Sitting of 6 July 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Votes 15 to 42; CLASS V.—FOREION AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Votes 1 to 3, 5 to 9 Resolutions [June 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—London Livery Companies [210].
Second Heading—Local Loans (Sinking Funds)* [189].
Committee—Copyhold Enfranchisement [26]—R.P.; River Thames (No. 2) (re-comm.)* [92]—R.P.
Committee—Report—East India Loan (£10,000,000) [109]; Shannon Navigation (re-comm.)* [171].
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [182]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Lahourers Act) (No. 5)* [186]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* [201]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9)* [198]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [168]; Local Government Provisional Order (Municipal Corporations)* [199].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Metropolis Management Acts Amendment* [200], and passed.
Withdrawn—Cemeteries* [12]; Copyright (Works of Fine Art)* [84]; Rivers Purification* [190.]

NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Brighton, v. William Thackeray Marriott, esquire, Q.C., Judge Advocate General.
For Chatham, v. John Eldon Gorst, esquire, Q.C., Solicitor General.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
The Right honble. Sir Michael Edward Hicks-Beach, baronet, for Gloucester County (Eastern Division).
The Right honble. Sir Richard Assheton Cross, G.C.B., for Lancaster County (South Western Division).
The Right honble. Frederick Arthur Stanley, for Lancaster County (Northern Division).
The Right honble. William Henry Smith, for Westminster City.
The Right honble. Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill, commonly called Lord Randolph Churchill, for Woodstock Borough.
The Right honble. John James Robert Manners, commonly called Lord John Manners, for Leicester County (Northern Division).
The honble. Edward Stanhope, for Lincoln County (Mid Division).
The Right honble. George Francis Hamilton, commonly called Lord George Hamilton, for Middlesex.
The Right honble. David Robert Plunket, for Trinity College, Dublin.
The Right honble. Arthur James Balfour, for Hertford Borough.
The Right honble. Sir William Hart Dyke, baronet, for Kent County (Mid Division).
Henry Chaplin, esquire, for Lincoln County (Mid Division).
The Right honble. William Heneage Legge, commonly called Viscount Lewisham, for Kent County (Western Division).
Charles Dalrymple, esquire, for Bute County.
The Right honble. Pleydell Bouverie, commonly called Viscount Folkestone, for Wilts County (Southern Division).
Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, esquire, for Eye Borough.
Richard Edward Webster, esquire, for Launceston Borough.
William Hood Walrond, esquire, for Devon County (Eastern Division).
The honble. Sidney Herbert, for Wilton Borough.
Hugh Holmes, esquire, for Trinity College, Dublin.
Edward Green, esquire, for Wakefield Borough.
John Curzon Moore Stevens, esquire, for Devon County (Northern Division).

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (MR. BRADLAUGH).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. BRADLAUGH,one of the Members for Northampton, came to the Table to take the Oath.
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Sir, the first duty which I have to perform is of so unpleasant a nature in itself that I hope that very fact will, in some measure, add force to the appeal which, in any case, I should have ventured to make for the indulgence and support of the House in the position which I now have the honour to occupy. Sir, I feel sure that that indulgence and that support are never denied where they are deserved; and for myself I will only venture to say that I will, at any rate, do my best to imitate, both on this occasion and always, that spirit of courtesy and consideration for the feelings of opponents, which so pre-eminently and so honourably distinguished Lord Iddesleigh during all the time he

  1673
  performed the functions of Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition. Sir, I will endeavour to sustain to the best of my humble power that dignity and those honoured traditions of this House which are dear, I believe, to all its Members. On this occasion I need not detain the House by reiterating arguments that are familiar to us all. On the two last occasions when Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to this House, in February, 1884, this House, by large majorities, adopted the following Resolution, directing:—
  "That Mr. Bradlaugh he not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath proscribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic, c. 19, and 31 & 32 Vic, c 72."
  And further—
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precints of the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(3 Hansard, [284] 480.)
  That, Sir, is the Resolution which it will be my duty to move on the present occasion. It was based on principles which have been repeatedly affirmed by the House of Commons in dealing with this subject. In the first place, it was based upon a feeling strongly entertained, and by no means entirely confined to this side of the House, that Mr. Bradlaugh ought not to be permitted to go: through the form which, in the minds of those who entertain that feeling, is not in reality a taking of the Oath at all. Secondly, it was based upon a belief that it was necessary to guard this House against those repeated and unfortunate interruptions which have taken place in the conduct of its Business. As to the second point, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) admitted, in February, 1884, the reasonableness of the contention of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northeote) who then moved this Resolution. On the first point, the sole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was an argument for delay. He reminded the House that at that time the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who was then Attorney General, had instituted certain proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh, which were still pending, and he invited the House to delay the expression of any opinion until the decision of the Courts had been given;
  1674
  but he admitted, Sir, that if that decision were adverse to Mr. Bradlaugh, that fact would immensely strengthen the position of his opponents. Well, Sir, that decision has now been given—it was given by the Court of Appeal in January last. Notice of appeal against that decision was given by Mr. Bradlaugh; but, so far as I am informed, no steps have been taken to prosecute that appeal, and therefore I may take it that we have before us what is, practically, the final decision of the Courts of Law on the subject. Now, Sir, what is that decision? It is that Mr. Bradlaugh is, by the law of England, a person incapable of taking an Oath; and, therefore, what you, Sir, are asked to do to-day, if you allow the Oath to be administered to Mr. Bradlaugh, is this—you are asked, and this House is asked, to go through what is nothing else than an illegal mockery absolutely without value as conferring upon Mr. Bradlaugh any right to exercise his functions as a Member of this House. What is the reason why Mr. Bradlaugh presents himself on this occasion? I gather that there are two reasons—the first is in consequence of the change of Government. I do not exactly follow his argument in that matter. The second is on account of the blocking of the second reading of the Oaths Bill, brought in by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). That is a reason which I can understand. What it implies is this—it is an attempt by Mr. Bradlaugh, by presenting himself here today, to force the House to proceed with legislation precisely similar in its nature, but wider and more serious in scope, than that which, when supported by the full strength of the late Government, was signally defeated by the House of Commons. I will venture to hope that neither in this matter, nor in the matter of permitting the Oath to be administered to Mr. Bradlaugh, will this House stultify itself by reversing its previous decisions. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Stockport is in his place; but if he is, I should very much like to ask the hon. and learned Member if it is his intention to proceed with the Amendment of which he has given Notice—[Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!]—and, if so, what is the precise meaning of that Amendment? Is the meaning

  1675
  of that Amendment similar to the reason given by Mr. Bradlaugh in his letter to the Chair? Is it the intention of the hon. and learned Member to ask the House to express an opinion upon a Bill which is already on the Notice Paper of the House; or is it the fact, Sir, that the intention of the hon. and learned Member has a wider scope? Does he, in accordance with the terms of his Amendment, really ask this House to resolve generally—
  "That the questions raised concerning promissory and other Oaths call for an early settlement, on wider grounds than the interests of a constituency or its Member, and that this House, believing that legislation is necessary for its settlement, resolves that it be proceeded with as soon as possible P "
  If that is a general assertion of opinion, I would humbly ask the hon. and learned Member, and any of those who may be disposed to support his Amendment, what peculiar value they can attach to such a Resolution? It will not enable them to attain their end;, but, more than that, it is a Resolution which ought not to be proposed in the present condition of the House of Commons, because, Sir, what is the subject with which it deals? It is a subject of the highest importance. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is not confined to the right of a Member of either House of Parliament to substitute an Affirmation for an Oath. It raises the general question of the substitution by anyone, and at any time, of an Affirmation for an Oath at his own will. Well, this House will remember, when the question of the substitution of an Affirmation for an Oath by Members of the House of Commons was raised by the late Government, what a feeling that proposal excited throughout the country. I suppose the country has not been so deeply stirred by anything within the last five years as it was stirred by that proposal. That proposal was defeated in this House by a definite majority in a division—perhaps the largest that has taken place in the whole history of the present House of Commons; and, Sir, I would venture to ask is it reasonable, is it right, is it fair that, in the last weeks of an expiring Parliament, such a question as that should be thrown on the Table of this House? I maintain that it is a question of vast importance to this country. I
  1676
  assert it is a question that should be relegated to the constituencies, and to the new House of Commons which will before long replace us; and I ask the House on this occasion to adhere to its numerous former decisions, and not to reverse them by sanctioning principles against which it has strongly and firmly pronounced. Sir, I beg to move the Resolution which I now place in your hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth affirm the two Resolutions made upon the 11th of February 1884, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the statute 29 Tic. c, 12, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, and directing the Serjeant at Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh. from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.")
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton will now withdraw.
  [Mr. BRADLAUGH withdrew below the Bar, where he remained standing.]
  MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to call attention to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has not left the House. It has always been the custom, as far as the Irish Members have been concerned, when they have been ordered to withdraw, to compel them to withdraw from the House. I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has not withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of compelling the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I directed the hon. Member to withdraw from the Table, and he has complied with the direction of the Chair. It was only in case of a refusal to withdraw, and a disturbance in the House arose, that a Member was compelled to leave the House.
  MR. HEALY: Is it not a Rule of this House, when the conduct of a Member has been called in question, and the Member has been ordered to withdraw, that he is bound to leave the House? Do you, Sir, lay it down as a Rule in future that it is only when a Member has been ordered to withdraw, and he refuses to withdraw, or lest a disturbance should be created, that a Member is obliged to leave the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is now referring to cases in which the Question before the House was the suspension, or the alleged misconduct, of certain Members. That

  1677
  was a very different case. [Cries of "No!"from the Irish Members.]
  MR. PARNELL: I wish, Sir, to call your attention to a precedent which occurred in 1877, when, on the Motion of the present Lord Iddesleigh, in reference to my conduct at a Sitting of the House, I was directed by the then Speaker to withdraw, just in the same way as you have now directed the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) to withdraw. On that occasion I was compelled not only to leave the House, but I was not permitted to go into any part of the House, even into any of the Galleries, until the Motion before the House was disposed of.
  MR. SPEAKER: The case mentioned by the hon. Member is not a parallel case. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), by the courtesy of the House, has been permitted to remain in the House below the Bar, although he is not a full Member of the House, not having taken the Oath of the House. Under these circumstances, unless I am otherwise directed by the House, I think it is sufficient for the hon. Member to withdraw below the Bar while the case affecting him and the constituency he represents is being discussed.
  MR. HOPWOOD,in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words * Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, having informed Mr. Speaker of his intention to come to the Table to he sworn, this House is of opinion that the questions raised concerning promissory and other Oaths call for an early settlement, on wider grounds than the interests of a constituency or its Member, and, believing that legislation is necessary for its settlement, resolves that it be proceeded with as soon as possible,'"
  said, he must congratulate the House, in the first place, upon the conduct of the person concerned in the Motion before it, that person having chivalrously allowed the Members of the Government, who had vacated their seats on appointment to Office, precedence in coming up to the Table. He thought it right to call attention to an act of courtesy on the part of a man who had himself received but scant courtesy at the hands of the House. The manner in which Mr. Bradlaugh had fulfilled the pledges which he had given to the House in the past proved that the
  1678
  House could, without hesitation, accept his pledges now. Mr. Bradlaugh bad undertaken, in face of the House and the public, that, if the Amendment should be carried, he would not intrude himself upon the attention of the House until it should have entered upon that course of legislation which, by agreeing to the Amendment, it would affirm its readiness to accept. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had asked him (Mr. Hopwood) to say what his object was. Well, his object was to promote the cause of religious and political freedom—["Oh, oh!"]—he could not congratulate the Leader of the House upon this, the first occasion when he appeared to marshal his forces, the question upon which he led them being one so greatly concerned with bigotry. ["Oh, oh!"] The question for which he (Mr. Hopwood) demanded a legislative settlement was one which might assume serious aspects, which were little thought of by those who had wantonly raised it. He (Mr. Hopwood) had undertaken to carry on this matter to a wider range than the interests of an individual, or the interests of constituencies. An issue was raised which might affect the administration of justice. The object of any legislation undertaken in the future should be, as it was, by the Bill he had brought forward, endeavoured to effect, to substitute the power to affirm in the place of an Oath in every case in which the obligation to take an Oath was imposed upon a man by law. As to the decision of the Court of Appeal, upon which the right hon. Gentleman took his stand, he would advert to some of the consequences that might flow from it. The Master of the Rolls, in delivering his judgment, said, with reference to Mr. Bradlaugh—
  "I must declare my view that if a person were to sit and vote in the House of Commons after having gone through all the formalities, without having described to the House his state of mind, although the House of Commons had no cognizance of his state of mind, yet if afterwards it came to the knowledge of the Attorney General, by proof upon which he thought it right to act, that that person had so sat or voted in Parliament, having gone through all the formalities without having described his state of mind, if a jury should so find, I am of opinion that all these penalties would be incurred. This shows the severity of the Act of Parliament."

  1679
  Now, how would the Act thus interpreted apply? Supposing a Member of the House, in familiar discourse, or under the temptation of a convivial moment, were to express himself in such a manner as to show his religious ideas to be loose, anybody would be entitled to challenge his Oath, and to insist that the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute him. In fact, there could be no limit to inquisitorial investigation on the Motion of persons stirred perhaps by a just conviction, or perhaps by narrow religious bigotry. According to the opinion of the learned Judge, if a juryman, upon whose verdict the life of an accused person depended, should, subsequently to the trial, appear to be wanting in religious belief, the question of the validity of his oath might be raised, and the verdict might be set aside. A question analogous was raised in connection with the disabilities of Quakers in 1833, where a Quaker, having been put on the jury, and as a juryman found a man guilty of a capital offence, the Judges decided that there had been a mistrial, and that the verdict must be set aside. A man who was a profligate, and whose language might shock everybody who came near him, might take the Oath in that House, and nobody could challenge him; but a man of irreproachable and blameless habit of life might come up to the Table in order to take the Oath, and if he had had the frankness to say that he entertained doubts as to the all-presiding Creator of the world, he might be marked out by a spiteful person as unfit to take the Oath. The unworthy might thus take the Oath and swear as much as he pleased, while the worthy might be prevented from doing so. [Laughter] He did not envy Gentlemen opposite who laughed, and thought themselves so very superior to the hon. Member for Northampton. It should be noticed that the effect of the decision of the Judges to which he had referred might extend to courts martial, and that the evidence of soldiers might be invalidated, and the result set aside, on the ground that their religious belief was not such as to justify their taking the Oath. The Judges held that this religious belief must be a belief in a Deity who rewarded or punished. This definition would exclude Agnostics, Positivists, and others, many of whom believed in an all-per-
  1680
  vading Presence, acting in accordance with general laws, but not interfering with special intervention; but believers in a God, who was really more a devil according to our notions—he alluded to the beliefs held by Natives in some of our dependencies—would be competent to swear, because they believed in the distribution of rewards and punishments by their Deity. In his view, Agnostics and Positivists were men perfectly capable of doing their duty to the State. The Judges had laid down the law, and the result was that a man who professed these opinions could not take the Oath; and if he did so, even with all the sanctions of the House, or even in obedience to a Resolution of the House, it was of no effect. That was the state to which their progress in legislation had reduced them, and he proposed to meet that by fresh legislation. As an example of how men, when they were withdrawn from these matters and considered dispassionately, arrived at the conclusion he was asking the House to arrive at, he would instance the action of the Cathedral Churches Commission, the Members of which, including a Bishop and two Members of the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple), had signed a recommendation suggesting the substitution of declarations in place of oaths on the assumption of office. Why should they not follow that good precedent? The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, having informed Mr. Speaker of his intention to come to the Table to be sworn, this House is of opinion that the questions raised concerning promissory and other Oaths call for an early settlement, on wider grounds than the interests of a constituency or its Member, and, believing that legislation is necessary for its settlement, resolves that it be proceeded with as soon as possible,"—(Mr. Hopwood,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, upon former occasions most of those who sit upon this side of the House, and I myself among them, have drawn a very broad distinction between their view of the question of principle involved in the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from this House and the questions of order and policy raised by certain methods adopted by him for the purpose of giving effect to what he conceives to be his rights. We have taken—I myself have taken—the very strongest views of the question of principle, not only going with many who think that the action of the House with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh has been unconstitutional, but also being firmly convinced that it has been illegal. But, retaining that conviction, when that opinion has been distinctly contradicted by a majority of the House, we have had to consider what course we should take, as dutiful and loyal Members of the House, with regard to the proposals which have been made for preserving the order of its proceedings. Well, Sir, that is the nature of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, and I at once admit that he is entirely justified by the precedent which he has quoted, and his conduct in following that precedent is further sustained, I do not scruple further to admit, by the recent proceedings of a Court of Law. Therefore, Sir, if I were to consider the question proposed by the right hon. Gentleman alone, and apart from the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) upon his own responsibility, I do not hesitate to say that I, for one, having originally recorded my opinion of the principle involved in the proceedings, should not offer any opposition to a Motion intended to vindicate the order of the House; but at present I find myself in the position that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport has pressed—I may say has forced—upon my attention a proposition which I will describe generally as amounting to this—that our first duty is to deal with this question by legislation, and by legislation to remove the grievance which exists. I give that general description of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, because it is in that souse that I find myself com-
  1682
  pelled to support his Amendment. I am bound to say, however, that I do not concur in all the terms of the Amendment, inasmuch as my hon. and learned Friend expressly carries the scope of it far beyond what I conceive to be the immediate, pressing, and urgent point; and there it is that I am at issue, as far as phrases are concerned, with my hon. and learned Friend, and as far as substance is concerned, with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, availing himself, as I think technically he has every right to do, of the particular terms of this Amendment, has pointed out that its scope as it stands is very wide, and that it is hardly fair to expect the House, in the present condition of affairs, to give itself to considering the settlement of the whole question of promissory and other Oaths. That may be so; at any rate, I am not concerned to dispute that proposition; but what I have before me is this, and upon this point I take the strongest and clearest view—namely, the unsatisfied and Constitutional claim of the constituency of Northampton. Now, Sir, my point—I need not argue at any length, because it does not require that I should trespass long upon the time of the House, not even to the moderate extent to which my hon. and learned Friend has found it necessary to argue the general question—what I contend is this—that all along through the course of the present Parliament a grievous wrong has been done by the action of the House to the constituency of Northampton, and that the first duty of the House in the circumstances, without prejudice to the proposition—considered as a separate proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—the first duty of the House is to exert itself to make provision for the redress of that serious wrong. I may tell my hon. and learned Friend that if it so chanced—which I have no right to expect considering the result of former discussions—if it were so to chance that his Amendment were to become the Main Question, I should—unless some other Member performed that office—propose to narrow the scope of his Amendment by reducing the application of it to the case actually before us, and that would be done in this way. The Amendment proposes to deal with promissory and other Oaths, and I should

  1683
  propose to substitute for "promissory and other Oaths," "Parliamentary Oaths." My hon. and learned Friend also proposes to affirm that the question calls for settlement, on wider grounds than the interests of a single constituency; but I should propose to omit the words—"upon wider grounds than the interests of a single constituency." My object, in fact, would be to set up what I conceive to be the legitimate antithesis in this case to the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to and enforce the decision of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take his seat; because this I find myself compelled to admit—that our prior duty is to meet what I conceive to be the demand of our Constitution for allowing the case to be provided for which excludes a legitimately chosen Representative of the people from taking his seat and performing his duty upon the ground strictly of religious disability as a ground of qualification. I entirely object upon other grounds. I object upon every political and Constitutional ground—I would even, if this were the place to argue it, go further and say—upon every religious ground, I object entirely to drawing distinctions more or less in matters of religious opinion. What we have to decide is the principle of disqualification, and to set right the condition of the law as it is now established and the practice of this House as it has been asserted by the votes of the majority of the House. I propose that we should set aside the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of affirming that this calls for prompt, and, I should say, immediate settlement. I may be told that immediate settlement is easy to talk of, but hard to carry into effect. That is a matter with which at present I have nothing to do. The question now before me is this—whether I am to acquiesce in the continued assertion by new acts of this exclusion, or whether I am to assert, as the Amendment requires me to do, and in opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to argue that the defect in the law ought at once to be removed which debars the constituency of Northampton from the exercise of its Constitutional rights, upon principles which I consider we have long ago adopted as the basis of our Parliamentary action. Sir, were the Amendment
  1684
  to be carried, and were it to become the substantive Question, and were it to be adopted as it now stands, or in an amended form by the House, the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt still have to consider what may be necessary for the order of the House. The right hon. Gentleman might still think it necessary to make a substantive Motion of that character, and I can only say that I should be disposed, in case of a substantive Motion to that effect, to act as I have acted before. I do not believe it would be the intention of any of my Friends to offer renewed opposition to the adoption of any Motion necessary for the order of the House. But what we do feel ourselves obliged to say—at least, what I desire to say for myself—is this: that I distinguish between the general expediency of reforming the whole system of Oaths and the extreme urgency of satisfying the Constitutional claim of a constituency; and I wish to assert, in voting in favour of the Amendment, that the satisfaction of that Constitutional claim is the first of the duties that now lie before us.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. R. WEBSTER): Sir, I am painfully conscious of my utter want of experience in addressing this House, and therefore I trust that if, in the few observations I have to make, I am unwittingly guilty of some breach of the Rules of the House, I shall obtain not only the indulgence but the forbearance of hon. Members. I feel it especially hard that it becomes my duty, in the responsible position which I, for the first time, now fill, to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone); but still I trust I can put some reasons before the House to induce it to come to the conclusion that the Amendment is not a proper Amendment to pass, even if it be taken in the more narrow sense in which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has asked us to take it. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I unhesitatingly say that, in my judgment, this Amendment is nothing less than an attempt to introduce a Bradlaugh Relief Bill, inasmuch as he has said that his chief desire is to remove a wrong which has been done to the constituency of Northampton, and under which they have been suffering for four or five years; therefore, I can regard the proposal now made as nothing else

  1685
  than a Bradlaugh Belief Bill. It has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the action of the House in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh has been illegal; I have nothing to do with the action of the House, as the House of Commons, I admit to the full that, within these walls, the Members of the House of Commons are perfectly competent to do what they will in regard to allowing a Member to take his seat; and when it is suggested that the action of those who have opposed Mr. Bradlaugh's attempt to take his seat has been illegal, I join issue, both in substance and in f act, with everyone who puts forward that proposition. I am most unwilling to weary the House by going over a story already ten times told; but inasmuch as the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) has stated that the House of Lords has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, I think it only right that I should respectfully endeavour to inform the House how the matter exactly stands. The House will remember that the first claim made by Mr. Bradlaugh was a claim to affirm, and the House, in its judgment, thought fit to allow him to affirm, in order that he might raise the question whether he could legally do so. He did affirm, and the question was raised in the action of "Clarke v. Bradlaugh." The decision of the Court of Appeal, which was that Mr. Bradlaugh was not a person who was entitled to affirm, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1866, was in no way reversed by the House of Lords, and the subsequent reversal by the House of Lords of the judgment in this case turned entirely on a technical point—namely, that a common informer was not a person entitled to sue for the penalty in a case such as this. The decision that Mr. Bradlaugh was not a person entitled to affirm was left untouched. I protest, therefore, against the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) endeavouring to bolster up his argument by a reference to the proceedings in the House of Lords. Now, Sir, what was the next step. Mr. Bradlaugh then claimed to be sworn. It is not necessary that I should go through the whole of the proceedings during which Mr. Bradlaugh claimed to be sworn; the end of it was that on the 11th of February, 1884, he attempted
  1686
  to be sworn. The House of Commons might have admitted him to be sworn if it had thought fit to express an opinion to that effect; but the law of the land declares that Mr. Bradlaugh is not a person who can take an Oath, and I ask hon. Members, before they proceed to vote on this Amendment, and before they negative the Resolution of my right hon. Friend, to bear in mind what the finding of a jury of Mr. Brad-laugh's countrymen was—namely, that on the 11th of February, 1884, Mr. Bradlaugh.
  "had no belief in a Supreme Being, and was a person on whose conscience an Oath had no binding effect."
  Having regard to that finding of the jury, and this having been the law as it stood during the existence of this Parliament, and as it stands now, I would humbly submit that it would be a great disgrace to the House of Commons if it were to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go through, the form of taking an Oath as long as that decision stands. I read with great interest at the time the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) when he introduced the Affirmation Bill; but I rather think he was mistaken in some of the statements he then made. He seemed to hold the opinion that a person who was not fit to take the Oath could come to the Table and be sworn, and that there were no means afterwards of questioning his right to take the Oath. Fortunately, Sir, for this country that is not the state of the law, for we have it now established, as the law of the land, and it is a very old law, that a person who has no belief in a Supreme Being, and on whose conscience an Oath has no binding effect, cannot, apart from the Statute, take an Oath at all. The House will remember that when the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) made his statement, and urged it as the true view of the position, he was at once controverted by one whose legal guidance we now miss on this side of the House, but who is now, I am thankful to say, guardian of the Queen's conscience. The present Lord Chancellor, then the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), pointed out that whatever the House might do, or was entitled to do, nothing could prevent the Attorney General from taking proceed-

  1687
  ings against Mr. Bradlaugh if he satin the House and it should turn out that he was not a fit and proper person to take the Oath, owing to his having no belief in a Supreme Being. It certainly does seem to me that on this matter the House of Commons ought not now to change its mind. I should have thought that we had already had enough of vacillation; I should have thought that we had had enough of change of view. Of course, if the House has done anything wrong, or done anything illegal, by all means, even although it is on its deathbed, let it repent; but I ask the House to consider whether any wrong has been done. I maintain that the law of England, as it at present stands, is such that Mr. Bradlaugh is not a person who can take the Oath, or can properly affirm, and it is upon that ground that I say the Bill which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) recommends the House to pass would be nothing but a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. I have now to say a few words on the case which has been put by the Mover of the Amendment, apart from the question of Mr. Bradlaugh, and I would submit to those who are going to vote for the Amendment that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) has not made out the slightest case for any general amendment of the law. I do not wonder that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) thought fit to limit the terms of the Amendment, because it is a strange thing that an Amendment should be introduced at this stage of the life of the House of Commons, which goes far beyond the two Bills which have already been rejected—the Affirmation Bill which the Duke of Argyll introduced into the House of Lords in 1882, and the Bill recently introduced by the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James), both of which Bills only applied to Parliamentary Oaths in regard to Members of the House of Commons. I do protest most strongly against the suggestion that there is any ground for any change of the law in the matter of Atheists. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) spoke of this as being a question of religious and political freedom, and I was very sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) also say that it was a matter of religious freedom. It is no-
  1688
  thing of the kind. Mr. Bradlaugh's demand is not made as a question of religion, and I do not think that Mr. Bradlaugh himself would desire that his claim should be put forward as one in the interests of religion. You may call it a Constitutional question if you like, or a political question if you like; but I protest against it being called a claim in the interests of religion. Let us consider for a moment how the matter stands. Permission has been given to people to affirm in Courts of Law instead of being required to take an oath; but the relief given to witnesses in the matter of Oaths and Affirmations was not in the interests of Atheism but in the interests of justice. As far back as the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, and since the date of that Act, there have been several Statutes passed which are well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite, which give these privileges; but it was not for the purpose of giving any extra privileges to Atheists, but in the interests of justice, so that evidence which might be given should be forthcoming. That I have accurately stated the motive which led to the passing of these Acts is evidenced by the Preamble attached to most of them; and I may mention that the Evidence Act of 1869 recites that the interests of justice would be promoted by the removal of the existing restrictions, for this reason the restrictions were removed; and, that being so, I submit that that case is wholly inapplicable to the presence of Atheists in the House of Commons for the purpose of legislation. There is no class of persons whom the Amendment would assist, or whom the Amendment as altered by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) would assist, except Atheists. All persons who have a conscientious objection on religious grounds to taking an oath have ample protection by the present law. ["No!"] I say that if hon. Members will only look through the Acts of Parliament they will find there is sufficient protection at the present time, and protection is only required for those who are willing to affirm because they have a religious objection to the taking of an oath, while those for whom such legislation as is shadowed forth in the Amendment is intended are persons in the position of Mr. Bradlaugh, who do not believe in

  1689
  any Supreme Being at all. I have only one word more to add. I submit that this is not a question for the House of Commons alone; it is a question for the country at large. I do not deny that Mr. Bradlaugh has behaved well, notwithstanding the manner in which he has been treated; but I have nothing to do with the personal part of the question. For five years the constituency of Northampton has suffered from the disability to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; and it cannot do that constituency much harm if for three or four months more they are not fully represented in the House of Commons. ["Oh, oh!"] I trust that those who support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) on the principles enunciated by him will have the courage to say so fairly and openly to the constituencies, for I do believe that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland still contain Godfearing people, and that they are in the great majority. I sincerely hope that it will be put forward in the interests of proper legislation in this House that those who support this Amendment desire that Atheists may be introduced, and that persons may be allowed to take their seats in the House who have no religious belief of any sort or kind. I will only say, in conclusion, that whether the Amendment be regarded on the narrow ground which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), or on the wider ground put by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), a large majority of this House will negative it, and support the original Resolution moved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR HENRT JAMESsaid, that, if there were no other reason for his occupying the attention of the House for a few moments, a sufficient one would be found in his desire to express the feeling with which, he was sure, the Members of the House welcomed the appearance of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Webster) as an efficient recruit. While congratulating him on the proof he had given of the experience which he would bring to the Councils of the Empire, there were one or two observations which fell from him, especially in the latter portion of his speech,
  1690
  which he desired to challenge, as they ought not to be allowed to pass by without notice. The House was not discussing the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh should, or should not, be allowed to take the Oath, or the penalties which would accrue if he should take the Oath; but they had to deal with the proposition which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood) had submitted to the House. He was astonished to hear the Attorney General state that this was not a religious question. If it was not a religious question, might he ask what sort of question it was? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: An irreligious question.] The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) said that it was an "irreligious" question. He thought that there must be two sides to every question, and that the irreligious was simply the converse of the religious question. When he recollected the tone in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland denounced the Members of the late Administration personally for their want of religion in attempting to support a Bill which would have allowed a person in the position of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat—when, too, he remembered how in every town and in every village the Liberal Party had been attacked for their want of religion in supporting Mr. Bradlaugh, it seemed strange now that the Law Officer of the Crown should tell them the question was not a religious one. He was glad his hon. and learned Friend had broken away from the thralls of the argument which had before been used in dealing with this question. He asked—"What do you want this Motion for?" He said—"You have never legislated in the cause of religion; you have legislated in the cause of justice." But that was the very reason why they wished to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. What caused the Acts to be passed allowing persons to affirm who conscientiously refused to take the Oath? It was not because there should be a particular relief given to a particular person; but it was in the interests of justice—that every suitor's case should be properly stated before a Court of Law. In the same manner, this Amendment was not proposed in the interests of Mr. Bradlaugh; it was brought forward in the interests of the constitu-

  1691
  encies; and as they legislated in former times so they should legislate now. He contended, therefore, that this legislation was needed in order to remove a disability which prevented persons affirming, and which prevented constituencies being represented by those Members who desired to affirm, rather than take the Oath. He trusted the Amendment would receive a large share of support from those who sat upon the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was not surprised at the tone of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Mr. Webster). Although the hon. and. learned Gentleman said this was not a religious question, he subsequently told the House that all the religion was on his own side of the House, and all the anti-religion on the Opposition side. Moreover, he (Mr. Labouchere) remembered reading a short time ago that the present Prime Minister told the people of Wales that "all infidels are Liberals." And that appeared to be the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, with his great legal acumen, should have so entirely failed to grasp what was the subject of discussion in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to have understood what was the meaning of the Amendment. A Motion was made by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the House was not discussing the Motion—they were discussing the Amendment. They were not suggesting at the present moment that Mr. Bradlaugh should take the Oath. What his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood) had done was to bring forward a conciliatory proposal; not asking that the Resolution declaring that Mr. Bradlaugh should not be allowed to go to the Table should not be put, but instead that the House should affirm that it was desirable, as soon as possible, that a Bill enabling Mr. Bradlaugh or anyone else to affirm should be passed. Therefore, the question was not one of Mr. Bradlaugh's taking the Oath; but a question of legislation, with the object of enabling Members who wished so to do to affirm. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged that the question of Mr. Bradlaugh's fitness to take the
  1692
  Oath had been already settled by the Courts of Law; that Mr. Bradlaugh had the right to appeal; but that he had not appealed; and, therefore, that, as he did not mean to appeal, consequently the matter was practically settled. But what were the f acts? Why, Mr. Bradlaugh had the right to take 12 months before appealing; but, instead of doing that, he had already given an undertaking to the Treasury that he would appeal; therefore, he had taken steps to appeal, and the question could not be decided until it had been brought before the highest legal tribunal of the country. He confessed that he hesitated, when his hon. and learned Friend showed him his Amendment, whether to vote for it or not; because it seemed to him to recognize the right of the House of Commons to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh going to the Table and taking the Oath if he so desired. He thought it would be admitted that Mr. Bradlaugh had always acted in a conciliatory manner to the House, and had always sought to put himself in harmony, as it were, with the House. Naturally, from Mr. Bradlaugh's point of view, if he regarded the Oath as hon. Gentlemen opposite said he did, as an unmeaning and unnecessary form, it must be a matter of indifference to him whether he took the Oath or not. But Mr. Bradlaugh always wished not to take the Oath, but to affirm, and he was ready to do so on the present occasion if the House would permit him. Therefore, he (Mr. Labouchere) thought the House ought fairly to meet Mr. Bradlaugh and the constituency of Northampton in a conciliatory spirit on its side and pass this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) said that it might, perhaps, be necessary to pass some sort of Resolution after the Amendment had been carried, if it were carried, in the interest of the good order of the House. He (Mr. Labouchere) was authorized to say, on behalf of Mr. Bradlaugh, that that Gentleman was ready to acknowledge that if the Bill referred to in the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood) was proceeded with, and an attempt made to carry it through during the present Session, or if facilities were given to take a vote upon it, he would not come up to the Table until a deci-

  1693
  sion had been taken by the House. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed great surprise that Mr. Bradlaugh should trouble the peace of what he called a moribund Parliament; but he (Mr. Labouchere) should like to know who had been troubling the peace of this moribund Parliament? Why was Mr. Bradlaugh, who had been elected four times by the constituency of Northampton to represent them in Parliament, not to be allowed to come to the Table and take the Oath and fulfil his duty to his constituents, when they saw 12 Gentlemen or so, only elected within the last few days, coming up and taking the Oath to fulfil what they were pleased to call their duties to the country? Such a course of treatment on the part of the House was monstrous. He saw opposite the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who was asleep, he believed. Did he (Mr. Labouchere) oppose him when he came up to the Table to take the Oath? No; and yet he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the right hon. Gentleman had written the most sceptical book on religion or anti-religion since the time of Hume. He (Mr. Labouchere) read his book with great interest, and he believed himself that in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Oath was an unmeaning form. The House, however, allowed him to come to the Table and swear. He (Mr. Labouchere) accepted it, and the House accepted it; and if Mr. Bradlaugh was prepared to go to the Table and swear, the House had no right to step in between him and his constituents and his conscience. If this Amendment were not passed he would certainly divide the House on the Main Question, as he had always asserted that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to go to the Table, and that neither the House nor Mr. Speaker had the right to prevent him taking his place as a duly elected Member of the House.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, before giving his vote, he should like to know how the House stood in this matter. He had always opposed the taking of the Oath by Mr. Bradlaugh on religious grounds, because Mr. Bradlaugh had said he had no belief in a Supreme Being. On the other hand, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had always felt that it
  1694
  was a great hardship that any class of elected Member should be excluded from the House because, while they were willing to affirm, they would not take the Oath. In the legal speeches just made there had been no statement of the law as regarded Parliamentary Oaths. The law by which individuals were prevented from taking their seats was quite distinct from the law which governed proceedings in Courts of Law. Separatists and Quakers were permitted to make Affirmations in the House; but, in order to avail himself of the privilege, a man must declare himself to be a Separatist or a Quaker. All who preferred to affirm ought to have the opportunity of doing so. He had always supported the principle of the Amendment; but many hon. Members were shocked by arguments that had been used in support of it. He was not prepared to hand over the House to those who did not believe in God, for they were not bound by any religious sanction to obey the law in any respect. Therefore, the difficulty which he felt would not be wholly removed by the Amendment. He must protest, if it were for the last time, against the lectures delivered by Mr. Bradlaugh, and the literature with which he was identified, and he would say that such lectures and literature ought to disable a man from sitting in a Christian Assembly. He would vote for the Amendment; but with a firm intention of preventing, as far as he could, Mr. Bradlaugh from presenting himself at the Table of the House and insulting the God in whom they believed, by pretending to take an Oath which he considered was void of religious sanction.
  MR. STORERsaid, that, in his view of the matter, both the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) were neither more nor less than attempts to trail a red herring across the scent. But whatever attempts were made to hoodwink the country, or whatever salves were applied to their own consciences, the fact would still remain, and could not be got over, that a vote given for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport would have the same effect as a vote in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath and his seat in that House. Hon. Members

  1695
  who supported it might consider it a sort of salve to their consciences; but the original Motion was, after all, the thing which the country would consider.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the judgment of the Court of Appeal made it most desirable that the House should undertake legislation with the view of deciding the matter. The judgment laid down, for the first time, what was certainly not appreciated by the House, that the question of eligibility to take the Oath at the Table did not depend at all upon the formalities required, by the House. That Court decided that no person could validly take an Oath who was not a believer in a Supreme Being in such a way and in such a sense that that Being operated on his mind in taking an Oath as giving sanction to it. If, therefore, Mr. Bradlaugh, or anyone holding his opinions, were allowed to go through the form, or did go through the form of taking the Oath, either in the present or at the commencement of the next Parliament, that would not conclude the matter; for, after all that had been done, the Attorney General, upon information laid before him, might take proceedings, and if he convinced a jury that the hon. Member had no such belief as enabled him to invoke the sanction of the Supreme Being, a penalty would be given against the Member, and he would vacate his seat in the House. It had been said that Mr. Bradlaugh had been too frank in avowing his opinions; but this judgment of the Court of Appeal utterly upset the delusion that this made any difference. Then it was said the question would be solved when a new Parliament assembled, because Mr. Bradlaugh, if returned, as he probably would be, would take the Oath before the House was completed. But the judgment of the Court dissipated the delusion that this would make any difference. By that decision, if information was laid before him, the Attorney General would proceed against the hon. Member in the Court of Law, and might again get a jury to declare that he was incapable of taking the Oath on account of his want of belief in a Supreme Being. The Attorney General would also, by this decision of the jury, recover damages against the hon. Member. This was a question which would
  1696
  not only affect Mr. Bradlaugh, the same course might be taken against other hon. Members. The borough of Liskeard was once represented by Mr. Gibbon, who would have been subjected to the same disabilities as Mr. Bradlaugh; and, for aught he (Mr. Courtney) knew, there might be other Members of the House in the same position—that is, exposed to the scandal of having the question of their religious belief submitted to a common jury. Was it not, therefore, urgent that this matter should be settled in this Parliament on broad principles of justice, so as to prevent the possibility of the scandal of silent Oaths being taken by Members who did not believe in them, or of investigations before common juries as to personal beliefs? It was said, notwithstanding the judgment of the Court, the decision still rested with Parliament. That was so; but the judgment of the Court was good common sense, and by the action of the law the hon. Member was debarred from taking the Oath. The situation was one which should appeal to serious Members who wished to prevent the repetition of the scandal of public inquiry in the future into the religious opinions of Members who had been returned to that House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he had no intention, when he came down to the House, of intervening in this debate, nor did he mean to do so, except so far as was rendered necessary by personal allusions which some speakers had directed to him. He went further, and said it was not with a view of contradicting in the face of the House the accusation made against him by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere) that he now rose. If this House only were made a party to it, he should have treated the accusation with contempt; but he reflected with dismay that, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member, he should be inundated with letters on the subject from every part of the country. Therefore, not merely on his own account, but still more out of pity to his unfortunate private secretary, he felt bound to take the earliest occasion of giving a public contradiction to the more than insinuations that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The hon.

  1697
  Gentleman informed an astonished House that he had read the book to which he alluded. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was quite certain that anybody who had ever glanced at the contents of the book would be convinced, firstly, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had not read it; and, secondly, that if he had read it, he was perfectly incapable of understanding its contents. In order to clear up the hon. Member's mind on the subject, and to save any hon. Gentleman opposite from the severe and arduous labour of looking through the volume, should their curiosity be excited by what had passed, he might assure them that, in so far as that book dealt with religion at all, it had no other motive whatever in view than to support religion, and not to destroy it. He trusted that this contradiction would be taken not only as conclusive by the House, but as saving others from the trouble of writing to him on the subject; himself, the trouble of receiving such communications; and the Post Office, the trouble and expense that would be incurred in forwarding them to him.
  MR. WALTERsaid, it had been his misfortune, on one or two occasions, to trouble the House on this disagreeable subject; and, as this was certainly the last occasion on which he should have the opportunity of speaking upon the question, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words, chiefly for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the Constitutional Authorities of the House the opinion of an eminent statesman upon this matter delivered many years ago. He (Mr. Walter) was one of those who had invariably opposed the taking of the Oath by Mr. Bradlaugh; but he had coupled his objection with the declaration that, inasmuch as he conceived him to be an individual unable to take the Oath on account of his religious opinions, he nevertheless felt that, as an elected Member of Parliament, Mr. Bradlaugh ought to be allowed to enter the House by way of Affirmation, unless valid objection could be raised to that mode of testifying his allegiance to the Crown. He considered that the whole object of the Oath of Allegiance was to give a security, more or less valid according to the character of the giver, to the Sovereign of the country; and that, except for that purpose, it was of no use whatever, nor had any right to be im-
  1698
  posed. He did not think that anybody in that House would contend that the solemn ceremony which a Member performed at the Table in kissing the Testament was intended in any way to define his religious belief, and for this reason—that it was quite clear that the Oath might be taken by a Deist, by a Unitarian, and by an Orthodox Christian. But the point at the bottom of the whole controversy was—is the Oath necessary or not to secure the Crown with regard to the allegiance of the person who takes the Oath? He could give the authority of a very eminent person upon the subject—a statesman whose opinion would be taken as of the very highest order, not only by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, by also by hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. He meant Mr. Pox. In a remarkable speech, which Mr. Fox delivered on peace with France in the year 1800, an objection was raised to peace being declared, on the ground that Napoleon Bonaparte had violated the Oath of Allegiance which he had taken to the Constitution. But Mr. Fox said—
  "Sir, I am not one of those who think that any such Oaths ought ever to be exacted. They are seldom or ever of any effect, and I am not for sporting with a thing so sacred as an Oath. I think it would be good to lay aside all such Oaths."—(Parl. Mist. [34] 1386.)
  Then he went on to explain what he meant by saying that there was no necessity for imposing the sanction of an Oath, where the law without any such Oath was quite sufficient to vindicate itself. Suppose a person went to the Table of the House to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, how would that person be punished if he broke the Oath? Not for perjury, but for treason, which was followed by a very much more severe punishment. He (Mr. Walter) contended, therefore, that they had no reason, on the ground of security to the Crown, for imposing an Oath at all. He might be asked why a person should be required to affirm. He took it that making an Affirmation simply compelled a person to make a statement acknowledging his responsibility to the law of the land; and if that person broke the Affirmation, he would be subject to all the pains and penalties of the law of treason.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to know whether, if the Motion of the right hon.

  1699
  Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was negatived, it would be in the power of any Member of the House again to raise the question, or whether the power of the House would be gone, and Mr. Bradlaugh be able to come to the Table in defiance of the general opinion of the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the Motion should not be carried, the Amendment would become the substantive Motion, and the hon. Member would be at liberty to move an Amendment to it in any direction he thought might be desirable.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was worthy of the attention of the Government. As the matter now stood, at present, in the ruck of a General Election, Mr. Brad-laugh might be elected, and might again present himself at the Table to be sworn, and the Clerk at the Table would then have no power to exclude him. It was now declared by the Court of Law that even if Mr. Bradlaugh were permitted by the Clerk to take the Oath, he would be proceeded against by the Attorney General for penalties, and it might be found that he had no testifying capacity. He (Mr. Healy) would submit to the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Resolution might be amended by words of this character—
  "And that the Clerk at the Table he informed that no person who has been by this House, or by law, declared incapable of taking an Oath, and who may present himself to be sworn during the next two years, shall be allowed to take the Oath except by leave of the House."
  [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It appeared to him (Mr. Healy) that if the Clerk at the Table at the time were not seized with the fact that the House laid a burthen upon him, he would, of course, not feel himself bound to look into the previous record of any Gentleman who presented himself at the Table, and the position of the Clerk would be a very unenviable one. To the Members of the Liberal Party, who seemed to think that the course he recommended was an objectionable one, it would be, from their point of view, a course of extreme mercy to Mr. Bradlaugh; because, if the present Government had a majority in the next Parliament, as he (Mr. Healy) hoped they would have, the next Go-
  1700
  vernment would be bound to enforce the law by asking their Attorney General to proceed for penalties against Mr. Bradlaugh; whereas if the Clerk at the Table were made aware that Mr. Bradlaugh was not to be received by him pursuant to the Resolution, of course Mr. Bradlaugh would be saved the trouble of presenting himself, and taking the Oath, and of being proceeded against. If they passed the words he suggested, they would be giving a bold advertisement to the constituency of Northampton that, if it elected Mr. Bradlaugh, it would elect him at its peril, and would have no reason to complain when it knew that. The hon. Gentleman, if elected, would be unable to proceed with his business. If the Clerk said that the Order was merely a Sessional one, the House would know how to deal with the Clerk.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I hope the House will forgive me if I offer a few words in reply to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). I hope the House will forgive one of its oldest Members recalling to its attention the importance of the matter with which we are now dealing. The State of England consists of a Sovereign and of two Houses of Parliament. The Sovereign and each of those Estates is bound by an Oath appropriate to their position. If one of the Estates were to annul or virtually to abrogate its Oath, it would separate itself from the State. Were this House virtually to annul its Oath, it would become a Convention, such as have existed in revolutionary times. I am afraid that some hon. Members, while considering the details of legislation with respect to these Constitutional Oaths, and the various proposals for relaxation of them, may have forgotten the relaxations that have been made, but all made with a view of preserving the existence of the Oath affecting itself, as representing the bond of union which connects this Estate of the Realm with the other two Estates. If you raise the question of abolishing these Oaths, or any of them, you will be plunged into Constitutional questions of the gravest and most intricate nature. As for an Oath being a religious matter in this nation of England and its Sister Nations, you have used Oaths for ages upon ages. The nation of England has used Oaths always as a religious con-

  1701
  firmation, required from those who profess to speak the truth, not only with respect to matters past and matters present, but with respect to matters future. I therefore lament that there should be any objection to the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which re-affirms, in accordance with the antecedents of Parliament and of this House, a direct acknowledgment that these Parliamentary Oaths have always afforded proof that this House constitutes one of the Estates of the Realm, and that it is not a mere Convention.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH),in reply, said, he would make two observations upon the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The first was this—that throughout the whole course of this matter the House had never proceeded except by Sessional Order; it had dealt with the matter as it arose by an Order lasting the period of the Session, and he was anxious only to ask the House to affirm and adhere to that position. In the second place, although it was a point on which he could express no authoritative opinion, it occurred to him that it would not be possible for any such Resolution passed by this House of Commons to bind a future House of Commons.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 263; Noes 219: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 208.) Main Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was impossible for him, as one of the Representatives of Northampton, to recognize the right of that House to prevent a Member whom his constituency considered fully qualified from coming to the Table and taking the Oath. He should, therefore, challenge a division upon the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to say that the case has now arrived which I anticipated when I formerly addressed the House, and that I do not propose to join with anyone in questioning the sense of the House in a second division. It is a completely foregone conclusion, and I must admit that it is, through from, as I think, erroneous premises and antecedents, a legitimate and neces-
  1702
  sary conclusion, for which there are numerous precedents. I therefore do do not feel justified in taking any part in any further division on the subject, for the same result has been arrived at over and over again.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that after hearing the views just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman—and as he presumed there would be a very small division—he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. WILLISsaid, that, whatever course might be taken by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whether he continued to support his own view or not he (Mr. Willis) protested against the illegal action of the House—[Laughter, and cries of "Order!"]—in allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to interpose between Mr. Brad-laugh and his taking the Oath; and as he regarded that action as a violation of the invariable practice of the House, he should oppose the Motion and go into the Lobby against it, whether few hon. Members or many supported him.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House doth affirm the two Resolutions made upon the 11th of February 1884, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, and directing the Serjeant at Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGHthereupon advanced to the Table, upon which,
  MR. SPEAKERdirected him to withdraw.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am here, Sir, in obedience to the mandate of my constituents. I submit to your direction to withdraw; but I shall appeal from the judgment of the House to the judgment of the constituencies against the injustice done.
  And the hon. MEMBER then withdrew.

QUESTIONS.

  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL AND THE KHEDIVE.
  MR. M'COANgave Notice that, tomorrow, he would ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the following

  1703
  extracts from a report in The Times of December 19, 1883, of a speech delivered by him at Edinburgh on the previous day are substantially accurate—
  "I furnished him (Mr. Gladstone) with documents…proving that the Khedive Tewfik was the author of the massacres of Alexandria, when many British subjects were slaughtered, that he plotted those massacres for the purpose of ruining Arabi and of precipitating European intervention. He betrayed his country and his people to the foreigner, and verily he shall have his reward.…This is the man—did I say man? He is not a man; this is the being whom your Army and Navy supported against Arabi Pasha and the Egyptian people. This is the being to gratify whose frightful instincts, whose lyings, lusts, and vileness Alexandria was bombarded and Tel-el-Kebir was fought…The Khedive Tewfik, the conspirator against his father, the robber of his family, the banisher of his brother, the dealer in human flesh and blood, the betrayer of his allies, of his Ministers, of his country, the man of magic and of sorcery.…I advocate in the first place a clear conception of the unutterably hopeless task in which Mr. Gladstone has engaged you—that of imposing by force of arms upon a foreign people a Ruler whom they despise and reject, a Government which they loathe and abhor, a foul despotism on a nation longing to be free, a usurious and crushing debt on a land which has every capacity for being wealthy and great. I advocate a frank confession of our gigantic error, an honest endeavour to retrace our steps now while we may—I advocate in the first place the expulsion, bag and baggage, of the Khedive Tewfik, with all his Turks and his Circassians, his Zaptiehs and his Mudirs, his Bimbashis and Yusbashis, his Kaimakams and his Pashas.… I advocate the recall of the exiles from Ceylon, the resuscitation of the National Party, the formation of a genuine popular Government, at the head of which shall be placed the Prince, either Native or European, as you will, who shall be in deed and in truth, constitutional, enlightened, and just. I advocate a great re-arrangement and reduction of the Egyptian National Debt, and a clear sweep of the debts of the victimized, the bankrupt, and the ruined Fellaheen. I advocate the placing of Egypt under the guarantee and guardianship of united Europe, so that no one single Power shall be able to exercise there superior influence to another, so that collective authority shall restrain individual ambition.… All I say is, just try it; for of this be certain, that no Government, however unconstitutional, can be worse than, or can approach in iniquity and worthlessness, that of Tewfik and his hideous crew;"
  and, if so, whether he still adheres to this estimate of the character and conduct of Tewfik Pasha, and will now support such an Egyptian policy as he then recommended to the electors of Mid Lothian?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, to save the authorities of the House the expense of having the long and portentous extracts read by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M'Coan) printed in the Minutes of the House, I will inform the hon. Member at once that they are perfectly accurate, and that I have no explanation whatever to give him.

  RUSSIA—OFFENSIVE SPEECHES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any communication has been received from the Russian Government, in regard to the recent published statement of Lord Randolph Churchill, that Russia
  "has tricked us, deceived us, lied to us, as only a Russian can,"
  or in regard to the recent public statement of the Marquess of Salisbury as to the impossibility of our making a trustworthy agreement with Russia, which was couched in the following commercial illustration:—
  "If a man does not keep his promise in commercial matters, if he does it intentionally, you say he is a swindler; if he fails to keep his promise, because he cannot help it, you say he is a bankrupt. But whether swindler or bankrupt you are very careful in trusting him next time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): No, Sir. I ought to add, though, that my noble Friend beside me (Lord Randolph Churchill) informs me that the quotation of his statements is not accurate. I must also not be taken to admit that the quotation from Lord Salisbury's speech is accurate either.
  MR. PICTON: On the same subject of the speeches referred to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), may I ask, whether Her Majesty's Government purpose to tender any explanation or apology to Russia regarding them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give effect this Session to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Labourers' (Ireland)

  1705
  Act, as the late Government had announced its intention of doing previously to the recent crisis?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Yes, Sir; it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate on this subject, and to adopt, perhaps, with a few trifling Amendments, the Bill which has already been before the House.

  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL.
  MR. HENEAGEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention of bringing in a Supplementary Estimate for the Salary of the Lord Privy Seal; and, whether he will undertake not to bring it on without due notice to the House?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORalso asked, whether this post was not one which it had been previously proposed to abolish; and, whether, when the Resolution for that officer's salary was proposed in Committee of Supply in 1881, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had not opposed it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am really not acquainted with the facts referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The Office of Lord Privy Seal is an honorary appointment so far as Departmental duties in the Office are concerned. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) has asked a Question on this subject, because it enables me to clear up a most unjust misunderstanding that appears to exist with regard to my noble Friend (Lord Harrowby). Lord Harrowby is not in very strong health, and yet the Prime Minister was extremely anxious to secure to the Cabinet the advantages of his long political and Parliamentary experience, not merely as a Member of a former Government, but also as having represented for many years the important constituency of Liverpool. Lord Salisbury, therefore, offered Lord Harrow by this Office, which my noble Friend has accepted without any salary at all.

  PARLIAMENT—DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. HENEAGEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the advice which Mr. Disraeli tendered to Her Majesty in
  1706
  April 1868, that every effort should be made with a view that a direct appeal should be made to the new constituencies at the earliest possible date, and which advice he communicated to the House of Commons on the 4th of May 1868; and, whether the present Prime Minister has considered it to be his duty, having regard to the special circumstances under which he has accepted office, to tender to Her Majesty similar advice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): When I saw this Question on the Paper I thought it had reference to a state of affairs precisely the opposite of that which now exists; and that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Heneage) had in his mind the possibility of the late Government retaining Office after the vote of the House, in consequence of which they resigned. The parallel in that case would have been far more exact with the circumstances that occurred in 1868 than with any which exist at the present moment. But, although I do not agree in the premises of the hon. Gentleman, I entirely agree in his conclusions. At the instance of Lord Salisbury himself, provisions were inserted in the Redistribution Bill, which has now become law, to secure an early Dissolution and the election of a new Parliament. It is the intention and desire of Her Majesty's Government that these provisions should take effect as soon as possible.

EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—THE "PROTOCOLE DE DESINTERESSEMENT."
MR. LABOIICHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Ministers adhere to the protocole de désintéressement which was signed by Her Majesty's Ambassador and by the Representatives of the Great Continental Powers at Constantinople with regard to Egypt, and to the assurances given in this House by the Head of the late Government, that the occupation of Egypt would be but temporary; and, whether any change is contemplated with regard to the evacuation of Dongola, and to the cessation of active military operations against the Mahdi?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I think the first part of the Question of

1707
the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere) is founded on a misapprehension of the objects and meaning of the Protocol to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that that document was signed in contemplation of the concerted action of the Powers, which had been proposed for the settlement of the affairs of Egypt, and it expressly referred to any arrangement that might be brought about as the result of such concerted action. The proposal was abandoned, and, consequently, the Protocol based upon it fell to the ground. With regard to the assurances given to this House by the Head of the late Government, they were very numerous, and we should have to compare and collate them with great care before deciding which of them, if any, we could adopt. The hon. Member is, perhaps, already aware that Dongola was evacuated yesterday; and I may add that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) will, as soon as possible, lay upon the Table of the House a despatch to Lord Wolseley which will explain the action of Her Majesty's Government with regard to military affairs.

INDIA—BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Bengal Tenancy Bill has received the assent of the Secretary of State in Council?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The Government of India were informed by my Predecessor, in a despatch dated the 23rd June last, that the Bengal Tenancy Act would be left to its operation. The despatch conveying this intimation will be included in a collection of Papers relating to the subject, now being prepared for presentation.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION-JUDIGIAL RENTS—ESTATE OF CAPTAIN DOUGLAS, CO. LONGFORD.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a large number of tenants on the estate of Captain Douglas, in the county of Longford, applied to the Land Court about two years ago to have judicial rents fixed for their holdings, and whether thereupon the landlord told them, through his agent, that if they per-
1708
sisted in that course he would charge them a high price for the privilege of turbary; whether he did in fact last year demand higher prices, as high a price in some instances as ten shillings a perch for bog which the tenants had themselves reclaimed, and which up to that time they had had for one shilling a perch; whether he maintains the same demand this year, and has taken legal proceedings against some of the tenants for cutting the turf without paying him the price demanded; and, whether the Government can take any steps to secure to the tenants their customary rights, as well as those conferred by the Land Act? THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): About 56 of the tenants on the estate of Captain Douglas, in the county of Longford, have had judicial rents fixed; and nothing transpired to lead the Land Commissioners to suppose that any threat had been held out to these tenants in consequence of their application. Beyond this, I have no information as to the relations between Captain Douglas and his tenants, and the Government have no power of interference in such matters as that referred to in the Question.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—LOAN OF £250,000 FROM IRISH CHURCH FUND.
COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would allow the Fund set aside for Piers and Harbours in Ireland, out of the Irish Church Fund, to be credited with the interest accruing on the unexpended portion?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to answer. If the Commission will bring this subject formally under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, it shall receive careful consideration. I would wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, as was stated in answer to a Question last year, legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion if adopted.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether

1709
he will give immediate facilities for the consideration of the Parliamentery Elections (Medical Belief) Bill; and what is the attitude of the Government respecting it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The attitude of the Government respecting that Bill is this—that, in our opinion, the subject is one that should be dealt with, and I will include the matter in the statement which it is my intention to make to-morrow. I desire to give Notice that to-morrow I propose to make a statement as to our intentions respecting the Business of the Session, and to move the following Resolution:—
"That the Committee of Supply have precedence this day of all other Business; and that for the remainder of the Session, including this day, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on "Wednesdays; and that the Standing Order of the 27th November 1S82, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to Tuesday and Wednesday."
I shall make a full statement as to the use the Government would intend to make of these facilities, if the House should grant them. I shall merely say now that, if the Motion be adopted, our proposal will be that the first Business taken to-morrow should be the Grant to Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice in Committee of Supply, and also the Civil Service Estimates. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, as it would be for the convenience of the Department, that the Navy Estimates should be taken on Wednesday. I hope also to make arrangements for making my Financial Statement on Thursday.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill could be made a second Order of the Day for to-morrow, Progress being reported at a sufficiently early hour to admit of its being proceeded with?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member; but he would deal with the matter to-morrow.
MR. GLADSTONE: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman
1710
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), it may be for his convenience and the convenience of the House that I should indicate to him certain subjects on which I think great anxiety is felt, and in regard to which it may be necessary that we should have full information as to the intentions of the Government, in order to judge of the course we ought to take in regard to the Motion of which he has just given Notice, asking for precedence for Government Orders. I do not now say anything in regard to the Budget, as to which he has already given us an engagement for Thursday.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That depends on the adoption of the Motion for precedence.
MR. GLADSTONE: Well, then, a contingent engagement. I think there will be a general disposition to concur in the desire of the Government to bring the Session to a close as early as possible by the despatch of the necessary Business; but I understand, by the intimation given to-day, that legislation is not to be entirely dispensed with. Now, one Bill, in regard to which I shall look with great anxiety for the declaration of the Government, is the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Bill, which is a measure of extreme urgency. Another measure, which I intended to mention, is one to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) has alluded—the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill, because I think it is quite plain that the judgment of the House ought to be taken on that matter. A third measure is of an urgency much greater than would at first sight appear—the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. The Welsh have been proverbial for their patience in all matters, and the consequence has been that very little attention has at any time—I do not speak of one Government or another—been given to Welsh demands through the Legislature. These are Bills of very great importance. There is another Bill in which very considerable interest is felt by those who ought to be best informed with regard to it, and on which my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) will desire to have an opportunity of pressing his views upon the House—I mean the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. Of

1711
course, there are other matters relating to Irish policy and foreign policy; but to these I do not think it necessary to make any allusion now, and I simply give the present Notice hoping that it may be rather useful than otherwise.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not at present prepared to discuss the question under consideration. But I desire generally to say, in order to avoid any misapprehension, that the Notice I have given is with the full idea that the Government will not undertake anything that can be really called contentious legislation, and that some of the subjects to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) has referred do appear to me to partake of that character.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to point out that the Motion of the right hon. Baronet would interfere with his (Mr. Hubbard's) Motion in regard to the incidence of the Income Tax; and if the right hon. Baronet absorbed the time of private Members, there would be no chance of obtaining the judgment of the House upon his Motion. His Motion was of great importance to the community at large, and—
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing his Motion.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDbowed to the ruling of the Chair. He did not wish to place any objection in the way of the Resolution.
MR. GLADSTONE: I should have stated that I think the right hon. Baronet is quite right in proposing to proceed at once with the Grant to the Princess Beatrice which, through accidental circumstances, has been delayed.
MR. MACFARLANE: Does the right hon. Baronet consider the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Bill a contentious one?
THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUER: To-morrow.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves, to-morrow, the Motion of which he has given Notice, taking the time of the House for Government Business, I shall move the following Amendment:—
"That this House, not having confidence in the present responsible Advisers of Her Majesty, declines to entrust the Government with the disposal of the time of the House."

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPAETMENTS.
  (1.) £16,021, to complete the sum for the Land Commissioners for England.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that understanding that this was a Vote for the Land Commission, he would venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on a matter which he considered to be of some importance—namely, the enfranchisement of copyholds. Owing partly to promise of further legislation, the number of enfranchisements had been decreasing down to the present day. They had fallen from about 1,000 a-year to about 200 a-year. The present Vote included the Office which was instituted in regard to the enfranchisement of copyholds, and the sum taken for that purpose from the taxpayers of the country was £5,000 annually; so that for the enfranchisement of copyhold land the taxpayers of the country had to bear a very considerable burden. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities for the passing of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. It would not be in Order to refer at any length to that measure; but he might be allowed to say that the Bill was at that moment upon the Order Book, and that it stood in a very favourable position. Indeed, as a matter of fact, its position was more favourable now than it had ever occupied before, seeing that it had advanced one stage further than it had reached last year. The Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill had now got into Committee. It was a non-contentious measure; it had received the approval of the Land Commissioners of England, and of the Incorporated Law Society, and it was supported by Members on both sides of the House. Its object was to reduce the burdens borne by the people, and to contribute' towards the freedom of land. It certainly could not be regarded as a contentious Bill in any sense, because it had, in its various stages, received great support from both sides the House. He would earnestly

  1713
  appeal to the Government to accept the measure, and not to sanction any obstruction to its becoming law.
  MR. PELLalso desired to add his appeal to the Government to give facilities for the discussion of the measure. The whole subject had already been very fully considered. The Bill was a non-political one. and it had reached a point at which the half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not apply. He thought the Government might favourably consider the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he could only say that his attention had not been particularly called to this subject before; but, looking at the Notice Paper, it seemed to him that the Bill stood in an exceptionally favourable position, seeing that those who were interested in it could proceed with it after half-past 12 o'clock. Under those circumstances, he thought it was rather hard that the Government should be asked to give facilities for the discussion of a Bill, so favourably placed, at the expense of other Business.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished to I remind the right hon. Baronet that the appeal was made on behalf of the taxpayers of the country, who had an interest in the passing of the Bill.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.)£361,254, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would like to say one or two words upon this Vote, especially in regard to the workhouse schools. That was a question which was generally brought every year before the Committee, and there was a very satisfactory statement made upon it last year by the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman stated on that occasion that in the year 1883 there were 200 schools which had been given up as workhouse schools, and from which the children had been transferred to the ordinary schools of the various parishes. In 1884 that number was increased to 385, and he understood that there were 10 cases still under consideration. He wished to put a question on the subject to his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour),
  1714
  whom he did not for the moment see in his place; but he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would be there before the discussion closed. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was able to give the Committee any information with reference to the extension of the system; and whether, up to the present time, the number of schools which had been given up as workhouse schools, and from which the children had been transferred to the local schools, had increased since last year? The number last year showed an increase of 185 over that in 1883; and ho wanted to know from his right hon. Friend whether he was in favour of this principle, and whether he was inclined to do all in his power to extend it as far as possible? He knew that there were some exceedingly well-managed schools, several of which were in peculiar circumstances, and in a different position from others. In his own county (West Sussex) there was a school which was absolutely and entirely distinct from the workhouse itself, and in which the children were not mixed up with the other paupers. His sole object in bringing the matter before the Committee was to provide, if possible, that these unfortunate children should have every opportunity afforded them of getting free from the taint of pauperism, and that they should be able hereafter to go out into the world without that stain upon them. He desired that they should never learn what it was to have been in that painful position, and that they should be able to earn a livelihood in the best way they could without being looked upon as having been brought up in workhouse schools. As to the boarding-out question, there had been an important meeting held recently in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament—namely, in the Jerusalem Chamber, Viscount Cran brook presided; and he had read the speech of that noble Viscount very carefully. It certainly pointed out most clearly the advantages of the boarding-out system. Last year the right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said that while he was in favour, to a certain extent, of the boarding-out system he did not like to press it too far. But the opinions expressed at the meeting held

  1715
  the other day in the Jerusalem Chamber were in favour of pressing the system, provided it was carried out under proper supervision. He believed that the number of children who were boarded out last year was 835; and he should like to know if there had been any increase in that number, and whether the system was spreading and taking root more deeply than it had done before? There was another question he wished to put to his right hon. Friend, and it had reference to the extension of the cottage system, which had been so advantageously tried in Chelsea, Kensington, and Birmingham, and he also believed in one of the Unions of South Wales. In all those places he understood that the system had been found to work well. The children were placed out, without any stain of pauperism upon them, in comfortable lodgings where they were well cared for, had everything provided for them, and where they received an excellent education. One thing, however, he should like to know was, what was the cost? His great desire was that those children should be prevented from ever returning to pauperism; and it was because he believed that all those plans had worked advantageously that he desired to press the propriety of extending them upon the attention of the Local Government Board. It was because he believed that this Vote afforded a favourable opportunity for an expression of opinion on this all-important subject that he had brought the subject forward; and he ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman, although young in Office at present, would be able to make some satisfactory statement to the Committee. He had no doubt that the views he had expressed would be corroborated by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had always taken great interest in the subject.
  MR. CROPPERwished, before the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply, to put another question upon the same subject. He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it was desirable, in the inspection of workhouse schools, to do away with the practice of: having them examined by gentlemen appointed specially for the purpose of workhouse school examination He had, on previous occasions, strongly urged that those schools should be placed under
  1716
  the ordinary Government inspection of schools, and many hon. Gentlemen who had watched the different kinds of inspection that went on agreed with him. Those who had looked at the question of the inspection of workhouse schools would be aware that a great deal of advantage which was always made manifest in the inspection of National and Board Schools was altogether wanting in regard to workhouse schools. He believed it was felt to be an evil by the Inspectors themselves that they should always be confined to the inspection of pauper children, and that it had a tendency to lower the standard of education, and the vigour with which the schools were conducted. He was strongly of opinion that the inspection in regard to workhouse schools should be of precisely the same character as that which was carried out in reference to outside schools. The present system was not only injurious to the Inspectors themselves, but also disadvantageous to the children. What they all wanted was to get rid of what was commonly called the "taint of pauperism." Short of placing the children in schools that were altogether outside the walls of the workhouse, lie thought there could be nothing better than bringing into them those Inspectors who were engaged in the examination of the outside schools; and his own opinion was that it was desirable the workhouse schools should be inspected by the ordinary Government Inspectors either on the same day or the day after the other schools were visited. He believed that the view he had expressed met with entire concurrence from the gentlemen who now held the honourable position of School Inspectors. He had had the honour of being present at the meeting in the Jerusalem Chamber, and he was able to corroborate everything the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had said as to what took place on that occasion. The opinion expressed was altogether in favour of the boarding out of those children in England. The most expensive way of bringing up children was to continue them in the schools that were now kept up at great expense by the rates in many of the large centres of the country. It was said that the expense of each child amounted to from £35 to £38 per annum, and Viscount

  1717
  Cran brook added that in some cases he had known the expense run up to £80; while, on the other hand, a child could be comfortably boarded out for £12 a-year. Therefore, a great advantage would accrue to the ratepayers if a general system of boarding out like that which was practised in Scotland were adopted. Then, again, the advantages to the children themselves would be far greater; they would learn better when separated from the pauper taint that hung around them. Their knowledge of the world would be necessarily increased, and they would be better able, ultimately, to enter into the ordinary avocations of life than children who were brought up in the workhouse schools. One lady visitor who knew a great deal about district schools said that she could trace three generations of pauperism in the children who were now attending those schools. Nothing could be more grievous, when all of them desired to improve every class of the people, than to find that by the systems they adopted, ostensibly for the purposes of education, they were perpetuating the very evils they were so anxious to get rid of. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was of opinion that it was desirable to assimilate the inspection of workhouse schools to that of the ordinary Government schools outside? He also wished to know whether there was any intention of adding a lady Inspector in the interests of the female pauper children. If such an appointment were made, a lady placed in that position would be able to visit the schools all over the country, and see that the female children in the workhouses had all the advantages provided for them which they were entitled to.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had called attention again this year, as on previous occasions, to the question of the education of pauper children in schools associated with the workhouses. His hon. and gallant Friend felt—and he thought the Committee, in discussing the question, "would also feel—that great advantage was attained by separating as far as possible the pauper children
  1718
  from pauper surroundings. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that, as far as the Government were concerned, the Local Government Board were with him, and thoroughly concurred with the general spirit of his suggestion. It must, however, be recollected that in many instances Boards of Guardians had spent very large sums of money out of the rates in providing expensive and costly schools, and it could not be expected that they would always acquiesce in throwing this money away. Moreover, it must be remembered that some, at all events, of the advantages which would be obtained by educating pauper children in the public elementary schools would be lost unless proper arrangements were made for their supervision out of school hours, and for withdrawing them from their pauper surroundings. Therefore, if the Guardians were called upon to provide for the education of those children outside the limits of the workhouse, and to dismiss the workhouse schoolmaster, they must provide an efficient substitute for the existing supervision. Unless such arrangements could be made, he was afraid that the system of educating pauper children in the public elementary schools would do more harm than good. His hon. and gallant Friend, and. hon. Members generally, would be glad to learn that the system of educating pauper children outside the limits of the workhouse was on the increase. There was an increase last year, and that increase was still going on. He had an impression that his hon. and gallant Friend had not stated the figures correctly. He believed that the number of cases in which the system had been applied last year was 235; and there were 10 cases then under consideration. The number of cases had since increased, and the schools to which the system had been applied now numbered 260. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cropper) had alluded to the question of the inspection of pauper schools. The hon. Member appeared to think that not only did pauper children suffer from being educated in pauper schools, but that the Inspectors of pauper schools suffered from having the sphere of their operations limited to schools of that kind. He was not sure that that was so. The Local Government Board took

  1719
  care that the rules and regulations laid down by the Board of Education in regard to their Inspectors were carried out in regard to those schools; and the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) would find that, so short a time ago as 1884, a Committee inquired into this question, and reported distinctly and categorically against having the inspection of the two classes of schools performed and carried out by the same Inspectors. Moreover, the Boards of Guardians objected to being placed under another Department. They were already subjected to two Departments for certain purposes, and they objected to be placed under a third; and he did not think that any object would be gained by mixing up together in the same category different classes of schools. The hon. Member for Kendal asked whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint lady Inspectors. For his own part, he was far from entertaining any objection, either in practice or theory, to the appointment of lady Inspectors. In fact, he thought that for certain purposes lady Inspectors would be more efficient than Inspectors of the opposite sex. In connection with that subject, however, he had to consider the kind of work required to be done; because if the work were of such a nature that it would require arduous and continuous labour, and travelling in all seasons and all times of the year, his objection to the appointment of ladies to discharge the duties of Inspectors of Schools would depend on their special physical capacity rather than on their intellectual or moral qualifications. I le would now turn to the question of boarding out. Allusion had been made by both of the speakers who had preceded him to the conference which was held recently in the Jerusalem Chamber. He could assure both hon. Gentlemen and the Committee that he shared with his Predecessor in Office the strong sympathy which existed in regard to the boarding out of pauper children. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had quoted his Predecessor in Office as saying that they had nearly approached already the limits to which a system of boarding out could be advantageously carried. As far as he (Mr. Balfour) was aware, he did not think that that was the opinion of the right hon. Member
  1720
  for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); though, as the right hon. Gentleman was not present, he did not like to commit himself definitely on the point. As far as he (Mr. Balfour) was concerned, he should view with great pleasure any extension of the system as far as it could be efficiently carried forward. His hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the difficulty of finding suitable abodes for the children intended to be boarded out. He thought that fact, combined with the necessity of finding a committee of supervision over the children when they wore boarded out, represented the two chief elements in the consideration of the question. As long as proper homes could be found, and they could rely on a committee for superintending the children when boarded out, so long they would be safe in extending the system; but otherwise it might become more injurious than beneficial. To turn to the statistics of the subject. Whereas, in 1883, the number of children boarded out was between 600 and 700, in July the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in Office had informed the House the number was 83o, and now he (Mr. Balfour) was able to state that it amounted to no less than 1,134. Therefore the Committee would perceive that the number was not only increasing, but that the ratio of increase was in itself increasing, and, therefore, afforded a good augury for the future development of the system. The only other point noticed by the lion, and gallant Member for West Sussex was the extension of the cottage system. lie believed that that system had succeeded very well, both in the case of Birmingham and Chelsea. The chief objection to it was that it was a more expensive system than the ordinary one. His hon. and gallant Friend appeared to think that children were removed from the taint of pauperism if they were removed from contact with other children. That was not, however, the case. The cottage system was merely a workhouse for children, erected on a different plan to other workhouses. So far as education was concerned, it did not differ essentially from other workhouses; and, seeing that the children remained in contact with other pauper children, it could not be said that the system possessed the particular advantage ascribed to it by his hon. and gallant Friend. He thought

  1721
  he had now answered all questions which had been put to him.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £10,725, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
  DR. FARQUHARSONwished, before the Vote passed, to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reference to lunacy inspection. He had tried to obtain the information he was about to ask privately, but had not yet succeeded in getting it. There were six Commissioners of Lunacy, and, although not absolutely stated in the Votes, it was well known that three of them were medical men, and three of them lawyers. He could quite understand the medical part of the Commission of Lunacy, and he could appreciate the advantage of having lunatics inspected by medical men, who would more readily be able to see whether a patient was mad or not than any other person, and who would act accordingly. But he found that the three Medical Commissioners were accompanied by three Legal Commissioners, and that they appeared to hunt in couples. What he wished to know was what precise functions were performed by the lawyers, who would naturally know nothing of the subjects they were appointed to investigate, and who could not be chosen on account of the knowledge they possessed, or because they had made insanity a special study? Those appointments could have nothing to do with any special complicated legal question which might spring up in respect of the administration of the law, because such matters were referred afterwards to the Masters in Lunacy who sat in certain centres. Were those lawyers placed on the Commission in order to check any irregularities on the part of the doctors? Was there any danger of the doctors hanging together and keeping patients in confinement who were not mad? If that were so, the object of appointing Legal Commissioners would be intelligible enough. In Scotland, as his hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple), who he was glad to see enjoying a seat upon the Treasury Bench, well knew, nothing of the sort occurred, although there were no Legal Commissioners, and it was only doctors who went round doing the work of inspection. Of course, there were Legal
  1722
  Boards before whom the Medical Commissioners could place any question of difficulty connected with law. A good deal had been said of late about the administration of the Lunacy Laws. He confessed that he did not share the fears which had been growing up in the public mind as to the administration of those laws; but he thought, at the same time, that the best way of allaying such fears would be by having a better system of examination and inspection by the Lunacy Commission. He found that in England three Medical Inspectors inspected 140 asylums containing 15,000 lunatics, whereas in Scotland two Commissioners inspected 6,500. What he should like to see was that the three Legal Commissioners should be got rid of altogether, and that in their place three Medical Commissioners should be appointed, raising the number of Medical Commissioners to six. He would even like to see the number increased to eight, and then those medical men might go round to some extent together. He did not propose to move any reduction of the Vote on the present occasion, although he, perhaps, might do so on another occasion when more notice could be given of his intention. He would only add that he awaited with some curiosity the information which the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to supply as to the special advantage of having three lawyers associated with the Medical Commissioners in the work of inspection.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had called attention to the fact that there were 140 lunatic asylums in this country containing 15,000 patients, and that six Commissioners were appointed to inspect them. He would be glad to learn how many visits had been paid to those asylums in the course of the year? In the first place, did all the Inspectors go about together, or did they make their visits in levies of three?
  DR. FARQUHARSON: No; they visit in couples.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should like to know, then, how many visits were paid to each asylum in the course of a year? In the second place, he would like to know whether those visitors possessed any special knowledge in connection with private lunatic asylums, and he would further like to know how many visits of

  1723
  inspection were paid to private lunatic asylums in the course of the year? There was another point upon which he also desired information. He wanted to know whether, when an asylum was intended to be inspected, any notice of the visit was given to the proprietor of the asylum, or whether the proprietor had any means of becoming acquainted beforehand with the intention of the Commissioners to visit his institution? He put this question because, at the present moment, there existed some doubt upon the matter. He should be sorry to make an accusation against the proprietor of any lunatic asylum in this country; but there could be no doubt that measures had constantly been taken to prepare for the visits of the Commissioners. All the private lunatic asylums were required to be certified, and he believed that it was an undoubted fact that a few days before the Inspectors arrived measures were taken by the proprietors of a private lunatic asylum to put the patients into a proper state for receiving the visit of inspection, and patients who a few days before were in a perfectly good state of health were often found, on the arrival of the Visiting Commissioners, to be in a dangerous state of lunacy. He was sorry to make a statement of that nature, but there were instances in which those facts had been certified. And they knew very well from what had occurred in the past that there was abundant evidence to show that the private lunatic asylums of the country bad been conducted in a manner that was not beneficial to the patients. One proof of the assertion that the same advantageous treatment was not provided in a private asylum as in a public institution would be found in the statistics of the death rate in the public and private asylums. He did not wish to trouble the Committee with the figures, because they were given last year; but the only conclusion to be drawn from them and from other figures was certainly a most painful one—namely, that it was clearly to the advantage of the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum, if he studied his own interests, to keep a patient as long as he could. If they would, compare the statistics of public asylums with those of private asylums it would be found that a much larger number of cures were effected in the former than in the latter.
  1724
  In a public asylum those in charge of the institution had no pecuniary interest in the detention of the patients; and, therefore, they were free from all temptation to retard their progress towards recovery. Then, again, the public asylums were subjected to a strong public opinion. Those who went to them were, to a large extent, visited by their friends; and they were sent there, not for the purpose of getting rid of them, but for the purpose of securing that they should obtain such medical treatment as would best conduce towards their recovery. It would be found in the public asylums that there was a thorough public inspection, not only by the Lunacy Commissioners, but an inspection which resulted from public opinion being brought to bear upon them. Owing to those important considerations, and to the further fact that the persons in charge of the public asylums had no possible interest in retaining an unfortunate patient for any length of time, it would be found that a very large number of cures were effected, and that there was a very favourable state of circumstances in regard to the death rates, if they compared the death rates in a public asylum with those in a private asylum, where there were interests which did not exist in the public asylum for the purpose of securing the payment of the money charged for the detention of the patients. In some cases it was known that as large a sum as £1,000 a-year had been paid, when probably the actual cost did not amount to £150 a-year. He was, therefore, entitled to say that there was a strong temptation, even in the case of a conscientious proprietor, to keep the patients in a state of lunacy, and not allow them to be perfectly cured. So far as the inspection which took place in those private asylums was concerned, he had stated before, and he would state it again, that it amounted to an absolute farce. No doubt, the Inspectors went down; but probably two or three days before they went to a private asylum the proprietor became perfectly well aware that the inspection was about to take place. He would take the case of a patient who was only partially insane, and capable of making a rational complaint of the treatment applied to him. It was quite clear that in such cases the proprietors could, and that they really

  1725
  did, as a matter of fact, prepare the patients for the visit about to be made to them. Then, again, preparation to a large extent was made for the inspection by improving the surroundings of the institution by placing out flowers and providing amusements for the inmates. An inspection under such circumstances amounted to nothing, and was absolutely useless. The Inspectors were formally supposed to go down as the enemies of those proprietors, in order to criticize the treatment, and to discover the actual state of the patients. They now went down in a sort of perfunctory manner as Government officials receiving large salaries. They went down with very little knowledge of the habits of the persons they had to inspect, and certainly in many cases they could have no special knowledge on the subject of lunacy at all. Most of the appointments were made from political motives, and influence on the part of those with whom the appointments rested, and the previous training of some of the Inspectors rendered it impossible for them to have made the question of lunacy a special study. Their own Reports, published annually, he believed were Reports which showed the utter inefficiency of the present system of inspection; and the articles in those Reports proved—and, indeed, had been admitted by the late Government to prove—that the whole system of inspection in regard to lunatic asylums was nothing more than a simple farce. They were promised last year that a Bill would be introduced for the purpose of dealing with those private lunatic asylums. He did not know what the stage of that Bill was; but he hoped that it was the intention of the present Government to take steps for going on with it. He trusted, at any rate in the next Parliament, they would be prepared to give effect to the intentions of the late Government, and to pass a strong and adequate measure for bringing those private asylums under the full force of public opinion in a similar manner to the public asylums of the country.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that before his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board answered the questions which had been put to him, he should like to know whether it was intended to proceed with the Lunacy Bill which was introduced into the other House by the late Lord Tenterden? He
  1726
  believed that the Bill had received great consideration in the House of Lords, and, in the course of that consideration, various and desirable Amendments had been made. His right hon. Friend must be aware that there was a strong feeling in the country in favour of the amendment of the Lunacy Laws; and he, therefore, trusted that if it were possible the Government would see their way to carrying through the Bill which had been introduced. It was not a contentious Bill and not a Party Bill, but a measure which both sides of the House concurred in desiring to carry through. He, therefore, hoped that, considering the strong feeling entertained throughout the country on the subject, not a day would be lost in pushing it forward, and that, if possible, it would be passed into law during the present Session.
  MR. D. GRANTsaid, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that many of the conditions under which private lunatic asylums were now conducted distinctly required improvement. The initial difficulty still remained, and it was this—that under the existing law two medical men had power to incarcerate an individual under conditions which had been proved in more than one case to be entirely wrong. He might allude to the case of Mrs. Weldon, which had so often been brought before the public; and he thought he had a right to ask that in any Bill which dealt with the question power should not be given to any two medical men under any condition whatever to imprison a British subject in the manner in which that power was now exercised. He thought that in any future legislation there should be this additional provision—that before any person could be put in a private lunatic asylum he should be brought into open Court and his insanity thoroughly demonstrated. If that were done many of the evils which now existed would at once cease of themselves. He was afraid it was a fact that in many instances it had been proved that private lunatic asylums were in reality mere prison houses put into operation for the distinct purpose of carrying out private malice or private gain. No doubt, many of them were conducted properly and legitimately; but there were others which assumed a very different complexion, and it ought

  1727
  to be the duty of the Government to provide that such institutions should no longer be capable of being carried on. No one ought to be confined in a private asylum unless he was first taken before a magistrate.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)expressed a hope that the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) would not think that because the observations he was about to make on this subject were few, he was not fully alive, and that the Government were not fully alive, to the importance of the question; a question that was not now for the first time brought before the House. He referred especially to the point which the hon. Member had himself urged with so much force, the necessity of an investigation and inspection of private asylums. This must be manifest to anyone who had considered the subject. He was not prepared to admit, as far as his information went, that when a Lunacy Commissioner was about to inspect a private lunatic asylum he gave notice of his intention.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he had not said that the Commissioners had done so; but it was almost invariably a fact that the date of the inspection became known beforehand.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he was informed that even that was not the case, although, perhaps, the intended visit might become known in some cases. So far as his own individual opinion was concerned—and he believed it was shared by many hon. Members on that side of the House—be entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the inspection of a private lunatic asylum should be a sudden inspection, which should not be known beforehand by the Directors of the asylums. If the hon. Member desired, he would have much pleasure in bringing this point under consideration of the proper authorities. The opinion, however, must only be regarded as his own personal opinion, and as one largely shared by hon. Members on that side of the House. As regarded the detention of patients in private lunatic asylums longer than they ought to be detained on the ground of the pecuniary interest of the proprietors of the asylums in which they were confined, that question had been gone into at some length before a Com-
  1728
  mittee which sat some years ago, of which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was a Member, As far as he remembered, the assertions then made were not altogether corroborated by the evidence given before the Committee. At the same time, there could be no question that in the case of private asylums patients had been detained longer than they ought to have been detained. He was not aware whether that point was dealt with in the Lunacy Bill to which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert) had referred, but he felt that it was one which deserved consideration; and if that Bill was to be continued, and it was felt necessary or desirable to introduce a clause into it upon that matter in order to check the abuse complained of, he was quite satisfied that it would be introduced. At the same time, the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) must know that there was very great difficulty in dealing with that case, and that there was a very strong opinion among many persons that the best way of meeting it was not by putting an end to those private asylums, which could not be done without the payment of a considerable amount of money in the way of compensation, but by attaching to the public asylums wards in which private paying patients might be placed. He believed that that would be found to be the best way of meeting this question. As regarded the observations of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. D. Grant), there could be no doubt that there had lately been a strong feeling in the country that the mode of incarcerating persons who were alleged to be lunatics was not satisfactory; and he believed that that matter was, to a certain extent, dealt with by the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by the late Lord Chancellor (the Earl of Selborne). There were various questions arising in respect of it as to which opinion was not altogether united. There was a general feeling that the mode of incarceration was not satisfactory. But as to whether cases should at once be brought before the magistrates there was a considerable difference of opinion. It would, he thought, be found in the evidence given before the Committee, and by a debate in "another place," that the Earl of Shaftesbury, who had shown untiring zeal in the matter, and who possessed, perhaps

  1729
  more experience upon it than any other person in this country was strongly of opinion that it was not desirable to bring every case at once before a magistrate. It was pointed out that it would be dangerous to delay the detention of dangerous lunatics by bringing them before a Court. The difficulty was in giving immediate notice and getting a Commissioner at once to go and examine the case. Again, if it were made necessary to take every lunatic at once before a magistrate, many persons who belonged to the middle and upper classes would feel inclined not to bring cases of lunacy before the public at all, but to deal with them in their own houses, thereby lessening the chances of their recovery. Those were cases which must receive consideration by the Committee to which he had referred. In regard to the number of Commissioners, it was true that there were six paid Commissioners; but there were 10 Commissioners in all. No doubt three of them were lawyers, and personally he would be glad to support the interests of a Profession to which he had the honour to belong with all his heart; but he had no special reasons to allege for Legal as distinguished from Medical Commissioners. At the same time, he would observe that lawyers had sat upon the Commission as far back as the Statute 8 & 9 Vict., c. 100, and that there were cases constantly arising in which a knowledge of the law was essential. He was informed that legal questions were constantly brought before the Legal Commissioners, and that in many instances it was necessary that those questions of law should be dealt with at once, and without the unnecessary delay which would take place if a case were required to be referred by the Medical Commissioners to a Legal Department of the State. Another answer to the complaint in regard to the appointments of Legal Commissioners was that their presence on the Commission tended to lessen any doubt which might arise in the public mind that anything illegal might be going on as to the treatment of lunatics. His observations in reply to the speeches which had been made upon the subject were necessarily somewhat short; but he trusted that it would not be inferred, in consequence, that he entertained any doubt as to the importance of the subject.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought there was much force in the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, that the best way of getting rid of private lunatic asylums would be to attach private wards to the public asylums. He had recently visited a large and important lunatic asylum in this country, and he had had a conversation with the Medical Inspector of the institution, who had pointed out to him that one great difficulty which had to be met was the necessity of raising money by loan for the purpose of dealing with the question of buildings. The cost fell upon the local rates, and in many instances there was no power of raising money for purposes of that sort. At the same time he admitted that that was a difficulty which ought to be got over. The gentleman to whom he referred was the Medical Superintendent of the asylum, and he was informed by that gentleman that one great cause of confirmed lunacy was the adoption of the silent system, or a system of imprisonment in which the lunatics were kept entirely away from companionship. That gentleman told him that that was one of the most pregnant causes of confirmed lunacy in. the cases which had come under his notice. He (Mr. Biggar) therefore hoped that the Government, in dealing with the matter, would not omit to consider that point; and he would add that the gentleman from whom he received his information was altogether impartial, and had no private or political reason for expressing that opinion. The asylum he had visited was in Lancashire, and he must say that everybody connected with the institution—both officials and patients—seemed to him to be exceedingly good-natured. The lunatics worked in batches in the gardens attached to the asylum without any form of restraint; the gates of the establishment were wide open, and there was nothing in the shape of personal restraint experienced by these unhappy people. The whole treatment of them was altogether different from what he had witnessed some years ago in a private lunatic asylum in London, where the patients or their friends paid very highly for their board and the treatment they received. In that case the patients had access only to a garden a quarter of an acre in extent, and they were worse off, as far as the liberty of their action

  1731
  was concerned, than pauper lunatics living at the expense of the ratepayers. He certainly thought that the subject was one of very great importance, and that the Government, if they really intended to do anything in the matter, should do so as speedily as possible. He had not the slightest doubt that the treatment of lunatics in many cases was highly improper, and that they were confined in places which were entirely unfit for their detention. Unless the asylums were large establishments, and thoroughly well organized and superintended, it was impossible for the patients to get the treatment they required, and the companionship which was necessary to give them a prospect of recovery.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he had listened with some satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland), and especially to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he gave the Committee reason to believe that the Government intended to give their best support to the Bill which was now before Parliament. He believed that that measure had received the support of both Parties in the House of Lords; and he trusted that, if possible, it would be passed into law in the course of the present Session.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, he had only one word to say as to the views of his own Department in reference to the Lunacy Bill introduced by the late Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns). He believed he was justified in stating that the Department was favourable to that part of the measure which went in the direction of gradually extinguishing asylums kept for private gain. He was of opinion that many of the points which had been raised in the course of the discussion would be among those with which legislation would probably have to deal. He would not say more at present in regard to a subject which was likely to come more formally before the House before the Session closed.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give his attention to this matter.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the subject should be fully considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £44,333, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
  (5.) £9,200, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  (6.) £31,997, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he had on a former occasion asked the authorities a question relating to the position of the Patent Office; and he would be glad to find that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry de Worms) was now in a position to give the information asked for. The amount of the Vote was £45,997; but he understood that the receipts of the Office were very largely in excess of any payments which appeared on the Estimate, and he asked what was the amount of the profits of the Office? His object was, of course, to bring about a reduction of the amount of patent fees, which were still very, heavy, and continued to operate injuriously in respect of the inventive powers of mechanics. It was on that ground that he asked the hon. Gentleman for this information.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, the total estimated receipts from patents in the year ending on the 31st of March, 1886, was £79,400, or £9,900 less than in the previous financial year. That was arrived at as follows:—First, there was a loss upon fees paid under the Act of 1852–that was to say, the fees paid in the year 1884 in respect of applications made in 1883, which payments ceased about July 1884; that loss amounted to £14,900. Secondly, there was a loss of £26,400 due to deferred payment upon fees of £100, owing to the substitution of annual payments, spread over a term of years for payment of £100 in a lump sum; those two amounts made a total loss of £41,300, and after deducting from that £31,400 for increased receipts in 1885–6 from various sources under the new Act there remained the net estimated loss of £9,900 referred to. Against the receipts there was, of course, to be placed the expenditure of the Department, and the Committee would observe that there was an increase of 20 in the number of Assistant Examiners (Indexing and Abridging Clerks), and a corresponding increase in the amount of salaries for the staff required. It had been esti-

  1733
  mated that there would be about 9,000 applications; but the number actually received was 17,110; hence the increased examining staff and the increased amount of the Estimate. Again, owing to the greater amount of work done in the Office, it had been found necessary to increase the number of Lower Division Clerks by 12; and, further, it had been necessary to employ a large number of shorthand writers to record the ruling of the Judges in cases which were brought before the Courts of Law.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he gathered from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that there was no profit on the working of the Patent Office.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE: There is no profit at all; on the contrary, an estimated less of £9,900 for the present financial year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £17,774, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had no intention of discussing this Vote. But he would submit for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be easy, and whether it was not desirable, to abolish the Office of Paymaster General? He believed it would be easy to contrive a totally different system tinder which much of the unnecessary work and much of the unnecessary expenditure due to the system which now obtained in the Paymaster General's Office might be got rid of; but as this was a subject with respect to which he had given no Notice, and which would probably come upon the present Financial Secretary somewhat suddenly, he would not pursue it then, although, if he had a seat in that House next year, it would be his duty to state his views upon it more fully.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member had called attention to this subject, because it would be satisfactory to him to hear that it had received some consideration at the hands of the late Government; that a Committee had been appointed, of which the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Chairman; and that a Report had been presented by them and recommendations made, which, as he was informed, were to the effect that this Department should be
  1734
  largely reduced. As the Committee would be aware, two classes of payments were made, effective and non-effective; and certainly, with regard to the effective class, without going fully into the matter, he believed that the proposed change would lessen the work of the Department, and effect in the end a very considerable saving to the country. He did not think he could properly say more than that at the present time.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £6,747, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
  MR. MARJOR IBANKSsaid, upon this Vote he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the question of loans for harbours. The Committee on which he had the honour to preside had made certain recommendations on this subject; those recommendations, as he know, had received the attention of the late Government, and he would like to know how far the present Government were prepared to carry out the pledges winch their Predecessors had given on the subject in that House? He pointed out that one of the strongest recommendations of the Committee was that the duty of deciding on the policy of harbours to be constructed by means of loans of public money should be taken out of the hands of the Public Works Loan Commissioners and given to a Department of the Government. Now, in reply to a Question put by him at an earlier period of the Session to the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), the right hon. Gentleman informed him that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry that recommendation into effect. He (Mr. Marjoribanks) wished to know whether anything bad been done with regard to that recommendation of the Committee—whether the hon. Gentleman who represented the Deparment had found since he had assumed Office that any steps had been taken to carry out the pledge given to him by the late President of the Board of Trade; and, if not, what was the intention of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this question? Then there was another point to which he desired to call the attention of the Committee. As hon. Members would be aware, a Treasury Minute had been

  1735
  issued reducing the interest on loans by one-half per cent on satisfactory collateral security being given; and although ho could not say that was all that they expected or all they wished, it was, at any rate, a step in the right direction. He would be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to carry out the decision of their Predecessors; did they intend to give effect to the Treasury Minute which had been issued? Then he would ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury how far the Treasury Minute referred to would apply to loans recently granted? As an illustration of the point, he would refer to a small fishing port of his own constituency. Last year the Local Authorities obtained a loan of £25,000: they gave as collateral security the borough rates; and this was the first instance in which such security had been given for such loans by any town or borough. Now, the question he wished to have answered was this—"A part only of the money having been advanced, will the Treasury Minute apply to the whole loan, or to that portion of it which has been issued?" If some arrangement were not made by which this small place would get the benefit of the reduction of interest, he said it would be a very hard case, and one which it would be very difficult to justify to the community. Another recommendation of the Committee was that Harbour Boards having debts should be enabled to apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for loans on favourable terms to consolidate their debt, and get the benefit of the low rate of interest charged for harbour loans. He asked the hon. Baronet whether that subject had received any consideration at the Treasury? He was aware that he could hardly, perhaps, expect a very full answer from the hon. Baronet opposite; yet the subject had been so long before the House, and it was one that should have been so fully considered by the Department, that he could not but think the Committee were entitled to receive from the hon. Baronet a statement of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Committee to the correspondence which had taken place between the Education Department and the Treasury on a subject put
  1736
  forward by a deputation which he had had the honour of introducing, on the 11th of July, 1884, to the Vice President of the Committee of Council. He referred to the subject of loans advanced to school boards by the Public Loan Commissioners, the charges in connection with which in many localities were a most serious burden on the people, and in particular localities constituted a hindrance to public education. As far back as August last year, the Vice President said, in a letter to the Secretary to the Treasury, that he was satisfied that nothing caused more discontent, or more effectually retarded the work of school boards, than the large rates required to meet the annual charge for school buildings; that this discontent was greatly aggravated by the fact that the rate of interest which was originally fixed by the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1873 had been materially increased by the Act of 1879, and that the expectations held out in 187 0 that the rate would not exceed 3d. in the pound had been disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not for the Education Department to determine which of the remedies suggested by the various Memorialists should be adopted, but that he was strongly of opinion that something should be done to restore the school boards to the position which they occupied before the Act of 1879 was passed, and he trusted that the Lords of the Treasury would see their way to adopt that view. The towns which felt most acutely this severe strain on their resources were especially those of rapid growth, or those largely inhabited by the industrial classes—Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Dewsbury, Hedworth, Monkton, and Jarrow, Middles borough, Ipswich, Swansea, Aston, and the borough of Gateshead, which he had the honour to represent. Those towns, with some others, had memorialized the Department for an alteration of the charges now made upon school boards in respect of loans. With the exception of Dewsbury, all the boards were unanimous in asking for a reduction of the rate of interest, so that it might never exceed the rate fixed by the Elementary Education Act of 1870, Section 57, and the Elementary Education Act of 1876, Section 10—namely, 3½ per cent. They also asked for permission to repay all loans by way of

  1737
  annuity—that was to say, by equal annual instalments, including principal and interest, and for an extension of the period of repayment. Now, this matter having been for some time before the Treasury, the late (Secretary to that Department (Mr. Hibbert), in the early part of the year, addressed a letter to the late Vice President of the Council on Education, stating the terms on which new loans might be issued, and the grounds on which he thought that some slight concessions might be granted to the towns, many of which were poor, and where the demands for public education, so far from diminishing, were likely, during ensuing years, largely to increase. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman the late Financial Secretary was not at that moment in his place, that he might in his presence take exception to the letter he had written. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by far the greater portion of the money advanced for school buildings since the passing of the Act of 1870 was advanced at a lower rate of interest, and that the more onerous terms prescribed under the Act of 1879 applied, in the main, to the moderate amount required to meet the demand resulting from the increase of population. The hon. Gentleman stated that the loans advanced for educational purposes in Great Britain by the Public Loan Commissioners, from the passing of the Education Act to the 31st of March, 1880, amounted to £12,369,000; while in the interval between the 31st of March, 1880, and the 31st of March, 1884, a further sum of only £3,185,000 had been advanced for the like purposes, and that it was evident that the enhanced rates imposed by this Minute of 1879 applied only to a small proportion of the loans under the Education Act, and that the charge on the school boards generally had not been increased to any great degree by the action of those enhanced rates. But why did that appear to be so? The true reason was that so many school boards had gone into the public market, and instead of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners they had borrowed from private sources. It appeared, and he was assured by competent authorities with whom he had consulted on this subject that between the months of September, 1879, and September, 1883, £4,340,000 had been raised by the
  1738
  school boards of the country, with the consent of the Education Department, for the erection of buildings; that in some places the education rate amounted to Is., and even to 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. in the pound, and that a very considerable portion of the charge was due to the rate of interest rather than to the specific character of the teaching and apparatus connected with it. Certainly he thought that a case had been made out for further assistance from the State in these cases, unless as he trusted it was not the intention or desire of the Government, by starving public education, to render it unpopular. Now, the recommendation which the Treasury made to the Education Commissioners was that, subject to the Public Works Loan Commissioners increasing the rate of interest, if the price of money became higher that it was, the rate for loans repayable in 35 years should be 3½ per cent; for loans repayable in 40 years 3¾ per cent; and for those extending over a period of 50 years 4 per cent; and they further recommended that the Public Works Commissioners should accept repayment of loans up to 30 years in the form of a fixed annuity when such loans were required for new schools. But he wished to impress upon the Secretary to the Treasury that the desire of the school boards was to restore those loans to the position they were in before the passing of the Public Works Loans Act of 1879. That Act did not necessarily provide that interest should be charged at a higher rate than 3½ per cent, and it appeared to him that the action of the Treasury and of the Public Works Loans Commissioners was somewhat in the direction of overriding the intention of Parliament. He had a Motion upon that subject; but in the position of the House he did not think it expedient to call attention to it on the present occasion. However, he believed that a fair case had been made out for the consideration of the Government; and he trusted that this question, in which a great deal of interest was felt, would meet with a satisfactory settlement at their hands.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he much regretted the temporary absence of the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), because he knew that the hon. Gentleman specially desired

  1739
  to answer the objection that he believed would be made to the action of the late Government in respect of the rate of interest on loans for educational purposes charged by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), the hon. Member asked that the duty of deciding upon the question as to what harbours should be constructed should be taken from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and given to a Department of the Government. But if the decision as to the site of any proposed works were to rest with the Board of Trade he should be wrong in saying that the Treasury would not always have a large influence in directing the action of that Department on this question. However able the Board might be to judge of the propriety of making a harbour at any place, the Treasury had to look at the question from the financial point of view. But he could assure the hon. Member that the point should be considered in order to see how far his views could be met. On that point, however, he was, of course, unable at the moment to say more. With regard to the rate of interest on loans, to which the hon. Member had called attention, he thought the Department which he had the honour to represent intended, and felt themselves bound, to adhere to the Minute of the 18th of June to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It appeared that the Public Works Loans Act had worked very well up to a certain point; but there could be no questioning the fact that a great rush had been, or shortly would be, made on the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and while that had been made in one direction, another very powerful movement was being made in the direction of making the Treasury reduce the rate of interest. It was, under those circumstances, the duty of the Treasury to see that the country did not suffer between those two pressures; and, therefore, for the present, he was obliged to say that the Treasury must adhere to the Minute. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), he was very far, and the Government was very far, from underrating the importance of the question referred to, and which was creating great interest throughout the country.
  There was no doubt that the school board rate did excite very uncomfortable feelings in the minds of people, tending to lighten their pockets; but he was bound to say, in answer to the hon. Member, that the Treasury, at all events for the present, must adhere to the Minute.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he wished to be clearly understood. He had not dreamed for a moment that the Department of the Government alluded to should have the power to grant loans. He urged that the decision as to the absolute policy of making a harbour at a particular place, for fishing purposes or for the good of the country generally, should not be in the power of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, because they were a body of gentlemen unacquainted with the particular requirements of the country in that respect. It was simply on the question of policy that ho wished the Government would step in, the question of security being left to the Commissioners.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, that, as far as his own opinion went, he imagined that the position indicated by the hon. Gentleman would be a fair one. He was only anxious to point out that there must always be in these cases many important points to be considered and conclusions arrived at from a financial point of view.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, he and his hon. Friends on the Committee had strongly recommended that the selection of particular harbours to receive loans should rest with the Board of Trade, and that the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be restricted to the consideration of the question as to whether the security offered was sufficient. He also wished to impress upon, the attention of the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade another recommendation which was made by the Committee; that recommendation relating to the extinction of debt on finished works. Where a harbour had been constructed, and its benefit and advantage to the trade of the district clearly ascertained, the debt incurred by the construction ought to be reduced or extinguished as rapidly as possible; and the Committee recommended that loans should be granted to harbour authorities with this object

  1741
  in view. In the case of a maritime country like this, the cheapening of their harbours were very essential. This was no question of Party policy or Party advantage, but one in which the community generally was interested; and if it was necessary he advised the Board of Trade, in the annual Bill for providing funds for public loans, to obtain an alteration of the law to enable loans to be granted for the purpose he (Mr. Stevenson) had stated.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £15,288, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
  (10.) £34,887, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
  (11.) £422,097, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
  (12.) £16,852, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
  MR. RANKINasked whether it was within the functions of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to supply information with regard to the extent of woods and forests in the country? An interesting debate took place not long ago in reference to woods and forests; but the extent of woods and forests in the country did not seem to be known to anyone. As far as he knew, no Return had been made of the extent of woods and forests; and he should like to know whether it would come within the functions of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to supply the information?
  MR. ACKERSasked whether it was the intention of the present Government to appoint the Committee which was moved for some time ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) to inquire into the advisability of establishing a school of forestry in this country?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, it seemed a very reasonable and proper suggestion, or recommendation, that a Return should be made of the extent of woods and forests in the country, and he would inquire whether such a Return could be furnished? So far no steps had been taken towards the appointment of a Committee concerning Schools of Forestry; but he had no hesitation in saying that the matter would receive
  1742
  careful consideration—he thought he might go so far as to say favourable consideration. He had seen the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) upon the point, and from what the hon. Baronet had said he had no doubt of the importance of the question. It was possible, he (Sir Henry Holland) thought, that the school might be connected with the School of Engineers at Cooper's Hill, though he did not wish to tie himself down to that view. The matter should receive consideration.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £35,529, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
  (14.) £40,000, Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
  (15.) £25,000, to complete the sum for Secret Service.
  (16.) £4,800, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and other Offices, Scotland.
  (17.) £18,095, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that before the Vote was passed he should like to ask his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) a few questions. His first question had reference to the cruisers employed by the Fishery Board. Those vessels had been condemned by the Fishery Board, and also by the Trawling Commission in their Report; and he recently communicated with his hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) upon the subject, and had received from him an assurance to the effect that the Admiralty were arranging for suitable cruisers to take the place of those now used, and it was hoped that in a short time the arrangements would be completed. The present cruisers were quite obsolete, and therefore he trusted the Government would carry out the intention of their Predecessors to provide more suitable vessels. Then he wished to ask his hon. Friend what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the Bill which had been introduced in "another place," and which was founded upon the recommendations of the Trawling Commission? He be-

  1743
  lieved that Bill had been read a second time in the other House; and as a great deal of feeling existed in Scotland on the subject of the Bill, he trusted the Government would be able to go on with the measure. It was important that the questions involved should be settled as soon as possible, and that additional powers should be given to the Fishery Board to carry out the recommendations of the Trawling Commission. There were in existence some obsolete statutes on the subject of herring barrels. There were certain regulations as to preventing the use of iron hoops for the barrels; but it was proposed by the Bill to which he had already referred to give power to the Fishery Board to make any regulations they thought right with regard to the herring barrels. This might seem a small question, but it was one to which a considerable amount of attention was given by the fish curers in the North, and he hoped it would not escape the attention of the Government. Then, in a recently issued Report, the Fishery Board called the attention of the Home Secretary to the subject which had been touched upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Mar-joribanks)—namely, the question of harbour loans. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) had said that these loans would be facilitated if collateral security could be given. Mr. Sheriff Guthrie Smith, a member of the Fishery Board, had sketched out a plan by which the fishermen's houses could be offered as security, and this plan he (Mr. Duff) commended to the consideration of the Government. He was glad to see that the expenditure for scientific investigation had proved so beneficial. Last year the late Government gave an additional sum of £1,500, and he hoped the present Government would do whatever they could to carry on those scientific investigations which had been productive of so much good to the fishermen. He had no further remark to make; but he should like to have some assurance that these matters, particularly the matter of the cruisers, would not be overlooked by the Government.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, that with regard to the cruisers engaged in the service of
  1744
  the Fishery Board, he thought it was scarcely probable that there would be any sudden reversal of the policy of their Predecessors. The matter was not strictly in the jurisdiction of his Department. It rather concerned the Admiralty; but he was in a position to say that what had been recommended by the Fishery Board, and what the late Admiralty contemplated doing, would most probably be carried out by those who now had the care of such matters. The hon. Gentleman asked what was the intended fate of the Fisheries Bill now before the House of Lords. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was, in speaking of this Bill, in the same difficulty as he was just now in speaking of another Bill; but he thought he might go so far as to say that a Bill founded upon the recommendations of a Commission which enjoyed so much respect as the Trawling Commission would naturally be given a very favourable place in the consideration of the Government. Of course, it was difficult to say much with regard to a Bill which was not before the House of Commons; but he thought he was in a position to say that the Fisheries Bill was not, at all events, in an abandoned condition. As to the proposed alteration of the regulations as to branding herring barrels, and the security for harbour loans, those matters were engaging the attention of the Government; and he might say that no great difference of opinion had yet developed itself upon them. He rejoiced that the hon. Gentleman should applaud what had been done with regard to scientific investigation. There was no doubt that demands on behalf of scientific investigation in this matter required to be regarded with a good deal of vigilance. Proposals were apt to grow at a somewhat alarming rate. At the same time, it had been found possible to grant the lump sum which appeared in the Estimates; and the Fishery Board had found the means of devising such an appropriation as seemed to them not to fall very far short of realizing the object with which this scientific investigation was set on foot.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) £4,469, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland. (19.) £4,893, to complete the sum for ' the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
  (20.)£24,959, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
  (21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,460,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
  MR. MOLLOYthought it was understood that no Irish Estimates would be taken that night.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he was not aware of the understanding.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that, on principle, the Irish Members must divide the Committee upon the Vote, as they had done annually for the last five years. They could not agree with the Vote on account of matters which were now within the public knowledge. The conduct of the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer) in regard to various matters had frequently been the subject of debate in the House; it was sufficient to compel the Irish Members to enter their protest against a Vote being taken for his Household. There was only one matter coming under the Vote which he (Mr. Molloy) wished to mention specially. He noticed an item of £50 set down "for insignia and banners of the Order of St. Patrick." He would like to know in respect of whom the sum was to be paid?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYsaid, it could not be expected of him to enter into a discussion of the late Lord Lieutenant's conduct—it would be out of place in him to do so. The item of £50 to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded was charged in respect of the creation of two new Knights of St. Patrick.
  MR. MOLLOYasked who were the two Knights for whom this money had been paid. Why did they not pay it themselves? Surely the gentlemen should pay the expenses of the honours conferred upon them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYsaid, that he ought to have explained that these Knights did pay fees amounting to £300. Those fees came into the Ex-
  1746
  chequer, though they did not appear in this Vote.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 19: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 209.)
  (22.) £32,382, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.
  Ms. BIGGARsaid, the Estimate was considerably larger this year than last. Was there any special reason for it? Personally, he could not imagine what the reason was.
  THE CHIEF SECREARYsaid, there was an increase in the Estimate to the extent of £326. There was a slight increase in salaries, and there were three now items in the Estimate—namely, a gratuity to the Chief Clerk of £100, a gratuity of £40 to the Assistant Clerk, and a gratuity of £80 to the Travelling Inspector.
  Vote agreed to.
  (23.) £1,552, to complete the sum for I the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £119,978, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that this and the succeeding Vote should be postponed to another evening. These Votes had come on very unexpectedly, owing to the great progress which had been made that night.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he had no doubt that these Votes had come on hon. Members with surprise, and therefore he could not offer any opposition to their postponement.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir William Hart Dyke) whether there was any reason for the great delay which had taken place in the Return, for which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) moved for a short time ago, showing the dietary scale in the different workhouses in Ireland? It was granted by the last Government as an unopposed Return, and sufficient

  1747
  time had now elapsed for its production. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman could state the reason of the delay.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYpromised to make inquiries in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYasked leave, as a matter of form, to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £36,111, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (24.) £4,756, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
  (25.) £11,126, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
  (26.) £15,804, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  (27.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £152,245, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that there was a charge of £5,000 for the salary of the Agent in Egypt, and that there was a further charge of £2,000 for allowances. Hon. Members had been given to understand that another gentleman was going to Egypt. Ho (Mr. Labouchere) did not in the least complain that that gentleman should have been appointed to the office; but he wished to know something about the salaries to be paid. Sir Evelyn Baring was the Agent at present in Egypt; and he would like to know whether Sir Evelyn Baring was to receive £7,000 per annum after his departure from Egypt, and whether the gentleman who was to replace him was also to receive his expenses whilst in the country? "Expenses" was a very pleasant word, but it was perfectly well known that a Minister abroad practically received a salary in the payment
  1748
  of his expenses. He did not desire to raise the question of the advisability of sending a particular gentleman to Egypt. What he wanted was information as to what was intended from the financial point of view.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE)said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to ask whether it was intended to pay a salary to the gentleman to be sent to Egypt.
  MR, LABOUCHERE: What I desire to know is, whether the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring will be continued, and whether the new salary is to be an extra one?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that Sir Evelyn Baring was coming home on leave, and no steps had been taken to appoint his successor. For aught that he (Mr. Bourke) knew, Sir Evelyn Baring might return to Egypt and continue to draw the same salary as hitherto. As to the gentleman who might be sent on a special Mission, his salary had not been determined upon by the Secretary of State. He did not think the Committee would take it for granted that that question should come before them during the present Session.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the question ought to come before the Committee during the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that their Agents received allowances in addition to salary. In this particular case they were told that the Agent received £7,000 per annum, that he was going away, and that he would enjoy his salary during his absence, that while he was away a gentleman also with a large salary was to be sent to replace him. They were told that the extra salary was not to come before the House during the present year. He thought that was something strong. Surely £7,000 a-year was sufficient for them to pay their Representative in Egypt. It seemed, however, very likely that they would be called upon to pay double that amount. He would like it to be clearly understood whether they were to have an opportunity of raising any objection to an increase of the payment during the present year.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he had not said that Sir Evelyn Baring was coming away

  1749
  from Egypt in the sense which the hon. Gentleman appeared to have in mind. With respect to the salary of any other gentleman who might be sent to Egypt, the hon. Gentleman would have an ample opportunity of giving an opinion on the subject when the proper time came.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked when, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the proper time would come—would it be before the end of the present Session? The Votes in Classes III. and IV. had been skipped over, and the Government were now attempting to take the Votes in Class V., which raised many grave diplomatic questions. Was it intended that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this subject before they separated, because, although they might have very considerable regard for individual Members, the Government was only an irresponsible Government—they were but an ornamental Government—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to use such language.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would try to keep himself within the Rules of Debate. What he contended was that, whatever the Government might be, this Parliament was likely, within a few weeks, to separate and not to meet again. It was, therefore, very necessary that hon. Members should know what course would be followed in regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The Committee desired an opportunity of discussing matters which would arise on these diplomatic and other Votes.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought he ought to explain why Classes III. and IV. had been omitted and Class V. taken. It was owing to an arrangement entered into during the discussion of the Estimates last year. A certain order was then decided upon, and it had been deemed desirable that the Votes should follow in succession the same routine this year as last year When they had taken Class I. this year, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had drawn his (Mr. Hibbert's) attention to the conversation which had taken place on the subject last year, and had asked whether several of the classes should not be deferred. Upon that he (Mr. Hibbert) had put down Classes II. and
  1750
  V., and the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), who was now filling the place that he had filled in the late Government, was simply carrying out his arrangement.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, there was an item of expenditure that perhaps his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) would explain, or which, if he could not, perhaps some hon. Member belonging to the Opposition would explain. On page 421 of the Estimates he saw an item of £10,300for Unforeseen Services. That was a very large item. He assumed that it included the Earl of Northbrook's Mission to Egypt. The item as put down gave them very little information. It was a most important item in connection with the Diplomatic Service; and if it were the case, as he imagined, that the expenses of the Earl of Northbrook's Mission were included, it was, he thought, due to the House and the country that the whole of that nobleman's Report should be made public. The whole of that Report had not been published, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Bourke) whether he had considered the point? This was a legitimate question to raise; and certainly he, for one—he thought in common with nearly all who sat on the Benches behind the Government—was of opinion that before they had a discussion on Egyptian matters they ought to have the full text of the Earl of Northbrook's Report before them. Ho would ask how it was that only a partial and not a complete Report had been submitted to the House? The country was asked to vote a large sum for these Unforeseen Services, and in voting it it had a right to expect from the Government a quid pro quo—it was entitled to ask for full information respecting the Vote and the results achieved by it. For a large sum of money to be expended on sending a Minister abroad to report on certain matters for the benefit of the country, and, on the return of that Minister, to publish not the whole but only a part of his Report, was not treating the country nor the House with the respect due to them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in his opinion it was very unfair to badger the present Government about Estimates over the preparation of which they had not presided, and as to which

  1751
  they could not be held responsible in any sense or way. The Government had been obliged to take up the figures of their Predecessors and make the most of them. It was not fair to challenge them with not having altered items and not having done certain things with regard to items as to which they had not had time to obtain information. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman near him that the Government could not be held responsible for Estimates they did not themselves prepare. On the face of the Estimates, however, there were one or two things upon which it was only reasonable that the Committee should expect some amount of information. The first item of this kind was one upon which there had been an increase of a considerable amount. On looking through the details, on page 419 of the Estimates, he found "Mexico £300" figuring as a new item. There were sundry items put down to Mexico this year which did not appear last year. Then on page 421, if he remembered rightly, there was an item of £1.400 or so for special services in Corea; what did that moan? Then, £1,600 had been spent in connection with the Afghan Boundary Commission. That sum of £1,600 was very moderate indeed; but in some Indian Papers, or Papers relating to India, which had come under his hand, he had seen an item of £120,000 put down in connection with the same service. He should like to ask the Government what had really been the cost of the Afghan Boundary Commission, or what was it to be, and how was it to be described? Was it a fair proportion to ask India to pay—this £120,000? Was the British Exchequer to bear no more than £1,600; and if that was the way the expense was to be distributed, why was that proportion adopted? How could this arrangement be considered fair to India—to the poor unfortunate inhabitants of that country, who were in no way responsible for the expenditure? He wished for information on these three points—what was the position of diplomatic affairs with Mexico; what was the Special Mission to Corea; and why was only £1,600 charged against the Imperial funds for the Afghan Boundary Commission, while so large a sum as £120,000 was to be abstracted from the pockets of the taxpayers of India?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. A. O'Connor) had started a most astounding theory—namely, that when one set of Ministers prepared Estimates and another set brought them in, the House of Commons was to fall between two stools, and was not to examine or discuss those Estimates. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Connor), however, had not adhered very strictly to his own theory, because, having laid down the doctrine that one set of Ministers were not responsible for the Estimates prepared by another set of Ministers who had immediately preceded them in Office, and that therefore the Government were "not to be badgered," he had gone on to complain of certain items being vague, and to request explanations in a manner that he (Mr. Labouchere) had thought very sensible. The Estimates were far too high, whether brought in by Liberals or Conservatives. He had frequently made complaints on this score, and had done his best to get the Estimates reduced, with perfect indifference as to what Party was in power. He had now to take very strong exception to this item "Unforeseen Services." He thought the House of Commons, who supplied the money, had a right to know what were the particular expenses of particular services. To put down £10,300 for these "Unforeseen Services" was not legitimate. He did not know who was responsible for the manner in which the items were put down; but, at any rate, he would ask the Government to state what these Unforeseen Missions and Services were?
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, it had been decided that the whole of the expenses of the Afghan Boundary Commission proper should be borne by the Revenues of India. The £1,600 charged upon the Imperial Funds was merely for the payment of Mr. Condie Stephen and the secretary who accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden. The remainder of the cost of the Commission was charged upon India, against which he had protested on a former occasion. Seeing that such important items as this were included in the Vote, he certainly thought they were passing the Estimates somewhat too rapidly. Perhaps some hon. Member on the other side of the House would be able to explain what the £10,300 for "Unforeseen Services" represented. It might be for the Earl of Northbrook's

  1753
  Mission, or it might be for something else.
  MR. H. H. FOWLRconsidered that the original question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had not been satisfactorily answered. He (Mr. Fowler) thought they ought to have a distinct statement from the Government as to this Vote of £7,000 for Sir Evelyn Baring. They were given to understand that the Government were going to supersede him. ["No, no!"] Well, that Sir Evelyn Baring was about to "come home on leave." What the House of Commons wanted to know was this—supposing another hon. or right hon. Gentleman was sent out to Egypt to do the work of Sir Evelyn Baring, and that Sir Evelyn Baring was to come home on leave, was the country to pay the salaries of two Agents at the same time? They had no objection to the Government superseding Sir Evelyn Baring, and putting in his place someone in whom they had confidence; but they did object to two gentlemen being retained at the same time to do the work of one, and to a double salary being paid.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he had not the smallest objection to giving whatever information he had in his power to give to the hon. Gentleman or the House. He must say, however, that he found himself very much in the position of a cuckoo in another bird's nest, as the House would understand. He thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. H. H. Fowler) unreasonable; and he (Mr. Bourke) was surprised at the attitude the hon. Member had assumed, seeing that he had so lately held an official position himself. The hon. Member had, on mere newspaper reports, made a statement with respect to Sir Evelyn Baring, from which he (Mr. Bourke) entirely dissented. Her Majesty's Government had taken no judgment or decision with respect to the position of Sir Evelyn Baring so far as he knew. He should be much surprised to hear that Sir Evelyn Baring's position had been altered, and he was surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) put to the Government the question he had put. All the Committee had to do was to consider the salaries of officers already appointed. So far as he knew, there had been no
  1754
  appointment of anyone to supersede Sir Evelyn Baring. The House, he was sure, would easily understand the position of affairs. It would, he was sure, see that the position he took was a reasonable one, when he said that all that they had to do was to criticize as much as they pleased the appointment and salaries of officers already in the service of the Crown. As he had said, to the best of his knowledge there had been no one appointed to supersede Sir Evelyn Baring; therefore he declared it to be premature to discuss the salary of such a person. He had no observation to make in regard to the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring, which was the only question which could be raised on the present Vote. He did not know that Sir Evelyn's position was going to be altered, and he would say nothing whatever on that question.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £7,000—the amount for their special Agent in Egypt, together with special allowances. Although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) told them he could give no information as to Sir Evelyn Baring having been superseded, they must go, to a certain extent, on public report. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that no other agent was going to Egypt; and there could be no doubt that the Committee would be voting the Estimate under a misapprehension if they were to suppose that Sir Evelyn Baring's salary was the only one which would be given to an Agent in Egypt. The Committee assumed that some other salary would be paid to a gentleman representing England in Egypt—that some other Agent would be sent out, and that some other salary would consequently have to be paid. As the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not say that that would be the case, he (Mr. Labouchere) would ask the Committee to divide against this £7,000. Not that he objected to it if the salary were not increased, but because he believed that before long there would be another salary of a similar kind to pay. When that salary was proposed for payment would be the time for them to decide what amount should be paid to Agents in Egypt.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon, Member move to reduce the Vote?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; by £7,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £145,245, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Amendment practically amounted to one for the reduction of the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring for services already partly performed. It was the Secretary to the Treasury of the late Government who had prepared the Estimate now under discussion, conferring the salary upon their own Agent. It was true that another Secretary to the Treasury was now in Office; but he had merely adopted the Estimate prepared by his Predecessor. If any change in the nature of an addition for Agents in Egypt were made that addition would take the form of a Supplementary Estimate, which would have to be submitted to the House. At the present moment they were dealing with the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring for services already rendered, which was moved for by the late Government in that House, and simply adopted by the present Government on the recommendation of their Predecessors. The Vote was to pay a gentleman who had done his work, and in no way applied to any change which would take place in the future in the Estimate.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would give an answer to a question he had addressed to him—that he would tell them whether, before Parliament was prorogued, there would be another opportunity afforded for the discussion of this Vote?
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (LORD JOHN MANNERS)said, he wished to point out that if any other appointment was made with a salary attached to it a Supplementary Estimate would be required.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to say, with all due respect to the noble Lord, that he believed he was in error, or under a misapprehension. It was true that if a salary were attached to a second appointment a Supplementary Estimate would have to be asked for; but if the
  1756
  Mission was a special one, the money would be asked for after, and not before, that Mission was sent out. That was why he was raising the question at the present moment. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) would assure the Committee that on a Supplementary Estimate they would have an opportunity of discussing any expenditure on the part of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the appointment of a second Agent to be sent out to Egypt before the Prorogation, he would withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote. His object in now raising the question was to find out whether there was to be an increase in the Vote or not.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would explain the reason why this item for Special Missions was inserted in the Estimates this year. In previous years, in respect of unexpected Missions, expenditure of this nature had been provided for in Supplementary Estimates; and it had been thought desirable that instead of taking Supplementary Estimates for these amounts they should be provided for in the future in the Estimates of the year. It had been thought that that system would be found to work advantageously in the interests of economy. Though £21,000 was spent on Special Missions last year, this year only £10,000 would be asked for—a much less sum, although one rather over the expenditure of previous years. He wished to say, whilst he was on his feet, that if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion to reduce the Vote, he (Mr. Hibbert), as a Member of the late Government, should be compelled to vote against him. He did not see how he would be justified in taking any other course.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which seemed a very fair one, and one deserving an answer. The hon. Member proposed a reduction of the Vote, but was willing to forbear pressing his proposal to a division provided Her Majesty's Government would give a pledge to the Committee that if they employed Sir Henry Drummond Wolff or any other new Agent in Egypt during the present financial year they would present a Supplementary Estimate to the House before the close of the Session.
  SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, he thought the Committee would be amused at the great anxiety of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on the point now at issue, and at the hostility displayed by him to allowing the Government to have power to send a Special Mission to Egypt without the House being first consulted and having control over it. It appeared to him (Sir Whittaker Ellis) that looking at the rather frequent Missions that Her Majesty's late Government had been accustomed to send to Egypt, and at the fact that those Missions had never been inquired into—for instance, that the hon. Member for Northampton had never insisted on knowing how much the Earl of Dufferin's Mission was to cost, or how much was to be expended on the Earl of Northbrook's Mission, both of which were sent out whilst Sir Evelyn Baring was in Egypt, and which there could be no doubt had been very expensive—it was astonishing that the hon. Member should so suddenly become alive to the dire danger in which this country would be plunged by Her Majesty's Government having it in their power to send a Mission to Egypt extraneous to that of Sir Evelyn Baring, their usual Representative in that country. It was more astonishing still that a Member of the late Government (Mr. H. H. Fowler) should be more anxious than even the hon. Member for Northampton to be assured that no expenditure would be incurred except that which had been or could be explained to his satisfaction. The hon. Member for Northampton exhorted the Committee to accept the figures which were set down in this Estimate now before them as the ultimate, and that there should be no others. He (Sir Whittaker Ellis) was of opinion that if the Vote was to be criticized there were other questions upon which criticism should be raised, independent of Unforeseen Missions and Services. Not only would money have to be spent on Unforseen Missions, but a great deal, he was afraid, would have to be expended on Missions, the necessity for which was only too apparent in consequence of the policy pursued by the late Administration. But, so much for that. The money now asked for for Unforeseen Missions had been spent, and the Committee was only called on now to vote the amount. He was afraid that nothing
  1758
  the hon. Member for Northampton could say or do was likely now to save the country the expenditure of this £10,300. But he would go a little further than that. He saw in this Estimate "General Gordon's Special Mission to Egypt £5,000." [An hon. MEMBER: Last year.] Yes; that was for 1884–5, he took it. But he would suggest that some further information should be given to the Committee on this point—that Her Majesty's Government should state whether there was any other item in the Estimate relating to General Gordon's Mission, and whether this was the only one to be put forward as the cost of the Mission. This legacy from the late Government to the present was about as humiliating as anything could possibly be; and if the hon. Member for Northampton had insisted that before the Vote was passed the Committee should know what the late Government had spent on General Gordon's disastrous undertaking—an undertaking which he (Sir Whittaker Ellis) had no doubt the late Government were proud of, but which he was sure the country very much regretted—the hon. Member would have had fair ground for saying that the present Estimates did not pour-tray to the country the real charges and expenses which it would have to pay. There could be very little doubt that if this matter were gone into it would be found that this Estimate was, to a very large and serious extent, misleading; at any rate, that the financial statement on this subject was misleading at the present moment. He (Sir Whittaker Ellis) could not see why or on what grounds hon. Members opposite could take exception to the voting of money to defray the expenses of transactions to which they themselves had been a party—to meet liabilities incurred by the late Government which the present Ministry had merely taken over from their Predecessors. He trusted the Committee would not allow the Business of the country to be delayed by the discussion of matters which were foregone conclusions, and over which, practically, the Committee had no control.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, of course, the hon. Member must be aware that, so far as any discussion of the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was concerned, such a discussion at that mo-

  1759
  merit would be premature. Her Majesty's Government had this question still under their consideration. It was, of course, probable that Sir H. Drummond "Wolff would be appointed to go on a Mission to Egypt; but the precise nature of that Mission, and the circumstances under which the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would undertake it, were still under consideration. It was impossible for him to say, therefore, what sum of money might be required for the expenses of that Mission. If the sum were a small one, and merely the ordinary expenses of a special unpaid Mission, he apprehended that it might be brought forward in the ordinary Estimates without any Supplementary Estimate at all being presented. But if the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and other hon. Members, desired to discuss the policy of the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to a Special Mission in Egypt, that was another matter. Such a question would be a matter of considerable importance; and, of course, it was one for which Her Majesty's Government would have to give facilities for discussion, if those facilities were desired.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSwould like to ask a question—namely, whether it was likely that there would be a large charge on the country in regard to this Mission? If, as the right hon. Gentle man said, there would be no notable supplementary charge—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad not said that. He had stated that it was not settled.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was not yet settled whether or not Sir H. Drummond Wolff would be sent on the Mission.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not said so.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, at all events, if the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did go, there would be a notable charge, for he understood the right hon. Gentleman had given up Office in order to go on this Mission. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he would not go into that; but did he understand that if the sum was a notable sum Her Majesty's Government would put it into a Supplementary Estimate?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, of course, if it was a large sum for a Special Mission, it would be brought forward in the form of a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say what he considered a notable sum? [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, he supposed it might mean anything between £20,000 and 20,000 pence.
  MR. HENDERSONcalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) to the case of the loss of the Mary Marks, a barque from Liverpool, and in connection with which the owners had a boná fide claim against the Spanish Government. The facts of the case had never been denied; but up to the present the late Government had altogether failed to get any satisfaction from the Spanish Government. He mentioned the matter now with a view to directing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case, that he might bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that the matter should receive his earnest attention. He knew that complaints which were very well founded were often made to the Spanish Government, and he knew also that the Foreign Office had very great difficulty in getting satisfaction from the Spanish Government. This particular claim had not been brought under his notice since he had been in Office; but he would inquire into it, and, if possible, make a representation to the Spanish Government.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought it was only fair that he should ask the Representatives of the late Government if they could tell him what was the meaning of the charge of £1,400 for a Special Mission to Teheran?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the noble Lord the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) was not in the House, and this was not a matter with which he (Mr. Hibbert) was cognizant.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (28.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £131,495, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

  1761
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 18S6,forthe Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDregretted very much that the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) was not in his place, so that he could give them some explanation upon a matter of much importance which he desired to bring before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) might have some cognizance of the facts from his having held the same Office previously, and might now be able to say whether he approved of the state of things of which he (Mr. Arnold) complained. He had a Motion on the Paper to reduce this Estimate by the small sum of £30 on account of the Consul General of Bagdad. [Laughter.] This was no laughing matter. It was a matter of great importance. It happened that the Consul General at Bagdad was the presiding officer over a port, the export and import trade of which amounted in value to £1,000,000. This country had not a Consul General at Bagdad, because the present officer was paid by the Indian Government; and his object in moving the reduction of the Vote was to transfer the charge for the Consul General of Bagdad from the Indian Department to the British Department. His desire was that Her Majesty's Government should be represented by a Consular Agent at Bagdad, and not by a Consul paid and controlled by the India Office. What was the result of the existing state of things? It was this that—they had not received a single Report from the Consul General of Bagdad since 1879. That was owing to the fact that that officer was controlled by the India Office, and not by the Foreign Office, and the general result of the system was indifference to the great commercial interests of this country. He very much regretted the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who might have been able to give some information on this point. It appeared from his last Report, dated 1879, that the Consul General of Bagdad then recommended it as desirable that steam communication should be carried further up the Tigris, which would have
  1762
  had the effect of largely increasing their trade with that part of the world. Since that Report, however, no further communication had been received from the Consul General. He was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, therefore, an expression of opinion as to whether he considered it was a good system under which those Consuls wore paid by the Indian Government instead of by the English Government, and whether he did not agree with him that it was the cause of the decline of their trade with that part of the world? This was in principle a very important matter, and he should be exceedingly glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he disapproved of this system. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £30.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £131,465, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) for the remarks he had made on this subject, because it was a very important subject. He recognized the importance of the Reports received from their Consular officers, so much depending on the efficiency of their Consular staff abroad in regard to pushing forward their foreign trade. He had always been strongly in favour of appointing Consuls wherever there was any prospect of establishing or pushing forward British trade abroad, and he agreed with his hon. Friend that those objects were very much facilitated by the Reports from their Consuls abroad. The Consular Service had been very much improved of late years, and he was quite sure that that House would not object to increasing the number of their Consuls or increasing their salaries, so long as they saw as the result the prospect of increasing the foreign trade of the country. It was a favourite doctrine of Mr. Cobden's that such Consular Services were of the greatest value to this country. With respect to the question which the hen. Member had brought under

  1763
  the notice of the Committee, all he could say was that he had looked carefully into the matter, and he would certainly have a despatch written to the Consul General at Bagdad with a view of finding out why it was that no Reports had come from him for the last six years. Ho would also ask the Consul General, with respect to his last despatch, to point out how the further development of their trade in that part of the world could best be achieved.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was not prepared to go so far as to say that the cost of those Consuls should be transferred from the Indian Government to the British taxpayer. He denied that such a course would load to greater efficiency, because, as a rule, the administration of the Indian Government was very much more efficiently carried out than that of this country.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member had a little misunderstood him. He had no doubt that the officials appointed by the Indian Government were very efficient. He had no doubt that they excelled for their diplomatic capacity; but, as in this particular case, they failed in their commercial capacity. After the satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmoved to reduce the Vote by £600, in respect of an item which he thought the Government would hardly attempt to justify, seeing that the office no longer existed. It was the charge for a Consul at Khartoum. There was no Consul at Khartoum, at least he believed there was not, and there was not likely to be one during the present financial year. Therefore, he desired to move the reduction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £130,895, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that in the absence of anyone on the other side of the House to justify the Vote he must ask the hon.
  1764
  Member to forbear for the present. He was unable to give any explanation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that he did not want any explanation—he wanted to reduce the Vote.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he did not put it forward as a fact; but the probability was that there might be some arrears of salary due to somebody who had acted as Consul at Khartoum.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: That would not be charged in the estimated expenditure for the present financial year.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, it might come in the present financial year. That was the only explanation that he could give.
  MR. MOLLOYdesired to point out that there could be no arrears of salary. The late Consul at Khartoum was Mr. Frank Power, a distinguished young Irishman, who was now dead unfortunately. All that matter was now settled by a very small grant which had been made to Mr. Power's sisters of an annuity of £50 each. So that that matter was closed, and there was no explanation. He did not know if his hon. Friend thought they ought to go to a division; but this Vote was certainly one which had been put down for an office which did not exist. There was no possible explanation of it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEpointed out that if there was nobody to be paid with this money it would be paid back again into the Treasury.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that there was some explanation of this matter. At the time the Estimates were prepared by the late Government there was a Consul who was still alive at Khartoum. There might still be something due to his relatives, so that the Vote might be allowed to stand, and if the whole amount was not required it would be paid back again into the Treasury.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had effected his purpose by drawing attention to the matter, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (29.) £8,272, to complete the sum for the Slave Trade Services.
  (30.) £2,025, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought this was another question upon which they should have some information before Parliament closed. He would not press the general question at present; but there was a special question in which he was interested. What he wanted to ask was something in reference to the position of Sir Rivers Wilson. It would be remembered that Sir Fivers Wilson accepted a paid office in a private Company in the City, and they on that side of the House thought that a public servant in receipt of his official salary should not be allowed to engage in private enterprizes for gain, and he was obliged to resign. The other day his eye had come across the name of Sir Rivers Wilson as one of the Directors of some private Company—he thought an Assurance Company; and he wished to know whether it was proper that a public servant like Sir Rivers Wilson should be allowed to hold such a position?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not see why a person connected with the Government should not be a Trustee of a Company. The duty of a Trustee was to look after the funds, and to do his best to prevent robbery. He believed it was the custom that gentlemen on taking office should not cease to be responsible for money that might have been collected in their names; and, under the circumstances, he thought it rather, hard that if the gentleman in 'question were Trustee of a Company he should not continue to be so.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he certainly thought the Committee were entitled to receive some assurance from Her Majesty's Government on this subject, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would take an opportunity of looking into the matter. He admitted that there was something to be said on both sides of the question.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he could not decide without further information whether the Trusteeship of Sir Rivers Wilson was consistent with the office he held, though ho had no reason to suppose that it was not. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would give him the Papers he would look to see what the duties of the Trustees were; but he was not prepared to express any
  1766
  opinion on the subject without reference to them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (31.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,566, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the pear ending on the 31st day of March 1886, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under' The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, there was one question connected with this Vote that he would ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. The late Government, some months ago, had advertised for the establishment of telegraphic communication with the West Coast of Africa; and he would be glad to hear whether any decision had been come to on this subject? The communication would undoubtedly be of great value to the commercial interests of the country; and he would also ask the hon. Baronet whether it would, on completion, remain in British hands, and not in the hands of any Foreign Government?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he could inform the hon. Member that the subject was then receiving very careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government. It had also been carefully considered by the late Government, and two Companies had tendered on the forms of application sent out by them. The late Government had considered the question from the point of view of the commercial interests of the country; and on the same ground it, of course, became a matter for the present Administration to deal with. The Papers were then before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and not only wore Her Majesty's Government fully alive to the importance of the question, but they were also alive to the importance of having the line in English hands.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there appeared on this Estimate a charge of £200 for the minister of Trinity Chapel, Quebec, and also, under the head of Nova Scotia, a charge of £551 for missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, including widows

  1767
  of clergy who were in the service in June 1834. No doubt it was a good and excellent thing that there should be missionaries in Nova Scotia, and perhaps, as some hon. Members suggested, in Northampton; but why should the taxpayers of this country be asked to pay £200 a-year for a clergyman at Quebec and £500 for missionaries and widows of missionaries in Nova Scotia? No doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to give a full explanation of those charges, and state the reason why the Committee were called upon to pay them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel STANLEY)said, that this, as the Committee would be aware, was an expiring charge. It was part of the general arrangement made between the Colony and the Mother Country in following out the changes made in 1832 and 1833. It was then agreed that payments to clergymen and missionaries should be made by this country, and they had been since that time, of course, repeated annually. The Committee would observe that the charge for missionaries and widows of missionaries in Nova Scotia was £300 less this year than it was last year, and it would doubtless not be long before it disappeared from the Estimates.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he saw no reason to believe that the persons who received this money were alive. It was 50 years since the charge was first made, and widows, as a rule, did not live 50 years longer than their husbands. Certainty, it did not seem to him probable that anybody in the service in June, 1834, could be, 51 years afterwards, alive and drawing their pensions The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was new to the Office, and might not, of course, be in possession of all the facts of the case; but he would like to ask him whether it had been ascertained to be true that those persons were still alive and receiving this money for services done 50 years ago?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, that he had no doubt that the vouchers for those charges came before the Comptroller and Auditor General; but as the hon. Gentleman had directed his attention to a particular point in connection with them he would inquire into the matter, and
  1768
  should be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Report of the Queensland Commission into the labour traffic of the Western Pacific Islands had disclosed a deplorable state of things to which he trusted the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed. Her Majesty's late Government were not there to answer on the subject, and possibly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who now represented the Colonial Department (Colonel Stanley) might be unprepared to reply upon it; but the Secretary to the Treasury, he believed, knew a good deal about the matter, and before the Vote passed he trusted he would be able to make a statement to the Committee as to whether anything would be done to prevent the evil that existed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he believed that hon. Members would agree with respect to this traffic with the Western Pacific Islands that there had been in the past very great abuses; and it was with the object of preventing the recurrence of those abuses that the Pacific Islanders Protection Act was passed in 1875. He had seen, but only in a general form, the Report to which the hon. Gentleman alluded upon this subject, and to a very considerable extent he agreed that it disclosed a state of affairs that was very grave and much to be deplored, yet at that moment he was not prepared or in a position to answer in detail as to whether representations would be made to the Colonial authorities on the subject. He could, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject to which Tie had drawn attention should not be lost sight of; and he was sure that that House would at all times be glad to attend to any suggestion that tended to remove the evil complained of.
  MR. BIGGARthought that as the money voted for widows and clergymen in Canada and Nova Scotia had continued for 51 years there was no chance of the race dying out, and that the best thing under the circumstances was to stop the Vote. He believed there had been a want of careful supervision over the payment of those pensions, and he should therefore move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £751.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,815, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he could add very little to the statement he had made a short time ago in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If there was any specific point of detail upon which the Committee desired information he should be very glad to make inquiry upon it, and communicate the result to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). But all he could say now was that this was an arrangement entered into between the Mother Country and the Colony. The system under which the arrangement was carried out came every year before the Committee of Public Accounts, and was subjected to that severe scrutiny which it was very well known items of this kind underwent. The payments had been supported by proper vouchers, and had there been any irregularity he was satisfied that it would have been brought to light before the Public Accounts Committee. For those reasons, he asked the Committee to pass the Vote as it stood.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £24,690, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, Bechuanaland, the Island of St. Helena, and the High Commissioner for South Africa."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to postpone this Vote, which really involved a whole series of important questions, which it would be quite impossible properly to deal with at that period of the Sitting. In the first place, there was the Vote for
  1770
  £30,000 on account of Bechuanaland, over which country Her Majesty's late Government had assumed a Protectorate; and the Committee would recollect that when the question was referred to in that House on a former occasion, the then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) said that the proper opportunity for discussing this question would be afforded by the Estimate when it came forward. But at that time the Vote could not be properly discussed; and as it was known that the Government had to proceed that evening with the East India Loan (£10,000,000) Bill, he believed he should be consulting the wishes of hon. Member3 by moving that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he would appeal to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) to favour the Committee with some information with regard to this Vote. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had correctly remarked, it involved many important questions; and he should be glad if his right hon. and gallant Friend could supply some information upon it at that time, because, as far as he understood, the present was the best opportunity that was likely to present itself for considering the matter at all before the end of the Session.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy a very reasonable one. He believed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would desire to show the same courtesy to all sections of the House; and as he had yielded to a similar proposal on the part of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he trusted he would be able to accede to the wish of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he could not help feeling the great force of the appeal made to him by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Communications were passing

  1771
  daily on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, which rendered it in the highest sense desirable that they should not enter into a general discussion, with the present imperfect information which they possessed, of a Vote which did not come within the ordinary scope of financial discussion. Therefore, on the whole, he thought it would be well if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, and he had no doubt his hon. Friend would make an arrangement for the postponement of the Vote. He thought it perfectly fair that there should be some discussion upon the Vote, and he felt that he could not properly ask the Committee to proceed with it on that occasion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Original Motion be withdrawn."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, on that Question he would ask whether the Government would be willing to consent to the postponement of the Vote in aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus? An hon. Gentleman who had since been appointed as a Member of Her Majesty's Government had given Notice of a Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and that Notice had been removed from the Paper. Hon. Members who would have supported the Motion were, in consequence, placed in a difficulty from the absence of the hon. Gentleman; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to the postponement of the Vote in aid of the Island of Cyprus.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he was unable to postpone that Vote.
  Motion agreed to.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (32.) £17,300, to complete the sum for the Subsidies to Eastern and South African Telegraph Company.
  (33.) £15,000, Cyprus Grant in Aid.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the courtesy shown to the Committee in postponing the Vote for South Africa and St. Helena. He would now ask the right hon. and gal-
  1772
  lant Gentleman whether he had any further information to give to the Committee with reference to the reported Revenue frauds in Cyprus? That matter had already been the subject of a Question in the House, and he would be glad if any further information could be communicated. With reference to the subsidy of £15,000 in aid of the Revenues of the Island, by the action of a distinguished Relative of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary to the Colonies the subsidy had been already reduced from £90,000 to the present amount, and he trusted that the Vote would soon disappear from the Estimates altogether. Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hold out any expectation of a further reduction of the grant, and of its disappearance within a short time? He confessed to a certain feeling of apprehension on the part of his hon. Friends and himself that, the Island having reverted to those whom he might call its original proprietors, there might be an increased expenditure on account of Cyprus—indeed, they had heard of Estimates reaching to £1,000,000 being in existence for public works there. Therefore, he desired to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with reference to what the late Secretary of State for War had properly called "this useless Island," whether he would undertake not to go to any expense for public works in connection with it before he had obtained the sanction of the House to the undertaking of such works?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, the hon. Gentleman had spoken very courteously, and ho was prepared to answer in the same manner. As to the Revenue frauds, he thought the Parliamentary Paper which was presented on the subject some time ago practically represented all the information which had reached him, or which could be given. There was, indeed, an inquiry in regard to the extent of the defalcations, and a despatch on the subject had been sent to the Governor. As the despatch could not yet have reached its destination it would hardly be proper that he should announce its contents to the House. There was, however, no reason to suppose that the system of fraud had been at all widespread or general. If there were any other Papers on the subject which

  1773
  could possibly be produced in continuation of those already presented he would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold) to move for them in the usual course, or he would present them voluntarily. The next question asked him was with reference to the diminution of the Vote in Aid. He was happy to be able to say that there was a great probability that the Vote, instead of being increased, would be diminished. Under the very able administration of Sir Robert Biddulph, the Governor of the Island, and under the care of the Office presided over, as the hon. Gentleman had said, with such great ability by his (Colonel Stanley's) Predecessor, the Vote in Aid had been reduced to what was now a comparatively small sum. He hoped it would continue to diminish annually. But there were certain causes of expenditure, such, for instance, as the expenses connected with locusts and other matters, of very serious moment indeed to the prosperity of the Island, which must fluctuate. Those causes were wholly beyond human control, and therefore, in regard to them, he must hold himself free. He saw no reason why the Island should not continue to prosper, and to, he hoped, in a very few years pay its own way. The hon. Gentleman expressed a doubt which he had very candidly expressed before, and which he was perfectly consistent in expressing now, as to what the future of the Island might be. He (Colonel Stanley) was not aware that he had ever held language which favoured the impression that any large public works would become necessary. He was not aware of a proposal at any time which would in the slightest degree alter the present position of affairs in the Island; and certainly it would be his duty at the earliest possible moment to bring in a Vote if any such proposal were seriously made. At the present time he was not aware of any such proposal. Whatever expenditure might be incurred in Cyprus, he hoped it would be incurred for the purpose of promoting peaceful industry rather than warlike operations. That was all the information he could give; but if he could answer any question as to details he should be very happy to do so.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Government were to be congratulated on the fact that the expense
  1774
  of Cyprus had been diminished. At the same time, there was the military expenditure on the Island, which was defrayed by this country. Perhaps this would not be a proper moment to ask what the Brigade of Guards was sent to Cyprus for? But it was possible that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) could tell them what was the nature of the accommodation provided for the Guards; what was the climate in which they were stationed; at what elevation above the sea they were, and how they were housed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIESsaid, he could not state what the exact accommodation afforded was; but he apprehended that the Guards would be camped on healthy ground at a considerable elevation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that anyone who had listened to the discussion on this Vote would be half inclined to imagine that the condition of things in Cyprus was quite satisfactory. Now the very reverse was the case. It was well known that a tremendous system of fraud had been carried on in Cyprus for a long time, and that a large number of officials, some of them of very considerable status, had been involved. It was known that no reasonable effort was made to discover the fraud, or, when suspected, to trace the offenders, until a considerable amount of pressure was put on the officer in charge from that House. It was not until the subject was ventilated in the newspapers and Questions were asked in Parliament that anything like active steps were taken to bring the defaulters to justice. What were the real facts of the case? Apparently, the Colonial authorities required a sum of £15,000 to enable the Island to meet its expenditure. But that was not so. If there was anything like a proper administration of the local resources, if there was anything like an honest collection of the land revenue, there would be no necessity at all for the authorities to come to the House of Commons for a Vote in aid of the local revenue. Under the Returns given in the last Appropriation Account, he found that the Island authorities had in March, 1884, a balance in hand of £50,000, and that during the 12 months the assets were £55,000 in excess of the liabilities. That being so, it was perfectly plain that the

  1775
  Island authorities were not in need of this Vote at all. If they were told that they must meet their local expenditure out of the local resources, and punish severely those who were proved to have been defaulters, there would be no need at all to come to the House of Commons for assistance. He regretted that the present Solicitor General (Mr. Gorst) was not able to move the Motion for the reduction of the Vote of which he had given Notice. That was only another illustration of the danger one incurred by trusting to anybody else to oppose a Vote which he thought ought to be impugned. If he had imagined for a moment that the Solicitor General would not have been in his place to have moved the reduction of the Vote, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) would have been prepared to move the reduction. He could only regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had not had the courage to proceed to a division. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) could tell the Committee what was the present position of Mr. Le Starkie, the head official connected with the collection of the land revenue, and the man who was in charge of all the subordinates who were implicated in the frauds? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would tell the Committee why it was that Mr. Le Starkie had escaped scot free; whether there was any reason why he should be screened? He was told that Mr. Le Starkie was informed that, at any rate, he was suspected, and that he then wanted to resign; but that a message was sent to the Island to the effect that he was not to be allowed to resign. As a matter of fact, had Mr. Le Starkie tendered his resignation, and had the Colonial authorities directed the Governor to refuse to' accept the resignation? If so, what was the position of Mr. Le Starkie at the present time THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES said, that he would rather not, as he had already stated, anticipate the information, which had not yet reached the Governor's hands. The Papers of which he had spoken would, he believed, show all that could be shown about the matter. He might say, however, that he had come to the conclusion, after very careful examina-
  1776
  tion, that there was nothing to support a criminal charge against Mr. Le Starkie.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Has he tendered his resignation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, that Mr. Le Starkie did tender his resignation to his (Colonel Stanley's) Predecessor. There was nothing, however, to sustain a criminal charge. On the present occasion he (Colonel Stanley) would rather not say more on the subject. Care was now being taken to prevent fraud and to improve the valuation, which was certainly a step in advance. Other improvements were being effected which would tend to a more rapid collection of revenue. That was all he could say now.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if Mr. Le Starkie had furnished any security?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIEScould not say; but if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question to him on the subject at some future time he would make the necessary inquiries.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

EAST INDIA LOAN (£10,000,000) BILL.— [BILL 109.]
(Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kynaston Cross.)
EAST INDIA LOAN (£10,000,000) BILL.— [BILL 109.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped that before the Speaker left the Chair they would hear some general statement, at least, with regard to the use to which the borrowed money was to be put by the Indian Government. It was now a considerable time since the Bill was last before the House. A good deal of information had come from India, and a good deal had happened since that time. If he was not mistaken, it had not been made very clear to what purpose the borrowed money was to be devoted. He understood that at present there was considerable borrowing power in

  1777
  the hands of the Indian Government; that the £10,000,000 for which this Bill provided was in addition to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 which the Indian Government had power under previous Acts to borrow. There were a great many matters to which it might be necessary to apply the whole or part of the money. Of course, he could not expect the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) to pledge himself in detail as to the use to which those funds would be put; but he hoped the noble Lord was in a position to tell them in very general terms to what it was necessary to devote the borrowed money. He (Sir George Campbell) believed the primary object of those borrowing powers was to make railways of a commercial and profitable character. He was somewhat afraid that in consequence of the construction placed upon the Report of the Committee which sat on this subject, some railways of a non-paying character might be made under the guise of commercial railways. He hoped the noble Lord would see that the money was spent on paying, and not on non-paying, railways. It was well known that in consequence of recent circumstances a good many non-paying railways were to be on the frontier. Perhaps they might learn that the noble Lord was prepared to adopt, in a great degree, the plan of the late Government; and it might be that the noble Lord was in a position to give them some fresh information with regard to the probable expenditure upon the frontier railways. In "another place" the country had been informed that night that Her Majesty's Government intended to take the most decided measures to put the frontier of India in a proper defensive state. Such measures were very expensive, and he thought it very probable that a considerable part of this loan would be devoted to the meeting of the expenses of the works contemplated. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell the House to what extent he thought it likely the Government would be committed with regard to the expenses of the proposed defences. A large sum of money had been spent by the Indian Government, and also by the British Government, in consequence of the unhappy differences which lately arose with Russia. A considerable time had now passed, and he hoped the noble
  1778
  Lord would be able to tell them something more than was told them when last this Bill was before the House with regard to the probable cost of the recent extraordinary military preparations. They were at one time led to hope that the original estimate, which he thought was somewhere about £.3,000,000, might be diminished on account of savings of one kind or another. He was sorry to see a paragraph in the Indian papers to the effect that the preparations would cost as much as £4,000,000. He hoped the noble Lord would tell them whether that estimate was justified or not. There was another very important view of the matter on which the late Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. Cross) was not able to enlighten them, and on which he did not know whether the noble Lord could give them any information—namely, how the money was to be got. On a former occasion he expressed the hope that the Government would think it their duty to provide the means whereby the Indian Revenue would be able in a few years to pay off the extraordinary expenses which had been and were being incurred upon defensive projects. He noticed in the Indian papers a good deal about the reduction of expenditure. He was always in favour of economy, and he should like to see a reduction of expenditure. But there was one moans of reducing expenditure, which ho did not think was at all wise and prudent, and that was the stopping of public works. He thought the permanent military expenditure must be increased; but he should regret if it were to be met by the stoppage of public works. To carry on public works at a great pace one year, and to stop them another year, was anything but an economical proceeding. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell the House that the Government of India hoped to meet the extraordinary military preparations in some other way than by the stoppage of public works.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was one of those who did not approve of this Bill being brought in by the late Government. He looked upon the proposal contained in the Bill as one of the most serious proposals affecting the finance of India which had ever come before the House of Commons. He assured the noble Lord the Secretary of State (Lord

  1779
  Randolph Churchill) that the more he looked into Indian finance, as left by his Predecessor, the less he would like it, for he would find that it presented almost insuperable difficulties. What were the circumstances under which the late Government brought this Kill before the House? It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that Sir Auckland Colvin, in his Budget Statement, estimated that there would be a small surplus on the Indian Revenue. Since that time much had happened. Within the space of three months £4,000,000 had been spent on military preparations, and it was necessary the House should know how that sum of money was to be met. How was India to recoup itself for this enormous additional expenditure? Was the noble Lord prepared to tell them that night that out of the £10,000,000 which it was proposed to raise in this country the ordinary Revenue of India was to be recouped to the extent of £4,000,000? Was any of that amount to be repaid by extra taxation, or by means of the diminution of expenditure, or was the whole of it to come out of money to be raised by this Bill? During the present financial year India had raised £3,500,000 for extraordinary public works. As a matter of fact, the House was now asked to sanction a loan of £10,000,000, all of which, if this Bill was passed, would be raised during the present financial year. He could not imagine a worse state of finance for India than this—that they could not pay their ordinary ways and means, but were obliged to go into the Money Market to enable them to do so. And it must be remembered that owing to the policy of the late Government a considerable permanent additional charge would be put on the Revenues of India. Let them hope that it would not be so much as £4,000,000 a-year; but, considering the effect of their policy in India, the augmentation of the Army and development of the defences of the country, which would be to impose a large permanent additional charge upon the Native taxpayer, he would ask how it was to be met? He had seen it stated that the extraordinary military and fortification expenses would amount to about £2,000,000 a-year. That was an enormous burden, and how, he asked, was it to be met? There was one method
  1780
  of retrenchment which would enable them to meet increased expenditure—they might refrain from going on so fast with their public works and railways. That seemed to him the only solution for the difficulty. Some such measure would have to be adopted, for they clearly could not go on, year after year, in the present way with their Indian finance. Then the policy of Russia, at the present moment, was to make a railway to Sarakhs, and the more she pushed towards the frontier of Afghanistan the greater would be our expenditure in India. This whole question would have to be thoroughly considered; in fact, one of the first things the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) should do was to go thoroughly into the finances of India and into the question of the Home Charges. If, owing to the policy of Russia, increased expenditure was from time to time imperatively necessary in India, they could not go on, year by year, borrowing enormous sums of money. In 1869 there was a particular clause put into a Bill to the effect that the money to be raised was only to be for railways, military and commercial. There was no clause at all to that effect in the present Bill, and it appeared to him that the whole of the £10,000,000 asked for by the Indian Government was to meet the ordinary ways and means of its finance. If the noble Lord could state that the money was to be spent in developing the railway system, and on the defences of the country, it would be more satisfactory; but he (Mr. Onslow) believed that the money was not to be expended in that way at all, but was to defray ordinary military charges which, he contended, ought to be met out of the ordinary taxation, and come out of the ways and means of Indian finance. They must remember that Indian finance was in a very precarious position indeed. If anything was to happen to Abdurrahman—and it was reported that his health was not in a very sound state—there would very probably be a revolution in Afghanistan, and Russia might claim a voice in the nomination of the future Ruler of that country. That claim England would probably be disposed to resist, and the result might be that fresh burdens would have to be thrown upon the Indian Exchequer. What he wished to point out to the noble Lord

  1781
  and the Committee and to emphasize was this—that it was impossible for them to go on expending large sums of borrowed money on public works in India—on the development of extensive systems of commercial and military railways, and on great irrigation schemes—and, at the same time, goon paying large sums of money in the shape of interest on money borrowed for fortifications and frontier defence. That would be asking India to do a great deal too much, for her finances would never bear the enormous strain. How long was India to go on borrowing money in that way? They might have another Bill next year to enable India to borrow another £10,000,000 at 3 or 4 per cent. How much would be spent in the current year, and would the money be spent to meet the ordinary charges of the year, or on what he might call extraordinary military operations; or were those military operations to be paid for out of the general taxation? It was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Viceroy had sent round to all the Local Governments of India urging them to curtail as much as possible their expenditure. He was aware that that had been done—such a step had been taken on a previous occasion. The Local Governments had been implored to curtail their expenditure on public works, their civil expenditure, and so on. No doubt, some little good might be effected by that means; but it was not possible for the Local Governments to curtail their expenditure to any appreciable extent. He did not blame the Viceroy for the action ho had taken; but after all, if the Local Governments saved as much as they could, it would only be a few thousands of pounds, and what was that when they had to deal with millions? Lid the Viceroy intend to ask the people of India for additional taxation in order to meet additional expenditure, or was the House of Commons to be asked to pass this sum as a loan to India, knowing that subsequent extraordinary requirements would have to be met in the same way'? He (Mr. Onslow) could assure the noble Lord he had never spoken in regard to Indian matters in any Party spirit; but he did say that Indian finance at the present time was in a very precarious position indeed, and that it would be soon seen that it I was impossible to raise the increasing
  1782
  Revenue rendered necessary by such Bills as the present by extra taxation. When the British public came to see that every farthing of these loans would have to be borrowed in this country his firm belief was that they would cease to have confidence in such investments, and that India would consequently be unable to borrow any money at all. The question was important not only to India, but to this country; and he sincerely trusted that the noble Lord would take into consideration the precise state of Indian finance, which he could assure the noble Lord—knowing some little about Indian affairs—was in about as bad a condition as it was possible for it to be in.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he had not expected the Bill to come on, and, therefore, was not prepared to say all he might have wished. He only desired now to observe that as the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) became intimate with the affairs of the India Office he would see a great deal that it was desirable to reform in many ways. While desirous of saying nothing against the Indian Council, he could not help thinking that in its case the proverb held good that "too many cooks spoil the broth." No doubt, the Indian Council was composed of men of high character and high standing in regard to commercial matters as well as personally. He thought, however, that the noble Lord would find in connection with these matters a great deal capable of improvement. With regard to the loan which had been recently issued, he believed it had been issued at too low a rate. It was difficult to understand why it had been issued at 85, whilst corresponding transactions were quoted at 89, and 90. The loan had been issued at a rate much below the ordinary credit of India. He could well for the moment venture to criticize these matters in connection with the administration of the noble Lord, seeing that he had so recently taken Office, and that it was impossible for one to make himself familiar with these important operations in such a short time. The late Government had had an offer of 93½ for the first £3,000,000 of Three per Cents. The loan, however, had been sold at something like 94½. The condition of things changed in the India Office as in every other Office, and the

  1783
  India Office must guide themselves by the circumstances of the hour. He was of opinion that it would have been better to have deferred the issue of the loan; but that was a matter he would not enter into. He might say, however, with reference not only to the India Office, but to all the Departments of the Government, that the authorities who had the control of them did not very often act as private individuals or private houses would act in reference to these transactions. It had been stated—he did not know on what authority—that this last issue, part of the £10,000,000, would be sufficient to meet all the requirements arising out of the Report of the Select Committee, and that no more would be required next year. He did not know whether the noble Lord would be able to say whether or not that was so. The Committee had had in view the expenditure of this £ 10,000,000 on the building of railways, which were so important to the interests of India. He knew that £10,000,000 could not be expended in a moment; but he should like to ask if the statement had been put forward on authority that no more than the amount issued would be required for some time, to come? He hoped that was not correct, for he was of opinion that the more rapidly money was spent in India, as elsewhere, the better it would be for the country. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give them some information on these subjects.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)said, be should confine himself to the details of the Bill itself, and should not mix them up with what properly belonged to the Financial Statement of the year, as he had been rather invited to do by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). He should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport Mr. Puleston) with regard to the loan which had been put before the public a short time ago. The hon. Member complained that the loan was issued at 8.5, and that the price of the Stock—Three per Cent Stock—was somewhat higher. His (Lord Randolph Churchill's) own belief was that the ordinary Stock was at 88 at the time the loan was issued; but on that point he could only say, in the first place, that 85
  1784
  was the minimum at which the loan was issued, and that it did not follow that it would not be taken up on much better terms. The whole of the details of the loan were the subject of very anxious consideration by the authorities on Indian finance, in consultation with the highest authorities in the City; and their determination—the result of their consultation—had been the fixing of the minimum price of the new loan at 85. That being so, he thought that in all probability the course the financial authorities had adopted was a prudent one; and he did not think the Secretary of State would be justified in departing from their advice, guiding himself, of course, by suggestions which might be made by hon. Members in Committee of that House. That loan having been alluded to, it would be, perhaps, better to state exactly what the loan was. He believed that if it had not been for the change of Government causing great delay in the transaction of Public Business, this loan, in all probability, would not have been issued until the East India Loan Bill had passed the House; but, at the same time, it was not necessarily connected with that Bill. Of that loan it was intended, under the Financial Statement of the year, to devote to public works out of borrowed money 350 lakhs of rupees; but the Government of India had in hand, or available from various sources, to the extent of 08 lakhs, so that it was only necessary at that time to borrow 282 lakhs. That loan, owing to the circumstances of the time, could not have been raised in India, and it was thought proper to call on the Secretary of State to reduce his drawings by borrowing in London a sum equivalent to 282 lakhs of rupees. That had been the intention; but, as hon. Members knew, subsequently there came the great complications on the frontier, complications which were recognized as so serious by the Government of the day in that House and by the Government of the day in India that very large military expenditure was resolved upon. That being so, having payments to make for military purposes, such as the accumulation of stores at Quetta, the drawings of the Secretary of State were still further reduced by two crores of rupees, and that made the sum required £3,800,000. That was the sum it would have been necessary to borrow in London if it had

  1785
  not been that the Budget had provided large balances to be at the disposal of the Government in March, 1886, in order that the Tour per Cent Transfer Loan might be paid off. The Government thought that in order that they might not have to borrow £3,800,000 they might postpone the provision for paying off that loan and utilize the balances, contenting themselves with borrowing £3,500,000. As to the rate of interest, the question was whether the loan should be issued at 3½ per cent or 3 per cent. That question was considered by the late Government and their financial Advisers; and it was thought better in the first place, for the credit of India, as the Indian Government had already borrowed money at 3 per cent, to continue to borrow at that rate, though, perhaps, the actual rate of issue was not quite so favourable as ok would have been. It was supposed that the Three per Cent India Stock being now on the Market in very small quantities it might be advisable to increase the quantity of that Stock. Very few transactions had taken place in it, and it was thought desirable to increase the quantity, so that more transactions in it might take place. It had not been a very popular Stock, and the Indian Government had very properly decided that it would be well to endeavour to make it so. The loan would be applied, in the first place, as to about £2,500,000, to railway purposes—purposes which were undoubtedly contemplated under the East India Loan Bill—and, as to about £1,000,000, to other public works, such as Army charges and the exigencies of local government. The Secretary of State had the power of borrowing £7,000,000 in London without coming to Parliament at all; but that should properly be described as a kind of reserve power of borrowing in order to provide for any sudden emergency, such as war or famine, or circumstances which it was difficult to define, which might arise, and necessitate an immediate demand on a public fund. This loan now issued would undoubtedly obviate the necessity for any further sum being raised this year under the East India Loan Bill; but, at the same time, it was desirable that the Secretary of State should have power to borrow £7,000,000 for sudden emergencies. It was not advisable that the power of the Secretary
  1786
  of State in Council to borrow should be limited to £3,800,000; that, in the opinion of the best authorities, was rather too low a balance of borrowing power. The Government, therefore, proposed to press this Bill upon the attention of the House, because it was a measure based upon a settled and deliberate policy which had been recommended home by the Government of India, and looked upon rather shyly by the India Office, and in consequence referred to a Select Committee of the House. That Committee undoubtedly approved of the main lines of the proposal, and they recommended that the construction of railways might be advantageously pursued with greater activity than in the past, and that money for the construction should, under certain circumstances, be borrowed, whether in London or in India. The Select Committee recommended that the Secretary of State should be made the responsible judge of the amounts that should be borrowed, and as to whether they should be borrowed in India or in London. Thus, in pressing the Bill forward, the Government were acting on the deliberate recommendation of the Select Committee which had considered and reported on the question placed before it—namely, the scheme of the Government of India to construct something like 4,000 miles of railways. He would not weary the House with details; in fact, he should not have gone into the subject so fully if it had not been for the speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Guildford, for the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) had gone into it with the utmost clearness the other day. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would be satisfied, he would strongly advise him, without prolonging this discussion, to turn to The Times report of the 22nd of May, where he would find the whole of the arguments in support of this Bill set out in a speech of the hon. Member for Bolton in such a manner as he was sure would convince him of the soundness of the policy of the Indian Government. However, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would just point out that, under this Bill, the scheme of the Indian Government to construct 4,000 miles of railways was practically ratified, power being given for the borrowing of the amount of money necessary for the work. But

  1787
  there was a further scheme included within the Bill, and one which was not before the Select Committee, but which was recommended by the Indian Government just about the time that the Report of the Select Committee came out—namely, the scheme for the construction of frontier lines which it was universally admitted were necessary for the security of their Indian Empire. Power was taken to borrow £5,000,000 for the construction of those lines. The Secretary of State would not be justified in assenting to large schemes of railway construction, the progress of which must occupy some years, unless he was reasonably assured that those schemes would be completed with fair rapidity. It was necessary that there should be some guarantee that the means would be at hand for the diligent execution of the works, and that was why the Secretary of State had asked for power to spend a sum of £10,000,000 over a period of four years. Well, he did not know that he could give any further information to the House in regard to the contents of the Bill; but he might, perhaps, allude to one or two remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had asked for further information as to what had been done since the Bill was first introduced. He could not give any figures on that point that would satisfy the hon. Member, for to attempt to do so would be to anticipate the figures of the Indian Budget, and would be somewhat misleading. He thought from what he had seen that day that considerable economies had been effected in several Departments of the Local Government of India, he thought something like £200,000 since the recent military necessities came upon them; but he did not know that there had been any attempt at curtailment in the direction of public works. Well, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) took a very gloomy view of the finances of India, and warned them that those large expenditures could not go on from year to year, and that the finances of India were in a very precarious condition. He could not at the present moment say whether the hon. Member was right or wrong; but he was inclined to think that when a country could put a large loan of £10,000,000 at 3 per cent upon the
  1788
  Market with a very fair prospect of negotiating it, it did not look as if its finances were in a precarious state. The hon. Member had also said that they might go on, year after year, passing £10,000,000 Loan Bills; but he would point out that that sum was asked for now in order to avoid the necessity of coming to Parliament again next year. He thought that if the House passed this Bill they would not come before them again next year. None of this money would be spent this year. In all probability none of the money raised under this Bill would be drawn until next year. He trusted that if he had not satisfied the House by the explanations he had given that they would grant him their indulgence in view of the very short time he had been in the India Office.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, there was one subject which he would like to mention to the House, and which had not been mentioned by the noble Lord in the course of the very able exposition of the Bill which he had put forward. There appeared to be some little misapprehension with regard to this Bill, and he desired to point out that it would not have been necessary for the Indian Government to come to the House of Commons for permission to borrow money if it had been determined that this loan, as former loans, should be raised in India. Had this plan been followed, this Bill would never have come before the House of Commons at all. It was only because it was recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons as being more economical to borrow in England that the Secretary of State had thought it advisable to adopt that course, and it was only in consequence of that that it was necessary to come to that House. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) appeared greatly alarmed at the state of the Indian finances, and referred to constant deficits; but if he looked at the accounts for the last 13 years he would find that although there had been two wars, three famines, and a large sum spent in public works, there had been an excess of Revenue over Expenditure of £828,000, besides £4,500,000 being laid aside as an insurance against famine. During those 13 years there had been expended on account of famine, exchange, and war, £58,800,000; on the

  1789
  construction of railway and irrigation works, £9,400,000, and on assignment to provincial balances of £1,600,000, making a total expenditure, from Revenue, of an exceptional character, if they could call exchange exceptional expenditure, of £69,800,000. If they took the figures for the four years ending 1884. they would find that there had been expended on railways £14,450,000, and on irrigation works £4,660,000, making a total of £19,110,000. Of this sum £11,130,000 had been borrowed, so that that proved that they had spent no less a sum than £7,980,000 out of Revenue and balances in four years. Therefore he thought the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would not have much need for fear about the finances of India at the present time. He did not think, with regard to the Loan Bill, the second reading of which was moved by himself, that it was necessary for him to give any further explanation. The Loan Bill of £10,000,000, to which the hon. Member for Guildford referred, was, as the noble Lord had pointed out, intended to extend over three years at least, and it was also intended that not more than £3,500,000 should be borrowed annually in England, and that would be expended almost entirely on public works. He was very much obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) for pointing out that 85 would be a very low figure at which to issue the loan. But 85 was not the figure at which it was to be issued; that was only the minimum at which it could be issued. The hon. Member knew very well that in such cases when the loan was issued more than the minimum was often obtained.
  MR. PULESTONcontended that putting the minimum so low had the effect of bringing down the Market to a much lower figure than it would be if the minimum were higher.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that was a matter of opinion, and was not agreed to by some of the very highest financial authorities in the country. He had tried to explain the circumstances under which the loan was determined upon, and he did not think that further explanation was necessary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (As to payment of principal and interest on debentures).
  MR. WARTONsaid he would like to ask one question. In this clause there was not a provision in regard to the Secretary of State in Council exercising a discretionary power in respect to the rate of interest on debentures, while in Clause 6 such a discretionary power was expressly provided for?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIAunderstood that Clause 4 was copied from a clause in the Act of 1879, which had been very carefully considered by the House at the time. Clause 6 was also copied, word for word, from the Act of 1879. He presumed that the point raised by the hon. and learned Member had been fully considered on that occasion, and it was thought best to put the matter as it stood now.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Clause 15 omitted.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.— [BILL 26.]
(Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th June. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
MR. PULESTONsaid, he was not opposed to all the clauses of the Bill, although as they involved several very important questions, he was of opinion that they could not be adequately discussed at that hour. He should, therefore, move that Progress be reported; and he trusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Waugh) would take this in all sincerity, because, as a matter of fact, he was really with him on most parts of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Puleston.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law respecting the Livery Companies of the City of London."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he was at a loss to understand how it was the right hon. Baronet proposed to bring in a Bill of this kind at that time in the morning. He certainly could not allow the Motion of the right hon. Baronet to pass without strongly protesting against the introduction of the measure.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would persist in his opposition to the Bill after he had seen its provisions. He might, on examination, find it to be more acceptable than he at first imagined; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Motion to pass.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that, unfortunately, the right hon. Baronet had given no intimation either in that House or elsewhere as to the provisions of the Bill; and he did not think that, as a mere matter of courtesy, the House should be called upon to assent to the Motion for its introduction. No one was more courteous in his dealings with hon. Members than the right hon. Baronet; but they did not think it perfectly fair that they should be expected on the grounds of courtesy alone to agree to his Motion, and he should accordingly feel it his duty to divide the House upon the question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be quite ready to meet the views of hon. Members by putting off the second reading of the Bill until a day which would give time for its consideration.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to be the wish of almost everyone not to proceed with the Bill that Session; and he therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) would divide the House against the Motion for its introduction. There was good reason to think that it was not the innocent Bill which it might seem to be from the
  1792
  remarks of the right hon. Baronet. The Government had been occupied in getting rid of a number of useless Bills which encumbered the Order Book; and with all respect to the right hon. Baronet he did not consider that the time for thrusting on the House a Bill that attacked the Corporation of the City of London, which would certainly give rise to much controversy.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that in view of the statement of his right hon. Friend that he would take care that the Bill came forward for consideration at a more opportune moment he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that the effect of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford would be to allow the Bill to go forward, and that was not the object which he had in view. He and his hon. Friends, amongst them the Lord Mayor, were diametrically opposed to the introduction of the Bill; and hon. Members were not bound to acquiesce in the bringing in of measures the spirit of which, although the provisions had not been described, had been made abundantly clear to them by the eloquent speeches of the right hon. Baronet. He repeated that they were altogether opposed to the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped there would be no opposition to the introduction of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet opposite, who had stated that he would defer the second reading for a fortnight—or, in other words, that hon. Gentlemen opposed to the Bill would have a proper opportunity of considering its provisions. He trusted that the House would, at all events, allow the Bill to be brought in in accordance with the almost universal practice.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he did not quite agree with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that it was the almost universal practice of the House to admit Bills of the kind as a matter of course; yet, after the appeal made to him, he was disposed to defer his opposition to the measure to another time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES "W". DILKE and Mr. GEOKGE RUSSELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 210.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (127).
Committee—Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)*(136); Water Provisional Orders* (137); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 1) *(149); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.)*(80).
Committee—Report—Commons Regulation (Ash-down Forest) Provisional Order* (141); Commons Regulation (Drum burgh) Provisional Order* (142); Commons In closure (Llanybyther) Provisional Order* (143); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders* (144); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* (145); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (146); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (152). Third Reading—Yorkshire Registries* (133), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
The Right Honourable Sir Stafford Henry North cote, Baronet, G.C.B., having been created Viscount Saint Cyres of Newton Saint Cyres in the county of Devon, and Earl of Iddesleigh in the same county—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Edward Gibson, Chancellor of that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, having been created Baron Ashbourne of Ashbourne in the county of Meath—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Rowland Winn, Esquire, having been created Baron Saint Oswald of Nostell in the West Riding of the county of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)
(The Viscount Enfield.)
WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 127.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day read for taking into consideration Standing Order No. 93. in order to its being dispensed with in re-
  1648
  spect of a petition or petitions of the Metropolitan Water Companies praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill.
  LORD BRAMWELL,in moving that the said Standing Order be now considered, said, the Bill was really a Private Bill, and ought, therefore, to go before a Select Committee, in order that the Water Companies might be heard against it. If it were arranged that the Bill was to be referred to a Committee he should not trouble their Lordships. As the Bill was introduced in the other House, it affected all the Water Companies in the country; but in its present form it only applied to the Metropolis. Petitions could not be presented in time against the Bill, owing to the delay in ascertaining its real character. The Bill affected £30,000,000 of property, and contained proposals of a most unjustifiable character. It would, in fact, take away one-fifth or one-sixth of the income of the Metropolitan Water Companies. Their Lordships must, therefore, see that these Companies ought to be heard against it.
  Moved, "That the said Standing Order be now considered."—(The Lord Bram-well.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he could not agree to the noble and learned Lord's proposals. The Bill was essentially a Public Bill, and was decided so to be by an overwhelming majority—146 to 81—in the other House. He hoped, in the interests of 4,000,000 of ratepayers, that the Bill would be read a second time. If, after reading the Bill a second time, it should be the pleasure of the House to refer it to a Select Committee for consideration, but not for taking evidence, there would be no objection to that course.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that no doubt in the other House it was a Public Bill, as it then applied to the whole Kingdom; but it was certainly not so in its present form.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON)said, he could not agree with the view of the noble and learned Lord that the Bill would inflict gross injustice. It was because he believed it would have the contrary effect that he, on the part

  1649
  of the Government, would support the second reading. He regarded the Bill as one of the fairest that could be framed. The Water Companies had been in the habit of assessing property in a fashion of their own. The Bill provided a fair and equitable method of assessment, such as was provided by the quinquennial assessment under the Metropolitan Valuation Act. If the mode of assessing property to the poor and other rates in the Metropolis was just, there could be no hardship in requiring the Water Companies to base their charges upon that assessment, as the Bill proposed.
  THE EARL OF SELBOBNEsaid, he agreed with all the noble Duke had said. The Bill was undoubtedly as much a Public Bill as any measure in the world could be. Upon that ground, as well as upon, the merits, he should support the second reading.
  EARL BROWNLOW (SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD)said, he also should support the second reading of the Bill; and urged the appointment of a Select Committee before which the Water Companies might be heard, by themselves or their agents, but not by counsel or witnesses.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved that the late Lord Chancellor had said there was not the slightest doubt that this was essentially a Public Bill. There were, however, other authorities in that House who held an opinion different from that of his noble and learned Friend, and those authorities were the Examiners of Bills. They held that by the change made in the House of Commons, which restricted the operation of the measure to the Metropolis, it became ipso facto a Private Bill, and ought to be treated accordingly. No doubt, the ratepayers of the Metropolis would be very glad to have cheap water; but there was a consideration even more important than the question of cheap water for the 4,000,000 of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. That consideration was whether they would be doing justice to the Companies in the matter of their property. All that the Companies had done was to exercise their legal rights, which their Lordships were now asked to take from them. He could not but think that the course suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) was the right course—that
  1650
  the Bill should become a Private Bill, and that the Water Companies should be allowed to appear by counsel before the Committee.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he must deny that the measure deprived the Companies of any of their legal rights. It would simply make law that which was virtually law already by the decision of their Lordships' House in the Dobbs case.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was not prepared to accede to the appointment of a special Committee in this particular case. If their Lordships generally were of opinion that the Bill should pass the second reading, he should offer no opposition to that course. In his opinion, the Bill ought to be allowed to be proceeded with in the usual way.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, there could be no doubt that this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons as a Public and not a Private Bill, its object being simply to alter in one particular the provisions of a Public Act which applied to the whole Kingdom. Under the Act of 1847, the water rate was to be levied upon the valuation; but, by a singular omission, no authority was created to determine what the valuation was to be. Accordingly, the Water Companies themselves became the valuators, and levied the rate upon the rate-able value as they chose to fix it. It was provided that in case of dispute the matter might be referred to a magistrate; but what chance had an individual against one of those wealthy Companies? If their Lordships read the records of the decisions of the magistrates, they would find that, as there was no principle to guide the Justices, their rulings were eccentric in the highest degree.
  LORD BRAM WELL,interposing, said, he did not know that. At all events, it was a subject which ought to be investigated by a Committee.
  LORD FITZGERALD,resuming, said, that the decisions of the magistrates, acting without any guide given to them by the Act of Parliament, were irregular, often unjust, and eccentric. The present Bill was intended to operate for the public protection, and he was at a loss to understand on what ground it could be treated as a Private Bill. Mr.

  1651
  Frederick Clifford, in his useful work, page 269, said—
  "The rule that Bills affecting a particular locality are private Bills is departed from in the case of measures relating to the whole Metropolis (i.e., the Metropolitan district). These are frequently dealt with as Public Bills, the large area, the number of parishes, the vast population, and the variety of interests concerned constituting them measures of public policy rather than of local interest."
  MR. Clifford went on in his work to show that on some occasions Bills affecting the Metropolitan district had been dealt with as Hybrid Bills; but never where the object was to declare the effect of a public statute. When the Bill now before the House was in Committee in the House of Commons, Mr. Coope, representing the Water Companies, brought forward a Motion precisely similar to that of the noble and learned Lord's; but it was rejected by an overwhelming majority, because the Bill was a Public and not a Private Bill.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to require the Metropolitan Water Companies to rate the occupiers of premises on their rate-able instead of upon their annual value, subject to the quinquennial revision provided for by the Act passed in 1869. He asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time on the clear understanding that it would be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships upstairs—not to a Private nor to a Hybrid Committee, but to a Public Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Enfield.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he must oppose the second reading of the Bill. He was not a shareholder in any Water Company, and he had no personal interest whatever in the matter; but he protested against the Water Companies being compelled to be bound by the rate-able value, which in a large number of cases was notoriously far below the real net annual value of the property. [Cries of "No!"] He said peremptorily "Yes."
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT-STATEMENT OF THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, SECEETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER): My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, it may be convenient that I should state, as far as it is possible to do so, the condition of one or two important questions in which your Lordships take a great interest, and which affect considerably the foreign policy and position of this country. The first matter—a matter of the gravest importance, of course—is the negotiations which have been taking place for some time with the Court of Russia in respect to the Frontier of Afghanistan. In respect to this case, and in respect to others, I need not point out to you that our business is now not to consider or to comment upon the past; we find the threads as they have been left by our Predecessors; and it is our business to take up the policy where it has been left, and conduct it to such an issue as seems to us consistent with the public interest. It is not our business now to enter into any controversial questions which may formerly have been raised in respect to it; and still more your Lordships will observe the very material restriction on our action and on our statements, which arises from the fact that we have come into these matters right in the middle of them, and that we are finishing, or furnishing the end of that which others have begun. The consequence of that is that many pledges have been given; and the first duty of any Government, whether it is fresh or has lasted for a considerable time, or from whatever side of the House or Party in politics it is drawn—the first Business of any Government is to see that the pledges which the English Government, as the English Government, has given shall be observed. That is the dominant condition which overrides any other in the consideration of the negotiations which we have inherited; and it is the condition which for a certain space of time, until those pledges have been fulfilled, must materially and considerably limit our freedom of action. My Lords, that statement is eminently illustrated by this question of the Frontier of Afghan-

1653
istan. The difference, or the chief difference, affects a certain portion of the Frontier, perhaps not very intimately known to your Lordships, which is called the Pass of Zulfikar. The importance of that Pass, be it great or small, is not a matter which comes before us for our consideration, because the dominant condition under which we deal with it is not the consideration of its importance or non-importance to England or Afghanistan; but it is the fact that England has promised to the Ameer that this Pass shall he included within the limits of Afghanistan, and from that promise so given it is not open to us to recede. It is of high and vital importance that we should establish in the eyes of all who trust us or depend upon us, not only in Asia but elsewhere, but especially in Asia, that the word of England once given will he sustained and adhered to. But I am bound to say that this promise given to the Ameer was only consequent upon another promise given by the Court of Russia that the Zulfikar Pass should he included within the territory of Afghanistan. But differences have arisen as to the precise application of this promise, and these differences are now the subject of negotiations. It is, perhaps, rather early for me to express an opinion as to the issue, or as to the mode in which those negotiations will pass along; but as far as I have had an opportunity of judging they are conducted by the Court of Russia, as they are undoubtedly conducted on our side, with an earnest desire to arrive at an amicable settlement; and I hope, therefore, that an amicable settlement may he anticipated. At the same time, in hoping that that will be the case, I must say that the negotiations have not gone far enough to enable me to speak in any positive manner. The lamentable domestic affliction which we all deplore has prevented the Minister for Foreign Affairs from pursuing the negotiations at this moment; and we must regret it all the more as M. de Giers has, in all the differences which have arisen between this country and Russia, been such a friend of peace that our sympathy is doubly due to him. My Lords, I would not, at the same time, ask you to attach too final or conclusive importance to these negotiations—whenever they are concluded. Without entering upon the question of the
1654
views which various potentates entertain, it is a matter known to all who have studied the subject, however slightly, that the whole condition of affairs in those countries is in a state of unstable equilibrium; and it is not in Treaties or Agreements, though they maybe useful in their way, that we must trust for the defence of the precious interests which we have in those countries; and although we shall cultivate—and, I trust, successfully cultivate—the confidence and friendship of the Ameer of Afghanistan, it is not to the friendship of the Ameer of Afghanistan that we must trust for the protection of our interests. It is to preparations skilfully devised and vigorously and rapidly carried out for the defence of our Frontier at all points whore it is weak; it is to the erection of bulwarks which shall not only defend the Frontier when it is attacked, but which shall stretch out far enough to prevent the tide of war rolling to its foot—it is to preparation of that kind which we trust; and, whatever may be the political changes in England, or whatever Party in the State may hold the predominance, I hope they will from this time forth never for an instant be abandoned or relaxed. The other matter which occupies the greatest share of public attention is, perhaps, one of the most complicated, and entangled problems ever submitted to any Government to solve—the problem of the present position of Egypt. If I affected to have a formula which, like a spell, would solve all difficulties, your Lordships would justly mistrust the know-lodge I have acquired of the conditions of that problem. The difficulties are enormous, and they are of many kinds, and what I am going to do now is rather to indicate to you the heads and chapters under which the difficulties may be arranged than to point out the precise nature of the remedies we propose to adopt. I take that course for the obvious reason that we must, before we resolve upon our definite course, take the counsels of all those who are best fitted by experience and knowledge to guide us in the matter. The most important consideration that should be before our minds is so to weigh our steps that once taken they should not be retraced; that our policy should be steady without oscillation; and if it fulfils those conditions the main essentials of a cure will

1655
have been obtained, even although the results should not be rapidly arrived at. Now, the first of all the difficulties with which we have to deal is that we have a triumphant enemy on the Frontier. On the Frontier at Khartoum, on the Frontier at Suakin, we have an enemy, who, at all events, according to his own ideas—and that is the important thing—has been triumphant in the recent struggle. He has prevented us from attaining the objects that we had in view, and he has seen us retire from the ground which we occupied. It is idle to suppose that with the tenacity of purpose the Mahdi has already shown, strengthened by the fanaticism of the tribes who have devoted themselves with such splendid courage to his cause—it is idle to suppose that we can look forward to a passive or an indolent attitude on his part. "We must, until we have conquered him, treat his strength as one of the dangers of Egypt, and therefore it is that the military question is more important than any other. The most momentous issue we have to decide is how we shall apply the Forces of Egypt, assisted, no doubt, in some measure by ourselves—and assisted, it may be, in other ways—so as to keep this tide of fanatic and sanguinary barbarism at a distance—how we shall be able to secure the Frontiers of Egypt, whatever they may be, so that the civilization we are anxious to leave behind us shall flourish without danger whenever the time shall come for our protecting hand to be withdrawn. My Lords, the difficulty does not rest there; the military difficulty is enormous, but the political difficulty connected with the Soudan is, perhaps, greater still. Vast territories which were under the Government of Egypt have ceased to be practically under its control—desolation has swept over them, and every vestige of progress and civilization has disappeared, and the population, in many cases, has been reduced to a miserable remnant. Yet we cannot abandon these Provinces entirely to their fate. The Soudan is a name, popularly given to districts of vast extent, differing very much from each other in their character and in their importance to Egypt. There is the question how much at the Soudan ought to remain under the actual Government of Egypt. There is the further question how much beyond that ought to be so far under the military
1656
control of Egypt that attack from the forces of the Desert shall no longer be feared. These questions have to be solved, and they must be solved before we can say we have placed Egypt in a position of security, or before we have discharged the debt which our past intervention and the effect which our actions have had upon that country has thrown upon us. My Lords, these are the two main problems connected with Egypt with which we have to deal; but they are exceeded in momentary importance by another, which very much occupied the attention of our Predecessors—I mean the financial question. Lord Northbrook—I do not see him in the House—went to Egypt last autumn and made an elaborate Report recommending certain measures. These measures had for their object the solution of the financial difficulty under which Egypt laboured. A Convention was afterwards concluded, which, whatever else may be said of it, would have relieved the Egyptian Government of some of its worst difficulties; I believe it would have enabled it to pay off its indemnities, and would have enabled it to prevent the appearance of a deficit which is now threatening it. But that Convention, although it has been concluded, has been prevented from coming into operation by diplomatic difficulties; and until those difficulties—and I hope they are in the way of solution—have been solved, the financial condition of Egypt is not less embarrassing, and not less a hindrance to all possible progress in that country, than it has been before. My Lords, finance is really the question of the first importance, and until that is settled nothing can be done. If those diplomatic difficulties cannot be removed, the financial deadlock must be put a stop to by measures of the severest economy; but one way or another nothing can be done until a satisfactory balance-sheet is established in Egypt. One difficulty is to keep the Frontier safe from the barbarous enemies who have won so many advantages at our expense. The next is to determine the political condition, and to fix the political relations of Egypt to the vast territories which have been the scenes of all these lamentable events. Behind and beyond all these matters, when they have been settled, and not till then, will arise the

1657
very serious group of questions which belong to our International relations with other countries—questions which assuredly will require solution, but which do not press acutely for solution now. My Lords, I have stated these difficulties to your Lordships fully for the purpose of impressing upon you that a wise and circumspect policy in dealing with them requires that we should have time for obtaining the fullest advice from those who are best fitted to give it, and that we should obtain the advice in such a manner as may seem to us most necessary. It is impossible that we can restore Egypt to the condition in which she was before our troops landed unless we make up our minds to a somewhat lengthy process. There is really no alternative before us but steadily buckling to with a view of amending all the evils, or a considerable number of the evils which exist, by a cautious and circumspect policy. There is no alternative between that and taking a course which it seems to me would cover England with shame—that is, abandoning Egypt to her fate, and to all the anarchy and the chaos that would follow. I only wish to say one other word on this subject. Among the many evil conditions with which we have had to deal in Egypt we have had one conpensation; we have had to deal with a Khedive who, throughout the whole of this calamitous history, has shown himself loyal and steadfast to England. To him, therefore, we are bound by every consideration of honour. With respect to domestic matters, as it has been said that—"Happy is the nation that has no history;" for the same reason I hope that the Parliament of England may be happy during the next few weeks. I need not enlarge again upon the anomalous position in which we find ourselves, and the very peculiar circumstances under which we are conducting the Business of the country; but they seem to us to point to an avoidance of contentious subjects of legislation, the passing of necessary measures, and bringing the Session to a close as soon as we can. With respect to Ireland I will not say anything, because my noble Friend the Viceroy is here, and I hope he will say a few words upon the policy which the Government will recommend. With respect to other matters, I do not think there is any Bill of importance beyond the ordinary ne-
1658
cessary Bills which, at all events in this House, it is desirable for us to insist upon, except the Bill brought in by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Rosebery)—the Bill for the Secretary-ship of Scotland. If the noble Earl is disposed to go on with that Bill, he will meet with all the assistance in our power, as we think it very desirable, if possible, to carry out legislation on that subject in the present year. With that exception, I think we shall best do our duty by passing the necessary measures only, and in thus bringing the Session to a close. With very great surprise I have seen it suggested by some people that there is a dark design on the part of Her Majesty's Government to push the Dissolution off as far as possible for the purpose of enjoying what some people are pleased to call the sweets of Office a few weeks longer. I leave it to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) to say whether I did not, after the fall of the late Government, suggest a clause to him for the purpose of accelerating the Dissolution. I took into counsel the permanent officers of the Government in conjunction with the noble Lord as to the earliest time when we could have a Dissolution; and we came to the conclusion that November 17th, speaking roughly, was about the earliest date on which we could confidently expect the arrangements for the Dissolution to be complete. That was the day they furnished to me. It is prophesying a long time ahead; but I can assure your Lordships that no Party will be more desirous of bringing this anomalous condition of things to an end than we shall be, and no delaying of the Dissolution need be feared at our hands. I do not think there is anything else with which I need detain your Lordships, and I will therefore make way for my noble Friend.
Moved, "That the House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (The Earl of CARNAKVON): My Lords, my noble Friend has desired that I should state to your Lordships the general position that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to occupy with regard to Irish affairs, and I hope to do so in comparatively few sentences. I need not tell your Lordships what everyone in this House knows, the nature of

1659
events which has brought us to the present position. It will be perhaps sufficient if, by quoting a few figures, I show what the state of agrarian crime was a few years ago, what it has since been in the interval, and what it is at the present time. In 1878 agrarian crime in Ireland stood at 301 cases. In the following year there were 860, and in the three following years 1880, 1881, and 1882 the cases reached the enormous totals of 2,580, 4,439, and 3,433 respectively. In 1883, after the Crimes Act had passed, agrarian crimes fell to 870, and last year to 762. I ought, perhaps, to supplement that statement by saying that in 1884, I think, that there was no case of the worst form of agrarian crime. I think there was not one case of actual murder, and the calendars promise to be of a comparatively, if not singularly, light character. The substance, therefore, of the statement is that whereas crime rose in those three years to an enormous figure, it has since fallen to what I do not call an absolutely normal level, but to the same level, in fact below the level, of 1879. In those circumstances, the question has naturally arisen—what Her Majesty's Government are to do; and it is impossible to conceive a graver or a more serious matter on which to deliberate. Within a very short time—indeed, within a time to be numbered by weeks—the Crimes Act expires, and the question is what course should be taken? Three courses are possible. Either you may re-enact the Crimes Act in the whole, or you may re-enact it in part, or you may allow it to lapse altogether. I think very few persons would be disposed to advocate its re-enactment as a whole. Some of the clauses of that Act have never been put into operation at all, some are accepted by common consent as useless; some powers which it contains may be exercised equally well under the ordinary law. Some, again, are so exceptional that they can only properly be required and put in force in very exceptional times. Therefore, I dismiss the consideration of the re-enactment of the Crimes Act as a whole. The more serious and practical question is whether it shall be re-enacted in part. No one, I think, can deny that there are some provisions in that Act which have proved effective and are useful, such, for instance, as
1660
that for the change of venue; such, again, as the clauses dealing with special juries and the power of allowing a magisterial inquiry to be held although there is no accused person; or, again, the clauses with regard to intimidation. Many of those are powers which are not unconstitutional, and which are not opposed to any legal instincts. On the contrary, they have an analogy to existing laws; they are known to the Scotch law, were recommended by the Criminal Code legislation of 1879, and are actually embodied, if I mistake not, in the Bill brought in by the late Attorney General. But, my Lords, that seems to me to be hardly the point at this moment; because if you re-enact these clauses and these clauses alone, as many contend is expedient, such re-enactment, I hold, would be in the nature of exceptional or special legislation, and my own feeling is that unless in the last resource such special legislation is not desirable. One of two things must take place—either legislation of this nature must be permanent or it must be temporary. If it is permanent, then I think that the majority of this House will agree with me that it is right that it should be a universal and general enactment. If, on the other hand, it is to be temporary, then I, for one, can see no advantage gained. It is a mere stop-gap, and the moment it lapses the same difficulty which you have at this moment recurs, and you have to face exactly the same question. When that Act was passed three years ago the limit of three years was assigned for its operation. It was an Act much considered and much debated, and I cannot come to any other conclusion but that the Legislature, in assigning that limit of three years, thought that at the end of that time the effects designed would be produced and the Act might come to an end. To imagine any other conclusion would be stultifying Parliament. The results are those which I have described; crime has fallen, has reached an almost normal level, and has remained at that level during the last two years. The Act having produced, as all agree, its effect, and the three years having lapsed, it seems hard once more to call upon Parliament to re-enact it. I believe, for my own part, that special legislation of this sort is inexpedient. It is inexpedient while it is in operation,

1661
because it must conjure up a sense of restlessness and irritation, and it is still more inexpedient when it has to be renewed at short intervals, and brings before the minds of the people of the country that they are to be kept under peculiar and exceptional coercion. Now, I have looked through a good many of the Acts that have been passed, I may say, during the last generation for Ireland; and I have been astonished to find that ever since the year 1847, with some very short intervals which are hardly worth mentioning, Ireland has lived under exceptional and coercive legislation. No sane man can admit that this is a satisfactory or a wholesome state of things. It does seem to me that it is very desirable, if possible, to extricate ourselves from this miserable habit, and to aim at some wholesome and better solution. But more than being undesirable, I hold that such legislation is practically impossible if it is to be continually and indefinitely re-enacted. I think it was Count Cavour who said that it was easy to govern in a state of siege. Without arguing upon that, I admit possibly the truth of it—I say it is true as far as this, that it may be easy to govern in a state of siege for a time, but to attempt to govern permanently is, I believe, utterly impossible. It may be said that this is a question of trust. No doubt, it is a question of trust; but trust begets trust, and it is, after all, the only foundation upon which we can hope to build up amity and concord between the two nations. I know of nothing more sad than to see how, instead of diminishing under the healing process of time, there has been a growth of ill-will between these two nations; and I think it is time to try how far we may appeal to better feelings. I, for my own part, believe that Ireland will justify the confidence which is shown her when this Act is allowed to lapse. My noble Friend has said that it is impossible for us to effect much legislation during the short remainder of the Session. The same remark applies to Ireland; yet I will say this—that though little comparatively can be done, something, I think, may be achieved; and if we meet with forbearance, and more than forbearance, with support in "another place," I am not without hopes that some reasonable measure in the direction of a Land Purchase Bill may be
1662
secured. I am not without hopes that some measure amending the Labourers Act, 1883, may also be secured. However that may be, as far as regards legislation, if I am asked further as to policy, I will speak generally in these terms. So far as the mere administration of the law is concerned, it is our hope and intention to administer the ordinary law firmly and effectually. So far as the larger field of government, which includes law, and more than law, is concerned, I hope we shall deal justly, and that we shall secure, perhaps, a somewhat better, wholesomer, and kindlier relation, I will not say merely between classes, creeds, or races, but between the rulers and the ruled; and, above all, it is my wish so to study as to understand those questions of discord which have torn these two nations apart. My Lords, Ireland has had a very stormy and disastrous history; faction, Party spirit, and misgovernment have left their enduring marks on the face of the people of the country. There have been so many failures that the wrecks of them lie strewn all about; but I cannot and will not lightly believe that the combination of good feeling to England and of good government to Ireland is a hopeless task. My Lords, I do not believe that, with honesty and single-mindedness of purpose on the one side, and with the willingness of the Irish people on the other, it is hopeless to look for some satisfactory solution of this terrible question. My Lords, these I believe to be the opinions and the views of my Colleagues. I can only say for myself that, in undertaking the task which has been laid upon me, I individually go to it with a perfectly free, open, and unprejudiced mind, to hear, to question, and, as far as may be, to understand. And just as I have seen in English Colonies across the sea a combination of English, Irish, and Scotch settlers bound together in loyal obedience to the law and the Crown, and contributing to the general prosperity of the country, so I cannot conceive that there is any irreconcilable bar here in their native home and in England to the unity and the amity of the two nations.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In the absence, I am sorry to say, of my noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is not well, it devolves upon

1663
me to make a few observations upon the two very important statements which we have just heard. And, first of all, before I touch on the remarks of the noble Marquess as to foreign affairs, I desire to say that I never for one moment believed in what I conceived to be the absurd rumour to which he has referred, that the noble Marquess had the slightest intention to postpone the Dissolution beyond the earliest convenient moment. With regard to the two very important questions of foreign affairs relating to Afghanistan and to Egypt, I wish to state that I concur generally in what the noble Marquess said as to the question of the Afghan Frontier; and although I, perhaps, looking to the opinion of experts, should not altogether attach no importance to the Zulfikar Pass, still I concur with the noble Marquess that the main point connected with it in the present negotiations rests on the fact that the Ameer has attached great importance to that Pass, that we received a promise, as we understood, from the Russian Government that certain positions in the Zulfikar Pass would be left to Afghanistan; and we informed the Ameer that that Pass should remain in his possession. I agree also that it is of the first importance that all the pledges and promises of this country should be fully and scrupulously observed. I have likewise great satisfaction in concurring in the general view of the noble Marquess as to Afghan affairs. "When I sat on the other side of the House I stated that I entirely agreed with him that we must not in these affairs look merely to Treaties for our security and for the safety of India. Treaties record the agreements made between different countries, and have their obvious advantages; but at all times a nation is unwise in trusting to Treaties alone, and especially in a case of this kind where, as the noble Marquess pointed out, from the very nature of the Afghan nation, there exists a very loose condition of affairs which may change rapidly from time to time. And I certainly regard it as of the greatest moment, as the noble Marquess has intimated, that whatever Party should have to deal with this question, or whatever Government should be in Office in this country, we should firmly and steadily keep in view the placing of
1664
India in a thorough position of defence. If that is done, no matter what may take place, we shall be ready for events; and, in my opinion, events are more likely to take a peaceful turn if we are in a thorough state of defence. With regard to Egypt, as the noble Marquess truly said, a more difficult and more complicated diplomatic and also military problem was never under the consideration of a Government; and I say at once, if the noble Marquess, by the firm and careful treatment of the question which he has promised in language of the greatest moderation, can disentangle it from some of the extraordinary difficulties which surround it, I feel sure that all Parties, both in Parliament and in the country, will rejoice. The noble Marquess, alluding to the military part of the question, rather, as I think, overestimated the triumphant position of the Mahdi. According, at least, to the information which we had before we left Office, the Mahdi was not quite in so triumphant a position as the noble Marquess appeared to suppose. It is perfectly true, and lamentably true, that we failed in the great object of the Expedition for the relief of Khartoum and the heroic General Gordon; but, at the same time, it would be a misrepresentation, which I am sure no one in this House would wish to encourage, to represent that our Army had been unsuccessful, when, in point of fact, they invariably succeeded against their enemies in one gallant engagement after another; and I should strongly deprecate the erroneous idea gaining currency that the Mahdi had succeeded against our armed efforts, or that our^ troops had suffered any defeat.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. What I wished to convey was that the Mahdi had been triumphant in his own belief, which, I think, is important.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have not referred to the point by way of reproach to the noble Marquess; but I felt that it was only due to our troops, after all their services and all their endurance in that country, that there should be no misconception as to the result of their efforts. No doubt the retirement of our troops may have led the Mahdi to believe that within certain bounds he had been successful; but he has shown a very strong dread of our troops; a very high

1665
respect for the power of the British arms has been established in that country; and I do not believe that he will soon be ready to confront our soldiers again. However that may be, it has yet to be seen whether the Mahdi can maintain his power. The noble Marquess viewed with some apprehension—and there may be some grounds for apprehension—the Mahdi's approach to Egypt. The invasion of Egypt by the Mahdi on a great scale has always seemed to us not the evil which was so much to be feared. What is most to be feared is the spread of the Mahdi's doctrines and his influence, which cannot be arrested by our troops. In that I recognize a real and serious danger; and I shall be glad to see any method by which it can be effectually removed. I apprehend that there is only one way of doing that—namely, by the establishment of a stable Government in Egypt, and one which has the confidence and respect of the population. Then the noble Marquess pointed out the enormous difficulty of fulfilling that task; yet that task has been undertaken by the Government of this country. We undertook to support the Khedive, of whom I was glad to hear the noble Marquess speak as he did in terms "which were fully deserved, and terms which, if he will allow me to say so, were most judicious at the present moment. Unfortunately, our task in Egypt has been almost rendered impossible by the financial position of the country. The finances of Egypt have been in such confusion that it has been impossible to establish an equilibrium. The noble Marquess knows that our attempts to bring about a financial equilibrium have not met with that assistance and co-operation from other Powers which was desirable, and which, I think, we might have expected, especially as it is in the interest of all Europe that some stable condition of affairs should be established in Egypt. If the noble Marquess can succeed, in an agreement with other Powers to bring about the financial solvency of Egypt, I shall not for one be sorry that he should have these matters in hand, and should try his abilities on this subject; and I trust that he will succeed. Having made these few observations on the Egyptian and Afghan questions, I now come to what is a question quite as grave and serious, and one which comes nearer
1666
home—I mean the subject which was referred to by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The noble Earl will not mistake me or think that I speak from Party feeling if I say that is a very unusual, if not an unprecedented, course that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should make a statement of policy in this House. I only remember one instance in which a Lord Lieutenant took such a part in this House—namely, the case when Lord Clarendon was attacked by Resolution. The position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is one of great peculiarity; and I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with me that it is desirable as much as possible that that he should be separated from Party politics. Having said that, I freely acknowledge the careful way in which the noble Earl approached the question. My noble Friend has taken what may be termed a broad view of the question of exceptional legislation for Ireland. He has looked at the matter generally, and has come to the conclusion that exceptional legislation is a great evil. I suppose that that is a fact which we are all ready to admit. There cannot be the slightest doubt that exceptional legislation is an evil. The noble Earl told us that in Ireland it has continued for a certain number of years; and there is no doubt that, in the opinion of every reasonable man, it is a misfortune that exceptional legislation should be required. The question remains—is the condition of Ireland or, is it not, such that we can safely dispense with legislation of this character? I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that nothing could be more disagreeable to us, or less in accordance will our general political views, than to have recourse to this exceptional legislation, and we showed our reluctance when we came into Office, because at that time we found ourselves in a position not altogether unlike that in which the present Government now stands. We found exceptional legislation which was to expire in about 10 days, and found ourselves face to face with the question whether or not it should be renewed. We came to the conclusion—after, I must say) much doubt and discussion, but upon those broad grounds which we have heard from my noble Friend—that we would make the experiment of dispensing with exceptional legislation and

1667
govern Ireland under the ordinary law. We were not, however, so sanguine as my noble Friend; and perhaps the reason was that some of us had had a little more experience than he has had of Irish affairs; but still we were in hope—and it is no breach of confidence to say that Mr. Forster had strong hopes—that it would be possible to govern Ireland in the ordinary manner. We were grievously disappointed. Every one knows what happened, and that the result of that experiment was disastrous. Everyone knows what attacks were made upon us, not, perhaps, without justification considering the results which followed. While I do not wish to say a word to add to the difficulties of the Government, or to embarrass my noble Friend the present Lord Lieutenant, I view with considerable apprehension the experiment about to be tried. My noble Friend has access to all the information that was before us. Of the Act now in force parts, no doubt, are plainly coercive in character. But there are provisions in it to which my noble Friend alluded, which ought scarcely to be characterized as coercive legislation. The question is whether Ireland has returned—I will not say to a normal condition; when was it in a normal condition?—but to such a tranquil condition that we can dispense with all exceptional legislation? My noble Friend says that no legislation would be satisfactory unless it were permanent in its character.
THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELANDexplained that what he had said was that there were certain clauses in the Act which, if re-enacted, should be re-enacted as part of the general law.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That has often been suggested, and it is a taking suggestion; but it is not sound reasoning. You may depend upon this—that if you assume that the state of affairs in Ireland is going to be precisely similar to the state of affairs in England, that upon all subjects and at all times you can apply the same rules in Ireland as in England, you show a complete and entire disregard of the history and circumstances of Ireland. This does not apply merely to coercive legislation. There is nothing I should desire more than that Ireland should be treated with the same justice, with the same favour
1668
if I may say so, as the rest of the United Kingdom. But there are peculiarities in Ireland which must be studied in that country and which require special treatment. I do not speak without consideration, because the matter was frequently brought under the consideration of the late Government; and I came to the conclusion, after mature reflection, that this is not a principle which you can apply. Having said thus much, I repeat that if the Government are satisfied, from information which they have at their command, that, looking to the condition of Ireland, looking to what has taken place during the last five years, looking to all such forecasts as men can make from their experience of the past—I say if looking to all these circumstances they deliberately come to the conclusion that they can take upon themselves the great and serious responsibility of governing Ireland without any exceptional legislation, it is not for us to challenge their decision. We abide by it and shall await the event. And far from desiring that we should reap any such advantage as we should derive from the expectations of my noble Friend being falsified, I can assure him that there is no man on either side of the House who will feel more complete and entire satisfaction than I shall if he is able during the next few months to govern Ireland successfully without exceptional legislation.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I do not rise for the purpose of making any serious reply to the three interesting and important speeches we have just heard. It would hardly be in Order to carry on this debate, as there is, in fact, no Question before the House. It is a custom of the House to allow the First Minister of the Crown and those who are responsible for great Departments to make what statements they please upon these occasions. Nor with respect to my noble Friend who has just spoken do I think that any serious comment is necessary. The situation is peculiar. The noble Marquess, speaking as Prime Minister, is necessarily confined to a general statement, and all that he said will meet with general approval on both sides, and that approval has been expressed by my noble Friend who has just sat down. One observation fell from my noble Friend, about which I

1669
have some doubt, with regard to the influence of the Mahdi. The truth is we know nothing about it. We know nothing of the truth about the various reports which are brought in from time to time. There is hardly anything reliable about them. But I rather agree with the noble Marquess that although, so far as our soldiers are concerned, it is most true that the Arabs will take care how they meet them again in battle, yet, as regards the political situation, I am afraid there can be no doubt that a serious impetus has been given to that fanatical movement. But we may be sure of this—that fanatical influence meets with very serious check when there is military repulse. Now, my Lords, I have observed upon the somewhat anomalous position we are in with regard to our policy in Ireland. I listened very carefully to the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down. I observed the caution which he gave to my noble Friend opposite, that it is not usual for the Lord Lieutenant to intervene in the debates of this House. That is a rule which it is most desirable to observe. At the same time I may point out that I did not look at the speech of my noble Friend as one of Party contention. It is surely within the discretion of the existing Government to determine whether the statement of policy with regard to Ireland should be made by the Prime Minister or the Lord Lieutenant. My noble Friend had a perfect right to speak, and he used that right in a spirit which no man can challenge. But I cannot help observing upon the anomalous position of the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, who expresses serious doubts as to the possibility of doing without exceptional legislation when we have on the Conservative side a declaration that they mean to try the experiment, and figures are quoted to prove that they are safe in doing so. This is a transposition of parts which is very peculiar. I cannot help observing that this is the result of our political situation. My feeling is, this being the last of Ministerial explanations, that we have not yet had a fitting opportunity of discussing the political situation. The two Front Benches have had their say. But the independent Members of the House have had no opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the peculiarities of this political
1670
crisis; and I, for one, do not think that it would be expedient that the ordinary transactions of the Government should resume their place without this matter being seriously brought before the attention of the House. My Lords, there are many Members of this House, and many sections of it, who have watched this crisis with intense anxiety and interest, and we are not satisfied with the explanations given by either side. But this would not be a fitting opportunity for introducing matter of a contentious character. I have therefore resolved to give Notice that on Friday next I shall call attention to the circumstances attending the recent change of Administration, and the effect of that change upon the political prospects of the country.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
  OBSERVATION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that with regard to what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite it was his intention to proceed with this Bill at the earliest possible moment.

LUNACY BILL.—QUESTION'.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEinquired whether the Government intended to proceed further with the Lunacy Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in reply, said, that there was every disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill, if the arrangements for Business in the House of Commons were such as to enable so complicated a measure to be passed this Session.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.