman issue a Circular to that effect?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think it better not to do so. I would rather leave it to the discretion of the magistrates.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, RATHDRUM UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that, at the recent election of Poor Law Guardians for the Rathdrum Union, county Wicklow, voting papers were not in some cases distributed to persons entitled to vote whose political opinions were known to be on the popular side; whether it is true that voting papers were not supplied to two voters named Kane and Toner in the Newcastle Electoral Division of the Union; whether, when they went to the workhouse, a distance of fourteen miles, and applied for them, they were refused by the returning officer on the ground that the application was too late; whether such refusal was in accordance with the law; whether the returning officer, Mr. Bernard Manning, is the person who acted as returning officer in the election of a guardian for the Killiskey Electoral Division of same Union in 1882, when it was found on a scrutiny, that forty-seven votes were received by him in the Conservative interest in excess of the lawful number; and, whether, if it should appear that the returning officer has not properly discharged his duty on the present occasion, he will, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, take any and what steps to secure the holding of elections for Poor Law Guardians in Rathdrum Union in an impartial manner?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the only cases in which voting papers were not distributed were those of the two voters, Kane and Toner, named in the second paragraph of the Question, who are voters for the Kilcool Electoral Division. There was no failure to distribute papers in other parts of the Union. In the case of Messrs. Kane and Toner, the Returning Officer admits
  1152
  that they were accidentally omitted in the preparation of the lists. Due public notice was given of the days upon which any person who did not receive his paper should apply; but these two voters did not apply within the prescribed time, and the Returning Officer could not legally entertain their claims. Their votes could not have affected the election, as there was a considerable majority for the candidates returned. The Returning Officer is the same person who acted as Returning Officer for the same Union in 1882. I have already informed the hon. Member that after the sworn inquiry held in that case the Local Government Board considered that the errors he then made were the result of misinterpretation of the law, and that he had no intention to do anything wrong. There was no question of political partiality; for in another Electoral Division he allowed a larger number of excess votes to the Liberal candidates. In this case nothing has occurred to show that the election was not held in an impartial manner, and the Returning Officer emphatically denies being influenced by any political considerations.

  INDIA—THE KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether high legal opinions have declared that the sum of £276,000, and other funds realised from securities and jewels of the enemy, and retained by the Indian. Government, are distributable as proceeds of the capture of Kirwee and its Chiefs; whether any judicial decision or dictum in any Law Court has overruled those opinions; whether the Treasury Board, when it decided, in May 1863, that these moneys were not booty within the meaning of a certain Indian Proclamation, was aided by legal assessors, or founded its decision on any judicial precedent; and, whether the Treasury Board retains any jurisdiction in matters of prize booty since the passing of Lord Collenham's Act, 3 and 4 Vic. c. 65, s. 22, which was framed to abolish this jurisdiction?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the last Question of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, I may say that the section of Lord Cottenham's Act to which he refers only empowers the Court of Admiralty to decide questions

  1153
  relating to booty of war when they are referred by Her Majesty in Council to its judgment, and without in any respect taking away from the Board of Treasury the power of returning such answer as it may deem fit to Petitions addressed to it. The Board of Treasury, therefore, was acting within its powers in hearing and adjudicating upon the claims of the captors of Kirwee as against the Secretary of State for India in Council in May, 1869. I may mention that these claims had no reference to funds realized from "jewels," the proceeds of which, and of similar property, were distributed as prize. The captors, on their part, dissatisfied with the decision of the Treasury, brought an action in the Court of Chancery against the Secretary of State for India, who demurred to their Petition on the ground that it rested with him, as trustee for Her Majesty, to declare what property taken in war should be treated as booty and distributed, as a matter of grace and favour, among the captors. Vice Chancellor Hall overruled the demurrer; but his ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords, on the 19th of May, 1882, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is not usual to state publicly how far the Treasury is guided by legal opinion in making its decisions; but I may say that it was not without consultation with the most eminent legal authorities, and the fullest examination of precedents, that the Board arrived at its decision in 1869.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—INTRUSION OF THE POLICE AT DAVIDSTOWN.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Sergeant M'Hugh persists in attending the meetings of the Davidstown (county Wexford) National League, although the meetings of other neighbouring branches are not so attended; whether said M'Hugh has any orders to do this; and, whether he is ordered to watch any particular member of the Davidstown branch?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sergeant M'Hugh has no special instructions to attend the Davidstown meetings; and I am again informed that his presence has not been objected to by the members of that branch. He is not ordered to
  1154
  watch any particular members of it. New instructions on the general subject of the police attending indoor meetings have now been issued, which will meet cases such as this.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to state briefly the effect of these instructions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The instructions are that in every special case an order must be given by the divisional magistrate, which must be in writing, and the police will have this order with them. In cases where the district is not within the jurisdiction of the divisional magistrate the order will be given by the Inspector General of Constabulary.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether every policeman whose presence was objected to at these meetings would be required to produce this order?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE CONSTABULARY AT TULLAMORE.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the County Inspector, District Inspector, head constable, acting constable, and all the men, except two, of the Royal Constabulary stationed at Tullamore are not Roman Catholics; and, whether any Protestant has ever made any complaint as to the preponderance of Roman Catholics, being good and loyal men, in any Constabulary district or station?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask if there is not a vast majority of Catholics in Tullamore?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is certainly a very large majority of Catholics in Tullamore. The Inspector General informs me that the County Inspector and District Inspector at Tullamore are Protestants, and the head constable is a Roman Catholic. Of the other members of the Force at Tullamore seven are Protestants and 17 Roman Catholics. Complaints of the nature referred to in the second paragraph of the Question are very rare.

  POST OFFICE—TRANSFERRED TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the propriety of extending to those telegraph clerks whose services

  1155
  were transferred from the Companies to the Department, and who (having not less than twenty-five years' service) have not received promotion consequent on the last revision, the same benefits conferred upon those whose appointments were abolished at the transfer—namely, retirement upon a pension of two-thirds of their present salary; and, if not, whether he is prepared to consider any means by which their position may be improved?
  MR. FAWCETT: The telegraphists to whom the hon. Baronet refers would come under the provision of the Superannuation Act of 1859; and this Act, except on the score of ill-health, would not admit of their retirement on pensions of two-thirds of their salary or any other amount unless their appointments were about to be abolished, which, I need hardly say, is not the case. These telegraphists, in common with others, have lately had their positions and prospects very considerably improved, at a large additional charge to the Revenue; and, under these circumstances, I do not think I should be justified in holding out any hope that the question can be re-opened.

  POST OFFICE—NORTHERN DISTICT TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Postmaster General, If he could state to the House, the number of exchange and private telephone wires respectively there are in use by the Northern Telephone Company, worked and maintained by the Company at its own expense, at Newcastle on Tyne, according to the latest Return furnished by the Department; the amount of the royalties paid to the Department per annum therefrom respectively; the number of telephone wires similarly in use respectively by the Post Office at the same date; the cost of the same; the revenue therefrom; the royalties which the Post Office would receive therefrom, without cost to the Department, assuming them to have been erected and maintained by a private company, and to be charged the same rate for royalty as now charged by the Department to the Company in Newcastle on Tyne?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I may state that on the 31st of March last the Northern District Telephone Company had 54 subscribers to
  1156
  their telephone exchange in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and £54 was returned by the Company as payable to the Post Office on account of royalties. At the same date the Post Office had 362 subscribers, who paid rentals amounting to £7,750 per annum. Assuming that there was the same number of subscribers, and that the same rentals were paid to a private Company, the royalty would be £775. The profit obtained by the Post Office is certainly larger than this amount. No return is rendered by the Northern District Telephone Company of private wires; and I am, therefore, unable to contrast the figures relating to such wires with those of the Post Office.
  MR. GRAY: What is the cost to the Department of the erection and maintenance of the wires, and the profits above that?
  MR. FAWCETT: I cannot say. I am sure the profit to the Post Office is greater than that of erection and maintenance.

  INLAND REVENUE—ASSISTANT SURVEYORSHIPS—EXAMINATION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the examination fixed for the 6th May 1884 for Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes, comprising five subjects, is closed against the Lower Division Clerks in the Tax Survey Branch of the Inland Revenue who have passed in ten subjects (including bookkeeping, one of the five in the Assistant Surveyorship Examination), and is open exclusively to Second Class Excise Assistants who have passed in only six subjects, all of which are included in the ten passed by the Lower Division. Clerks; and, what objection is there to the reduction from ten to (say) six years of the time which Lower Division Clerks in the Tax Survey Branch of the Inland Revenue are required to serve before they are eligible for promotion to Assistant Surveyorships, seeing that, since 1881, the Higher Division Examination for Assistant Surveyorships has been abolished, and the standard of examination reduced in the proportion of thirteen subjects to five subjects, one of which the Lower Division Clerks have already passed?
  MR. COURTNEY: The examination for Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes, fixed for next week, follows the special

  1157
  regulations drawn up less than three years ago. These regulations were carefully considered, and it does not appear desirable to re-open them without a larger experience of their working.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any confirmation of the news brought by the mail steamer Senegal, which arrived in the Mersey on the 28th April—namely, that the proposal to hand territory on the Congo over to the Portuguese was becoming known among the Natives; that at Kinsembo and Ambrizette the feeling was very strong, and would probably result in forcible opposition to any attempt to carry the Treaty into force; and that at other parts of the coast, where the Natives are of a quieter spirit, they stated their intention to leave their homes, rather than submit to Portuguese rule; and, whether the Government have any information on the subject of M. de Brazza's proceedings on the Congo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have received no information on either of the points referred to in the Question.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Have Her Majesty's Government ever taken any steps to obtain such information?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; there is no call for inquiry on the part of the Government. No doubt, the information that has arrived will reach the Foreign Office; and as regards M. de Brazza, there is no ground for making special inquiry.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—CAPTAIN E. A. CAMPBELL.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would lay upon the Table the whole of the Correspondence of Captain E. A. Campbell with the Government of Madras, Revenue Department, dated March and April 1882, and February 1883, complaining of certain official irregularities; also the whole of the Correspondence on the same subject by Captain Campbell with the Viceroy of India in July, August, and September 1883, and with the Secretary of State for India, dated July and August 1882,
  1158
  February, July, August, September, November, and December 1883?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: On the 8th of June, 1882, the Government of Madras informed the Secretary of State that Captain Campbell had entirely failed to substantiate the charges which he had made. In this opinion the Secretary of State, after full consideration of the Papers, entirely concurred, and informed Captain Campbell that he declined to receive any further communication from him on the subject, except through the Government of Madras. Under these circumstances, I must decline to lay upon the Table the Correspondence in question.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE RATE COLLECTOR OF THE BLACKROCK TOWNSHIP COMMISSION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table Copy of the Report or Reports of the Local Government Board Auditor on the accounts of the Commissioners of Blackrock Township, dealing with the defalcations of their rate collector, Mr. J. D. Elliott? The hon. Member further asked whether the Local Government Board had yet resolved upon any course with regard to the future of Mr. Elliott?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I learn from the Local Government Board that there are no Reports from their Auditor dealing with defalcations of Mr. Elliott; but that in the last Report of the Auditor, dated 25th February, attention was directed to the large amount of rates which appeared to be uncollected; and there is no objection to lay this Report on the Table if desired. With regard to the latter aspect of the Question, I have not yet heard of the state of the inquiry which was to have been instituted by the Blackrock Town Commissioners, or whether it resulted in any decision. I will not, however, lose sight of the matter.
  MR. GRAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, besides being an officer of the Blackrock Town Commissioners, this Mr. Elliott was also an officer of the Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman was President?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were in full possession of the facts,

  1159
  and the point raised by the hon. Member had not escaped his notice.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—CAPTAIN HON. C. F. CROFTON.
  MR. DAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that Captain the Hon. C. F. Crofton has been nominated for a place on the Irish Lights Board; whether Captain Crofton holds the position of Harbour Master of Kingstown under the Board of Works; and, whether, being a Government Officer, he is eligible to be a Commissioner of Irish Lights?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of the nomination referred to, as the Commissioners are not required to inform, and never do inform, the Board of Trade of the nomination or election of members of their body; and I do not know the position of the gentleman named in the Question; but, so far as I am aware, there is nothing in the fact of Captain Crofton holding a Government appointment to make him ineligible as a Commissioner of Irish Lights.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE CONSTABULARY AT ARMAGH.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in addition to six promotions made by Mr. Garrett, County Inspector of Armagh, to the ranks of sergeant and acting-sergeant, whereof five were of Protestants and only one of a Catholic, as already stated in an answer of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, although the Catholics formed 59 per cent of the county force, the same inspector has since made six further promotions to the same ranks in the same county, whereof all were of Protestants, making altogether eleven promotions of Protestants and one of a Catholic, whilst Mr. Garrett had charge of the County Armagh Constabulary; whether Mr. Garrett was accustomed to place a number of Catholics at the bottom of his promotion list, so that if questioned on their exclusion from promotion, he could point to their occupying a low place on his list, whilst the upper places were all occupied by Protestants; and, whether he will inquire into these complaints?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I find that there have been in the County of Armagh since the date of the former Question to which the hon. Member refers three
  1160
  promotions from the rank of acting-sergeant to that of sergeant. Promotions in this grade are, by the regulations of the Constabulary Force, made according to seniority, if the men are qualified. The three senior men were Protestants. As they were qualified, they were promoted. There have also been three constables promoted to be acting sergeants. These men also were Protestants. Two of them were the senior men of the rank, recommended by the District Inspectors. There was, therefore, only one promotion made out of the strict line of seniority. Mr. Garrett is not now County Inspector of Armagh, and the Notice given of this Question did not allow time for communication with him; but the Inspector General states that no doubt he considered the constable, who had upwards of 11 years' service, specially qualified for promotion. The Inspector General states that an inspection of Mr. Garrett's promotion lists shows that it is not the case that he was accustomed to place Roman Catholics in low places.

  MALTA—MILITARY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT—THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state what portion of the civil duties of the Governor of Malta will in future be performed by the Lieut.-Governor; or what are to be the new powers and responsibilities in consideration of which the title of Colonial Secretary is to be altered to that of Lieut.-Governor, and the salary of the office largely increased?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Governor is in future only to receive £3,000 a-year, instead of £5,000, from the Revenues of Malta. Out of the saving of £2,000 a-year an addition is to be made to the salary of the Chief Secretary, who will be also called Lieutenant Governor, and his status thereby raised. The Governor will continue to be the head of the Administration; but it has been thought expedient that the chief permanent civil officer under the Governor should occupy a position of higher influence and consideration than hitherto, with greater authority in matters of administrative detail. It is proposed that on ordinary occasions he should preside instead of the Governor in the

  1161
  Council of Government, which is the Legislative Body. The matter has been considered with the new Governor, and has his concurrence, and its announcement has been very favourably received in the Island.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: If the Lieutenant Governor is hereafter to preside in the Council, who is to be responsible for the introduction and defence of Government measures?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman should give Notice of the Question.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government are in possession of any despatches or telegrams from General Gordon to the Government at home, or to Sir E. Baring, other than those already laid before Parliament; if so, why they are not included in the Papers now laid upon the Table, and whether they will be at once presented; if not, whether they will at once procure from Sir E. Baring any such despatches or telegrams as may have been sent by General Gordon to Sir E. Baring, and lay them upon the Table without delay?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the full text of General Gordon's Despatch to Sir Evelyn Baring, dated April 8th, and referred to in Sir Evelyn Baring's Despatch of April 18th (No. 24, p. 12), in which he says, "Gordon evidently thinks he is to be abandoned and is very indignant;" and, the full text of General Gordon's telegram to Sir Samuel Baker referred to in No. 25?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There are no despatches and telegrams from General Gordon to the Government at home, except those announcing his arrival in Egypt. All his despatches and telegrams to Sir Evelyn Baring are laid on the Table, with the following exception:—(1) Those which had been transmitted by Sir Evelyn Baring since March 25. These will be laid before Parliament in due course. As special interest attaches to the telegram referred to in Sir Evelyn Baring's telegram of April 18, mentioned in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr.
  1162
  Ashmead-Bartlett), that telegram has been laid to-day, together with the telegram of April 18, from Sir Evelyn Baring, which has been accidentally omitted. The other exceptions are (2) some telegrams relating to the alleged intention of General Gordon to visit the Mahdi himself. These also have been laid to-day. The third exception relates to information of a confidential character, which, it is believed, would, if published, be a source of military danger to General Gordon, or to other important public interests of an international character, and which it is, therefore, not intended to lay before Parliament. Inquiry has been made of Sir Evelyn Baring, and he has informed the Government that he has sent home all the telegrams and despatches received from General Gordon.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: How soon will the telegrams be delivered?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I hope they will be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday morning.
  MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that all the telegrams alluded to as having been received since the 25th of March will be laid on the Table, or have they been laid to-day?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No. Those will be laid in continuation of the Blue Book in the ordinary course; but I shall make every effort to avoid delay.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Why cannot we have all the telegrams by Monday morning?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is actually impossible; I cannot promise them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Can the noble Lord state the latest date within the knowledge of the Government on which a communication from the Government reached General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think that point arises out of the Question upon the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received that messengers have been despatched to General Gordon, as suggested in Earl Granville's telegram to Mr. Egerton of 23rd April; and, whether, should access to the General be possible, he will be distinctly informed that, the undertaking of military expeditions being beyond the scope of the commission

  1163
  which he holds, and at variance with the policy which was the purpose of his mission to the Soudan, Her Majesty's Government not only declines to furnish him with Turkish troops for such expeditions, but forbids them, as well as any attempt on his part to "settle the Mahdi power," as suggested in his telegrams to Sir E. Baring and to Sir 8. Baker of last month?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Messages in keeping with the terms of telegram, No. 36, in "Egypt, No. 13," have been sent to General Gordon from Dongola and Suakin by two separate messengers in each case. There is no Report yet from Massowah, from which it was also proposed to act.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the noble Lord whether it is not the fact that the instructions of Her Majesty's Government to General Gordon embrace not only the retirement of the garrisons from the Soudan, but also the establishment of alternative Governments there and the protection of the ancestral Sultans?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think the hon. Member might satisfy himself with regard to a great many of his inquiries by turning to the Blue Books.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I have asked the noble Lord a very simple Question with regard to the instructions on which the whole action of General Gordon rests; and I now ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order, whether I am not entitled to ask the noble Lord for a more direct answer to a Question of that kind; and whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House that a Member should be referred vaguely to a large number of Blue Books.
  MR. SPEAKER: It rests entirely in the discretion of the Minister.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state the reasons for which the Despatch of Sir Evelyn Baring, dated March 24th (No. 301), was not communicated to Parliament in the Ministerial Statements of April 4th, and especially the following passages: —
  "General Gordon is evidently expecting help from Suakin, and he has ordered messengers to be sent along the road from Berber to ascertain whether an English Force is advancing;
  1164
  "Under present circumstances I think an effort should be made to help General Gordon from Suakin;
  "General Stephenson and Sir Evelyn Wood, while admitting the great risk, are of opinion that the undertaking is possible?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This and the following Question of the hon. Member for Eye ask for reasons, and involve matter of argument. They are, therefore, opposed to the practice of the House, and I must decline to answer them.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to Order. The noble Lord has indulged the House with a description of the position of these Questions as regards their right to be on the Paper. Now, Sir, they are on the Notice Paper by your authority; and I ask you whether the noble Lord is not bound to give some other answer?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood the noble Lord, to reply to the Questions, to state that, in his opinion, they were of an argumentative character, and that he declined to answer them to the full extent to which they were put. In that proceeding the noble Lord is perfectly in Order.
  LORD JOHN MANNEES: Does the noble Lord mean that the Questions are argumentative, or the answers the noble Lord might give? I looked at the Questions and thought they were very simple.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am asked to state "the reasons" in one of the Questions, and the word "why" is used in the other. That involves matter of argument which is not customary at Question time; and I do not see how I can reply without going into greater length than would be proper in an answer.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On that point of Order, I would call to your recollection, Sir, the fact that; the noble Lord—
  MR. SPEAKEE: I must remind the hon. Member that I have already settled the point of Order.
  LORD GEOEGE HAMILTON: Might I ask you, on the point of Order, whether, if a Member of this House asks a Member of the Government why some Papers are not produced, that can be considered an argumentative Question? If you will look at the Question you will see he asks merely why certain Papers are not presented.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand the noble Lord to say that. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Question involved so much of argument that it was difficult to answer it within the limits of an answer to a Question. Acting on his own discretion, the noble Lord decided he could not answer the Question.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he considers that in the present state of intense interest and suspense with regard to the fate of General Gordon he thinks it proper, on the part of the Government, to take refuge in such a statement?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS TO THE MAHDI.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has seen in the French Figaro, or it has been brought otherwise to his knowledge, that a French journalist has been stopped at Dongola and prevented from proceeding to the residence of the Mahdi; and, whether it is to be understood that French gentlemen, accredited as special correspondents by French journals, are not allowed, in pursuit of their avocation, to travel in the Soudan beyond Dongola?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to enter into subjects referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, relating, as they do, to statements in foreign newspapers and the action of French subjects in Egypt.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF BERBER.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state why Her Majesty's Ministers, in view of the urgent request of the Governor of Berber for military help, and of his statement that "if Berber falls there would be no more hope for the Soudan;" of Nubar Pasha's opinion that "two Egyptian battalions at Assouan should be sent on at once to Berber;" and, of the opinion of the British Generals that an Anglo-Egyptian Force could be sent to Berber, the British Government telegraphed to Hassem Khalifa, Governor of Berber, that no help could be given to him?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I replied just now to both Questions.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Am I in Order in asking the noble Lord whether he will kindly repeat the answer which he gave, for I failed to understand it? [Cries of "Order!"] Will he be so good as to inform the House why he declines to reply? [Cries of "No! "]
  [No reply.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH—BOROUGH OF LEICESTER—DRAINAGE OF NEIGHBOURING RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether a communication was received from the Corporation of Leicester on the 4th March, to the effect that an adjoining rural district has practically no sewerage or drainage system, in consequence of which serious nuisance was being caused to the inhabitants of the borough of Leicester; and, whether the Board has taken any practical action; and, if not, whether there is likely to be further delay by the Board in the matter?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We received a communication from the Town Council of Leicester to the effect stated, and we addressed a letter to the sanitary authority of the rural sanitary district referred to asking for their reply. Not receiving an answer from the sanitary authority, we wrote on the 15th of April pressing for a reply. We are still without an answer, and have again written to the authority requesting a reply without further delay.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering that all Inspecting Officers of Volunteers concur in the opinion that nothing contributes more to the efficiency of the Volunteer Force than their attendance at Volunteer camps, he will not sanction the attendance this season of all Volunteers who have applied to go into camp, without restriction as to numbers, and grant to them the full allowance as in previous years, and in accordance with the Volunteer Regulations, 1881, section 29, paragraph 913?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is stated in the Regulations for the

  1167
  Volunteers that a portion of the Force will in each year be assisted to form regimental camps of exercise. The original intention was that each corps should be assisted to camp out once in three years. As at first only a portion of the Force made application, the corps applying were allowed to camp out year after year. But this year a very large number of applications to camp out have been received; and to keep the expense within the grant it has been necessary to place a limit on the number. Accordingly, instead of excluding entire corps, as would have been the case under the original intention, the number of permissions granted has been limited to 80 per cent of the numbers of the corps applying.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether, since the arrangement described, some corps had not sent in an intimation that they could not go into camp with the reduced allowance?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not without Notice give a full answer to the Question. He believed some intimations to the effect stated by the hon. Member had been received.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked whether, considering the great importance of camp training to Volunteers, the Government could not introduce a Supplementary Vote, so that all Volunteers who applied might be enabled to go into camp?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that was a question which could more properly be discussed on the Estimates.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—KEEPING A HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in proposing to take Morning Sittings at this early date, he will undertake to secure the opportunity for honourable Members having the first place on the Notice Paper for those days to bring on such Notice by keeping a House for them?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman put this Question under a misapprehension as to the power of the Government in the matter. I have no hesitation in saying, on the authority of my noble Friend (Lord Richard Grosve-
  1168
  nor) and from my own experience, that if we were to undertake to keep a House for hearing the Motions of Members, which hon. Gentlemen are not willing to come down and listen to, we could not do it. What I would say is this—that if there be a case in which general interest is felt, I have no doubt a House would be kept; but if hon. Members should accidentally fail to secure a House, then, in the event of our obtaining a larger share of the time of the House than we require, the matter could be brought before the attention of the House.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the copy of the invitation to a Conference upon Egyptian affairs sent to the Powers, and the Replies thereto?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman desires to have the document of invitation in the hands of the House, the Government would undertake to produce it. With regard to the answers, I consider the Question to be premature. They have not even yet been all received.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the same course will be taken as in the case of the Conference at Berlin? That is to say, the answers and the invitations were laid before Parliament at the time the communication was made that the Conference would take place.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must defer my reply to that Question until the answers have all been received. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should put such a Question before the answers have been received. He must know that it is not the custom to give undertakings to produce Papers that are not yet in the possession of the Government. The case of the Berlin Conference was in no sense a parallel one to this, because we are not going to ask the House for a large Vote or Money to support our action at the Conference which is to take place.
  MR. BOURKE: In consequence of the answer of the Prime Minister, I beg to give Notice that, if I have the opportunity, I will call attention to the matter on going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, consistently with the public interests, he can give the House an assurance that the Representative of Her Majesty's Government at the contemplated Conference will give no pledge, and enter into no covenant, which either will involve, or which may involve, the taxpayers of this Country in any expenditure or responsibility in connection with Egyptian finance?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend will see that I cannot give an engagement of this kind. If we were to undertake that nothing should be done by us in Conference on one particular subject, other gentlemen, according to their opinions, would rise and inquire whether we could give similar engagements in regard to other matters in which they take an interest. The subject which my hon. Friend has mentioned is one of great importance; and I think he may rely upon it that we shall exercise due caution, and have due regard to what we know to be the feeling of the House.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—DWELLINGS OF THE POOR—CLERKENWELL.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of he Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Clerkenwell Vestry, as reported in The Islington Gazette of April 29th, and to the statement of the Chairman of the Sanitary Committee that, in that parish, there were houses of the poor which were a disgrace to civilisation, and that the places reported by the medical officer as clean were putrid and black; whether such statement was true; whether it is true, as stated, that the sanitary inspectors have neglected their duty; whether the Vestry declined to accept the recommendations of the Sanitary Committee; and, what he proposes to do in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have no official knowledge of the facts reported, but believe that the report is accurate. I was already aware that the Sanitary Committee by a majority, and their Chairman, hold the view which I formed myself in November and December last on repeated inspection of the parish. The Vestry have, on former occasions, declined by a majority to accept various recommendations of the Sanitary Committee. On the recent occa-
  1170
  sion they appear to have adjourned the question. I have no power over the Vestry; but, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, I called the attention of my Colleagues to the matter, and the Chairman of the Sanitary Committee has been examined by the Commission.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked what would be the arrangement of Business for next week?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they hoped to take the Army Estimates on Monday, and the Navy Estimates on Thursday.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked what had become of the Merchant Shipping Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not understood that the Merchant Shipping Bill has foundered, or suffered any other particular accident, since the answer of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject, which was to the effect that, as soon as the exigencies of Supply—in which, of course, Ways and Means must be understood—had been satisfied, a day would be named for proceeding further with the Bill.
  MR. SEXTONasked when the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill would be resumed?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if the House agreed with the Motion he was about to make, he proposed to resume it at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday next.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Prime Minister's answer was inconsistent with that given by the President of the Board of Trade, who had said that he proposed to proceed with the Merchant Shipping Bill as soon as the Speaker had been moved out of the Chair on the Franchise Bill, subject only to the exigencies of Supply. Were they to understand that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade was set aside by the new proposal of the Prime Minister?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the President of the Board of Trade had spoken in regard to the disposal of the time which was actually at the command of the Government, and his answer was exactly with reference to that time. But since their viewing carefully the state of Public Business, the Government felt obliged to make an additional demand.

  1171
  Consequently, the Merchant Shipping Bill did not enter in the same manner into the subject.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked after what hour the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill would not be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have put aside effective Supply for the sake of this Bill; and undoubtedly we shall go on with the consideration of the measure if we have a chance before half-past 12.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in rising to move, "That until the end of June this House will meet on Tuesdays and Fridays at 2 o'clock," said: When my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) gave Notice of his Amendment on this subject, I heard it without dissatisfaction, because I quite admit that when demands for Morning Sittings become frequent, it is not satisfactory that the Question of "Aye" or "No" upon them should be decided by a conversational and irregular debate, incomplete and incoherent, arising, perhaps, at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning; and therefore we considered our course, and examined what the precedents had been on former occasions. Certainly I am making a concession to my hon. Friend, though it is a concession I do not grudge, because in no former year has any Motion of this kind been made since the original Motion made by Mr. Disraeli in 1867. But this year, in consequence of the pressure of Public Business, the necessity of asking for Morning Sittings has become unusually strong; and therefore it is quite fair that we should ask the House to consider the question more as a whole, and with more than usual deliberation. I at once admit that I am asking for Morning Sittings—not, indeed, for the entire Session, or with the possibility of their lasting the entire Session—at a somewhat earlier period than has been usual in former years. Mr. Disraeli made his proposal in 1867, I think, on the 27th May. I am making the same request upon the 2nd of May. Mr. Disraeli then asked
  1172
  for Morning Sittings until the end of June. His reason for the limitation was that his plan was an experiment. It was an experiment which I, for one, approved and supported; when he made a renewed demand I thought it a good plan; and, on the whole, I believe it has served materially to enable the House to face the constantly-increasing demand on its time and patience. I do not call it a perfect plan, and I know that it may be considered anomalous and inconvenient, having regard to the work that has to be done by private Committees; but still it is a plan that, upon the whole, has produced a very great balance of good. As we are making a demand which I admit to be, to some limited extent, in excess of former demands, I think it is fair that I should point out to the House what I conceive to be the changes in the course and state of Business that have made this demand a necessity, for I do not hesitate to say that it is a consideration of public necessity, and nothing else, that has led us to make it. The House knows that, with regard to Monday and Thursday evenings, we already have ample demands upon them before us. Even if it were only the demands of Supply and Ways and Means that had to be met there would be very little time to spare between this and Whitsuntide. But we have got on our hands a Franchise Bill of the greatest importance—a Bill with regard to which no one, I think, will deny that it is desirable to carry it to a speedy issue, and with regard to which it is perfectly plain that, if it is to be dealt with in detail, there is no chance of carrying it forward except at Morning Sittings. It was for this very purpose, in a time of far less pressure, that Mr. Disraeli made his request in 1867 for Morning Sittings; and it was in the Morning Sittings of that year that the Franchise Bill was, if not wholly, yet mainly and substantially disposed of. I do not recollect if there was at that time any other Bill of great importance before the House; but we have many Bills of importance before the House—Bills either already produced, or about to be produced. There is, for example, the London Government Bill. That measure, affecting 4,000,000 of population in this Metropolis, must be felt to be a measure of first-class importance. In other years, and in times of less

  1173
  pressure, we have been able to pass not only one, but two or three measures of first-class public importance in one Session of Parliament. In 1870 we passed the Irish Land Bill, the Education Bill, and the Ballot Bill; and all those were measures requiring most minute attention in Committee. We have thought it our duty to do the best we can. We should be delighted if such were the assistance given to us by the House that we could this Session also pass three great measures—the Franchise Bill, the London Government Bill, and the Local Government Bill. To give the great measure introduced by the Home Secretary a fair chance, it is absolutely necessary to ask for a larger share of the time of the House. I will not dwell greatly upon the Cattle Diseases Bill, which we have likewise in view, because that will not now make any large further demand upon our time. It is a matter of interest to look back and to consider what have been the changes as regards the position of the Government and its command of public time that have taken place in recent years. Looking back, I find two points in which the Government have gained time. One of them is of recent date and the other of long standing. The one of long standing is with respect to the time to which the House now ordinarily extends its application to the principal subject of the evening. The House, for the most part, in the absence of disturbing circumstances which sometimes arise, now usually continues the principal subject of the evening until towards 1 o'clock. The Government have certainly somewhat gained in that, because for the best part of the 50 years since I entered Parliament, the late Mr. Brotherton, the Member for Salford, was accustomed to rise shortly after 12 and insist on moving the Adjournment of the House, and by his pertinacity, or rather consistency, he acquired a power in that respect. All that was overturned by the hardihood of Lord Palmerston, because he was always ready to sit to any hour in the morning; and he succeeded in effecting an extension of time. There is one other change made by the House which has been of important value to the Government—I mean the change with regard to the power of going into Supply on all except certain nights—namely, Mondays and Thursdays. That was an important change.
  1174
  I do not disguise the benefit of it, nor do I wish to understate it. But what are the other changes which have taken place within the last 30 years? I will state them very shortly. In the first place, there is the practice of Questions. I am not going to speak of questioning as distinct from the abuse of questioning. Without any disrespect, questioning as distinct from catechizing, which is threatening to take its place, has become really a necessary and essential part in the conduct of Public Business; but do not let us disguise from ourselves the position. The House will bear me out when I say that on Mondays and Thursdays, which are Government nights, Questions occupy one hour on the average, and frequently go on for an hour and a-half or two hours. Even take them at only one hour, that, in itself, is a sheer destruction of one-seventh or one-eighth of the time at the disposal of the Government. That is a very serious matter. Then, again, last year and this year certain Members have been pleased to devote a period of three weeks or so in the discussions of matters connected with the Address; and I know of no more fatal example for the future of this country—that future in which almost every man who hears me has a far greater interest than I—I know no more fatal example than the course adopted in that respect in the last two years. Three weeks taken from the Session means another ninth part cut off from the time available for real Business; and that produces a confusion in the proceedings of the House from which it is almost impossible to obtain a subsequent extrication. There is another subject connected with the Rules of Procedure of the House to which I cannot help referring. I have already stated that the Rule with regard to Mondays and Thursdays has been very successful, and has, undoubtedly, increased the responsibility of the Government by giving increased means of putting forward Supply; but the Rule with regard to the Adjournment of the House at Question time has, thus far, been a perfect failure. It was not so at first, so, perhaps, it seems inconsistent to speak so; but I should say that it has been increasingly a failure. During last Session, according to a Return I hold in my hand, the Adjournment of the House was moved five times, and the

  1175
  requisite number of 40 Members was always to be found. We have not now nearly completed one-half of the present Session, and the Adjournment has already been moved six times; and, therefore, as regards that formidable instrument of invasion of public time, a great deduction has to be made from the time at the disposal of the Government for bringing forward Public Business. I am now going to refer to another very serious change, not to be lamented, because it grows out of arrangements good in themselves; but at the same time it is well, I think, that the House should have the exact state of the case before it. That change is the very great increase in the time which the House is now required to devote to Committee of Supply. That is due in some respects, no doubt, to the increase in our expenditure, and I wish our available time could increase as much as our expenditure does. Unfortunately, it is not so. But it is not due alone to the increase in expenditure; it is likewise due to the method now adopted of dealing with Supplemental Estimates for the purpose of closing the account on the 31st of March. I hold in my hand a Return comparing the first 10 or 12 years, immediately after the Reform Bill, with the last 10 or 12 years, taking in each case the nights on which discussion took place, whether it occupied the whole night or not. In the 11 years from 1833 to 1843 the maximum number of nights spent in Supply was 13, while the minimum number was seven, the average being 10. Well, I now take the last 10 years, and I divide them into two fives; and in the years 1875–9, when the late Government were in power, the average of nights spent in Supply, instead of being 10, was 22. Nor has that diminished during the last four years the present Government have been in power; but the 22 has risen to 24. This is a very great increase in the demand upon the House in connection with that portion of Public Business which the Government is compelled to bring forward. But there is another very important change to which I must call the attention of the House, than which I do not know of any change more adverse to the progress of Public Business. I admit that the old system dealt somewhat ruthlessly with the rights of private Members, and for that reason we do
  1176
  not propose to revive it; but we propose, in lieu of that, to resort to this method of Morning Sittings. The old system was this—that whenever great questions were raised requiring more than one night's debate, such debates were carried on de die in diem, and the difference produced thereby was enormous. For instance, last year, or the year before, we thought it our duty to propose a Resolution in support of the Irish Land Act, and that Resolution was opposed. Four nights only were required for the debate, and yet one fortnight of the Session passed over before the Motion was agreed to. That is only an illustration, and I know what the answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be. It will be said that it should never have been proposed. But that is not to the purpose. The same Gentlemen who would say that would also say that in 1831, when Lord Ebrington proposed a Motion in this House with regard to a vote in another House, that it ought never to have been brought forward. But, nevertheless, it was passed by a large majority in one night. Sir, some hon. Member said the other night that there had been eight nights' debate upon the Reform Bill of 1859. But there was also a great political question mixed up with that Reform Bill. The debate upon that Bill was really a debate upon a Vote of Confidence as well as upon a Reform Bill, and the debate lasted upon the second reading for seven nights, and not for eight nights; but those nights were consecutive nights, with the exception that, of course, Wednesdays were not included. Now, Sir, this is an enormous change; and it is a change of which we feel the consequence in such a way that we are hardly able to cope with it. These, then, are the details with which we consider it necessary to trouble the House in order to exhibit the altered position in which the Government now stand, and to show how it has lost greatly the command of the time which the House was formerly pleased to place at its disposal. It is on that ground that we feel it necessary to make the request which is embodied in the Motion I have put upon the Paper; and I say the grounds of the Motion are grave and serious, and I hope the House will acknowledge that fact by agreeing to the Motion by a very large majority.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, until the end of June, this House will meet on Tuesdays and Fridays at Two o'clock."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That, previous to the 1st of June in each year, no Morning Sitting on Tuesday or Friday shall be taken except by Resolution of the House, moved, after Notice in each case, at Half-past Four,"
  said, the right hon. Gentleman defended his Motion, which he admitted was of a very unusual character, on two private grounds—namely, first, the general opportunities of the Government for carrying on their Business; and, secondly, the particular position of the present Session. As regarded the first ground, he was prepared to admit that the difficulties of the Government had in many respects increased; but the right hon. Gentleman had said that the practice of putting Questions had enormously increased, and was a serious tax on the time of the House. He admitted that the number of Questions had increased, and that the power of putting them had been to a certain extent abused; but he must point out to the House two mitigating circumstances. In the first place, the very much curtailed power of private Members to bring on subjects on Supply necessarily drove them to discuss matters of interest at Question time; and even if private Members had abused the system of putting Questions, he did not think the Members of the Government always consulted economy of time in the House, either by the conciliatory character of their replies, or by the brevity of the language in which they were given. The Prime Minister referred to what he termed the failure of the Rule regarding Motions for the Adjournment of the House, and said that many more Motions for the Adjournment failed last year than this. But this only proved that Members did not now risk moving the Adjournment of the House unless they were sure that 40 Members would support them. The right hon. Gentleman mainly based his case on the precedent afforded by the fact that Mr. Disraeli, on the 27th of May, 1867, made a Motion that the House should meet on Tuesdays and Fridays until the end of June. But there were two wide differences between that case and this. In the first place, Mr. Disraeli's Motion
  1178
  was made on the 27th of May, whereas this was being made on the 2nd. And, in the second place, Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill was of a very different character from that now before the House. By bringing in a Reform Bill which did not deal with redistribution, the whole burden of the task was being relegated to another year. The present Reform Bill was a very simple Bill; the Government had simplified it by omitting several matters with which it ought to deal; and he apprehended that in Committee it would not be found that there was much room for discussion. The Prime Minister said that unless this Motion were carried the Government could not find time for the London Bill. He did not know before this that the Government ever had any serious intention of passing that Bill this Session. He had been under the impression that the function of the London Bill was at an end now that the Home Secretary had been allowed to make the speech which for three years he had carried about in his pocket. The Prime Minister had treated the whole subject from the point of view of Government Business. He appeared to think that it was the essential Business of the House to carry Government measures, and that the House existed for no other purpose than to carry the Bills that the Government proposed. But the House had many other important functions, such as ventilating, by means of Motions, subjects of public interest, and it was the power of performing those functions that would be curtailed by this Motion. Whatever might be said of Government facilities having diminished, they had not diminished in so great a ratio as those of private Members. The power of private Members to call attention to matters on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply was much diminished by the new Standing Order. If this Motion were carried private Members would have no opportunity during the remainder of the Session—for they all knew what the 30th of June meant—of calling attention to any subject which they had in hand except at 9 o'clock in the evening. A more wasteful arrangement of public time, from the point of view both of the Government and of private Members, could not be conceived. The Government subjected themselves to talk-outs, and the convenience of private Mem-

  1179
  bers was equally neglected. The Prime Minister said that if the Motion on the Paper was of public interest 40 Members could always be obtained to make a quorum. But even Government measures would be talked out at 9 o'clock after a Morning Sitting were it not for the pressure of the Whips. He agreed that the Government could not, and ought not, to undertake to keep a House; but he maintained that these Evening Sittings commencing at 9 o'clock ought not to take place at all. It was all very well for the Government to state that there were special circumstances that necessitated this Motion. But in future years the precedent would be remembered and the circumstances forgotten, and the Government would come down to make a similar Motion to this on the 1st of May, relying on this precedent, He begged to move the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out all the words after the word "That," in order to add the words "previous to the first of June in each year, no Morning Sitting on Tuesday or Friday shall be taken except by Resolution of the House moved, after Notice in each case, at Half-past Pour,"—(Mr. Arthur Balfour,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he hoped the Motion would be agreed to, and did not think it could be used as a precedent against private Members, unless in the very justifiable case in which the Government was engaged with a Bill for Parliamentary Reform. At the same time, he trusted that the Government would afford facilities for the consideration of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) dealing with the practice of putting Questions to Ministers. He would only add that he hoped the Government would not take the Cattle Diseases Bill after half-past 12.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there was another important question which the House should not forgot in considering this matter—the question of Grand Committees. He maintained that it was not fair to hon. Members to have Grand Committees sitting when Morning Sittings were being held on Tuesdays
  1180
  and Fridays during the remainder of the Session, because that was what the Motion of the Prime Minister really amounted to. The pressure of work on Members was so heavy at present that to ask them to undertake the work of Grand Committees, in addition to their other work, was to ask them to do more than they were able to bear. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that, although the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) and other hon. Members interested in the Motion in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister were much disappointed at losing part of Tuesday night, they had decided to vote for the proposal of the Government; but they considered that in doing so they would on Tuesday have a great claim on the Government not only to make a House at 9 o'clock, but to assist in obtaining the judgment of the House on that Motion even at a late hour.
  MR. PELLsaid, his experience as a working Member of the House for 16 years led him to the conclusion that Business would not be much advanced if the proposal of the Prime Minister were accepted. It was a merciless proposal. He had been sorely tempted to take notice of the matter in a way which would interfere with the progress of Business; but though he should not do so, he thought that private Members could not do better than lay to mind the indifference which was shown to their interests by the present Government. No reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the work being done by hon. Members in the various Committees now sitting. In the event of this Motion being acceded to, he would ask how it was possible for hon. Members to devote the necessary time to the consideration of the important matters before the Committees if their attention was to be diverted by the Business going on in the House itself? He did not think the Government had done what was requisite to recommend such a proposal as this to Members sitting on the Opposition side. When a j private Member had had the good fortune to obtain a night for the discussion of an important subject, and when the Motion brought forward had been carried, the decision of the House was treated by the Prime Minister with indifference, and no further notice was taken of it. Many right hon. Gentlemen

  1181
  opposite, some of them belonging to the Cabinet, had won their spurs and made their mart simply by means of the opportunities afforded to private Members. He would therefore appeal to the Government not to deprive private Members of those rights, or of the opportunity of doing their duty by their constituents. He would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the speech of the Prime Minister was a suggestive comment on the new Rules. The House spent a great deal of time—had, in fact, a Winter Session to adopt a fresh mode of transacting Public Business, which the Government promised would remove all their difficulties, and send the legislative machine smoothly ahead. This Code of Procedure had been in operation nearly two years, and they now had the Leader of the House and the main author of the Rules confessing that Government experienced as great difficulty as they ever did in making progress with their work. He did not say that this showed that all the Rules were faulty; but it did show that it was unwise to attach too much importance to the best devised regulations. The Prime Minister complained of the number of Questions. He admitted the value of the privilege of questioning Ministers; but he thought it was abused. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) quite agreed with him. It was abused at times, but there were reasons for it. First, the Government had taken away from private Members the right of raising discussions on going into Committee of Supply, and this led to a multiplication of Questions. This was one reason. The second reason was that Ireland was under a state of siege. The people of that portion of the United Kingdom were denied their Constitutional rights, and they had no means of getting redress but by fetching their grievances before Parliament through the instrumentality of Questions. The Prime Minister had quoted a number of figures to show that the time at the disposal of the Ministry was not as great as it formerly was. They could make figures bear almost any meaning, and the figures that had been quoted only showed one side of the question. It was a fact, as the history of Parliament attested, that the privileges of private Members had been steadily decreasing for years. A quarter
  1182
  of a century ago the time of the House was divided between the private Members and the Ministry, the former having the larger share. Ten years ago this division was kept up. Now, however, the private Members had not one-third of the time of the House. Indeed, two Sessions ago they had not one-fourth, and every year there were encroachments. One time they took a day, then two days, then a week. These demands were made on the ground of exceptional circumstances; but a demand having once been acquiesced in was used as a precedent the year after, the exceptional circumstances under which it was granted being forgotten. Hon. Members on his side of the House used to be the special champions of the rights of independent Members. They had ceased to be that now. These encroachments, insidious, gradual, and persistent, on the privileges of private Members, would in time shut them off entirely, and make them almost as extinct as the Dodo. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and others were unceasing in their watchfulness over those rights when they sat on the other side of the House. The late Government never asked for the slightest concession that was not resisted. The present Government never asked for any concession, however extravagant, that was not granted. His hon. Friends and other private patriots sat there, in the face of these encroachments, mute and motionless. That might be all well enough at present; but the day would come when the position of Parties would be reversed. The whirligig of time would take the Liberals to the other side and bring the Conservatives there. And where would Liberal independent Members be then? They would have applied to them the restrictions that they had been instrumental in framing during the tenure of Office of their Leaders. This was no small matter; and when the pinch came they would admit it, although they looked at it so indifferently now. He knew the answer his Friends would give. They would contend that the legislation of the Government met their approval; and, therefore, they were prepared to adjust the Rules of the House to help it forward. But the Rules, once broken or relaxed, might be used for objects that would not meet with Liberal approval at other times. Complaint was made

  1183
  that the Liberal Members did not utilize the time they had. There was some truth in the statement. The frequent Counts out which took place, perhaps, justified the accusation. But there was an explanation for that. Personal and local questions had an equal chance in the ballot with national questions; and it often happened that these local questions, of limited interest, got the first place, and the general body of Members would not attend to make a House for their discussion. This explained some of the Counts out. He did not think the evil would ever be cured until the House decided, as the Prime Minister had often suggested it should do, upon some plan of selecting its Business. There was another reason why there was less interest in these discussions than there formerly was. The Liberals had got more faith in the Government than they once had. They were more official than they used to be. They trusted too much, in his judgment, to the making of new laws, and to the augmentation of the power of the Executive. The narrower they defined the sphere of Government the greater scope there was for personal exertion and individual enterprize. They made too many laws. ["No, no!"] He admitted that in the present complicated and complex state of society they must have laws adapted to the circumstances; but there was reason in everything, and they overdid the law-making. They had better strive to create a condition of mind that would render fewer laws necessary. Not one-tenth of the Bills that had been passed in that House in recent years had had any effect, and some of them had had an injurious effect. He had no sympathy with this constant running after legislative restraints. There never was any trouble but they flew to the Government to remedy it. The time would come when they would ask for a law to cure the toothache. This unnatural and excessive demand for new legislation led Liberals to encourage the Government in making fresh laws—whether good, bad, or indifferent. And their policy was their Party, right or wrong. His policy was with the Government when it was right, against the Government when it was wrong. The crating after legislation and the obsequious obedience to Party Leaders was one of the reasons
  1184
  why the rights of independent Members had been entrenched upon, and with such impunity. He was willing to give the Government any reasonable facilities for advancing the Franchise Bill; but he thought that, instead of taking two half-days, it would have been bettor to take one whole day. It would have saved the chance of having their Business talked out. But if they insisted on having the two half-days, they should, at least, give some guarantee that at the Night Sitting a House should be made.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he trusted the House would not agree to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. In his (Baron Henry De Worms's) opinion, the rights of private Members were being curtailed in a most dangerous manner. The speech of the Prime Minister had been most ingeniously framed with the view of lending colour to the statements with regard to Obstruction that had been circulated throughout the country with the object of damaging the Conservative Party. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there had been a great increase this Session in the number of Motions for the Adjournment of the House; but those Motions had been made in accordance with the new Rules, and they merely showed that there had been greater cause this Session for making such Motions, owing to the impossibility of obtaining from the Government any clear disclosure of their Egyptian policy. The Prime Minister had also laid considerable stress upon the time occupied by Questions; but if Tuesdays and Fridays were taken from private Members the time occupied in asking Questions from a reticent Government who only returned evasive answers to Questions put to them must necessarily increase. Unless private Members were to take some part in the proceedings of that House he did not see the use of their constituencies sending them there. Little by little the time at the disposal of private Members had been whittled away; and he, for one, must enter his protest against this plan for securing a Liberal autocracy.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the question now before the House excited much interest throughout the whole country, great dissatisfaction being felt at the inefficiency of the labours of the House, and at the waste of time and power that nightly took place there. He

  1185
  gave Ms firm and cordial support to this proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and ventured to express his regret that, instead of being limited to two months, their demand for Tuesday and Friday mornings was not extended to the whole of the Session. Legislation by private Members was a thing of the past, and in the future all legislation must be effected by the Government of the day. He had heard with regret the Prime Minister remark that no more time ought to be occupied in the discussion of the Estimates.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton has misunderstood me. My observation was to the contrary effect.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERremarked that he was glad to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought that far more time should be devoted to the consideration of the Estimates. In his opinion, there was no ground for complaining of over-legislation. With reference to making a House on Tuesday nights, there never would be any difficulty in regard to matters in which the House felt any real interest. There would be no difficulty in making a House next Tuesday night; but the country was tired of debates on subjects in which nobody felt the slightest interest, and the country did complain that this gigantic legislative machine should be used for waste instead of for the public advantage.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to point out that the reason there was such delay in the progress of Public Business was because, under the present Rules, they gave up some 16 hours each week that might be devoted to Public Business. The evidence of the late Speaker and Sir Thomas Erskine May before the Committee of 1878 showed that, instead of Public Business being advanced, it was considerably delayed by the introduction of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. On Wednesdays also Public Business was stopped at a quarter to 6 o'clock, and the result was that if an objection was raised to the third Order on that day hon. Members discussed the two first Orders—though possibly of no interest or importance—until the hour for closing, and by that means the whole day was wasted. The same thing frequently occurred at Morning Sittings, and his belief was that the real cause of the delay
  1186
  of Public Business was because upon every day in the week they had an hour for closing, which was made worse on Morning Sittings, from the fact that they had two hours for closing—one at 7 and the other at half-past 12 o'clock. If the half-past 12 Rule were abolished, and after the interval at a Morning Sitting the Speaker was permitted to call upon an hon. Member to resume the debate which had been suspended, he believed that Public Business would be as expeditiously got through, as was the case in the days of Lord Palmerston, when the Rules were different. He, therefore, could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford, because he could not find it in his heart to recognize that Public Business could be properly conducted until hours of closing were done away with on every day in the week.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he felt so strongly the value of the rights of private Members, and the services which might be rendered by the discussions of their Bills, that he should vote for the Amendment if he thought it would seriously damage those rights. But the fact was that under the present system of procedure, and especially through the operation of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, a private Member could do little good; because if he had a Motion which came out second or third on the ballot, with some unimportant Motion preceding it, the House was sure to be counted out before his Motion was reached, while no Bill could get beyond the second reading if it incurred the hostility of even a single Member. Now, the Business of Parliament was conducted more by chance than anything else, and matters would not he better until they substituted a system of choice for that of chance. No real advance in the mode of doing Business would be made until they left it to a Committee or to the House itself, instead of to the ballot, to decide the questions which should be brought on. It was clear that before long they must have a complete revision of their arrangements. He admitted that the New Rules of Procedure framed 18 months ago had broken down. They might as well not have been framed at all. Three reforms were now urgently called for—an effective system of closure, a limitation of the length of

  1187
  speeches, and some means of determining with regard to their comparative importance the topics which private Members might bring before the House.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought that some effort should be made to utilize the time now wasted between 4 and half-past on days when there was little or no Private Business. It was a matter of grave doubt whether so sweeping a proposal as that of the Prime Minister, which meant the complete and absolute extinction of the rights of private Members for the remainder of the Session, would have the effect desired. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might have been satisfied to ask the House to surrender a somewhat smaller portion of the rights of private Members. For instance, the Government might be content to take private Members' Tuesday mornings, and then the Government would have no difficulty in keeping a House for their own Business on Tuesday evenings. If Members were ruthlessly deprived of their rights, they would find other means of making their voices heard, and might be compelled to assert them in a manner, which the Government would not like; and, therefore, he appealed to the Prime Minister to make some modification in this sweeping extinction of the rights of private Members. Let the Government take one day, Tuesday or Friday, and give private Members the other; They would in this way be far more likely to command the assent and support of Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had always maintained the rights of private Members, and though he intended to support the Government he had not altered his opinion as to the jealousy with which any attempt to curtail those rights should be regarded. When the House was asked to decide whether they would give the Government a portion of the time generally allotted to private Members, they ought to consider each case upon its merits. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) thought they should invite the Government on each occasion, when they required to encroach upon the time of the House, to make a Motion to that effect, and place their reasons upon re-
  1188
  cord; but, he asked, had not the Government sufficient reasons? If he understood the Prime Minister they were going to put down Supply for Mondays and Thursdays, and discussion would be then invited. It was very important that Members should examine the expenditure of the country; and, at the same time, he considered that his rights as a private Member would be sufficiently protected by the plan proposed by the Prime Minister.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to trouble the House with a few observations; but it seemed to me that, as this question was one mainly affecting the non-official Members of the House, it was desirable to hear as soon as possible the views those Gentlemen held. I was also rather curious to hear, the sentiments of hon. Members opposite, and particularly hon. Members below the Gangway, because we know the line they have taken before when these proposals have been made, and we were anxious to hear what they would say now, perhaps for the last time; for if this Resolution passes they may not have an opportunity again of expressing their views so freely. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford must feel rather in the position of the man who prayed for a shower and brought down a deluge. The matter began with the proposal of the Government to take Tuesday for a particular purpose; but the hon. Member said it was inconvenient that Tuesday should be taken in that way, and suggested that there should be some solemn record of the fact, and that Tuesdays and Fridays should not be taken without some such record. The Prime Minister comes down to-night and says—"Your suggestion is excellent. It is inconvenient to have these Motions one by one, and to have discussions and debates on them. I tell you what I will do—I will take them all. I will take all the Tuesdays and Fridays till the end of June, and this may lead to their being taken to the end of the Session." That is going rather far. It is said that we are to have Mondays and Thursdays for Supply; but we want some further explanation as to that, for it is not quite consistent with what fell from the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of the Merchant Shipping Bill—it is at variance with it, for that, I understand, is to be taken in the regular

  1189
  course of Business. This taking up of Morning Sittings is very inconvenient to the House in more ways than one. There is not only the extra labour, but those who have to attend Private Bill Committees are placed in a position of very great difficulty and inconvenience when Business is put down in which they are interested, and to which they cannot attend. I will give the House an illustration. The Business we are to consider is the Representation of the People Bill, and one of the first Amendments is one in the 2nd clause, a most important Amendment, with regard to the limitation of the time when the Bill will come into operation, proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley). He is Chairman of a Private Bill Committee, and he cannot attend the Morning Sitting. That is one instance of the inconvenience which the proposal entails. The right hon. Gentleman says that he makes it upon a precedent set in 1867; but the Reform Bill of that year was a different Reform Bill. It did not consist of about a dozen clauses, but was a Bill of great length and great complexity, in which it became necessary to propose that Clauses 4 to 34 should be postponed. The proposal was confined to that particular Bill; but the Prime Minister says he will not do this; he will get through as many measures as he wishes. He says it is a very reasonable wish to hope that we may pass three great measures—that is, the Reform Bill, the London Government Bill, and the Local Government Bill. We have not even got that yet. Apparently we are to give up all our Tuesday and Friday mornings for the sake of these three measures, and really I think it is rather beyond the necessity of the case. The suggestion is made at a very early period of the Session compared with that of Mr. Disraeli, and I think the House should look with jealousy on any such proposal. It is said that the House wastes time, and I have no doubt that sometimes this is the case; but these attempts to curb a proper and legitimate development of private Members' rights always end in more irregular proceedings.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the House to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford. He does not say that Morn-
  1190
  ing Sittings are not to be taken; he differs from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in that. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No!] Well, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be against Morning Sittings altogether, and I was surprised to hear that argument from the right hon. Gentleman, because he will remember that he was in the Government that invented Morning Sittings. But the hon. Member for Hertford admitted that Morning Sittings were permissible in certain cases, though on each occasion you must make a Motion to that effect at 4.30. A more certain method of wasting the time of the House could not be conceived. Everybody knows it would be debated for two or three hours, and would necessarily lead to such a waste of time that it would be hardly worth while asking for it, because the time that would be taken up would be almost equal to the time gained. It seems to me that if the House really desires to save time it cannot and will not vote for a proposal of this kind. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that legislation is useless. The Business of the country cannot be carried on absolutely and altogether by eloquent speaking. The hon. Member for Newcastle may be a great benefactor to his species; but more ordinary men must pay some little attention to the business of practical legislation. It has been said that a House cannot be made for private Members in the evening. But how is that? As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) pointed out, when there is a Motion before the House which commands any interest there is no difficulty in making a House. Government numbers some 30 or 40 Members, while the private Members amount to 600; and I do not see why among that gallant 600 there cannot be found a sufficient number to rally to the great cause of private Members' rights, of which at 4 o'clock we hear so much and at 9 o'clock hear so little. This plan of Morning Sittings is much better than taking away the whole of a private Member's day. I venture to say that if we really want the Business of the House to go on we should not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought that the House would agree that the right

  1191
  hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had afforded one admirable illustration of his words—that the Business of the House was not to be advanced by eloquent speeches. He had not been fortunate enough to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford; but the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Motion was clear, that previous to the 1st of June Morning Sittings should not be taken except by Resolution of the House. The Home Secretary had said that this must lead to a waste of time. For his own part, he did not think that it would do so in the least degree. It was most improper that the Government should come down at that period of the year and deprive private Members of their rights. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members would have an opportunity of dividing before very long, and possibly more than once before these proceedings terminated, for he intended to do all in his power to protect the rights of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the rights of private Members could always be vindicated. So they might, but by irregular means. Did the Home Secretary mean that private Members should be driven in their own defence to adopt those irregular methods rather than take those means which the sense of that House had placed at their disposal?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Home Secretary, in his speech, had somewhat mistaken, not only the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford, but also the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. He had stated that the right hon. Gentleman had opposed Morning Sittings altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the kind. He had said that at that period of the year they led to a great and cruel interference with Members who had to serve on Committees upstairs, and so were unable to attend in the House. But why had the right hon. Gentleman laid such stress upon the time of the year? Because experience showed that as the Session advanced private Members were not so much divided between their duties upstairs and their attendance in the House. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford only imposed the restriction until the 1st of June. After that Government could claim the privilege without stating their reasons for doing so.
  1192
  He thought that the Home Secretary by his speech had weakened the case of the Prime Minister rather than strengthened it. With regard to private Members themselves, if they chose with their eyes open to vote away their rights and privileges, they must never again make any complaint. If that Motion were carried now, it would be not only for the present Session, but it would be a precedent for next Session. It might be, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had told them, that the time had gone by for private Members; that they were no longer any use; that the Motions they might make with regard to foreign or other great interests of the nation were unworthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had appeared to imply that there were only two objects to be looked to—namely, Supply and legislation; but, for his own part, that was a view which he refused to take, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought that the real difficulty complained of did not rest with the meetings of the House, but with the prolixity of speech. They had passed a Standing Order providing for the application of a clôture, but that clôlure was too harsh for application. If the House were able to express its opinion as to whether a Member was wasting the time of the House, Obstruction would fail. While thanking the Prime Minister for having submitted the Motion to the House, he should vote for the Amendment, because he thought that the House had not fallen so low as that it could not be intrusted day by day with the disposal of its own time.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 103; Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 81.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had intimated in the few words that he had previously spoken that he would ask the House to divide again. He had been under the impression that he would he able to move the omission from the Prime Minister's Resolution of the words "Tuesdays and," so as to limit it to the Fridays; but he found that it was not

  1193
  competent for him to do so, and, therefore, he would not trouble the House to divide again.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEwished, with the permission of the House, to make a suggestion, which, however, he was not quite sure would be considered practicable. The Government was endeavouring to take the Tuesdays and Fridays for Morning Sittings, leaving the evenings on those days to private Members. The result of that arrangement, as experience showed, was that the House would be frequently counted out at 9 o'clock. He proposed, therefore, that the mode of procedure at the Evening Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays should be of the like character to that followed on Wednesdays—namely, that the Speaker should take the Chair at 9 o'clock, and, if the House was not then made, that the Speaker should wait a certain time to enable a sufficient number of Members to come down to make a House. The reason why the House was counted out was often because, immediately on the Speaker taking the Chair, his attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present; whereas, if an interval of about 20 minutes were given, a sufficient number of Members would probably arrive to form a quorum. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had said there never was any difficulty in securing a House when a question of general interest was to be discussed. But such questions often stood second or third on the Paper; and Members who took an interest in them would come down shortly after 9 to join in their discussion. He would suggest that when the Speaker came down at 9 o'clock, and there were not 40 Members present, he should sit for one, two, or three hours. If there were several Motions, a certain time might be fixed in which to make a quorum for each Motion, so that in the course of time some Motion might be reached in which the House was interested enough to make a quorum.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The suggestion of the noble Lord, so far as I have been able to follow it, has all the marks of a work of genius; but, at the same time, it is involved in a certain amount of obscurity. The precise relation between the times and the Motions on the Paper have not been quite clearly laid down
  1194
  by the noble Lord; and though the noble Lord has devoted himself in a very patriotic and impartial spirit to the subject, I am afraid that without long Notice and some explanation we could not do justice to it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not think that the Prime Minister had done justice to the suggestion of the noble Lord, for whose proposal there was a great deal to be said. He desired to enter a protest against the course taken by the Government. The vote just taken was unfortunate and deplorable, and illustrated the degradation of the House, and proved the tyranny of the Government and the servility of a large number of their supporters. If Members of the Government would avail themselves of their brief holiday to take a trip to Australia or India, instead of going, for instance, to Copenhagen, they would have their views of these subjects greatly widened, and they would feel the indignation and resentment that prevailed in our Colonial and Imperial Dependencies with regard to the neglect with, which questions relating to the Colonies and the Dependencies had been treated.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he and his hon. Friends near him had voted with the Government on this Division, because of the general importance of the Government programme; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that the Government had not during the past two years, and apparently did not intend during this Session, to devote any fair proportion of the Government time to their own Bills relating to Ireland; Bills which they had announced their intention of bringing forward, and which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted the importance of. Now, under these circumstances, he thought he was entitled to express the hope that the Government should see their way to devoting some portion of the extra time which they had now obtained in going forward with their own Bills relating to Ireland. It was announced some time ago by the Chief Secretary that he had a Bill ready with regard to the important question of Irish education; the other day he also announced that he had a Bill ready with regard to sites for schools; and on last Wednesday they had the further important announcement from the right hon. Gentleman that in a fortnight he

  1195
  would introduce a Bill with regard to additional facilities for the purchase of land by tenants in Ireland. Now, these were all questions which could not be disposed of without the allocation to them of some fair proportion of the Government time. Last Session they had practically no time devoted to Irish Bills except a day or two at the end of the Session, and the Bill then passed was thrown out by the Lords on the ground that they had no time to discuss it. Now, he hope the same mistake would not be made this year; and he thought the Government, in arranging the Irish programme, in choosing the Irish Bills which should first be presented to the consideration of the House, might fairly take into consideration the general opinion of the Irish Members on all sides of the House upon it. The Government had expressed their own preference for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. Well, that was a question on which he had always remained neutral, and he intended to remain neutral on the present occasion, although he believed the majority of his own constituents were opposed to it; but he thought the Government, before they decided that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, or the Bill for the Purchase of Lands, or any other Bill should be taken first, might fairly take into consideration the prevailing opinion of Irish Members on all sides of the House. By doing so they would be lifting from their own shoulders a great load of disagreeable responsibility in the matter, and would not, in any Bill they then introduced, be running foul of any important section of Irish opinion.
  SIR JOHN HAYsuggested that the House should revive a Sessional Order which had been adopted in some former Sessions, to the effect that at Evening Sittings the Speaker should remain in the Chair for a quarter of an hour after 9 o'clock before counting the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdiffered from his right hon. and gallant Friend. Although the practice referred to did exist for a short time it was soon dropped, and it was felt to be a mistake that it had ever been adopted. The suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) was really only the discarded plan referred to by his right hon. and gallant Friend. If a House could not be formed at 9 it was a hint that the House did not care for the sub-
  1196
  ject. He entirely agreed with the Prime Minister that it was incumbent upon private Members to keep a House for themselves. To compel the Government to do so would be an act of tyranny on the part of the House. With regard to the noble Lord's proposal, he was sure that it would lead to a system of scheming and intrigue and locks-out which it was most undesirable to introduce. Of course, Members interested in Motion No. 2 would take care to be conspicuous by their absence; and, perhaps, the supporters of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 might by various processes succeed in obtaining special favour. He hoped the Government would not re-open the question, and that if it were re-opened they would not let it bethought that they were in favour of either of the suggestions that had been made.
  MR. WHITWORTHsaid, he would not have spoken if it were not for the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member said that a majority of his constituents were opposed to the Sunday Closing Bill. Now, he (Mr. Whitworth) believed that a canvass of the inhabitants of Cork City showed that there were five to one in favour of the Bill. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order. The House is not discussing the merits of the Sunday Closing Bill.
  Main Question put, and agreed, to.
  Resolved, That, until the end of June, this House will meet on Tuesdays and Fridays at Two o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

PARLIAMENT—PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION (CITY OF HEREFORD).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. RAIKES, in rising to call attention to the circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the Petition against the last Parliamentary Election for the City of Hereford; and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the same, and to report thereon to the House, said, it was with regret

  1197
  that he found himself obliged to undertake the duty of bringing this matter before the House—a duty which he had hoped would have been assumed by the Attorney General, as it affected the Privileges of the House; but he had unsuccessfully appealed to the Attorney General to bring the matter forward. The circumstances in question occurred in the spring of 1880, and it was not until two years after that time that he was returned to the present Parliament. He would have preferred to leave the matter to those who were responsible for prosecuting offences against the Privileges of the House; and he did not feel himself compelled to move until the document, which was the foundation of the case, was cited in the House, as it was on the 7th of March last. So complete, however, was the publicity which this matter had attained, that the document setting forth the corrupt agreement had been posted on the walls of Hereford more than a year ago. He had no personal feeling in the matter, had received no offence, had no desire to give pain, and had not the honour of the acquaintance of either of the Members for the City of Hereford. It was generally understood that the election for the City of Hereford in 1880 was an expensive one to both Parties; and rumours were rife as to the enormous amount that had been expended on behalf of the successful candidates. In consequence of these rumours, a Petition was presented against the return. But before the Petition was presented, and while it was in the air, influential and eminent members of the Liberal Party in Hereford expressed to some of the Conservative leaders their extreme desire that no Petition should be presented, and their readiness to make a compromise. A gentleman, whom he would rather not name now, offered to one of the Conservative leaders that if they would withdraw the Petition that was threatened against the return, then the hon. and learned junior Member (Mr. R. T. Reid) would vacate his seat as soon as he had the opportunity of offering himself for a Scotch borough. That proposition was considered and discussed; but it was not accepted, and the Petition was accordingly presented. On the last day for the filing of the recognizances and affidavits the same gentleman met the agents for the Petitioners close to the Royal Courts
  1198
  of Justice in London, and entreated them to delay the filing to as late an hour as they could, because he hoped he would be in a position to make an arrangement which would be satisfactory to them. This second proposal was communicated to the Conservative leaders in Hereford in the course of the evening. It was to the effect that the hon. and learned junior Member should retire from the representation of the borough at the close of the present Parliament, and that he should not offer himself again. That proposition was also refused, the recognizances and affidavits were filed, and the decks were apparently cleared for action. About this time Mr. Sydney Myer, one of the principal ornaments and supporters of the Liberal Party, met Mr. Garrold, the Conservative agent, who was to conduct the Petition against the return; and Mr. Garrold advised Mr. Myer to put himself into communication with Mr. Ralph, an ornament of the Conservative Party. Mr. Ralph and Mr. Myer had a meeting at a tavern, and they could not arrive at a satisfactory agreement. It was determined that they should meet again, and on the 22nd of May, by an appointment made through Garrold, they met in his garden, approaching it through a back street and entering by a side door. Mr. Myer commenced business by exhibiting a roll of bank notes, and intimating that Mr. Ralph might have as many of them as he desired if by his influence the Petition could be withdrawn. Mr. Ralph was at the moment proof against the temptation, and said it would be impossible that he could use his influence unless satisfactory terms could be made for the Party. These terms he defined to be, that one of the sitting Members should apply for the Chiltern Hundreds about Easter, 1882, that the Conservatives were to be indulged with a walk over, and that at the next General Election the Liberals should bring forward only one candidate and allow the Conservatives to have the second seat. These terms Mr. Myer said he thought were hard, but he would see what he could do. He was told that a document must be drawn up, and that it should be signed by the leaders of the Liberal Party. Mr. Myers then went away, but happened to leave a roll of twelve £50 Bank of England notes on a beach in the garden where the con-

  1199
  versation had taken place. He further covenanted with Mr. Garrold that in the event of the Petition being withdrawn he would find a sum of money which should defray the costs of the Petitioners, both taxed and untaxed, which he (Mr. Raikes) understood were considerably in excess of the £600 deposited in the peculiar manner just described. Mr. Myer seemed to have had difficulty with his friends at first. However, after a short time, he communicated to Mr. Ralph the terms of the agreement which had been quoted in the House by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). The following was the document which formed the basis of his case:—
  "May, 1880. (1.) One of the present sitting Members for the City of Hereford to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds before Easter, 1882. (2.) If a vacancy occurs in the representation of the City of Hereford during the present Parliament the first shall be filled up by the Conservative Party without opposition from the Liberal Party, and each Party shall thus continue to have one Member in the present Parliament. (3.)"—
  he wished to call attention to the wording of this paragraph—
  "At the next General Election the Liberal Party shall nominate one candidate only for the City of Hereford, and the Conservative Party shall nominate one candidate only, and both Parties pledge themselves to support the return of such two candidates only. The undersigned approve of the terms above written, and severally engage to use our best endeavours to carry them into effect."
  The following were the signatures attached to the document:—Sydney Myer, William Mason, M. J. G. Scobie, who had been appointed an Official Receiver to the Board of Trade, and was Secretary to the Hereford Liberal Association, J. B. Dillon, James Bowers, William Barker, J. L. Barling, Henry Lane, Henry Rogers, Robert Reay, O. Shellard, Thomas Cane, S. Packwood, a gentleman remarkable in the history of elections at Hereford, James Haim, William Prosser, F. H. Merrick, John Bowers, E. W. Fenton, J. M. Pearce, and Thomas Carless. Those were the names which were ultimately attached to the document. The transactions to which he had referred all took place in the last week of May, 1880. On the 28th of May proper steps were taken to withdraw the Petition. The necessary affidavits were put in by the two Petitioners, and affidavits in answer were signed by the two hon.
  1200
  Members for the City of Hereford. Those hon. Gentlemen, of course, disclaimed any corrupt action on their part, and the Judges before whom the affidavits came presumably had no alternative but to dismiss the Petition. He imagined that this transaction took place subsequent to the Gloucester Election Petition. The Report of the Judges upon the Gloucester Election was as follows:—
  "In these circumstances we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the case against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with a view to the withholding from us of evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe prevailed at the election."
  The House of Commons, upon that Report, appointed a Committee to investigate the circumstances; but the case which he had laid before the House carried the matter a great deal further. The House, perhaps, would like to know where the bank notes were likely to have come from. Mr. Myer, who had possession of the notes, was the gentleman who first introduced the senior Member for the City of Hereford (Mr. Pulley) to the constituency. Some of the bank notes, of which he had the numbers, were dated the 16th of July, 1879, and the others September 16, 1879. They all bore the familiar signature of "F. May." He found that they were issued to the National Provincial Bank, with which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Hereford had an account; and, as far as he could ascertain, they were again issued by that bank at the Hereford branch.
  MR. PULLEY: May I ask the date?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, the date, when he first found them in circulation, was the 22nd of May, 1880. That was the day on which Mr. Myers handed them to Mr. Ralph. He thought that was an interesting circumstance in connection with this matter. In 1882 the persons who had made this arrangement on behalf of the Conservative Party became a little anxious as to its fulfilment. A letter was accordingly written to Mr. Scobie, who was then the Secretary of the Liberal Association, calling his attention to the agreement and claiming its fulfilment. In reply, Mr. Scobie wrote a letter, dated March 17, 1882, stating that the persons who had signed the agreement had no intention of de-

  1201
  parting from the future terms of the agreement. Mr. Scobie inclosed two letters which he had received, dated from the House of Commons. The first was from the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of Hereford, who stated that the agreement was not drawn up with his consent or knowledge, and that he should not apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. The other letter was from the junior Member for the City of Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid), who also stated that he had no intention of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds, and that the agreement, to which he was not a party, was signed without his knowledge or consent. Both the letters were dated March 15, 1882. The Hereford Times, a Liberal paper, on the 20th of May, 1882, said—
  "We learn that at a specially convened meeting of the Hereford Liberal Association, held at the Liberal Club Rooms yesterday, a letter was read from Mr. R. T. Reid, M.P., announcing his intention to retire from the representation of Hereford at the end of the present Parliamentary Session."
  MR. R. T. REID: I never wrote any such letter; and a denial was posted all over the town within 24 hours after the paragraph appeared.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of giving an explanation by and by. He had a longer extract from a Conservative paper, The Hereford Journal, saying that the statement referred to was inaccurate, but that what was meant was that Mr. Reid, when a Dissolution came, would not offer himself to Hereford for re-election. The hon. Gentleman would have to explain the concurrence between this modified statement, which he did not understand the hon. Member to contradict, and the statement of Mr. Scobie that the signatories were prepared to carry out the future part of the agreement, which was that one of the Members was to retire at the next General Election. He did not think that the facts which he had given presented so complete a case against those hon. Members as would warrant him in asking for an inquiry into their conduct; but he did think that he had presented as complete a case for inquiry into corrupt practices as had ever been brought before the House. There was a clause in the Corrupt Practices Bill of last year, against which he protested at the time, by which a future Royal Com-
  1202
  mission would be precluded from going into the circumstances or practices which had taken place at the previous election. But here was a case in which a gentleman in an official position had been concerned in a most deliberate and unblushing attempt to defeat the law with regard to corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections, and to evade the jurisdiction of the Election Court to which that House had intrusted discretion in such matters. If the House passed by a matter of this sort as light and inconsiderable, it would do a great deal more to encourage and promote corrupt practices than was done even by the unfortunate clause of the Act of last year. If this inquiry was given it would be necessary to press Mr. Sydney Myer for some information as to where he got the notes, and also as to the source of the sum of £1,100 or £1,200 which he paid to Mr. Garrold for the election costs. Mr. Myer was not a man who was able to pay them out of his own pocket, and was probably acting for someone who was well able to pay. As to the senior Member for Hereford (Mr. Pulley), he was content to leave the case there. With regard to the junior Member (Mr. E. T. Reid), he had listened with some regret to his observations when he questioned the Attorney General on the subject some time ago. The hon. Member appeared to take great credit to himself, not for his freedom from any complicity in this matter, but seemed to think it an act of heroic virtue that he should have profited by those nefarious transactions, and declined to pay the price. They must go back to the days of Joseph Surface for anything like it; for the hon. Member had placed himself exactly in the position of a man who, having made a settlement on some person which he found afterwards inconvenient to carry out, turned round and said it was obtained by an immoral consideration. The House would do well to be strict in preserving its privileges, and in dealing with corruption; but he hoped there was one thing which it prized still more, and that was the recognition of all honourable obligations. He thought he had made out a case which the Attorney General would find it impossible to confute, as far as the facts went; and he hoped he might appeal to the judgment of that House, as he was certain he might have done to the judgment of any

  1203
  House of Commons which preceded it, to show its jealousy of its own honour and its hatred of immoral practices, which could only be done by appointing the Committee for which he moved. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. PULLEYbegged to second the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee appointed to investigate the circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the Petition against the last Parliamentary Election for the City of Hereford, and to report thereon to the House,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that neither his Colleague (Mr. Pulley) nor himself had given him any offence, and that it was a source of pain and regret to him to have to make any charge; and yet he concluded, without having heard what he had to say or asking him for any explanation, by comparing him to Joseph Surface, and suggested what was even worse and more contemptible than corruption—swerving from the word he had given. Although he believed that the transactions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were dishonourable in the extreme, if he had directly or indirectly been a party to them he should have most strictly carried out even such dishonourable compacts. So far as he was concerned, he was very glad that his hon. Friend had seconded the Resolution. He stated in the most emphatic manner the fact that he had not been directly or indirectly a party or privy to any agreement of any kind relating to the representation of the City of Hereford, or the withdrawal of any Election Petition. That statement he had made before, and he repeated it. In 1880 an Election Petition was presented against his Colleague and himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that the election was expensive on both sides. Well, the right hon. Gentleman himself had some experience in that way. For his own part, he had not spent or paid a single shilling except for
  1204
  legal expenses, and he was perfectly prepared to prove it before the Committee if it were appointed. The Election Petition was not presented with any view to vindicate purity of election. The object was, if possible, to force one of the Members to withdraw in order to make room for one of the opposite Party, and he was the victim who was designated for sacrifice; and had it not been for his own conduct in the matter, and his determination to refuse to have anything to do with any such bargain, he should now have been a disgraced and a dishonoured man. He wished to say distinctly that a formal proposal had been made to him in the presence of a witness that the Petition should be withdrawn if he would consent to retire from the representation of the City of Hereford, and strong pressure had been put upon him from both sides to induce him to retire. To that proposal the answer he made was that he had nothing whatever to fear from the Election Petition, that he had absolutely obeyed the law, and that he would not retire from the representation of the city at any time before the Dissolution of the present Parliament, and that he would represent that city in as many Parliaments as it might please himself to stand and the electors of Hereford to choose him as their Representative. He was in a position to prove that by witnesses who were present when he made the statement. The right hon. Gentleman had said that some person had offered on his part that, he should withdraw; he, on the contrary, asserted that that statement would prove to be a falsehood when the matter came to be investigated before the Committee. He believed that he knew the gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he would say that he had never made such a statement in his life. He had communicated to his hon. Colleague the pressure that had been brought to bear upon him to induce him to retire; and he had declared to him at the same time that nothing would induce him to retire with the cordial approval of his Colleague. This determination on his part had been communicated to the Conservative leaders in the city. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman would find that in every daily paper in London there had appeared, on the 28th or the 29th of May, a statement that there was no foundation for the rumour that he intended to retire from

  1205
  his seat. Under such, circumstances, it was preposterous to suggest that the Petition was withdrawn in the belief that he (Mr. Reid) was about to resign his seat. At the time that the Petition was withdrawn, he believed that it had been withdrawn unconditionally. He desired to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he really did mean what his words appeared to be intended to convey? He and his Colleague had, in the most perfect good faith, made affidavits in which they had sworn that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, no bargain whatever had been made in respect of the withdrawal of the Petition; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman seriously intended to convey to the House that he and his Colleague had deliberately committed perjury in this matter? He would not for the world make any such suggestion about any man without the very strongest proof. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what proof he had that he (Mr. R. T. Reid) knew of the existence of the document containing the agreement referred to at the time that the Petition was withdrawn? He did not want to wait for the Committee—would the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as he had made a monstrous imputation, now rise in his place and, in the face of the House, state who was the man who, he said, had brought this document to his knowledge?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would rather not give any names, from consideration for the persons interested. The hon. Gentleman was going a little further than he went. He said the gentleman who professed to make the communication on behalf of the hon. Gentleman—he did not say it was made by the hon. Member—but that a proposal was made by a gentleman well known in the borough to the Conservative Party at Hereford.
  MR. R. T. REID: Who is the gentleman?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would give the name if the hon. Gentleman really desired it, though he would rather not.
  MR. R. T. REID: Certainly.
  MR. RAIKES: Well, the gentleman who professed to make the proposal on behalf of the hon. Member was Mr. Gwyn James, the brother of the Attorney General.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the ques-
  1206
  tion. Considering what he had said about the affidavits, he wanted to know who it was he suggested had informed him (Mr. E. T. Reid) at the time that the Petition was to be withdrawn on the terms that he should retire, or what proof the right hon. Gentleman had that he was in the smallest degree aware of the existence of the document in question?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to be anxious to anticipate the decision of the Committee. It would be far preferable to leave the whole matter to be inquired into by the Committee. He had not said that he knew who it was that made the hon. Gentleman aware of it, and he did not know; but he did say that, inasmuch as the document in question had been signed by 23 leading members of the Liberal Party, it was not unreasonably supposed that they were authorized to treat on behalf of the hon. Member.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that he claimed the right, unless prevented by the Speaker, to extract from the right hon. Gentleman an answer to his question. The right hon. Gentleman either did or did not suggest that at the time he (Mr. E. T. Reid) made the affidavit in 1880 he was aware of the existence of the agreement. If the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was aware of the agreement, would he say whether he had proof of it upon the statement of any respectable man, or whether it was merely a matter of inference?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that he thought he had a right to ask whether the hon. Member was pursuing the course usual in these cases? He had brought forward a statement in that House which he was prepared to verify before a Committee. He asked the House to allow him to call his witnesses in verification of his statement, and not to allow themselves to be put in the place of the Committee.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the House would observe the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. He must say it was rather hard that he should be placed in this position—that he should not be told whether a grave charge was made against him or not. From the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman was withholding this information, the House would be able to judge of the weight that should be attached to the right hon. Gentleman's

  1207
  statement that he had brought forward this matter with regret. The explanation of the document referred to was simple. There were persons on both sides of politics whose interest it was to cause the Petition to be withdrawn, and those were the persons who made the bargain in defiance of him, and for the purpose of coercing him. It was a secret agreement, and absolutely unknown to him in its inception, in its creation, and in its execution, and he never heard of it until after the withdrawal of the Petition. He was the person against whom the whole of the arrangement was levelled. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there should be honour among thieves; if he had been a thief, he should have acted in accordance with that honour, however low it might be. But the thieves in the matter were the persons in whose interest this Motion was made; and he (Mr. Reid) was the man whom they had attempted to rob. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of bank notes—he did not know what the right hon. Member meant by that; but he had not paid a single farthing beyond the legitimate expenses in connection with his election. That was what enabled him from the very commencement to defy the Petitioners. This matter was now four years old, and it was rather remarkable that it had not been brought forward earlier; but this was part of the same pressure put upon him at the time of the Election Petition. If the Motion proceeded from a desire for purity, the right hon. Gentleman would scarcely have waited for two years. He (Mr. Reid) had known for some time that a Motion of this kind would be made unless the Liberal Party consented to divide the representation of the city at the next General Election. This Motion was held as a terror over the heads of some men, to be used if it appeared that the representation was not going to be divided; and when it was found that the people of Hereford were not to be enslaved, and were going to contest both seats, this Motion was brought forward in the interests of those who had been disappointed. That was the plain account of the action of the right hon. Gentleman. He made no complaint of this Motion. It was better that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward and expose himself by such a Motion as this, rather than that he should pillage
  1208
  his (Mr. R. T. Reid's) character in secret by whispers in the Lobby. He courted with great satisfaction the inquiry moved for by the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman should hear of it when the Committee had reported. He should then request from the right hon. Gentleman an apology for the injury he had attempted to do him as public as the charge he had made against him.
  MR. RANKINsaid, that, occupying the position of Chief Steward of the City of Hereford, he felt that he ought to make a few remarks to the House on the subject under discussion. Though he was sure the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had brought forward the subject from the purest motives, he very much regretted he had done so. In the first place, the time was most inopportune for the purpose. Hereford had now been allowed to slumber for four years without having had any Petition to disturb it, except municipal election petitions; and it would be a great pity for this inquiry, which was in the nature of an Election Petition, to be now held. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what good he imagined could come to either Party from the course he had taken? He (Mr. Rankin) had, of course, heard the rumours as to the bargain alleged to have been made between certain parties in the City of Hereford, and he had no word of extenuation to say on their behalf if they made the corrupt bargain as stated. Still, the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman could have no good result whatever; but it must create animosity, ill blood, and rancour very extensively. It would be bad for the City, and it could not be good for the Conservative Party, as he could positively say, knowing the city as well as he did. He hoped the inquiry would not be granted. He regretted very much that the City of Hereford should have been dragged into a debate of this description, and that it should have been made to occupy such an unenviable position. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was the inverse of that made in the case of the Cities of the Plain, and Hereford was to be destroyed because of five or ten unrighteous men who were numbered among its citizens. He hoped that the House would not grant the Committee asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they should hear

  1209
  no more about this matter in the House of Commons.
  MR. PULLEYreminded the House that, having seconded the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he had shown his readiness to meet the charges which he had made. He thought that if the Committee of Inquiry were granted it would show how absolutely without foundation those charges were. The agreement referred to had been sent to him two years after it was made. He did not know the terms of that agreement until it was received by him. He had certainly heard of the subject before that time; but he had no accurate information as to what the arrangement was until two years after it was made. He was aware that great pressure had been put upon his Colleague. Great pressure had also been put upon himself to use whatever influence he might possess with his Colleague to induce him to withdraw from the House before the Petition was presented. His Colleague had told the House how they had stood side by side to resist any pressure that might be brought to bear upon them to adopt the course suggested. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a report published in The Hereford, Times as to his Colleague retiring from Parliament after the then existing Session. He happened to go to Hereford the day following that on which the paper had been published. On reading it he was astonished very much at the manner in which it was worded. He took immediate steps to have the mistake rectified. The mistake arose in this way. The report had been mentioned to the editor of The Hereford Times, who went to his office, and, by a slip of the tongue or of the pen, used the word "Session" instead of "Parliament." That was the real history of the case, and he hoped it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. WARTONsaid, if it was the intention of the Government to refuse this inquiry a very unfavourable inference would be drawn with regard to the hon. Members for Hereford, because their indignant denials would then be supposed to be made in consequence of the intention of the Government to refuse the inquiry. If the Government intended to refuse this Committee, their action would be on a par with that shelter which they always threw over corruption.
  1210
  A Corrupt Practices Bill had been introduced by the Government, and it was very amusing to think that the most corrupt Election of 1880 had been carried on by an enormous expenditure of money on the Liberal side. That was the reason why they had included in that Bill the whitewashing clause; and he maintained that the existence of that clause in the Bill was an additional reason why this Committee of Inquiry should be granted. If, however, it was refused, such a refusal would throw light on the real object of the whitewashing clause and the hypocritical pretence of the Government in coming forward to support this Corrupt Practices Bill. He thought the Government ought not to refuse this inquiry, on the ground that if it resulted in nothing everyone concerned would be rendered happy; and if the reverse was the case, and Liberal corruption was brought to light, then some good would have been done. The Government would not like this, it was true, and probably for that reason they would refuse the Committee. He had heard a great deal about the large sums of money paid during this Hereford Election; and he thought it was a curious fact that the senior Member for Hereford should have failed twice on his merits in being elected, and that on the third occasion he had succeeded by the power of his money. The Committee of Inquiry would be useful in this respect—that it-would bring out the fact that that election was a very expensive one indeed, especially on the Liberal side. It would not be to the honour of the Government or of the House to refuse a Committee of this kind. It was to the interest of the hon. Members for Hereford that inquiry should be made. They would stand before the world in a bad light if the Government sheltered them from an inquiry of this description. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was entittled to the respect of the House for having brought this matter forward. He believed he had no interest in the matter, his motive being quite pure and disinterested. The only objection to be found with the speech of the junior Member for Hereford was that he attempted to impute some motive to the right hon. Gentleman for having called the attention of the House to the subject. He felt quite sure that his right hon. Friend had brought this subject forward

  1211
  with the highest, the purest, and the best motives, and therefore he should support the Motion. ["Divide!"] As regards hon. Members calling out "Divide," he did not know how they could go to a Division until there were two sides to the question. He expected that the Government intended to oppose the Motion in consequence of their love of corruption, for they had introduced a Corrupt Practices Bill which contained a whitewashing clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had some delicacy in attempting to afford the House any guidance on the present occasion—first, because the constituency which had been referred to was that of his own native city; and, secondly, because the name of a relative of his had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this matter.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not think the Attorney General was in his place at the time. The name was most unwillingly drawn from him.
  MR. R. T. REIDwished to make an explanation. The name was volunteered by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked a question which had never yet been answered, as to what proof the right hon. Gentleman had of alleging his complicity in the agreement; and the right hon. Gentleman introduced the name of the gentleman in question in a perfectly different connection.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was perfectly aware of what had taken place. He did not wish to come in conflict with the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman had shown him but scant courtesy of late in that House; and among his own constituents the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of him in a way in which he was glad to say one Member seldom spoke of another. If the right hon. Gentleman had given him Notice that he was about to make this charge, he should have been prepared to make some statement in relation to it. But, as he knew nothing about this election, he was unprepared to make any comment except this—that he could answer for the honour and the conduct of his relative as much as he could answer for his own. He passed from this subject in order to ask the House to consider what, apart from political and, he hoped, personal considera-
  1212
  tions, they ought to do. They were asked to appoint a Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the alleged agreement was made. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to charge either of the hon. Members for Hereford with being a party to that agreement? If he did, let him say so. As he obtained no reply, he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's silence that he made no such charge. The House had jurisdiction over the conduct of its Members; but the right hon. Gentleman, by his silence, acquiesced in the statement that he had no charge to make, or that he had not the courage to make it. There was no suggestion that a breach of the Rules of the House had been committed by either of the hon. Members. Supposing it were found that 20 gentlemen signed the agreement, as seemed to be admitted, the House could do nothing. There had been no contempt of the House. No further proceeding could be taken; and a Committee would simply find that certain persons, without authority, entered into an improper agreement. At the end of four years after the transactions, without having power to punish or even to censure the parties to the agreement, they were asked to arrive at facts, which seemed to be admitted, and which could be carried no further. He would not enter into the question of the object with which this Motion had been made, or discuss why it had been kept in abeyance. It was asked why an inquiry into this matter should not be granted. Well, this was a question of precedent. If the House were to grant a Committee on the representations of men of strange conduct themselves, from whom the right hon. Gentleman had obtained his information, they would be going beyond any precedent. Moreover, the inquiry could have no Constitutional result. In the circumstances, he must ask the House to consider whether this was a case in which inquiry ought to take place. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport told the House that it was comical for the Corrupt Practices Bill to have been introduced by the Attorney General. Did the hon. and learned Member mean to say that he (the Attorney General) had ever, directly or indirectly, taken part in any corrupt practices in his life?
  MR. WARTON: Taunton is a very corrupt place. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his constituents could defend themselves. The question was, whether the hon. and learned Member for Bridport meant to charge that he had been guilty of corrupt practices? The hon. and learned Member for Bridport was a fitting supporter for the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject, and who hinted at charges he did not dare to make. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport asserted that the Government carried a whitewashing clause, so that there should be no retrospective inquiry; but he might point out that there was no such clause in the Government Bill, and that it was inserted at the suggestion of a Conservative Member of the House. In conclusion, he appealed to the House not to grant an inquiry, which would be without precedent and without result.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought the Government ought to grant the Committee, in order that the grave charges made by his right hon. Friend might be thoroughly investigated. If the House refused to grant the Committee the public would say that the Government were using their influence to shield the Members for Hereford, and that the Attorney General was seeking to cover the sins of his relative. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh!] The Home Secretary, of course, knew a great deal more about corrupt practices than he did. He wished to impress this fact upon Her Majesty's Government—that, however painful it might be for that House to give a vote against these hon. Members, still, if the Committee were refused, the public would disbelieve in all their protestations of their desire to put down corrupt practices at elections. It would be said out-of-doors that the Government were determined to screen the hon. Members lest many nasty things should come to light. When charges of this serious character were brought against hon. Members, they ought, in the interests of those hon. Members themselves, to be sifted to the bottom before a competent tribunal, with the view of their being either substantiated or disproved. He hoped that the Attorney General would see his way to alter his decision in this matter, and to consent to the appointment of this Committee.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that it appeared to him that the only question for the House to consider in this matter was, whether the appointment of this Committee would be for the public advantage in checking those corrupt practices which they all so much deplored? A good deal might be said in favour of appointing this Committee if the inquiry before it would result in exposing corrupt practices that had not yet been brought to light; but all the exposure that was likely to result from the inquiry had been brought about by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that an improper agreement had been entered into with the view of making a bargain with an hon. Member in connection with the withdrawal of this Petition had not been contradicted, and the names of the persons concerned in that agreement had been given publicly. An inquiry before a Committee, therefore, would not bring to light any new facts. How were hon. Members to vote on this question? The view he took of the matter was this—if the right hon. Gentleman intended to impute that the two sitting Members for Hereford were guilty of being privy to this agreement, he should cordially vote for the appointment of the Committee; but if the right hon. Gentleman did not make that imputation he should vote against the Motion.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that having heard the opening speech he could bear testimony to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not given the name of the Attorney General's brother without considerable and most unusual pressure being brought to bear upon him by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. E. T. Reid), and then he had not given it with any great pleasure. The hon. Member for Hereford had acted throughout in a most unusual manner. It was a most extraordinary thing that while both the hon. Representatives of Hereford had expressed themselves as being most anxious that this inquiry should take place the Attorney General should refuse the Committee on the part of the Government. Of course, the hon. Member for Hereford, being a lawyer, did not know more of the matter than he wanted to know.
  MR. R. T. REIDrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in making imputations of this nature upon an hon. Member?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope that the debate will be conducted without the imputation of motives, and without personalities which are extremely painful.
  MR. BIGGAR, in continuing, remarked that the state of political morality in Hereford must be a singular one, seeing that 10 of the leading Conservatives of that city had believed that one of the Representatives of the constituency could be induced to enter into a bargain to retire from his seat after a specified time. He could conceive an instance in which two candidates holding the same political views agreed to contest a borough, one being a man of wealth and the other being a man of ability, on the understanding that the wealthy man was to find the ready money and the able man was to do all the talking. The real question before the House was whether the two hon. Members for Hereford, who had declared themselves so anxious for this inquiry, were to be allowed to clear their characters, or were to be forced to rest under the grave imputations which the right hon. Gentleman had brought against them?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that when he left the House the senior hon. Member for Hereford had seconded the Motion, and the junior Member had supported it, the first merely stammering out, "I second this Motion." The impression on his mind then was that the inquiry was practically granted; but he understood since that the Attorney General, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, had flatly refused it. Such a course on the part of the Government threw considerable doubt upon the sincerity of the hon. Members implicated in this matter.
  MR. PULLEY: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether I violated any of the Rules of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Had the hon. Member violated any of the Rules of the House I should have corrected him.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would not go into that question; but what he wanted to point out was, that it was very difficult for those sitting on the Opposition side of the House, or any independent Member, to believe that the support given to the Motion by the hon. Members for Hereford could be sincere, on account of the extraordinary
  1216
  conduct pursued by the Government. What was to become of the reputation of the House of Commons if the Government—[ A laugh.] He knew that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), and his protector, the Home Secretary, cared very little for the reputation of the House of Commons, and allowed its honour and character to be dragged into the dirt. ["Order, Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the noble Lord will not introduce any fresh personalities into the discussion, which has been made painful by such personalities already.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was very difficult indeed to debate this question and keep absolutely clear of anything approaching to personalities. He was speaking of the honour of the House of Commons, when he was met with the jeers of the hon. Member for Stockton; and naturally his mind recurred to the extremely painful scene in which the hon. Member was engaged some time ago. He was asking what was to become of the reputation of the House of Commons if, in the course of one Session, Her Majesty's Government used their mechanical majority to prevent two inquiries that were demanded, one into a matter deeply affecting a Minister of the Crown, and the other into a matter affecting two Members of the Liberal Party. It was a great misfortune that the Front Opposition Bench was upon this occasion so tenantless. He did not know whether the election transactions connected with 1880 were matters about which they felt a little delicacy. Certainly, it was a most remarkable feature that when a question of great importance to the House of Commons was being discussed they should have taken themselves off. He did not think his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) need be disappointed at the attitude of the Government. Nothing could be more favourable to the cause which they represented than the obstinate and, he believed, the interested refusal which the Attorney General had made in this matter to the cause which they on the Opposition side had advocated—namely, electoral purity; and they should lose no opportunity of drawing public attention to the corrupt and dark practices which placed the Liberal majority in power.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not intend to follow the noble Lord into the personalities in which he had indulged; but it was always a consolation to the Government to know that, whatever hard words he might apply to them, he always said much harder things about his friends. But the noble Lord, not having heard the Attorney General, did not appreciate the position of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman did not make a charge against the Members for Hereford; and it was all very well for them to say "the more inquiry the better;" but the Government had to consider, irrespective of the hon. Members, what ought to be the action of the House of Commons. It had been pointed out that it was not for the House to enter upon an inquiry, not with reference to its own Members, but with regard to persons over whom it had no control and no jurisdiction. Such an inquiry would place the House in an entirely false position; it would lend encouragement to proceedings which were much better fitted for the anonymous columns of a society newspaper than for the transactions of a deliberative Assembly. He had never heard of the Hereford Election before. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes), and he was wondering the whole time when he was coming to any point which would justify the Motion he had made. To his infinite surprise, he sat down without even approaching anything that had any relation to it, or even of making out, a primâ facie case for inquiry by a Committee, and it was for that reason alone that the Government could not support the Motion.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that having had an intimate acquaintance with the proceedings of political parties at elections, he could not share the noble Lord's surprise at the absence of the Leader of the Opposition or at the conduct of the Government. No doubt there was no charge against the Members for Hereford; it was only incidentally and in a secondary degree that their conduct was brought in, and no doubt they would come out of the inquiry with clean hands. A gross scandal had been committed by the local wire-pullers, who did not act on their own responsibility, but were intimately associated with, others, who kept carefully in the background in London, who kept
  1218
  within the limits of the law and were perfectly safe; and this was true of both Parties. If there were corrupt proceedings in a constituency, the House of Commons was justified in dragging them to light. In this case both Parties were involved. It was inconvenient that these things should be inquired into, and that was the reason the Front Opposition Bench was unoccupied, save by the right hon. Gentleman who had just come in (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was a county Member, and quite innocent in regard to what was done at borough elections. He was also equally certain that there were Gentlemen sitting on the Government Bench who would have imitated the example if they had dared, but being Members of the Government they had been obliged to be present and brazen it out. The course the Government had taken was deliberately to invite the House of Commons to stifle inquiry. The Government did not want the inquiry because they were afraid that matters would be brought to light which had long been kept secret, and which would be extremely inconvenient for some Members of their Party. A primâ facie case was made out as to an abominably corrupt bargain made by wire-pullers on both sides for the purpose of securing the withdrawal of a Petition. The Home Secretary said that inquiry would be fruitless; but it was precisely because it would not be fruitless that he opposed it. He was certain, whatever the decision of the House might be, the country would believe that the leading Members of the Opposition went away because they did not dare to face the inquiry, and that the Government tried to stifle the discussion because they could not sustain an open investigation.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought the House had seldom witnessed such a spectacle as that which had just been presented by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. and learned Member had been the dispenser of the secrets of the Opposition side of the House. He knew what had been done so well, and he liked to dilate from time to time on all that had passed through his hands. He could not believe that the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were absent because they knew of infamous practices. He could

  1219
  hardly think that the hon. Member could have meant to charge a whole body of men with such improprieties, and he (Mr. Hopwood) should think that before morning came the hon. Member would be convinced of the imprudence of having made that statement and that attack. He thought the Attorney General had put this matter on its right footing; and as the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had declined to aver that the two hon. Members for Hereford were mixed up with this transaction, he should vote against the Motion.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, he would be very loath to impute venality in election matters reflecting on either of the hon. Members for Hereford, with whom he was not acquainted, and against whom, consequently, he could have no personal grudge. Because that was so he took their part, and he should say for them, what he would say for himself, if charges of this kind were brought against him—"I am ready to meet them; if you persevere in your accusations, go on, and I will meet them." The hon. Members, it was true, might be entirely innocent of the grave charges brought against some of their constituents—persons supposed to be truthful. He did not know anything about them, or anything about Hereford, and he did not want to know; but it was rather suspicious that after the visit of Mr. Sydney Myers to the Conservative agent, a rouleau of £600 in bank-notes had been found lying on his table. Did anyone suppose that Mr. Myers, from philanthropic motives, had left there £600 of his own money? He only wished that he was acquainted with this gentleman, and that he would visit him in a similar way. He should like to be on the proposed Committee if it were only for the purpose of putting a few questions to this Mr. Myers. There had been a compact entered into by 20 reputed respectable men of the Liberal Party, and one of them wrote that they intended to act up to that compact. He appealed to the Treasury Bench, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and President of the Board of Trade, whether Mr. Scobie, the Secretary of the Liberal Association and Official Receiver of the Court of Bankruptcy, just appointed to the latter office by the President of the
  1220
  Board of Trade, was not a respectable man, and, therefore, to be believed before a Committee of the House of Commons? This Mr. Scobie wrote that he intended to carry out a certain compact with the Conservative agent. Why, therefore, should the Government, by shirking a Committee, seek to prevent his examination? When imputations were brought against Members of that House who sat on the Ministerial side of the House—or, indeed, in any quarter of the Chamber—it was absolutely cruel on the part of the Government to shirk this inquiry, knowing that they were backed up by a large majority, and feeling that they were expert enough to use it. "The whirligig of time brings its own revenges." Last Session they had the Corrupt Practices (Elections) Bill of the Attorney General, who, that night, attacked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) for personalities, and threw his pure robe of protection around both Mr. Myers and Mr. Scobie, out of goodwill to the hon. Members for Hereford. He (Mr. Montagu Scott) would not follow the example of their pseudo-Friends, but should vote for the appointment of the proposed Committee.
  MR. WARTONasked, on a point of Order, whether the senior Member for Hereford, having seconded the Motion, could not be compelled to be a Teller?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that there was no such obligation on the hon. Member.
  MR. TOMLINSONthought that the House would want some stronger authority than had been given for the doctrine that no Member of the House had a right to an inquiry unless a direct charge had been made against him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 55: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  MADAGASCAR.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT, in rising to call attention to recent events in Madagascar, said, that if he was obliged that night to intervene between the House and the consideration of other Business, which might be more interesting to some Members than the subject he was about to bring forward, the House would feel that it was no fault of his. On a previous occasion he was able, at a con-

  1221
  venient time, to invite attention to that question, when it would have been disposed of hut for the unusual and unfair action of the Government in depriving him of a House that had been made. His position in regard to the matter which he was now bringing under consideration might be summed up under these three heads—first, that a wanton and unprovoked attack had been made on a friendly and innocent State by the authorities of the French Republic; secondly, that the attack and the operations subsequent had inflicted very serious loss on British subjects and very grave injury on British commerce; and, thirdly, that those proceedings had been accompanied by grievous insults and affronts offered on the part of the French Commanders to British officials and British subjects. To those three he might add, as a fourth, that no satisfactory apology, and no reparation worthy of the name, had been made to this country for the insults offered to our flag and the losses and injuries inflicted on British subjects. He could not better describe the natural feelings of indignation and shame with which these facts affected those who were acquainted with them than in the language used by a Member of the Liberal Party. In September last, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), speaking at Weston-super-Mare, said—
  "We find France indulging in such a spirit in distant posts, where British commerce is overwhelming, and our influence almost unchequered, that it is impossible to say what the outcome may be. Certainly, the case of Mr. Shaw is not one that should be overlooked. Are we always to remain passive under insult and wrong? Has the fire gone out that once burned in Englishmen's breasts?"
  The hon. Member then proceeded to recapitulate the main facts as to the French Admiral's treatment of Consul Pakenham, of Commander Johnstone, of Her Majesty's ship Dryad, of the officers of the British mail packet on its arrival at Tamatave, of Mr. Shaw, the English missionary, and other incidents connected with the French operations in Madagascar. He would not go into the details fully, because he had already referred to them on other occasions. He mentioned that a trade of £750,000 sterling had been destroyed by those operations, the loss thus produced ahving fallen almost entirely on British subjects, many of whom
  1222
  had been ruined. Besides a number of British merchants and Natives of Mauritius, a visitor to Madagascar stated that—
  "At Mojanga, and along the Western Coast of the Island, are over 500 Chorah merchants from Bombay, regarding whose fate during the past six months their friends in India have learned little. Although British subjects, they have apparently been altogether abandoned by their Government."
  The Government had been inaccurate as well as secretive. In referring to those events on a former occasion, the Prime Minister informed the House that Commander Johnstone was in no respect acting in a civil capacity, and had no authority to do so; and yet, three weeks before that statement, the Foreign Office issued a letter to that officer formally thanking him for the part he had taken as Acting Vice Consul, and another letter appointing him as Vice Consul after Consul Pakenham's death; and the Prime Minister had also stated, on August 21, that he had no reason to believe
  "That Mr. Shaw had not free access to, and means of, providing himself with legal defence,"
  when despatches were in his possession proving that Mr. Shaw was a close prisoner, and not allowed to communicate with anyone. The hon. Member went on to complain that, in the Blue Book which had been presented by the Government, the despatches of Commander Johnstone, which stated the whole case against the French authorities, were wholly suppressed, together with the Memorandum that was sent by the British Cabinet to the French Government asking for reparation. He expressed his belief that if Her Majesty's Government had dared to present the despatches of Commander Johnstone to the House, they could not have remained on the Treasury Bench, the indignation of the country would have been roused so strongly against them on account of their pusillanimity in regard to those transactions. The Government, by the way in which it had prepared that Blue Book, had been guilty of a breach of faith with the House and the public. The only person who came with credit out of this painful and humiliating affair was Commander Johnstone, whose intrepid courage, firmness, and tact deserved the highest praise. He would quote a statement which appeared in

  1223
  The Daily News on the 25th of last September—
  "Captain Johnstone throughout behaved admirably, and did all that the rules of international courtesy permitted. Nothing could induce Admiral Pierre to grant Mrs. Shaw an interview with her husband, from whom she had been two years separated, and of whose probable fate, or even the charges on which he was detained, she was ignorant. Admiral Pierre, in his despatch to his Government, speaks of the pain of having had to harden his heart against a lady's entreaties. But he adopted an easy method of hardening his heart, for he would not even see her himself, and gave all his answers in writing and through his officers, keeping Mr. Shaw below, so as to prevent his being ever seen from the deck of the Dryad, or from the town by the aid of a glass."
  The only fact upon which the Government could rely by way of defence was that Mr. Shaw obtained £1,000 from the French Government. The great majority of the English people, however, did not look upon that sum as adequate compensation for a man who was imprisoned unjustly, treated like one of the lower animals, and denied all access to his friends for two months. The craven conduct of the Government on the occasion to which he was referring would encourage foreign nations to go great lengths in future in their behaviour towards Englishmen. The insults to the British flag did not cease with the withdrawal of Admiral Pierre, and the movements of the British vessels had since been dogged by the French ships. A reliable witness, Captain Cameron, the Correspondent of The Standard, whose brilliant description of the recent Soudan campaign was so well known, had stated—
  "From the officers of the Euryalus and Dragon we had confirmation, and more, of all that has appeared in the Home Press regarding the insulting attitude of the French Fleet towards the British vessels. On more than one occasion the latter were threatened with active hostilities. Both sides went to quarters; the respective crews stood by their guns, and thus faced each other, broadside to broadside. The Dryad and Dragon were, of course, greatly overmatched, and had arranged, should the French have opened fire, to slip their cables, and ram—the one the Flore, the other the Forfait—the two largest of the opposing ships. The insults did not cease with Admiral Pierre's departure. This wanton display of unfriendliness has been reported home."
  With regard to the Island of Madagascar itself, it was worthy of remark that our trade with it amounted to £750,000 a-year, and was steadily increasing. In
  1224
  addition to this, it was very important to the Colony of Mauritius, which derived the greater part of its meat supply from the Island. Many of our fellow-subjects from Mauritius had made large investments of capital in Madagascar. As far as its physical features were concerned, it was one of the richest, as far as its soil was concerned, most fertile, and most promising countries in the world. The Correspondent of The Standard newspaper, who had visited that Island, drew a remarkable picture of its soil and products. He said—
  "The virgin soil is rich and deep—on an average from 6 feet to 8 feet of the special loam required for the sugar-cane. The wealth of tropical growth displayed here cannot be matched all the world over, not even in the richest portions of India, The rivers are wide and navigable. Not only sugar, but tobacco, cloves, pepper, cinnamon, and all the spices can be grown in profusion. Palms of all the different species, magnificent groves of mango trees, the coffee, indigo, and bread-fruit plants are to he seen, while the slender and graceful bamboo tones down, with its delicate green, the more flaunting colours of the robuster growths. There is no country in the world where live stock is so cheap as in Madagascar. Fine bullocks can be purchased for two or three dollars each. Cattle are cheap in Madagascar because there are no droughts, and the grazing grounds are practically inexhaustible. The indiarubber trade is rapidly increasing. But the sugar plantations are the most promising source of wealth."
  Again, the same able observer, writing of the brisk trade between Madagascar and England, says—
  "Forty-one British vessels cleared from this port (Tamatave) alone during the past year. The consumption of Lancashire cotton prints and fancy cloths is steadily increasing. Hardware goods come almost entirely from England."
  The Malagasy people had largely adopted the Christian religion, and were far from being the barbarous race which some had described them. As a proof of the advance of the Malagasy people in civilization and Christianity, he would like to quote the evidence of a recent eyewitness who had visited the capital—
  "Around us were numerous villages clustered on the hill slopes. There were no trees, only rolling veldt, like that peculiar to South Africa. But the villages were not mere collections of bamboo-built huts. Strong and substantially-built houses of brick they were, not lacking ill pretensions to architectural design, and superior in comfort and appearance to those which many a villager in Britain and Ireland can boast of. And here, too, the townships had each its detached building, trim and neat, whose style and architecture at once indicated the other chapel.

  1225
  There were, moreover, indications of missionary work in the land. As we passed through the streets we could hear the hum of children busy at their lessons, and singing sometimes the Morning Hymn, so well known in many an English school. There could be no question that, so far as outward appearances went, the people of Tonerina had reached a high level of civilization. It was difficult to imagine that this peaceful country, with its pretty cottages, its innumberable chapels, whose bells were then calling the people to worship, and its troops of white-robed men and women answering the summons, was the barbarous Madagascar of 20 years ago."
  He would particularly commend these interesting descriptions to the attention of hon. Members opposite who were attached to the Nonconformist Bodies. This good work had mainly been done by Methodist missionaries, and it was confessedly against these Wesleyan converts that the aggression of French fanatics and Chauvinists was now aimed. He hoped the Government would not admit the claims of France to supremacy in the Island. He dared say the Government would meet him by the statement that they had done the best to defend British interests in Madagascar, and to promote the interests of the people of that Island. They would, probably, further say that any intervention on their part could only be satisfactorily carried out by active military operations, and by a display of force which might have involved them in a war with France. That might be their defence; but he would ask Ministers whether they had really done all in the power of a great country like England, with special interests and duties to maintain, to protect the people of Madagascar from unjust attack? He would ask them if they had made those distinct and emphatic remonstrances with the French Government which, at all events, in his humble opinion, they ought to have made? He would further ask them whether, at that moment, they stood in a dignified position with regard to France, or the other Powers of the world? Whether they were less likely to have further advantage taken of them, and less likely to be pushed further down the hill of insult and injury, than if they had taken a bold line at first? It was but too evident that the tame acquiescence of the Government in those grievous affronts had brought this country a great deal nearer to active hostility with regard to other Powers, and
  1226
  especially France. Such weakness must lead to still further insults and still more grievous affronts being offered to them. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He would repeat that that was so, in spite of the indignant gestures of the Prime Minister. It was perfectly evident to the whole world that, so far from Her Majesty's Government being on satisfactory terms with the French Republic, for whom they had sacrificed so much, they had now drifted into such antagonism that even their own supporters in the Press warned them that they were drifting into war. The more they conceded, the more was demanded of them. They began by basing their policy on the French alliance; but they had given way to France point after point. He was not going to discuss those points, and he only referred to them as links in a chain of which this Madagascar question formed one. The British Cabinet allowed the French Government to deceive them in regard to Tunis, and they took pride in concealing the facts of the case from the House. In regard to the Commercial Treaty, they had also been cajoled by France, and they had allowed themselves to be dragged into a political and military intervention in Egypt, with the result which the country was now witnessing. The fatal and irretrievable position now occupied by Her Majesty's Government was the consequence of the Joint Note; and, at this moment, the one Power which was thwarting, embarrassing, and opposing us in every way in regard to the Egyptian Question was the French Government, for whom they had sacrificed so much. His opinion was, that if they had taken a firm stand at first with regard to Madagascar and other questions, so far from involving the country into war, they would have saved the people of Madagascar and their own credit. What course would Lord Palmerston have taken in a case like this? Lord Palmerston, having long been concerned in matters connected with the foreign policy of the country, was not approved of by the present Prime Minister. He would remind the Prime Minister that Lord Palmerston was regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as the Prince of Jingoes, and on more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman had deprecated the foreign policy of that statesman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Is the hon. Member prepared to prove the charge he makes?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTadmitted that he had not the statements of the right hon. Gentleman in his hand; but if the House would take it from, him, he was perfectly prepared to prove, at the proper moment, that the Prime Minister, on more than one occasion, had deprecated the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. The strained relations between himself and Lord Palmerston prior to the Crimean War were notorious. But Lord Palmerston, al though he always firmly maintained the honour and power and dignity of the country, never involved England in a single great war; whereas the indecision and weakness of the right hon. Gentle man, and the Cabinet of which he was a prominent Member, had caused the country to drift into the Crimean War—
  MR. GLADSTONE: And Lord Palmerston also.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No; Lord Palmerston was not a Member of the Cabinet at that time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly; he was a Member.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, if he was wrong in that assertion, he regretted to have made it. He had forgotten for the moment that Lord Palmerston, after resigning his position in the Cabinet at the close of 1852, on account of differences with his Colleagues, and especially with the right hon. Gentleman, afterwards had been persuaded to return. This was, at any rate, the fact, that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was, at that time, a more prominent Member of the Cabinet than Lord Palmerston. ["No, no!"] If the Prime Minister objected to that statement he would withdraw it; but he was justified in assuming, in view of the recent policy of the Premier, that it was more likely that the present Prime Minister was the cause of the Crimean War—that was, of the weakness and vacillation which led the Government to drift into that war—rather than Lord Palmerston. He believed that a policy of firmness and resolution was the best preservative against war. He believed that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in regard to Madagascar and in regard to other questions of difficulty into which
  1228
  England had been drawn, had, as was too apparent at the present time, drawn upon this country the contempt of other nations. He used the word with the greatest reluctance. If, however, they judged the opinion of other countries, as other countries judged the opinion of this country at this moment—namely, from the expressed views of the public Press—then, from the almost unanimous expressions of opinion on the part of the public Press of other countries, hon. Members on both sides of the House must be bound to admit that what he said was fully justified. He deeply regretted to find that the public Press of every nation on the Continent, at that moment, was crying shame on England and her present Ministry for the weakness and inconsistency of their policy. He knew that the Prime Minister said that the great majority of the Press upon the Continent were in the pay of the great financiers. That was a perfect myth. It was only the other day that the Prime Minister, while admitting the fact of this universal censure, said the reason why the Foreign Press was constantly condemning his policy was that the wires were pulled by the great financiers. No doubt, the great financiers of Europe possessed considerable power; but he absolutely denied that the financiers of Europe, or any other body of men, had power to form a combination against Her Majesty's Government that would extend from St. Petersburg to Rome and from Paris to Bucharest. In conclusion, he would apologize to the House for having taken up so much of its time.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had said, very truly, that there was on the Paper for consideration that evening some very important Business which hon. Members on his own side of the House were very anxious to reach, and, therefore, the hon. Member proposed to curtail the observations he would otherwise have addressed to the House. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) hoped the House would not consider him disrespectful if, animated with the same feeling, he were also to curtail the observations he would otherwise have made, because he knew the great interest which the other Business excited in the minds of many hon. Members on his own side of the House. The hon.

  1229
  Gentleman began by complaining of the action of the Government the other night in regard to this question, and of the manner in which the debate he then attempted to raise had terminated. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) absolutely denied that there was any cause of complaint against Her Majesty's Government for the manner in which the debate terminated. It was only through him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), personally, that the hon. Member was able to speak at all, or that there was a House. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BAKTLETT: No, no!] It was quite true that the House was formed; but. 20 minutes afterwards, it was not continued owing to the action of the Friends of the hon. Member himself, who left the House. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was in his place upon that Bench, and he was, at a critical moment, joined by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He was glad to find that the hon. Member had not favoured the House with a repetition of the statements he had made during the winter.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What statements?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He referred to the statements of the hon. Member during the winter, in connection with the Pritchard affair. The account which, however, the hon. Member gave of the history of the Pritchard affair was only on a par with the statement he had made just now in regard to the formation of the Aberdeen Ministry. He hoped the House might not deduce from that fact that the hon. Member had altogether discontinued his historic researches.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What were they?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the hon. Member would only examine them, he would find that the statements he had made were altogether inaccurate, and he would also discover in the history of the different Governments who had ruled the country in the past that Lord Palmerston was a Member of the Government which began the Crimean War.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked what were the statements referred to by the noble Lord?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he referred to the statements of
  1230
  the hon. Member in regard to an Ultimatum, and to a large sum of money having been paid. Both statements were absolutely incorrect.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he rose to correct the statement of the noble Lord at once. He had never made any assertion, either in that House or elsewhere, in regard to an Ultimatum, or to a large sum of money having been paid. What he had said was that a demand for reparation was made by Sir Robert Peel, and that reparation was made fully, and without delay.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that statement of the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate also, but not quite so inaccurate as the one he had read in the reports which appeared in the newspapers. The hon. Member had directed his observations to three points, which he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would very briefly touch. He had spoken of the attack of the French on Madagascar, and said he hoped that, on behalf of the Government, no attempt would be made to justify that attack, or to support the claims of France upon Madagascar. Now, he was not concerned in any way to enter into the merits of that dispute. Her Majesty's Government naturally regretted that war should have been entered into between two friendly Powers, and the attitude which had necessarily been observed was one of strict and impartial neutrality. He was not called upon at that moment to enter into the nature and history of the Treaties put forward by the French Government as a justification of their attack. He would do no more than express a hope that the French Government and the Government of Madagascar would soon find some method of composing their differences; and he would repeat what was already in the Blue Books—that should an opportunity arise in which Her Majesty's Government could usefully offer their services for the arrangement of those differences, that opportunity should not be lost. Then the hon. Member proceeded to speak in detail of the incidents which happened nine months ago at Madagascar, and which occasioned a great deal of feeling at the moment both in that House and in the country. He was quite sure that the House would feel that there was a time for all things, and that it was not wise or desirable, when a quarrel had

  1231
  been happily arranged by the diplomatic skill of the French Ambassador and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to go back upon it now, and rake up the various incidents, and even to exaggerate those incidents, and run the risk of exciting ill-feeling, which it had been the object of Her Majesty's Government to allay. Perhaps the hon. Member would be glad that he should say so; but he believed it very possible that, if Parliament had been sitting while those delicate negotiations between Lord Granville and M. Waddington were going on, and if it had been in his power to come down to the House three or four times a-week, and ask the most irritating Questions about the progress of those negotiations, and to have pressed the Government to give inconvenient explanations which might have thwarted the progress of the negotiations, it was possible that the hon. Member might have succeeded in exciting such an amount of ill-feeling in France as would have rendered the friendly settlement of the question impossible.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not do so.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member had not done so because Parliament was not sitting; but, as far as the hon. Member could do so, he did it, in going all over the country giving an inaccurate account of the matter. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had no doubt that, if the hon. Member could have done so in that House, he would have availed himself of every opportunity of doing it. Fortunately, through no merit of his own, the hon. Member was not able to do so, because Parliament was not sitting at the time. The hon. Member had stated that there was no expression of regret on the part of the French Government of any kind about Mr. Shaw.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not state that.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had taken down the words of the hon. Member, and he wished to call the attention of the House to the facts of the case. On page 61 of the Blue Book, in a despatch of M. Challemel-Lacour to M. Waddington, written to be communicated to Earl Granville, there was a passage in which it was said that, whatever the facts might have
  1232
  been, it was certain that an innocent man, who was the subject of a Foreign. Power, had been deprived of his liberty and unjustifiably detained under painful circumstances. The despatch went on to say that the Government had therefore decided to offer a sum of 25,000 francs, as an evidence of their wish to lighten the consequences to Mr. Shaw. The despatch added that Her Majesty's Government would see, in this decision, a proof of the motives by which the French Government were animated; and he hoped they would be animated by the same spirit in securing the settlement of the difficulty. For a great nation like France frankly to come forward and state that the conduct of her Agents was not justified—for that was the phrase—was an expression of regret; and would it have been desirable, or wise, or just, or dignified oil the part of Her Majesty's Government to have insisted upon the use of stronger terms, when the negotiations on both sides were being conducted in a friendly and conciliatory spirit, having due regard to the mutual dignity of both countries? That was the reason why the negotiations had been successful.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Very successful indeed!
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member had also dwelt on the insult to Consul Pakenham; but he had carefully avoided referring to the facts which were not known to the House when the question was raised last year. Now, on page 61 of the Blue Book, in a despatch of October 29th, 1883, from Lord Granville to M. Waddington, Lord Granville said that Her Majesty's Government had no desire, after the communications received from the French Government, to dwell upon the events which had occurred; and he added that he had great pleasure in receiving a letter, which he annexed, from the French Ambassador, in reference to Consul Pakenham, which showed that Admiral Pierre would not have carried out the order for the Consul's expulsion. That was most satisfactory, because the course taken by Admiral Pierre was said at the time to be unjustifiable. He desired to speak in terms of respect of Admiral Pierre as a gallant sailor, who, having served his country well in many ways, was now dead. But as to the orders given in regard to Consul Pakenham,

  1233
  those orders were felt to be unjustifiable, and the French Government had made that acknowledgment. He was glad to find, although at the last moment, that that fact had been recognized—that, considering the painful circumstances in which Consul Pakenham, a dying man, was placed, the orders of the Admiral would not have been carried out. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was also glad to have that opportunity of paying a tribute of respect to the memory of Consul Pakenham, who had served Her Majesty's Government faithfully for many years, who was a man of great knowledge, intimately acquainted with the Island of Madagascar, in which he had long lived, and who was so much respected by all the inhabitants, French as well as English. Consul Pakenham was viewed with the highest respect, not only by the French Colony, but by traders and naval men who had occasion to visit the Colony from time to time; and there could be nothing more distasteful to the French in that part of the world than that any disrespect should be shown towards Consul Pakenham himself. The hon. Member had also dwelt upon the alleged insult to Commander Johnstone, and to the order he was supposed to have received to send the mails on board the French steamer, before placing them on board the packet. It was, no doubt, true that Captain Hay believed he was speaking accurately when he told Commander Johnstone that such an order had been issued; but it was quite evident that Captain Hay, although he believed that such an order had been issued, had misunderstood what the order was. The order was intended to apply to private letters going in by the ship of which Commander Johnstone was himself the captain; but there was no intention whatever on the part of the French Commander to extend the order for his examination to the official mail bags of the Government going out in Commander Johnstone's own ship. He would not enter more fully into this matter, because he felt quite sure that the common sense of the House and of the country would not sanction an attempt to go into the past and rake up all these old matters which had been settled some time ago, and settled with the happy result of re-establishing a good and friendly feeling between England and
  1234
  France. The hon. Member had also touched upon the trade of Madagascar. He congratulated the hon. Member upon not having used the figure of £2,000,000 in relation to the trade of that country, which he had so frequently used on other occasions. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member had always hitherto used the figure of £2,000,000 in regard to that and several other subjects. The trade between England and Madagascar, and between this country and various other parts of the world, was always estimated by the hon. Member at £2,000,000. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Never.] Now, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) believed that the trade of England was constantly increasing in all parts of the world; but he protested against the attempt of the hon. Member to introduce in regard to Madagascar the £2,000,000 which weighed so greatly upon his mind, and was as difficult to keep out of it as the head of King Charles, in the famous Memorial of Mr. Dick, mentioned by Mr. Dickens in David Copperfield. The hon. Member said the trade of Madagascar had been very much affected by the cowardly conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Of, course, when war was going on, trade necessarily suffered. The hon. Member chose to say that it was owing to the action of the Government, although he made no attempt to prove it; and he also chose to say that the devastation which had occurred in the Island, and of which he said there appeared a faithful account in The Times, was the work of the French. Now, there was no proof of that at all. Some parts of the Island of Madagascar had been deserted, and it was much more likely, in such a case, that the Natives had gone down into the interior and devastated the rich plantations. So far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they could have but one wish. The Island of Madagascar h ad excited much interest in this country, on account of the progress the inhabitants had made in Christianity and civilization. They would only be too glad to see the people of Madagascar restored to the position they occupied a short time ago, and they fully hoped and believed that the magnanimity of the French Government would arouse itself, and that they would feel they were dealing, with an important and interesting community—a community in no sense a

  1235
  savage community, but enjoying, to a large extent, the advantages of civilization and Christianity. If any opportunity occurred such as occurred about a year ago, when, unfortunately, they were refused, that would enable Her Majesty's Government to use their friendly offices in order to bring about that condition of things which all desired to see restored, the House and the country might rest assured that the opportunity would not be lost.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to correct two statements which the noble Lord had made with regard to himself. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to make a personal explanation?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTreplied in the affirmative. He had never used any other figure in regard to the trade of Madagascar than £750,000. Nor had he said, in his speech, that no apology was made by the French Government in connection with the case of Mr. Shaw. His words were that no apology was offered for the insults of the Commanders and others, except in the case of Mr. Shaw.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 55: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. KENNYsaid, that an objection had been raised to the clause, on the ground that it did not sufficiently define the powers of the President of the Council. It gave the Privy Council certain powers, and said that the Privy Council might, if they thought fit, exer-
  1236
  cise them. Now, the Committee knew very well that when powers were given to the Privy Council, and it was left to their discretion to exercise them or not, the Privy Council, as a rule, did not exercise them. This clause would apply to the importation of three-fourths of the cattle which came into this country from other countries, although the other portion might be prohibited. It would mainly affect store cattle brought from the different States of the American Union to England, and it had been already explained that the cattle of all the States bordering on the Atlantic, so far as America was concerned, were practically affected with disease. That being so, it was not sufficiently clear that the disease might not be imported into England, and sent to Ireland and other countries, in consequence of importing diseased cattle from the Western States. He did not wish to protest against the clause at any length, and he had no doubt that it would be carried; but, at the same time, he begged to give Notice that on the Report he intended to move, in line 1, page 2, that the word "may" be expunged, and the words "shall in certain respects" be substituted.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he entertained a strong objection to the clause, and he thought if the Bill was to be passed at all this clause should be omitted from it. If the Privy Council were to be allowed to admit store cattle, he thought it would be altogether impossible to obtain adequate information as to the state of disease in the countries from which cattle were allowed to be exported. At any rate, he thought it would be difficult to obtain information of a thoroughly reliable nature. They had an illustration of that the other day, with regard to a cargo of cattle from Canada. The cattle were really diseased when landed; they were kept for a few days in a field; and four or five days afterwards, a very large number of them were found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. He thought it was undesirable to allow cattle, purchased for store purposes, to be brought into the country at all, except when they came from localities that were wholly free from disease.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he might be allowed to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham) and hon. Members from

  1237
  Ireland would allow this clause to stand part of the Bill. For his own part, he would prefer to see it expunged altogether rather than introduced into the Bill, because he believed that it might have a somewhat dangerous effect. But, on the other hand, he did not believe that any large amount of store stock would come into the country if they were subjected to a lengthened quarantine. It was just within the bounds of possibility that some of the best shorthorns would come from the healthy States of America; and his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Hereford might desire to have some breeding animals from those regions. He would, therefore, not oppose the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 6, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of the following new clause:—
  (Slaughter of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease.)
  "When, at any time after the lapse of a period of sixty days, during which no case of foot-and-mouth disease has been reported to the Privy Council (of which the Privy Council shall give due notice), every local authority shall slaughter all animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease whenever the disease appears within its district, and, if the local authority thinks fit, also animals which have been in contact with others affected with foot-and-mouth disease. The compensation for animals slaughtered shall be as follows:—(a.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot-and-mouth disease, the compensation shall be four-fifths of its value immediately before it became affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed thirty pounds; (b.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
  His object was to prevent the spread of disease. Judging from the action of the majority of the House, it might be supposed that the existence of disease in this country was dependent on its continued introduction from abroad. Such, however, was not the fact. Foot-and-mouth disease was, no doubt, originally imported from abroad; but it travelled very rapidly over the country, and had existed for the last three years, although it could not be said that any disease had been imported in the last 12 months. It, therefore, seemed to him that they ought to adopt some more stringent measure than now existed for the exter-
  1238
  mination of the disease now prevalent in the country. His own opinion was, that it was quite as important to do that as to make more stringent regulations to prevent the introduction of disease from abroad. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he proposed to deal with the disease which still remained in the country, and whether no more stringent measures were to be taken than those which had existed during the last three years? If nothing were done, there was every reason to apprehend that disease would continue in the country, and that it would extend from time to time, and overrun the country. In that view, an attempt to frame regulations for the extermination of disease in the country was even more important than more stringent measures against the introduction of disease from abroad. The regulations of the Privy Council during the last 12 months had been very effectual, and they could not hope for greater security against the importation of disease from abroad than had been enjoyed during that period. But the policy which, it seemed to him, ought to be adopted with foot-and-mouth disease, in the case of a new outbreak, was the immediate slaughter of all animals found affected. The Returns which had been lately laid before the House showed that, on the average, every outbreak of disease affected about 10 animals; and, therefore, a provision of this kind would only involve, in the event of an outbreak, the slaughter of about 10 animals, at a cost of about £50. There was no doubt whatever that, if the animals affected were dealt with the moment disease was manifested, it would be far more economical, and give farmers much greater security and freedom in dealing with their cattle, and in a very short time they would hear very little of foot-and-mouth disease. Under the present system, disease was allowed to spread throughout the country, and then, when it was generally prevalent, regulations of a general character were issued, and proved of comparatively little use. The policy to be adopted, according to his view, was to deal very stringently with the district in which the disease broke out by slaughtering the animals affected, and taking care not to allow the affected area to spread. That policy had been

  1239
  carried out in Scotland with the best results; and although disease had frequently been introduced into Scotland, care had been taken that it should not be allowed to extend. This was due in a great measure to the action of the local authorities; and he could not help thinking that if the same energetic measures had been taken elsewhere, similar beneficial results would have followed. A great deal of energy had been expended in urging the prohibition of the importation of foreign cattle; but the effect would be to give farmers throughout the country a false security. He was afraid that the same feeling of false security would be engendered by the passing of the present Bill. He was strongly of opinion that the best interests of the farmers would be consulted, and the healthiness of the cattle secured, not only by slaughtering diseased animals at the port of debarkation, but by slaughtering thorn throughout the country. At the present moment it was estimated that there were some 500 diseased animals in England, and these were so many centres for the dissemination of disease. Surely, there was far greater risk of disease being spread from those 500 centres than there could be by the importation of animals under stringent regulations at the port of debarkation. With a view of testing the feeling of the House upon the question, he had placed upon the Paper a new clause, which he now begged to move. His object in moving it was to give the Privy Council power to take energetic measures, and to urge upon local authorities the expediency and necessity of stamping out the disease when it existed within narrow limits. He believed this would be by far the most economical course, and would free the trade from the stringent regulations which the existence of disease necessitated. He begged to move the clause which stood on the Paper in his name.
  Clause (Slaughter of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease),—(Mr. J. W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, it was necessary that he should say a word or two in regard to the clause proposed by his hon.
  1240
  Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). He hoped his hon. Friend would not think him wanting in courtesy if he refrained from following him into his arguments upon the subject. He desired simply to point out that, under the Act as it stood, the Privy Council had power to order slaughter and compensation in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and they had lately passed an Order by which the local authorities themselves might, on application, obtain power to slaughter and to compensate. He did not wish to say more upon the subject than that he fully recognized the efficient manner in which many of the counties in England, and most of the counties in Scotland, although not all of them, had exercised the powers entrusted to them by the isolation of disease and by strictly carrying out regulations for keeping down foot-and-mouth disease, and, in some cases, by slaughter. But what he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend to was this. This was a Bill which dealt with foreign cattle only, and he thought it would be very unfortunate if they should open any door which would raise the vexed question of the laws and regulations affecting cattle at home. Such a step would give rise at once to great difference of opinion; and if they were to embark in such a discussion, he really did not know when they would get out of it. Therefore, with no want of respect towards his hon. Friend, he did not propose to follow his argument in favour of the clause; but he ventured to appeal to him not to press it, or the other clauses of which he had given Notice dealing with domestic regulations.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in reference to the recent Order of the Privy Council.
  MR. DODSONsaid, they had not yet come to that matter. The present Bill did not apply to domestic regulations, but simply to the importation of foreign animals. When they reached the Amendment of the hon. Member, he should be prepared to accept it.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Privy Council had, at present, power to order the slaughter of

  1241
  animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and to compensate the owners. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee that the Privy Council had the courage of their opinions, and would order the slaughter of diseased animals when the disease got within narrow limits, he should be quite satisfied. But he certainly thought they ought to have some authoritative declaration from the Head of the Agricultural Department as to what was to be the policy of the Privy Council in respect of animals suffering from disease. If the Privy Council would only come to some resolution as to what was the most economical course to adopt, and would give a definite Order, instead of vesting a discretionary power in the local authorities, he thought they would arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which now surrounded the question. He believed that if disease was allowed to go on smouldering in various districts in England, there would be every reason to fear that it would again break out and extend its ravages. According to his view, there was quite as much necessity for improving the internal regulations as there was for dealing with foreign importation; and he thought if the Privy Council had imposed regulations in a more stringent manner than they had done, they would not have had all this trouble and difficulty with regard to the importation of foreign animals.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he thought that it was quite impossible to stamp out this disease simply by the prohibition of importation, because the disease had now become thoroughly established in this country, and was endemic. ["No, no!"] There was abundant evidence to show that it was quite possible for the disease to spring up spontaneously in their midst. ["No, no!"] It was, therefore, requisite to have this power of slaughter, as it was impossible to stamp out the disease by regulations imposed from time to time.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had exercised a wise discretion, under the circumstances of the case, and for the reasons he had stated, in appealing to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay) not to press his Amendment on that occasion. At the same time, he (Mr. Chaplin) thought the hon. Member was perfectly
  1242
  justified, and more than justified, in the appeal he had made to the right hon. Gentleman, as the Head of the Agricultural Department, to exercise more energy in future in using the powers of slaughter which the Privy Council possessed when foot-and-mouth disease was reduced to narrow limits throughout the country, or whenever it might break out in any particular district. He (Mr. Chaplin) himself had frequently advocated this method of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease when it broke out; but he would not, under any circumstances, have supported the clause of the hon. Member in its present form, because, although it proposed that compensation should be given, yet that compensation was, in all cases, limited to such a comparatively small sum, that he need hardly point out to the Committee, in the case of a valuable herd of shorthorns, if the clause were to be enforced, the loss inflicted upon owners would be ruinous. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would accede to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, with the understanding that, in future, the Privy Council would exercise their powers in regard to slaughter more stringently than they had hitherto done.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he was surprised at the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). His hon. Friend appeared to forget altogether that Scotland had hitherto been an isolated country. His hon. Friend took great credit to Scotland for stamping out disease; but he (Mr. Duckham) would tell his hon. Friend that if Scotland had been as open to disease as England, the farmers of that country would have suffered quite as severely as the English farmers had done. The herds of England had been open to infection from Ireland, Scotland, and foreign countries; but not so Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) seemed to consider that the disease had become acclimatized, and that it sprung up spontaneously. That was altogether contrary to the facts of the case. Every day's experience had proved that that was not so. For three years Ireland had been free from disease Ireland had suffered for many years from it; but it had been altogether free until the disease was taken over there last year. Scotland had been free for four years,

  1243
  and remained free until the disease was, taken over last February 12 months, His (Mr. Duckham's) own county had been free for six years, with the exception of a few traceable outbreaks, and yet no county had suffered more than it, had done formerly. Every time the disease was introduced the herds were isolated, a strict cordon established, and the disease; had not spread. In other counties in England it had been dealt with in the same manner; and it was monstrous to endeavour to persuade the House, and to send it forth to the world, that foot-and-mouth disease sprung spontaneously from the soil of this country. Such an assertion was not borne out by the facts of the case. As regarded slaughter, it might be very well for the hon. Member, who had possibly nothing more on his farm than animals of the ordinary market value; but when they came to deal with valuable animals for breeding purposes, such as the shorthorns alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), or as in his (Mr. Duckham's) county, Herefordshire, when there were many farmers who had any valuable herds of Herefords who would strongly object to the slaughter of their herds. It was, therefore, necessary that there should be a discretionary power in the hands of the Privy Council. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would be better to confine the present Bill to the importation of foreign animals, and let them have improved regulations, if necessary, for their internal arrangements quite independent of the present Bill.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he was very glad, indeed, to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that the Privy Council had ample powers for stamping out the disease if it should be again imported. He did trust that, if they succeeded in getting rid of the present long-continued outbreak, and the country became entirely freed from disease, if from any accident, after the passing of this Bill, it should be again introduced, the Privy Council would exercise their powers of slaughter with more promptitude than they did in 1880.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had only a word or two to say in reference to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham). His hon. Friend seemed to think that
  1244
  the action of the local authorities had very little effect in preventing the spread of disease. Now, there had been in Forfarshire 80 outbreaks during the last eight or nine months, but, thanks to the local authority, the disease had not spread; and if local authorities had dealt with outbreaks as energetically as the local authority of Forfarshire had, he thought they would have been equally successful. He would remind his hon. Friend that valuable breeding animals were not exclusively owned by English farmers. There was, proportionately, a larger breeding stock in Scotland. He had made this appeal to the House on behalf of the purchasers of store cattle, who, at the present time, were put to very great straits to procure feeding stock.
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed to proceed with the other clauses which stood in his name upon the Paper?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in rising to move the following new clause:—
  Local authorities in counties in England.
  (Alteration of the local authority for counties in England.)
  "So much of the Second Schedule of 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' as defines the local authorities in counties, except within the Metropolis, is hereby repealed, and, instead thereof, the persons appointed by this section shall be such local authority.

  "(1.) The justices of the peace in every county shall meet and nominate not fewer than four, or more than fifteen, of their number to act on the county board for the purposes of this Act, and shall intimate to the lord lieutenant of the county and the chairman of quarter sessions the number and names of the persons so appointed.

  "(2.) The clerk of the peace in each county shall call a meeting of the occupiers of agricultural subjects in the county valued in the valuation roll in force for the time at one hundred pounds and upwards. The meeting shall be called by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the county for the same day as, or for a day not later than eight days after, the meeting of the justices. The advertisement shall specify the time and place of such meeting, and the clerk of the peace shall be clerk to such mooting. The meeting shall nominate from among such occupiers a number of persons equal to those nominated by the justice of the peace, and the meeting shall also name a convener, who shall intimate the names of the persons so nominated to the chairman of quarter sessions, and shall have power to call similar meetings by such advertisement when occasion shall require. In the event of such election not being intimated to the chairman of quarter sessions within fifteen days from the

  1245
  date of such meeting, it shall he lawful to the lord lieutenant to nominate from among such occupiers such number of persons, and intimate the same to the chairman of quarter sessions.

  "(3.) A local authority may, if they think fit, determine that a certain number of their members, not exceeding one-third thereof, shall retire periodically, at intervals of not less than three years, the members so retiring being re-eligible; and the local authority may lay down such rules as they think fit to regulate the time and manner of such retirement.

  "(4.) Vacancies from time to time happening by retirement, death, resignation, or otherwise, among the members of the local authority shall be filled up by the authority, and in the manner by and in which the members vacating office were respectively nominated.

  "(5.) The persons nominated as in this section provided, and the lord lieutenant of the county, and the chairman of quarter sessions, for the time being shall constitute the local authority.

  "(6.) As far as not otherwise provided by this Act, such local authority shall have all the powers conferred on the local authority by this Act, and shall have power to elect a chairman, specify a quorum, and make all regulations necessary for carrying the purposes of this Act into effect.

  "(7.) The chairman of the local authority, and in default of him the chairman of quarter sessions, and in default of him any three members of the local authority, may at any time call a meeting of the local authority to be held at such time and place as he or they may fix, and the local authority may adjourn as they from time to time think fit,"

  said, it was adapted from the constitution of the local authorities in Scotland, who had so successfully dealt with cattle disease. The same success had attended the action of the local authority in some of the counties in England; but there were some counties in which the same result had not been obtained, through the same energetic steps not having been taken. He believed the clauses he had put down in connection with this subject were adapted to the situation in England; and he was prepared to move them, in the hope that they would receive the support of those hon. Gentlemen who were supposed to represent the English farmers in that House. He begged to move the insertion of the clause.
  Clause (Alteration of the local authority for counties in England),—(Mr. J, W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not agree to the introduction of the clause into the Bill. The system described by
  1246
  the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay), although, no doubt, admirably adapted to the situation in Scotland, was not adapted to the circumstances of the English counties. Moreover, some of the powers proposed in the clause were already existent.
  MR. HASTINGSsaid, he must enter his protest against this attempt to sweep away the local authorities in English counties. It seemed to be thought that there were no representatives of the tenant farmers on the present Local Board; but he (Mr. Hastings) was in a position to give that the most complete contradiction. He was himself Chairman of one Board, one-half of which was composed of tenant farmers; they were nominated by the Council of the Chamber of Agriculture, and were both interested in and acquainted with the breeding of stock. He knew the case was the same in Herefordshire, and, he believed, in Norfolk; and he thought his hon. Friend near him, who could speak with some authority on the point, would agree that the occupiers were in a majority, and that they were elected by the Board of Guardians throughout the country. He was, therefore, at a loss to understand what could be the meaning of the insinuation that the tenant farmers were entirely unrepresented. He gave every credit to the Scotch authorities for the admirable way in which they had administered the law, although he was bound to say that hon. Gentlemen from Scotland would do much better by attending to Scotch Business, than by endeavouring to administer English affairs.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he wished to point out, in justice to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the hon. Gentleman, in matters of this kind, knew as much or more of what were the practices in some English counties than the hon. Member who had just spoken. In many counties, especially in the North of England, Magistrates kept entirely in their own hands the administration of the Acts, much to the dissatisfaction of the farmers. It was in consequence of representations made to him by influential farmers, that his hon. Friend had been induced to place these Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he thought it very desirable that a change should take place in the constitution of local authorities, a very small proportion of

  1247
  whom took any interest in agricultural affairs. In his opinion, the local authorities for boroughs should act, in this matter, in consonance with the county local authorities. In proof of the necessity for that assimilation, he would mention that, a short time ago, the local authority of his county refused to grant a licence for some cattle to be brought into the county from Lancashire. The person concerned then went to the Town Clerk of the City of Hereford, who, not knowing that the county authority had refused the application, gave him the licence, which was signed by the Mayor and another magistrate. The consequence was, that a lot of diseased calves were brought into the county, and about 90 animals became infected. That he considered to be a strong argument in favour of such a clause as that proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had no interest in the question as between England and Scotland; but, as an Irish Member, he protested against the venomous attack made by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) upon the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of the clause before the Committee (Mr. J. W. Barclay). That hon. Member was condemned, because, being a Scotchman, he had brought forward an Amendment with the object of benefiting Englishmen—a strange comment upon the principle laid down to Members on that side of the House, that this was an United Kingdom, and that England, Scotland, and Ireland were mutually concerned with the welfare of the Three Kingdoms. The action of the hon. Member for Forfarshire had, in his opinion, been fully justified in the few remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. James Howard). It appeared to him that, in some counties in England, the affairs of the localities were conducted entirely by the magistrates, and that the farmers had no representation whatever; and he held that the control of the affairs of the farmers by a body of persons nominated by the Crown was a state of affairs grievous in itself, and which ought not to be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had, as a Scotchman, in his opinion, as good a right to interfere in English affairs as Englishmen had to interfere in the affairs of
  1248
  Ireland; and if he went to a Division, he should be glad to vote with him.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had been asked by a number of English farmers to bring the subject before the Committee, and, having done so, he begged to withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
  Joint Committees of local authorities.
  (Local Authorities may unite.)
  "Two or more local authorities may agree to appoint a joint committee or joint committees, and the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' shall have effect with respect to such joint committee or joint committees,"
  said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to accept the clause. It would be found that a great many complaints were made with regard to conflicting orders and regulations of local authorities within a small area, and it was thought desirable that those regulations should be consolidated. There were, no doubt, difficulties in the way of consolidating local authorities in this Bill; but he thought that, if powers were given for local authorities to agree, it would be of great advantage. There were cases where two or three counties might combine and allow cattle within their combined area to be moved without any restriction whatever; and it was proposed by his clause, to allow the appointment of a joint committee, which could frame regulations for the combined district. He begged to move the insertion of the clause.
  Clause (Local authorities may unite), —(Mr. J. W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that, in many cases, it would be of great advantage if the regulations of the local authorities could be consolidated; but the question was a large one, and it would require much consideration before it could be dealt with. Under the circumstances, he was unable to accept the clause of his hon. Friend.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved the insertion of the following clause:—
  (Additional power to Privy Council.)
  "In addition to the powers conferred on the Privy Council by 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' the Privy Council may make such orders as they think fit for prohibiting the conveyance of animals, by any vessel, to or from any port in the United Kingdom, for such time as they may consider expedient."
  Clause (Additional power to Privy Council,)—(Mr. J. W. Barclay,) — brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was prepared to accept the clause.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he could not help expressing surprise that the clause should be accepted by the Government; because he had distinctly understood that the operation of the Act would be limited to foreign cattle. He objected to the substitution of a hard-and-fast rule for those Orders in Council, under which they had the initiative power of stopping cattle coming from Ireland, when there was reason to believe they were in a diseased state. Without wishing to put any blame on the Privy Council, he was bound to say that they could not be got to work quick enough to answer the end desired, so far as his part of the country was concerned. When a district of Ireland was infected with disease some days elapsed before they heard of it, and further time was necessary to ascertain the truth, and then some weeks passed before an Order stopping the transit of cattle from Ireland could be put in force, by which time the whole of the North of England might be influenced by the disease. As early as last November the Privy Council, acting under very strong pressure, put upon them by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had, no doubt, a strong pressure put upon him, issued a letter to the local authorities, the object of which was nothing else than to urge upon them to withdraw their restrictions. The letter was taken into consideration, the authorities in the County of Northumberland gave way, and accepted some cattle which had passed through places where there was disease, and three weeks afterwards they received a letter from the Privy Council to say that they had acted contrary to their instructions. The truth was that in the part
  1250
  of England which he had the honour to represent they were more desirous of keeping their cattle free from disease than they were to have Irish cattle brought in. At present they were working harmoniously with the Irish authorities. It was shown that the ports of Belfast, Londonderry, and Dublin were in a most satisfactory condition, and that every effort was made there to carry out the Act; but they found, notwithstanding that, unless they exercised their own supervision, they were not safe from disease. Under the circumstances, he was opposed to the clause of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).
  MR. KENNYsaid, he failed to perceive the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to the clause before the Committee. As he (Mr. Kenny) understood the clause, it proposed to give power to the Privy Council to put certain ships in quarantine, the effect of which would be to prevent healthy cattle from abroad becoming infected with foot-and-mouth disease on board ship. It was well known that animals which, when embarked, were in a perfectly healthy condition, had been found to be diseased on disembarkation. There were strong reasons for this power being given to the Privy Council, the disease being of a very insidious character, and the process of infection being but imperfectly understood. It had been stated, at the Chicago Convention, that on two occasions foot-and-mouth disease had been imported into America by cattle which had contracted the disease on board ship. It was also said that cattle brought from Ireland, and landed at Bristol, were infected with foot-and-mouth disease; but there was evidence to prove that at the time these cattle left Ireland they were sound, so that it was obvious that bad, insanitary vessels were used for the conveyance of animals from Ireland. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan) had for its object the complete and thorough disinfection of these vessels in order, in the first place, to save the Irish cattle raisers from the imputation of sending over diseased animals to England, and, at the same time, to save English farmers from the consequences of receiving infected cattle.

  1251
  He failed to see that the objection of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. P. Wyndham) was a real objection to the clause; and he should like to see the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway accepted in place of the one under notice, because it appeared to him (Mr. Kenny) to make the matter more plain. The clause in the name of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was not correctly worded, and he would point out the exception he took to it. In the first place, the hon. Member's clause said that the Privy Council might make such Orders as they thought fit for prohibiting the conveyance by any vessel, to or from any port in the United Kingdom, for such time as they might consider expedient. He (Mr. Kenny) thought the time should be defined, in such a manner, for instance, as was proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway — namely, that the limit should be three months. The hon. Member for Forfarshire, moreover, did not make it clear that this clause referred more to animals than to vessels—there was a doubt as to whether its main application was to vessels or animals; therefore, it would be advisable to recast the clause, for the purpose of making it more clear. Then, as to the definition of the "Privy Council," he would like to know whether it would mean the Privy Council in Ireland, as well as in England, or only the English Privy Council? If the clause were rendered more clear in these respects, he should give it a very warm support.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Kenny) correctly comprehended the clause, as he (Mr. Dodson) understood it. The clause would give power to the Privy Council which it did not at present possess, power to order a ship to suspend the conveyance of animals, in order to secure freedom from infection. Incidentally, this clause embraced all the ground covered by the clause of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). It was in the power of the Privy Council to suspend the conveyance of animals by any vessel in any part of the United Kingdom. The clause would apply to the Irish Privy Council under the 5th section of the Bill, which rendered the
  1252
  measure applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Ireland.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, there was one single word required in the clause to make its meaning absolutely clear. It should run, "prohibiting the conveyance of animals by any specified vessel." If that word "specified" were put in, it would have the effect of making clear the intention of the clause, and of preventing the possibility of any dispute as to the phraseology. He begged to move the insertion of the word "specified."
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "any," to insert the word "specified."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
  Question, "That the word 'specified' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS, who had given Notice to move the insertion of the following Clause:—
  (Act not to apply to Deptford Market.)
  "This Act shall not apply to Deptford Cattle Market, or to the importation of cattle thereto,"
  said, he did not intend to take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes; but he wished to say that when he put the Notice on the Paper the measure was essentially a prohibitive one. Now, however, owing to the modifications which had been introduced by the Government, the necessity for his moving the clause had been obviated. The constituency he represented was interested in the largest cattle market in the country, where every possible precaution was taken to prevent the importation and spread of cattle disease. Probably, hon. Members were not aware of the enormous extent of the importations into Deptford Market. From statistics with which he had been furnished, it appeared that from July, 1883, to December of the same year, 402,900 animals had been imported there; and of these the only animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease were eight sheep. From January to April, 1884, 246,000 animals had been imported, not one of which was infected with the disease; so that out of a total of 648,900 animals brought into Deptford from July, 1883, to April, 1884, only eight sheep had been affected with foot-and-mouth disease. He did not wish to give any further statistics on this subject, and only

  1253
  desired to point out that, so far as Deptford Market was concerned, everything that possibly could be done was done to prevent the spread of infection.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for Greenwich had shown a noble devotion to the interests of his constituents; but the Committee could not go all round the cattle markets of the United Kingdom. He hoped the hon. Member would not move his Amendment.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I do not propose to move it.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to move the second reading of a new clause as follows:—
  (Cattle brought from Ireland.)
  "On and after the passing of this Act, no local authority in Great Britain shall prohibit the landing, or stop in transit, healthy cattle brought from Ireland to Great Britain, unless such local authority shall have obtained from the Privy Council an order authorising them to do so."
  The object with which he had put the clause on the Paper had been to elicit an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Agricultural Department, as to the manner in which local authorities had been dealing with cattle brought from Ireland. He did not propose to go into the matter at any great length; but he would point out that, under the Act of 1878, the Privy Council were supposed to be responsible for the Orders issued or made by the local authorities; and it was not until he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman in the House, that he had ascertained that the local authorities made these Orders in regard to cattle brought from Ireland. He thought it was entirely ultra vires, so far as the local authorities were concerned, that they should have excluded these cattle, or make Orders prohibiting the landing of cattle brought from Ireland, or in any way prevent fat cattle being brought across the Channel to the English markets. The Newcastle Market had been closed to Irish fat cattle for many months, though the Northumberland ports had been opened for some time to Irish store cattle. There was not the slightest chance of infection from Irish cattle, and yet they had been excluded to benefit the foreign cattle dealers, or Continental cattle raisers, who were
  1254
  sending animals to the English markets. Irish cattle were excluded not only to the benefit of these people, but to the detriment of the meat-consuming population of the great centres of England. The right hon. Gentleman had just admitted, to a certain extent, the grievance of which he complained, and had given a promise to deal with it by an Order in Council. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether such Order in Council had been prepared; and, if so, what were the terms of it, and how soon was it proposed to issue it? If he (Mr. Kenny) considered, when he heard the terms of the Order in Council, that they would meet the case, he would not press his Amendment.
  Clause (Cattle brought from Ireland,)—(Mr. Kenny,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the local authorities in Scotland and, he presumed, also in England, would object emphatically to any curtailment of their power of excluding cattle from those places where disease existed. He would point out that the farmers of Scotland were as anxious to have store cattle from Ireland, as Irish farmers were to send them to Scotland; but they wished to have effectual methods of dealing with disease. It had been clearly proved that, through bringing cattle from Ireland to the Clyde, the landing places and the vessels had become so affected that, without any blame to the Irish dealers, great loss accrued to those who bought the Irish cattle. The Scotch authorities had been so anxious to get clear of disease that they had prohibited the importation for a time, and thereby put pressure on the authorities on the Clyde. They desired to have a clean route, and directly that was accomplished the restriction would be withdrawn. The interests of the Scotch and English local authorities and farmers were identical with those of the Irish local authorities and farmers; and they were prepared to admit their cattle as soon as they could do so with safety. The disease which had broken out amongst Irish cattle was a great loss to

  1255
  the dealers and importers; and, therefore, the policy which had been pursued, inconvenient as it was to farmers in England and Scotland as well as to farmers in Ireland, would prove beneficial to both parties.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he considered that the primary object his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny) had in view in moving this clause was to bring about regularity in the proceedings of the local authorities. As the matter stood at present, the local authorities thought for themselves, and that brought about a great amount of irregularity. The rules were very stringent in some places, and lax in others; and the question was, whether it would not be desirable that there should be some central directing Body for collecting information from all quarters, and for making rules to apply to all places? If it were considered wise to do that, the object could be effected by accepting the new clause proposed by his hon. Friend. If the rules were to be stringent, let them be stringent everywhere.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that, in the first place, this new clause, from one point of view of the hon. Member (Mr. Kenny) himself, was unnecessary. No local authority had power to stop healthy animals in transit; and, in the next place, the clause, if adopted, would not secure that uniformity which it was the object of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to bring about. It proposed that a local authority should not be able to stop cattle coming from Ireland, unless they had obtained power from the Privy Council to do so. Having, however, obtained that power, they could use it as they pleased. Under existing regulations, any local authority in Great Britain possessed power to exclude animals from the district of any other local authority in the United Kingdom. This was no exceptional power against Irish cattle, and he appealed to the Members of the Committee not to press the consideration of the clause.
  MR. KENNYsaid, his proposal referred in the main to Irish fat cattle more than store cattle; and his complaint was that the local authorities had power to prevent such cattle from being brought into English markets. Irish fat cattle had, for a long period, been excluded from the Glasgow and the
  1256
  Newcastle-on-Tyne Markets, although, owing to the recent action of the House, those markets might be opened now. His complaint was that, in some places where the local authority might be guided by a Veterinary Inspector, Irish fat cattle might be excluded by that one person. He wished to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to this Order in Council. It was an important matter, and it was not only important to the Irish cattle dealer, but to the population of England. He wished to know what were the terms of the Order?
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not give the terms, because they were not yet drawn up; but what he had said was, that the Privy Council had it in contemplation to issue an Order so as to limit the power of local authorities to prohibit the introduction of animals into their districts from parts of the United Kingdom which were free from, or without a suspicion of, disease; but the matter had not yet gone further, and was, for the present, in abeyance.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman had promised that he would make an inquiry into some reported outbreak. He had not yet told them what was the real state of the facts.
  MR. DODSONsaid, there had been an alarm that animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease had been brought over to Bristol; but, on inquiry, it proved that the animals were sound.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that, under the circumstances, and according to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the matter virtually amounted to this—that, in regard to every district which was free from foot-and-mouth disease, the local authorities would be prevented from prohibiting the importation; and, therefore, he (Mr. Kenny) did not see the necessity of persevering.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause; but he could not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he had just said.
  MR. CLARE READhoped that, in the Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman was contemplating, he would set forth not only the places from which the cattle were to come, but the

  1257
  line of transit over which they would have to pass.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD moved the insertion of the following new clause:—
  (Duration of obligatory powers of Privy Council.)
  "So much of this Act as makes it obligatory on the Privy Council to prohibit, in the circumstances in this Act mentioned, the landing of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, shall continue in force until the expiration of two years from the date of the passing of this Act, and no longer."
  He said he would not, at that late hour of the night, occupy the attention of the Committee for many minutes. He might claim some indulgence for the position in which he and others stood in reference to this clause. It was born in the highest circles of nobility—it was proposed by Lord Carlingford in "another place;" and when it was turned out, the noble Lord delivered it to his Colleagues that it should be adopted by this House; but its unnatural parent, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had cast it off, and it had fallen into low society below the Gangway. He would endeavour to state, in one sentence, why he thought the Bill should be passed only for a period of two years. There had been laid before the Committee by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) a scientific argument which was absolutely conclusive that this Bill should only be a temporary measure, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Again, accepting their views, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would argue that the Bill should only be a temporary measure. Assuming the measure to be one of the utmost importance, he would ask those hon. Gentlemen whether they desired that there should be a permanent Statute placed among the laws of the country which related only to one disease which, in their opinion, a few years ago, was so unimportant that they considered that slaughtering at the port of landing was a quite sufficient defence against it? From his own point of view, and from the point of view of those whom he hoped to have the good fortune to meet in the Lobby, he would say that this Bill was perfectly useless, because it did not add one iota to the legal powers of
  1258
  the Privy Council, although it contained an invitation to them to use the powers they already possessed. It did not add one jot, or tittle, or atom to their powers in regard to the prevention of the spread of infectious disease. He thought it was very undesirable at any time to add a law to the Statute Book of which such a thing as that could be said, and for the reason he had already suggested—namely, because it had been thought important by Her Majesty's Government in the first instance, he would, he might say, on their behalf, propose that the Bill should only be passed for a period of two years.
  Clause (Duration of obligatory powers of Privy Council,)—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,) —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he would be as brief as he could; but he felt that it would be most unwise if the Committee were to put any such limitation on the duration of the Act as was now proposed; indeed, such a course would render nugatory all that the Bill proposed to do. He had fought for this Bill for two reasons; one being, to give cattle breeders in this country such protection as could be given to them. To tell him that the agricultural interest would put their cattle into breeding, if this Bill were only to be passed for a limited time, was absurd. They would do nothing of the kind; and for this reason alone, if for no other, he should oppose this. Again, how would foreign countries be induced to take steps to keep disease out of their own country, if they knew that this Bill was to last for only two years? He would not detain the Committee longer; but he should give his strongest opposition to this clause, for he felt sure that it would render nugatory all that the Bill would do if this or similar Amendments were passed.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) were true, that this Bill was wholly superfluous and unnecessary, and did not add one tittle to the powers already possessed by the Privy Council, why was it that he and his Friends had offered so formidable an opposition to the measure? He

  1259
  (Mr. Chaplin) certainly trusted that the Committee would not accept the clause which the hon. Gentleman had proposed; for he could not conceive anything more calculated to render absolutely nugatory all the prolonged discussions and efforts which, they had made to bring the measure to a successful conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Kingscote) had pointed out, with great force, that one of the principal sources to which we had to look to supply any deficiency in the food of the people would be curtailed if this clause should be unfortunately inserted. If such a clause were passed, it would be impossible to expect those farmers who were breeders to embark the capital necessary for any increased production of cattle, if the security which was to be given to them was only to be continued for two years. An increased production must necessarily be a matter of years' duration. Then, in regard to the other source from which we were to look for an importation of dead meat, could we look with any hopeful prospect to that in the face of such a clause as the one now proposed? Was it not perfectly obvious that in order to create a dead meat trade on anything like a large and permanent basis, we must give foreign countries some assurance that there would be something of a permanent nature and character in this measure? How otherwise could we expect them to embark in the trade? Hon. Gentlemen had constantly told them that when the prohibition of live animals had been insisted on before there had been no corresponding increase in the dead meat trade. No doubt, that was perfectly true, for the very reason he had stated, that it was impossible to expect people to embark in such a trade when they were totally uncertain as to whether the importation of live animals, whether diseased or not, would be permitted again in the course of a few months. He would conclude, as he had begun, by again expressing an earnest hope that the Committee would not deprive the Bill of its main value by accepting the clause proposed by the hon. Member; for he believed, in the interest of the meat consumers, that nothing more disastrous could be passed by the Committee.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would not think it necessary to put the Com-
  1260
  mittee to the trouble of a Division. It was true, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the clause was in the Bill as it was originally introduced; but one of the Amendments made in the House of Lords was that this clause should not be retained. They had, however, now arrived at an arrangement whereby the 1st clause of the Bill had been, in great measure, restored to its original scope, although not in the form he had desired; and, under the circumstances, he thought it unnecessary to ask for the re-introduction of the clause now proposed. With regard to this clause, the more he considered it, the less consequence it appeared to him to possess. He did not attach to it the importance which either the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) or the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) attached to it. Nor did he attach to it the importance which the hon. Member for Salford appeared to do. In point of fact, the clause appeared to him to be really superfluous; because, if the 1st clause of the Bill, which was its essence, worked well, whatever might be the limit which Parliament imposed, the Act would be continued; whereas, on the other hand, if it did not work well, they might have a proposal to repeal it, not only at the end of two years, but at the end of one year, or even sooner. Therefore he thought it was not worth while to detain the Committee by any long argument; and he hoped the hon. Member for Salford would be satisfied by making his protest, and would not divide the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, he was not going to detain the Committee at that late hour. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) went to a Division he should support him, and mainly upon this ground—that he believed it would be found almost impossible to keep up the restrictions in regard to this Bill, which would be the only excuse or ground upon which they ought to have such very stringent legislation with regard to foreign parts. He believed there would not be a feeling among the farmers themselves to keep up the restrictions. Under these circumstances, it was a fair and reasonable thing to make the Bill a temporary measure. He did not know that two years should be the exact time fixed; but it should be a temporary

  1261
  Act. This was a point on which his hon. Friend, doubtless, felt strongly, and those who supported him felt strongly also.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would occupy the attention of the Committee for but a few moments. He was taken rather severely to task by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the other day for something he had said during the discussion on this subject. He wished now to point out, in justification of some of the remarks which he then made, that the speeches which had just been delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) showed that he was entirely right in his contention. Those hon. Gentlemen, who were not within sight of their haven, had pointed out that unless this was made a permanent Act it would be impossible for cattle breeders in this country to commence and keep up large breeding establishments. If that were so, that was the best of all affirmative replies to the question between them and him. Those hon. Gentlemen had clearly pointed out by their arguments that they looked upon this Bill as an encouragement to what they would, like, he supposed, to call home industries. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member opposite dissented; but he had told them that if this Bill were only to last two years it would be impossible to develop home breeding in our own country, and that disease would come back to us. But this Bill would not keep out disease. The disease, according to all the best authorities, quoted by these hon. Gentlemen, was created in our own dirty farm yards. ["No, no!"] At any rate, there was no evidence of the importation of this disease; and, therefore, no necessity for the permanency of this proposed Act. He opposed that permanency on other grounds besides this. If he could have an assurance that the present Government would remain for ever in Office—a thing they would all desire— ["No, no!"]—he meant that all patriotic men would desire, all well-wishers of their country—well, then he should have no objection whatever to the permanency of the law. But it was possible that there might be a change of Government; and he could not look upon the result, so far as this Bill was con-
  1262
  cerned, without the most profound concern. The bare possibility was enough to make him distrust the measure. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) were to be found taking his seat on the Treasury Bench, he (Mr. Broadhurst) would like to know what the interpretation of this Bill would be in his hands? He looked upon the Bill as a vicious piece of legislation; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would take a Division on the question, and that it would be, as it ought to be, a good Division.
  MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, he only rose in consequence of what had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had been very unfair to the hon. Gentleman who preceded him. It was perfectly evident that unless time was given for the development of cattle breeding at home, and the dead meat trade from abroad, a largely increased and cheaper supply of meat would be very difficult to obtain for the people of this country.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the adoption of this clause would be a most cruel injustice to the consumer as well as the tenant farmer. It was to future years that they must look to develop the cattle trade on a satisfactory footing. If the duration of the Bill was limited in the way proposed, it would only give an inducement for the butcher to keep up the price of meat, for he knew that he would only have to keep it up for two years in order to get up a cry against the Bill and succeed in repealing it. He only wished to say one other word. It was proposed that the Bill should be limited to two years; but, in the ordinary course of things, the end of two years would about coincide with the period of a General Election, and they might be for five or six months without a renewal of the Act.
  MR. C. H. JAMEShoped the Committee would see its way to pass this clause. What was the position of things? The agriculturists declared that this Bill would not increase the price of meat; but the artizans of the country, some of whom sent him there, declared that it would increase the price. Well, if this Bill were only passed for a year, or two years, they would, at all events, have an opportunity of seeing which side was right, and it would be a most reasonable thing that that opportunity

  1263
  should be given. At the end of two years they would know which side was right. Supposing the price of meat went up 2d. per lb., no Government on earth could stand it. Parliament would have to repeal the Act at once. Was it not wise, then, to restrict the operation of the Act to two years? If it was then found to work well, it would be put into the Continuance Bill, and would be renewed without any great debate; whereas, if it did not work well, there would be another debate, and a very proper one too. He hoped the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would take take a Division, so that they might know how this matter stood; and, if he did, he (Mr. C. H. James) would certainly vote with him.
  MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, there was one interest which had not been mentioned in the course of the debate, and that was the shipping interest. There had been an enormous number of steamers built to carry live cattle from America, and this legislation would seriously affect that trade. Hon. Gentlemen who represented the agricultural interest, and who talked of the depression of agriculture, should remember that such legislation would be the cause of considerable depression in the shipping interest. He (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was intimately acquainted with the shipping of this country, and especially that shipping engaged in the carriage of cattle. A great deal had been said about bringing dead meat in place of live cattle; but he might say that, largely as his ships had been engaged in carrying live cattle, they had not carried one single ton of dead meat, and his own opinion was that the importation of dead meat would not increase so largely as was expected. Indeed, if a check were put on the importation of cattle from the United States, it would place a check on the production of cattle in the United States, arid this, in turn, would place a check on the importation of dead meat. If the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) went to a Division in this matter, he should certainly have pleasure in voting with him.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 108: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
  After the numbers were announced,
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: Sir Arthur Otway, I wish to state that I went into the wrong Lobby by mistake.
  MR. BROADHURST: I do not know whether I am in Order in doing so; but I wish to inform you, Sir, that there were two hon. Members in the Aye Lobby who came out after the Clerk had left the Lobby—Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Colonel Smith—and the Tellers agreed that they should be counted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The numbers have been corrected accordingly.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) BILL.
  Resolutions [May 1] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

  COINAGE BILL.
  Resolution [May 1] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Courtney.)
LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE ARRESTS AT TUBBERCURRY, CO. SLIGO.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that as he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) in his place he should like to put a Question to him, before the House adjourned—a Question with reference to the kind of treatment which had been inflicted on 11 inhabitants of the county (Sligo) which he (Mr. Sexton) had the honour to represent. These men were arrested a long time; and, on Wednesday last, he called attention to the fact that they had been remanded several times after private examination in the gaol, and after no evidence had been produced. They had also been

  1265
  denied the visits of their solicitors and of their friends. When he drew attention to these facts, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at once undertook that the next examination of the men should he in open Court, that the Crown should bring forward evidence, and that the prisoners should be allowed to have proper facilities for preparing their defence. It now appeared, however, that the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman then gave him had been broken through the obstinacy of some official. There had been another examination; that examination was again private; no evidence was produced; and the prisoners charged were, on the flat of the Crown Solicitor, remanded to Monday next. As to the undertaking given by the Government that the prisoners should be allowed to communicate with their solicitors, he (Mr. Sexton) had been informed, to-day, that they had only been allowed to communicate with them separately, one by one; and the highest legal authority could be cited for the contention that, as the charge against the prisoners was one of conspiracy, they could not prepare their defence properly unless they were allowed to confer with their solicitors all together. Furthermore, he had found that, when he (Mr. Sexton) telegraphed to the prison, detailing the fact that pledges had been given by the Government, and explaining what those pledges were, the telegram was only communicated to the particular prisoner to whom it was addressed, and not to the others, who were equally interested. He would put it to the House, was it not cruel to keep from the knowledge of those men the fact that their next examination was to be public, and that evidence would then be brought forward? He had no other desire than to promote the ends of justice, and to see that proper Constitutional practices were followed; and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether he would not give an undertaking that he would communicate with the Attorney General for Ireland to-day, and with the Governor of the gaol in Sligo, informing the latter that the decisions of the Government in this House ought to be brought to the knowledge of all the prisoners concerned, and that all the prisoners should be enabled, together
  1266
  and at one time, to meet their legal representative in one place, so that they might have the opportunity properly to defend themselves against a charge of conspiracy, as that was the only effective manner in which they could possibly prepare their defence. He knew the disposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself; and he trusted that he would he able to use his influence, both in Dublin and in Sligo, so as to take some effective measures before the last day that might decide the fate of these men had passed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that as to the prisoners not being allowed access to their solicitor together, the ordinary prison rules would not admit of the Governor giving that permission. But when the hon. Member communicated with the Government by letter he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) at once communicated with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who informed him immediately that an application had been made to him for the necessary leave; and that he had referred to the authorities at Sligo informing them that unless there was some special reason against it—which neither his right hon. and learned Friend nor he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) anticipated—the men were to be allowed to see their solicitor together. He believed that arrangement would be carried out, and he would undertake to telegraph to the Governor of the gaol this morning.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Leicester Tramways (Extensions), Walsall and District Tramways, and Wigan Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Barrow-in-Furness Tramways, South Birmingham Tramways, and North Birmingham Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath for the First Time—The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Order* (75); Public Health (Confirmation of Bye-Laws)* (76).
Second Rending—Marriages Legalization (Wood Green Congregational Church) (66).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order * (61), and passed.

MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION (WOOD GREEN CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH) BILL.—(No. 66.)
(The Lord Carrington.)
MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION (WOOD GREEN CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH) BILL.—(No. 66.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  LORD CARRINGTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to make legal marriages which had taken place in this church through inadvertence, it not having been properly licensed.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Carrington.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must repeat what he had said on other occasions when Bills of this kind had been introduced into their Lordships' House—namely, that in his view it was a scandal to the law that such Bills should from time to time be necessary in order to legalize marriages in places which had not been registered. He had been in communication with the President of that branch of the High Court of Justice which had matrimonial causes under its jurisdiction, and it was his intention shortly to introduce a Bill for the purpose of dealing generally with cases of this kind, and with others in which doubts might exists as to the validity of marriages, on merely formal grounds.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (CONFIRMATION OF BYE LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1875, so far as relates to the confirmation of Byelaws—Was presented by the Lord CARRINGTON; read 1a. (No. 76.)
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.