Sitting of 20 February 1885

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Mid Somerset, v. William Stephen Gore-Langton, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEES — Standing Orders, nominated; Selection, nominated; Salmon Fisheries (Ireland), appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1884–5)— CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINOS; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Oaths [62].
Ordered—First Reading — Corn Sales* [57]; Sites for Places of Religious Worship * [58]; Explosive Substances Act (1883) Amendment * [59]; Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [60]; Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* [61]; Registration (Occupation Voters) * [63]; Municipal Voters (Relief) * [64]; Law of Evidence (Criminal Cases) * [65]; Corporate Property Security * [66].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PARLIAMENT—STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee on Standing Orders nominated:—Sir JOHN MOWBRAY, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. MONK, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Sir LYON PLAYFAIR, Lord ARTHUR RUSSELL, Mr. SHAW, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. YORKE.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Committee of Selection nominated:— Mr. CUBITT, Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. ILLINGWORTH, Mr. OEE EWING, Mr. MELDON, Mr. WHITBREAD, Sir HENRY WOLFF, and The CHAIRMAN of the SELECT COMMITTEE on STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether he would be in Order in moving that certain Members should be added to these Commitees?
  MR. SPEAKERreplied, that the hon. Member could make a Motion of that kind on giving due Notice of his intention to do so.

NOTICE.

  EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—THE VOTE OF CENSURE—NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to give Notice that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition brings forward his Motion with regard to Egypt and the Soudan, I shall move to add the following words to the Resolution he proposes to submit to the House:—
  "And has further rendered it incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to take and hold Khartoum, and to open up and develop the trade route via Suakin and Berber, by a Railway to be constructed, and steamers to be provided, with a view to promoting the interests of civilisation and commerce in Central Africa."

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—ARMAMENTS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, What proportion of the one million six hundred thousand

  907
  pounds, asked for in the Admiralty programme for guns, is to be expended on new and old ships; and, what amount on fortifications, and where?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Of the £1,600,000 to "be expended on guns to which my hon. Friend refers, £1,500,000 will be for naval ordnance, leaving £100,000 to be devoted to the extension of plant at Woolwich. The additional expenditure will be at the rate of £300,000 a-year over and above the ordinary provision of £500,000 sanctioned in the Army Estimates of the coming year. In the ordinary course the additional money will be absorbed in providing armaments for the new ships. The provision for the armaments of fortifications is not included in the amount to which the Question refers,

  NAVY-TENDERS FOE SHIPS AND TORPEDO BOATS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If tenders for the Ships and Torpedo Boats intended to be built in private yards are to be procured by public or private tender?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Tenders are invited from known competent firms, and 37 firms have been asked to send in tenders, and there is thus limited competition.

  CONVICT ESTABLISHMENTS—HARBOUR OF REFUGE AT PETERHEAD.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What preparations are made for proceeding with the Convict Establishment at Peterhead, and for commencing the harbour of refuge there?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the Government were very anxious to get on with the work referred to in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question; but some delay in the arrangements had taken place as to the Department which was to be responsible. The plans for the harbour were still under consideration.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—PROGRESS OF VESSELS BUILDING.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state what progress has been made in the building of the additional ironclads and other vessels promised for the Navy in November?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: With regard to vessels being built under contract, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) yesterday. With regard to ironclad vessels being built in the Dockyards, the grants of wages have been increased; and on the Estimates I hope to be able to show that satisfactory progress has been made.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BUSINESS (RAILWAYS)—RATES AND CHARGES BILLS.
  MR. ROLLSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has now considered the Bills deposited by nine of the principal Railway Companies for revision of their rates and charges; whether he is now prepared to state the course he intends to take or advise with regard to these Bills; and, whether, having regard to the magnitude of the questions involved, and the important bearing of these Bills upon the trading, commercial, and agricultural interests of the Kingdom, and having further regard to the expenses in which traders and freighters would be involved by the consideration of these Bills in detail in Committee, he will advise such steps to be taken as will insure ample notice of the consideration of the Bills, and afford to traders, freighters, chambers of commerce and agriculture, and other public bodies, every facility for watching the Bills at the least possible expense?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have carefully considered the Bills deposited by nine of the principal Railway Companies for revision of their rates and charges; but I do not think that it is usual for a Minister to state, on behalf of the Government, what course it is proposed to take with reference to the second reading of Private Bills before the second reading stage of them has been reached. I am still in communication with the representatives of the Railway Companies, and of the trades; and I hope that some satisfactory result will come of those communications. In the case of any Bill which passes the second reading and which is referred to a Committee, there will, no doubt, be full opportunity for consideration on the part of all parties interested.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—KHARTOUM—GENERAL GORDON'S DIARIES.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any letters written by General Gordon, which are alleged to have been handed to Sir Charles Wilson on 21st January last, or whether they have received any copies of them or of any of them; whether they have received any of the five complete monthly diaries of the siege of Khartoum (alleged to have been handed to Sir Charles Wilson) or any copies thereof; and, if they have received any of the above, whether they will communicate them to the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There is a similar Question on the Paper to the Secretary of State for War by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). I may, however, point out at once that it is impossible for any letters, papers, or any other documents handed over on the 21st of January to Sir Charles Wilson, near Metammeh, to be at the present moment in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BOUERE: Will the noble Lord state whether he recollects what has become of the journals or the diaries of General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, I cannot state from memory; but I will inquire.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BUSINESS—RAILWAY BILLS.
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is correctly reported in The Birmingham Daily Gazette as having stated to a deputation of the Birmingham and District Railway and Canal Rates Association on the 2nd instant,
  "That Railway Bills as a matter of form? were always allowed to go before a Committee, there being only one exception to this rule; but that this did not necessarily commit to any principle involved in the case of Private Bills;"
  and, if the report is not correct, will he state in what respect it is erroneous?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, no reporter was present, and he could not charge his memory with all that took place. He could only say, with
  910
  great certainty, that he did not use the language attributed to him in the Question.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN FRONTIER COMMISSION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any reply has been received from the Russian Government to the request of Her Majesty's Government that, pending the decision of the Afghan Frontier Commission, the Russian troops should be withdrawn from Pul-i-Khatun; and, if he can make any statement as to the negotiations now going on with the Russian Government as to the resumption of the work of the Commission?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's first Question in the negative. With regard to the second, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would be injurious to the public interest if any statement were made at present as to the negotiations with the Russian Government respecting the Boundary Commission.
  MR. ONSLOW: May I remind the noble Lord that the same answer was given many months ago?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, I am aware of that; but I may remind the hon. Member and the House that there are a very great number of negotiations which last several months.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the noble Lord could state, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that they still adhered to the views expressed last year, to the effect that they intended to maintain the absolute integrity of Afghanistan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have just said I do not think it my duty to answer Questions of this kind. If I were to answer Questions such as that I should be gradually drawn into making a full statement.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If we are to understand from the replies which he has given to Questions put to him that Her Majesty's Government are not in a position, and do not think it desirable, to give to the House of Commons any information whatever with regard to the position of the Russian Forces on the Frontier of Afghanistan at the present moment?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Question on the Paper and my answer have no reference whatever to the position of the Russian Forces on the Frontier of Afghanistan.

  AFRICA—THE RED SEA COAST—OCCUPATION OF MASSOWAH BY ITALY.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Italian Government have occupied Massowah by Treaty or arrangement with Her Majesty's Ministers; whether the Italian Government propose to occupy Kassala and the fertile province of Taka; and, whether the assent of the Sultan, who is Sovereign of Egypt, has been given to this occupation of Ottoman territory?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Italian Government have concluded no Treaty or arrangement with Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to the occupation of Massowah. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the intentions of the Italian Government with regard to Kassala and the Province of Taka; and they have reason to believe that the Sultan has not assented to the occupation of Massowah.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: As the Government have not assented or made any arrangement with regard to the occupation of Massowah, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will exercise influence with The Daily News and other Liberal journals to prevent them from instigating Italy to occupy Massowah?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF BRYAN KILMAETIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the doubt cast by Members of the Government on the innocence of Bryan Kilmartin, of Arran Island, whose sentence of penal servitude for life was recently cancelled by the Lord Lieutenant, the Government will lay upon the Table the Report of Mr. R. P. Carton, Q.C., upon consideration of which by the Irish Executive Kilmartin was set free?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Report in question is essentially of a confidential nature, and the Government must decline to lay it on the Table.
  912
  I should add that Kilmartin's sentence was not cancelled. He was simply released from custody.
  MR. SEXTON: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this man having been sent to penal servitude and released in the third year of his imprisonment, and the Government in an official manner having cast doubts on his innocence, they will still allow that stigma to rest on him while they withhold the evidence upon which he was released?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That, of course, is an argumentative Question, which could not be answered by the production of the Report.
  MR. SEXTON: Well, then, in order to argue the question, I shall move for the production of this Report.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—STEAMERS FOR THE NILE.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any measures have been or are being taken to provide steamers suitable for military operations for traffic between Berber and Khartoum?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; Lord Wolseley has stated what he will require, and measures are being taken to comply with his request.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—THE SUAKIN AND BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a contract has been made for the construction of a Railway between the Red Sea and the Nile; what are generally the conditions of that contract; whether it is intended to employ native workmen; and, when it is expected that the Railway will be completed; and what will be the gauge?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A line of railway between Suakin and Berber has been approved; and its construction under military supervision has been confided to the firm of Messrs. Lucas and Aird. The line will be made by sections of 50 miles, the plant for the successive sections being forwarded as required. Messrs. Lucas and Aird find the plant and labour, the War Department paying the actual disbursements of the firm, whether in material or wages.

  913
  The agents receive a small commission. It is intended, if possible, to employ Native labour. Until the military operations in the vicinity of Suakin have been further developed, it is impossible to form an estimate of the probable date of the completion of the railway. The gauge is 4 feet 8½ inches.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask where the money to pay for this railway is to come from?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The cost of the railway will, of course, be defrayed from Votes which Parliament will be asked to grant.

  INDIA—THE RAILWAY FROM SIBI TO QUETTA.
  SIR HENEY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, To inform the House generally of the progress that has been made with the Rail-way from Sibi to Quetta; and, whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to construct a Railway also in the direction of Candahar?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I will ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question for a few days, as a despatch on this subject, which left India on the 3rd of February, and will therefore be here in a few days, will enable me to give the latest details. I may state, however, that there is no intention to take the railway beyond the Pishin plateau.

  EGYPT (THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—KHARTOUM—COLONEL STEWART AND HIS COMPANIONS.
  SIR HENEY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Despatch was received from General Gordon stating the reasons why Colonel Stewart and his companions left Khartoum; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to make that Despatch public, or to state the contents of it?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not had time to look fully into the matter. I believe that some despatches which were among the Papers laid on the Table last night contained a statement by General Gordon with reference to the departure of Colonel Stewart and his companions from Khartoum. I am not quite certain, however, whether this was the case or not.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRAWLING—THE REPORT.
  SIR ALEXANDER GOEDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state when the Report of the Royal Commission upon the Trawling Question will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe the Report is now in print.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—PRINCE HASSAN.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will explain to the House what are the circumstances which have rendered necessary the appointment of Prince Hassan as High Commissioner in the Soudan; and, what are the political consequences the Government expect to follow from such appointment?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Prince Hassan was appointed in order to facilitate communications between Lord Wolseley and the Egyptian Civil Authorities. The hon. Member's second Question involves matter of debate and argument, and I cannot enter into it within the limits usually assigned to a Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask whether Prince Hassan is to have control over the Egyptian Mudirs in the Soudan; whether the Soudan is still supposed to form part of the dominion of the Khedive; and by what authority the Khedive can appoint Prince Hassan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Question of the hon. Member appears to me to be of a very argumentative character.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask my noble Friend whether the despatches relating to this matter, however short they may be—even telegraphic despatches—should be submitted to the House before the expected debate, so that the House would be in full possession of all the events?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I shall, of course, be very glad to bring the matter before the Secretary of State.

  ARMY—DEFENCE OF THE COALING STATIONS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Secretary of State for War,

  915
  Whether any progress has been made with the provision of the works and armaments for the defence of our coaling stations abroad; and, when an Estimate for the purpose will be submitted to Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Some progress has been made with the works at Aden and Hong Kong, and in the production of the armaments for those works generally. For this purpose a sum of £35,000 will be taken in the Supplementary Estimates for 1884–5, which will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days. The money required in the next financial year will be included in the Army Estimates for 1885–6, which were laid on the Table of the House last night. The Corrospondence, which will also be laid on the Table, will show the alteration in the figures for the works.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—DEFICIENCY OF MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to supply the deficiency of Militia officers, and if he will state to what number this deficiency has now risen?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Since the hon. Member put his Question to me in November I have carefully considered the replies gived by commanding officers of Militia regiments to the Circular issued to them. An overwhelming majority of these officers express strong opinions that the remedy for the deficiency of subaltern officers in this branch of the Service is to grant them greater facilities for entering the Regular Army. The normal number of Line commissions which will in future be granted to Militia officers was increased last year from 70 to 150. And, in addition to the normal number, I am now able to grant 35 commissions to the competitors who qualified, but were not successful, at the last examination. In the course of this year I shall also be able to grant a certain number of commissions in addition to the normal number; the result is that very few qualified candidates will fail to obtain commissions. When the facility with which a Line commission is obtained through the Militia becomes more widely known, I feel confident that a large number of officers will be attracted to this branch of the Service. Since November last
  916
  the number of vacancies has been reduced from 857 to 773.

  ARMY—THE 20TH HUSSARS AND 5TH LANCERS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If it is true that the 20th Hussars' departure from Aldershot for Egypt was delayed in consequence of the wrong equipment having been sent down to them from the Clothing Department; and, whether the regiment eventually inarched out in Infantry helmets, and mixed equipment; and, if so, who was to blame for the occurrence?
  MR. BRAND,in reply, said, no report had been received by the War Office that the 20th Hussars had been delayed in consequence of a mistake in their equipment; and, as a matter of fact, it was not the case.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 20th Hussars and 5th Lancers were among the regiments first on the roster for Foreign Service; and, if so, why only two squadrons of each regiment are being despatched to Egypt; and, what is the strength of the remaining squadrons in effective men and horses, and whether they are equally fit for Foreign Service as the squadrons which are now embarking?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Four squadrons only were required, and it was considered desirable that two squadrons should be Lancers. Therefore, two squadrons were taken from the first Hussar regiment on the roster and two from the first Lancer regiment. The states of the remaining squadrons have not been yet received.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether the squadrons of Lancers and the squadrons of Hussars were together as one regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

  EGYPT—GENERAL GORDON'S LETTERS AND DESPATCHES.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that telegraphic or other despatches have been received by Her Majesty's Government or Lord Wolseley from General Gordon which have not been communi-

  917
  cated to the public press; what are the dates of these despatches; and, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House without delay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhad also the following Question on the Paper:—If the Secretary of State for War can inform the House whether any of the Diaries of General Gordon are in the possession of Lord Wolseley or Sir Charles Wilson, or any of the officers in the Soudan; and, if so, whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House so much of those Diaries as is of public interest, and give the remainder to General Gordon's family?
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDalso asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any letters written by General Gordon, which are alleged to have been handed to Sir Charles Wilson on 21st January last, or whether they have received any copies of them or of any of them; whether they have received any of the five complete monthly Diaries of the siege of Khartoum (alleged to have been handed to Sir Charles Wilson) or any copies thereof; and, if they have received any of the above, whether they will communicate them to the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In answering the hon. Member, I will, if they will permit me, reply also to the Questions which stand in the names of the hon. Members for Harwich and West Surrey, and of the right hon. Member for Bradford. In the Papers laid on the Table last night are included all despatches or letters from General Gordon which have come into the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and which do not relate exclusively to personal matters. As to any further despatches or papers which may have reached Lord Wolseley, I can only state what information I have received from him. On January 28, when he reported that Sir Herbert Stewart's Force had reached Gubat, Lord Wolseley said that he had no letters of any importance from General Gordon, and that the most recent, dated December 29, contained merely one line, saying, "Khartoum all right; could hold out for years." In another telegram of the same date he mentioned letters which he had received from General Gordon, which I have not received; but to which I gather that his
  918
  previous telegram referred, as being of no importance. Lord Wolseley made no addition to these statements on February 9, when he reported Sir Charles Wilson's arrival at Korti. I have received to-day a further telegram from Lord Wolseley to the effect that General Gordon's diary is in six volumes, of which only one had reached him, and which he had sent home by the last mail, but that the other five, with some other Papers, were believed to be on the way from Gubat. He would send them on as soon as they arrived. I should prefer to give no absolute pledge as to their disposal until I receive them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked whether the diaries, which were not of public interest, would be sent to General Gordon's family as soon as they arrived?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Of course; but I should not like to make any promise with regard to them.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether the communications he has received from General Gordon are in Arabic or in English?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Both despatches I referred to are, I believe, written in English.

  MEETING ON THE VICTORIA EMBANKMENT— SPEECH OF MR. H. M. HYNDMAN.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a speech, reported in The Times of February 17, in which the following language is attributed to Mr. H. M. Hyndman:—
  "If the people wanted the Government to do anything for them they must follow the course which the Irish had adopted—'A life for a life' must be their motto. (Loud cheers.) The people were murdered by the slow process of starvation, and if those who were responsible for this state of things knew that it was life for life they would act differently.…His advice to them would be to try once more by peaceful means to get their grievances redressed, and if that failed he should be the first to organise a secret society to secure what a peaceful agitation had failed to accomplish;"
  and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure the observance of the law by Mr. H. M. Hyndman?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I saw the abominable and disgraceful language which was attributed in the

  919
  newspapers to Mr. Hyndman. I am glad to say that a deputation of distressed working men, which waited on me the day afterwards, took the first opportunity of expressing their horror and disgust at that language, and the persons using it. In this country speeches of this kind are happily so rare that we have not made provision in all cases for official reports of what takes place at them. I find that in the newspapers of the following day Mr. Hyndman, to a certain degree, disputed the accuracy of the reports, which, indeed, did not agree altogether amongst themselves. This places a difficulty in the way of taking any action in the case. I wish to state distinctly that in every case where sufficient proof can be obtained of language, either written or spoken, inciting to outrage and crime, the Government will use all the means at their disposal to prosecute and punish the offenders.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the precaution of appointing shorthand writers in future to attend these popular meetings, as has been done in Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, Sir, if it becomes necessary it certainly will be done.

  INDIA—ALLEGED REQUEST FOR REINFORCEMENTS.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in The Whitehall Review of yesterday, that
  "Earl Dufferin, as Viceroy of India, has sent a demand to the Home Government for the despatch of 20,000 British Troops to India without delay;"
  and, if so, if he will state to the House why the demand has been made?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; the statement in The Whitehall Review is not true.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—PRINCE HASSAN.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the employment of Prince Hassan with our Army in the Soudan was at the instance of Her Majesty's Government; who first suggested his employment; what is his exact official position; has he any independent authority over anyone; and, is he under the absolute orders of Lord Wolseley?
  THE MAEQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In referring the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University generally to the replies given yesterday to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I will add that the appointment of Prince Hassan was made at Lord Wolseley's suggestion; that he is a Commissioner with authority over the Egyptian Mudirs; and that he is subject entirely to the orders of Lord Wolseley.
  MR. GIBSON: From whom does he receive his appointment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: From the Khedive.
  MR. GIBSON: Does that put him directly under the authority of Lord Wolseley?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir.

  EMIGRATION TO THE COLONIES—INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. RANKINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in accordance with the promise made on the 25th July last by his Predecessor in Office, the question of making grants of money for the maintenance of industrial schools or homes for training poor or destitute children for emigration to the Colonies has been taken into consideration by the Home Office; and, if so, at what decision it has arrived?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The question of emigration in connection with industrial schools, together with the whole subject of reformatory and industrial schools, has been, and is now, under the consideration of the Home Office, with a view to legislation, if possible, in the present Session of Parliament.

  SCOTLAND—THE SKYE CROFTERS—EMPLOYMENT OF A MILITARY FORCE.
  DR. CAMERON (for Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay further Papers connected with the armed expedition to Skye, brought down to date, upon the Table of the House; and, if he will inform the House at whose expense the expedition was despatched and is now maintained?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I do not think it necessary to lay

  921
  any further Papers on this matter before the House. In the first instance, when the Marines were sent to Skye in the vessels it was thought advisable to explain the circumstances to the House; but since then it has been a very ordinary case, such as has occurred from time to time in this country where the police required the support of the military in a riot, and that has been accorded as the usual practice when the occasion required, and I do not think it is at all necessary that further Papers be tabled on the subject.
  DR. CAMERON: What was the expense of the expedition?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In regard to the expense, as a general rule, any expense beyond the regular expense of the military would be provided by the Local Authority of the town. That rule will certainly be acted upon in this case. I do not speak of the details, because I do not know exactly what they may be; but that principle will certainly be adhered to, just as it would be in the riots where the military would be called in to assist the police.
  DR. CAMERONintimated that on an early day he would ask when the Report of Sheriff Ivory to the Lord Advocate would be laid on the Table?
  MR. GORSTasked whether the expense of the transport of the Marines would be defrayed by the Local Authority, or would fall upon the Consolidated Fund?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would rather not answer that Question, as he really did not know all the details. If the hon. and learned Member would put the Question on the Paper the Lord Advocate, who was more familiar with the details, would, no doubt, give him a more satisfactory answer.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if any outrage had taken place since the despatch of these forces which would justify any prosecution being instituted?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrequested the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the exact position of Sir Peter Lumsden'a Mission in Afghanistan; how soon it is expected that the Russian
  922
  Envoy will meet Sir Peter Lumsden in order to settle the boundary question; whether Her Majesty's Government can assure the House that there is any reasonable prospect of our Mission being a success; and, whether, considering that the policy of the Mission and the orders sent to Sir Peter Lumsden are directed from the Foreign Office of this country, it is intended that the whole cost of this policy should be borne by the revenues of India?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already said that Her Majesty's Government do not consider it advisable to make any statement at present in regard to the negotiations with Russia as to the Afghan Boundary Commission, and I must therefore decline to reply to the hon. Member's first three Questions, as I could not answer them without entering into the history of the negotiations. With regard to the last Question, it has been decided that the expenses of the British portion of the Commission will be borne by India, the boundary question being essentially an Indian one. I may add that no instructions are given by the Foreign Office to Sir Peter Lumsden without previous consultation with the India Office. I am anxious to take this opportunity of making an appeal to the House in regard to Foreign Office Questions. The old practice used to be to give at least two days' clear Notice. The present practice is to put the Questions down on the evening of the day immediately preceding that on which the Question is to be asked, and sometimes very late on that evening. In substance, this amounts to not more than five hours' Notice to the Office, because the Votes do not reach the Office till about 11 o'clock the following day. When there are Morning Sittings it amounts to two hours less. Within that short period the answer, which often requires considerable research, has to be prepared, and also to be submitted to the Secretary of State and frequently to other Cabinet Ministers. The pressure on the Office is consequently very severe, especially at a moment like the present, when the time of the Departments and of the Secretary of State is fully occupied with important business. I therefore trust I may ask hon. Members, as a rule, to give at least one clear day's Notice, subject, of course, to exceptions in such cases as may arise

  923
  from time to time where shorter Notice might be legitimate. I make this appeal at the desire of the Secretary of State, and I feel sure that hon. Members will not misunderstand the motives which prompt it.

  GREECE—THE ASSAULT ON MR. NICHOLSON.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the King of the Hellenes with reference to the assault on Mr. Nicholson by an Athenian policeman, and the reparation demanded for it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There will be no objection to produce the Correspondence.

  EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—MILITARY CO-OPERATION OF THE COLONIES.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can inform the House what offers have been made by Colonial Governments to send troops in aid of Her Majesty's Forces now engaged in war in the Soudan; and, what replies have been made to these offers by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The offers to which the Question refers have attracted much attention in this country, and likewise on the Continent of Europe. I am glad this Question has been put, because it tends to give an increased interest in the public mind to the offers themselves, which, in truth, are not to be regarded as casual events, but which appear, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, to have a real historical character. When I recollect that just 100 years ago this country had scarcely ceased to reel under the shock of a great dismemberment of the Empire—which dismemberment of the Empire had been brought about by unfortunate attempts to force on what were then the most important Colonies of Great Britain contributions in aid of the public Revenue for the military charges of this country—it is certainly a gratifying contrast which is now presented, to us. Such attempts on these free communities have now become entirely obsolete; and the consequence of that abandonment of untenable claims
  924
  has been to open a fountain-head of loyalty, patriotism, and public spirit, and of liberality in the Colonies themselves, which has led to these most gratifying and most important offers. Sir, I think the object of the Question of my right hon. Friend is rather to draw forth an expression of the sentiments of the Government on the general character of the transaction than to place the House in possession of particular details; because, although I will make a short statement on the subject, the Correspondence is not yet ripe for our doing that which will eventually be done—placing on the Table of both Houses of Parliament the Correspondence and telegrams. I will name the Colonies from which these offers have proceeded, and in doing so I will remind the House that the time within which it is possible that the idea could be suggested and transmitted to this country has as yet been extremely short. Therefore I do not think it is to be inferred that we have yet gone through the whole of the developed sentiments of the different Possessions of the Crown. The Colonies from which offers—varying in form, but one in spirit—have been received are, in the first place, New South Wales; in the second, Canada; thirdly, Victoria; fourthly, South Australia; and, fifthly, Queensland. I will only speak in particular of one of these offers — namely, Now South Wales — not merely because it was first in point of time, but likewise because it was more completely formulated than most of the other proposals, and consequently admits of more expeditious proceeding. The offer from New South Wales may be described in these words—The Colonial Government propose that they should provide for service in the Soudan, for the military operations now in contemplation, two batteries of Field Artillery and 500 Infantry, to be landed at Suakin within 30 days after embarkation. I may say we are given to understand that that embarkation could be effected very promptly almost at once—and all expenses attendant upon this expedition to be defrayed from the Colonial funds. That certainly is a most remarkable offer; and if I refer to one other Colony in particular, and not to the rest, it is for a reason which the House will readily understand —I mean the Colony of South Australia, which has offered to provide a force of

  925
  250 Infantry upon the same footing with the offer from New South Wales. I am not quite sure that they are absolutely in the same state of preparedness, but they are upon the same footing; and the reason I mention this offer on the part of South Australia, which proposes to bear the military charges of its expedition, is because the population of that Colony is comparatively small, being only between 200,000 and 300,000. I have stated the purport of the offer of New South Wales, and I have only to add that the offer has been received by Her Majesty's Government with feelings of the liveliest gratification, and is accepted by them with those acknowledgments of the public spirit of the Colonies, and with those feelings of thankfulness on the part of the United Kingdom, which everybody will feel to be required by the occasion. The House will understand that there are many considerations of time, of place, of distance, and of climate, with respect to pending operations, which require to be made the subject of careful military correspondence; and upon all those details the Correspondence is now in the hands of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington). But I may say that this offer of New South Wales—I do not think that matters have proceeded so far, as yet, with respect to the other offers—has been made known to Lord Wolseley, and has been accepted by him with the liveliest satisfaction. I do not propose to enter into so much detail with respect to the other Colonies; but I may say that as the whole of these proposals—perfectly spontaneous on their part—have proceeded from one and the same spirit of loyalty and attachment to the Throne and the Empire, so they will be considered by us, and dealt with by us, I trust, in one and the same spirit of thankfulness. I do not know when we can present the very interesting information in due form. It will be laid before the House. I will not attempt to go further into the matter upon the present occasion, except simply to say that these proposals, while they are very instructive in their historical character, and in comparison with events of former times, so they at once bear testimony to the unity of the British Empire, and likewise powerfully tend to draw closely together the bonds of that union.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, after the statement which he has just made to the House as to the beneficial effects of self-government, whether he would be prepared to ask his Party to support the Irish Members if they brought forward a similar measure for Ireland?
  [No reply.]

  NEW GUINEA—ANNEXATION BY FOREIGN POWERS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will inform the House what was the evidence to which he referred, and by whom it was given, when he used these words in his reply on the 18th of August 1883—
  "The evidence on which I spoke, when I said there was no reason to apprehend any intention of a particular kind on the part of any Foreign Country to annex New Guinea, is by no means confined to mere negative evidence?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: In consequence of the Question of the hon. Member, I have referred to the documents which I had before me at the time I used the words quoted; and I am bound to say that the statement I made was entirely justified by the facts; but the documents have not been laid before Parliament, and I do not think it will be fit that I should enter into further details. Since that time one Foreign Power, if not more than one Foreign Power, has seen fit to adopt intentions which at the time I spoke it had not adopted; and that change of intention has led to correspondence with Her Majesty's Government which it would not be expedient to produce, as it is still proceeding.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the documents referred to by the Prime Minister be presented to Parliament?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; they will.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Are we to understand that some other Foreign Power besides Germany had an idea of annexation in New Guinea?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; I did not intend to convey such an idea.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND HERAT.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the recent advances towards Afghanistan, and to past experience as

  927
  to the adherence of Russia to her previous professions, Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are taking, any measures with a view to the security of Herat?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this Question; and I can only assure the hon. Member that, taking into consideration the repeated declarations of Russia that Afghanistan is not within the sphere of her political influence, we are bound to accept the positive assurances lately given that there is no foundation for the report of an advance against Herat, which town is now garrisoned by a considerable force of the Ameer's troops, and the attempted occupation of which by Russia would lead to the most serious consequences.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly represent to Her Majesty's Government how important the matter is, and how necessary it is that in this matter they should not be too late?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Can the hon. Member state the date of the last assurances by Russia with regard.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; I cannot at present state the date; but if the noble Lord will give Notice of the Question I will endeavour to answer it.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Is it not the fact that since the appointment of the Afghan Boundary Commission the Russians have advanced much nearer to Herat than before; and can the hon. Member say at what distance from Herat they now are?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of a Question of that kind.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Are we to understand that the answer to my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Tyler) is an answer in the negative?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: If it is not an answer in the negative, may I ask what measures the Government are taking?
  [No reply.]

  GENERAL GORDON—SPECIAL PROVISION FOR HIS FAMILY.
  MR. GIBSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recommend the
  928
  grant of any special pension or allowance to any members of the family of the late lamented General Gordon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the subject to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has called my attention in this Question has received the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I may say at once, frankly and without reserve, that an offer of some pecuniary provision or acknowledgment, were it likely to be acceptable, would undoubtedly be very readily and freely made by Her Majesty's Government. I am not certain that that is the case; but I am looking carefully into the whole matter. I think that is probably the best answer I can give at present.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had not been able to gather, from any answers that had been made by the Government, whether the despatches containing General Gordon's messages would be in the hands of Members to-morrow?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied, that he could only confirm what he had stated yesterday, that the Papers in question would certainly be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday, and he was in great hopes that they might be ready by to-morrow.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—DEATH OF GENERAL SIR HERBERT STEWART AND GENERAL EARLE.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received official news of the death of that most gallant and distinguished officer, General Sir Herbert Stewart?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Although the House, generally, is in possession of the melancholy intelligence, I was about to read a telegram which I received this morning from Lord Wolseley. He says—
  "It is my most painful duty to announce to you the death of Sir Herbert Stewart, which took place at 5 P.M. on the 16th instant, from the effects of the wound received in the action of January 19. Colonel Talbot, in reporting, says—'I beg to be allowed to express the deep grief of all ranks who have had the privilege of serving under this distinguished officer, especially of those who have so lately followed him into action, and also their sense of the great loss which they, the Army generally, and the country, have sustained.'"
  Lord Wolseley goes on to say—
  "He was to be buried by the soldiers whom he I so recently led to victory, at the entrance to the

  929
  valley leading to the Gakdul Wells. No braver soldier or more brilliant leader of men ever wore the Queen's uniform. England can ill afford the loss of this young General, while his death robs me of the services of a dear friend, and of a dear comrade. All the other sick and wounded are doing well."
  I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without referring to the equal loss which Her Majesty's Service has sustained by the death of the gallant General Earle. General Earle had certainly, in this and in previous campaigns, rendered the most brilliant and distinguished services. I am quite certain that the unfortunate, but most honourable, circumstances of his death, equally with those of Sir Herbert Stewart, will excite the universal regret of Members of this House, and their respectful sympathy with his relatives and friends.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—REPORTS OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it would be possible for hon. Members to obtain the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners separately for each county and borough, or whether he could make arrangements which would enable that to be done?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, that in a second edition of the Reports, which would be printed as soon as the first edition was completed, he should endeavour to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member.

ARMY RESERVE FORCE.

  MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  The present state of public affairs in the Soudan, and the necessity in connection therewith of taking steps for the defence of Egypt and for the protection of the interests of the Empire, having constituted in the opinion of Her Majesty a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Military Service: and, therefore, in pursuance of these Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the Mouse of Commons that Her Majesty has by Proclamation directed that certain persons who would otherwise be entitled, in pur-
  930
  suance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve, shall continue in Army Ser vice for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient.
  V.R.
  Ordered, That Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into Consideration upon Monday 2nd March.

MILITIA.

  MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  The present state of public affairs in the Soudan, and the necessity in connection therewith of taking steps for the defence of Egypt, and for the protection of the interests of the Empire, having constituted in the opinion of Her Majesty a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Military Service: and, therefore, in pursuance of these Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Commons that Her Majesty has by Proclamation ordered the embodiment of Militia.
  V.R.
  Ordered, That Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into Consideration upon Monday 2nd March.
  COLONEL STANLEY: With reference to the information communicated to the House, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is able to inform the House whether it is contemplated that the whole of the Militia, or only a certain portion of it, should be called out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I was about to say, in order to prevent misapprehension, that although the terms of the Message are the same as in former cases, it is only intended at present to embody two brigades of Militia Artillery, and six battalions of Infantry. The earliest possible Notice will be given of the batteries and regiments it is proposed to embody.
  MR. M'COANasked whether, in consequence of the calling out of the Militia, any allowance of time would be given in regard to examinations to Militia subalterns who were candidates for commissions in the Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Might I ask the noble Marques the Secretary of State for War, whether it is the intention of the Government to embody the Irish Militia regiments as well as the English; and, also, whether it is not a fact that several of the Line regiments are very much below the established strength at home?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is proposed to embody one Irish regiment among the six which are to be called out. In answer to the second Question, there is no doubt some battalions of the Line are below their establishment; but I cannot give details on the subject at present. I should like to add that I have every reason to believe that the strength of the Army at home is not below the establishment as a whole.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he can now state to the House what arrangements he proposes for Business next week?
MR. GLADSTONE: There is no doubt that the latest of the Papers with respect to Egypt, of which I have spoken, will be in the hands of Members tomorrow. I understood the right hon. Gentleman said he would prefer to have Monday, if that could be arranged, for the purpose of bringing forward the Motion he is about to propose. To that arrangement we shall cheerfully make ourselves a party. Therefore, unless he should prefer a later day, in which case we shall endeavour to meet his views, it may be understood that the Motion will be proceeded with on Monday.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to intimate that I shall be prepared to proceed with the Motion on Monday.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the discussion of the Motion on Tuesday, to the detriment of the interests of private Members?
MR. GLADSTONE: I hope, considering the nature of the case, the House will be disposed to proceed with the Motion on Tuesday. It is the usual,
932
perhaps the invariable, custom to continue such discussions from day to day.
MR. ONSLOWasked whether it was intended that the Under Secretary of State for India should bring forward his Motion with regard to the employment of Indian troops on the same day?
MR. GLADSTONE: No. I think, upon consideration, it is evident that that Motion must stand over until the policy with which it is connected has been discussed.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c).
MR. PULESTONwished to know when the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement as to the financial arrangements of Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am unable to state the precise time at which that can be done. There is a good deal of detail connected with the settlement of the matter; and, although great progress has been made with it, and there is every expectation that the time will be very short, indeed, now—there will be no renewal of the considerable delay which has marked some former stages of these proceedings—still, I cannot yet name a day. All I can say is that we are very desirous to lay the Papers on the Table at the earliest moment, which, I hope, will be a very early one.
MR. PULESTONasked whether it was correct, as reported, that all the Powers were in accord upon the subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think so, Sir. I think that the points remaining for discussion are so comparatively slight that, to the best of our belief, all the Powers are in accord, though the arrangements, as I think I have said, are not complete.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REPORTED RESIGNATION OF COLONEL BRUCE.
MR. O'BRIEN: May I be permitted to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which I have given him private Notice, but which I have neglected to put down upon the Paper? I would ask him if it is a fact, as has been stated in some of the Irish newspapers, that Colonel Bruce, Inspector General, Royal Irish Constabulary, has retired from the Force; and, if so, what were the reasons which led to the taking of this step?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. Colonel Bruce has not resigned, and there has been no question of his resigning. The statements to that effect which have appeared in certain newspapers in Dublin have, therefore, no foundation whatever.
MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this Question—whether he makes this statement upon the same authority upon which his Predecessors several months ago had stated—that there was no foundation for the statement that County Inspector French was about to leave the Force, but that he would remain in the Force?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I make that statement from my own knowledge.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move—
    "That the several stages of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, up to, and including the Consideration of the Bill, as amended, have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, on every day on which it shall be set down, by the Government, as the first business of the day,"
    said, he wished it to be clearly understood that this was not a Motion which the Government desired to carry by any pressure or authority on their part; but it was made in the strong belief that it would be agreeable to the general sense and convenience of the House. He was sorry to make a Motion which appeared to involve a negation of the appeal made yesterday by his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney); but his hon. Friend knew very well that his duty was to consult the general convenience of the House and the prospects of Public Business. He rather thought that he was correct in saying that, even before the adjournment of the House in December, reference was made to the great importance of proceeding with the Seats Bill, and to the probability that the House might be disposed to give it, under the peculiar circumstances, exceptional facilities. From what he learnt yesterday he had reason to believe that it was the desire of the House that the
    934
    precedence asked for should be given. If there was reason to entertain such an idea in the month of December, that reason had been greatly strengthened by circumstances which had since occurred, and which had created in the mind of the House a necessity for discussions relating to Egypt and the Soudan, which, perhaps, might not have been felt to be of equal urgency in the state of their prospects as they then stood. It was often said that private Members suffered from the adoption of a Motion of this kind; but, at the same time, what private Member was there to whom it was not of importance that this great and complex measure should be promptly disposed of? With the prospect of the natural termination of the present Parliament before them, with the certainty of a great amount of labour to be performed with regard to the varied provisions of the Seats Bill, which it was quite conceivable might lead to very lengthened discussion, and with the desire they had to deal with the question of registration, they were anxious that the period which preceded Dissolution—that which was so inconvenient to the whole country—should not be unnecessarily prolonged. On these grounds he believed that this was a case in which the House would be disposed to grant exceptional facilities for discussing the Bill. He, therefore, hoped the House would allow the Question to be put without much delay, and that the judgment of the House would be found to sustain the view he had ventured to form with regard to what he believed to be the state of opinion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the several stages of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, up to, and including the Consideration of the Bill, as amended, have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, on every day on which it shall be set down, by the Government, as the first business of the day."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that in ordinary circumstances he should certainly have felt it his duty to oppose this fresh invasion of the rights of private Members, more especially as the views he had expressed with regard to the measure itself for which this invasion was to be made had not been modified by further consideration. But the circumstances under which Parliament had assembled

    935
    on the present occasion appeared to be so exceedingly critical, and the prolonged existence of Her Majesty's Government throughout the course of an ordinary Session—and even, it might be, of the present Parliament—appeared to him so problematical that he thought it was desirable that the settlement of this question should be arrived at as speedily as possible. Under these circumstances, he should not take the course which otherwise he should have felt it his duty to take.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether it was proposed to take the Fridays and also the Wednesdays? He particularly wanted to know whether private Members who might have the first place on Fridays would be deprived of bringing forward Questions in which a large number of Members might take an interest?
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that they must all be prepared to make sacrifices. He had usually opposed Motions for the appropriation of private Members' nights; but he thought, in the case of the Seats Bill, it should be proceeded with without any unavoidable delay. The public would not be satisfied if this great Bill, which was in itself a revolution, should be delayed. He should, therefore, very cordially support the Resolution of the Government.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he agreed that it was desirable that the Seats Bill should be carried through as soon as possible; but he would ask that the Navy Estimates should be laid upon the Table with the least possible delay, and that the Prime Minister should give an early opportunity of discussing questions affecting the Navy, so that it might be seen how the Government had performed their promises for its improvement?
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he wished to ask a question on a subject of the deepest interest to himself and many other hon. Members—he meant the subject of extending and improving our harbour accommodation. The Government, in 1883, thoroughly recognized the importance of the matter, and granted a Committee, which sat in 1883, and also in 1884, and reported in both years. Under this Resolution he would lose the opportunity of bringing the Report of the Committee before the House. He wished to ask what was
    936
    the intention of the Government with respect to that Report?
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked whether it was intended to take an early opportunity of introducing a Registration Bill with a view to a Dissolution in the autumn?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was, undoubtedly, one of great importance; but the probability was that by the date mentioned by the hon. Member the House would hardly be in a position to discuss the matter fairly, inasmuch as the hon. Member's Motion referred to questions upon which negotiations were still pending. With regard to the position of private Members generally, it would be very difficult for the Government to pick and choose among private Members' Motions; but he would observe that if any question of commanding importance should arise an opportunity would be given of bringing it before the House. There could be no doubt whatever that in the course of the early months of the Session some opportunity would be found, if it did not make itself, for discussing the Colonial defences. With regard to the Supplementary Navy Estimates, as the money must be obtained pretty soon, it was intended to submit a Motion on the subject before the Army Supplementary Votes were brought forward; and the rig-lit hon. and gallant Gentleman would, before many days, have an opportunity of discussing it. As to the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Marjoribanks), he did not find on the Paper any Notice with regard to it. He had very little to say in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) in addition to what had been stated by the Prime Minister. It was impossible for the Government at this moment to pledge themselves with regard to the proper or the best date for a General Election, or when an Election might occur under the Seats Bill. His hon. and learned Friend thought there might be great inconvenience in delay, and that it would be desirable to shorten the time. But there was very great difficulty in what was known as "shortening the dates," as it threw upon the overseers, many of whom were unpaid persons, very heavy duties. But there was a precedent in 1868, when the Govern-

    937
    ment of that day rejected the proposal for shortening the dates, and only hastened the final printing of the Registers. They were by that means able to secure an Election in November, and that was a precedent which possibly the House might follow. It would, however, be premature, in the meantime, for the Government to pledge themselves to any particular course. It was the general desire of the House to get the Seats Bill through as fast as possible, not only for the weighty reasons alleged that night, but also that the various overseers might be instructed in their heavy duties, and able to discharge them. The Motion of the Prime Minister, he might add, was a general Motion, and would apply to Wednesdays and Fridays.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was afraid, after the collapse of the champion of private Members' rights (Mr. Rylands), that his protest would be unavailing. Still, he did protest against the Government having the privilege of dropping down upon any private Member's Motion, and quashing anything which might be inconvenient. On the 13th of next month, he had the first place for a debate with regard to our relations with Germany. No question of greater importance could be brought to the attention of the public; and he hoped the Government would see their way to relaxing the Rule.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was desirous of giving the Government an opportunity of passing the Bill quickly; but he rose for the purpose of expressing a hope that they would not abuse their power. His right hon. and gallant Friend did not refer to the Supplementary Estimates, but to the Navy Estimates of the present year, about which great interest was felt. A Vote must be obtained for those Estimates before the 31st of March; and as it was usual to have two nights for discussing them, one on the introduction of the Estimates and another when the Votes were taken, he hoped that the Government would not take advantage of their powers to curtail the discussion.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite aware that he had security in this matter— namely, the provision of the law requiring absolutely that the Naval Votes should be obtained, and likewise the
    938
    power of the House to govern the time when it should allow an important debate on a particular subject to be brought to a close. He did not think it would be expedient, at the present moment, that they should fix the precise length of the debate they were to have on any given subject. What the Government wished was that the great urgency of proceeding with the Seats Bill should receive every consideration that could fairly be given to it; but that this should be so employed as not to curtail legitimate opportunities of dealing with those other important and pressing questions' to which Her Majesty's Ministers had referred.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that considering the time of the Session in which this Motion was made, and the circumstances in which it was brought forward, it was impossible not to view it as a Motion of an exceedingly objectionable character, and one the necessity for which he did not at all acknowledge. He was not aware that a similar Motion had been made on any previous occasion at the opening of a Session. It was quite true that in the course of the present Parliament, on one or two occasions after the Government had for some weeks encountered resistance to Bills of great importance, and were sternly and persistently contested by various Parties in that House, they had at last resorted to this mode of procedure. Such persistent opposition, however, did not in the least apply to the Seats Bill, and the stages of the measure up to the present had passed almost without dispute; not only so, but there was no reason to anticipate that there would be any very prolonged opposition to the future progress of the Bill. He was, therefore, at a loss to know why, on the 20th of February, with six solid months of the Parliamentary Session before them, the Government asked the House to place a blank cheque in their hands. Before the President of the Local Government Board addressed the House, he had at least imagined that the sanctuary of Committee of Supply would be held sacred by the Government; but it now appeared that not only were the Government going to take their own days— Mondays and Thursdays—but that they claimed Wednesdays, which belonged to private Members, and cancelled the precedence of Notices of Motion on

    939
    Tuesdays and Fridays. What was the breathless urgency about this Bill? The Government, he presumed, were not going out of Office and the Opposition coming in—in fact, everything tended to the conviction that the present Session would run out its natural and ordinary course. The President of the Local Government Board said the delay would prevent the overseers completing their necessary work. The Local Government Board could easily issue a Circular instructing them, and all the necessary work could go on. The overseers could safely proceed on the assumption that the Schedules of the Bill would remain substantially as they were at present, for there was no prospect of any attempt being made to alter them, except in one or two cases. Persistence in the present Motion meant a complete overthrow of the rights of private Members, and especially the silencing of Members from Ireland. Those Gentlemen would now be hindered in bringing forward various questions of public importance, which it was their imperative duty to raise. Irish Members had been successful in the ballot in obtaining the Tuesdays of the next four weeks. They had obtained the first place for the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act, respecting which the Prime Minister had already stated—and he thought very properly—that he could not at present bind himself to any declaration as to whether his Government proposed to renew the Act, or to allow it to lapse. It was very desirable, before the time arrived when the Government would be forced by circumstances to come to a decision one way or another, that they should have an opportunity of considering the evidence as to the necessity or superfluity of the Act. If Irish Members were allowed to bring forward the Motion, they hoped to be able to convince the Government and the House that it was just and expedient, wise and safe, that the Crimes Act should lapse; and he stigmatized it as a grievance of the very first magnitude that, by a Motion of this kind, all their chances of discussing a question of such vital importance to their country were in a moment taken away. Unless the Government would at least yield Fridays to private Members, it would be the duty of the
    940
    Irish Members to meet the Motion by a division.
    COLONEL NOLANpointed out that, while the President of the Local Government Board pressed the Motion on the ground that it was necessary, in the interests of registration in Ireland, the authorities had not availed themselves of the time that had been at their disposal for proceeding with the work. The whole of the work in Ireland was to be done by the clerks to the Unions, or the corresponding officers in the towns; and yet, up to a fortnight ago, the clerk of his own Union had received no intimation from the Local Government Board on the subject. Why, then, was such extraordinary expedition to be used? Before the Parliamentary machine was stopped and the rights of private Members taken away, he urged that it was incumbent upon the Government to take every possible measure out-of-doors to expedite registration. With the Seats Bill and the Soudan there appeared little chance of discussing matters of great importance to Ireland. There was one Irish subject that had special claims upon the attention of the Premier relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on improvements in towns. A Bill on the same subject was defeated by a very narrow majority of eight last Session; and that, therefore, afforded a very fair case for inquiry. He had secured the first place on the 3rd of March, and should decline to give way unless the Government expressed themselves favourably disposed to his proposal.
    SIR ALEXANDEE GORDONexpressed a hope that if the Motion was passed, the Government would exercise the power conferred with as lenient a hand as possible, and that they would take into account, not only particular measures affecting Ireland, but also those in which English and Scottish Members were interested.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he hoped some Member of the Government would deign to reply to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). This was not an ordinary occasion, when a measure had to be pressed on. The measure was already arranged for in most of its details. Its outlines had been shaped on the plan adopted by a Committee of both sides of the House. There was, therefore, no occasion for the expendi-

    941
    ture of much time on the settlement of detail, and the measure ought to be gone through in a very short space of time. The Irish Members had early in the Session secured places for a great number of highly important Irish Bills, some of them of momentous importance to the country; and yet all their chances were to be swept away from them for the sake of the Seats Bill. He strongly protested against this, believing there was no need for this extraordinary speed. There was plenty of time to go through the Bill in the ordinary way, as there was hardly any other measure of importance coming from the Government; and he considered their demand most unreasonable.
    MR.T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought there had never been a Bill presented to the House under more favourable circumstances, or with a greater promise of an early termination of the debate upon its provisions, than the Seats Bill. The Bill was practically settled, for he understood that the Opposition were as much pledged to it as Her Majesty's Government. Under these circumstances, he was at a loss to see what risk the Government would run by departing from the usual practice; and he trusted that a Motion that usually met with strenuous opposition in June or July would be as vigorously opposed now. Irish Members had a particular claim on the Government. The Crimes Act and other legislation in Ireland practically made the Lord Lieutenant the autocrat of the country; and the only check they had on the exercise of his despotic powers was discussion in the House of Commons. During the Recess events had occurred to which they desired to call attention; and as those events raised the whole question of the administration of Ireland by the present authorities of Dublin Castle, the Irish Members would give the Motion their steady opposition.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I may assure hon. Members that my Motion is one dictated not only by a general regard to the convenience of the House, but by sympathy with all those who are desirous that the time now before us, which has been described by hon. Gentlemen opposite as six solid months, should be applied in the most effective way, not merely to the Seats Bill, not merely to the necessary Business of the year,
    942
    but likewise to useful legislation, and, among other subjects, to useful Irish legislation; and the object of this Motion, Sir, over and above the particular circumstances that belong to it, is, I think, to be justified in this way. This is one of those Bills involving a great multitude of details, the discussion of which must necessarily drag over a great length of time, if the Government is placed in the position of only being able to deal with it upon such Mondays and Thursdays as it can spare from the demands of Supply and other necessary Business. For example, if it were dependent on Mondays and Thursdays alone, clearly Mondays and Thursdays will be taken up before Easter by Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy. We should be unable to make any effective dealing with the Seats Bill before Easter. Well, what would happen? We should have the Seats Bill on the Monday. Of course, we have the adjourned debate before going into Committee on the Seats Bill, in regard to which the most perfect liberty will be given. That debate would go on for a Monday and Thursday, and Monday and Thursday, and so forth; and in the same way, when we came to Committee, the details of this Bill, so handled, would be handled necessarily with the greatest disadvantage and the greatest waste of time. Now, what has happened before? The House has never but once, always be it recollected, had a large Seats Bill before it— never but once. That was in 1831; and what happened on that occasion? It is perfectly true that no Motion was made of the character of that which I have made; but why? Because, with the rarest exception, all other Business was put aside, and the Seats Bill was proceeded with. The mode of proceeding was different then, but the object was exactly the same. It is perfectly well known that if the Bill of 1831 had not been taken upon other nights than Government nights, the Government might as well have thrown over the Bill altogether. I rejoice to agree with the hon. Gentleman in this—that there is agreater prospect of accord between the great Parties in this House with regard to this Bill than there was then. But do they not see that, if that is so, the effect of that accord and of the gain in the immense economy of time which we shall obtain

    943
    by compression will be that this Motion will cease to operate in a very moderate time, and we will then, if we only obtain these facilities, be in a condition to promise valuable and important legislation in this Session of Parliament?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, several Irish Members had secured the first place on private Members' nights during the next four weeks.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That may be so; but a number of Gentlemen had refrained from balloting because they knew that this Motion would be made. Our desire is to economize the time of the House, because we are certain that a great waste of time, detrimental to the House, will take place unless we deal expeditiously with the Seats Bill, and there is no way of dealing expeditiously with it except by continuous action. It is in no desire to encroach upon the time of the House that I press this Motion, and ask that you should concur in allowing it to pass.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, he must deny that the ballot for places was confined principally to Irish Members; but, even if it had been so, that was no reason why Irish Members should be robbed of their privileges. He suggested that Fridays should be excepted. A Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the Crimes Act was to be made on Friday next.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 15: Majority 208.—(Div. List, No. 24.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NATIONALIST MEETINGS (DERRY).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SEXTON,in rising to call attention to the manner in which the Forces of the Crown have been recently employed in Derry in suppressing lawful Nationalist manifestations and encouraging Orange rioting; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the conduct of those responsible for the action of
    944
    the Police and Military in Derry was one-sided, tyrannical, and unconstitutional,"
    said, he supposed ho should esteem himself extremely fortunate that this Motion had escaped the general slaughter which had just been carried out by the will of the Prime Minister. He was glad to see the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place, because that hon. and learned Gentleman was not only well acquainted with the law relating to these matters, but, being Member for the County of Derry, he had an intimate acquaintance with the local circumstances connected not only with the county, but with the city also. Before he called attention to the subject of his Motion he might say that Derry occupied a peculiar position from historical causes. Elsewhere in Ireland, as in other countries, men mainly were content to accept existing facts, and guided their conduct and governed their lives by the current condition of affairs; but in Derry, although the great majority of the people wore Catholic and National, and although of the Protestant minority there were only a small portion, he was glad to say, who lent themselves to the tactics of disorder, still, the burden of his complaint rested upon the basis that there was in Derry a small faction of persons who refused to accept accomplished facts, who refused to admit the circumstances of life in the 19th century, and who, because a certain siege was maintained 200 years ago, and because a certain Party and a certain privilege triumphed at that siege, adhered to the absurd and grotesque idea that no other Party but the Party that then triumphed should raise a voice in the City of Derry, and that no other but the principle maintained 200 years ago by William of Orange should be allowed to be sustained in that locality. This small faction of disturbers were known as the Apprentice Boys of Derry; and his complaint was that the authorities who controlled the military and the police used the Forces of the Crown habitually in such a way as to encourage these 300 or 400 youths or fanatics, and to intimidate and overawe the vast body of people who were on the popular side in politics. On the 29th of February his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) arrived in Derry on the way to attend a public meeting at Carndonagh, in the county of Donegal

    945
    —and, in passing, he might say that there were no two public men in Ireland more popular with the masses of the people than his two hon. Friends; and, in his opinion, there were no two public men in Ireland better entitled to the affection and the confidence of the people. On their arrival the people assembled in multitudes to welcome them, and escorted them to and from their hotel with bands and banners and other manifestations of rejoicing. In the evening the hon. Member for Mallow delivered a lecture, and the night was passed as the day had been in perfect and unbroken peace. It was noticeable that on this occasion there was no offensive parade of the forces at the disposal of the authorities, and the people consequently suffered no irritation. On the next day, however, a fatal mistake was made. The people of Derry desired to receive publicly the two Members on their return to the city from a town in Donegal, where they were to address a meeting. Three leaders of the popular Party accordingly waited on the District Inspector of Police, and asked him on what conditions the agents of the Government would allow the demonstration to take place. The reply was that the processionists would not be permitted to re-enter the walls of Derry—by which presumably were meant the old walls—with bands playing or with lighted torches. The representatives of the popular Party undertook to keep to the two conditions laid down, and in the evening the hon. Members were met by the processionists, who were exhorted, by them to keep the peace. The hon. Member for Mallow having left the scene of the demonstration, the hon. Member for Wexford told the people that if they accompanied him to his hotel their bands must not play and that their torches must be extinguished. The processionists then proceeded to the walls of the city, near which they suddenly found themselves face to face, almost breast to breast, with a body of police and soldiers armed with deadly weapons. The night was dark, and the people were taken by surprise. It was easy to understand that the slightest outbreak of temper on their part, or on that of the police, might have provoked a massacre. If it were deemed necessary to mass an army in the dark in the outskirts of the city, why did not the police, between the time of the interview and the compact with the people
    946
    and the Inspectors, convey to the Members of Parliament concerned, or to the directors of the popular movement, a warning that it was intended to break the stipulation and to oppose the progress of the procession? Again, why was not time given for a parley before there was contact and conflict between the two bodies of persons? Instead of that, the order to fix bayonets was given; but happily his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford proved that he was able to stop the advance of the people at that moment. He (Mr. Sexton) utterly failed to see anything like good faith or public necessity in any part of the official conduct, or anything but infamous bad faith, and a worse than infamous design against the public peace. The action of the authorities was the indulgence of recklessness to a degree that bore upon it the moral guilt of murder. It was owing to the fact that the people had the discretion, the temper, and the sudden perception of the gravity of the situation, to obey the command of the hon. Member for Wexford, that the streets of Derry were not stained with human blood that night. The West Somersetshire Regiment and the extra police were used to impede, to intimidate, and to threaten the people in the exercise of their unquestionable legal right to do public honour to those representative men whom they admired and respected. But what was going on that evening within the walls of Derry? The Apprentice Boys marched at their will from one place to another, hooting persons in the street who differed from them in opinion, and using, alternately, as weapons of argument, the weapons with which nature had provided them and stones from the street; and when the hon. Member for Wexford was addressing a public meeting from the rooms of the hotel, after the dispersal of the procession, the meeting was assailed with stones by the faction of the Apprentice Boys; and when the hon. Member was returning to his hotel a mob of Orangemen lying in wait for him were allowed to hold the street in front of it. It was a significant fact that the Apprentice Boys came out when the police were there. He (Mr. Sexton) believed that the reason why these extraordinary offences were committed, against the interest of public order by the official custodians of the public peace in Derry arose from two

    947
    causes—the first was that the Government had hitherto obstinately refused to reform local bodies. About a year ago lie addressed the House upon the question of the Magisterial Bench in Ireland; and they were told by the Chief Secretary that if the names of proper persons were brought forward—persons in general sympathy with the Irish people and recommended to the Lord Chancellor— he would be glad to appoint them. He saw a right lion. Gentleman smile. Perhaps the smile was intended to cast a doubt upon the quotation; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the words were too important to escape his memory. The Lord Chancellor had made Catholic appointments during the last year; but his action so far in reforming the Magisterial Bench was, to use a classic expression, "a delusion, a mockery, and a snare." The Lord Chancellor had in almost every instance refused to accept the advice of the public Boards who had nominated the; ersons, and had acted nearly always upon the advice of the Lord Lieutenants of the counties, who were the Constitutional sentinels of the ancient and evil system of class aggression and social ascendancy in Ireland. Where a Catholic had been selected it was because he belonged to the class expressively known as "shoneens," because, like Sir Pertinax M'Sycophant, he won his way by bowing, and knew not how to stand straight in the presence of a great man. The Magisterial Bench in Derry, as in every part of Ireland, was still a citadel of landlords, a place reserved for persons of the fashionable creed; and in the Province of Ulster especially it was an appanage not merely of the Protestant section of the landlord class, but of that ferocious and incorrigible faction known as the Orange Party. To show what was expected from a magistrate there, he might state that when a Catholic magistrate in Derry attempted to question the Inspector of Police in open Court about this grave and dangerous occurrence, ho was silenced by the Chairman, and snubbed by the majority of the Bench. It appeared to him (Mr. Sexton) that the responsibility of those recent incidents was to be divided between the magistrate and the Mayor— an eccentric person named M'Vicker— and a Resident Magistrate, a robustious hero, Mr. Adolphus Harvey. Mr.
    948
    M'Vicker had distinguished himself by turning a reporter of The Freeman's Journal out of a lunacy inquiry, because that paper had taken the unpardonable liberty of rather freely criticizing the actions of his worship. Mr. Harvey was a gentleman with not one of the instincts or principles in his mind which tend to make a judicious magistrate. He had been promoted from the Constabulary Force; and he (Mr. Sexton) thought English Members would agree with him that promotion from the Police Force to the Magisterial Bench was a dangerous principle. Mr. Harvey had distinguished himself by having the hon. Member for Roscommon bodily pushed out of the field on the occasion of the prohibition of a meeting in Fermanagh. It was true that on the 13th of February the police made a show of beating off the Apprentice Boys from a meeting in Derry which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was addressing; but afterwards they turned upon the meeting in military form. His hon. Friend paused in his speech, for something inspired him to ask upon the spot why his meeting had been disturbed in that way. He asked the reason why the police drew their swords, trailed their rifles, and forced those who were listening to his speech away from their positions. The police had no reply to make, and perhaps for this reason they allowed the meeting to proceed. What followed then? The Orange magistrates of Derry, led by this eccentric Mayor and swaggering Stipendiary Magistrate, held a Star Chamber meeting. At that meeting a proclamation was issued in which it was stated that they had reason to believe that it was intended to have a procession through the streets of Derry, which, in their opinion, would lead to a breach of the peace. They then stated that they had issued this proclamation declaring that such procession would not be allowed to be held, but would be dispersed by force. They now came to a curious part of the case. Nobody had proposed such a procession. No man, woman, or child in Derry had any intention of taking such a step upon last Sunday, and last Sunday was the day to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. He believed it was essential to the preservation of the peace of this much troubled city that the Crown should be served by persons without

    949
    bias or passion. [Mr. LEWIS: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Sexton) thought that the hon. Member who sat on the Bench near him (Mr. Lewis) was aware that the day was fast approaching when he would no longer be Member for the City of Deny. He supposed that the hon. Member recognized the fact that the Bill recently passed through that House was one which would bring about such a state of affairs as would prevent any gentleman from London of his politics or Party having the slightest chance of representing that city in Parliament. That was one of the reasons why he (Mr. Sexton) regarded the future of that city more than hitherto. The people of Derry were entitled to express their opinions, and they had been listening to a lecture by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The Orange magistrates, however, had come to the conclusion that there was some reason for apprehension; and, acting upon information which was obviously the reverse of the fact, they telegraphed all over the North of Ireland for extra police. They swarmed the city with armed men, who occupied upon the day in question what were known as the "dangerous parts of Derry." In the course of the afternoon, however, it began to dawn upon them that they were in a very foolish position. After bringing in men from all points of Ulster to occupy the dangerous parts of Derry, and to prevent a procession, there was no procession to be prevented. They were there at a cost to the country of between £500 and £1,000, and if this sum was to be paid by the people of Derry it was a grievance to them. But if it was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund it was a grievance in which every taxpayer in England, Ireland, and Scotland had a share. After having vainly waited for an enemy who would not come, as the afternoon advanced the police thought well to retire. Then, according to immemorial custom, the Apprentice Boys turned out—first, because they knew that the police had retired; and, secondly, because they knew from their experience of the past that the moment they got into trouble the police would come out of barracks and beat the peaceable people whom they were engaged in attacking. The Apprentice Boys went to a commanding position in the city, whence they began to shower down stones and bottles upon a quarter
    950
    of the city occupied by the Catholic population. While thus engaged their operations were watched only by a solitary policeman. The people whom they assaulted had to not only close their doors, but put up their shutters and remain indoors. When they had endured these attacks long enough they sallied forth and took the position occupied by the Apprentice Boys by a flank movement, and returned showers of stones and bottles. Eight constables then came out of the barracks and made a show of attempting to disperse the Orange faction, and then the remainder came out in force, and proceeded in reality to attack the people who had been so long submitting to the assaults of the Apprentice Boys. They proceeded to beat man, woman, and child in a manner that could only be compared with the cowardly onslaught which had been made some time ago upon a quiet assembly in the Phœnix Park, which was memorable still. It was perfectly idle to talk about preserving law and order when the Government only interfered with people who, in the exercise of their legal rights, ventured to give expression to their opinion, and, at the same time, allowed functionaries to resort to all sorts of acts of violence and disorder. One of the worst features in the proceedings of the day was a cowardly attack which was made by a lot of roughs upon two ladies who belonged to one of the most admirable and noble Orders which the Church had ever given birth to. These ladies, when returning after a mission of mercy, found the steps in front of the convent which they desired to enter occupied by a crowd of roughs, who assailed them with the vilest language, and refused to allow them to enter. They found it also impossible to gain an entry from the rear, because another gang who had been specially detailed for this work barred their passage there. Were it not for the interference of some young men, who proved by their action that humanity and chivalry were not dead, these unoffending ladies would have sustained serious injury. He desired to know whether a secret inquiry had been held in Derry since Sunday last, and whether the heads of the Prentice Boys had been questioned?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it might save time if he stated that some arrests had been made.
    MR. SEXTONwished, in that case, to know how many Prentice Boys had been arrested; and what was the proportion of arrests to the number taking part in the proceedings? A question of importance and significance far beyond that to which he had been referring would presently arise—namely, whether the people of Ireland, like every other people—like the people of this country—had or had not the right to control and manage their own affairs? When that great question came to be dealt with, as it very soon must be, it would be an evil thing for Ireland, and a gloomy and sinister fact for any English Government charged with the administration of the affairs of that country, if they did not allow it to be handled and decided by reason and by Constitutional action alone, and if they did not proclaim their determination that no designs of faction should be allowed to interfere with the free expression by Constitutional means of the will of the Irish people.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the conduct of those responsible for the action of the Police and Military in Derry was one-sided, tyrannical, and unconstitutional,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that everyone must have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because of the dramatic effect with which he described certain events which had recently occurred in the City of Derry. But he (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman) must ask the House to subtract a little from the somewhat highly-coloured picture which the hon. Gentleman had drawn. According to his in-formation the facts were not altogether as had been stated. In the first place, the hon. Member presented a picture of the City of Derry which the hon. Gentleman who represented it (Mr. Lewis) could hardly recognize, and which the general world, with only a slight knowledge of the place, would altogether fail to recognize. He represented the great body of the people as being all of one way of thinking if only a small and in-
    952
    significant faction of Apprentice Boys and others inflamed with memories of certain past events would leave them alone. That representation hardly corresponded with what he described after-wards, because the hon. Gentleman spoke of Members of Parliament who took part in the proceedings being followed by a furious mob of Orangemen. If the Orange Party and Apprentice Boys were so few, where did the mob come from? The truth was they all knew, and, for his part, he deeply regretted it, how keen Party and political and religious feeling was in that part of the country. That fact made it peculiarly difficult, not only for those on the spot, but also for the Executive Government in Ireland, to deal with any question that might arise there. There were two Parties bitterly opposed to each other, and every opportunity was taken of presenting themselves as obtrusively and as obnoxiously as possible to each other. His belief was that the mischief was done by a comparatively small number of each Party. The hon. Gentleman said that on the 29th of last month the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) arrived in the City of Derry and proceeded through the streets accompanied by some of his friends, and that there was a demonstration on the part of his friends without any disturbance of public order. Ho had heard nothing to lead him to suppose that that statement was incorrect; but, at the same time, there were fierce political speeches delivered. It was one thing for the hon. Member for Mallow, or anyone else, to appear in a town and deliver a speech and move with his friends through the streets; but it was another thing for him to return to that town on another day with the purpose announced beforehand of passing through the town with a procession and accompanied by bands and men bearing torches. There was sworn information laid before the magistrates that the intended procession would probably lead to a riot and breach of the peace, and accordingly authority was given to increase the force of police. The House would understand that in all these matters nothing was directly under the control of the central Executive Government in Dublin—everything done was done on the authority of the local magistrates, except the drafting of a certain number of additional police.
    MR. SEXTON: And the stipendiary.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And the stipendiary.
    MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask whether the order was made by the whole of the magistrates, or only by the stipendiary?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was not sure. It was evident to common sense that if two opposing parties, already excited, came together with bands and torches, there was a great probability of a breach of the peace occurring. It was, no doubt, a fact that the popular leaders interviewed the magistrates; and it was agreed that the procession should be allowed to go on to the five lamps in the centre of Waterloo Square. With this arrangement the processionists declared themselves satisfied; and the only complaint they subsequently made was that they were stopped about 50 yards from the spot agreed upon. In the first place, any agreement made with the police was necessarily subject to modification if the necessity arose; but the fact was that behind the police in Waterloo Square, and in the streets debouching upon it, there was a somewhat excited and angry mob, consisting mainly of the Orange Party. If the procession had been allowed to get into the square, it would have got beyond control. They were, therefore, stopped at the entrance to it. In these circumstances, he hoped the House would believe that the magistrates had exercised a judicious and a wise discretion in making a slight variation in the original agreement, which did not in the least interfere with the glory of the procession, or with anything connected with it, but merely deprived it of 50 yards of its progress, and, at the same time, guaranteed immunity from what might have been a dangerous and disorderly condition of things. No impediment was placed in the way of those who marched in the procession. The pavement was cleared for individuals and small parties if they chose. What was objected to was that the procession, as a procession, in its fully organized condition, should proceed beyond the point where it was stopped. It was quite true, as the hon. Member said, that a momentary fault of temper, or the failure on the part of someone in his duty, might have had very dangerous consequences. But the responsibility of that must rest with those who,
    954
    in an inflammatory atmosphere like that of Derry, marched through the streets with bands and torches on such occasions, and thereby provoked the hostility of those who opposed them. The Government desired to treat either party with exactly the same vigour or leniency; but in a condition of things such as that which prevailed at Derry it was absolutely impossible for those who were responsible for the maintenance of peace and order to allow processions of this aggressive and exuberant kind to go through the streets as they pleased. The hon. Member for Mallow arrived in Derry on the 13th, and his complaint was that while he was addressing the crowd from the window of his hotel, he was interrupted, and the crowd was made to pass on by a body of armed police. A great point was made of the police being ordered to trail their arms, as if that was a bellicose attitude. But he believed that there was no way in which men could carry their arms less aggressively than by trailing them.
    MR. SEXTON: Is the drawing of a sword the least aggressive way of carrying it?
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he did not know what the rule was when an officer was commanding a body of men. He might possibly always carry his sword drawn in such circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen ought not to make so much of one officer having his sword drawn. But the reason why the mob were dispersed was that the city was in an excited state, and there was a number of the opposite faction anxious to show themselves and disturb the meeting. In such circumstances, it was a very reasonable thing to ask the hon. Member to forego part of his speech. All accounts agreed that the hon. Member for Mallow and the hon. Member for Wexford assisted in quieting the crowd, and did all they could to prevent a breach of the peace. He had no complaint to make of them. [Mr. O'BRIEN: No; but we have to make it of them.] The authorities in Derry were informed that on the following Sunday there was to be an indignation meeting held in the suburbs, and they had no intention to interfere with any reasonable meeting. But there was to be a procession, and the magistrates thought it their duty to prevent the procession. Where there was danger of the public peace being

    955
    disturbed, he thought that those concerned would have regarded it as a small sacrifice to refrain from some of their public demonstrations, when they had ample opportunity for an orderly expression of their opinions if they chose to adopt it. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) asked whether the Government was prepared to deprive some of their fellow-countrymen of their legal right to the orderly expression of their views? Her Majesty's Government had no such desire, and would not stop any expression of opinion unless there was thereby a danger to the public peace existing in such a form as to be evident to those who were responsible for the maintenance of the public peace. With regard to the alleged disturbances on Sunday, it appeared that there was some stone-throwing and some riotous proceedings; but, from the information he had gathered, it did not appear that they amounted to very much. The attack upon the two Sisters of Charity, although he did not think there was a personal attack, was a thing that could not be too warmly denounced. It do-served the severest punishment and reprobation; and there was, at least, this satisfaction—that the perpetrators would in all probability be brought to justice. In a telegram dated yesterday the Inspector of Police at Londonderry reported that eight young men were that day brought before the Petty Sessions charged with having been concerned in the outrage on the two Sisters of Charity. Their case had been remanded till Monday, no doubt for further evidence. He believed that 10 persons had also been convicted at the Petty Sessions of riotous behaviour on Sunday last, and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment each. Of these, some were Nationalists and some were Orangemen. The result of the stone - throwing was that some damage was done to a convent, and some to a Presbyterian church. Ho thought, from what he had said, it was evident that care had been taken by the authorities to prevent any disturbance, which in a feverish and excitable atmosphere like that of Derry might be readily produced. The magistrates appeared to him to have done their duty; and though he was not there to defend the actions of any but the Resident Magistrate, he might say that he did not think the magistrates had done any-
    956
    thing to deserve the censure of the House. To the observations of the hon. Member upon the magistrates in general he would not then reply; but would content himself with asking the House to say that in this individual case the Derry magistrates had done nothing worthy of censure.
    MR. O'BRIENobserved, that the speech to which they had just listened from the Chief Secretary for Ireland— who, he noticed, had already deserted his post—was a good illustration of the reasons why the Irish people had such an inveterate and unconquerable distrust of the Englishmen and Scotchmen sent over to govern them. The right hon. Gentleman approached the administration of Irish affairs a few months ago with a certain mild benovolence towards the people; but it was evident that he was already a perfectly helpless and submissive instrument in the hands of the ruling class, which was represented on the Tory Benches at present in the person of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis). If there could be anything more annoying than the good humour and self-complacency with which the right hon. Gentleman had acquitted himself (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) of the offence of saving the City of Derry from a sanguinary riot it would be the ingenious avoidance of every point in the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). In that City of Derry, where they maintained that throe-fourths of the population were Nationalists, they were not permitted to march through their own streets on an admittedly peaceable and legal business without being attacked by the police and put in danger of their lives. While the Nationalists, who were the majority, wore insulted and held down by the police, that miserable gang of Apprentice Boys—a mere handful of the tag, rag, and bobtail of the Orange slums of Derry—were positively encouraged to riot as they pleased under police protection, and to attack defenceless ladies upon occasions when they found it more convenient to do so than to attack the other and the stronger sex. What were the admitted facts regarding this wretched little secret Society of the Apprentice Boys? The evidence of Mr. Thynne, R.M., before the Derry Commission last year, proved that they never mustered more than 300;

    957
    and they would never dream of going out into the streets to make a riot except when they were sure of police protection. The whole scandal complained of that night arose from the fact that the military and the police were habitually used in Derry by Orange partizans to prevent the people from exercising their legal rights, and to encourage the miserable gang of Orangemen who rioted under the protection of the Forces of the Crown. When he and the hon. Member for Wexford went to Derry they merely passed through it to attend meetings in other places; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself had admitted that when they went to Derry that night, and a large crowd went out to meet them with bands, and escorted them to their hotel, and listened to their speeches, there was not the smallest symptom of disturbance. And why was that? Simply because there was not a single policeman seen in the streets—that being a sovereign specific for preserving the peace in Derry. On the next day the people took it into their heads, without either his or his hon. Friend's knowledge, and not much to their liking, to welcome them back into Derry in the evening with a torchlight procession. Why was it necessary to treat the people that evening differently from what was done on the preceding night? Merely because the Mayor, a notorious Orangeman, and the Resident Magistrate, who was distinguished for his hostility to the people, had filled the town with extra policemen, and were determined to utilize them. They did not even publish their intention; and the Nationalist Leaders only heard in the most casual way that it was intended to employ the troops and the police to prevent the people from entering the city. The right hon. Gentleman told them that informations wore sworn be-fore certain magistrates of Derry; but did the Government mean to act on the principle that one magistrate was to be consulted because he was known to be an Orangeman, and another to be left in the dark because he was suspected of being a Nationalist? Was there to be an inner circle in the magistracy in the North of Ireland comprised of persons enjoying the confidence of the local Orange Lodges and the officials of Dublin Castle? He would not now discuss whether it was not a tyrannical and
    958
    insulting thing to issue a ukase forbid ding the people to enter their own city; but he pointed out that the Nationalists of Derry scrupulously obeyed that ukase, and were perfectly willing to abide by the conditions laid down for them; and, although they carried out their part of the compact, they were betrayed into an ambuscade that might have resulted in many deaths. The right hon. Gentleman had somewhat disingenuously represented that their only complaint was that the procession was stopped at a point some 50 yards further than that to which the police had agreed to let it come. But the complaint was not only that the original compact was broken, but also that the procession was stopped at a period when the people had not even time to quench their torches, and when there was the greatest danger of a collision. The original engagement was that if the torches were put out and the band ceased play, the procession would be allowed to accompany his hon. Friend and himself to their hotel as on the previous night. The right hon. Gentleman gave as an excuse for that double violation of the engagement that there was an excited Orange mob behind. Now, as to that, he could only say that ho himself rode through that very district when that excited Orange mob was supposed to be in possession of the place without protection of any sort, and except a few shouts from half-a-dozen Corner Boys there was not the smallest sign of danger to the public peace. It was now admitted that without consultation with the magistrates the compact made with the people had been violated. The people carried out their part of the agreement. On the advice of himself and his friends the members of the procession put out their torches; they ceased playing music, and marched on in the full impression that they were free to accompany the Members of Parliament present to their hotel. They had not the least conception that they were to be interfered with in the manner which was ultimately adopted; and he maintained that but for the action of the hon. Member for Wexford the consequences of such a stoppage would have been something too fearful to contemplate. His hon. Friend had succeeded in drawing the people off. It seemed to him that the police on this occasion appeared to have

    959
    acted on the rule to be as offensive as possible to the Nationalists, and to leave the Orange faction free to riot and to do just as they pleased. There seemed to be thorough vigilance as against the Nationalists, and perfect carelessness as to the Orangemen. Had the right hon. Gentleman in any way explained why, since it was impossible for the police to muster in such numbers against the Nationalists, it was not possible for them to protect the hon. Member for Wexford? The fact was that it was the invariable rule in Derry that when the police were in the streets about 200 Apprentice Boys would come out and be perfectly free to make what mischief they could; but, on the other hand, when the police were withdrawn from the streets, the Nationalists were very well able to keep the peace themselves. As to the occurrences on Sunday evening, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that a meeting was announced for Sunday evening in the newspapers. Ho (Mr. O'Brien) was a very close reader of the newspapers, and had soon no such announcement. He knew of the plans of the Nationalist Loaders of Derry, and could say with the most perfect confidence that no announcement whatever emanating from them had been made in any way intimating that there would be a procession in Derry upon Sunday. Still, because the Mayor took it into his head once more to encourage these Apprentice Boys to make a disturbance, ho drafted 300 men into the city at a cost of something like £500 to the ratepayers. He was perfectly at a loss to know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman defended the action of the police authorities. If there were 300 men in Derry, surely there were enough to have prevented a riot in the Orange quarter as well as a procession in the Nationalist quarter. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that eight young "gentlemen" had been summoned for the brutal assault committed upon two ladies. Suppose that the attack had been made upon a landlord or a bailiff in the South of Ireland, he would like to know whether the prisoners who were even suspected of being the attacking party would have been invited by summons to go to the police court, and then remanded for eight days, and probably be let out on bail? He thought the circumstances under which these persons were
    960
    summoned to the police court was one other proof of the partiality displayed in Derry, and the difference in the treatment of Nationalists and Orangemen. The right hon. Gentleman's speech had only given one more proof that whatever the people could do in Derry to defend themselves, they had to depend upon themselves alone. The only I explanation he could think of why the action of the Derry magistrates had been approved of by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Government meant to allow this apprentice gang liberty to riot as a sort of compensation for the Franchise Act. The Apprentice Boys knew thoroughly well that their ascendancy was coming to an end; and it would seem as if the Government wore anxious to soothe their declining days by enabling them to be insolent and troublesome to the public peace as often as possible. The Mayor and police were simply Apprentice Boys in uniform, and ho would not be a bit surprised if after this night they added the right hon. Gentleman to the category. The hon. Member for Wexford and himself advised the people to trust to their power in the franchise. The Government, by their action of tonight in refusing all redress or inquiry into the conduct of these magistrates, would teach them that whatever they could hope for now or at any future time they would have to depend upon themselves for, and not upon the English Government.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that he believed many of the statements which had been made regarding persons of character and standing in Derry to be utterly without foundation. It was, however, on such statements ex parte that the House was asked to believe this extraordinary story. There was a way in which the matter could be tested, and it was this. The hon. Member who brought forward the Motion had assured the House of a fact the truth of "which he was in a position to contradict. One of the statements made by the hon. Member was that the proclamation issued against the holding of the meeting last Sunday had been issued by a Bench of Magistrates who were wholly Orange in their sympathies. As a matter of fact, he knew that not one of the magistrates was an Orangeman. So far from this proclamation having been issued by a body of Orange magistrates, it was issued by a

    961
    Bench whose political sympathies were various. Having represented the city for 13 years, he was able to identify them. The political leanings of the 13 gentlemen constituting the Bench were as follows:—Two were Conservatives, four were Protestant Liberals, four were Roman Catholics, and one was a Wesley an, with whose political sympathies he had not been made acquainted. Of these 18 magistrates, three were Roman Catholics, who had been recently appointed to redress the disparity in numbers between the Protestants and Roman Catholics on the Magisterial Bench. In these circumstances, he asked whether the House would believe that the Proclamation had been issued by Orange magistrates? During the incumbency of the present Government there had been five appointments of magistrates of the Roman Catholic religion to the City Bench in Derry. If the House had the means of investigating the statements that had been made to-night, it would be found that the facts were not only in favour of the magistrates, but against the individuals who had prompted hon. Members. The truth was, that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) did not know anything more about Derry than he did about any city in Japan, or he would never have made the statement upon which he ventured as to the proportion of "Nationalists" in Londonderry. As a matter of fact, the population of Derry, which numbered 80,000, was about equally divided between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, and many of the latter were altogether opposed to the Nationalist Party. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in a certain speech, had imputed the crime of murder to the Lord Lieutenant. The gist of the whole matter was that Mr. Adolphus Harvey, the Resident Magistrate, was obnoxious to those hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion. One of them was some time ago thrown over a hedge, he believed, by Mr. Harvey or one of his minions, and ever since Mr. Harvey had been an object of intense hatred to that section of the House. Referring to the attack on the two ladies, he (Mr. Lewis) said the attack was one of words; and no magistrate would be justified in issuing ft warrant against, and no policeman justified in arresting, a person charged with the offence of calling a person
    962
    names. There was no doubt that the hon. Member and his Friends had been for some time past poking about in the district of Derry for the purpose of finding out anything they could against the Mayor. After all this the only charge which they could fix upon him was that of being the eccentric Mayor of Derry. He hoped that when some of the hon. Members were elected Mayors of towns in Ireland they would come out with the same credit when they were attacked in the same way. It seemed to him that this Motion was just fitted for the evening upon which it had come on—the House had nothing to do, and it had done nothing. They had been all the evening listening to a bit of rhodomon-tade and nonsense. Ho thought that if it were possible to dignify this matter by having it subjected to an inquiry these charges would be pulverized. He had abundant reason for believing that this was all "flab," and that there was not the slightest justification for these attacks upon servants of the Crown. Nobody who had not lived in Ireland, and had not been witness of the public events taking place, could form any idea of the difficulty which magistrates had in attempting to steer a middle course. In trying to do so, it was almost impossible to avoid being attacked by one side or the other, or perhaps by both. In this case, the magistrates of Derry had only taken the necessary precautions to prevent a breach of the peace; and he felt sure that the House of Commons would not condemn them upon ex parte statements which were, to a great extent, without foundation in fact. He was obliged for the extreme kindness and attention of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had prophesied that the Franchise Bill would put an end to him. If that were the result, he could assure him that it would not create any considerable amount of trouble in his breast, and he believed that he would be able to endure it. If the prophecy, however, was not based upon better materials than the case which he had attempted to make out, he believed that it would not be fulfilled. He believed that the hon. Member was just as much unacquainted with the political probabilities of the future of the City of Derry as he was with the facts of the case which he had just presented to the House.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had complained of the shortness of the Notice in bringing forward this Motion. This was perfectly true; but he would at the same time remind him that, if they had not taken this opportunity of bringing it forward, it was exceedingly doubtful when another opportunity would have been afforded them. All next week would be absorbed in one subject, and perhaps the week after. He would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Catholic magistrates had protested against the course pursued by the shameless partizans on the other side. He believed that the parties who were mainly responsible for what had occurred were the Mayor and Mr. Adolphus Harvey. Ho believed Mr. M Wicker to be a reckless partizan. He did not know whether or not ho was a member of the Orange Society; but he did not object to Orangemen as members of that Society, for he had known no men, whether Orangemen or not, to be more bitter partizans than Irish Liberals. He knew the City of Derry well, and believed that two-thirds of the population were belonging to the National Party. He believed that time would tell whether the hon. Member would again represent Derry. But he believed that he was too astute a man to fight a forlorn hope if ho had a more certain chance of success elsewhere. Instead of summoning the scandalous law-breakers who assaulted the two nuns, it was the duty of the police to arrest them, in order that they might be arraigned in the criminal dock. That was the course that would have been adopted towards the Nationalists. By the speech which the Chief Secretary had delivered he had made himself, to a great extent, responsible for the misconduct of his officials.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he did not think the Government was to be congratulated on the championship of their cause by the hon. Member for the City of Derry, for he had never listened to a more thoroughly dishonest speech than that with which he had favoured the House. In three points the hon. Gentleman was clearly disingenuous. With reference to the Proclamation he read the names of 13 magistrates, whoso sanction, he implied, had been unanimously given; whereas, if he were half
    964
    as well acquainted, with the facts as he professed to be, he must know that the four Catholic magistrates whom he included distinctly protested against the Proclamation. Then be denied that the nuns were "assaulted," although the Mayor distinctly used the word himself. Therefore, he charged the hon. Member with being dishonest. ["Oh!"] He used the phrase entirely in a Parliamentary sense. [Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The charge against an hon. Member of being dishonest is one that ought not to be made in this House, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Certainly, Sir; I will always bow with respect to your ruling. What I intended to convey was that the hon. Member, being well acquainted, as he said, with what took place in Derry—
    MR. LEWIS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I distinctly said that it was impossible that anyone could be well acquainted with the facts, and I said I had certain information from the papers which I should make use of.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman distinctly and positively stated that these ladies were not assaulted. He had within his reach the same means of information as other hon. Members. He had The Freeman's Journal and other papers.
    MR. LEWIS: No; I had not.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, the hon. Member did not take the trouble to read the papers of the county he professed to represent; and if he did not avail himself of the ordinary means of informing himself he had no right to come and speak positively of facts, and accuse his (Mr. John Redmond's) hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) of inaccuracy. The account given by the Chief Secretary of the arrangement come to as to the matter of the procession was by no means accurate. He (Mr. John Redmond) deliberately accused the Government of having broken that arrangement; and if there was any justification for breaking it, he accused them of an almost criminal carelessness in not sending someone forward with the information that the arrangement was changed. He could not but think that the Chief Secretary was taking a foolish course with reference to these matters. For his part, he hated

    965
    and detested the very thought of these encounters between Catholics and Orangemen in Ireland; but he was convinced that the Government, by their persistent protection of the minority, were preserving and perpetuating the bitterness which now existed. He believed that if a policy of even justice were administered to all parties in Derry and the rest of the North of Ireland, these unfortunate and frequently-recurring encounters would cease.
    MR. MARUMsaid, it had been held by Mr. Justice Fry and Mr. Justice Field that it was the duty of all existing Governments to protect all lawful assemblies, and that a Government, in fact, ceased to be a Government unless it protected the people in the exercise of their just rights. He complained that they had had no exposition of the law upon the subject of this Proclamation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He denied the jurisdiction of the magistrates to issue the Proclamation. That power, even under the Crimes Act, was limited to the Lord Lieutenant.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that, in his opinion, the magistrates had acted entirely within their legal powers, and in accordance with the law.
    MR. DEASYsaid, that the Irish Members were placed at a great disadvantage in the House in discussing these matters, as the Law Officer of the Government never gave them any satisfactory information as to the law under which these meetings were suppressed. Attacks on nuns appeared to be the favourite amusement of Orangemen; and it was no wonder that the Catholic population was incensed when they found the Government not taking any active measures to punish the persons who made these attacks. He should like to know why the Government did not allow this matter to be cleared up by an impartial investigation into the facts of that case? He hoped that this world be one of the last occasions on which such a complaint would have to be made, because he trusted that the new Chief Secretary would soon find out that the statements of the Irish Resident Magistrates were not to be relied upon.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to adopting the suggestion of the
    966
    hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Doasy) by granting an inquiry into Irish affairs. If, however, they did not fee their way to doing so, he would suggest the removal of the Stipendiary Magistrate from Derry to a part of Ireland where his services would be better appreciated than was the case at present. It was quite clear that he had set himself against the Catholic population, and favoured the Orange faction, who had not yet learned that the times had out-crown them.
    MR. KENNYsaid, that, irrespective of the paltry interference of Mayor M'Vicker and Mr. Adolphus Harvey, it was absolutely impossible for them in any way, beyond the mere immediate and contemptible annoyance, to effect the purpose they seemed to be bent upon effecting—namely, to stir up bad feelings between persons of rival political Parties. The Government had abrogated their function of replying to charges made against them and their administration in Ireland, and had thrown the responsibility of replying upon the shoulders of an English solicitor who happened to be Member for the City of Derry. The magistrates in Ireland were appointed on account of the creed to which they belonged and the religious opinions which they held, the majority of the justices in Kerry being Protestants, and the nominees of Members of a previous Administration.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, the Irish Party were not surprised either at the action of the Derry magistrates or the action of the Government, who had good reason for supporting the action of the fantastic Mayor of Derry, and the somewhat blundering and bumptious Police Inspector who assisted him. The Government saw in such men the last rally, as it were, of a gradually failing and breaking cause. The Irish Party, however, were so near to success that they could afford to regard with indifference the efforts of the Government to add to Irish history a second "City of the Violated Treaty."
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 15: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1884–5).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1884–5).

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £5,000, Surveys, United Kingdom.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that that was an addition to the sum of £242,500 they had already voted in the course of the present financial year for expediting the Ordnance Survey. He hoped it was well understood that, when the people of this country were called upon to pay £250,000 sterling a-year for the expediting of this survey, they were called upon to perform a very valuable service to the landowners of the country. He also hoped that the people were not consenting to pay this large sum without an ulterior object. The landed gentry of the country were getting now maps of their estates made at the cost of the people. He should like it to be thoroughly understood that the object of the Representatives of the people in Parliament in voting this large sum of money every year was simply and solely that they might arrive, at the earliest possible moment, at a condition in which they could adopt the system of registration of title. That was the object with which he, for one, gladly supported this Vote; and he hoped it might be taken for granted that that was the object of the House generally in desiring to expedite the survey of the United Kingdom.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £120, Natural History Museum.
    (3.) £3,570, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the Erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."
    MR. KENNYsaid, there was one item in this Vote with regard to which he
    968
    should like some explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). It was proposed to take £2,500 for the drainage of the River Brosna, a river which flowed into the River Shannon. He should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman the reason of this sum being required. The Brosna overflowed its banks at certain times of the year; but the condition of the Brosna was rendered defective by the manner in which the Shannon was maintained. Now, the Shannon was maintained from a certain point at a navigation level; and, therefore, the rivors which flowed into the Shannon were also kept at a higher level than they would otherwise need to be kept. The consequence was that the country through which the Brosna and other tributaries of the Shannon flowed was at times flooded. He did not profess to be acquainted with the exact condition of the people who lived in the districts affected by the overflowing of the Brosna; but he desired to point out to the hon. Gentleman who was Secretary to the Treasury that he would come a great deal in contact with the doings of the Board of Works in Ireland, and would hear something of the manner in which the drainage and navigation of the Shannon had been managed in the past, and the absolute futility of maintaining the Shannon in its present condition—that was, at a navigation level—up to a certain point. The dues which accrued from the river in its present condition were not sufficient to pay the wages of the men employed. At present, he merely asked for an explanation of the item of £2,500 in respect to the Brosna drainage.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the sum referred to was intended to be given as compensation to the owner of one particular property. The person in question was the proprietor of some mills on the River Brosna, which had been damaged owing to the drainage system which had been carried out; and it was considered that the damage done to his property entitled him to some compensation. There was no doubt that the general question to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) referred was a very important one, and one in regard to which he (Mr. Hibbert) hoped to be able to do something, when they got to the Shannon Vote, to carry out the

    969
    views the hon. Gentleman had expressed.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Kenny) was one well deserving the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). The Shannon required very careful supervision; and the hon. Gentleman would do well to see whether the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the condition of the river had been carried out.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was another item in the Vote in respect of which some explanation should be afforded. Under Sub-head C, for maintenance, £1,700 was set down for repair of St. Patrick's Hall. He believed St. Patrick's Hall was a Department of Dublin Castle; but he was not aware of any occasion recently when there had been any necessity to use it, except that on which a few noblemen were installed in the Order of St. Patrick, an Order not in any respect deserving of its name. The community took no interest in it; indeed, it had no significance to any part of the community, except the few noblemen who adorned themselves with its stars and ribbons. The people were tired of the proceedings connected with the installations; and they felt that if it was necessary or desirable occasionally to hold high ceremony, at which half-a-score of gentlemen put on blue mantles and stars and ribbons, those gentlemen ought to bear the expense of painting the ceiling and waxing the floor of the Hall in which they met.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not think the money had been spent in beautifying the Hall in the way suggested. As a matter of fact, the floor required relaying, and other parts of the Hall were in a very bad state of repair indeed. The greater part of the money asked for, therefore, had been spent in renovating, rather than in beautifying, the Hall. Though St. Patrick's Hall was a part of Dublin Castle which was used by the Lord Lieutenant, he thought that even the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would agree with him that all the different public buildings in Ireland should be kept up at the expense of the State.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to one of these Supplementary items, which, in proportion to
    970
    the amount of the original Estimate, was very large. There seemed to be, under Sub-head F, for travelling, a most unwarrantable addition. The original Estimate for travelling was £452, and now a further sum of £248 was asked for. He could not understand how there could have been such a grievous miscalculation. An increase of 54 per cent upon the original Estimate seemed to him perfectly unwarrantable.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Warton) that the Supplementary Vote was unusually large. At the same time, he believed the original Estimate was cut down in order to induce economy in travelling. The expenses, unfortunately, had been cut down too much; and the consequence was that a large additional sum had now to be granted.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to supplement what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), with regard to the Brosna drainage business. If the Government, or the Board of Works as servants of the Government, would turn their attention to drainage, and give up the fallacy of inland navigation, they would (To a great service to the country. A Royal Commission went all over Ireland to examine the canals, with the result that they reported against the maintenance of nearly all those waterways. He held firmly the opinion that all the inland rivers should be used for draining the water off the land, and for no other purpose whatever. It was nonsensical to speak of navigation. The railways of the country were quite capable of carrying all that was required to be carried. It was quite true that this idea of inland navigation enabled some persons to get a little plunder; but it did great mischief to the parties who wanted their land drained. Under Subhead A he noticed that £577 was asked for the purchase of premises at Mullin-gar Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks; and he wished to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount. It was notorious that there were far more police in Ireland than were required; and, therefore, it was a scandal to ask the British ratepayers to give money for further Constabulary accommodation in that country. In point of fact, the greater part of the Constabulary barracks

    971
    ought to be closed, and the fellows who inhabited them turned about their business. The Constabulary were a parcel of hulking fellows, who took the public money, and gave no real work in return. Ho, therefore, moved the reduction of the Vote by £577, being the sum required for the purchase of a site for additional police accommodation at Mullingar.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,923, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the Erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had raised the question of the Mullingar Barracks. If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was rightly informed, there was already a police barracks in Mullingar before the erection of this new police barracks. There were, therefore, two police barracks for a very small town—a town which, in England, would be called a viliage. The poverty-stricken people were surprised, if they happened to sit up late at night, to see the extraordinary festivities which had now become a regular portion of the routine at the Mullingar Police Barracks. He was credibly informed that the police inhabiting these quarters had a ball once a-week, and that all the servant girls in the neighbourhood were invited to join in the festivities. Such was the work which the Constabulary in Ireland were engaged in doing; and it was to provide additional facilities for this kind of thing that the Committee were now asked to vote £577. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), whether it was the occupants of these barracks, who recently allowed an Emergency man, or some other person under their control, to escape from them, and to run on to a railway tract and to be there killed, or was it the occupants of these premises at Mullingar who, recently, bringing another Emergency man home, got so drunk that an accident befell them, with the result that the Emergency
    972
    man broke his leg? And whether it was true that the Emergency man was borne by his body guard to a quack doctor, whose mode of curing the limb consisted in pouring hot water upon it? Such were the men for whom additional premises at Mullingar had been erected at a cost of £577. He really thought that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who had been in his time an economist, ought to be ashamed to stand sponsor of this item.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not stand sponsor to the policemen, or to the Emergency man the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to. He did not think, moreover, that what the hon. Member had said was at all connected with the finance of the question; neither did he think that if he were to inquire into the character of the policemen in England he would find every one perfect. As he understood the matter, this station was one that was to supply the place of that which had hitherto existed at Mullingar. The site had already been bought, and it had been approved by the Government. The site of the new station was necessary. All the Government could do in regard to public works in Ireland was to take the best advice they could. That they had done in this instance.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Bents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."
    MR. MONKsaid, there was one curious feature of this Supplementary Vote which required some explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). The original sum which was required for the Embassy at Berlin was £19,000; and now the Committee was asked for an additional sum of £50,000. He presumed it was intended to buy the Embassy House. If that were the case, he should like to know what became of the £19,000; whether that was an Estimate with regard to the old Embassy House, or with reference to the purchase of the new one?
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would allow him to supplement what he (Mr. Monk) had said. It was a very curious proceeding to have a Supplementary Estimate larger than the original one. £50,000 was a monstrous addition, and it only showed the necessity and importance of calling the attention of the Government to the mode of making Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had not stated the matter quite correctly. Last Session the Government asked for a Vote of £16,000, not £19,000, on account of the Embassy House at Berlin; and they then submitted a Vote which included a total sum of £50,000. The proposal of the Government last year was to purchase a site in Berlin, at a cost of £13,000, and to erect an Embassy House at a cost of £37,000. That would have put the country to an expense of £50,000 for an Embassy House at Berlin. As the country were paying a rental of £3,000 a-year for the Embassy House, it was supposed to be an advantage to pay £50,000 in erecting a new house—indeed, it was expected that a saving would be effected. Upon that ground, the Committee voted last year a sum of £10,000, on account of a total expenditure of £50,000. Now, without any explanation whatever, in this Supplementary Estimate, the Government came forward with an entirely changed plan. Without offering any explanation to the Committee, they appeared to have entirely thrown overboard their proposal to build a new Embassy House at Berlin. Without the slightest explanation, the Committee were now informed that the Government proposed to purchase the existing Embassy House at a cost of £61,375. If, therefore, this Vote were agreed to, the House of Commons would be voting a sum considerably larger than the one which was asked for in the present year. He felt his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) would at once admit that this was a Vote which demanded very considerable explanation.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had correctly stated the facts. The Committee would recollect that last year the right hon.
    974
    Gentleman the then First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) asked hon. Members to consent to a Vote of £16,000 towards the purchase of a site upon which to build a new Embassy House. The rent of the old Embassy House was £3,000, and that made up a total for that year of £19,000, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had alluded. Since the matter was before the Committee last year, an opportunity was offered to the Government of purchasing outright the existing Embassy House at Berlin at a cost of £61,375. The total sum payable in respect of the whole transaction amounted to £72,428; but the £19,000 which was voted last year reduced it to £53,428. Savings to the extent of £3,428 were expected to be made on other sub-heads, so that the total sum required was £50,000, the amount of the present Vote. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who was at the Office of Works at the time, could explain all the details of the transaction. He (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) might point out that there was not so much difference as at first appeared between the original plan of the Government and that now adopted. The new Embassy House would have taken three years to build, during which time the annual rent would have had to be paid, in addition to the charge for interest. There was, therefore, very little difference between the cost of the two plans. The old Embassy House had been purchased, the money had been paid in accordance with the contract made with the vendors; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had not shown any justification of the change of plan on the part of Her Majesty's Government. All that the Committee had been informed was that the change had cost the country between £10,000 and £15,000 more than the sum stated last year. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) thought the Committee were entitled to hear the reason why the Government plans had been altered, and why they had purchased the Embassy House, which but a few months ago they appeared to have rejected.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the sum proposed to Parliament last year and voted was £13,000 for the site

    975
    for the new Embassy. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Exactly; for the site.] But the cost of the building and the site was estimated at £50,000. It was considered by Lord Ampthill an unwise thing to carry out the plan of erecting a now Embassy on another site; and he, accordingly, at the time strongly recommended the purchase of the existing building. The matter came under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who had to decide as to whether it was advisable to build a new house for the Embassy or to purchase the existing one. They had before them the facts that the purchase of the latter would cost £61,000, and that the new building and its site was estimated to cost only £50,000; but it had also to be taken into account that for the period of three years, during which the new Embassy was being built, the rent of £3,000 a-year would, of course, have to be paid, and the addition of this rent to the estimated cost of £50,000 would practically make the two operations, in point of cost, very much the same thing in the end. Considering that fact, and having regard to the very strong opinion expressed by Lord Ampthill in favour of the existing Embassy, the Government decided to give way in favour of the present plan.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it had always appeared to him that the expenditure in connection with these Embassies was far too great. Our expenditure in this respect was double that of the United States; and he contended that the present proposal to augment the charge for the Embassy House in Berlin was quite uncalled for. At the same time, he believed that this, like all the proposals for economy which emanated from the Government, would result in anything but economy. He was not quite sure that he had correctly followed the explanations of the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), and the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre); but he understood the matter thus. The original proposal was that the new building and site would cost £50,000. The Junior Lord of the Treasury told the Committee that the existing building would cost £72,000; whereas the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Commissioner had just told them that it would cost £61,000.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the figures. The difference between the two sums referred to was caused by the cost of the furniture, which, on the death of Lord Ampthill, it became necessary to buy, as well as to supplement that portion of it which was taken away by Lady Ampthill. It was also necessary to re-paint the building.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it amounted to this—that in addition to the rent of £3,000 a-year the Government had spent £11,000 on furniture for the Embassy. If that was economy, it was of that kind against which he thought it his duty to protest; and if he received the support of any hon. Gentleman lie would have much pleasure in moving the reduction of the Vote.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked, whether the Government had decided upon buying the furniture, and getting the money from Parliament for the purchase of the house without consulting the Ambassador? It was said that Lord Ampthill had been strongly opposed to the building of a new house on another site.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, it seemed to him extraordinary that, when there was so much distress in Ireland and in the country generally, they should be asked for so much money to be spent abroad. At a time like the present, he regarded it as most unfortunate that this and other increased charges on account of Foreign Embassies should come forward. If the money were to be spent in this country, where it would, indeed, be useful during the present distress, the matter would wear a different aspect; but he thought the money would be anything but usefully spent abroad just now.
    THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir Arthur Otway, I should like to say a word or two on this Vote, because when the question first came forward it was within my duty to consider whether it was possible to economize in the matter. The facts were these—that the Embassy House at Berlin could no longer be held on lease; that we were paying for it a rent of £3,000 a-year; and that the house was in a remarkably good position, and very suitable for our requirements. Everyone acquainted with Berlin will know that it is extremely difficult to get a

    977
    good house there—the houses which are ever let being, as a rule, small; and we had therefore to consider whether, being unable to hold the house on lease, we should buy it, or build a new one. There was no other course open; we must either buy or build a house. No one knows better than my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) that if you propose to build a house at a cost of £40,000, you will probably have to spend £60,000 upon it. My right hon. Friend the late Chief Commissioner of Works, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and myself looked carefully into this question; and we came to the conclusion that, taking the facts I have alluded to into account, the most advantageous plan would be to buy the existing Embassy House for £61,000, as the owner was no longer willing to take £3,000 a-year for it. The position, therefore, is that we buy a house for £61,000, instead of hiring one at the rent of £3,000 a-year.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that no answer had been given on the point to which the attention of the Committee had been drawn by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon)—namely, as to whether the Ambassador had been consulted before this very important step was taken? He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Commissioner of Works another question. Had the owner of the house been consulted before coming to Parliament and asking for money for the purchase of the house; and, further, he would ask, if the sum named was the whole of the expenditure that would be required for this transaction? He considered that there was some force in the complaint urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) that, at a time when rigid economy was necessary on account of the distress existing at home, we should be preparing to squander large sums of money abroad. From the extravagant manner in which these Embassies were paid for by us, he imagined that the Representatives of other countries would have some difficulty in getting their Governments to bear such a burden as this house would cast upon us. If the present practice were continued it would soon be as costly to provide for an Ambassador as it was to house a Bishop, less than £100,000
    978
    being thought in this country wholly insufficient.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that at the time at which the Vote of last year was proposed to the House the proprietor of the house at Berlin had declined to sell it; and as he would not consent to continue the lease, it became necessary to take steps for providing a house for the Embassy elsewhere. But at a later period, when the Government proposed to build a house for the Ambassador, the owner changed his mind, and informed Lord Ampthill that he was prepared to sell. It was under those circumstances that Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the wisest course would be to buy the existing house. He might mention that the German Embassy at Vienna cost upwards of £70,000, and that the Saxon Minister at Berlin was nearly as well lodged as the British Ambassador.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had been in Saxony for some time, and he did not think there was a single Saxon who lived in a house of £3,000 a-year. They had not the money; the Prime Minister lived in a house of £300 a-year. The primary mistake was in allowing £3,000 a-year for the house of the Ambassador at Berlin. Not many years ago, the extreme allowance for such a purpose was £1,000 a-year, since which time the amount had gone up enormously. But the sum named for this house did not represent the whole of what it would cost the country; it would be found that the great mistake in buying the house lay in the fact that a further large sum would have to be spent every year for alterations of various kinds, such as drainage and repairs. Without estimating the expenditure under these heads, he believed they would find that the annual charge for a house of £3,000 a-year would amount to £1,000. He thought that the time would shortly come when we should cease to pay our Ambassadors the excessive salaries which they now received; and when that time arrived, under the present arrangement, there would be this anomaly—that the Ambassador at Berlin would probably be receiving £1,000 a-year as salary, and yet living in a house worth £3,000 a-year. It would, he thought, have been better to wait for the good times which they hoped for, when our Ambassador at Berlin would

    979
    get a salary of £1,000, and live in a house of £300 or £400 a-year. He did not think it necessary to object to the Vote as a whole; but wished ton. Members on those Benches to do something to show that they protested against the Government coming to the House at one time for £60,000, and the next year asking for this additional sum. Ho hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We are asked why we do not go on paying rent for the Embassy House? We cannot do so, because the owner of the house will not allow it. Moreover, nothing, in my opinion, would be more extravagant than to move from one rented house and to rent another in a city like Berlin, where the number of houses available is extremely small.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should not enter into the discussion as to the most economical plan of settling this matter. His complaint was that the whole truth was not told to the Committee. It was not until the hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) rose that they had any idea that an expenditure of £72,000 had been incurred; and he (Mr. Warton) doubted whether, at that moment, any hon. Member in the House knew what the expenditure really was. If it were true that the sums named had been spent on furniture, why were not the figures honestly stated in the Estimates? He did not think it right that the matter should be placed in this way before the Committee; be complained that a truthful statement was not made in the Papers before them, and that the facts had to be dragged piecemeal from Ministers one after the other. The statements of the Members of the Government differed largely from that in the Estimates; savings had been mentioned, and furniture was said to have been purchased; but neither of these items were put down; and, in consequence of the way in which the transaction had been placed before them, it was impossible for any Member of the Committee to got an idea of what the total cost of it would be.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he considered it his duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000. The Government had taken a course which he
    980
    could not regard as an economical one. With reference to the Embassy at Berlin, he would remark that it did not appear to him to merit any extra recognition at the present time. Ho thought that all the diplomatic salaries paid were far too great; and he protested, in the name of economy, against the present large and unusual increase.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was anxious to present to the Committee the actual word3 of the late Lord Ampthill, because, as had been stated by his right hon. Friend the late Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), the purchase of the Embassy at Berlin was largely owing to the opinion expressed by Lord Ampthill. The following was an extract from his Correspondence:—
    "I can safely assert that it is impossible to find another house in Berlin for an Embassy as good in every respect as the present one. In the interest of economy, of the Public Service, and of my successors, I would recommend the acceptance of the Duke of Ujest's offer."
    The house was in every way well suited for its purpose, and, like other houses that had been purchased for Ambassadors elsewhere, was a very good investment.
    MR. GILESsaid, he believed that the German Ambassador to this country was lodged quite as well as our Ambassador in Berlin. He (Mr. Giles) was well acquainted with Berlin, and knew that the rents had been raised, and that it was very difficult to get good houses there. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), ho (Mr. Giles) would simply express the hope that the time would never come when this great country would be represented by a person who, with a salary of £1,000, lived in a house of £300 a-year.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 51: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 26.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (6.) £536, House of Commons Offices.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not know whether this Vote had reference to the shorthand writers in the Reporters' Gallery; but, if it did, he wished to express his satisfaction at the decision Mr. Speaker had arrived at to allow the gentlemen of the Press to continue the use of Committee Room "No. 18." He had served on the Committee appointed to inquire into the accommodation given to the reporters, and, with other hon. Members, had been shocked at the small amount of room given to them, and the great inconvenience which they suffered. He, with others, had carefully inquired into the matter; and had recommended that, if possible, a Committee Room should be set aside for the accommodation of the reporters. That recommendation had, unless he was misinformed, been, at all events for the present, set aside by some orders which had been circulated; but it was with great satisfaction that he had heard that, since the issue of those orders, Mr. Speaker had found himself able to allow the reporters to continue the use of the Committee Room.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished, if it were competent for him to do so, to draw the attention of the Representative of the Office of Works to this Vote. First, however, he wished to say that the Government ought either never to have begun giving a subsidy for reports of the proceedings of the House, or ought now to go a great deal further. He held that the reports of the debates in the Houses of Parliament formed part of the history of the country—the most important part of that history. Those who had been compelled to read the thick volumes of Hansard would know that the gentlemen who prepared the reports had much better material to draw upon 20 or 30 years ago than they had now; for, in the days of which he was speaking, Parliamentary debates were reported in the newspapers with great fulness and completeness; whereas hon. Members knew that in the smaller space of the cheap penny papers of today, those reports had to be made very short. He would not go so far as to say
    982
    that the newspapers afforded no materials for supplying a report of Parliamentary proceedings; but he would ask why, seeing that the Government had gone so far, they had not a sufficient staff for reporting all the proceedings? This was the only important Legislature in the world which had not a complete official report of its debates. He did not know whether he should be in Order in the observations he was now about to make. He was glad that the right hon. Gentle man the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) no longer had control of the internal arrangements of the House, partly because the change had given the right hon. Gentleman promotion—for he (Mr. O'Connor) supposed the right hon. Gentleman now held a better Office— and partly because he had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make certain improvements in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman had never done so. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman's Successor would prove a little more amenable to reason. Some hon. Members were compelled to spend in the building the greater part of the 24 hours every day for six months in the year; and they, there fore, had a right to ask that their comfort should be well attended to. He would appeal to the late Chief Commissioner of Works to make one or two reforms. In the first place, he might make the means of communication between the different parts of the House—
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote deals simply with the shorthand writers—? therefore the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the question of the means of communication in the House.
    MR. HIBBERT: I may explain that this Vote is caused by the Autumn Session. It is the additional money paid to the shorthand writers for the additional work they did during the Autumn Session.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £796, Privy Council Office.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: How does it happen that there is no original Estimate at all under this head? It must have been known when that Estimate was prepared that this work would have to be done.
    MR. HIBBERT: The proposal to spend this money in this way was made after the Estimates were laid on the

    983
    Table last year. Previously, statistics were obtained by sending round circulars and forms to be filled up; but it was considered that more trustworthy information as to the produce of the country might be obtained by means of collectors. The system we have adopted has been in operation in Ireland for many years past.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked how the statistics were collected? How did the collectors obtain them—from whom and how?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, there could be no doubt that the new system was much better than the old. The Returns this year were much more satisfactory than those hitherto obtained. Great praise had been given to them, greater care having been bestowed upon their collection than formerly. The collectors were sent round to the different farmers to procure all the information they required.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether the Government would consider the propriety, under the new system, of assimilating the form of Returns in England and Scotland to that of Ireland? It would be a great advantage to have one uniform system in the Three Kingdoms.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the subject would be considered with a view of taking what steps were possible to carry out the suggestion for uniformity.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,825, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he wished to know whether there was not an item in this Vote for alterations to Gwydyr House in Whitehall; and, whether the cost of those alterations was to be defrayed by the State?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that the money was now being paid by the country; but it would be refunded by the City of London Parochial Charities. The alterations had been rendered necessary by the appointment of an increased staff in connection with the Parochial Charities.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: There has been no transfer of the administration of the Parochial Charities to the State?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will these changes last for ever, or only for a certain time?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Only for a certain time. Either the total sum will be paid out of the funds of the Charities, or a rate will be levied for 10 years, which will cover the whole amount.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, this Vote for the Charity Commissioners seemed an ever-increasing one. It was now £37,000 per annum, and he ventured to say there was no Department giving greater dissatisfaction in the country. This dissatisfaction was not often expressed, it was true; but that was because it was felt amongst poor people, who had no means of expressing it. They had only to suffer, and suffer often very grievously, through the policy adopted by the Charity Commissioners. He considered it was time that this centralization, in regard to the administration of Charities, should be put an end to, and that the localities—or, rather, the poor in them—should be protected by having their concerns managed by their Representatives. The people whom the Charities affected should not be at the mercy of some half-dozen men sitting at Whitehall. To illustrate what he meant, and bring the subject home, he would mention the case of Sutton Coldfield, near Birmingham. The poor people, from time immemorial, or for a very large number of years, had enjoyed certain privileges and rights. Those privileges and rights consisted of gifts of various kinds, such as boots and shoes, and medical attendance when sick, which was a very important privilege. What were the Charity Comnmissioners doing at Sutton Coldfield?—and, in mentioning that case, and that scheme, he was only giving an instance of what the Commissioners were doing, and had been doing, throughout the country. They were taking away the ancient privileges of the poor to a large extent, and were about to establish a high school for girls which could only be taken advantage of by the wealthier classes. He had not the least objection to a high school for girls. On the contrary, he believed in schools of the kind. He did not think, however, that they

    985
    should be established by the confiscation of the rights and privileges of the poor. But to show the contempt with which the Charity Commissioners treated all the wishes and the representations of the Local Authorities and the people in the localities, he might say that the members of the old Governing Body of Sutton Ooldfield—which place was about to be incorporated—had been joined by representatives of the people appointed in public meeting, and had met to confer together on the new scheme for the Sutton Coldfield Charities. This representative Body had agreed — as he thought, too freely—to surrender up certain rights belonging to the poor; but though they had agreed to go a long way in that direction, the Charity Commissioners were not satisfied without having a far larger share taken away from the poor. It came to this— that a gentleman had the matter in hand who knew nothing about the locality, and was seeking to over-ride by his will the combined opinion of all concerned in the locality. The people of the country were having their eyes opened to the action of the Commissioners in these matters; and the time, he thought, would soon come when they would be determined that this system of centralization should no longer exist. The matter was one which the Government should take up, for, so far as he could find out, the Charity Commissioners were responsible to no one. They could do any amount of evil in small places where public opinion did not exist, or where it was powerless. They had their own way, and the poorer classes had only to suffer. Then the Charity Commissioners had the administration of the Allotments Extension Act. He believed that in every other Department of the Government, without exception, when a new Act of Parliament was passed, to come under its administration, the rule was for the Department to communicate with those concerned, informing them of the passage of the Act, and giving directions concerning it. Not only had the Charity Commissioners neglected to do that, but, when asked to do it, they had sheltered themselves under the declaration that the Act of Parliament did not require them to do it. That, with other things, indicated, if not hostility, at any rate indifference, to an Act which was in-
    986
    tended to, and did, confer great benefits upon the poorer classes in those districts which needed help. He could assure the Committee that the times were not so good in these rural districts and poor places to admit of any of the small charities they had being taken away from them; and he could further assure the Committee that if Parliament did not protect these places the Charity Commissioners would not. The present policy of Parliament was being rebelled against; and he knew of no action anywhere which was creating such grave dissatisfaction as the action of the Charity Commissioners. Take the case of the Allotments Act. Only this week he had written to, or directed a letter to be sent to, the Charity Commissioners, informing them of certain action which was about to be taken by some trustees of charity lands. He had not been aware that this Vote was coming on tonight, otherwise he would have provided himself with the particulars of this case. The place, he believed, was somewhere in Norfolk—at any rate, it was a place where the trustees of charity lands were about to let those lands by auction in defiance of the 4th clause of Allotments Act, which directly required them to offer their lands to the labouring poor of the district. They had written to the Commissioners—it was not the first, nor the second, nor the third time they had done the same in other places—asking them not to allow this action of the trustees. He did not know whether any reply had been received during the last two days. Certainly, up to Thursday none had come. The auction was to take place on Monday next; and, if it was not stopped, these lands would be placed beyond the reach of those poor people for the length of time—whether short or long—for which the lands were held under the terms of the letting. If the House of Commons passed a law, was it going to have it carried out, or was the Government going to sit still and see the Department which had the administration of that law defy and defeat the Act? If it did, hon. Members who felt as he did on this question could only appeal to the constituencies to know if that sort of thing was to go on. He could occupy the time of the Committee for a much longer period in simply giving a list of the grievances which

    987
    these poor people had suffered at the hands of the Charity Commissioners; but he would not do so. There wore other charges to be brought against the Commissioners, which would come under the head of positive breaches of faith. He would again allude to a case which was coming up and would continue to come up until it was satisfactorily settled—namely, the case of the Tonbridge School. That school, according to the original scheme, was to have been in or near the town of Tonbridge. A short time after that scheme was settled on, the Charity Commissioners sprung a mine on the Tonbridge people, and it was found that in the scheme had been placed the words "in or near the parish of Tonbridge," and the consequence was that the school would be placed in the town of Tonbridge Wells. The Skinners' Company had given £10,000 of their own money, and another £10,000, making in all £20,000, on the faith of the school being placed in Tonbridge. He contended, therefore, that what the Charity Commissioners had done—or what they proposed to do in this matter, for the transaction was not yet completed—amounted to nothing less than a breach of faith. The action of the Commissioners was affecting the public good, and particularly the interests of the poor. He was, of course, not bringing personal charges against the Commissioners, but only condemning their policy. Doubtless, they themselves considered their policy to be right, but he conceived it to be wrong; and he and those who acted with him, who knew that the poor classes were suffering extremely from the operation of that policy, had a right again and again to impeach that policy until the House and the country saw that it was time to put an end to the system, as foreign to our ideas of right, and as unnecessarily expensive. As a business man, he ventured to assert that all the work for which they paid this £37,000 they could easily get satisfactorily performed if they reduced the sum by £20,000. Tie would move that the Vote be reduced by £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £825, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of
    988
    the Charity Commission for England and Wales."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, ho entirely sympathized with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) in thinking that the Endowed Schools Commission was one of the most unjust and injurious Commissions in the country. It was continually shifting up the recipients of the benefits of endowments—that was to say, endowments which had been intended for the poor were shifted up to the higher classes. As, however, he understood the Vote was not to be increased, he hoped the hon. Member would rest satisfied with the protest he had made, and would refrain from going to a division.
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, he thought that what had been pointed out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) was really deserving of the attention of the Committee. When, originally, the Endowed Schools Commission was appointed, its operations were confined within a comparatively small compass. Year by year its operations had been extending, and the interests at stake and affected wore now very great. The work of the Endowed Schools Department had passed into the hands of the Commissioners. They had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a short time ago that the work in connection with the London Charities would only continue for a short period. So they were assured when the operations of the Endowed Schools Commission were started. He (Mr. Illing-worth) remembered his right hon. Colleague (Mr. W. E. Forster) stating that the work of the Commission would be completed in three or four years, and yet the work of the Commission was going on still. He would venture to point out that the work of this Department was very anomalous. In connection with almost all other Departments of the State there was someone in the House who would accept responsibility for the work done. There was the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), who was now in his place. He (Mr. Illingworth) would be the last man in the world to suggest that, in addition to the work in his hands, the right hon. Gentleman should be asked to attend to the details

    989
    of this Department; but, at the same time, it was absolutely necessary that the House of Commons should fix the responsibility somewhere. [Laughter The right hon. Gentleman smiled at the excuse he (Mr. Illingworth) was furnishing for him; but he had heard from the right hon. Gentleman's own lips in that House, in regard to the Commission, declarations of this sort—"Of course it was impossible for him to know everything that was going on in regard to the administration of this Department." The work the Department was doing was very important nationally, and the policy of the Commissioners was a matter of the greatest interest to the people of the country. He did not say he went, in details, with his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings). He thought a Commission of this character would be useful; but it ought to be kept within strict limits in order to carry out the principles laid down by legislation. In all questions of finance—questions affecting the administration of the funds—Parliament should break up the work of the Commission and delegate the main part of it to the local bodies in the country. He wished to ask this. If Parliament had deliberately sanctioned and given over to the municipalities of the country power to deal with rates amounting to hundreds or thousands a-year, in particular municipalities, how was it to be made out that these same municipalities were incapable of dealing with these paltry little trusts? It was true that Parliament had laid down the lines on which public money should be spent; and, in the same way, it seemed to him that Parliament had done everything that was necessary when it had indicated the way in which the funds of these trusts should be expended. Now, there were two Commissions in this anomalous position, and in regard to which the House of Commons had no direct power. They all knew it was very hard work for Parliament even to control the Departments over which it had substantial and immediate control; but it was impossible for it to exercise control with regard to this Commission, and that even older one which it had on its hands—namely, the Ecclesiastical Commission. Take the personnel of the Commission. There had been complaints—well-grounded and wide-spread complaints—on this head, since almost
    990
    The creation of the Commission. There used to be, practically, a religious test applied, marking down that no Dissenter was to be regarded as a fit man to be on the Commission. Administration after Administration, year after year, had been applied to to break down this test, applied in such a paltry spirit. A large and influential class of Her Majesty's subjects—a class largely interested in the trusts, and very materially affected by the operations of the Commissioners—were without representation on the Commission. Ultimately a temporary Commissioner was appointed from that body— appointed to a position than which there were one or more larger positions open to him. Now, he, for one, thought a very important change in the character and working of this Commission and also of the Ecclesiastical Commission was necessary; and he hoped the Government would take the advice given to-night as being indicative of the very strong feeling prevalent in the country in regard to the matter. If the hour were not so late, and other Business were not before them, he should venture to support what he had already said by a statement of grievances which had been brought under his notice in different parts of the country. It was a disgrace to the British people, or, at any rate, to the British Parliament, that they tolerated the one-sided and arbitrary dealings of the present Charity Commission. The paltry details into which they entered, the arbitrary decisions at which they arrived, and the trouble which they gave trustees, went to show it was high time there should be something like a radical reform in the Charity Commission.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he did not intend to waste the time of the Committee by entering at length into the doings of the Charity Commission. He desired, however, to express his opinion that much good would result from the appointment of a Minister responsible for the Charity Commission. He had always been struck by the great difficulty of transferring the powers of the Commission to local bodies. The functions of the Charity Commission were really those of a Court of Law and Equity, and he failed to see it would be possible to transfer such functions to municipal bodies. He hoped the views which had been expressed by his hon.

    991
    Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) with regard to the eleemosynary duties discharged by the Commission were not likely to find general acceptance. The duties of the Charity Commission were the result of the labours of some of the ablest and most learned and most distinguished men of the last 30 or 40 years; and any hon. Gentleman who took the trouble to examine Lord Brougham's Report and the proceedings of the subsequent Commissions would find it was utterly impossible to revert to the old and iniquitous state of things, a state of things which the country unanimously condemned.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) would not persist in the Motion he had made, but would be satisfied with the protest ho had made respecting the dealings of the Charity Commission. He (Mr. Hibbert) knew the hon. Gentleman held very strong opinions on the question; but a Committee had sat upon the subject, and he should have thought his hon. Friend would have been satisfied with the long inquiry which the Committee held. He believed that the Committee approved of the working of the Charity Commission. He could not avoid saying that, to a certain extent, he sympathized with that part of his hon. Friend's speech in which he said it was most-desirable that there should be some Department of the State responsible for the work of the Commission. He quite agreed that if some responsible Department of State could represent the Charity Commission, great good would accrue. At present, he failed to see that any bodies in the country were fitted to undertake the work of the Commission. Probably, when they got a proper system of local government they might be able to transfer to the County Boards some part of the work that was now done by the Commission. Reference had also been made to the working of the Allotments Act. As a matter of fact, he gave his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) every assistance in the carrying of that Act, and he had always wished to see it carried out in the best way possible. At the same time, he could not avoid drawing his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the present Estimate was for the salaries of the Endowed Schools Commissioners—for three months' sala-
    992
    ries—which could not be included in the Vote which was brought forward during last Session; and, therefore, as this was merely a carrying out of the Vote of last Session, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thanked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) for the very satisfactory manner in which he had alluded to the possibility of placing the duties of the Charity Commission in the hands of the rural municipalities, which it was hoped would shortly be created. He ventured to say that nothing short of that would satisfy the electors of those rural municipalities, for this was becoming—very fast becoming—little short of a national question. He felt sure that nothing short of putting the interests of localities in the hands of the representatives of localities would satisfy the people. He desired to say a word or two with regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). He (Mr. Jesse Collings) was somewhat ridiculed because he upheld so-called charities, and ho wanted to make himself thoroughly understood. He did not wish to maintain any particular form of charity. If it was thought demoralizing to give boots and clothes to the children of the poor, let the system be altered; but do not take away the charity altogether; do not take away from the poor the proceeds of charities which belonged to the poor, and had been enjoyed by the poor for generations—do not take them away and give them to the higher classes. His hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) were afraid the poor would be demoralized by having these gifts made to them, yet they did not seem afraid that the rich would be demoralized by their children getting an education worth £20 a-year for £10. In the case of the wealthy classes, the demoralization ought to be much greater, because many of them could afford to pay the £20. He was not objecting to free education; he should like to see all education free; but he objected to take free education away from the poor on the plea of its demoralizing character, and giving it to the wealthier classes. In the case of a great endowment at Birmingham, of which he was a Go-

    993
    vernor, he had seen boys coming on horseback and in carriages from mansions—coming to have free teaching and a splendid educational banquet, while the poor were not allowed to pick up the crumbs which fell from the table. For generations this had gone on, and not a single word had been said about demoralization; but the moment the Education Act of 1870 was passed, and thereby opened the door by which the poor could come in to enjoy this better education, the Charity Commissioners stepped in and put up the barrier of payment; and they did it because, in their opinion, it would be demoralizing to the poor if they should have a free education. It was high time that they should get rid of the cant as to the demoralizing effect of these gifts upon the poor. That these gifts should be confiscated, or taken from the poor, and granted to people who were well able to pay for them, was an increasing grievance throughout the country. This was a matter which he hoped both sides of the House would unite in rectifying, and he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) that there were no means of protecting the privileges and, he would say, the property of these poor people, but by taking them out of the hands of a centralized body, and placing them in the hands of the representatives of localities. It was a farce to suppose that half-a-dozen men sitting in Whitehall could know all about the position and circumstances of 20,000 parishes in the country, and could regulate everything for the best. The Commissioners were partial in their election of trustees. They did not want trustees who represented the people, but trustees who represented their — the Commissioners' own—policy; and if they could not find men in the locality to represent their policy, they went miles away to find them. He again thanked his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) for alluding to the possibility, in the promised reform of county government, of placing the management of these things in the hands of rural municipalities. Having received from the hon. Gentleman such an important suggestion, a suggestion which he hoped would mature and ultimately be adopted, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (9.) £3,720, Local Government Board.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he noticed that there was a charge of £2,600 for Poor Law Medical Officers. Was that a permanent charge, or was it an increase during last year?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, it was a self-acting increase. It was one of those unfortunate contributions from the public Treasury towards several salaries, without any will or act on the part of the Government. These were contributions which many of them desired to put an end to; for as long as they went on it was not certain what the amount of the charge would be.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £6,730, Patent Office, &c.
    MR. MOLLOYasked, what the receipts, in the shape of fees in the Patent Office during the period which this Vote covered, amounted to?
    MR. HIBBERT,in reply, said, he was sorry he was not able to give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) the information he desired; he would, however, obtain it, and very gladly supply it to the hon. Member. The increased, payment was entirely owing to the increased number of applications for patents.
    MR. MOLLOYasked, if patents were sent over to Dublin? A few books were sent over occasionally; but there was no public library. A considerable part of this large sum went towards the maintenance of the Patent Library in this country. The library was open to the public without payment. Similar facilities, however, were not given to the public in Dublin. Sanitary works, or works useful to those engaged in building, were not supplied in Dublin. Of course, he did not object to the facilities given to the public in England; but all he desired was that the same facilities should be afforded to the Dublin public. Could the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) say whether patent works were supplied to some library in Dublin where they were open without payment to mechanics and others interested in them?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that he lately put some questions in the House to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hibbert's) Predecessor (Mr. Courtney) with reference to the incompleteness of the indices in the

    995
    Record Office in Dublin. He had found that the indices were very incomplete indeed. The point was really this—that if, in Dublin, or in any other part of Ireland, an inventor, or a person who imagined himself to be an inventor, desired to compare his work, to ascertain whether he had been anticipated by an earlier inventor, he found very great difficulty indeed. He believed that in most cases such persons had to engage professional help; and in some cases they had even to send to London. The Irish Members objected to this state of things; and they would resist the regular Estimate unless they were assured that the facilities for searching patents in Dublin should be put on the same level as those in London.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should be glad to do what ho could to give the same facilities for search in Dublin as in England. He was rather surprised to hear there was no Library of Patents in Dublin.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the library was there; but it was not perfectly indexed.
    MR. HIBBERTpromised to inquire into the matter; and he reminded hon. Gentlemen that when the Patents Bill was passing through the House, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said his intention was to give great facilities for search to every person.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the library in Dublin was not of the same benefit to the public as the one in London was. It would be extremely useful to persons engaged in scientific work, or in chemistry, if there was in Dublin a library such as was attached to the Patent Office in Chancery Lane. At the latter place a person could find the records not only of the English patents, but of those of other countries—America, Germany, France, Italy, and so on—and, besides, there was a large general library for reference. Those who were engaged in making improvements in machinery, or in regard to the manufacturing industries of the country, had not the means, as a rule, of purchasing books which would enable them to judge of the value of certain inventions. Practically speaking, the libraries in Dublin were not open to the working public. He and his hon. Friends wanted that something of the same value as that in London should be open to the mechanic
    996
    class in Dublin, and the assurance they asked from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) was that he would see that steps were taken to improve the facilities, in this respect, afforded to the public in Dublin. He (Mr. Molloy) would bring the matter up again on the detailed Estimates. Of course, he did not say that the library in Dublin should be equal in every respect to that in Chancery Lane.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would see what could be done to provide in Dublin the facilities suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy). The library in Chancery Lane was, of course, much superior to anything there was in any other part of England, and he could not promise that the Dublin library should be made as complete as that.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked for an explanation of the item of £229 as a contribution to the International Bureau. This appeared to be a fresh Vote altogether, as there was no original Estimate. He noticed that there was to be an annual subscription to the Bureau of £150; but there was nothing to show what amount the country would be liable for under an arrangement which seemed to have been arrived at. What expenses would fall on the country with reference to this Bureau?
    MR. HIBBERT: £150 per annum.
    MR. GORSTsaid, in these matters it was usual to give an estimate of the expenditure which would be involved. It appeared there was to be an annual subscription of £150. There were also some preliminary expanses in connection with the Central Patents Bureau at Berne. The question was what would be the final charge which would be imposed on the public by reason of the "adhesion of Her Majesty's Government to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property?"
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was shown in the Vote that the annual subscription would be £150. The remaining part of the £229 was spent in expenses before the Bureau was established.
    MR. TOMLINSON: What is the object of this Bureau?
    MR. HIBBERT: It explains itself. It is an International Bureau of Patents.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had lost sight of the point raised by the hon.

    997
    Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) in regard to the patent library in Dublin. It was much easier for Manchester men, for instance, to come up to London to search the records than Dublin men, and therefore he thought there should be in Dublin some special means for search, something like what there were in Chancery Lane. He did not think there ought to be a better library in Dublin than there was in Chancery Lane; but in Dublin there was nothing of the kind at all.
    MR. HIBBEETsaid, he wished to make himself thoroughly understood. He could not give a pledge that in Dublin there should be a library equal to that in Chancery Lane; but he would do what he could to give the facilities asked for.
    MR. MOLLOYthanked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) for what he had said. It was clear it was too much to ask for an exact copy of the Chancery Lane Library; but what he suggested was that the indices in Dublin should be as perfect as they were here, that there should also be copies of the records of the Patent Offices of other countries, and that there should be such books of reference as were necessary for ordinary needs.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £15,383, Stationery and Printing.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) for an explanation of the item for printing for Public Departments. He noticed that the additional sum required was £14,000. The original Estimate was £159,000; the total now was £173,000. Perhaps his hon. Friend would say why so large an additional sum was required?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it would assist the Committee very much in the discussion of this Vote if they had before them the Report of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) whether the Report of the hon. Member was complete; and, if so, whether, and when, it would be laid before Parliament? Then there was only one other question he wished to ask his hon. Friend, but it was of a very curious
    998
    character. There was in this Vote, under the head of "Incidental Expenses," a charge of £820 for "Arrears of preparation of 800 tons of waste paper for sale in the open market." That was about 1s. a-cwt. If that was the charge for the arrears of preparation, what had been the total sum for the preparation of the 800 tons; and when the transaction was complete, what would be the advantage to Her Majesty's Treasury?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Fletcher), he was obliged to admit that the increase of £14,000 for the printing for Public Departments arose from the fact that the original Estimate was cut down too much. With respect to the question just asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), he might say that the Report which had been prepared by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was complete, and would be laid on the Table of the House in a few days. He was certain that it would have the very good effect of inducing economy in various Departments of the State. With respect to the large quantity of waste paper, to which attention had been called, he had himself been very much surprised at this item, and had inquired into the circumstances, with the result that he found it was necessary, before the paper could be sold for anything like a satisfactory sum, that it should be torn into small pieces, which operation, it appeared, had been originally done by prisoners. Owing, however, to the fact of the prisoners being occupied with other work, their labour was not now available for the purpose, and it had to be carried out by others.
    Vote agreed to.
    (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,271, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. HIBBERT: I hope the hon. Member will allow us to finish Class II., of which there are only two Votes remaining.
    COLONEL NOLANasked, if the sum of £1,271 asked for was on account of the Trawling Commission?
    MR. R. W. DUFF: No, Sir; it has nothing to do with that Commission. The Votes are entirely separate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (13.) £75, Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Hibbert,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  MOTIONS.
    OATHS BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law as to Oaths."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped he was not anticipating his proper opportunity by asking on what day the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) intended to propose the second reading of this Bill? He desired this information in order that the House might have some idea of the time at their disposal for its consideration.
      MR. HOPWOODsaid, that when leave had been obtained for the introduction of the Bill, a reasonable time would certainly be given for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law as to Oaths.
      Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, Mr.
      1000
      CHAELES RUSSELL, Mr. NOEL, Mr. PENNINGTON, and Mr. ARTHUR ELLIOT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 62.]

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Law affecting the Registration of Occupation Voters in counties and boroughs, and for other purposes."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. SEXTON: I presume this Bill is brought forward for the purpose of making the registration suit the extended franchise. Does it extend to Ireland?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The Act will not extend to Ireland. The Bill is merely for the purpose of assimilating the registration of borough occupation voters in this country to that existing in counties.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sir CHARLES DILKE, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 63.]

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND).

    APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the operation of the existing Law regulating Salmon and Trout Fishing in Ireland, and to Report whether any Amendments in the Laware desirable."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    MR. SEXTON: I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how many Members will be placed on this Committee, and when it will be appointed?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Ample Notice will be given on the subject.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CORN SALES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RANKIN, Bill to provide for greater uniformity in the Sale of Corn throughout Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RANKIN, Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, Mr. BIDDELL, Mr. DUCKHAM, Mr. DAVENPORT, and Mr. WILLIAMSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 57.]

    SITES FOR PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BROADHURST, Bill to facilitate the acquisition of Sites for Places of Religious Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. BORLASE, Mr. BURT, Mr. ALEXANDER M'ARTHUR, and Mr. WEBSTER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 58.]

    EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Bill to amend "The Explosive Substances Act, 1883," ordered to be brought in by Sir HERBERT MAXWELL and Lord ALGERNON PERCY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 59.]

    PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Private Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and to make other and more suitable provision for Paying Patients, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Mr. MAYNE, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. RICHARD POWER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 60.]

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BURT, Bill to amend "The Employers' Liability Act, 1880," ordered to be brought in by Mr. BURT, Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. DICK PEDDIE, Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Mr. PASSMORE EDWARDS, and Mr. STEWART MAC-LIVER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 61.]

    MUNICIPAL VOTERS (RELIEF) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to relieve Municipal Voters from being disqualified in consequence of letting their dwelling houses for short periods, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sir CHARLES DILKE, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 64.]

    LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HAR-COURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 65.]

    CORPORATE PROPERTY SECURITY BILL.
    On Motion of Sir CHARLES DILKE, Bill for the better securing their Property to Corporate and quasi-Corporate Associations, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES DILKE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
    Bill Presented, and read the first time. [Bill 66.]
    House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading— Ecclesiastical Commissioners * (17).
EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—DEATH OF GENERAL SIR HERBERT STEWART AND GENERAL EARLE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT HAEDINGEasked, Whether the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War had any further information to communicate to the House relative to the position of General Buller's Force in the Soudan?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I have no further information beyond what I stated to your Lordships yesterday in regard to that Force; but before I sit down I have an extremely melancholy task to perform. I think it is my duty to inform the House of the latest information we have received from the seat of war, and that a telegram was received to-day from Lord Wolseley; and the best way I can communicate the news is by reading the telegram, which is as follows:—
  "Korti, Feb. 19, 1885.
  "It is my most painful duty to announce to you the death of Sir Herbert Stewart, at 5 P.M. on the 16th instant, from the effects of the wound received in the action of the 19th ultimo. Colonel Talbot, in reporting this sad event to me, says:—'I beg to be allowed to express the deep grief of all ranks who have had the privilege of serving under this distinguished officer, especially of those who have so lately followed him into action, and also their sense of the great loss which they, the Army generally, and

  899
  the country have sustained.' He was to be buried by the soldiers whom he so recently led to victory at the entrance to the valley leading to the Gakdul Wells. No braver soldier or more brilliant leader of men ever wore the Queen's uniform. England can ill afford the loss of this young General, while his death robs me of the services of a dear friend and of a dear comrade. All the other sick and wounded are well."
  I am unwilling to mar, by any words of mine, the effect of this most touching message, every sentence of which will find an echo in the hearts of all who read it. In a very brief period, the Army and the country have had to mourn the loss of two of its most able Generals, two of its bravest soldiers, and two of its truest men. General Stewart and General Earle died as true soldiers, leading their men to victories gained against fearful odds. It was by the skilful disposition of their troops that those victories wore gained, and gained all too dearly by the loss of two such Generals. My Lords, the country and the Army have to mourn the loss of two able men and soldiers whom we can ill spare. To the deep grief of their relatives it may be, at least, some alleviation to feel that their sorrows and their losses are participated in by the Army and the country at large.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without paying my tribute of respect to the memory of that gallant soldier, the news of whose death has just been communicated to your Lordships by the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley). A finer soldier never existed in Her Majesty's Service. He was a young officer who, by his own merits and his personal bravery, had brought himself into a prominent position in the Army much earlier than usually happens in the ordinary course of events. I take this opportunity, also, of expressing my sense of the gallantry and high conduct of General Earle. Both those officers have served their Queen and country with that distinction and heroism, which, I am sure, is so dear to, and animates tire heart of, every Englishman if in a position to show it. They have had that opportunity, they have nobly carried out their duty, and they have fallen in the service of their Queen and country. The Army is proud of such men, and I think the country must also be proud to see such men in her Army. I also wish to
  900
  take this opportunity of referring to another brave officer. I fear there is now little hope of the safety of General Gordon. I would say that these were three of the finest soldiers that England ever produced from her earliest history, and the country greatly mourns their loss. Everyone in this campaign has done his duty; and certainly no man has done his duty more honestly, fearlessly, and conscientiously than the late General Gordon. Whether in China or the Soudan, his power was most remarkable; while as to his merits we know what he did in the Soudan, and that, as to his powers of controlling men, they were most remarkable, and have never been surpassed. In his case, as in the case of the other two distinguished officers I have mentioned, I must express, on the part of the Army, my sincere and deep sympathy and regret at the loss which the Army, Her Majesty, and the country have sustained.

ARMY RESERVE FORCE—THE MILITIA.

  MESSAGES FROM HER MAJESTY.
  The following Messages were delivered by The Earl GRANVILLE, and read by The LORD CHANCELLOR:—
  VICTORIA R.
  The present state of public affairs in the Soudan, and the necessity in connexion therewith of taking stops for the defence of Egypt and for the protection of the interests of the Empire, having constituted in the opinion of Her Majesty a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Military Service; and, therefore, in pursuance of these Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Lords that Her Majesty has by Proclamation directed that certain persons who would otherwise be entitled, in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve, shall continue in army service for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient.
  V. R.
  VICTORIA R.
  The present state of public affairs in the Soudan, and the necessity in connexion therewith of taking steps for the defence of Egypt and

  901
  for the protection of the interests of the Empire, haying constituted in the opinion of Her Majesty a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that he-half, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Military Service; and, therefore, in pursuance of these Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Lords that Her Majesty has by Proclamation ordered the embodiment of Militia.
  V. R.

EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—MILITARY CO-OPERATION OF THE COLONIES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,who had on the Paper the following Notice:—
  "To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay on the Table copies of despatches or telegrams from any dominion, colony, or dependency of the Crown, offering the assistance of men and military stores, or of ships, to co-operate with the other naval and military forces of the Crown in Egypt and the Soudan or in South Africa; also, copies of the replies which have been sent to such offers?"
  said, that they all had seen, in the ordinary channels of information, mention of offers of military service which had been made by many of their Colonies; and the report that they had been accepted had excited great enthusiasm. Ho supposed that there were none who did not feel prouder and happier in the knowledge of this conclusive evidence that blood was thicker than water, and that the scattered dependencies of the Crown considered the unity of the Empire such an accomplished fact that they desired to share with our troops the honours and dangers of the campaign in which we were engaged. He supposed that their Lordships knew pretty well the terms in which those offers had been made, and generally the answers that had been given; and he felt sure that they would all agree with him that it was only fitting that those offers and those answers should be formally laid upon the Table of the House. He therefore begged to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount has given me, by his Question, an opportunity of expressing, at the earliest pos-
  902
  sible moment, our deep sense of gratitude —I speak on behalf of the Government, and I believe I speak on behalf of the whole people without any distinction of Party—which was felt on account of the various offers of military assistance which have been made by the various Colonies in so patriotic and public-spirited a manner. I should be ready to lay Papers on the Table on the subject; but probably your Lordships will think it better to wait until the Correspondence, which, up to the present time, has been entirely conducted by telegraph, is, if not complete, at all events more complete than it is at present. Perhaps it will be convenient to your Lordships that I should say that the offer of New South Wales was first in point of time. That offer was absolutely accepted, the Colony undertaking to defray the whole expense, and the troops being ready to start. With regard to the other Colonies, the offers of which have come a little later, we are in correspondence about their offers. There are many matters of detail with which it will be necessary for the Military Authorities to deal. All I can now say is that we shall deal with them on the same principle, in the same spirit, and on the same footing; and that we shall do whatever lies in our power to encourage and cultivate that feeling, the display of which we have seen with so much pleasure. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that, apart from the question of increased military strength, the co-operation of our Colonies in matters of this nature carries with it an incalculable moral advantage.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, when the Papers would be laid on the Table? He concluded he was right in assuming, from what the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had said, that the offers had been accepted.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that that was the ease, subject to one slight qualification with regard, to one arm of the Service. In the main their co-operation had been accepted. As to the laying of the Papers on the Table, he thought it would be better to wait till the Correspondence was complete.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: On behalf of the Army, I really hope I may be allowed to express my entire approval of what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has said, because I see that it

  903
  has been stated that the Military Authorities have been making some difficulties in this matter. I can assure your Lordships that the Military Authorities have not made the slightest difficulty. On the contrary, they have appreciated most thoroughly, and as highly as any of your Lordships, these very noble offers on the part of the Colonies, which are so highly creditable to themselves and so gratifying to the whole nation. As the noble Earl has stated, there are some small matters of merely military detail to be seen to before the whole arrangements can be carried out; but the principle of the offer has been cordially and cheerfully accepted by the Military Authorities.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked, whether the artillery offered by New South Wales was field or garrison artillery?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said that it was Hold artillery.
  VISCOUNT BURYasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) to give the names of the other Colonies besides New South Wales offering assistance? The name of one Colony having been mentioned, it would be a graceful compliment to the Colonies who had made offers that their names should also be made public in the same connection.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The other Colonies are Canada, South Australia, Victoria, and Queensland. Perhaps I ought to add that the conditions under which the offers are made vary in the different Colonies.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE (ADMISSION OF STRANGERS)—ADMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE, with reference to a Question which stood on the Paper in the name of Lord Oranmore and Browne—namely,
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is his intention to propose any such new rules relative to admission to the House of Lords as have been made by the Speaker of the House of Commons relative to that House?"
  said, he understood that the Question was to be postponed. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would not think him wanting in respect for the noble Lord if he gave an answer at once in order to save time. It appeared
  904
  that in that matter there was some confusion of authorities, of whom he (Earl Granville) was not one. The authorities were the Lord Chamberlain and the Black Rod, and the police could only act under their directions. If he were asked for advice upon the matter, he would say that the Committee on the Office of Black Rod should meet and consider the subject; and it was in order that that course might be taken without loss of time, if their Lordships agreed to it, that he had now anticipated the putting of the Question by the noble Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, perhaps the noble Earl, as Leader of the House, would make a Motion on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Committee were to meet on Tuesday, when they might take the matter into consideration.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that having been present at a meeting of the Committee of the Black Rod on Thursday, he knew there was only one piece of Business down on the Agenda Paper for the Committee on Tuesday; and it was desirable that the Committee should receive an intimation if any other matter was to be brought before them, as suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Granville).
  EARL GRANVILLEpromised that the requisite Notice should be given accordingly.

  EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—THE PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked, Whether the Government would lay on the Table the letter from General Gordon of the 4th of November last along with the other Papers which had been promised?
  EARL GRANVILLE,in reply, said, that he intended to adhere to the rule of asking the noble Earl to give Notice of his Question. On more than one occasion last year that rule was broken through—by himself, he believed, in one instance—and some public inconvenience had arisen in consequence. He was therefore determined in future, if possible, to keep to it.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that if the letter to which his Question referred was not included in the Papers about to be presented, he would move for its production.

EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE FORCE IN THE SOUDAN.
  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to give Notice of a Question which he would put to the Government on Monday. The British Force now in the Soudan was, in military phrase, in the air, or without a base, and was consequently in some possible danger. He would therefore ask, Whether it was part of the original plan of campaign of Lord Wolseley that a force should be sent to Suakin to co-operate with his force coming up the Nile; and, whether, in the summer of last year, a requisition was sent by Lord Wolseley to the Government, asking that troops should be sent to Suakin forthwith to co-operate with and form a base for his force on the Nile?

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Acts; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of LICHFIELD; read 1". (No. 17.)
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.