Sitting of 2 March 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—County Courts (Divorce) * [77].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Shannon Navigation [54].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49] [First Night], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Elections in Counties (Hours of Poll) [19].

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION)—REPORT OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have to announce to the House a few corrections which have to be made of slight errors in the maps published with the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. In the map of South-West Lancashire the petty sessional division of Kirkham should be Kirkdale. In the map of Suffolk the red boundary of Woodbridge division should include Aldeburgh. In the map of the southern division of West Biding, West Bretton parish should have been shown as part of Lower Agbrigg petty sessional division.
QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—TRIAL OF CROFTERS AT STORNOWAY.
  DR. CAMEEONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the trial before Sheriff Substitute Black at Stornoway, on the 20th inst., of three crofters and an apprentice baker for mobbing a tacksman named Martin in that town on the 29th December; whether it is the case, as stated by the

  1747
  sheriff, that Martin had recently mutilated some sheep belonging to crofters which he had found on his land, and had himself wantonly provoked the demonstration against him by denouncing the crofters of the island as "thieves and robbers;" whether the sheriff discharged the principal accused on the ground that Martin had "metaphorically speaking flown at his throat;" whether he sentenced the other crofters to 30 days, and the apprentice baker to 14 days' imprisonment, without option of a fine, on the ground that there was no evidence that they had heard the provocative language used; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that the crowd which hooted Martin consisted of 200persons, that he was not physically assaulted, and that there was no evidence to show that the men imprisoned were ringleaders or exceptionally active members of the mob, he will consider the propriety of revising the severe sentences passed upon them?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he would ask that the Question might be postponed until the official Report was received.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, What sentence was passed upon Roderick Martin for mutilating the crofters' sheep in the manner described by Sheriff Black; and whether it is intended to take proceedings against him for having, according to the statement of the same Judge, so conducted himself as to provoke a breach of the peace?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The matter referred to in the first part of this Question has been made the subject of a civil, but not of a criminal trial. The case was fully investigated by the criminal authorities, and, briefly stated, the following appear to be the facts:—Martin had a stock of high-bred ewes which he had put into a place specially adapted for securing that there should be no interference with the purity of the breed. He found two tups of inferior breed amongst them, which, from the nature of the place, there was strong reason to believe must have been put there on purpose, and he j castrated the tups which he so found. In so doing, ho was going beyond his legal right; but it appeared, upon the evidence, that there exists in the Island a cruel custom of so treating tups which
  1748
  are found amongst the ewes belonging to other persons, and the question came to be whether, under these circumstances, there was ground for a criminal charge of what is known in law as malicious mischief. If it had appeared that what Martin did was done merely for the sake of injuring the owners of the tups, and not for the purpose of protecting his own stock by means which he believed to be legitimate, such a charge would have been preferred against him. But upon the evidence there seemed to be no doubt that Martin in bonâ fide, although mistakenly, believed that it was within his right in adopting this step, in accordance with the local custom already referred to; and this being so, the facts would not have sustained a criminal charge of malicious mischief. The case was, however, tried in the Civil Court, where, on the one hand, the owner of the tups claimed their value from Martin, and he, on the other hand, made a counter-claim for the damage which the tups had done to his ewes; and the Sheriff found that equal amounts were due by the litigant parties to each other on these heads. The Sheriff quiterightly, in my judgment, held that this custom, although apparently universal in the Island, was not a good defence to a civil action, and I hope that now that it has been authoritatively declared to be illegal it will not again be acted upon. After the warning thus given, it cannot be assumed that an assertion of a bonâ fide, though mistaken, idea of right will again protect anyone adopting so cruel a course from criminal proceedings. Before answering the second part of the Question, I should desire to have an opportunity of obtaining an official Report on the case to which it relates.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the trial at Stornoway of certain crofters charged with deforcing a messenger-at-arms is reported to have been conducted by Sheriff Substitute Black, and the speech made by him in pronouncing judgment; whether it is true, as stated by the solicitor for the accused, the procurator fiscal in charge of the case is also estate agent to the proprietor at whose instance the deforced messenger was serving summonses; and, whether, taking into account the importance in the pre-

  1749
  sent excited state of the Highlands of securing the administration of justice in a manner calculated to command public confidence in its impartiality, he will consider the propriety of reviewing the sentences passed in the case in question, and direct that in future persons accused of agrarian offences in the island of Lewis should be tried before some other court?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), who replied, said: Attention has been called to this trial. The position of the Procurator Fiscal has been repeatedly explained in this House. He is not estate agent to the proprietor at whose instance the deforced messenger was serving summonses. The summons, in the course of serving which the deforcement occurred, was at the instance of James Mackenzie, a tacksman, with concurrence of Lady Matheson. It was prepared by Edinburgh agents, under whose direction the whole proceedings were carried out. The partner of the Procurator Fiscal occasionally acts in local Court matters for Lady Matheson, as well as for other clients, including crofters; but for some time past the Procurator Fiscal has not himself engaged in any civil law business; and communications are in progress which, it is hoped, will result in an arrangement being made for his devoting himself exclusively to the business of his public office, and his ceasing to be connected, even as a partner, with anyone engaged in private practice. The sentences do not seem to have been excessive, and there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for reviewing them on this ground.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a letter from the Rev. Donald M'Callum, published in The Oban Times of the 7th February, reflecting on legal proceedings at Glendale; and, if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations made by the reverend gentleman above named? In putting the Question, the hon. Member added: I wish to explain that I put it upon the action of a legal functionary—namely, Sheriff Ivory; and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in putting a Question about a public official, it is not permitted to state the name of the public official? The name has been
  1750
  struck out of my Question as it appears in the Papers.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman asks me a Question on a point of Order. The Question could not be received in that form, because it impugned the conduct of a Judge, and that would not be the proper form to impugn the conduct of such an official.
  MR. MACFARLANE: If I impugned the conduct of the Judge in question, no doubt you were quite right, but——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have given my ruling on the point of Order in reply to your Question, and it is scarcely for the hon. Member to question that ruling.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), who replied, said: I quite understand the matter, and I have seen the statement in the letter to which attention has been called. The statements of the Sheriff on the subject to which it relates will be found in his Report, with respect to which a Question is on the Paper for to-morrow. No further inquiry seems to be necessary.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—PROCLAMATIONS—MURRINTOWN MEETING.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the county Wexford is a most peaceable district, in which no disturbances of any kind have occurred for a very considerable time; and, whether he can state what reasons the Lord Lieutenant had for proclaiming the meeting announced to be held at Murrintown, at which the Members for the county of Wexford had intended to address their constituents?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply already given to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. William Redmond) on the 26th instant.
  MR. SMALLasked whether any disturbances had occurred in Wexford before this meeting?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; there was no actual disturbance.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—110-TON GUNS.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, How many 110-

  1751
  ton guns have the Government ordered; when are they to be delivered; what is the price per gun; what is the weight of the projectile; what is the weight of powder charge, and what description of gunpowder is to be used; what is the estimated muzzle velocity; and, what is the expected maximum powder pressure with the above charge and projectile?
  MR. BRAND: Three 110-ton guns have been ordered. One is to be delivered in October next, another in January, and the third in April, 1886. The price per gun is £19,500; the weight of the projectile is 1,800 1bs.; the charge is 900 1bs. of cocoa powder; the muzzle velocity is 2,020 feet per second; the maximum powder pressure is 17 tons per square inch. It must be understood that the velocity and pressure are only estimated, although they are based on the experience gained with the Italian guns.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "ACTIVE"—BURSTING OF A 6-INCH GUN.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If the Select Committee has reported on the bursting of the 6-inch gun on board H.M.S. Active; and, if so, could he lay a Copy of that Report upon the Table?
  MR. BRAND: The Report in question has not vet been received by me.
  MR. CARBUTTasked, were the Government continuing to make these 6-inch guns exactly on the same principle as the one that had burst?
  MR. BRAND, in reply, said, that it had been decided to strengthen the guns.

  GRAND JURY ACT (IRELAND)—FEES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAND JURY, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the secretary of the grand jury for the county of Cavan, or his deputy, charges a one shilling fee for each cheque paid to a contractor; and, whether such charge is justifiable; and, if not, will he take means to have it discontinued?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The secretary of a Grand Jury is appointed by that body, and I have no control over him. I am, however, informed that the secretary of the Grand Jury of the county of Cavan does
  1752
  charge a fee of 1s. for providing and preparing forms of application to Presentment Sessions necessary to obtain orders for payment of contracts, as prescribed by the Grand Jury Act. It is no part of his duty, as such secretary, to provide and prepare these forms, and any contractor may himself prepare his own form, in which case no fee is paid; but if he chooses to avail himself of the services of the secretary, there is no objection to the secretary requiring to be paid a fee. I understand that the practice is similar in other counties.

  NAVY (DESIGNS)—UNARMOURED SHIPS—VOTE OF CENSURE.
  SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the experiments which the Committee on Designs considered it necessary to make before determining to build citadel ships, with unarmoured ends containing cork or some other buoyant substance, have been carried out; and, if not, whether the Board of Admiralty proposes to carry out any such experiments as further recommended by the Director of Naval Construction in 1877; also, whether the Board of Admiralty has yet decided to apply additional armour to any of Her Majesty's ships of recent design for the purpose of protecting them against the fire of machine-guns?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Committee on Designs of 1871 recommended experiments to be made as to the effects of firing on cellular structures containing cork or some other buoyant substance, and experiments on a small scale were carried out from the Excellent. At a later period, in December, 1876, the Director of Naval Construction recommended similar experiments on a large scale, involving an expenditure of £20,000. In making that recommendation the Director of Naval Construction had in view the possibility of the entire removal of vertical armour from the water-line. As this proposal was not entertained, it was not considered desirable by the Board of Admiralty to carry out those experiments. The recommendation of the Director of Naval Construction has not been renewed since the present Board was appointed; but, in consequence of the Question of which my hon. Friend has given Notice, we have thought it was duo to him that the necessity for the experiments should be

  1753
  again considered. The Board have decided that it is not necessary to undertake such experiments at the present time. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Board, having considered the question of the application of additional armour to any of Her Majesty's ships of recent design for the purpose of protecting them against the fire of machine guns, have decided that the addition is not necessary.
  SIR EDWARD J. REED: In view of the serious nature of the answer to these Questions, which involves the lives of thousands of Her Majesty's seamen and the security of the country, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates I will move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the Navy is unsatisfactory, and that its condition is largely due to recent defective administration and to the improper and extravagant expenditure of the sums voted by Parliament for its maintenance."

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW DRAINAGE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state how matters now stand with regard to the Barrow Drainage?
  MR. HIBBERT: This question has passed out of the hands of the Treasury. The Lord Lieutenant has decided to appoint a Commission to deal with it. The Commission will consist of Lord Castle-town, Sir John M'Kerlie, Colonel Garden, and Messrs. Cassidy, Humphrey Smith, and Richard Hassard; they will be appointed at once in order that they may inspect the river during the coming spring season.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND)—SALARIES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state or furnish a Return showing what are the salaries paid (without regard to distinctive title) to the senior or head clerks of Inland Revenue, and to the senior or head clerks of Customs, at the ports of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, Limerick, and Waterford; and, whether the duties of these officials are not similar in their nature; and, if so, why they are not put on an equality in the matter of salary?
  MR. HIBBERT: The salaries of the Inland Revenue officers referred to range from £245 to £300; those of the Customs officers from £220 to £500, two of the present holders, however, having personal salaries of £600. It is not admitted that the duties of the two sets of men are exactly analogous. I agree with the implication of the Question that officers performing similar duties should receive corresponding salaries; but it does not follow that the lower salary should be increased.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY—PROFESSOR D'ARCY THOMPSON.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Professor D'Arcy Thompson, Professor of Greek in Queen's College, Galway, has performed the duties of Librarian in that College since the close of 1876; whether he is still described as "Acting Librarian," although two Professors who have occupied the position of Librarian in the Queen's College, Belfast, and a Professor who has held it in the Queen's College, Cork, have all been appointed full Librarians under Sign Manual; whether Professor Thompson has already several times applied for full installation in his office; and, whether immediate steps will be taken to comply with his claims?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts are as stated in the Question, and, pending possible changes in the Queen's Colleges, it is not thought desirable to make any alteration in the condition on which Professor Thompson holds the post. He receives the full emoluments of the office, and the only point affected is the right of pension which a permanent appointment would confer.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether it was right or just to deprive Professor Thompson of the right to what had been done for Professors in the other Colleges?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member repeats his Question. I have stated that, pending probable changes in the Queen's Colleges, it is undesirable to make any change.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his Question was, why the same policy was not pursued towards Professor Thompson as towards the other two acting Librarians?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is practically the same Question.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that Professor Thompson was a most eminent scholar; and if he had discharged the duty of this office for years, why was he not placed in the same position as the other Librarians?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, for the fourth time, has asked the same Question.
  MR. GIBSON: I have not.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; you again ask why Professor Thompson's temporary office has not been made permanent?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: No, no; that was not my Question.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The reason I have already given why it has not been made permanent is that it is undesirable to do so, pending probable changes in the Queen's Colleges.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: For the fifth time the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer my Question. My Question was not why Professor Thompson's appointment is not made permanent; but why the other appointments being made permanent, his appointment still remains temporary?

  ARMY—THE 20TH HUSSARS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If he has now ascertained that the 20th Hussars were delayed in their departure from Aldershot to Egypt by the non-arrival of their clothing on the 18th instant; whether it is the case that, in consequence of such non-arrival, they eventually marched in Infantry helmets, without chin straps, old stable jackets and trousers, high-low boots, leg bandages or putties over their trousers, and bandoliers over their ordinary cross-bells; whether there is any precedent for a Cavalry Regiment starting on a march in such a mixed costume; and, whether any Report on the subject has been received from the Military authorities?
  MR. BRAND: It has been ascertained that a slight delay took place in the departure of the squadron of the 20th Hussars from Aldershot on the 18th ultimo; but the commanding officer was informed by telegram on the 17th, at 4.52 P.M., that all clothing not received would be supplied at Portsmouth on the
  1756
  arrival of the squadron. Consequently, no delay should have taken place, owing to non-arrival of clothing. The men did not march in Infantry helmets, but in pith helmets specially provided. No chin straps can be fixed to this helmet; but on a representation from the commanding officer, cork helmets were supplied at Portsmouth, and these are worn by all branches of the Service, mounted and dismounted, on active service. The instructions provide that the men should proceed to the port of embarkation in cloth jackets, trousers, and high-low boots—the Foot Guards wore this dress—for it is evident that special clothing supplied for wear in the tropics is not suitable for this country in February, neither do I suppose the hon. Member would wish that they should have to wear such. The Inspector General of Cavalry has reported that the squadron embarked at Portsmouth in all respects properly equipped for the service upon which it was ordered.

  ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS—APPOINTMENT OF "QUALIFIED AND MERITORIOUS WARRANT OFFICERS."
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken, in accordance with the promise given in the House of Commons on February 12th, 1884, towards promoting "qualified and meritorious Warrant Officers" of the Royal Engineers, serving as Military Foremen of Works, to the rank of Quartermaster, either in the corps or in the Army generally, to which they were then said to be eligible?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Provision is made in the Army Estimates for the ensuing year for six additional Quartermasters in the Royal Engineers, and it is proposed to select deserving military foremen of works for these commissions.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY FUND.
  MR. ST. AUBYNasked, If attention has been called to the Annual Report and Accounts of the Governor of the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund for the year ending the 31st December 1883, especially to the charges of management at page 7; and, whether the funds may not be more liberally dealt with for the augmentation of poor livings, by curtailing the aforesaid charges of manage-

  1757
  ment, and expending the profits of each year on the objects for which the Society has its existence?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The gross charges of management are stated to be £9,217 12 s. 11d. Taking the Governor's receipts and payments as a whole, the expense of management for the year 18S3 has been approximately £11 s. 8d. per cent. The affairs of the Corporation were inquired into by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1868, and the recommendations made by that Committee have been carried into effect. The Committee of 1868 reported that the business of the Board appeared to be carefully and well conducted.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE CAMEROONS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been received from the German Government on the subject of the Cameroon annexations since the despatch of Lord Granville's letter dated 21st February; whether Captain Campbell of the Rapid has applied for and received instructions as to the marks of respect to be paid to the German flag; and, what was the date of Captain Campbell's first communication on the subject, and the date of the instructions, if any, which he has received?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Communications are taking place of a confidential nature on the subject of the despatch alluded to, but are not of a nature to be made public as yet. Captain Campbell has not applied for instructions, and his despatch of December 29, which appears in the Blue Book, and is his only report, contains no allusion to any question of recognition of the German flag. Instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Naval officers on the West Coast to recognize the German flag at the places mentioned in Baron Plessen's note of October 15, 1884, which also appears in the Blue Book.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: When were they sent?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: On February 20.

  CYPRUS (FINANCE, &c).
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo-
  1758
  nies, Whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the recent Reports of the Cyprus Audit Officials entrusted with the inspection of revenue accounts in that island; whether Sir Robert Biddulph, the High Commissioner, has acted with the concurrence of the Secretary of State in censuring Mr. Vitalis, the official who made reports concerning alleged frauds on the Cyprus Exchequer; and, whether, having regard to the annual subsidy voted by this House in aid of the government of that island, Her Majesty's Government will cause a more searching inquiry than that of 1881 to be instituted into the financial administration of Cyprus?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Reports in question will be laid on the Table. Any censure which Mr. Vitalis may have received has been sent independently of any action of the Secretary of State. It is not intended to direct any further inquiry from this country into the financial administration of Cyprus. The general results of that carried out in 1881 have been very satisfactory, and the measures taken by the local authorities have so improved the Revenue as to result in large diminutions of the grants in aid.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether at this time several officials were not in prison awaiting trial on charges of defalcation?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND)—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS-PREMATURE PUBLICATION.
  MR. CORRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state how The Freeman's Journal obtained a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners on the Queen's Colleges (Ireland) before it was laid upon the Table of the House, and what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such a breach of the Orders of the House; and, when the Report will be delivered to Members?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am glad to be able to say that the premature publication of part of this Report was in no way due to any fault of the Queen's Printer. It appears that one of the Commissioners allowed his copy of the Report to be read by a member of the Press after the Report had been presented to the Lord Lieutenant,

  1759
  being under the impression that the obligation of secrecy, which up to that time he had carefully observed, was then no longer in force He now greatly regrets his action in so doing. He had no intention whatever of doing anything improper or unusual, or of acting discourteously either to his Excellency, to whom the Report was addressed, or to the Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who certainly are the first entitled to be informed of the contents of such a document when it has been decided to publish it. The Report in question is rather voluminous, but I hope it will be distributed very shortly.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the memory of this member of the Press was such that, after reading a Report extending over several columns, he could reproduce it word for word in his newspaper?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I did not imply anything of the sort.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SANITARY CONDITION OF MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the result of the special inquiries which he promised, on the 10th November last, to institute into the sanitary condition of Maryborough Gaol?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A complete sanitary inspection of the Maryborough Prison has been made by the architect of the Prisons Board and the medical officer, with the result that the latter has been able to certify that none of the sickness or deaths which occurred in the prison last year can be attributed to any defect in the sanitary arrangements of the building. In the course of their examination a few improvements suggested themselves in these arrangements, and they are now; being carried out.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—CATHOLIC OFFICIALS IN MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the promise given by the late Chief Secretary on the 16th June last, Whether the Prisons Board have yet made arrangements for increasing the number of Ca-
  1760
  tholic officials in Maryborough Gaol; and, whether the Board still keep seven local warders employed entirely over invalid convicts and withhold from them convict warders' pay?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Since my Predecessor gave the answer referred to, there have been added to the staff of Maryborough Prison a hospital warder, who is a Roman Catholic, and two second class warders also Roman Catholics. The internal permanent staff of the prison (including the Governor and the medical officer) now number 21, of whom two-thirds are Roman Catholics. The local warders are not employed over the invalid convicts.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT-EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES.
  MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether a candidate for any particular constituency for the next General Election will have to schedule, in his Election expenses, any sums of money expended by him between this time and said Election, for hire of rooms for addressing, of necessity somewhat frequently, different places in a populous constituency, and for any other incidental and necessary charges; and, whether he has considered the probability of a very largo portion of the bonâ fide expenses allowed under the Corrupt Practices Bill, for the purposes of carrying out an Election, being absorbed before the actual Election takes place; and, if so, whether he can suggest any remedy?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the points raised in the Question were the subject of much discussion when the Bill was in Committee in that House; and, now, he could do more than repeat an answer ho had endeavoured to make to a former Question. As he understood it, the effect of the Act would be this. It would be a consideration whether a meeting were of a general character, and held for the purpose of supporting the interests of a Party, or simply for a Member meeting his constituents and making an annual statement or address to his constituency generally, and the expenses of such a meeting need not be scheduled. But if a meeting were held for the purpose of advocating the claims of particular candidates in an approaching elec-

  1761
  tion, then the expenses of the meeting would be taken as part of the expenses connected with the election, and must be taken into account. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had not considered the probability therein stated. Experience showed that if there were an error in the Schedules, it was that the limits fixed were too high, instead of being too low. Lastly, his hon. Friend asked what remedy he would apply. The remedy was in the hon. Gentleman's own hands. If he would go to fewer meetings, and spend less money, he would arrive at the end contemplated by the Act, and attain the result he desired.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, they must bear in mind that difficulties were created by the fact that Members could not stand for the particular districts which they now represented. They might have to go and seek other constituencies; therefore, they might have to address large constituencies in different districts. In that case, the question arose whether expenses incurred in existing areas were to be scheduled in the election expenses as having been incurred in the new areas in which, where they were larger, more meetings would have to be held than were formerly necessary? He was one who wished to act strictly according to law, and therefore would press a Question which he thought of some importance. Supposing an association paid the expenses of a candidate going a tour of a constituency which he was about to contest, and the candidate contributed to the funds of that association, would those expenses paid by the association have to be scheduled?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his answer applied to candidates equally as well as to Members. The areas of the new county constituencies were much less than those of the old ones, and he had had applications on that account to reduce the amounts fixed by the Schedules. With respect to the second part of the last Question of the hon. Gentleman, he had yet to know that an association ever paid the expenses of a candidate on a tour; but if any such association existed, he would advise the hon. Member not to subscribe to it.
  MR. BRODRICKasked, whether the expenses of the recent meeting at Bury,
  1762
  which the hon. and learned Gentleman attended, would be scheduled amongst his election expenses?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Certainly not. We are not dealing with any particular election, or candidature of particular election. My hon. Friend the sitting Member was making his usual speech to his constituents, and I attended as his guest at the meeting.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to know if the hon. and learned Gentleman intended, by the words "particular election," to include any particular meeting held before a vacancy or a Dissolution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Certainly, if the meeting is in view of any particular election. There was no line drawn by a vacancy or Dissolution.
  MR. GORSTasked, whether, if any individual or association were to pay for the expenses of a meeting held for the promotion of the candidature of a particular candidate, that would not be an infringement of the Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had some difficulty in following the Question; and as it was purely hypothetical, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to put it on the Paper.
  MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that, in view of the importance of this subject, he would put further Questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.

  INLAND REVENUE—MR. R. BARNES, COLLECTOR AT WARRINGTON.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to certain letters published in The Civilian newspaper of 10th January, 1885, and of other dates, reflecting upon the official character and conduct of Mr. Robert Barnes, collector of Inland Revenue, Warrington; whether, at the recent inspection of books in the Warrington "collection," Mr. Barnes asked each officer (inter alia) the following questions:—(1.) Do you read The Civilian; (2.) Did you see the letters reflecting on my conduct; (3.) Did you write any of them; (4.) Do you know anyone who did; and another question intended to elicit whether the officers in question agreed

  1763
  with the tone of the letters; whether, in holding this inquisition, Mr. Barnes has exceeded the bounds of official duties; and, whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken in the direction of admonishing Mr. Barnes as to his duty in the future?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Board of Inland Revenue, who are responsible for the discipline of their Department, inform me that it is not their practice to take any action upon anonymous newspaper attacks upon their officers, such as those referred to by the hon. Member. But they add that if any signed and specific charges are laid before them against Mr. Barnes, or any other officer of theirs, they will at once investigate the case.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—THE IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board, If there is any objection to the publication in a Return of the provisional schemes advertised by the Boundary Commissioners for the counties and boroughs in Ireland, where changes have been adopted with comparative maps, to enable Members to judge of the advisability of the alterations so made; will he explain why no notes of the evidence taken locally are furnished, and no justification is attempted or reasons given for the changes proposed; and, as the maps issued in the Report are of a misleading character, would he have any objection to cause coloured maps to be printed of the counties where changes have been made, with the barony and parish lines clearly shown, in order that Members may better be able to judge the "compactness" of the divisions?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reply to the first branch of the hon. Member's Question, I must say that the greatest possible objection exists, inasmuch as the publication suggested would hopelessly confuse the House. In reply to the second branch of the Question, the decisions have all been the unanimous decisions of the whole of the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, and the discussion among the Commissioners has been mainly conducted verbally, although with the assistance of a great mass of newspaper reports of the inquiries. The answer to the third branch of the hon. Member's Question is that
  1764
  the maps are, in my opinion, not of a misleading character.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would furnish the Return to such Members as would not be misled by it? How could they consider the schemes if they were not given to them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be happy to discuss any individual case with hon. Members. They were all published in the newspapers.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain the fact that the plan of division in the originally advertised schemes of the Boundary Commissioners had been altered in the case of seven Ulster constituences, and in only four of those for the entire of the rest of Ireland; was he aware that the changes had called for the most vehement public protests in Donegal, Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, and Dublin; and, whether he would have any objection to granting a Select Committee to examine the Commissioners and others as to the reason of the changes in Ulster and Dublin?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The numbers in the first part of the Question, instead of being seven and four, should be seven and nine. I am aware that the Party represented by the hon. Member now state that they are opposed to the changes made in the five counties named out of the 16 where alterations were made. He does not mention the case of Down, where the change made by the Commissioners consisted largely of the scheme of his Friends. [Mr. HEALY: Half of it.] In reply to the second branch of the Question, I should have the greatest possible objection. Doubtless the Commissioners would readily admit that, in some cases, their preliminary schemes were bad; but, as to their final decisions, they were unanimous.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF THE CRAUGHWELL PRISONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Is it the fact that the Craughwell prisoners, charged with the murder of Doherty in November 1881, have now been over two years in gaol without trial, that two men have already been convicted of the crime, and can he give any instance in England or Ireland where prisoners committed for trial

  1765
  for murder have been kept over two years in gaol untried?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Five persons, arrested for the murder of Doherty, were returned for trial for the Summer Assizes of 1883. There have been several trials in the case and several adjournments, which were rendered necessary by the nature of it. The first two adjournments took place at the Summer and Winter Assizes, 1883, for the purpose of procuring the attendance of a witness who had gone to America, and whom the prisoners' advisers, as well as the Crown, were desirous of having in attendance, but whom it was ultimately found impossible to get to return. The prisoners could only be tried separately; and Muldowney, the first of the prisoners, was put on his trial in the spring of 1884, when the jury disagreed, and the cases were then adjourned. At the ensuing Summer Assizes and an adjourned Assize in August, 1884, three trials took place, with the result that two of the prisoners were convicted, and the prisoners' advisers thereupon applied for postponement, which the Crown did not oppose. One of the remaining prisoners was placed on trial at the Winter Assizes last December, when the jury disagreed. It will thus be seen that there have been five trials in the case. I may add that the learned Attorney General is now considering whether, having regard to the number of trials, to the two convictions for murder which have taken place, and to the recent disagreement of the jury, the charge against the remaining prisoners should be further pressed.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE—PAY FOR CHRISTMAS OVERWORK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, If he will state why the allowance for extra duty performed by the Dublin sorting clerks, during the Christmas pressure of work, has not yet been paid?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There has been some unavoidable delay in passing the accounts, but it is now being done.

  THE BEER DEALERS' RETAIL LICENCES ACT, 1882.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home
  1766
  Department, Whether the consent of the Government to the passage through this House of "The Beer Dealers' Retail Licences Act, 1882," was or was not given in the belief that the provisions of that Act would apply to renewals as well as to original grants of licence; whether he is aware that, since the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in "Regina v. Kay" cases have occurred in which magistrates have refused, without giving any reasons, to renew licences granted recently before the passing of the Act by their own Bench; and, whether the Government intend to propose any alteration of the state of the Law which admits of such an exercise of magisterial discretion?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not aware that the Government ever expressed any belief as to whether the provisions of the Act would apply to renewals as well as to original grants of licences. The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court has decided in the case of "Regina v. Kay" that the Act does apply to renewals. But since that decision it has been settled by the Queen's Bench in "Regina v. Schneider" that the discretion of the Justices is a judicial one, and must not be arbitrarily exercised. It is open to Quarter Sessions to overrule Justices who may have acted harshly towards applicants for renewals.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not want the opinion the Government would express. I want the opinion they entertained. They must have had some opinion upon the matter when they consented to pass the Act.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not think the Government could be held responsible for an opinion which they did not express.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Then am I to understand that the Government left the matter entirely to chance?
  [No reply.]

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—ENDOWED BOROUGH SCHOOL OF SWORDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the funds of the Endowed Borough School of Swords, county Dublin, What measure of reform the Government intend to apply to the condition of things in which the sum of £800

  1767
  per annum, intended for the education of the children of Swords, without distinction of creed, is now ostensibly applied to the benefit of 40 Protestant children, collected from different parts of the country, while 400 Catholic children, belonging to Swords itself, receive no advantage from the fund?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has already been stated more than once in this House that no step can be taken regarding the school referred to in this Question without legislation. It is the intention of the Government shortly to re-introduce the measure dealing with this and similar endowments which was brought in, but not passed, last Session.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—KILRUSH QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Irish Government has been called to an incident at the Kilrush, county Clare, Quarter Sessions, on the 2nd January last, as follows: In the case of The Queen v. Ryan (for larceny) the Defendant pleaded "not guilty." The long panel was called and a jury empanelled, case tried, and jury discharged on disagreement. Immediately after, the County Court Judge resumed the cases of action in Civil Bill Court, when a litigated case of O'Brien v. M'Grath was called on. One of the witnesses for Defendant was John Griffin, of Querrin, a farmer, and one of the jurors who served in the case of The Queen v. Ryan. Immediately after he gave his evidence in the civil case the County Court Judge, addressing him, said "Come now, tell me, were you not a juror in Ryan's case, just tried;" Answer: "I was, Sir; "Judge:" Were you for convicting or acquitting him;" Answer: "I was for letting him free;" if, in questioning a juror with regard to what transpired in the jury room, Mr. Kelly did not exceed his right; if it is not a fact that, upon at least one previous occasion, the Lords Justices have called upon Mr. Kelly for an explanation of his conduct as Judge; and, if in this instance similar inquiry will be made, in order to stop a dangerous and unconstitutional proceeding?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand the Lords Justices have communicated with the County Court
  1768
  Judge in reference to this Question, and that a letter has been received from him in reply, but I have not yet learned what view is taken of the matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat the Question on Thursday next.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WARIN THE SOUDAN—CAMELS FROM INDIA.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact, as stated in The Times of Wednesday the 25th, that "orders have been received in India from England to send 3,000 additional camels to the Soudan;" and, if so, whether the cost of these and other camels purchased, and of their transport to the Soudan, will be paid for out of the Indian Exchequer?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Two thousand additional camels, making in all 5,000 baggage camels, have been ordered from India for the War Office. None of the expense connected with their purchase, collection, or shipment, will ultimately fall on the Indian Exchequer.

  INDIA—THE COVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India has lately had under consideration proposals for lessening the numbers of the Covenanted Civil Service now employed in Madras and in the North-western 'provinces and Oudh; whether, in the case of Madras, the proposals were accepted, while in the case of the North-western provinces and Oudh they were rejected; and whether he can state the reasons of these different decisions; whether proposals have been made by European members of the Covenanted Civil Service, of ten to twenty years' standing in the Northwestern provinces and Oudh, to retire upon special reduced pensions; and whether there is any objection to take advantage of such opportunities for the appointment of Native Indians of tried capacity and integrity; and, whether, by the substitution of Native Indians for Europeans retiring upon special reduced pensions, any saving in the cost of the Civil Service would be effected?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I think my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension as to the reasons for the proposals made

  1769
  with respect to the Covenanted Civil Service in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh and Madras. The facts are as follows:—In 1876, in consequence of a block in promotion, certain officers of the Covenanted Civil Service in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh were allowed to retire on special pensions, although they had not served long enough to be entitled to pension under the ordinary rules. And for the same reason the same privilege of retirement on special pension has since been extended to the Madras Service. But recent applications from officers in the North-West Provinces and Oudh for a further extension of the concession of 1876 have been negatived by the Secretary of State on financial and administrative grounds. The question, I must point out, is not one of permanently reducing the numbers of the Covenanted Civil Service or of substituting Natives of India for Europeans. It is simply a question whether certain concessions are to be made in favour of certain officers who entered the Service in particular years, and whose promotion, from unavoidable circumstances, has been perhaps somewhat slow.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE NILE ROUTE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lord Wolseley has ever intimated that, apart from the determination to overthrow the native leaders in the Soudan, he could not retire his troops by the Nile route to any point at which it might be desired to make a stand, and do so more easily, and with less expenditure of life and money, than by way of Berber; whether Lord Wolseley has since thrown any doubt on the accuracy of the following statement in his letter of January 12th 1885:—
  "To our boats movement by water is actually more feasible to-day than it was in November last; nor am I led to anticipate, by those who are best acquainted with the river, that any stage of water will be reached during the next three months which cannot be successfully passed by our English craft;"
  and, whether, in fact, there is an unbroken stretch of the Nile of upwards of two hundred miles from the Fourth Cataract, considerably above Korti, to the Third, considerably below New Dongola, on which navigation is easy at all seasons; and, again, for some dis-
  1770
  tance between the Third Cataract and the Second, on the way to Wady Haifa?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Lord Wolseley has not expressed any doubt of his ability to withdraw his troops, if necessary, by way of the Nile. Since the telegram referred to by the hon. Member, Lord Wolseley has not thrown any doubt on the accuracy of the statement referred to. The Nile is navigable for whalers, without break, from Abu Fatmeh to Owli, 226 miles, and for steamers from Abu Fatmeh to Belal, 218 miles, both places being above Korti. Between the Third and Second Cataracts there are unbroken stretches from Amara to Kaibar, 66 miles, and from Kaibar to Hannek, 30 miles.

  FISHERY BOARD FOR ENGLAND.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend the formation of a Fishery Board for England similar to the Scotch and Irish Boards, and to which all questions relative to the great fishing industries will be referred?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Question asked is a very important one; and, although it is under his consideration, the Secretary of State is unable to give a definite reply in regard to it until he has seen and considered the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling, which is expected in a few days.

  NEW ZEALAND—THE TREATY OF WAITANGI.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been received from the Government of New Zealand in answer to the Despatch which transmitted the Memorial of certain Maori chiefs alleging breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi; whether he has any reason to think that the Government of New Zealand declined to reply to this Despatch, and if he knows on what grounds they have adopted such a course; whether the Treaty of Waitangi is still regarded as binding upon the British Government; and, what steps will be taken to ascertain whether the Treaty is observed?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No reply has yet been received from the Government of New Zealand; but a telegram

  1771
  has recently gone to the Governor, requesting that it may be sent. We have no reason to think that the Government of New Zealand decline to send a reply to our despatch of August last, and are only waiting for its arrival in order to place the Papers on the Table. With regard to the last part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have long ceased to superintend actively the Native affairs of New Zealand, and so grave a step as would be involved in any direct interference in the internal affairs of the Colony could only be justified by circumstances very different from those of the present case as at present understood.
  MR. GORSTasked, whether the British Government considered the Treaty still binding upon them?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No doubt, the Treaty of Waitangi is in force so far as lapse of time or change of circumstances may not have made any parts of it obsolete.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, made upon the 15th day of July last, defining the province of the Executive Government as follows:—
  "In England the Executive Government is not the conservator of the peace. The conservation of the peace is intrusted to the magistrates in the different localities for which they have jurisdiction. They are the conservators of the peace, and the Executive Government and the Secretary of Stats have no authority to give any orders whatever to the magistrates in this matter;"
  whether the Executive Government in Ireland are in the habit of issuing from time to time circulars to the local magistracy purporting to define their duties; whether such circulars are framed in the shape or form of orders or directions, and whether care is taken that they are shaped so as to be interpreted merely as containing information and advice by way of instruction and not as orders or directions; whether this is the case, especially in regard to resident magistrates, and whether such latter are clearly instructed that their judicial functions are distinct and separate from their executive or ministerial functions, if such there be, exerciseable by them;
  1772
  whether he is aware that the Home Secretary, speaking of the principle upon which the Home Office acted in 1867, and down to 1882, of giving advice to local authorities as to assemblies and processions, further said—
  "But unfortunately the doctrine on which it was based was challenged. In a particular case the magistrates ordered that a meeting should not he held, on the ground that information had been sworn that there was danger of a breach of the peace, and the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice declared that the magistrates had no authority to stop a meeting in these circumstances. … There fore, I say, since that decision (Beatty and others, Appellants, Gillbanks, Respondent, 13th June 1882), the power to stop processsions on these grounds seemed to be put an end to, and they could not be prohibited;"
  whether the local authorities of Derry, upon the recent occasion, issued a prohibitory proclamation or notice purporting to suppress a public meeting or procession, grounded upon a sworn information, that a breach of the peace was likely to occur; whether such local magistracy, or the local executive of Derry, were instructed or advised by the Government that to issue a proclamation to suppress lawful assembly or lawful procession, or to stop the same, even if they knew, upon sworn information, that the same would be opposed, and had like good reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would be committed by those opposed to it, was not warranted by Law; but that the duty of the local magistrates in such case was to apply to the executive for such sufficient police force and military aid, if needs be, as would effectually protect such lawful assembly and such processionists in the exercise of that constitutional right of lawful assembly and procession; and, whether the Chief Secretary is prepared to qualify his statement—
  "But there was to be a procession, and the magistrates of Derry thought it to be their duty to prevent the procession,"
  so as not to leave such expression possible to be misunderstood as an approval of the action of the Derry magistrates in so issuing a prohibitory proclamation against such lawful assembly and procession, especially when it is held in mind that the Lord Lieutenant possesses absolute power in his discretion to prohibit any public meeting whatever in Ireland, under s. 10, 45 and 46 Vic. c. 25?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Executive Government in Ireland

  1773
  are not in the habit of issuing to local magistrates Circulars purporting to define their duties. Circulars have, from time to time, been issued to Resident Magistrates in relation to their duties; but such have been issued for information, and not as orders or directions, and do not relate to any particular case. It is true that the local magistrates in Derry, upon the recent occasion referred to, issued a proclamation prohibiting the procession, and they were not instructed or advised by the Government in the terms suggested. Magistrates are conservators of the peace; and it would not, in our opinion, be desirable to fetter them in the discharge of their duties by laying down abstract rules as to the legality or necessity of stopping processions. The circumstances of each case must be considered, especially in the North of Ireland, and regard must be had to the consequences of a procession passing through such a town as Derry, with bands and banners, in a manner which the magistrates might fairly consider to be a challenge addressed to an opposite faction. The law in Ireland, as established by the highest Court in that country, upon full review of the English case referred to, is, that if magistrates have reasonable grounds for arriving at the belief that the only mode in which they can discharge their duty of preserving the public peace on a particular occasion is by the stopping of a procession, they are justified in doing so. The Government see no reason for thinking that in this instance the magistrates of Derry did not take the proper or legal measures for preserving the public peace.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the magistrates in Derry can do, under particular circumstances, that which the English Judges say they have not power to do under any circumstances?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask the right right hon. Gentleman, whether the magistrates would have power, in England, to prevent a Salvation Army procession passing through a portion of the town with bands and banners because it might be objectionable to a certain portion of the inhabitants of the place?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has any Question to put regarding the Salvation Army, he should address it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We must govern Ireland by Irish laws. ["Hear, hear!"] I was not aware, until I heard that cheer, that hon. Members opposite would prefer Ireland to be governed by English laws. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland has been in the sense to which I have referred.
  MR. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite the judgment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman puts a Notice on the Paper, I will give him a reference.
  MR. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the case of "O'Kelly v. Hervey," the circumstances are not at all parallel.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a Salvation Army procession would be prevented by the magistrates from marching through a particular district with bands and banners because it might be obnoxious to a certain portion of the population?
  Mr. H. H. FOWLERwas rising to answer the Question, when——
  MR. SPEAKERcalled for the next Question on the Notice Paper.

  EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—TREACHERY AT KHARTOUM.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Lord ELCHO)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government intend to take towards finding out the names of, and bringing to justice, the two anonymous Colonels who, on their own confession, were accessories before the act to the treachery which led to the fall of Khartoum?
  THH MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, I am sorry to say, is slightly indisposed, and not able to be present——
  MR. WARTON: Hear, hear!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I will, with the permission of the House, endeavour to answer the Question for

  1775
  him. It appears to be based upon the assumption that these two Colonels, whom Lord Wolseley quoted in the telegram read in the debate the other day as having expressed their opinion that it was by an act of treachery Khartoum fell, must have been accessories before the fact to that act of treachery. I have no reason to think that there is any foundation for that theory. In the first place, it does not appear to have presented itself to Lord Wolseley's mind that there was any ground for suspicion with respect to those two officers. In the next place, it is extremely probable that the possibility of treachery was known not only to General Gordon, but to others in Khartoum, and may have been matter of notoriety. A letter, which was published some days ago, addressed by General Gordon to Colonel Watson, at Cairo, said—"Good-bye," and stated that he expected a "catastrophe" would happen, and that the rebels would be in the town in a few days. There is also the evidence of a letter of much earlier date to show that Gordon was in possession of information to the effect that treachery was intended. On February 12 of last year, Mr. Power, in a letter to Sir Evelyn Baring, said that it was necessary to take energetic measures to keep order in the town, owing to the presence of rebels, and that certain persons were suspected. Early in March, General Gordon telegraphed that one of the most painful parts of the business was the constant spread of reports that treachery was intended on the part of this or that leading man. And on the 23rd of March, he sent Sir Evelyn Baring an account of the shooting of the two black Pashas who had connived with the rebels. Under these circumstances, it seems quite possible that the probability of treachery, and even some knowledge of its particulars, was a matter of more or less notoriety at Khartoum; but it does not follow that the Colonels referred to in the statement of Lord Wolseley were accessories to it.
  MR. BOURKE: Was the telegram the noble Marquess refers to in possession of the Government when they informed the House that General Gordon was in no personal danger?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I believe all these telegrams have been already published.

  EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—KASSALA.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, that in the absence of the Prime Minister, which he was sure they would all regret, he desired to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any measures have been adopted for the relief of the garrison of Kassala? He also begged to ask whether the Government had received similar information to that which he had received from Suakin, in reply to a telegram sent there yesterday. It was to the effect—"All grain issued at Kassala. Garrison sortie defeated. The Italians only an embarrassment?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I gave a reply with regard to Kassala and the measures for its possible relief on Friday last. Since then, I regret to say, intelligence has reached Her Majesty's Government that the gallant garrison of that town has had a severe defeat at Kolcia. The battle took place on the 2nd of February, and the loss was 28 officers and 632 men. I may point out that the difficulty of relieving Kassala by any other means than through the medium of friendly tribes in the neighbourhood is very great, owing to the distance of the town from the sea coast, Suakin being 280 miles distant, and Massowah, viâ Senheit, being 293 miles from Kassala.
  SIR HENRY TYLERgave Notice of his intention to ask whether Kassala was not one of the places referred to in the well-known communications written by General Gordon, nearly a year ago, when he said that to abandon the garrisons would brand the Government with indelible disgrace?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the noble Lord, whether the relief of the garrison of Kassala was not one of the objects contemplated in the Treaty of Abyssinia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: All the Papers relating to the Abyssinian Treaty are before the House. I think the text of the Treaty shows that the relief of Kassala was not mentioned in any way except this—that after the withdrawal of the garrisons of Kassala and Assouan, then the King of Abyssinia was to have the right of occupying Senaar.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether the

  1777
  King was not to facilitate the evacuation of Kassala?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; that is what I indicated just now. The King is under no obligation to march to the relief of Kassala; but he is to facilitate the retreat of the garrisons through his territory, and then he may take possession of Senheit.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked, how many Europeans were in Kassala?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied, that he could not say exactly. He hoped to be able to do so to-morrow.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—PROCLAMATION OF LORD WOLSELEY.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice, with reference to the policy announced by Lord Wolseley at Korti, Whether the contents of his Proclamation made at that place were either authorized by the Government or approved by them? The contents of the Proclamation were these—
  "That the English word once given was always kept; that the Soudan would be held by the English until the Mahdi was crushed and. Khartoum taken, and that the English must stay in the Soudan 100 years, if necessary, until the Mahdi's power was broken."
  He might ask, in addition, whether the Government would be prepared to remain 100 years in Office in order to carry that policy out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I only received Notice of the Question as I entered the House; but my impression is that what the hon. and learned Member refers to is a part of what was spoken in the nature of a speech, said to have been made by Lord Wolseley, and not a Proclamation. The Government have no official knowledge of the words alleged to have been used by Lord Wolseley, and no instructions have been sent to him, excepting those which have been made public, or which were referred to in the course of the debate on Egypt last week.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had seen the following telegram from Philadelphia, published in The Times:—
  1778
  "With regard to the Suakin-Berber railway, contracts have been recently made with Messrs. Worthington, of New York, for pumping engines, for pipe lines, to be laid alongside the railway to conduct the water supply for locomotives and troops across the desert. Two 4-inch pipes are to be laid underneath the sands for the entire route—260 miles. Pumping stations with tanks and engines are to be placed every 30 miles, two engines at each station, in case one breaks down. These will force water along at 2,000 lbs. pressure. This is the same system as is used in American pipe lines conducting petroleum from the interior to the seaboard. Water will be delivered at the end of the route at the rate of 150 gallons a-minute. One engine has already been shipped to England. Three will be shipped in the course of the week, and about 20 will be sent altogether. The work on them continues night and day, and will be completed in a month. American firms also expect to supply the pipes?"
  The hon. Member further asked whether the contents of the telegram were true; whether Her Majesty's Government considered it patriotic to give their sanction to the inference that manufacturers in England could not make pumps; whether they were aware that the engineers of this country, if asked, could have produced any number of pumps, ready made, and fully capable of doing the work required; and, whether the Government would undertake that no contract for pipes should be sent to America?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Member has asked me more Questions than I can conveniently answer. I can, however, assure him that this country is in a position to make pumps. The facts are that a contract has been made in this country for the apparatus required for pumping water along the first 50 miles of the Suakin-Berber railway. The pipes are being made here; but the contractors, having had great experience with the American pumping engines, preferred that the six required for this portion of the line—and costing less than l-10th of the whole sum for that portion—should be bought in New York. As these engines were ready, and time was of great importance, it was thought best to accede to their wishes. There is no present intention of buying other engines abroad.
  MR. CARBUTT: Did the Government ask the manufacturers in this country whether they had engines ready?
  [No reply.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Mr. CHAPLIN)asked the Secretary of State

  1779
  for War, Whether the route for the projected Railway from Berber to Suakin has ever been surveyed; and, if so, by whom; and, whether he can state what will be the probable cost of the same, and the approximate time within which its completion may be expected?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply on Friday last to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), that the Suakin-Berber route has never been surveyed for the purposes of railway construction; that no estimate of cost can be formed beyond an approximation per mile for the cost of permanent way, material, and plant; and that the date of completion must depend on military contingencies which could not be foreseen.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, when the House would be asked to provide the means for the construction of the Suakin-Berber railway?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the Supplementary Estimates would shortly be laid on the Table. These Supplementary Estimates would contain a Vote for a portion of the funds necessary for the construction of the railway, and a discussion upon the subject would, perhaps, most conveniently be raised when those Estimates were brought forward.
  MR. SOLATER-BOOTHasked, whether the noble Marquess would lay on the Table of the House a Copy of the contract entered into with Messrs. Lucas and Aird, having reference to the railway?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he must ask for Notice of the Question.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, When the House might expect to be made acquainted with the financial arrangements for Egypt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he did not think that it would be safe to name a day on which they could be submitted to Parliament. He could say, however, that he had heard upon good authority—that of one of the Ambassadors—that, practically, the arrangements were now complete.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, whether the results of the negotiations
  1780
  with regard to the financial arrangements of Egypt would be contained in the same document which would contain the political arrangement? His reasons for asking the Question were that he saw that instructions had been sent to Blum Pasha to sign the financial arrangements; but he supposed he would not be able to sign a political Treaty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, that he know nothing of the instructions to Blum Pasha beyond what he had just stated. The arrangements would be laid before Parliament together. He could not state the exact form which they would ultimately take.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, whether these formed part of the same arrangement—whether they were to discuss them en bloc?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid I cannot answer that Question beyond this—that the whole arrangements will be laid before Parliament at the same time, but the exact form they will ultimately take in separation I am not in a position to state.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I suppose this Convention being signed before the Papers are laid before Parliament, we shall not be able to separate one discussion from the other?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member's best course would be to abstain from criticism until the documents should have been actually signed, and laid upon the Table.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to know whether the Papers would at last contain Lord Northbrook's Financial Report?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, that he could not answer that Question without Notice, and it had better be addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  MR. M'COANasked, whether the House was clearly to understand that the International Convention on the Finances of Egypt would not be ratified by the Government till the assent of Parliament was obtained?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Certainly. The Agreement for the Loan, on which all

  1781
  turns, is made subject to that condition.

  NAVY—LEADING STOKERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty. Whether the Admiralty propose to improve the position of Leading Stokers in Her Majesty's Navy?
  MR. CAINE: The position of the leading stokers of Her Majesty's Navy is under the consideration of the Admiralty, and the decision will be announced when the Navy Estimates are discussed.

  NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—ESTABLISHED SKILLED LABOURERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can state when an answer will be given by the Board of Admiralty to the statement made to him on the 7th of April 1883, at Portsmouth, by the Established Skilled Labourers of that Dockyard?
  MR. CAINE: The case of the established skilled labourers cannot be dealt with apart from other classes of workmen in the Dockyards. The questions involved require great care and consideration, and possibly a serious addition to expenditure. I am not prepared at the present time to announce any decision.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—CASUALTIES IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had seen a statement in The Standard of Feb. 28, from their Special Correspondent at Korti, which stated—
  "I have seen the medical return of the total loss of the Desert Force from the time it left here to its return to Gakdul in killed and disabled from sickness and wounds. This total amounts to 30 officers and 450 men—a heavy percentage indeed for a force which did not much exceed 2,000 men;"
  would the noble Lord lay on the Table of the House a Return showing the casualties which took place in the entire Force under Lord Wolseley's command since it arrived in Egypt, the deaths in action, from climate, from wounds and drowning, and also those disabled from any other causes?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I should be glad to give the information if the hon. and gallant Baronet will give Notice of the Question. I believe some despatches have arrived to-day from Lord Wolseley which may throw some light on the subject.

  THE ESTIMATES—VOTE OF CREDIT FOR THE SOUDAN EXPEDITION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Vote of Credit would be asked for in respect of the Soudan Expedition; and, if so, whether it would be laid before the House within the next few days?
  MR. PULESTONasked, whether the financial arrangements for the railway would be kept separate from the Estimate for war purposes?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Supplementary Estimates will be laid upon the Table to-night. They will, of course, refer to expenditure which is expected to take place within the present financial year. It is expected in the next financial year a Vote of Credit will be asked for; but I cannot, at present, say when. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston), the Supplementary Estimates will be laid on the Table in the usual form, but the Vote for the railway will be distinct from the rest of the Estimates.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked, whether the Vote of Credit was to be submitted to the Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the expenditure on account of the Army and Navy; and, if not, why not?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have been unable until now, owing to its being blocked by the noble Lord, to bring forward the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee, in fulfilment of the promise that I made to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not intended to refer the Vote of Credit to that Committee, but only the regular Estimates for the Army and Navy.
  MR. PULESTONasked, whether the House was to understand that the expenditure incurred in connection with the Suakin-Berber railway had been merged altogether in the general expenditure, or whether a separate account would be kept?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A separate account will be kept. I will see whether any further information can be procured.
  MR. GORSTasked, whether the Estimates would be in such a form that the expenditure in connection with the railway would be distinguishable?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think it would be advisable to delay the Estimates; but he would see if any other arrangement could be made.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the President of the Local Government Board after what hour the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would not be taken?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the Government would consult the general opinion of the House as to that. He did not think they ought to fix any hour, as he thought the general opinion of the House was that progress should be made with the Bill as quickly as possible.
  MR. COURTNEYasked whether, in view of the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) with reference to the conduct of the Speaker, the Government would take up the Bill to-morrow?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I did not hear the Notice of Motion put down by the hon. Member for Sligo; but I may say that it is the intention of the Government to deal with the Bill tomorrow.

  IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE TAX, LIMERICK.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government propose to take any steps for the purpose of recovering from the Corporation of Limerick the sum due to the Government for extra police?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, he thought he had answered the Question during the Autumn Session. He would, however, answer the hon. Gentleman again, if he would put the Question on the Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARMY RESERVE FORCE.

    MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
    Her Majesty's Message considered.
    Message again read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to direct, by Proclamation, that certain persons who would otherwise be entitled, in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve, shall continue in Army Service for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he proposed to move an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord similar to that which was moved in 1878 by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) when a Motion of the same sort was before the House. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade "told" for his hon. Friend, and he saw among those who voted in favour of the Amendment the Prime Minister and many other Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench. He was not going to recapitulate what had been said last week on the Soudan Question; but the House had been told over and over again by Her Majesty's Government, or at all events they had been allowed to infer it, that Lord Wolseley himself had said that it was impossible to retreat from the Soudan. But that was entirely inconsistent with the facts. Lord Wolseley himself sent home after the fall of Khartoum a telegram to know what he was to do under the circumstances, and the Government left the matter to him. He was not, however, prepared to accept the responsibility, and sent home again to know whether he was to retreat or go forward. Her Majesty's Government then said ho was not to retreat, but was to take such a course as would lead to the overthrow of the Mahdi. These arrangements with, respect to the Reserve and Militia were based upon the decision taken by Her Majesty's Govern-

    1785
    ment. He did not know the view taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there were many who sat near him who really could not conscientiously vote for anything that was based upon the wild Expedition to overthrow the Mahdi. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had that day asked a Question with respect to a speech recently made by Lord Wolseley. That speech appeared in The Standard, which Was generally a very correct paper, and there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the version of the speech it published. In that speech Lord Wolseley said that if he had to remain 100 years in the Soudan he would overthrow the Mahdi. That was a more definite pledge than had been given by Her Majesty's Government. It was true during the recent debates they had several assurances given them that it was the intention of the Government to act aggressively against the Soudan until they had conquered and broke the power of the Mahdi, but they were not told who was to be set up to govern in his stead. Whoever his successor might be, it was perfectly clear that we would have to remain there to support his authority. If he and his hon. Friends did not oppose this policy^ they perhaps might be told afterwards that they had assented to it. He thought it necessary on the part of those who agreed with him that they should on the very first occasion and on every occasion protest against the course which they believed would lead to our assuming in the Soudan very much the same position that we had assumed in Egypt, and to our saying that we intended to come away, while practically we stayed there year after year. The Correspondent of The Daily Chronicle with the Army in the Soudan said that the greatest discontent existed among the soldiers themselves as soon as they heard that they were to remain in that country, for they felt that they would die like flies. Why should not Lord Wolseley be told to withdraw to Wady Haifa or some such place, as it would be impossible until next autumn to make the advance to Khartoum? He had asked the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), who had been at Dongola for a considerable time, what his view of the military situation was, and his hon. Friend told him it was absurd to say
    1786
    that Lord Wolseley could not withdraw with the greatest ease by the Nile. There would not be any difficulty whatever in the operation, as there was alongside the Nile a path which would facilitate the retreat of our Forces. In conclusion the hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. CARBUTTseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end thereof, the words "but that this House regrets that Her Majesty's Ministers have thought it right to advise that certain persons, who otherwise would he entitled to be transferred to the Reserve, should continue in Army Service, in connection with a determination to interfere by force of arms in the internal Government of the Soudan, and to engage in military operations in that Country, beyond those required to enable the Troops under the command of Lord Wolseley to withdraw from it."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, the silence with which the hon. Member's speech was received in all quarters of the House showed that he would not get much support. He did not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment. His object was to draw the attention of the House to certain grave reflections which he thought were inseparable from the consideration of Her Majesty's Gracious Message. The fact that the Household troops had within a period of two and a-half years been twice sent out of this country was of itself a very serious and grave incident. In former days the departure of the Guards from Great Britain was an event of equal political and military significance, and it was a sign that we meant business. He wished to know whether we meant business now, and, if so, what business did we mean? Did they consider they had a greater business in hand now than they had, for instance, in 1857, when the Guards were not called out of England? They were sent out in 1862, he thought; but then we were threatened with a war with the United States, and their departure had an important political bearing on the question; but now why were they sending the Guards out? Why was it that since Waterloo they had only been out five times—twice within the last three

    1787
    years? Of course, the officers and all ranks of Household troops were ready, anxious, and happy to go out; and in asking this question why they were sent out now he was asking a question which no officer of the Household troops could ask. But he felt free to do so, never having been in the Army; and, speaking entirely as a civilian, he thought he was entitled to ask why there was this departure from what had hitherto been the precedent of the Service. Why were the Guards called upon to do double duty? He might ask whether they had a greater business now than in 1857, when the Guards were not sent? And if they had not, then they were driven to the possible conclusion that the Household troops "were sent because they had no other troops to send. The Expedition which recently left these shores would shortly call for reinforcements; and it was not too much to suppose that before the troops were six weeks out, in every battalion which was now in Egypt perhaps 100 men would be disabled by wounds or sickness, and how were the reinforcements to be supplied? Were they ready at this moment? He was afraid the answer to the question could not be given by pointing to any battalion now on home service. The battalions at home just now were nothing but depleted skeletons, full of raw recruits or invalids, almost every available man having been sent out. Take the Guards now in London. They were very good stuff for soldiers, but they were not soldiers yet, and, what was more, they were not becoming soldiers, because they had to do garrison duty, and were not being instructed in musketry or signalling. Her Majesty's Ministers had taken power to call out the Reserves; but what were they going to do with them? Were they going to send them out beside their old comrades, and to serve under their old commanders, or were they to be sent to strange depots to go through the weary round of garrison duty? If it was the latter, he thought a grave mistake was being made. He was told that the men in the Reserve were not coming out this time so well as they did last time. The reason was that instead of being sent to serve under their old officers they were to be sent to strange battalions to do monotonous home duty. The Government would be obliged to send out
    1788
    married men, although they were more costly to send out than young soldiers-But they dared not send out young soldiers. They had sent out a battalion of Rifles to Gibraltar; but the noble Lord when asked about it had declined to give an answer. The fact was that there were 254 men in that battalion who had received no instruction in musketry. They dared not reinforce fighting lines with troops of that character. Shortly after Rorke's Drift something happened which ought to convey a grave lesson to the country. A field officer had given him the narrative of the occurrence by an eye-witness. There was a battalion of old soldiers, Highlanders, on the return from India, and two battalions of young soldiers from England. They were bivouacked in line of columns on a hill-side, with pickets thrown out and batches of friendly Zulus in front. During the night the musket of one of the Zulus went off by mistake. A panic ensued. The pickets fired, and ran in. The Highlanders fell in as steadily as on a barrack parade. The young soldiers were in the wildest confusion. They fired at every moving object, and, incredible and discreditable as it may seem, no fewer than 10,000 rounds of ammunition were fired before order was restored. The result was that five of our own men and 15 or 16 friendly Zulus were killed. He felt it incumbent on every man who knew anything of the question to warn the public against what was being done in sending untrained troops out of the country. Let it be imagined for a moment what would have been the result if, instead of Lord Wolseley having been allowed to cull from the entire Service almost every seasoned soldier in it, he had been supplied with inexperienced and young battalions such as he had referred to; and if they had been exposed to such trials and such rigours as the gallant troops under General Earle, Sir Redvers Buller, and Sir Herbert Stewart, he was afraid the tale to be told on their return would be a sadder tale than they had listened to of late. Their loss would have been heavier—very probably they would have been annihilated. What were we doing to prepare for reinforcements? There was a general misapprehension in the mind respecting the Reserve Forces and the Auxiliary Forces. The Auxiliary

    1789
    Forces consisted of the Militia and the Volunteers. To them should be committed garrison and Colonial duty. To commit to Army Reserve men the duty which ought to be be committed to the Auxiliary Forces was a great mistake. He wished, therefore, to know from the Secretary of State for War what was going to be done when the Reserves were called out, and what troops were to be sent to support those troops which had gone to the front already? He thought he saw in the present action of the Government another instance of a step being taken without consideration of what the next step was to be. He wished the Government to consider what what was to be the next step, and how the troops already sent out were to be supported. He was anxious that in what might be the last act of the present Administration they should not be "too late," but in time.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsuggested that instead of sending out Household troops they should send from Ireland some thousands of soldiers now quartered in that country with nothing to do. These soldiers had distinguished themselves in eviction operations. He would suggest, too, that the Royal Irish Constabulary, whose bravery and discipline had been greatly lauded by the Government, were also available for service. It was true that the Constabulary had never been tested in the battle field. But they had always been earnest in carrying out evictions in Ireland, and had shown themselves ready to stab people, irrespective of age or sex, in the performance of their duty. It would only be reasonable for the Government to give these gentlemen an opportunity to distinguish themselves against those who had arms in their hands. But as the people of Ireland regretted the war in the Soudan, they would not regret it so much if it brought about the removal of some of these Forces from the country. He defied the Government to withdraw their troops from Ireland for the Soudan. Such had been the result of the government of Ireland in the past, that now in the hour of England's difficulty they dare not withdraw their troops from Ireland to meet the enemies of England. The hon. Member for Wigtown had given a graphic description of the mismanagement of our troops, when friendly Zulus
    1790
    were killed, who, he must say, deserved to be killed for being friendly. What valiant and gallant deeds our gallant Army was capable of! That story had come fresh upon the House. How, then, could the people be expected to know what went on in the Soudan? No guarantee of the truthfulness of the reports of what went on at the seat of war could be obtained. There would be great demonstrations of loyalty in Ireland on the morning when some of the regiments in Ireland took their departure for the Soudan. The Constabulary were a highly-trained body, who would render equally good service, and the Irish people would gladly see them go, and hearty prayers would be offered up that none of them might come back. It had been announced that the Prince of Wales was about to visit Ireland, and he believed that if the Government determined upon withdrawing a large number of troops from that country it would go a long way towards insuring His Royal Highness a hearty welcome. He thought that if hon. Members and the people of England would but study the extraordinary position of the Government with regard to Ireland they could not but fail to see how detrimental it was to the true interests of the Empire at large. If, also, the Royal Irish Constabulary were sent to the Soudan it would go far to make both the noble Marquess and the Prime Minister popular, and do much to settle the Irish Question.
    MR. CARBUTTsaid, he was one of those who objected to the Egyptian policy of the Government from the beginning, and on every possible occasion he would oppose their going on with the war in the Soudan. The result of the debate last week was that the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had got the substance, and the Radical Members who opposed the Government had only got the shadow. We had got into a war of which we could not see the end, and it might be the beginning of the downfall of England. It was to be feared that large numbers of the troops to be sent out would perish from disease and from the heat. Were we able to send out the reinforcements that would be required, and also the 30,000 men that it was said would be required to protect the railway from Suakin to Berber, if the House permitted the rail-

    1791
    way to be made? As to our setting up a good Government at Khartoum, could anyone prove that there was not a good Government there already? It was stated that on the fall of Khartoum not a single woman or child was killed; and if that was so, did it not prove, after such a siege, that there must be a good Government at Khartoum already? It would be the duty of the Members who disapproved the policy of the Government to do all they could to bring Lord Wolseley back to the frontier of Egypt, and with that object he should join with those Members in giving opposition to the Vote.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he believed he was representing the feeling of a large number of persons in this country when he expressed deep regret at the manner in which Her Majesty's Government had treated the offers of military assistance from some of the Colonies. Everybody who was attached to the British Empire was delighted by the offers of assistance which were made to the Government from New South Wales, Canada, Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland; and if they had been received in the spirit in which they were made it was probable that New Zealand and other Colonies would have followed suit, and we might have assembled in Egypt a body of troops which would have represented not only the Mother Country and India, but almost all the self-governing Colonies. We could all judge what a good moral effect a spectacle of that kind would have produced upon the Powers of Europe at a time when even Members of the House where speaking of the decadence and downfall of the Empire. The Government having the singular good fortune to receive those offers ought to have accepted them with thanks and enthusiasm; but instead of doing that, they only allowed New South Wales to send a contingent, which it appeared to have ready, and which our military necessities almost obliged them to accept, and to the other Colonies they returned a cold and unsympathetic answer that the assistance proffered was not wanted, and that if it were needed further communications would be made. He should have thought also that Her Majesty's Government would have laid on the Table at once the precise terms of the offers, together with their replies. He supposed they did not do so because
    1792
    they were ashamed of what they had done, and feared the condemnation of the Opposition and the country. He did not think a Motion of the kind before the House should pass without a protest against the conduct of the Government in this matter.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that he thought it was not a very patriotic suggestion that 14,000 men should be sent from Ireland to the Soudan in order to fight against the 1,000 Irishmen who, it was said, were going from America to join the Mahdi. If such a proposal were to be carried into effect, an encounter between men of the same nationality, which might take place under such circumstances, would not tend to foster Irish unity so frequently advocated by hon. Members opposite from Ireland. Such speeches as the last were made by Members to catch their constituents. He was not in the position of having to make speeches to catch his constituents; he did not come to the House with the intention of making his Parliamentary position a monetary transaction.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to Order, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Baronet is in [Order in imputing to hon. Members that they came into this House for the purpose of making their position a monetary transaction? Under ordinary circumstances I would not take any notice of anything the hon. Baronet said.
    MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Baronet were not, in my opinion, relevant to the subject before the House.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he was very sorry if he had said anything irrelevant, and he was delighted at the brightness of intellect displayed by the lion. Member for Wexford in repudiating the transaction he had described. He was also very glad to notice the contempt which the hon. Gentleman appeared to entertain for the opinions he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had expressed. The House was discussing operations which the Government were about to undertake in the Soudan, which were of such grave importance that it was not until half-past 11 on Friday night that the hon. Gentleman was able to make up his mind how to vote. He certainly did not propose to imitate the conduct of the lion. Member and those who sat with him in endeavouring to ridicule and in

    1793
    sneering at 14,000 Irishmen, but would support the Motion of the Government.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was pleased to hear the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, because, if there was one thing which struck the House on Thursday last, it was the fact that the Prime Minister, in the announcement which he made, made no reference to the action of the Colonies, said hardly a word as to the death of General Gordon, and did not speak of the bravery and gallantry of the troops. This was an occasion when, if Ministers were at one, and wished to put before the country what they really felt, the loyalty of our Colonies, in spite of the manner in which they had been treated, might have been fitly acknowledged. It was no use to do this after the event, when the public had begun to murmur, and the papers to point out the Ministers' omissions. It was no use, then, their trying to remedy the mistake. The Prime Minister had missed his opportunity on the first meeting of Parliament, and showed he had lost touch with, and was out of harmony with, the nation. He wished on this question to ask the noble Lord to state the number of men now serving with their regiments whom he was going to detain, not allowing them to go into the Reserve? That was the only question before the House at the moment. Volunteers were also to be invited from the Reserves; but the Reserves were not to be called out. Could the noble Lord state the number retained and the number that were calculated as likely to volunteer? At the present time we had war, or nearly war, in South Africa; a serious state of things, not quite war, existed also on the Afghan Frontier; and the very fact that the Guards had been called out showed the position in which the country was now placed. The noble Lord knew that he could not take a regiment from Ireland; and he should like to know what was the present condition of the Army and of those Forces which could be put into the Line in case of necessity? He was entitled to press for an answer to such a question. The noble Lord and those who sat with him on the Ministerial Bench had been the most strenuous advocates of the short-service system, but had signally failed to make that system efficient. Lord Wolseley, the Secretary
    1794
    of State for War knew, had asked for a picked body of men of the Cavalry, and his request was for all old soldiers. That General, it should be remembered, was an advocate and apostle of the short-service system; yet when he came to a difficulty and he was in command, Lord Wolseley advocated sending out old soldiers into the field. Would the noble Lord say whether taking from each Cavalry regiment in the Service one troop, and that composed of the best officers and men, was making of each of those regiments an efficient or an inefficient regiment? When called upon to send two regiments to the Soudan, he sent two squadrons from each of two regiments differently armed—from the Lancers and from the Hussars. He stated that the Lancers were the best to send. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON dissented.] Then he misunderstood the noble Lord.
    THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON: I said it was desirable to send out two squadrons of each.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had asked the noble Lord whether the squadrons were to be made into one regiment; but at the time the Question was put the nobl6 Lord could not give an answer. It was not out of place to repeat that Question now, because if the Government could not send out from the two regiments he had named more than two squadrons of efficient men, that would be a good answer why they were not sent. The hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had referred to the number of men in one regiment who had never been through musketry instruction, and the noble Lord knew that such would be the state of every regiment now at home. Another cruel case was this. There was a regiment gone to the front, the second battalion of which ought to have been at home. But they were sent to the Mediterranean, and the moment they got there they were called upon to send large drafts to their other battalion, and did so. What a position in which to place a commanding officer! He denuded his regiment of all the best men, and when afterwards ordered to proceed to the front himself, he had to take undrilled, inefficient recruits. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), in making his remarks, seemed to have forgotten the division

    1795
    when 455 Members voted for the prosecution of the war, the hon. Member and his Friends numbering only 112 on the other side. But he only asked for an answer from the noble Lord, and would not say anything further. The Government had failed, and short service had failed, because they had copied foreign nations, forgetting, however, that foreign nations did not take men into the Army so young as we did at the present time. We took boys of 16 calling themselves 18, two or three years younger at the latter age than they were taken under the conscription by foreign nations. He thanked God we had not conscription; but we wanted more men and a larger Army to carry on the multifarious duties that fell upon this great country.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the fault of the Army system for the last 10 or 12 years was that, owing to a too rigid economy, the regiments had been filled up with boys. He complained of the manner in which the Reserves were being called out, and observed that other countries did not call out their Reserves except for first-class wars. The way in which our Reserves were being treated would interfere with their getting employment. The Government were going to put 40 or 50 perfectly efficient officers in the Reserve, and were, at the same time, spending money in calling out Reserve men. That was spending money in two ways, and spending much more than would otherwise be required.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think it was necessary, neither would the House allow him, to enter at any length into a reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who objected altogether to the Address that had been moved. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that if anything had been decided by the vote of the House on Friday night, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), it was that the House was prepared to continue the war, and not to adopt the policy advocated by his hon. Friend—that a policy of retreat should be immediately enjoined on Lord Wolseley. The only part of the hon. Member's speech as to which he need say a word was with reference to a statement made by the Correspondent of The Daily Chronicle that great discontent prevailed in Buller's Force,
    1796
    and that in the summer the men would die like flies. As for himself, he had not seen any such statement, neither did he apprehend that our men would suffer during the summer in that way. He understood the writer to say the announcement that the troops were to remain in the Soudan during the summer was not received with enthusiasm; but what the Correspondent said about the hardships which that decision would entail proceeded upon the assumption that the Army remained at Gakdul and other positions where there was very little accommodation. But in that case everything would be done to mitigate the hardships. The hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) referred to the possibility of a retreat by the Nile, and of Lord Wolseley being able to take boats down the river. But if anything had been decided by the House, it was that Lord Wolseley should not retreat. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) asked why the Guards had been sent out, and said that it indicated a serious state of affairs; he also said that double duty had been thrown upon them. [Sir HERBERT MAXWELL: That it was not usual for the Guards.] He understood the hon. Baronet to say that double duty was thrown upon them. It should be remembered that the Guards did not take ordinary garrison duty abroad, and that the occasions on which they had been sent out were not very frequent; but still they were expected, and they expected themselves, to be employed whenever there was a prospect of active and serious service. The hon. Member asked what was the necessity for sending them out. Well, the hon. Gentleman knew that the organization of the Army had been for some years under a strain. Since the Egyptian occupation in 1881, there had been several Expeditions sent out. There had been Lord Wolseley's first Expedition, there had been General Graham's Suakin Expedition, there had been Lord Wolseley's Expedition up the Nile, and there had been a considerable Expedition to South Africa. That pre-supposed that our Army, of very moderate size, had been subjected to a very considerable strain, more especially when it was borne in mind that it was a short-service Army on a peace footing. Under those circumstances, the House need not be sur-

    1797
    prised if we had not at home a large Reserve of battalions of fully trained soldiers ready to set out at a moment's notice to reinforce an Army in the field. The hon. Gentleman said that our battalions at home were "depleted skeletons, full of young soldiers." He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know that a depleted skeleton was full of anything. The hon. Member was wrong in saying that they had called out the Reserves. On former occasions the Reserves had been called out, and he was happy to say that they had promptly obeyed the call. But in the present case they had not called out the Reserves, but only requested them to volunteer. Volunteering in a certain limited condition had been in progress since September last, and already from 1,700 to 1,800 volunteers had offered and been accepted. The conditions were now very greatly extended; but, should volunteering fail to meet the necessities, the Government would not hesitate to call out the Reserves. In further reply to the hon. Member, he would point out that, as recruiting had been progressing very rapidly during the last two years, it was not surprising that there were in the Army a large number of men who had not completed their course of musketry. He did not think that there was any foundation for the statement that garrison duty was now so severe that insufficient time was left in which to train young soldiers in other respects. He regretted that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to repeat a story, not authenticated, which he had heard about a discreditable panic among our soldiers in Zululand. On the occasion referred to, an alarm occurred in connection with a night attack, which, if true, was not, perhaps, altogether creditable to the officers and men concerned; but it did not assume grave proportions at all.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that the occurrence had been described to him by an eye-witness. He had not related it in order to discredit either officers or men, but to show the danger of sending young and untried soldiers into the field.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he imagined, notwithstanding this disclaimer, that the great majority of the officers would consider this scare or panic, if true, was discreditable. At the
    1798
    same time, he thought it would have become the hon. Member to make sure that the story was not exaggerated. In regard to the manner of the reception given by the Government to the extremely satisfactory offers which had recently been made by our Colonies, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was labouring under a mistake. Only one of the offers in question—namely, that from New South Wales—was an offer to send an actually-organized Force at a moment's notice, for which the means of transport were provided, and that offer was accepted without any hesitation whatever. That contingent could leave Australia and reach Suakin as soon as the Expeditionary Force despatched from this country. The case of the other Colonies was different. While the Government did not want to make the slightest distinction between the patriotic spirit which animated every one of them, yet they were not offers of corps ready to be embarked on the instant, and they could not arrive at Suakin until after the attack on, and the dispersal of, Osman Digna's Force would have taken place. Those corps would, therefore, have had to remain at Suakin during the whole summer awaiting the autumn operations. The Government, however, had not declined any offer, and they were now in communication with the Representatives of the Colonies, with a view of ascertaining the exact amount of assistance which each Colony was in a position to supply, and the best way in which it could be utilized. He thought it would have been unbusiness-like and unwise if the Government, without making inquiry, had said to the Colonies—"Send us as many troops as you like to Suakin; we will do the best we can with them when they arrive." An hon. Member had observed that it was curious that Lord Wolseley, who was the great champion of the short-service system, should have asked that old soldiers should be sent out to form the Camel Corps. In answer to that he had to say that, to the best of his belief, Lord Wolseley had not stipulated that the men should be over a certain age. It was, of course, not usual to send men under 20 on active service.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to the offers from the Colonies; but he must first remark that if the

    1799
    noble Marquess could always answer questions on behalf of the Government, the House would never have to complain of that levity and want of sympathy with patriotic proposals which were sometimes manifested by Members of the Ministry. It appeared to him Lord Derby was using in this Government the same invigorating influence that he employed in the late Ministry, and with the same result. He wanted to know why the offers of the Colonies were not accepted at once, the execution of them being delayed till the close of the summer? He understood that the offers were refused, but that the Colonies were told that they might renew them at a later date. This caused a great damp to the spirits of the Colonies, who believed, up to this very moment, that their offers of assistance had been refused, which was a fact greatly to be deplored. Why, he asked, had no Papers been presented to Parliament on the subject? Perhaps now the House might be given a specimen of the literary composition on this very important matter of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, who seemed to occupy a middle place between a wet blanket and a up as tree. He also wished to know what was the intention of the Government with regard to the remaining soldiers in the garrison of Kassala? They were entitled to know whether the splendid defence of Kassala would be thrown away, like that of Khartoum? The intelligence of the fall of Khartoum did not make any impression on Her Majesty's Government, and certainly not upon the Head of it. He wished to ask the Representatives of the Government present to inform the House distinctly whether they had any policy at all with regard to Kassala, or whether they intended to allow the remainder of that garrison to be sacrificed as ruthlessly as the other garrisons which had depended on the word of Her Majesty's Government?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 149: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that, as no answer had been given, he felt bound to repeat his question as to the intentions of the Government with
    1800
    regard to the Kassala garrison. Were Her Majesty's Government going to abandon Kassala, and allow its garrison to be massacred and slaughtered, as the garrisons of other places in the Soudan had been massacred and slaughtered? He did not desire in any way to interfere with the military preparations of the Government; but he desired an answer to this plain question—Did Her Majesty's Government intend to raise no finger to assist the Kassala garrison in its present great straits? He considered he was entitled to an answer to his question.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, ho was sorry he was not in his place when the hon. Gentleman put this question before; but he did not think that he was able to add very much to what ho stated on this subject at Question-time that day, and also on Friday. He then stated that Lieutenant Colonel Chermside, the Egyptian Governor of the Red Sea Littoral, had instructions to do all he could, through Native tribes, and also by means of communications with the King of Abyssinia, to carry provisions into the town, or facilitate the retreat of the Kassala garrison. This was quite irrespective of the recent Treaty with the King of Abyssinia, of which he had spoken. An idea had got abroad that by that Treaty the King of Abyssinia engaged to march to Kassala and relieve it. That was not so. He had merely undertaken to facilitate the retreat of the garrison through his territory. Colonel Chermside had been directed to enter into arrangements by which the assistance of the King of Abyssinia could be utilized. It was very easy to reproach the Government; but ho would ask hon. Members not to confine themselves to attack, but to ask themselves what measures they would themselves suggest. Kassala was 290 miles inland. How did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth propose that the Kassala garrison should be rescued? Nobody could sympathize more deeply than himself, and so did Her Majesty's Government, with the position of the Kassala garrison, or more admire its gallantry; but, so far as the circumstances of time and place permitted, they had done all that it was in their power to do.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that that was not the first time on

    1801
    which the House had heard from the Government of their deep sympathy with these garrisons. He was quite willing to believe in the existence of that sympathy; but what was the good of it, since it did nothing whatever to help the garrisons? At the very time that the Government were sending messages of a very flattering and grateful nature to General Gordon, they had declined to take any action to rescue him. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) asked hon. Members to do what was essentially the duty of the Government. By the original mission of General Gordon, they undertook to do what they could to rescue the garrisons; and it was not for the Government to ask hon. Gentlemen to suggest what plan they would recommend. But that was not all. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), something had been recently sanctioned by the Government which materially interfered with the steps that might otherwise have been taken to rescue the garrisons. Massowah had been occupied y the Italian Government; and so far as could be gathered from the statement of the noble Lord, to which he had listened most attentively, it was Her Majesty's Government who first suggested that Massowah should be one of the places occupied by Italy. This, it was said, had materially hindered the Egyptian authorities on the coast from carrying out those measures of relief on which they had determined; nor was that unnatural, having regard to the fact that the Italians occupied Massowah without the assent of the Sultan. That occupation, for which Her Majesty's Government was responsible, had, therefore, thrown on them a still greater duty to provide for the relief of Kassala. He did not suggest that they should send an Expedition of British troops to relieve it; but since Her Majesty's Government had sanctioned the occupation of Massowah by Italian troops, and since that had interfered with the operations which Colonel Chermside was prepared to take for the relief of Kassala, they ought, in some way or other, to approach the Italian Government on the matter, and endeavour to get it to go to the assistance of Kassala. He threw that out as a suggestion, and would make a present of it to Her Majesty's Govern-
    1802
    ment; but, of course, he was ignorant of many of the circumstances of the case. The Government only were acquainted with all the circumstances. They had undertaken, by the original mission of General Gordon, and by repeated assurances, to do what was possible to relieve the garrisons, and the House of Commons should call on the Government to fulfil their obligations. Turning to another matter, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made some very apposite remarks on the way in which the advances so patriotically made by the Colonial Governments had been received by Her Majesty's Government. It was impossible to tell precisely what had happened in the matter until the Papers were presented; and he hoped that, with as much despatch as possible, they might be laid on the Table.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it had always seemed to him that these garrisons had been rather hardly used. It seemed to him that they could have been relieved much more easily than the garrison of Khartoum. They had been encouraged to resist, and an immense amount of bloodshed had been the consequence. He could not help thinking that, if they had been left to themselves, they would have fared very much better, and would probably have made terms with the Mahdi. He feared it was possible that, in consequence of the action of the Government in connection with the occupation of Massowah by the Italians, they might have given offence to the King of Abyssinia, who could have given us more assistance in this matter than anybody else. He wished to explain his action in not opposing the Government in the division which had just been taken. He thought it his duty to oppose anything that led to what he considered the most intolerable insanity of this great Expedition to the Soudan, and he should do so at every stage and in every form. But he had also felt that, owing to our having this Egyptian millstone, as it were, around our necks, we were being kicked all over the world; and he thought that, under all the circumstances of the country, they would be wrong in attempting to deprive the country of the services of the Militia, or doing anything to weaken our defensive position at home.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had brought forward a most painful subject; and it was not worthy of the noble Lord, as a Minister of the Crown, to make such an answer. The fact was, the noble Lord wished again to shirk responsibility, in the same way that the Government had done through all that affair. He had no business to ask a private Member of the Opposition—"What would your policy be?" He did not wish to use strong language in that House on this subject; but he should use it outside. It was this constant shirking of responsibility which had led the country to complain of the conduct of the Government. It was said that some general instructions had been given to Colonel Chermside; but would those instructions save the starving garrison of Kassala? His own belief was that the whole garrison would go like Khartoum. The noble Lord came forward to try to deceive the public by saying that the Opposition should have saved Khartoum. He could tell the noble Lord one thing—that, if the Conservatives had been in Office, they would not have allowed these garrisons to be sacrificed piecemeal as they had been. The Government had, in order to secure votes, run the Franchise Bill against Gordon, who had unfortunately been sacrificed.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to direct, by Proclamation, that certain persons, who would otherwise be entitled, in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve, shall continue in Army Service for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors.

MILITIA.

  MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
  Her Majesty's Message considered.
  Message again read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to order, by Proclamation, the embodiment of Militia."
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had no desire to prevent the House proceeding to other Business; but he wished to urge on the noble Marquess the desirability of making up the Militia to its full strength. It was high time that something should be done for this purpose. The Militia was now far below its proper standard. The noble Marquess said, on a previous occasion, that something had been done; but whereas the strength of the Militia was 99,000 last year, and was to be brought up to 105,000 men this year, yet the maximum establishment was 144,000 men. He was thankful for small mercies. Still, this was mere trifling with an important matter. If this was, as the Proclamation declared, "a great emergency," surely it was desirable the Militia should be brought up to its full strength. As an old Guardsman, he had thought it was a very strong measure to send the Guards out; but if that step was necessary, it showed the necessity also of dealing at once liberally with the Militia. He could not conceive that there could be any difficulty about the matter at the present time. There was a very depressed state of trade, and there could be no better opportunity for the Government than the present to bring up the Militia to its full strength. It seemed that there were only six regiments to be embodied; but he should like to know if, under this Proclamation, it was in the power of the noble Marquess to embody the whole of the Militia if the Government thought it necessary to do so, and if it was intended to provide any portion of the Militia for regular service abroad? Of course, in making these remarks, it was impossible for him to say what the Government might have in view as to the future—in the Campaign in the Soudan, or elsewhere; or as to the sending of White troops to India to take the place of Indian troops sent to the Soudan.
  MR. GOURLEYurged that it would be useless to call out the Infantry Militia alone. Two regiments of Artillery Militia ought also to be embodied and employed in preparation for coast defence.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the object of the embodiment of certain Militia regiments, as had been already stated, was to fill up the places j of Line regiments now doing duty abroad. Six battalions of Militia In-

  1805
  fantry and two brigades of Militia Artillery had been embodied to relieve the troops remaining in this country of a portion of the garrison duty, which would otherwise press heavily upon them. The noble Lord asked him if they had the power, under the present Proclamation, of calling out more battalions if they required them? Undoubtedly, they had power, without any further Proclamation, to call out the whole Militia Force of the country; but the power was, of course, limited by the money voted by Parliament. It would be necessary, on the Vote of Credit and Supplementary Estimates, to inform the House of the limit of their intentions with regard to the future embodiment of the Militia. He might say that at present no extension of the ordinary terms had been offered to the Militia. Recruiting from the Militia was, however, improving, and the numbers were increasing. No doubt, the Militia was below its establishment; but he really did not know how the numbers of the Militia Establishment had been arrived at. Certainly, the Militia had never been up to its full establishment; but he believed that it was now as full as it had ever been. The suggestions made should have his best consideration.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that before the Vote was taken the House should have some explanation of a recent speech of Lord Wolseley. In his capacity of Commander-in-Chief in the Soudan he had addressed a number of friendlies, telling them that the Forces of Her Majesty intended to remain in the Soudan, if necessary, for 100 years, until the Mahdi had been crushed. He thought that Lord Wolseley should not be allowed to hold language of that character, and further compromise this country with the Natives of the Soudan. They might try to overturn the Mahdi, but probably they would before long give up that nonsense; but, in the meantime, Lord Wolseley ought to be informed that he was in the Soudan to carry out military operations, and not to compromise the honour and credit of the country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to order, by Proclamation, the em-
  1806
  bodiment of Militia.—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  To be presented by Privy Councillors.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 49.] COMMITTEE.
  [FIRST NIGHT.]
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in rising to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in all cases where an elector is entitled to one vote only, to enable the elector to nominate more than one candidate to whom under certain circumstances that vote might be transferred in the manner indicated by the elector,"
  said, he regretted that several hon. Members who were interested in the subject were not present, because they had thought that it would not come up till to-morrow. He understood, however, that if he deferred this Motion it would not be competent for him to move it afterwards. With regard to the question of representation, he thought it was a curious illustration how entirely most nations ignored the experience of others; that the Liberal Party in England proposed to adopt the system of single-Member seats at the very time when the Liberals of Prance were going to abandon it, because they had found in practical experience that it had worked so badly. The saying of the Prince Consort, that Representative Institutions were on their trial, had been very often quoted. It would, indeed, seem that government of the people, for the people, and by the people, was so obviously wise and just that it must almost of necessity work well in any intelligent community. Yet this had certainly not been the general experience. Why had Democracy so often failed in the past? Why in State after State had power so often swung from one extreme to the other—from the tyrant to the demagogue, and back again from the demagogue to the tyrant? The true reason, he believed, was the faulty manner in which the principle had been applied; in fact, that there had never yet been true representation on a large scale; but the systems adopted had given undue power to extreme men, leaving those of moderate views, who

  1807
  generally constituted the great majority, almost unrepresented and practically powerless. As there was a general impression that the present Bill would represent the country, roughly perhaps, but with substantial fairness, he was anxious to show that this would certainly not be the case. Let them take a theoretical case. Suppose a country in which there were 1,200,000 Liberal voters, and 1,000,000 Conservatives. Now, if the two Parties were evenly distributed, it was clear that the weaker Party would be utterly swamped. To use a familiar illustration, wherever they dropped a bucket in the sea they would bring up salt water. In such a case, therefore, the 1,000,000 were practically unrepresented. But they must carry the matter a little further. In the House so represented the majority might bring forward some Bill of an advanced character and carry it by the votes of numbers representing 800,000 electors, and against those representing 400,000, carrying it, therefore, by 2 to 1. But the minority in the House would in such a case have with them also the 1,000,000 in the country who were left unrepresented, so that, in fact, the measure would represent the wishes of only 800,000 electors, and would be opposed to those of 1,400,000. Thus, though they were told that that was a just system, the result was to enable a minority of 800,000 to override a majority of 1,400,000. That was, he believed, the main reason why so-called Representative Institutions had often worked so badly. They saw a practical illustration of that in Switzerland. The Swiss had a liberal system of representation; but they had also what was called a "Referendum"—that was to say, Bills which had passed the Assembly were referred to the whole electorate, by whom they were often rejected. For instance, in one year alone—in 1882—a law on the re-organization of the Departments of Justice and Police was rejected by 214,000 to 150,000; a revised Penal Code by 202,050 to 159,000; one on Patents by 190,000 to 171,000; and an Education Bill by 817,000 to 170,000. That, then, was the manner in which a single-Member system worked in a country where the electors belonging to the two great Parties were uniformly distributed. But now, still adhering to the system proposed in the Bill,
  1808
  let them suppose that the electors belonging to the two great Parties were not uniformly distributed throughout the constituencies, but that those of the one were more concentrated in particular districts—the Liberals, for instance, in the great cities. In that case it was obvious that their electoral strength would, under the present system, be to a great extent wasted. There, again, he would take an actual illustration from Switzerland. The City of Geneva was divided into four wards. At the election of 1842 the Liberals had a large majority in the whole; but being concentrated mainly in one ward, though, of course, they carried that one by an overwhelming majority, they were defeated by small majorities in the other three, and the result was felt to be so intolerable that the system was altered. Now, his firm belief was that it would break down here also; and he begged the House, therefore, to allow the Committee to take those questions into consideration. He did not ask the House, however, in accepting that Instruction, necessarily to adopt the principle, but only to allow them the opportunity of discussing it in Committee. But even if the House were not disposed to accept the principle, he would still ask them to adopt that Instruction, which would, after all, but give them time for further reflection; because it would be the best mode of carrying out the object arrived at by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Brett), and which was supported by the Presidents of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board. The cases which the hon. Member wished to guard against were, no doubt, those in which, when several Members of one Party stood, they might divide the votes, and thus let in an opponent, who might, nevertheless, be in a minority of the whole voters. The hon. Member for Penryn proposed to obviate that by a second ballot. He (Sir John Lubbock) suggested, on the contrary, a plan which would avoid all the turmoil, expense, and loss of time incident to a second election and yet come to the same result. Suppose, for instance, that two Liberals and one Conservative were contesting a seat; that one Liberal (A) received 6,000 votes, the second Liberal (B) 2,000, and the Conservative (C) 6,000. The hon. Member proposed to have a second ballot, when, no doubt, the

  1809
  less popular Liberal would withdraw, and his supporters would decide the contest. He (Sir John Lubbock) proposed, on the contrary, that each elector should be allowed to mark on his voting paper the order of his preference. In the case that he had supposed, the voting papers of B, who received the smallest number of votes, would be examined and transferred to A or 0, in accordance with the instructions of the voters. That would give the same result, but would save the expenditure of time and money. Practically, in fact, the two elections would be carried on simultaneously. But while he would ask the House to adopt the proposed Instruction from that point of view, still, if he and those who agreed with him were permitted, they were anxious to bring forward some other Amendments in Committee. In the first place, they objected not so much to single seats as to the subdivision of populous communities. By cutting those communities up they weakened local life, and undermined the strength of local self-government. One great evil had been the multiplicity of areas. They had municipal areas, areas for Poor Law, for education, for water rates, and many other purposes, and now they were going to multiply them still further. In the debate on the second reading several hon. Members supported the adoption of single seats by pointing to the high character of the Representatives from Scotland and Wales. But Scotland and Wales were not cases in point. The constituencies there were natural communities; those to be formed under the Bill were unnatural and arbitrary fragments. Moreover, the boundaries would require continual re-arrangement if constituencies were to be maintained of equal size. Again, the system of mere majority voting failed in the very first requisite of a representative system—namely, that a majority of voters should secure a majority of Representatives. Suppose in the whole House the Liberals had a majority of 50 over Conservatives and Home Rulers combined; suppose that instead of voting as a whole the House was divided into three sections of 220 Members each. In the Northern section, comprising the Members from Scotland and our Northern counties, the Liberal majority would be, perhaps, 100; in the East and the Metropolitan
  1810
  counties the Conservatives might have a majority of, say, 10; in Ireland and the West the Home Rulers and Conservatives together might again have a majority of 40. Thus, although in the House, as a whole, the Liberals would have a majority of 50, still, in the divided House, the Conservatives and Home Rulers would carry two divisions out of three. That, in fact, was what actually happened in Geneva. There was, he knew, an impression that that might occur in a few constituencies, but that it could not happen in many. That idea, however, was a mistake. It had been shown over and over again that it had actually occurred on a large scale. In regard to the General Election of 1874, Mr. Roberts, the able agent of the Liberal Party, had stated that, in his judgment, the voting power of the Liberals was 200,000 more than that of the Conservatives. His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General questioned that; but, with all respect to his great abilities, he supposed no one on such a question was a higher authority than Mr. Roberts. But whatever the voting power in uncontested seats might have been, as regarded those which were contested there could be no question, and he was ready to accept the figures of his right hon. Friend. He made the Conservative vote 614,000, and the Liberal vote 644,000; while, on the other hand, the Conservatives secured 198 seats, and the Liberals only 168. Here, then, it was quite obvious that on a large scale, under the system of mere majority voting, a minority of electors secured a majority of Representatives. Would this Bill, he asked, fairly represent Scotland? He need not ask the few Conservative Members from Scotland. What they would say he knew well enough. He asked the Liberals. They could not, in honour and conscience, say that it would, because they knew that it would give them a much larger share of representation than on any principle of fairness could be justified. As regarded Wales the same might be said. Scotch and Welsh Liberals might support the provisions of the Bill on Party grounds; but to do so they must sacrifice principle to Party. In England, again, though he would not trouble the House with figures, it was admitted on all sides that the Liberals had too few seats in 1874, and too many

  1811
  in 1880. He turned next to Ireland. If they wished to increase as far as possible the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to exclude both Liberals and Conservatives from the representation of that country, they could not do so more effectually than by this Bill. At any time, and in any country, there would, it seemed to him, be conclusive arguments against the single-Member system; but the present condition of Ireland rendered the question in their case one not only of important, but vital consequence. What, then, did they suggest? Suppose a constituency of 24,000 voters returning three Members. They proposed, firstly, that it should remain undivided; and, secondly, that each elector should have only one vote. But if that were all, it would be evident that, in some circumstances, the minority might secure two Members out of the three. Suppose, for instance, that the Liberals were 14,000, and the Conservatives 10,000; that each Party had two candidates, but that one of the two Liberals was pre-eminently able or popular—say, for instance, the present Prime Minister. Then it might very well happen that he might receive 10,000 votes out of the 14,000, leaving only 4,000 for the second Liberal candidate; and if the Conservatives divided their votes at all equally between their two candidates, they would, though in the minority, secure two seats out of the three. To avoid this, they proposed that though each elector should only have one operative vote, yet the vote should be transferable—that was to say, the elector should be permitted to indicate what he would wish to be done with it if it was not wanted by the candidate of his choice. In the case he had assumed 10,000 Liberals would have voted for the Prime Minister by placing I against his name; but they would be permitted, by placing 2 against the name of any other candidate, to indicate the order of their preference. In this case 6,001 votes would be sufficient to secure the election of any candidate, because there were 24,000 electors and three Representatives. Now, as three times 6,001 were 18,003, that sum, deducted from 24,000, left only 5,997. Consequently, of the 10,000 votes given to the first Liberal candidate, whom he would call A, he would only require 6,001, leaving 3,999 to be transferred; and of these,
  1812
  according to all electioneering experience, the vast majority would go to the second Liberal candidate. In this case, therefore, the two Liberal candidates, and the most popular of the two Conservatives would be elected. That was simple enough. Even if there were three or more Liberal candidates, there would be no difficulty in transferring the votes. Suppose, for instance, there were three Liberal candidates—A, B, and C. A had 10,000 votes, of which 4,000 had to be transferred. If the 10,000 votes were marked in the second place, half for B and half for C, then the 4,000 votes would obviously give 2,000 each for B and C. If in the whole 10,000 B had three-quarters and C one-quarter, the numbers would be 3,000 for B and 1,000 for O. This would be absolutely fair as between B and C. But they had thought that it would probably be scarcely worth while to take even the small trouble which this would involve. The present law provided that the voting papers should be well shuffled, and after this had been done, if the first 6,000 votes were put on one side, and the 4,000 surplus votes simply divided in accordance with the preference marked on them, the result would, in a constituency of 24,000, generally be true within 16, and the odds would be 44,000 to 1 against chance, making a difference of 100 from the true result. This had been calculated by Mr. Stokes, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, and he was certain that no mathematician would deny it. He did not, however, wonder that the opponents of the proposal should have pressed this objection, because they were under a singular misapprehension. They had tried experiments on a small scale, and seemed to think that the element of chance would increase with the numbers. For instance, his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, in an article in The Fortnightly Review for February, wrote—
  "In an experiment made to test the scheme with 70 voting papers where nine candidates were supposed to contest seven seats, the main parties being nearly evenly divided, and an independent candidate having nearly the quota, I found that 12 shuffles of the papers filled always in the same manner brought out five different results of the poll, and it is clear that with 70,000 voting papers the result would be equally the subject of chance. Generally, it may be said that the larger the district and the more numerous the Members the greater the element of chance."

  1813
  This was an entire misapprehension. The element of chance would be considerable in a constituency of 70; but as the numbers increased the element of chance diminished rapidly. The Attorney General had fallen into the same error. At the same time, as lie had already stated, the element of chance might be entirely eliminated, and that with very little extra trouble, by distributing the second votes proportionally. It could not fairly be said that this system was either difficult or complex, for illustrative elections had been held in many places, and actually during public meetings. Many thousand votes had been recorded; the spoilt papers had been remarkably few; and the consequence had been that resolutions in favour of the system had been passed by overwhelming majorities. During the Recess large public meetings had been held at Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Nottingham, Leicester, Oxford, Norwich, Newcastle, Greenwich, the Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Islington, St. Pancras, and other places; and Greenwich was the only one which expressed a preference for the system of single seats. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had also made a speech against the system during the Recess, in which he stated—
  "That every elector in either Party would be provided with a list, and would he told, with the most perfect truth, that if he did not mark it in exactly the same order as every other elector, the Party to which he belonged would go to the wall."
  That, however, was evidently a misapprehension; and he understood that his right hon. Friend had not at the time mastered the system, and that he did not now maintain that statement.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not withdraw the general remarks that I made on the subject.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that unless each voter marked his paper in exactly the same order his Party would go to the wall?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will tell my hon. Friend when I speak.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have stated whether he adhered to the statement or not; but, as a matter of fact, he was sure the Committee would
  1814
  see that, so long as the Liberals voted for all three Liberals, and the Conservatives for both Conservatives, it did not matter, as far as Party was concerned, in what order the votes were arranged. The number of Representatives carried by each Party would be determined by the number of their supporters; while the order would secure the election of the most able and popular candidate, or candidates, within each Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General made a statement very similar to that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and gave what seemed to be a most extraordinary reason, and one very uncomplimentary to his fellow-countrymen—
  "If the Party organizers," he said, "give no such advice, hut recommend their followers to vote in the order of their own preference, it may well be that large numbers of the Party would vote for the candidates in the alphabetical order in which they stand on the voting paper."
  The "capable citizen" must, indeed, have fallen low before he could be capable of such stupidity. The last objection which had been urged was that it would prevent the formation of a strong Government. But, as he had shown, mere majority voting and single seats would not secure this. Sometimes, indeed, it might annihilate the minority, and at others it would reduce the majority; and sometimes, as in 1874, even give the minority of electors a majority of this House. Proportional representation was the only true system. It would fairly reproduce the views of the country. On the other hand, the system proposed in the Bill would leave a great deal to chance. There was only one other point to which he desired to allude; but, to his mind, it was the gravest part of the whole question. He alluded to the manner in which this Bill would affect the representation of Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork and his followers could not consider it otherwise than desirable that they should desire to maintain the union with the Sister Island. Their strong opposition to their designs was a compliment. Under this Bill they allotted to Ireland 12 Members more than her population entitled her to; and then, having done that, they devised a system which would tend to silence and exclude the Loyalists of Ireland, and give the bitter enemies of the

  1815
  Union more power than under any system of justice or equity they could fairly claim. He believed the Bill, in its present form, would tend to break up the Empire, and, perhaps, land them in all the horrors of civil war. They advocated this proposal because it would enable them to retain their great communities undivided; it would secure the election of their tried and trusted leaders; it would give a hearing to the minority; insure their just preponderance to the majority; and prevent loyal citizens in Ireland from being silenced and excluded by those whose main object it was to destroy and break up the British Empire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in all cases where an elector is entitled to one vote only, to enable the elector to nominate more than one candidate to whom under certain circumstances that vote might be transferred in the manner indicated by the elector."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend had made something like an appeal to the Government to allow these Instructions to the Committee to be carried now, so that the whole question might be raised in Committee. But to do so would be to hold out false hopes. It would be far better to state their views now. One object he had in view was the saving of time, though, of course, they could not entirely avoid further reference to this matter in debate by his hon. Friends who might move the omission of Clause 8 from the Bill. His hon. Friend had put before the House those views which had been already expressed on an early stage of the Bill. The belief of the Government was that, by the single-seat system generally adopted in this Bill, the representation of minorities would be secured in the most practical form in which it could be secured by Parliamentary measures; but his hon. Friend told the House he thought minorities would be over-represented. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: In particular cases.] The result of the Bill would be to give a large and varied representation in that House to minorities. His hon. Friend had spoken of the great number of meetings held by him and those who thought with him in different parts of the country, and of the numerous resolutions carried in their favour; but his hon. Friend had not ventured to
  1816
  assert that the country generally had accepted his proposals. His own opinion was that the country generally had not approved those proposals. Machiavelli said that when two questions were argued before the people by persons of equal ability, if the people adopted one view that view would probably be the best. Judging the matter by this test, he thought his hon. Friend would hardly be prepared to contend that the people of this country had fallen in with his view. His hon. Friend said it was a curious thing that the Liberal Party in France were giving up the single-Member system at the very time when the Liberal Party in England were proposing it. The system embodied in the Bill was, however, proposed not by the Liberal Party only, but also by the other great Party in the State, as being a scheme worthy of being adopted by the country. During the Recess it had been accepted by the country with far more unanimity than he had anticipated. He thought at first that the great towns would object to the borough constituencies being broken up; but his doubts had been removed by the experience of the Eece3S, and he was amazed at the popularity of the single-Member system in the large towns, while in the counties it had been accepted with very little difference of opinion indeed. "When speaking of France, his hon. Friend omitted to mention that the system which it was proposed to adopt there was far more opposed to his views than the system embodied in the present Bill. He spoke upon this matter with a good deal of feeling of sympathy with his hon. Friend. He had himself always supported the cumulative vote as applied to school board elections. If those elections were conducted by open voting he should have no hesitation in advocating the cumulative vote; but under the ballot there was a great waste of voting power in consequence of vast numbers of votes being piled upon particular candidates. Therefore, he had some sympathy with his hon. Friend; and if the transferring of votes could be easily accomplished, he would admit that his I hon. Friend, had met some of the difficulties of the cumulative vote. His hon. I Friend had referred to the case of Switzerland, as showing that the whole I population of the country frequently

  1817
  opposed proposals which had been carried through the Federal Council. But surely his hon. Friend would be the first to admit that this was rather an argument against plébiscites than one in favour of the plan he proposed to the House. He admitted, indeed, that he had not watched the voting of the people in plébiscites in Switzerland so closely as his hon. Friend had; but, looking to the plébiscites in France, and the confusing manner in which questions were presented to the people, he should be inclined to attach much greater weight to the vote of a Representative Assembly. There could be no doubt that in this country, governed as it was by Party, a very small percentage of the electorate changing from one side to the other would cause a large change in the representation of the House. But he was far from believing that this was a bad thing in itself. On the contrary, he thought it was desirable, for forming the opinion of the country, that the pendulum should swing, perhaps, a little further in each direction than the mere numbers would lead one to suppose it would swing. In his judgment, the effect of the single-Member system would be to give a fair representation to minorities in the country with very beneficial results. In regard to the second ballot, he should not be in Order in discussing that question at any length on the present occasion. Without going into the merits of the matter, and speaking for himself personally, he might say that he was strongly in favour of a second ballot at elections. In fact, he believed he was the first person to write in favour of it in this country. It existed in almost every other country. [Mr. GORST: Not in any of the English Colonies.] He believed, however, it would be something like a breach of faith to those who had framed this Bill on a certain principle if an attempt were made to introduce the system of second ballot into the Bill itself. At the same time, they were all quite able to express their opinions on the subject if it were separately raised, although he could not at this stage consent to its introduction into the Seats Bill. He thought his hon. Friend would have some difficulty in maintaining his assertion that areas would be multiplied by the Bill. No one could say that the present electoral areas were natural areas. The Scotch
  1818
  burghs, for instance, were not natural areas. No one who had paid attention to the subject would hesitate to say that there was a simplification of areas by this Bill. The borough of Wenlock, on a map, looked like a picture in a kaleidoscope. His hon. Friend had attacked the Postmaster General and the Attorney General for their statements with respect to the Election of 1874. He would leave them to speak for themselves. But he ought to say that the statement of the Postmaster General was that it was the unequal franchise which mainly affected the result of that Election. Then his hon. Friend complained that the Conservative minority in Scotland was virtually disfranchised at the present time. The Conservative minority in Scotland was not without representation, and very able representation, in that House at the present moment. He admitted the Conservative minority of Scotland was not so largely represented as it might be, even under the present Bill; and he believed some of the criticisms which had been made against the present Bill by Liberals in Scotland were caused by the fact that the Bill was likely to represent the Scottish Conservative minority somewhat more largely than at the present time. He hoped the hon. Member would join with the Government in resisting any attempt to alter the plan of the Scottish constituencies, so as to prevent that full and fair representation of the Scottish Conservative minority which, he believed, this Bill would secure. In Ireland also his hon. Friend assumed that the Bill would exclude Conservative representation. But the single-Member system in Ireland would give a fair representation to the Conservative minority, possibly a larger one than at present. His hon. Friend then spoke of the transferable votes, and which votes were to be transferred. He said that he proposed not to count the whole of the preferences expressed; but then there was the question which of them should be counted. He had been present on all the occasions when the votes were counted in his own borough, and also at Hackney. It was impossible so to shuffle them as to prevent their coming in large batches. His hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) had admitted that there was an element of chance, and that it was uncertain which votes would be used.

  1819
  But his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in speaking of the transfer of votes, had stated that there was no chance at all in the matter. His hon. Friend said that the highest mathematical authorities denied that there was any chance worthy of account. A wrong result might be produced, it was said., once in 8,000 or 10,000 years. In Cambridge a prize had been offered for the best solution of the question; but with this singular result—that equal marks were awarded to two papers diametrically opposed to each other. Moreover, an Oxford mathematician, Mr. Dodgson, who was in favour of proportional representation, but had written against this particular scheme, attached a far higher value to the element of chance. Mr. Dodgson tried to prove that a wrong result had actually been produced in one of those test or sham elections which had been held throughout the country, which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) wished to speak of with all respect, as his hon. Friend had frequently elected him. With regard to the difficulties of this matter, it was said that they need not be reckoned, because the Returning Officers were skilled and educated men. He did not know whether his hon. Friends were aware of the great waste of votes even at the present time. At the last election in Hackney several hundred votes were wasted, although the election was a single one, between two candidates only. Was it not probable that there would be a far more formidable; waste of votes under the system proposed by his hon. Friend? The object of the proposal now before the House used to be stated in a different way from that now adopted. It was now said that the object aimed at was the representation of the majority; but formerly it was advocated as a means of representing minorities and shades of opinion. Formerly the hon. Member for South Northumberland advocated what was known as the Parker Smith scheme, upon which he would comment if it wore to be put forward as an alternative scheme—["No, no!"]—but if it was not to be he would say nothing about it. The anomalies that had been produced by former General Elections were due partly to the existence of small boroughs, and partly to the difference between the borough and the county franchise. In his belief, the system
  1820
  which the Government were placing before the House was likely in a higher degree than was proposed by his hon. Friend to lead to the existence of strong Governments, with strong majorities one way or the other. When it was said that the Bill would leave to Ireland 12 more Members than she was entitled to, he replied that the Government had proceeded upon equal lines, and had drawn no distinction between one part of the United Kingdom and another. But if it were said that Ireland was over-represented as compared with England and Scotland, it might be pointed out that a large part of England was over-represented as compared with the rest, and they could not remove these discrepancies without creating others. Wales was more represented than Ireland by this Bill. But there were other parts of England which were still more largely represented. Wiltshire and the inland part of Hampshire—that was excluding the Isle of Wight—and other portions of the South-West of England, were more represented than Wales. These were the consequences of drawing an even line, and they could not devise an oven line which would not produce such results. But the discrepancies under this Bill were very small as compared with those at present existing; and it was the belief of the Government that the House of Commons, after full examination of the two schemes, would support that now placed before them.
  MR. E. A. LEATHAM: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend who has moved this Instruction (Sir John Lubbock) has told us that his plan of proportional representation would insure real political justice, an accurate expression of the opinions of the country, and render such accidents as the return of a majority in this House by a minority in the country absolutely impossible. Now, I venture to dispute all these propositions. And as regards the controversy whether or not a minority in the country did actually return a majority of this House in 1874 or 1868, I cannot think that it has much to do with the question. We may grant everything which my hon. Friend demands, figures and all, and the question itself will remain very much where it is now. Under a system of unequal constituencies, and uneven representation, it is, no doubt, perfectly possible for a minority in the country to return a ma-

  1821
  jority of this House. But, even if my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, it would be still perfectly possible for a minority in the country to return a majority of this House, because my hon. Friend does not propose to apply his principle to every constituency. It is only when a constituency returns three or more Members that the plan is applicable at all. Nor does he propose to reduce his triumvirates to the condition of the Siamese twins—that if one of the three dies, the others should immediately die also. So that the scheme must break down at every bye-election. But even if the scheme did not break down at every bye-election, and oven if it were applicable to every constituency in the Kingdom, it would be still perfectly possible for a minority in the country to return a majority of this House. For who is to classify the abstentionists? My hon. Friend is in favour of larger constituencies; but the larger the constituencies, the larger the proportion of abstentionists, until, at last, you arrive at nearly half the whole constituency. A thousand different motives keep these men from the poll; but they possess opinions, perhaps, quite as well worth knowing as the man who polls as the clock strikes 8. Again, even after the Franchise Act has come into operation, there will remain millions of men who have no votes, and whose opinions, whatever they may be, you must entirely ignore. Surely, then, it is most inaccurate to speak of mathematical precision, and real justice, and an absolute exclusion of accidents, when all the conditions of the problem are so variable, and the margin of uncertainty must always remain so enormous. But my hon. Friend's system must fail to secure absolute justice for another reason—I mean on account of the inherent defects of the system itself. For the system is based upon a series of preferences; and the bulk of those preferences would, in all probability, be dictated by motives which are not political. Why do people give their votes now? No one can conduct a personal canvass without becoming painfully conscious that a large proportion of votes are given without any reference to politics whatever, and that another large proportion are given from what I may term hybrid motives, motives which are partly political, and partly otherwise. Votes are often given
  1822
  because the right man asks for them, or because the wrong man to ask for them is kept carefully in the background; and all these subsidiary motives will come into play with ten-fold force when the issue raised is no longer a simple one; but you afford the voter the luxury of gratifying all his motives at once, when he can give one vote to his conscience, another to his trade, another to oblige Benson, a fourth to annoy Jones, and a fifth to show his own splendid independence. These inferior preferences are all good votes; the skilful canvasser will pick them up by thousands, and the Returning Officer, if he pleases, will run riot among them. I once knew an important appointment won by a gentleman who was supposed to be absolutely out of the running. He beat all the favourites solely by second votes. And my hon. Friend, at the close of a General Election, when he is exulting over the idea that, at last, we have arrived at absolute justice, will thus have arrived only at an absolute fiasco. And this fiasco will have been purchased, at what cost? You have admitted to the franchise some millions of persons of, perhaps, imperfect education. Surely it is essential that your mode of voting should be simplicity itself. And if there be one thing more important still, it is that the voters shall have absolute confidence in the secrecy of the votes, and in those who count them. There is a widespread distrust of the ballot even now among the humblest class of voters. To what dimensions will that distrust grow, when the voters discover that their ballot papers are to be fingered, and fingered, and fingered again in the presence of the agent whom they dread, and how will they regard the final result when they know that, with another shuffling of the papers, it might have been entirely different? The demand for absolute simplicity is met by my hon. Friend with his "wonderful puzzle fifteen." But my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, who has made many clever speeches on this subject in the country, tells us that this plan of proportional representation will greatly improve the personnel of this House. I wish that it had not been necessary to my hon. Friend's argument to take away the character of this House. He goes about the country drawing a fancy

  1823
  portrait of your Member of Parliament. Your Member of Parliament, it seems, is a very irresolute creature. He trembles at every vote he gives, and looks warily around before he ventures to give a vote at all. "Members of Parliament," says my hon. Friend, "occasionally speak the truth to one another in the Lobby;" and then, it appears, we confess that we do not vote from any high sense of duty, or even of political allegiance, but because we are the slaves of certain sections of our constituents. Sir, I repudiate this fancy portrait altogether. I have sat in this House as long, if not longer, than my hon. Friend, and I have never yet met with the original. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend laughs; but I appeal to hon. Gentlemen, especially to those of long Parliamentary experience, whether again and again, in the course of their lives, grave differences of opinion have not arisen between important sections of their constituents and themselves, to be again and again bridged over, not by the ignominious surrender of the Representative, but by the generous forbearance of the constituents? It is not necessary, then, to be so very firm in one's seat in order to give an independent vote; nor is it by furnishing us, as my hon. Friend proposes, with a devoted body-guard of supporters who will never desert us, and who will insure our election, whatever we may do, that you will teach independence. You teach independence, not by making defeat impossible, but by inuring us to look defeat in the face. Now, there is nothing which so narrows the conceptions of your public man as to send him to the House as the delegate of a section, or the spokesman of an 'ism. If a fad-monger gains access to the House now, he must be a politician first, and a fad-monger afterwards; but if the plan of my hon. Friend were to prevail, there is no fad-monger or hobby-rider in the Kingdom who might not aspire to a seat. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard says that it would result in the return of strong men to this House. He says that a strong Government can only be made out of strong materials. He infers that the existing materials are weak, and the existing Government the reverse of strong. A little while ago we were told that it was a trifle too strong for British freedom. But what does he
  1824
  mean by strong men? There are two kinds of strong men—headstrong men, and men who are strong in the head. If by strong men my hon. Friend moans dogged, uncompromising, impracticable men, I have no doubt that ho will get them in abundance under his system; but, then, these are just the men whom you ought not to get in an Assembly where so much depends upon our arriving at a modus vivendi. If, on the other hand, by strong men he means men who are strong in the head—men who could grasp critical occasions and take broad views of policy—he would not get them under his system; for these are the very last men to serve a clique or cringe before an 'ism. If this House has suffered of late in public estimation, it is not because it contains too few strong men, but because it contains too many. But my hon. Friend wants us to be all strong men. Imagine this House filled with strong men all riding hobbies, like my hon. Friend! What collisions we should have among all those high-minded, high-principled, and possibly high-tempered people! Would this shorten our debates, or simplify their issues? Would it accelerate legislation? Would it tend to preserve intact that individual liberty of Englishmen, which is, perhaps, a grander thing than Empire, and which your crotcheteers and fad-mongers assail on every side? But one reason why we are all to be strong men is in order that we may teach the nation through the debates. How can reports of the debates, such as they have become, teach anybody? The only people who are really reported are those upon the two Front Benches. I do not blame the Press for this. If there were any demand for full reports, we should have them. But nobody wants them, except the strong men themselves; and if there be one sign of the times more cheering than another, it is the determination of this House to allow itself to be "counted out" again and again rather than become, what my hon. Friend wants it to become, a second-rate Debating Society. But my hon. Friend lays great stress on the beneficial effect which his system is to have upon the constituencies. Now, I think that there is too much tendency already in the great Party to which we both belong to forget that we are living, and must live, under a system of Party Govern-

  1825
  ment. This is a lesson which every politician has to learn, whether he be a simple voter or a Member of this House. It involves some sacrifice of private judgment, a good measure of faith and obedience, and an indiscriminate denunciation of fads. But the lesson which my hon. Friend teaches is the reverse of all this. He resolves the Party into its elements. Disintegration and decomposition are to be the order of the day. He wants to see how many differences of opinion he can bring to the surface, not how many he can bury. And as to the assertion that when men find themselves in a minority at elections, they will, therefore, throw up the sponge in despair, I do not believe it for a moment. I have now had a seat in this House for many years. I have always sat for the same constituency, and the Liberal majority has long been perfectly overwhelming. But does that prevent my Friends the Conservatives from fighting us on every possible occasion? No, Sir. There is always some good man ready with his eloquence, and, what is, perhaps, more valuable, with his purse. No sooner is a Dissolution announced than there is always some ram caught in the thicket. And so it will always be in English, and especially in Irish, politics. We shall never know when we are beaten. We shall fight against all odds; and the very last thing which we shall do is what my hon. Friend says that we shall do—fling down our arms and run away. But my hon. Friend thinks that the existing system has broken down, because, as he says, under it only one mechanic and one working man have been returned to this House. I should have accepted this circumstance as a triumphant proof of its success. The working classes have shown a rare discretion. With the power, if they had wished it, of deluging this House with mechanics and working men, they have deliberately preferred to be represented by men many points above them, it may be, in the social scale, yet sympathizing with those of their demands which are just, and able to clothe those demands in language and to sustain them by arguments which must command the respect, and possibly the acquiescence, of statesmen. It is by this process that we have arrived at the vigour of Democracy, without experiencing what I may
  1826
  term the shock of its brute force. But what is the teaching of my hon. Friend? Why, that all this is a mistake, and that to be adequately represented in Parliament you must be represented by men of your own class, your own trade, and, possibly, your own clique. I contend that by this teaching—though nothing is farther from his intention—he is simply poisoning the minds of the new electors, even before they come upon the Register, undermining the noble confidence which one class reposes in another, and substituting sordid interests and selfish sympathies for the paramount obligations of Party and of patriotism. And what has been the history of the triumph of Democracy in this country? Has it not been the history of the triumph of the principles which he repudiates, and of the repudiation of the principles which he is endeavouring to put in their place? For the working classes would never have won, as they have won, the confidence of those above them, if they had not begun by placing confidence in us. Sir, I fear that some who are advocating this scheme are attempting to get a good deal more out of the Franchise Act than this House intended. In the course of one of the clever speeches which my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard made in the country, he quoted the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and said that they were advocating proportional representation because it gave "the widest possible realization of Democracy." Now, I very much doubt whether that was the intention of this House in passing that Bill. I very much question whether we should have passed that Bill at all, if we had understood that it was to be twisted into a means of arriving, if not at the plébiscite itself, at its nearest possible equivalent. Surely it is a mistake to contend that this House should be made a mere photograph—I use my hon. Friend's own phrase—an abject epitome of the thoughts, good, bad, and indifferent, of the nation. Surely it should reflect its highest thoughts, its noblest aspirations, its broadest sympathies. This is the very meaning of election. We elect, not the random elements, which in their infinite variety are to be found scattered everywhere upon the surface, but what is best and soundest; and it is only on this grand hypothesis

  1827
  that this House is honourable, or that it is any honour to sit in it.
  MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, so far the progress of debate had only strengthened his conviction that they were not far off the day when the principle of proportional representation would be embodied in the electoral system of the country. In the debate upon the subject last Session the Prime Minister had no other argument but that of ridicule to bring against the position taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). That night the President of the Local Government Board appeared as the champion of the single-district plan. He was an old supporter of proportional representation, and knew where its weak points were, if it had any. The chief peculiarity of his right hon. Friend's speech that night was that he carefully evaded attacking the real arguments in favour of their plan, and spoke for half an hour on small points, not one of which wounded fatally the position they had taken up. He therefore claimed the speech of his right hon. Friend as an admission on his part that they were in the right. The right hon. Gentleman said that the single-Member-district plan would secure the representation of minorities in the most practicable way that could be secured by any Parliamentary measure. ["Hear, hear!"] The Attorney General cheered that statement. Would the hon. and learned Member, if he should speak in the debate, show how it would do so in Scotland or Ireland? He was in Glasgow a little time ago—a town which it was proposed to cut up into seven districts—and he was informed by Members of both Parties there that the chance of a Conservative being returned for any ward in the town was comparatively nil.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: They have the minority vote there now, and they cannot return a Conservative.
  MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, it was no reason, because the Conservative shad been unable under the limited vote to get one scat out of three, that we should adopt a system which would give them no seat out of seven. He favoured political equality, and desired that equal numbers of persons should be equally represented. If the Conservatives of Glasgow were equal to a seventh of the constituency, they were entitled to one
  1828
  Member. It was because the single-district plan did not secure them their just share, and the proportional principle did, that the House should support the Instruction. How many Members would the single-district plan give the Conservatives in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman championed that plan, because it would give them representation. Scotland was to have about 70 Members; and they were told that the Conservative Party were at least a sixth part of the population. If they were they ought to have from 10 to 12 Members. Did his right hon. Friend contend that, under this single-district plan, they would have that number? He (Mr. Grey) did not believe they would have more than three or four Members. That seemed to him to be an argument against, instead of in favour of, the single-seat system. His right hon. Friend said that the country did not concur in the views of those who advocated proportional representation. But he (Mr. Grey) declared that the country had concurred in their views wherever they had had the chance of hearing them explained. In his own county, not only in the pit districts, but in other districts, they had carried their resolutions by overwhelming majorities; and he had hoard that morning, from a working miner who was now busily engaged in advocating the system, that he had addressed several pit meetings, and that they were all, by a unanimous vote, in favour of proportional representation. Their experience at Glasgow, Liverpool, and other large towns was the same as it was in Northumberland; and they only needed time to place their views before the people, in order to gain for them an overwhelming and enthusiastic acceptance. In every country where a uniform suffrage prevailed, they were dissatisfied with the system of majority representation. In France they were trying to change the single-district plan for scrutin de liste, and in America they gave up scrutin de liste in 1842. His right hon. Friend was one of the first who not only wrote in favour of the double ballot, but spoke in favour of the principle of proportional representation. In 1872, when the question was discussed in the House of Commons, his right hon. Friend said—
  "Some think—and I among them—that it is almost impossible to over-rate the advantages

  1829
  which might flow from proportional representation, if proportional representation could be worked. I think it most desirable that the experiment should he tried."—(3 Hansard, [212] 909.)
  And he added—
  "There can be no place so fit for trying the experiment, from the great concentration of wealth and population, from the machinery at hand, and from the variety of opinion held within the compass of a single town as London; and it would be most natural to suggest that the experiment should be tried within this city … If you were to try your experiment upon London, it is probable that the metropolis would under your new system elect as its 22 representatives men of great fame and of the highest attainments—men whose services would he of splendid value to the State."—[Ibid.]
  Now, he thought that the House ought to pass this Instruction for two reasons—first, because it would enable the Committee to insert Amendments applying a principle the absolute justice of which no one could deny; and, secondly, because even if the Committee might decide against a proposal which would be fatal to the single-district plan, it was only right that they should have the power of applying to the election of a single Representative that method of voting which would give each individual elector the largest possible freedom of choice. Unless they had the single transferable vote, there would be little freedom of choice to a large number of electors in the election of a single Representative. Take Newcastle, for example. His hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley) stood for the borough at a bye-election, and a working man was brought forward, but was withdrawn before the day of the poll, because if he persevered he might divide the Liberal vote and let in the Tory. The result was a contest between one Liberal and one Conservative candidate. But would it not be of great advantage if the electors could choose the candidate for whom they might wish to vote? At present, a large proportion of the body was bound to give their votes to the candidate who was chosen for them, and as to whom they had very little choice themselves. What he said was that the electors should have the opportunity of selecting for themselves the candidate most in sympathy with them, without risking the chances of their Party. Supposing that there were in a borough a number of men favouring Mr. Henry George's views on the nationalization of
  1830
  the land, and that they brought him forward as a candidate, although they knew he had no chance of election, all they could do would be to mark I against his name, and 2 against the name of some more popular candidate. They would thus make sure that if the first vote should not be wanted for the candidate of their choice, in consequence of his having no chance, their vote would be utilized for the candidate against whose name the number 2 had been placed, and so on. Such a system would enable a voter to give his vote to the candidate most in sympathy with himself, and yet prevent his vote from being thrown away. Proof would thus be afforded of the strength of the Party holding his opinions in the constituency. But it was because this Instruction, if passed, would enable the Committee to group together single districts, and to arrange for the election of their Members by Mr. Hare's plan of the single transferable vote, that he asked the House to support it. This plan would, if adopted and applied to constituencies returning from 3 to 7 or 9 Members, result in a true representation of the electors, the freedom of the electorate, and the return of a good House of Commons. By the single district plan, which would give to one set of electors the representation which properly belonged to another set, they would create a privileged class on the one hand, and a discontented and irritated class on the other. They were told, for example, that in Ireland, South of Ulster, the Party of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would, under the single-district system, win every seat, although the Party opposed to him numbered one-third of the population. But a system which secured a true representation would give to the opponents of the policy of the hon. Member one-third of the seats in question. To take another example. Supposing that the population of Glasgow were to increase by 150,000 in the next 10 years, two-thirds of them being Liberal and one-third Conservative, and supposing that three additional Members were, in consequence, to be given to the city, one of these would dearly be given to it in respect of the 50,000 Conservatives in the borough; yet it was quite possible that under the single-district plan the three extra seats would be won by candi-

  1831
  dates holding Liberal opinions. They were told Mr. Hare's plan could not be accepted, because it introduced the element of chance. They were prepared to eliminate the chance element altogether. This could easily be done at the cost of a little extra trouble in the count. It was true they had not originally proposed this, because, after having carefully considered the element of chance, it appeared to be so infinitesimally small. They claimed that their plan should not be judged by an impossible standard of ideal perfection, but by its relative perfection. All they asked was that that system should be accepted which gave the best guarantee of a representation in accordance with the wishes of the electors as declared at the poll. Under the single-district system totally different electoral results might be obtained by an alteration of boundaries. This was well-known in America, where it was admitted that the shape of the boundary line determined the character of the representation. If the line was drawn from North to South one result was obtained; but if it was drawn from East to West the result was of a totally different character. One set of boundary lines might bring about the scandal of a minority rule, while another set of boundary lines might bring about the political extinction of a minority entitled by its numbers to considerable representation. The advocates of their system had received a great deal of encouragement. In the little time at their disposal they had made much greater way than they had anticipated. Their experience justified their conviction that they had only to go on explaining and expounding the principle to secure for it a universal and an enthusiastic reception in the country. They were sometimes met by the argument that Mr. Bagehot and Mr. Cobden were opposed to the principle; but Mr. Bagehot's objection was to the proposal to make the country one huge constituency. That was plainly an impossibility. The difficulty of asking the electors to choose between 600 or 700 candidates was obvious. The objections urged by Mr. Bagehot against Mr. Hare's original proposal could not be brought forward against this modified scheme. Their object was to obtain constituencies of such a size as would assure to each individual elector the widest possible freedom of choice, consistent with
  1832
  the avoidance of those evils which Mr. Bagehot pointed out to be consequent upon making the whole of the United Kingdom into one constituency. As yet no serious argument, that would stand five minutes' investigation, had been brought forward against proportional representation as they propounded it. He trusted the debate would go on for another night. ["Oh!"] The debate had come upon them unexpectedly. The general belief had been that they were not to have a discussion on proportional representation that evening, but that they were to have it later on in the week; and he hoped they would have another discussion when the Bill was in Committee. They believed they would be successful in the end, although they could not be successful now. They had been fighting with their eyes on the future; and they knew they had already created a sufficient feeling in the country to secure a new and strong agitation rising up upon the settlement of the present Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was quite sure that the House had listened with great interest to the two very lucid speeches which had been delivered in favour of proportional representation by his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) and the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). For his own part, he thought they might also admire the energy, public spirit, and courage with which his hon. Friends had come forward and carried on their agitation for proportional representation during the past autumn. He could not, however, congratulate them upon the result of that agitation, because he believed that the more the country heard of the scheme the less they liked it. His hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) appeared, nevertheless, to be of opinion that he would be able, at some future time, to convert the country. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed the House would be well content to relegate the discussion of the question to the public platform. For his own part, ho was quite willing to leave the question in the hands of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. A. Leatham). He believed that those hon.

  1833
  Members had exhausted all the facts of the case. But as he had been expressly alluded to, he thought there were a few points of which he must take notice. In the first place, what was the objection entertained by his hon. Friend against the present system of majority voting? His hon. Friend said that, under the present system, it might happen that the minority would be able to return a majority of Members; and reference had been made to the case of the General Election of 1874. Now, he had had, some time ago, a controversy with his hon. Friend on that subject; and he still maintained that when the question was fairly looked at, the Tories on that occasion obtained a majority of votes, and that the majority of Members was not returned by a minority of the electors. His hon. Friend attempted now to exclude the uncontested elections; but he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not think it was fair to leave them out of the calculation. If the contested elections only were taken into account, it was, undoubtedly, the fact that the majority returned a minority of Members. He would admit that; but was it due to the system of voting, or to other causes? He thought that anyone who looked fairly into the question would come to the conclusion that it was due, not to the system of voting, but to the unequal franchise in the counties and boroughs. Before 1874 the Liberals had obtained representation in a considerable number of counties, although at that time the Conservatives were successful in a large portion of those counties; whereas in the boroughs the Liberals had a majority, although not a large one. The voters in the boroughs, under the present franchise, were five times more numerous, in proportion to the population, than the voters in the counties; and in order to make a proper comparison it would be necessary to reduce the counties and the towns to a common denomination by multiplying the voters of the counties by five; and if they did that, it would be found that the result of the comparison was exactly to reverse the actual state of things. He was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), with his mathematical and philosophical mind, should not have perceived this. For his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) own part, the present system of voting, instead of leading to
  1834
  the return of minority Members, had exactly the contrary effect. Indeed, he believed that the general result of the present system was that it did secure for the majority of voters a rather larger proportion of Members than they were numerically entitled to. Was that an advantage or not? He believed that, on the whole, it was an advantage, because it strengthened the Government of the day, and enabled it to carry out its policy. All the systems of minority voting which had yet been presented to the House and the country would have a directly opposite effect, as they would tend to over-represent the minority, and to prevent the majority from having a fair and full representation, and because it would give an advantage to small sections of persons, and would enable crotchet-mongers and persons representing immature opinions to be returned. The system had already been tried in the School Board elections; and everybody admitted that, in that case, the cumulative vote had failed, inasmuch as it prevented the majority from returning representatives in proportion to their true strength, while it gave an unfair advantage to cliques and sections of voters. The more this proposal was examined the greater, he ventured to say, would be even its defects. In the first place, it was complicated and difficult to understand, and it would never be comprehended by the bulk of the ordinary labourers who were to enjoy the vote. In the second place, it was defective because it introduced for the first time the element of chance; thirdly, it was defective because it gave to the minority, and to cliques and sections, an undoubted advantage. These were his three main objections to it. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had dealt with the element of chance. The element of chance came in when they had appropriated voting papers for a candidate's first votes, and counted the surplus for another candidate's second votes, everything depending upon the voting papers taken and left. Necessarily, in counting the second and third votes, a large number of second and third votes, which had been disposed of and set aside in the first heap, must be left out of the calculation. He, therefore, thought he was justified in saying that the element of chance entered into the calculation. He had himself

  1835
  made an experiment on the supposition that he was dealing with a constituency of 70 electors, and that there were seven candidates, the votes for whom were very evenly divided. He had found that in 12 shuffles of the actual voting papers the result came out in five different ways, showing conclusively that the element of chance was introduced.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKremarked, that his right hon. Friend had been dealing with a very small number of electors.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his contention was that the same element of chance applied to the case of 7,000 as to 70 or 700. The same discrepancies would only be magnified, in like circumstances, by making the number of voting papers 700 or 7,000. He had consulted authorities of the highest order, who had come to the same conclusion as himself. [An hon. MEMBER: Who were they?] Well, he had consulted authorities, at any rate, if not the highest; and he made the assertion on his own authority as well. He did not profess to be as good a mathematician as his hon. Friend; but he did profess to understand a logical deduction, and if he took 7,000 voting papers, and those voting papers wore evenly divided between two Parties, and the second and third votes were also evenly divided between second and third candidates, it would be found that the same element of chance was introduced in reference to these candidates in the case of 7,000 voters as in that of 70. He ventured to maintain that this was the case, in spite of the objection of his hon. Friend. That was his first and main objection to the scheme—namely, that it introduced an element of chance to a very serious degree. He would now put another case. Suppose there was cross-voting; suppose the two principal political Parties were nearly evenly divided, and five or six cross-votes occurred on either side. It would depend entirely upon the fact whether those cross-votes were counted in the first batch of voting papers, or the second—whether this or that candidate was returned. That afforded another proof that chance was a potent element in the return; and it might become a most serious matter, and a grave objection to the whole scheme. The other objection to the scheme was that, in every case, it gave an undue advantage to the mi-
  1836
  nority, and to cliques and sections. He would detain the House too long if he were to endeavour to explain this matter thoroughly; but it was a somewhat important subject, and he would point out shortly one or two points connected with it. A scheme of this kind must be tested, not merely by experiments such as the hon. Member had tried in the country, but on the supposition of a closely contested election with the two political Parties evenly divided, and also with the probability of an independent candidate being started. If the hon. Member tried his plan under those conditions, he would find, that an independent candidate would be returned by very much fewer votes than his real quota, and in that way he would destroy the chance of the candidate put forward on the other side. In point of fact, an unfair advantage would be given to the independent candidate in consequence of the two other candidates receiving their fair quota of Party votes. His own opinion, seeing that in a closely-contested election the accidental counting of five or six votes might determine the result, was that the two political Parties would, in the event of the proposal of his hon. Friend being adopted, do much better to abandon the scheme of voting for their own candidates, and to distribute their votes equally between their candidates. He believed it would be very easy to prove that the general result of the scheme would be to over-represent minorities, and to give to cliques and sections an undue advantage. There were now two systems of voting proposed, which were opposed to one another. The present system was no doubt favourable, to some extent, to majorities. All schemes of minority voting gave an undue advantage to the minority. But which of the two systems was best? His own opinion was that a system which favoured the majority was far better than one which would favour the minority. It was highly important that the House of Commons should be returned with a majority even somewhat in excess of the proportion it was fairly entitled to. It was not desirable that the House should exactly measure the balance of political opinion. A large majority tended to strengthen the Government. It should be remembered that the House of Commons was not merely a

  1837
  machine for legislation; but it was, in point of fact, the Executive of the country. The Government was practically elected by the House of Commons, and in the Members of the Government were vested all the powers of the State. That being so, it appeared to him that the majority might with propriety even be somewhat in excess of the actual number of these voters in the country, so that they would be able to give stability to the Government of the day. This was no Party question, but it was of equal importance to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as it was to the Liberal Party. It was not desirable that political Parties should be too evenly divided, but that the Government in power, whichever Party it should represent, should come into power with such a majority as would enable it to be strong, and able to take a decisive line of policy of its own. For these reasons he objected most strongly to the scheme of his hon. Friend. He believed that the House would simply hold out delusive hopes if they allowed this Instruction to be carried, and permitted the subject to be discussed in Committee. He should, therefore, vote against it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the speech of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Lubbock) had lent unexpected force to one of his own arguments—the waste principle argument. It showed how difficult it was to understand the scheme he proposed to lay before the House; and now one of the most energetic and practical statesmen upon the Treasury Bench, after devoting great attention to the question, was compelled to admit that he did not understand it. He had no desire to enter into the mathematical problem which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House; but the few words which he desired to say upon the subject which had been so unexpectedly pressed forward had rather reference to his own personal position in the matter. In some of the very voluminous literature which the Society for securing Proportional Representation had laid before the public, his name would probably have been noticed among the list of members. He was a member of the Society, and as he did not mean to vote with his hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Lubbock), if the Motion were pressed to a
  1838
  division, he felt bound to explain why it was that he took that course. The reason which induced him to take it was by no means the reason which appeared to influence the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the scheme of representation which the House ought to adopt was one that did not accurately represent public opinion, but which gave an undue advantage to the majority of the day. It was natural that the Postmaster General should wish that the majority should be over-represented, as he was a Member of a majority which he expected would long continue in power, and he had spent the greater part of his life in connection with a majority in power; but, for himself, as he (Mr. Balfour) expected, for the greater part of his life, to belong to the minority, it was hardly to be expected that he would take the same view, and give his approval to a system of single-Member constituencies which would over-represent the majority. He believed that a system of proportional representation, in some such form as that which had been advocated that night, was the best form of representation, and possibly the one the country would be ultimately led to adopt. As a Scotchman, he felt keenly upon this subject. Nobody acquainted with Scotland, whatever his political opinions might be, would deny that the Conservative Party in that country was considerable, having regard to its numbers, intelligence, and wealth, yet it was, practically, unrepresented, except in regard to the University seats. He belonged to that minority in Scotland, and, as one of the unrepresented minority, he naturally felt that he should like to see some system adopted which would give to the Conservative Party their just weight in the House of Commons. It was perfectly superfluous to prove what his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey), in his clear, earnest, and able speech, had spent so much time in proving—namely, that the single-Member system was an imperfect one. At the same time it was much more perfect than any other which had as yet been devised. It was probable that the House would never represent in its constitution the exact proportion which would obtain in the country between different sections of

  1839
  public opinion. His hon. Friend was perfectly fair when he said that the system of the single transferable vote was imperfect in some respects, though more perfect than the existing system, and that perfection was not to be expected in any system. But when they were trying to impose upon the country an entirely new system—a system, which the people did not understand, and which was alien to their habits and modes of thought, it was most essential that that system should be perfect. It would be found far more difficult to make a people accept a new system which had some imperfections, than to retain an old system which had more imperfections. That was the real difficulty which arose in regard to the scheme of his hon. Friend—namely, the imperfections which he left untouched, and which he admitted to exist in the scheme. But the real reason why he did not support his hon. Friend that night was this—that he believed his hon. Friend was engaged in a perfectly hopeless crusade. It was not so much the case that the question was dead, as that it had never been alive. It had received the support of some 200 or 300 people, of whom he was proud to be one, and perhaps of a few persons who might be regarded as theoretical politicians; but the question had never been brought home to the minds of the country at large. He had never been more clearly convinced of that than by certain observations he had had it in his power to make when he went down to Manchester in September last, after the general principles of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill had been laid before the country. Manchester afforded a very crucial test. In the first place Manchester objected strongly to be cut into six divisions. The feeling in favour of Corporate Bodies had always been strong there, and central organized bodies had always been powerful; therefore, the feeling of both Parties, Conservative as well as Liberal, and even of those who were neither Conservative nor Liberal, was deeply to resent the single-Member system, by virtue of which it was proposed to cut up Manchester into six sections. Although the system of minority representation had for a long time been advocated in Manchester by the Press, and by the
  1840
  most intelligent and powerful politicians on both sides, and although the Press had always supported with great ability the views of his hon. Friend in regard to this question, yet, in spite of that, when he (Mr. Balfour) went down to Manchester, and had some opportunity of ganging popular feeling on the question, it was made perfectly clear to him that it was absolutely impossible to get the mass of the community to accept with the slightest degree of enthusiasm, or, indeed, to accept at all the scheme which his hon. Friend advocated with such great ability. Therefore, the conclusion he drew was, that the Proportional Representation Society had begun their agitation too late—they had begun it, at all events, too late for this Bill. They might stump the country from one end to the other, and visit every town in the Kingdom, testing imaginary elections with imaginary names; but they would not be able to get up, for many years to come, the slightest amount of enthusiasm in favour of the scheme. After all, the English people prided themselves on being a practical people. He did not know how far they deserved the compliment; but they thought they were practical, and their practicalness always took the form of sticking to any system to which they were accustomed and to which they had always been used, especially when it was an intelligible plan, and when, however imperfect it might be, it gave a general result which was acceptable to the community. "Well, the single-Member system would fulfil all these conditions, and it would be difficult to induce the people to give up that system for another system, the discussion of which required real mathematical knowledge. That being so, he could not vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, because, if he did, and a sufficient number of hon. Members of the House were induced to do so, the whole of the present scheme of redistribution would be upset, and all the trouble they had gone through in the last six months they would have to go through over again. As a practical politician, he could not follow such a course. He did not believe that if the Bill were upset or dropped the scheme of his hon. Friend would be adopted; but he felt it was possible that a very much worse scheme might be adopted. Entertaining that view, he considered himself bound, as a

  1841
  practical politician, to abstain from supporting the scheme of his hon. Friend, to which he always had, and still would give a theoretical adherence.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, that he was somewhat in the same position as the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. He had listened carefully to the speeches which had been delivered, and he was quite prepared to admit the excellence of the principle of proportional representation and also the simplicity of the scheme proposed, yet I he was unable to vote for the present proposal. He was hound to confess that he had been somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey), because he did not think the hon. Member had made the case quite as simple as it really was. Among other things, the hon. Member had referred to the case of Glasgow. He had pointed out that under the existing state of things no Conservative could obtain representation in that city. He had also pointed out that if the proposals contained in the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill were carried out, and the city were divided into seven wards, the result would be the same, and no Conservative would obtain representation in Glasgow. The hon. Member further showed that by the adoption of the scheme of proportional representation one or more Conservatives might obtain a seat as Representatives of Glasgow. Then, having made that statement he appealed to hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite him to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). But what support was he likely to obtain from his own side of the House? It was only natural that hon. Members on the Liberal Benches would refuse to support a proposal which would have that effect. The hon. Gentleman had made a mistake; because this was no question of Party whatever, and ought not to be treated upon that basis. But he (Viscount Lewisham) had risen, on the present occasion, because, being a member of the Proportional Representation Society, he wished to explain the reason that prevented him from supporting the Motion. In the first place, personally, he had a grievance against the Society. Having a little scheme of
  1842
  his own, which he believed to have many advantages over the proposed scheme, he had endeavoured to explain it to the Society in certain letters, but had never yet received an answer. That, however, was not the main reason why he did not propose to support the present Motion. Ho had another reason altogether. Not long ago, while travelling in a train with some hon. Friends of his, including the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Arnold Morley) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), they had tried two or three test elections, and as every single election came out in a different form it was perfectly clear that there would be a decided element of chance introduced if the present proposal were adopted. On one occasion three Liberals were returned; on two occasions two Liberals, the Conservative and the third Liberal running a dead heat for the last place; and on the other three occasions two Liberals and one Conservative were returned. It was perfectly plain, therefore, that the system now proposed would involve a very considerable element of chance, as in no two consecutive cases were the same results attained. He was, therefore, prepared to abide by the proposals contained in the redistribution scheme now before the House; and he could not support the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock).
  Mr. W. FOWLERsaid, that the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Albert Grey) had referred to the views of Mr. Bagehot in reference to Parliamentary Reform, and had said that Mr. Bagehot objected to proportional representation simply on the ground that it was a reproduction of Mr. Hare's scheme. That was not quite correct, because in his essay on Parliamentary Reform, published in 1859, Mr. Bagehot said—
  "If every minority had exactly as much weight in Parliament as it has in the nation, there might be a risk of indecision. Members are apt enough to deviate from the plain, decisive path from vanity, from a wish to be original, from a nervous conscientiousness. They are subject to special temptations which make their decisions less simple and consistent than the nation's. We need a counteracting influence, and it will be no subject for regret if that influence be tolerably strong. It is therefore no disadvantage, but the contrary, that

  1843
  diffused minority in the country is in general rather inadequately represented. A strong conviction in the ruling power will give it strength of volition. The House of Commons should think as the nation thinks, hut it should think so rather more strongly and with somewhat less of wavering."
  MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, the extract read by the hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Hare's plan, and not to the plan advocated by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock).
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, that it referred to the general principle of minority representation taken as a whole. The volume from which he had quoted had no special reference to Mr. Hare's plan, but only to the general principles of Parliamentary representation. The arguments against the principle of minority representation were forcibly urged by Mr. Bagehot; but he did not think the j hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) had in any degree removed the difficulty. The whole question had been so fully discussed that he would not attempt to protract the discussion; but he did hold strongly that the objection of Mr. Bagehot was one which could not be got over. It was pointed out that the adoption of Mr. Hare's system, or of any other scheme of minority representation, would give minorities a power which would tend to produce a stagnant Parliament, an undecided Parliament, and one that did not know its own mind as well as it ought to do. He felt certain that the more hon. Members reflected upon the subject, the more they would come to the conclusion that that was a most serious objection. A great deal had been said about the unfairness of the present plan. Well, it was impossible to have a perfect representation of everybody's opinion. How was it possible that that could be done? They must keep as near as they could. Every individual could not be represented in every opinion he entertained. There were not three men in the House who agreed about everything. It was desirable to make the representation as perfect as it was possible to make it; but if they were to give to every conceivable crotchet the power of getting itself represented simply because it existed, they would run the danger of having a Parliament—he was going to say a Parlia-
  1844
  ment without a mind—but a Parliament having so many minds, that it would be unable to use any of them to any effect. He thought that was an objection which had never yet been disproved, and no thinker had ever discussed the question with more ability than Mr. Bagehot. For his own part, the more he thought about it, the more convinced he became that this proposal was a most dangerous one—one that would only lead to confusion, and not to real, genuine representation. No doubt, there were objections to the proposal contained in the Bill of single-Member constituencies; but he did not know of any plan which could be proposed that would not be open to objection. Single-Member constituencies would unquestionably be objectionable in various points of view—such as being somewhat rough and uncertain in their results. There could be no doubt about that; but it was impossible to make any system perfect, and whatever objection there might be to single-Member constituencies the system had more common sense about it than the plan which professed to give representation in that House to every fraction of the community made up of a certain number of people with different opinions combining together to vote. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) had pointed out that it would be necessary for a certain proportion of the electors to combine in order to produce a certain result; but according to the plan proposed by the Government there might be a great variety of combinations even in the same borough. In a large borough there might be seven or eight bodies differing from each other in their opinions—for instance, they would not find the same class of people in Westminster as they would find in Whitechapel, and certainly the combinations would be very different in different parts of a great city or a great town. So they would get a variety of representation by the single-Member plan. His main objection was that the adoption of this principle of minority voting would make Parliament weaker than it ought to be made, and not so forcible or so strong in its opinions as the nation itself; whereas he thought that Parliament ought to reflect the views of the majority of the people even more decisively than they were at present represented.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that when first the Proportional Representation Society was started he had been extremely anxious to go into all the arguments and hear all that could be said in favour of the scheme; but he must say that the more he had seen of it the less he approved of it. He wished to point out three objections to the present proposal which he had not yet heard put. The first was that according to their system of Government—namely, Party and Cabinet Government, he did not see how it was possible they could expect to go on for any length of time except on a system somewhat similar to that which existed at present—by which the voting community became practically divided into something like two great parts—the one holding one set of principles which united certain men, and the other part in favour, on the whole, of a different set of principles; the one supporting the Government of the day, while the other supported the Opposition. He thought it was far better for the stability and the proper conduct of the affairs of the nation that this principle should continue to exist. He did not see how it was possible for the system advocated by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) to have free play under such a Parliamentary system as that which the country now enjoyed, and which he believed to be the best for the nation. Then, again, he wanted to know what was to be the relation of a Member to his constituents? Surely that was not an unimportant part of the question of their Parliamentary system? Take a county constituency as an example. In it the number of voters returning a Member to oppose vivisection would be spread all over the county; the same would hold in the case of the temperance, anti-vaccination, and similar movements; and the question was, therefore, how was a Member for any particular section to get into the same sort of relations with the great body of his constituents as he did at present? Surely that was not an unimportant part of their Parliamentary system? The third question he wished to ask was this—Is it not to be expected that the wire-pullers, practised in the business of manipulating elections, would be even more powerful under this system then they are now? Would it not be just as possible, or even more possible, to manage the votes so as to give an un-
  1846
  due proportion to particular men than could be done at present? He did not know what there was that would compel the voters to give the whole of their quota of votes, if they chose to concentrate their efforts upon the election of one or two men; and by that means an undue advantage would be given to a Party which might not happen to be in reality the strongest in the constituency. He hoped the House would hear stronger arguments than had yet been used in favour of this proposal; but he must say that the reasons which had been given, together with others, completely convinced him that the scheme propounded by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was far from being at present practical, especially when it was remembered that a very large proportion of the new constituencies to which they were about to appeal consisted of persons who scarcely knew what the giving of a vote was. Until, therefore, such persons were made acquainted by experience with the nature of the duty they had to perform, it was too bad to condemn them to an intricate system which it was impossible for them to understand.
  MR. MACARTNEYremarked, that, as one of the Representatives of a minority which would suffer more by this legislation than any other body in the Kingdom, he wished to say a few words in support of the proposal which had been submitted to the House. He was anxious to cite a case in point. He represented a county constituency numbering 103,000 Roman Catholics and 87,000 Protestants. The 103,000 Roman Catholic electors would, as a rule, support the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); while the 87,000 Protestants would, as a rule, be supporters of the Crown and the Constitution. It seemed to him that a population of 87,000, as opposed to 103,000, had a prospect of being swamped by the present measure; and therefore any proposal which offered a change for the better representation of such a minority was the one which they ought to support. He believed that by the division proposed in his own county there was scarcely a chance offered of any Representative of the loyal classes being returned. It was his opinion that if the proposal of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lub-

  1847
  bock) were adopted there would he a good chance of securing at least one-third of the representation of that county, although he contended that they were entitled to still more. That being so, he should certainly support the proposal of the hon. Member, and not that of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had made a pathetic appeal to the Conservatives to support his proposal, assuring them that it would give them a much better chance of representation; but immediately afterwards, and almost in the same breath, he was quite as pathetic in pointing out that under his scheme a second Liberal candidate might find a seat by having a number of second votes handed over to him where the first votes were given to his more popular colleague. On the one hand, his hon. Friend wanted them to believe that his proposal would secure that the minority should not be improperly represented; while, on the other hand, ho pointed out that minorities would be over-represented. His hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey) said that he wished to prevent "faddhists" from having too large a share in the representation. But by this proposal "faddhists" were encouraged. It was not necessary for a voter to say that he would give them his first vote; but all he would have to do was to promise his second. These were reasons which induced him to object to the scheme; but he objected to it also upon other grounds. As it had been forcibly stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, the wire-pullers at elections would have a greater chance of success under the scheme of his hon. Friend than they would have under single constituencies and a single vote scheme. Then again, and especially in the counties, he thought that a great deal would not only be left to chance, but a great deal also would be left to manipulation. He was quite certain from what he had seen of county elections under the ballot that if the Returning Officer chose to act improperly he might do a good deal to affect the result of an election. He had in his mind at that moment an election in which he was quite certain that the Returning Officer could have returned either of two candidates he chose out of
  1848
  the three who were proposed. All he would have to do would be to take the ballot boxes of a particular district in which he know a large proportion of voters belonging to a particular Party resided, and count them first, and he would then secure that all the second votes on those papers would be thrown away. Now, Returning Officers and Under Sheriffs were not unfrequently Party lawyers living in the county, who were perfectly well acquainted with the various districts in which the voters lived, and knew how they would vote for particular candidates. They would, therefore, know, as well as possible, which of the districts were being counted, and by this manipulation of the ballot-boxes they could affect the result. He admitted, although it was not often done, that any candidate could claim that all the boxes should be emptied and mixed before they began to count the votes. He was also of opinion that much more would be left to chance by the adoption of the proposal of his hon. Friend than by the creation of single-Member constituencies. He believed that these were good reasons for rejecting the Motion in favour of the scheme proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and which had these two advantages—in the first place, the area would be smaller, and every elector would feel that he enjoyed greater power; and, in the next place, a contested election would be much less expensive to the candidates. For these reasons ho, for one, felt called upon to oppose the proposal of his hon. Friend.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was not quite able to follow the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and, therefore, would not attempt to discuss it. Ho would only say that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to go through all the ballot-boxes, and they were invariably sent to him sealed up, the votes were afterwards carefully gone through, and it was not possible that any manipulation of the votes could take place. What he had risen for, however, was to explain why it was that he could not support the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Certainly, if the question had came before the House at a time when hon. Members were able fairly and properly to consider it, ho thought it was a proposition that deserved very careful

  1849
  attention at their hands Although he was not a member of the Proportional Representation Society, he had read many of the papers issued by that society. He had always regarded their scheme as a fair proposal, and one that deserved to be fully tested; but he thought it would have been better if his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), instead of going about the country during the autumn, had come to the House and submitted their proposal at a time when it could be fairly discussed and considered. He believed that many hon. Members might in that case have been disposed to give it their support. But they had to consider now the position in which the House was placed in regard to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. A phrase had been used which very well described the position in which hon. Members stood. The authorship of the phrase had been somewhat unnecessarily repudiated, in "another place," by the Marquess of Salisbury, and he believed that his right hon. Friend below him (Sir Stafford Northcote) also repudiated it on behalf of the noble Marquess in that House. But, whoever was the author of it, the phrase "that they were debating redistribution with a rope round their necks" was, he thought, a very happy phrase indeed, for it certainly seemed to him that they were, on the present occasion, debating the great principles of the Bill with a rope round their necks. Now, what was the actual position in which they stood? On the 1st of January next, the great change which had been introduced into the franchise would become law by the Act which was passed last Session. That change had been carefully debated in the House of Commons, and received the general support of the Party opposite, yet, as regarded the Party who sat on that (the Conservative) side of the House, it was not met with a decided opposition. His noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) moved a Resolution in favour of seeing the whole scheme of the Government before the House consented to pass a portion of it. A similar Motion had been proposed in a former Parliament, and it had received great support; but his noble Friend, last Session, only
  1850
  obtained the support of the Members of that great Party of which he was so distinguished an ornament. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had been one of his noble Friend's supporters, though, as an humble individual, he had not been prepared to go so far as the Government and many of his hon. Friends. But he found himself standing, perhaps, not altogether in a minority of one. [Mr. WAHTON: Hear, hear!] Certainly, his hon. and learned Friend who cheered him took the same course, and he thought there were a few others. Still, there was no doubt that a large proportion of the House, and particularly those who were most entitled to speak upon a question of this kind—namely, those who represented county constituencies—did not altogether oppose the proposals of Her Majesty's Government; and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) as a burgess, and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) as a citizen, could not put in the same claim to be heard on a question which principally affected the county constituencies; and there was no doubt that the county Representatives did give a modified support to the Bill, and seemed to think that the change proposed, perhaps, was, on the whole, beneficial It was found, further, that in "another place" those with whom they were connected by Party ties went even further than the county Members did; and when some of the most influential Members of the Conservative Party expressly gave their consent to the Bill, there could be no longer a doubt that the time had come when there must be a great change in the representation of the country, and that the time had arrived when the question should be settled. It was under these circumstances that the present Session of Parliament assembled. The Bill of Her Majesty's Government had been brought forward last Session, and it had not been decidedly opposed, although there had been a few individuals like himself who had not given support to it, while in "another place" it was met with no opposition, but rather with assent. Therefore, when the House met in October last there was a general feeling that the time had come for the settlement of the question. The question then arose, whether the redistribution scheme which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to

  1851
  submit ought not to be laid before the House before the Franchise Bill was passed. ["Divide!"] The hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) called out "Divide;" but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) ventured to think that he was fully entitled to be heard, seeing that he had risen many times in the course of the debate upon the second reading, and had failed to catch the Speaker's eye until too late to discuss the subject. Not having had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on that occasion, he certainly should not be deterred by the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea, who had his own personal reasons for interrupting him, from expressing them now. When Parliament re-assembled for the Autumn Session, it was quite evident that the question was quite ripe for decision. It was generally admitted on both sides of the House that the extension of the county franchise was virtually conceded, because the proposal had not been opposed except by a few antiquated Tories like himself. That being the case, they had to consider what would be a fair scheme of redistribution under the circumstances in which they were placed. The contention of the Conservative Party was, that they were not justified in introducing a great change in the county franchise until they had before them the whole scheme of Her Majesty's Government with regard to redistribution. On the other hand, the contention of the Party opposite had been during the preceding Session, and also during the Recess, that the House of Commons should give a blank cheque to Her Majesty's Government, binding the House to pass the Franchise Bill on the understanding that, when it came into operation, Her Majesty's Government would condescend to submit their redistribution scheme. By that means they would have handed over the whole power of altering the Constitution of the country to Her Majesty's Government. What was virtually said was this—"Pass the Franchise Bill, then humbly wait until Her Majesty's Government ask you to pass any Redistribution Bill which they may think proper to introduce." That was the suggestion of the Party opposite during last Session; it was the contention of the same hon. Gentlemen when they were engaged in perambulating the country during the
  1852
  Recess; and it was the object for which the Prime Minister went down to Mid Lothian. ["Question!"] Hon. Members cried "Question." Was he stating the Question unfairly? If so, he would be glad to hear the remarks of any hon. Gentleman upon that point. But ho apprehended that he was simply stating the history of the last seven months. If any hon. Member opposite disputed his facts he was prepared to listen to him. These were the circumstances under which Parliament assembled in the early part of the Session. The Franchise Bill was passed by a large majority in the House of Commons and sent to "another place," where it was read a second time. The question then arose, whether the Conservative Party in that Assembly should allow it to pass without knowing what the whole scheme of the Government was?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Question before the House, which is that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, in all cases where an elector is entitled to one vote only, to enable the elector to nominate more than one candidate to whom that vote might, under certain circumstances, be transferred.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was aware that that was the question directly before the House, and he was about to come to that point. But the point ho wished to put before the House, in the first place, was that there was an arrangement entered into between the two political Parties, which arrangement the two Parties were bound to carry out, but which would be materially interfered with if the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) were adopted. That was the point which he was going to allude to presently, and he hoped ho was not out of Order in attempting to illustrate that point. The question he had to consider, as an individual Member of the House, was whether he could support the scheme of his hon. Friend opposite. He had said that under the circumstances to which he had been alluding, an arrangement had been entered into by the Leaders of the two great political Parties, and he had no doubt that in entering into that arrangement the Marquess of Salisbury and his right hon. Friend below

  1853
  him (Sir Stafford Northcote) did the best they could for the interests confided to their charge. As the Leaders of the Conservative Party, they had entered into the arrangement; and that being the case the question now arose whether he (Mr. E. N. Fowler), as a Member of the House, ought to give his vote against the spirit of the arrangement which had been entered into. It might be stated that no Member was bound to vote for every detail in the Bill. That was perfectly true; but, at the same time, if the Amendment now before the House were carried, there could be no question that it would upset the whole scheme contained in the Bill. If his hon. Friend carried his proposal, it would be found that the arrangement, on the faith of which the Franchise Bill was passed, would be upset, the whole scheme of Her Majesty's Government would be thrown into confusion, and the subject of Parliamentary Reform would be left in the condition in which it would have been if Her Majesty's Government had carried the plan they recommended last year. That being the case, he thought that every Member of the House ought to ask himself whether, under such circumstances, he was justified in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend. Had that Motion been brought forward at a time when it could be fairly discussed, and if there had been no other considerations in the way, he might have been glad to give his support to it; but they must bear in mind that the scheme which had been agreed upon by every eminent statesman of both Parties was the scheme submitted by the Government. He (Mr. E. N. Fowler) believed that the question might have been dealt with in a better way. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) asserted that his plan was a much better one. That might be so. He was disposed to think it might have been the better scheme, but that was not the question now before the House. The question was whether his hon. Friend had any possible chance of carrying the proposal he had submitted to the House, seeing that, if carried, it would upset the whole arrangement entered into by Her Majesty's Government and the Leaders of the Conservative Party. Under these circumstances he and other hon. Members sitting on that side of the House had to
  1854
  ask themselves whether they would be justified in upsetting the scheme which had the support of their Leaders, and which met the views of most practical men. The proposal of the Government was that there should be single-Member constituencies, by which means a greater variety of representation would be introduced than that which now existed. He was disposed to believe that the Government scheme went as far as any practical scheme could go even in the direction of carrying out the views of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. He had to thank the House for its indulgence, and he would conclude, as he had begun, by repeating, that as the House were debating the matter with a rope round their necks, they had no course before them but to support the Bill in its present shape. He repeated that it would ill become hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to upset the arrangement which had been made, with very great care, by the Leaders of the Party to which they belonged. Under the circumstances there was no other course open to him than to vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he looked upon the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) as a powerful weapon that could be used against that most vicious of all contrivances, the dividing of Parties at elections. He had therefore worked with his hon. Friend a very great deal during last summer, and he did not now share the arguments which had been adduced against his proposal. But when the proposal came from Her Majesty's Government to deal in a moderate way with the question in the Bill he considered it was entitled to consideration. He had nothing to say in the abstract against the Motion, and felt that in the case of very large constituencies a proportional scheme would be a powerful one for the purpose referred to. The House had before them a counter scheme to that of his hon. Friend, put forward by Her Majesty's Government, and he thought that proposal deserved support; it was, in his opinion, one which deserved the support of the country, and around which both Parties should rally. Having had experience of single-handed constituencies and others, he believed there

  1855
  was a great advantage in having large constituencies, although, on the other hand, they were open to objections. For instance the candidate could not come to the same personal contact with the members of the constituency in the case of those of large size, which was possible in the case of constituencies of more moderate dimensions; and the labour of canvassing them was extremely hard. He believed that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government would have the effect of bringing the candidate into more close personal contact with their constituents, and of reducing expenses. On these grounds he asked the favour of hon. Members and the country to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. EWARTsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had informed them that during the last autumn some negotiations had taken place between the contracting Parties—the Government and the Front Opposition Bench—with regard to this Bill, and on that ground had appealed to hon. Members not to support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. There were few Members of the Conservative Party who respected more than he the authority of their Leaders, yet he felt himself in no way bound by that agreement. He viewed this question from an Irish standpoint, and it was his intention to give his vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He believed that the system which ho proposed was an honest and a fair one, and that it would go far to give a fair and true representation of all classes and of all opinions; and although he was aware that there were some difficulties in the practical working out of the system he could not suppose that they were insurmountable. If hon. Members reflected for a moment they would see the effect of the Government proposal. Let them consider the case of Ireland, for instance; it showed in the most emphatic manner the injustice of the Government measure. There was in Ireland a loyal minority of fully one-third of the population; and yet as the Bill stood, if it became law, that loyal minority would not be able to return more than one-seventh of the representation. Notwithstanding the number of the Loyalists in Ireland, no estimate
  1856
  that he had seen of what their representation would be under the proposal of Her Majesty's Government gave them more than 15 or 16 Members. Could this be just; was it possible that the House of Commons with open eyes could commit such a wrong as he had pointed to as being the effect of the measure now before them? And yet from what they had heard he was afraid that it was useless to try to induce Her Majesty's Government to listen to reason on this subject. However, in the name of the Loyalists of Ireland he protested against a proposal which would, practically annihilate their influence in that House, and should record his vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he should detain the House but a very short time in stating his view upon the present question. He wished to say that, as he was a member of the Proportional Representation Society, he did not intend to follow in the train of other Members who had joined the Society, but meant to vote against it. He was prepared to vote for the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London; but he would advise him not to divide the House upon it now, because he thought his hon. Friend would see that his arguments might be reserved to influence the country at a future time with better effect. In his opinion, there was a great deal to be said in favour of a system of proportional representation beyond what had been advanced in the course of that night's debate. He considered that its adoption would have the effect of entirely preventing the influence of those Associations, Liberal as well as Conservative, who endeavoured so largely to influence the election of Members of Parliament, and leave no choice for the voter except to vote for one of two candidates presented to him, who, probably, did not represent his opinions at all. Having said so much, he would merely add that, from his point of view, he would rather advise his hon. Friend who brought forward the present Motion not t3 divide the House upon it. He did not think he would miss his chance by doing so, but would gain by having had his Motion put so fully before the House.
  MR. GORSTsaid, although he had listened to the various arguments ad-

  1857
  dressed to hon. Members by speakers who had taken part in the latter part of the debate, he thought it extremely unfortunate for the House that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock) had made his speech in support of his present Motion during the dinner-hour, the consequence of which was that very few hon. Members heard the whole of that speech. Since that, however, they had listened to some able speeches delivered by Members of Her Majesty's Government in support of their scheme, and they had also had a very able speech from the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Grey). But most hon. Gentlemen on those Benches were very desirous of hearing the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) on the Motion, who was, no doubt, very anxious to address the House, and to dispose, in his speech, of a great number of the arguments which had been put forward by Her Majesty's Government. He did not think it would be fair, at that hour of the morning (12.30), for the hon. Member for Liskeard to make his speech, because, although hon. Members would most willingly remain in the House to hear him, it would not be possible to have a very full report of his statement, which, he had no doubt, would be looked for and read very carefully throughout the country. He would, therefore, propose that the debate should be adjourned—a course which he did not think the Government could consider unreasonable, because the question before the House was one in which the country was very largely interested; and it was probable that another opportunity of fully discussing it would not present itself during the subsequent progress of the Bill, if the Government obtained a majority, as, no doubt, they would, on the present occasion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gorst.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was sorry that the Government could not agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member opposite. The reason given for the adjournment of the debate was that, although it had lasted a very long time, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had not had an opportunity of addressing the House, and that many hon. Gentlemen had been
  1858
  absent during a large portion of the debate. The debate had already, extended over a period of four hours; and, under the circumstances, as they wished to make progress with, the Bill, ho trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion for Adjournment. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in wishing this question to be fully debated; but he would remind him that the hon. Baronet who introduced the Motion had already informed the House that he should raise the subject again on a future occasion.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKremarked that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had not had an opportunity of speaking.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had heard, with much surprise, the reply made by the right hon. Baronet to the extremely reasonable proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham for the adjournment of the debate. And what were the reasons of the right hon. Baronet for not agreeing to the Motion? He said that the Question before the House had been debated for four hours, and that during that period it had appeared to him to be somewhat slack, the effect of his contention being that, therefore, this question, which had excited so much interest during the Recess, was to be determined in one evening. He had never heard a more audacious proposition. This Bill before the House was the most important measure that had been before the House for years; and how had it been dealt with hitherto? Why, there had been no debate upon it, practically; the House were told by Her Majesty's Government that they would have an ample opportunity of discussing it in all its aspects on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; and now the right hon. Baronet said that this question was to be disposed of—absolutely disposed of—before the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had had an opportunity of stating his views upon it. He was bound to say that his own views upon this subject were in abeyance at the present moment. He was anxious to wait and hear the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard, which, he had no doubt, would be as lucid and full of knowledge as were all his speeches on these questions, and which would enable

  1859
  him, perhaps, to come to a perfectly right conclusion on the subject. An hon. Gentleman had said just now that the view entertained by a great many people was that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill must be considered as a foregone conclusion, because the Leaders on both sides of the House were agreed. He (Mr. Chaplin) protested altogether against that position. This was a matter which affected every Member of that House, and in that capacity ho had nothing whatever to do with any arrangement that might have been entered into between Parties. He said that the question should be threshed out, and in order that it might be threshed out, let the House have an opportunity of hearing the hon. Member for Liskeard to-morrow; for it was impossible that at that late hour it could be properly dealt with. He begged to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that all Her Majesty's Government asked was that the Amendment should be disposed of by the House, after which they would certainly agree to the adjournment of the debate. Hon. Members to-morrow, or at any future time, would be able to raise any questions they desired to raise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it should be remembered that the debate on the present Motion had come on quite unexpectedly. Her Majesty's Government appeared to think that those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in the course of the debate represented the real amount of the interest taken in this question; but that was not a correct view of the position. He himself had come down to the House in a state of complete ignorance as to the debate coming on at all. He understood that his hon. Friend near him was absolutely burning to hear all the arguments on both sides of the question; and he believed that if Her Majesty's Government agreed to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate they would find that more hon. Gentlemen desired to speak upon it than they appeared to think. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board said that at one moment the debate was languishing, and that when the Postmaster General rose to address the House no other Gentleman rose to do so. But he believed
  1860
  that the right hon. Baronet was under a misapprehension on that point, because he (Mr. Balfour) had risen at the time referred to. Ho trusted that, without putting the House to the trouble of a division, the Government would accede to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend for the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I am very anxious to make progress with this Bill; but I am bound to say that it is my opinion, from what we have heard, that Her Majesty's Government will not gain anything by the course they are taking of resisting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Everyone, I think, must be struck with the fact that, with the exception of the hon. Baronet who brought forward the Motion, and one or two other Gentlemen, everyone has told us that, although in favour of the principle from the beginning or in the past, they saw no reason on the present occasion to vote in favour of the proposal. It is not unreasonable to ask how far the supporters of the proposal are prepared to carry that argument? Now, I think, if they have exhausted all the arguments in favour of the proposal, that we should go to the division. I should, in that case, desire to give reasons, not why I object to, but why I cannot approve, the proposal of the hon. Baronet opposite. But if we are to understand that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) is anxious to address the House, I do not think we should be wise in stopping the debate on a question of so much importance.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend had made, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, a very natural suggestion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who had only just come down to the House, had said that he had not received sufficient instruction on the subject. A great number of Members, however, considered that the instruction imparted had been quite sufficient. He was bound to own that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose interest in the progress of the Bill was well known, advanced a very strong argument in favour of adjournment; and in deference to the right hon. Gentleman's wish, and out of respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Court-

  1861
  ney), whose views on the question a large number of Members were anxious to hear, the Government would be only too happy to accede to the desire for an adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was one of those who had had the advantage of hearing the debate which took place during the time the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was absent; and he had been waiting in the House since 11 o'clock on the promise that they were to take a division on the question. He hoped the Government would not attempt to repeat the occurrences of that night. If they did they need not count upon him staying in this public-house till the time when all others were closed by the law—[laughter]—all the respectable public-houses—only to find that the debate was adjourned for the convenience of some particular hon. Gentleman. It would be within the recollection of the House that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) gave the House something like one evening's lecture upon this subject only a few weeks back, and that at the end of it those of them who had previously thought they understood the question were more fogged than ever. They had had quite enough debate upon this very complicated electoral plan—a plan which seemed to be deserted by its friends at every step it attempted to take. He sincerely hoped that the Government would take a division that night. He, for one, would not be persuaded to stay another night on the promise of a division.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTrepudiated the idea put forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Broadhurst), that the cause of proportional representation had been deserted by its friends. As a matter of fact, several hon. Members interested in the question would have been present that night to speak had they had any idea that the subject would have been brought up. He considered the question of vital importance to the country, and hoped to have an opportunity of speaking upon it. He sincerely hoped the Government would adhere to their intention of agreeing to the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.— [BILL 19.]
(Mr. Arthur, Elliot, Mr. Grey, Mr. Stafford, Howard, Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.— [BILL 19.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Hours of polling in counties).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had charge of the Bill, what was the course he proposed to take with regard to it? The Committee would remember that when the second reading of the Bill was discussed in December last there was a very general expression of opinion in favour of the measure, contingent, of course, upon the passing into law of the Franchise Bill, which would so materially increase the number of voters in counties—voters who, being mainly of the working classes, would require to have the hours of poll extended for their convenience. That view was met by the clause which stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—namely, that this Act should not come into operation before the Franchise Act. But there were other matters which were mentioned by more than one speaker, some of which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) himself took the opportunity of bringing under the notice of the House. In the last Session an Act was passed extending the hours of poll in Parliamentary boroughs above a certain size—he thought boroughs containing more than 3,000 electors. Some years ago an Act was passed extending the hours of poll to 8 o'clock in the Metropolitan boroughs, and now a Bill was brought in to extend the hours of poll in counties. This was an important matter, no doubt for the convenience of the electors; but it was a very simple matter of legislation, and it did seem to him an absurdity that such a question as the extension of the hours of poll should require to be embodied in three Acts of Parliament. Even this Bill did not complete the series, because it left outside the operation of the Acts the small borough constituencies which would retain a separate Parliamentary representation

  1863
  under the Parliamentary Election (Redistribution) Bill—that was to say, boroughs containing less than 3,000 voters. What he had now to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—and he assured the right hon. Baronet his suggestion was made with no intention of impeding the progress of the Bill—was that the law should be made uniform. He would now ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeal all previous legislation on the subject; and, on Report, remodel the Bill so as to make the law uniform in all constituencies. It was very desirable there should be a measure dealing with the whole matter in a satisfactory manner. It might also be well to consider a case which had happened under the existing Acts—namely, the case of a polling place at which very few voters polled being kept open for 12 hours to the great inconvenience of all those who were engaged in taking the poll, and with no commensurate convenience to the voters themselves. It was worth considering whether it would not be possible to shorten the hours in those cases in such a way as would not be inconvenient to the working classes. It might be well in some places to open the poll at 10 o'clock in the morning instead of at 8. It might also be well to consider the possibility of making the hours of poll different in winter and summer, making the polling hours long in summer when the labour hours were long, and short in winter when the day's work, at any rate in the country, was practically done by half-past 4. If anything could be done in this way to meet the legitimate convenience of those officials who were engaged in taking the poll, it was very proper it should be done. He did not propose, however, to press the matter; but what he did press was that the law should be made uniform in all constituencies, and comprised in one Act of Parliament.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that when the Speaker left the Chair during the Autumn Sitting of the present Session he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) threw out the suggestion that it would be desirable, on Report, to amend the Bill in the way proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and he was quite disposed to so amend it, subject to one doubt he had in his mind. He said he would take steps to find out during the Recess the opinions of Mem-
  1864
  bers from various parts of the United Kingdom on the subject. He did take those steps. He had quite made up his mind as to the desirability of taking the course suggested with regard to England and Scotland; but he was not yet acquainted with the opinion of Irish Members on the subject. The only Irish Member he had had any communications with on the subject was the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Gentleman only informed him that he would inform him of his views as to what Amendments in the Bill were desirable. The hon. Member had not informed him what those Amendments were; but he had intimated that, so far as he was concerned, there was no objection to the Bill coming on to-night for consideration. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke), therefore, spoke with some doubt as to the Irish opinion on the subject. At the same time, the changes which would have to be made in the Bill were changes which could not be made at the present stage of the Bill, because they were limited in Committee to the scope and title of the Bill. It was a Bill to extend the hours of poll in counties. It was because there were a large number of municipal boroughs in which the hours of poll were not extended by the present Bill or by former Bills the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) suggested that, as regarded England and Scotland, at all events, the law should be made uniform; that whatever the hours were they should be made the same in municipal boroughs, which were not at present covered by the Bill. That change could only be made on Report, because to make it in Committee would have required an Instruction to the Committee. If between this and Report or to-night he should find that the opinions of the Irish Members did not differ from those of the English and Scotch Representatives he should be glad, on Report, to make the change suggested applicable to the Three Kingdoms, and of course it could be made in a single clause. With regard to the second suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he very much doubted whether it was advisable to attempt to close the poll during any portion of the day. At the present time, in the case of school board elections the system of closing the poll during a portion of the day prevailed. It was, how-

  1865
  ever, an optional closing, and it had been found to have its inconveniences. Neither could he accede to the right hon. Baronet's suggestion to open the poll later in the day. Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning was an hour when very heavy polling took place in almost all parts of the country. There were, too, great numbers of what were called suburban voters—not only round London, but round all large towns—who had to go to business early, and who generally voted between 8 and 9 o'clock. Between 8 and 9 o'clock was an hour which suited those voters best; and, therefore, it would be most undesirable that the poll should be closed at that time of the day. If it was determined to close the poll at some portion of the day, between 3 and 4 in the afternoon would be the most convenient time. He, however, was not disposed to make any change in the present arrangement—indeed, he thought it was better to run the risk of a long day's work. The suggestion that the hours of poll should vary according to the time of year was made many years ago. It was embodied in a Bill; but it was rejected, if he remembered rightly, by the House of Lords. He did not think such a proposal would meet with general favour in the country.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had had the opportunity of communicating with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) with reference to the Bill; and the desire of the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the desire of every Irish Member, was that every facility should be afforded, so that every person entitled to the franchise could, if he chose, go to the poll. There was just one matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. Under the Prevention of Crime Act, now in force in Ireland, the police had the power to arrest any person who was out of his house after dark. Now the Irish Representatives were certainly indisposed to give an unquestioning assent to the passing of a measure which lengthened the hours of the poll far beyond the period of daylight, if it were open to any constable to arrest and imprison for the night any person he might meet returning from the poll. What they were anxious to obtain was the insertion of a clause in the Bill to prevent any man being arrested on his way from
  1866
  the polling booth. It seemed to be amusing to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General; but Gentlemen who were connected with the law in England and were in Office in this country did not know what the humble citizen had to bear from the officers of the law in Ireland. Unless the Irish Members were given some reasonable explanation on this subject he should move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman move?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman who seemed to be so amused that it was provided in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill that offences under it should not be tried under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. The hon. and learned Member would, perhaps, remember the little Amendment of his (Mr. Healy's), which was accepted after considerable discussion. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) should be taken into consideration; and an amalgamated Bill—that was to say, a measure dealing with the Metropolis, with boroughs and counties—should be brought in. The general practice of the Government was to bring in a Bill dealing with some county, some town, or some village; and when that had been carried, to bring forward another on the same subject also dealing with a county, town, or village. The Government seemed to be actuated by some little common sense for the first time, and there was some prospect of the three Bills being rolled into one. He wished to call attention to the action of the Clerks at the Table in regard to this Bill. These gentlemen seemed to be omnipotent in the House—to have all kinds of power. How was it? They could hardly be said to be acting directly under the inspiration of Heaven. This Bill was marked on the Paper with an asterisk, and, referring to a corresponding asterisk lower down, he found that Bills so marked were Government Orders of the Day. He turned to the Bill itself, and found that it was brought in by Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Grey, Mr. Stafford Howard, and Mr. Cochran-Patrick. Were these Members of the Treasury Bench? Mr. Cochran-Patrick he believed to be an honest Conservative, and Mr. Grey voted against the

  1867
  Government on the Vote of Censure. It could hardly be said, therefore, that these Gentlemen were Ministerialists. What security had hon. Members that Bills purporting to be Government Bills were really so, when they found that a measure marked with an asterisk was really a private Member's Bill'? He considered that, in this matter, the Clerks at the Table were trifling with the House. It seemed to him to be a great liberty on the part of the Clerks to mark this Bill with an asterisk; and he objected to Bills introduced by private Members being trotted out as Government measures without the House having an opportunity of knowing what the measures really were. Before the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo moved to report Progress, they should have some Amendment promised to test the bona fides of the Government—an Amendment providing that the Prevention of Crime Act was not to apply to what might happen under this Bill. Last Thursday night 14 men were dragged out of their beds in Kerry, and kept all night in gaol, and the greater portion of next day, on a charge of being supposed to have fired into a house. The case against them was really that they had been out after nightfall. The fact was, that a policeman, having shot a bailiff by mistake, arrested 14 innocent persons. When 14 persons could be arrested in this way—in consequence of a policeman having discharged his rifle—he (Mr. Healy) wished to know what security they would have in Ireland that a man going to record his vote after nightfall would not be arrested? The Government would, he thought, be doing a wise thing in accepting an Amendment providing that the Curfew Clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act should not be put in force on a polling-day in Ireland.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to offer an explanation. The Bill appeared as a Government measure under the following circumstances. He had stated publicly in the House—acting on the express wish of Members sitting on both sides—on the last occasion the Bill was under discussion, that it would be taken up by the Government. It was in consequence of that pledge that the measure was now on the Paper as a Government Bill. With regard to the place it occupied on the Paper as an
  1868
  Order of the Day, on Monday night, and on all Government nights in fact, the Government had control of the Business, and could put Bills down in the order they thought proper. As to the asterisk, he knew nothing about it; but it could, no doubt, be explained by the officials. As the Clerks, however, could not answer or speak in the House, any question to them must be put to and answered by Mr. Speaker.
  MR. HEALY: As Mr. Speaker is not in the House, I would ask you, Sir Arthur Otway, to explain this matter. I think an explanation is necessary, for we have reason to look with great suspicion on every act of the gentlemen at the Table, who are becoming every day more and more inclined to encroach on the rights of private Members.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerks at the Table have in this case followed the usual course. When a Bill is taken up by the Government——
  MR. HEALY: How did they know this Bill was taken up the Government?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is usual to mark it in the way indicated—by an asterisk. If this Bill had not become a Government Bill, the Clerks at the Table would not have been able to put it in the position in which it now stands on the Paper. It is because it has become a Government measure that it is marked with an asterisk.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who said he knew nothing about the asterisk, whether he had instructed the Clerks to deal with this as a Government Order of the Day? They had a statement from the Chairman that the Clerks in some way or other knew that this was a Government Bill.
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: I believe the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor) informed the Clerks that this had become a Government Bill, in order that they might make no mistake about it.
  MR. HEALY: Does that account for the asterisk?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is a mere detail. I have nothing whatever to do with it. It became a Government Bill, and, of course, was placed amongst the other Government measures.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not wish to further refer to this mysterious matter

  1869
  of the asterisk. Could not the Government, for the convenience of the Irish Members, allow them a night for the discussion of this Bill? Thinking that such an opportunity should be given, he would now move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet to give the Irish Members a night to debate this subject. This was the first time the Bill had appeared on the Paper, and it must not be forgotten that the House had only been sitting a few days. The Bill should be put off for one or two nights. It would not be unreasonable to ask the Government to put it off until Thursday; at the same time, he did not desire to enter into a wrangle on the subject. The Government were very fond of getting into wrangles—and were also fond of getting out of them. He would ask the Government to postpone the consideration of the measure until Thursday.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Bill had been down on the Paper some days, and ample opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members for the preparation of Amendments.
  MR. HEALY: Will you re-commit the Bill?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: On Report; it could not be done on the Committee stage.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he understood what the right hon. Baronet meant. Suppose they allowed the Bill to pass through Committee now, in order to have Amendments inserted at a later stage, would there be any objection to re-committing the Bill? If they were going to put in the Bill the whole of one Act, and repeal a former Act which consisted of four or five clauses, it was only reasonable that they should re-commit it. The old Act did not deal with Aldermen in Ireland, who were elected in a different manner to Aldermen in England.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not know whether it is competent to recommit the Bill after Report.
  MR. HEALY: Certainly it is. You can do it on third reading if you like.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; for a definite purpose, I know; but I am not sure whether it can be done generally. According to the way in which the hon. Member puts the matter, I understand that he would like to see the Bill in a new form, in order to consider it before moving Amendments. I am not sure that that could be done; but the Committee stage can be disposed of now, and, if it will be convenient to hon. Members, the Report stage can be taken on Friday, and it can then be re-committed.
  MR. HEALY: Will my hon. Friend accept that? I think he might fairly do so.
  MR. SEXTON: I think that course would be satisfactory.
  MR. HEALY: Then we will prepare our Amendments, and put them on the Paper; the Report will be taken on Friday, and then we will re-commit the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Definition).
  Amendment proposed, after the Clause, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Commencement of Act.)
  "This Act shall not come into operation until the end of this present Parliament."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not wish to oppose the clause; but he desired to know whether any provision would be made in this Bill, or in the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, or in the new Registration Bill, dealing with places for counting votes? In Ireland, the place fixed upon was a matter of great importance. It should be central. Where there was a district split up into four divisions, and where railway communication might be defective, what course would be followed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it would be out of Order to deal with that subject in the present Bill. It could be dealt with in the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill.
  MR. HEALY: Will you deal with it there?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have not dealt with it in the Bill as it

  1871
  it before us; but it is quite competent for the hon. Member to move to amend the measure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it would be better if the clause was put in a positive form, and he would move to leave out the word "not," and to substitute for the word "until" the word "at."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "not."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "until."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the word 'at' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
  [Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

  [BILL 64.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. HIBBERT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, expressed a hope that hon. Members would allow that stage to be taken, because he proposed, after it was read a second time, to refer it to a Select Committee. It was merely an enabling Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman had yet made up his mind as to the proportion of Irish Members to be placed upon the Select Committee?
  MR. TOTTENHAMinquired if the Bill was the same as that which was introduced last year?
  MR. HIBBERTreplied that it was practically the same measure. He certainly hoped to be allowed to place a fair proportion of Irish Members upon the Committee.
  MR. KENNYasked if he was to understand that, if the Bill were read a second time, it was intended to refer it to a Hybrid Committee?
  MR. HIBBERT: No.
  MR. KENNYsaid, it was quite necessary that they should have a clear understanding upon that point. There had been an impression that it was intended, not to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but to a Hybrid Committee. Last year there was an arrangement to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and it was understood that at least one-half, or seven or eight Irish Members altogether, should be upon the Committee. He hoped that a similar arrangement would be made now; and there ought, also, to be a further understanding that the Committee should have power to summon witnesses from the various districts affected by the proposals in the Bill. It would be impossible for the Members sitting upon the Committee to understand the local opinions unless persons were brought from the locality to explain the views of the locality. He had himself received a large number of communications, and especially from the town he represented (Ennis), with regard to the probable bearing of the Bill upon the pier of Clarecastle. The history of the pier of Clarecastle was an extraordinary one. It had been in the hands of the Board of Works, who had spent something like £5,000 in repairing it. Each time they repaired it, it broke to pieces, and he believed that result was due to the defective engineering of the Irish Board of Works. As he had said, they had expended £5,000 upon the repairs, and towards that sum they had confiscated £2,000 out of the surplus dues. The pier had now fallen to pieces again, and, owing to the bad engineering of the Board of Works, the river had been so narrowed that vessels passing up and down found it extremely difficult to get inside the pier. Yet the Board of Works now wanted to raise £2,000 for the purpose of repairing the damage which they had thus occasioned. The action of the Board of Works was, in reality, about the most stupid piece of jobbery, with regard to engineering arrangements, which had been perpetrated in Ireland for some time. Owing to the contraction of the river, vessels inside the pier were detained for a considerable time until the state of the tide enabled them to go out; and the consequence was that vessels in perfect readiness to go out were unnecessarily de-

  1873
  layed. Under these circumstances, he considered that it was absolutely essential for the Select Committee to have the views of Irish Gentlemen who were locally interested in these questions. He complained that the Commissioners of the Board of Works in Ireland had too much power under the Bill. In point of fact, the Board of Works might do this, might do that, and might do nothing. The Bill also gave power to transfer various harbours to individuals. Now, he knew the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill objected to the transference of the local harbours to individuals. [Mr. HIBBERT: Hear, hear!] He was quite aware of that; but, with regard to the Port of Kilrush, he believed that a Memorial had been sent up seeking to have that port transferred to certain persons named in the Memorial. What did the Board of Works do? They said that a sum of money had been spent by a local landlord on the pier, and that it was necessary to consider his claims before those of the Trustees, proposed to be appointed, were considered. If that sort of thing were allowed to go on, it would be better to withdraw the Bill. Certainly, if it were passed, there should be a clear understanding that, although powers might be transferred to Local Bodies, whether Trustees or otherwise, yet they certainly would not be transferred to landlords and persons having pecuniary interests in the pier. He hoped there would be a clear understanding upon that point, at any rate. There were many provisions in the Bill with which he quite concurred, and he believed it would have a salutary effect if these local harbours were placed under the control of local gentlemen. That was an object that had long been desired, especially by persons who were connected with the town of Ennis. He was constantly receiving applications from merchants and others, asking him to obtain the establishment of a Harbour Board for the Port of Clarecastle. He was told that Lord Monteagle had put in a claim to have the entire control of the harbour of Foynes. At present a certain class of vessels could not get beyond that point, and it was necessary to transfer the goods they carried and send them up to Limerick by other means. Lord Monteagle was the owner of the soil, and, having spent a certain
  1874
  amount of money, he wished to obtain the sole control of the harbour. If the noble Lord were to have his way, it would be disastrous to the interests of the people of Limerick, who wished to have this harbour, which could only accommodate vessels up to 800 tons, under their own control. It was highly essential to the people of Limerick that they should have control of Foynes Harbour as well as of the river. In point of fact, one was virtually part of the other, and it would be necessary to hear local witnesses, in order to show clearly what the claim of Limerick was to have control of the harbour of Foynes. As Foynes was not part of the City of Limerick, it would be necessary to examine gentlemen belonging to Limerick Harbour before the Select Committee, in order that they might substantiate their claim to have full control of Foynes Harbour. In the main, he agreed with the principle of the Bill, which was to establish local control over local harbours; and if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure would agree to the examination of witnesses from Ireland before the Committee, he would assent to the second reading, and also to the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the harbour of Foynes was one of the most important interests affected by the Bill; and anyone who was acquainted with the town of Limerick knew that the Harbour Board of Limerick was the proper authority to have the management of the harbour of Foynes. Foynes was practically part of the harbour of Limerick, and a comparatively small expenditure of money would enable larger ships to be accommodated. He very much feared that that expenditure would not be under-taken if the harbour were not placed under the control of Limerick, because persons connected with Foynes Harbour would be of opinion that they were acting against their own interests, unless they set up an authority in Foynes which was hostile to, and in rivalry with, that of Limerick. Now, the City Harbour Board of Limerick piloted, vessels up the Shannon from its mouth, and had the sole jurisdiction over the river. Apart from that fact, if it was intended to hand over this important harbour to private individuals, the most natural course was to place it in the

  1875
  hands of the harbour authorities of Limerick, who had always been, up to a recent period, the controlling power. Foynes occupied an important position on the Shannon, and was likely to become, in the near future, a Transatlantic station; but with the appointment of any other Trustees than the Harbour Board of Limerick the harbour of Foynes would never obtain that development to which it was entitled. Limerick, with its great trade and position, would be able to develop the harbour of Foynes into what it was really capable of. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would take a broad view of the matter, and that no great public interest would be allowed to be compromised for the sake of private and individual interests. He had every confidence that a Select Committee, properly constituted, would afford every facility to Limerick for developing the trade of the Shannon; and the harbour authorities of that city ought to be allowed a fair opportunity of stating their case. Ho, therefore, trusted that the Select Committee would have power to hear the evidence of local witnesses.
  MR. O'SHEAremarked, that if the Government consented to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and agreed to allow witnesses to be heard, a very small amount of evidence would, be sufficient. Reference had been made to the Harbour Board of Limerick; and he was certain that that Board would be prepared to send up one or two representative men. With regard to the Port of Kilrush, he also believed that the evidence of one or two individuals would be quite sufficient to satisfy the Committee. It was, however, absolutely necessary to hear their case, because Kilrush was a very important port on the Lower Shannon, and there existed a large amount of dissatisfaction. He trusted that, under the circumstances, the Bill would be read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee, with power to call evidence.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, referring to the composition of the Select Committee, suggested that there should be an arrangement between the Secretary to the Treasury and the Irish Members, by means of which the appointment of a higher proportion of Irish Members upon the Committee would be secured than was usually the case. He added,
  1876
  as a precedent, that in the case of a Committee nominated two years ago, at the instance of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), where the inquiry affected Irish interests of great importance, the Committee was composed almost entirely of Irish Members.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should be quite prepared to nominate upon the Committee a large proportion of Irish Members selected from both sides of the House. In all matters affecting Ireland he thought it was desirable that a large proportion of the Members nominated upon the Select Committee should be drawn from that country. He proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and not to a Hybrid Committee; and he had no objection to give the Committee power to call witnesses. But, in assenting to that proposal, he hoped that hon. Members who served upon the Committee would not be too pressing to have a large number of witnesses called. He did think it desirable to hear witnesses in regard to the piers and harbours affected by the Bill; but ho did not think it would be necessary to call too many. His idea of the provisions of the Bill was that they should be made to serve the interests of the people who were most materially affected by them.
  MR. KENNYasked when the hon. Member proposed to nominate the Committee?
  MR. HIBBERTreplied, that it would be nominated in a day or two, and probably on Thursday.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the House must remember that this was the Bill of last year.
  MR. HIBBERTremarked, that he had not the charge of the Bill last year.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that nevertheless it was a Bill of last year, and ho believed that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), who was now absent, had a strong objection to it, because it would raise the tolls in some of the places situated along the shore of the Shannon. Of course, whenever he found a Bill of this kind brought in in regard to Ireland by Her Majesty's Government ho always regarded it with suspicion, because it was generally introduced with the object of transferring some charge from the Treasury to the people, or for some other scheme of that kind. He understood

  1877
  that the object of the present Bill was to take away the charge and control of the harbour dues from the Board of Works, in whom they were now vested; and he had reason to believe that upon that ground the hon. Member for Limerick entertained a strong objection to the measure. It must be borne in mind that they were proposing to deal with a very poor class of persons who had to pay the dues—poor persons who ran turf along the shore in boats, and who would be called upon to pay 3d. for harbour dues. These persons required to have their interests properly represented; and in the absence of the hon. Member for Limerick no guarantee whatever ought to be given as to the number of witnesses to be called, seeing that it was proposed to place these dues upon the shoulders of the people. If he had had any idea that the Bill was likely to come on, he would have blocked it upon principle. Whenever they found a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of dealing with rates and charges in Ireland, they might be sure that it was a bad Bill, and that it certainly deserved to be blocked until the nature of its provisions were fully explained and clearly understood. The plea that any such Bill could be introduced by the Government from a wish, on their part, to do good to the people of Ireland was simply absurd.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  SALMON WEEKLY CLOSE TIME (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. HEALY: Can the noble Lord state when the Select Committee will be appointed to inquire into this matter?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: It will be appointed as soon as possible.
  MR. SEXTON: I would remind the noble Lord that he gave the same answer a week ago. It is very unsatisfactory to have to wait so long.

  COUNTY COURTS (DIVORCE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES HOWARD, Bill to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts to Divorce suits, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES HOWARD and Mr. BROADHURST.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clook.

MINUTTES
Second Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Pod. (No. 25).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Women's Suffrage* (27).
Second, Reading—Marriages Legalization* (19).

ARMY RESERVE FORCE—THE MILITIA.

  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of, read.
  Messages considered accordingly.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to direct by Proclamation that certain persons who would otherwise be entitled, in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment, to be transferred to the Reserve, shall continue in army service for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to Her Majesty may seem expedient.
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty had thought it necessary to order by Proclamation the embodiment of Militia."—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought the recommendations contained in Her Majesty's Messages were in the right direction; but, in his opinion, the Government had taken an inadequate view of the situation. Even in the ordinary course for the wants of the Empire, our Military Establishments were not in a condition to enable us to discharge our respon-
  1732
  sibilities, and those responsibilities were continually increasing. He repeated, what had been stated on a former occasion, that even if the 140,000 men noted were all efficient soldiers in the ranks, the numbers would be below what was required for the Military Force of the Empire. There appeared to be great inconsistency in the expressions of politicians of the day. There were demands to prevent Islands or Settlements from being taken up by Germany or France, to prevent Russia advancing towards India, each of these Powers having Armies of 500,000 men, or more. The same persons who made these demands, declared in the same breath that they would not add another company to the Army, nor another gunboat to the Navy. How could they reconcile these statements? This was not a time to enter into the details of the operations in which they were now engaged; but at the present moment, where were the reinforcements for Egypt, and, probably, for the Cape of Good Hope, to come from? Where were the reliefs for the Establishments in India? He pressed these matters most earnestly on the attention of Her Majesty's Advisers.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEwished to ask his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) how the men were to be raised to the number now proposed for the battalions and depôts—whether by ordinary recruiting, or the calling out of a certain proportion of the Reserves? In his opinion, the best plan would be to call out a certain proportion of the Reserves. What had been done by the Proclamation? All that was proposed was that men now serving in the active Army should be prevented from going into the "Reserves. He understood that when the General Order came out it would give permission to all Reserve men who chose to volunteer to come back to the Colours. He thought that a most excellent provision, because ho knew that many Reserve men would be glad to come back to the Colours, not being able to find anything to do in the country. No doubt, the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting would describe the recruiting as very satisfactory. This was true, inasmuch, as 36,000 men had been raised. But how about their physique? Let anyone go into the garrisons and judge for

  1733
  themselves, by seeing the number of boys in red coats walking about the streets. But these arrangements were not sufficient. As to the embodiment of the Militia, he was sorry to see that out of 84 regiments only six were to be embodied. Fifteen regiments of the Line now had two battalions abroad; and, according to the recommendations of Colonel Stanley's Committee, in time of war, when this occurred, then both Militia battalions were to be embodied. The least they ought now to embody was 15 regiments of Militia. It was well known that the more Militia they embodied, the more men joined the Line; 40,000 men had been given to the Line during the Crimean War, and 10,000 men were annually given to the Line from the disembodied Militia. Then the want of subalterns would be readily supplied if more Militia Regiments were embodied. He might be told that the regiments to be embodied in the spring might, if necessary, be kept out; but then three months would be lost, and in three months a good deal might be done with a Militia regiment. If the Military Authorities thought these arrangements sufficient, then he had nothing to say. He could not help thinking that the unfortunate war in which this country was engaged would be, more or less, a protracted one, and no doubt there would be great losses from fever and sickness, as well as in killed and wounded. Of 1,500 men in General Buller's Force, 400 were already lost by sickness or killed or wounded in action; therefore, he wished to ask again that his noble Friend would give some information to the House as to how the new troops were to be raised, and he hoped more would be done than had been sketched out in the Proclamation.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the Constitutional Force of the Militia had been neglected in every particular during recent years, and that it was unfortunate that a few battalions of Militia had not been embodied at an earlier date. It was apparent the Government were toadying to other and newer Forces. He urged the desirability of enlisting the territorial regiments in the counties after which they wore named.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, he was glad of the opportunity of making a few observations on the subject introduced by the noble and gallant
  1734
  Earl. The question of the general inadequacy of our Military Establishments was, however, one upon which he was sure the House would not expect him to enter. Reference had been made to the Establishment fixed by next year's Army Estimates, and it would, therefore, be desirable that he should explain the principle upon which they had been framed. They were understood to be normal Estimates allowing for a garrison of five and a-half battalions in Egypt. It was calculated that the usual distribution of troops would involve the absence from this country of both battalions of three territorial regiments only. Now, however, a much larger number of battalions had left this country for service either with Lord Wolseley or under General Graham; and it would, therefore, be necessary to supplement the Estimates to be placed before Parliament by increasing the establishments of the battalions at home, and also for largely increasing the establishments of those regiments having both battalions abroad. That course would be entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee to which the noble Viscount had alluded, as well as those of the Localization Committee of 1872. The Estimates had been framed on the assumption that no large Expedition was to be allowed for, except the garrison in Egypt. No one could deny that there was great force in the observation of the noble and gallant Lord opposite, that they must be prepared to supply deficiencies from casualties that might occur to our Forces in Egypt and the Soudan. In the first place, he might mention that recruiting was going on very rapidly et the present time. In the absence of the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, he would postpone entering into any discussion on recruiting, and would only say that at the present moment, owing partly, no doubt, to the depression of trade, they got a large number of recruits. He had not the exact numbers; but he believed that in the last month 3,300 had enlisted, and they continued to get from 800 to 900 recruits a-week. These young men would make good soldiers, and in the meantime they had asked the Reserve men who desired to do so to come back. He agreed that it was impossible immediately to fill up vacancies caused by casualties in the field, or in regiments

  1735
  serving abroad with recruits. Recourse must be had to the Army Reserve, and he would tell the House exactly what had been done in that respect. In August last a Circular was issued giving permission to some First Class Army Reserve men to return to the Colours. That permission was limited to men who had been transferred to the Reserve before the previous 10 days; they were allowed to re-enlist to complete the full term of their Army service provided that every man taken must have three years' service to complete. The object of those conditions was to obtain men available for drafts abroad. Under that Circular 1,700 had been transferred from the Reserve to the Colours. After the fall of Khartoum, it was decided that this arrangement was not sufficient to meet the case, and accordingly, on the 25th of last month, a second Circular was issued. By that Circular all First Class Army Reserve men were permitted to rejoin the Colours without any limitation being placed upon them as to their having less than three years' service to complete. Certain options were given to them; any man rejoining the Colours from the Reserve had the option of rejoining for the term of his original engagement—that was, such term as was required to make up 12 years' service, or he could join simply during the continuance of the Expedition. Arrangements with regard to deferred pay of considerable importance had been made. Men who joined, and who had received the full amount of deferred pay due to them, would not be called upon to refund it; and on their second discharge would be entitled to deferred pay, not reckoned merely on the number of years they had served the second time, but calculated from the period when they were transferred to the Reserve. A man who rejoined the Colours for a very short time might, therefore, in some cases receive as much as £18 deferred pay. Looking at the present state of trade, and the undesirability of interfering with the Civil life of Reserve men, the Secretary of State for War had, for the present at least, decided not to resort to compulsion, more particularly as he believed that a sufficient number of men to meet the present emergency would come forward voluntarily. The noble Lord who spoke last with respect to the
  1736
  Militia, seemed to think that the Force had been slighted in some way. Nothing could be further from the desire of the Authorities than to cast any slur upon the Militia; on the contrary, they had done everything they could to add prestige to that branch of the Service. It had been brought more closely in connection with the Line battalions, and was now in a satisfactory condition. It had been asked why only six Militia battalions had been I embodied, while 15 territorial regiments had both Line battalions abroad. The reason for selecting the battalions which had been embodied was that in every case these territorial regiments had both battalions abroad. In that matter they were acting entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the Localization Committee. It was true that there were I still some nine territorial regiments in the position of having both their Line battalions abroad; but the Secretary of State, having regard to the actual requirements of home service and garrison duties, had come to the conclusion that such duties could be adequately performed by calling out six Militia battalions only. In a month's time the annual training of the Militia would commence, and if it were necessary to increase the number of Militia battalions it would be more convenient to do so at that time. Meanwhile, the principle would be to select those regiments which had two Line battalions abroad. With regard to General Buller's Force, and the large loss which it had sustained, he thought that the strength of that Force had been understated, and the comparison of the losses to the actual number was not correct. The strength of the Force was nearer 2,500 than 1,500, and when they came to distribute the number of losses they would see that the proportion was not so enormous as had been stated by the noble Lord. With regard to the effective force of the Army, it was considerably higher than it had been at the corresponding period last year. He found that between January 1, 1884, and February 1, 1885, they had gained nearly 9,000 men additional for the Army. That, it must be mentioned, included about 1,700 men who had returned to the ranks from the Reserve. That, he thought, would be very satisfactory to the House. The Establishment in India was

  1737
  always at this period of the year below its strength, it now amounted to 2,500; but taking India and Great Britain together the deficiency was under 1,000. This, however, was not the proper occasion for lengthened discussion, which it would a be more convenient to defer until then-Lordships had the figures before them, which he hoped would be in a few days.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked for some information as to what Lord Wolseley intended to do as regarded the friendly Black troops who had served under General Gordon at Khartoum? He could not but wish to see the English shilling distributed a little more freely among these Black troops, who were of great value on account of their being inured to the heat of the sun. It was most desirable to retain the friendly tribes, and to conciliate the temper of the nation. The young soldiers, of whom the British Forces were so largely composed, dropped like flies under the excessive temperature to which they would be subjected, and no one knew that better than the illustrious Duke at the head of the British Army. He therefore recommended that the services of the friendly tribes should be taken advantage of as much as possible. He also desired to know whether it was not a fact that Lord Wolseley—with his wonderful sagacity—had selected old soldiers for the present campaign, and thus given a contradiction to words which he had utterred with regard to young troops? [Cheers and laughter,"]
  EARL GRANVILLE: Noble Lords cannot, I think, expect me to go in detail into the considerations mentioned; but as to the employment of Black troops with our Forces, I may say that the matter has not escaped the notice of Lord Wolseley. But this is hardly the moment to make one-sided and small attacks on Lord Wolseley, who is now in a responsible situation, nor do I think that those attacks should be received with cheers and laughter on the other side of the House.
  VISCOUNT BURYmaintained that no attack had been made from that side of the House upon Lord Wolseley. The noble Lord who had just spoken was a supporter of the noble Earl. He maintained that the House was justified in making some remarks and inquiries upon the Resolution which had been put before them. In the face of the
  1738
  grave military difficulties which existed, their desire on that side of the House was to do all they could to strengthen the hands of the Government and of Lord Wolseley, and there was certainly no spirit of carping criticism on that side of the House. He thought, however, that in one part of his speech the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War had not been quite clear. As the noble and gallant Viscount had pointed out, a considerable depletion was now taking place in the ranks of the Army. It was true that there was a flow of recruits, but these could not be sent to fill up the ranks abroad, for which purpose seasoned troops were necessary. Where were these seasoned troops to come from? For what reason had so few Militia regiments been embodied? It was in the Militia regiments that they would find seasoned men, and he hardly thought that the reason given by the noble Lord for embodying only six regiments was a very good or sufficient one. Another point on which he would like to ask a question was, what was going to be done with the large number of Militia regiments which had offered their services? Under present circumstances, whether from the depression of trade or other circumstances, a great number of recruits might now be coming on, but the standard of height and of chest measurement had been diminished. He asked, therefore, what was the standard of height and of chest measurement at the present moment? Because they might now be getting a large number of recruits who were not likely to add to the real strength of the Army for a considerable time. He had the other day put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the offers lately made of the service of Colonial levies. He understood his noble Friend to say that the services of those Colonial troops were all accepted, but that, under the circumstances of the case, many of them would not be required until a later period, and, therefore, the immediate acceptance of their services was deferred. His noble Friend also promised that there should be laid on the Table the terms of the proposals and also those of the acceptance. He had been extremely pleased to hear the terms in which that announcement was made. But immediately afterwards they heard

  1739
  from the ordinary channels of information that what had actually occurred was something very different from what the noble Earl had led them to believe. It was that there was only one of those Colonies whose offers had been accepted, and that the rest were informed that their services were declined with thanks at present; but that if the war continued, and they remained of the same mind, and were still willing to give their services, they would be accepted. He should be glad to learn that the noble Earl had been either misreported or misunderstood. He understood from the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army, that the Military Authorities had welcomed those proposals, and would throw no difficulties in the way of their acceptance. He should have thought, therefore, that it would have been better for the Colonial Office to have accepted all the offers made by the Colonies, and then to have said that it depended on military considerations when their services were wanted. That would be a totally different thing from refusing the offers at present, and saying that if the war continued the Colonies would be asked whether they still remained of the same mind. He desired further to know from the noble Earl when he would lay on the Table copies of the Papers which he had promised?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: There is no misunderstanding, my Lords, in what I said the other night. I am at the present moment in consultation with the War Office as to the details of the Colonial Forces that will be accepted, and I am not able to say just now when we can lay Papers on the Table. Before, however, the House is called upon to form its judgment, your Lordships may depend upon it that the whole matter will be before you. With regard to the difference between my statement as reported in the newspapers and what the noble Viscount has said, it may be my want of comprehension, but it appears to me that it is really one of words rather than one of substance. The immediate question to be determined was as to the assistance which the Colonies proposed to offer for the Expedition to Suakin. We accepted the offer of New South Wales on the ground that they undertook to place troops on a certain spot by a particular day. There was not an equal certainty about the offers
  1740
  of the other Colonies. When the noble Lord says we have not accepted the offers of the others, and that we have, in fact, refused them unless the military operations should go on, it is quite clear that he has failed to grasp the point or to realize the meaning of our words. It is clear that if by any happy chance the military operations at Suakin should be shortly ended, there will be no necessity for sending the Colonial troops when those operations have ceased. It is not proposed that the Colonial contingents shall be a permanent addition to the Army. The offers were made in view of certain circumstances that were likely to arise. If those circumstances occur we shall accept them. The Government could only make the acceptance conditional under those circumstances, otherwise there would be nothing for the troops to do.
  VISCOUNT BURYobserved, that in that case the Colonial troops would have no time to get ready. They would be in the position of Her Majesty's Government—namely, they were always too late. If they accepted the services of the Colonial troops now, and told them that in certain contingencies they would be called out, they would be ready in time; but to say that in three or four months their services might be accepted would be too late, and would give them no time to make their preparations.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, they had never stated that their services might be accepted three or four months hence. He would remind the noble Lord that there was such a thing as the electric telegraph, and Australia could be reached in a few hours. At the present moment they were in communication with the War Office on the whole question, to see to what extent they required to avail themselves of those offers of assistance.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that his view of the matter was that which the noble Earl had just stated. What he had said was that all the offers from the Colonies would be accepted if they were required, but that in one case they were absolutely accepted at once. That one particular Colony offered to furnish men to be sent to Suakin at a certain period. The acceptance of the other offers was only delayed until the arrangements were fully considered between the Colonial Office, the War Office, and the Colonies themselves. Therefore,

  1741
  as to the acceptance being delayed for I four months, there was no such idea ever entertained. The arrangements were now being considered, and, in the mean while, the acceptance of the services of I the Colonial troops was absolute in case they should be required. Turning to another point, he felt, from a military point of view, just as strongly as Her Majesty's Government felt the necessity of being prepared with Reserves to fill up vacancies. There was no doubt that amongst the many serious subjects which would have to engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government—and he was speaking now entirely for himself and the Military Authorities—there was none more serious than that of keeping up the Army and the efficiency of the troops actually engaged in the war, and he could not for one moment suppose that this subject would not continue to receive from day to day their serious consideration. How that could best be done was a matter which would require much thought. He quite concurred that, under the reorganization system, it was arranged that whenever the two battalions of a Line regiment were abroad a Militia battalion would be called out. He should like that to be absolutely settled. It had not been settled; but he thought it should be a corollary of the system, and that it would have to be accepted now or at a future period. The necessity of a certain number of Militia battalions being now embodied had arisen in order to do ordinary garrison duty, which pressed rather severely on the regular troops, because so many of them were abroad. The Under Secretary for War had rightly stated that we had very good recruiting; but the House would agree with him that recruits were not the men to send out upon such operations as those on which we were now engaged. With regard to the Reserves, the calling out of a large number of the Reserve must seriously affect, not only the men themselves, but the employers of labour, and therefore it must be done with great delicacy. Under these circumstances, as long as it was possible to get the men of the Reserve to come forward voluntarily, it was infinitely better to invite them to do so than to call them out in large numbers. They must, however, be prepared, when the season opened for the troops again to take the field, with men to join the Colours of the regiments in
  1742
  the Soudan. And if they had not a sufficient number of men well qualified for service, then it would be necessary to call out the Reserves. Her Majesty's Government, he believed, were perfectly alive to the necessity of being prepared with Reserves.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he was glad that the Government had decided, in the first instance, to see whether a sufficient number of the Reserve would join voluntarily before calling them out. Their Lordships must remember that it was a very serious thing to call men away from their employment to make up the Reserve, and he therefore hoped that a sufficient number would join voluntarily, in order to prevent the necessity of interference with trade and employment which would ensue from calling out a large number of men. He regretted that the Government had not found it possible to look in the face the question of increasing the Establishment of the Army, instead of on every occasion having recourse to the Reserve. It was satisfactory that 30,000 or 40,000 recruits could be secured during the course of the year; but what was the meaning of that? It meant that we should probably have, roughly speaking, 50,000 men on our Home Establishment under two years' service, and that under an Establishment which if complete and composed of seasoned soldiers would hardly be considered as sufficient for the needs of the Empire. They ought to look on recruits of one year's standing as simply boys at school, and as not being on the Establishment of the Army at all. Until they faced that question, and endeavoured to keep in the regiments a sufficient body of seasoned soldiers, he felt confident that the Army would never be in that position in which he was sure the Military Authorities desired to see it.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had been asked what was the number of battalions of Militia to be called out. The Authorities had had an enormous number of applications, not only from Militia regiments, but from other corps in this country volunteering their service. Those offers evinced great zeal and a spirit of great self-sacrifice; but they were so numerous that it was absolutely necessary to make a selection, and the selection was in the first place made by calling out the Militia bat-

  1743
  talions of those territorial regiments which had their lines abroad. He had also been asked as to the source from which they proposed to draw in leaving men in Egypt and elsewhere. The illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief had indicated the source; and he hoped the men required would be largely obtained from men who had volunteered from the Army Reserve. He admitted that it would be wrong to send out on active service to the Soudan extremely young men; but a large number of men who enlisted last year would in the course of the autumn be growing up into soldiers, and it was hoped that many of them would be capable of taking their places in the ranks. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to the recommendations of the Committee, and said there were certain alternative plans to be brought into operations when two Line battalions of a regiment left this country. He would not refer to the subject in detail; but he would inform the noble Lord that it was in contemplation, and that Supplementary Estimates would be presented to Parliament to make provision for increasing-very considerably the size of the other depots from what they were at present.
  Resolutions agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Addresses be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NAVY (SHIPS)—THE RETURN.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the return relative to the Navy (Ships), laid upon the Table in dummy on December 6 last and ordered to be printed, has not yet been circulated?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, that the Return contained nothing new, but was merely a description of the ships laid down in the last four years. It was in print, and would be circulated almost immediately.

FRANCE AND BURMAH—THE TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether authentic intelligence has reached them of a Treaty having been
  1744
  formed between France and Burmah, in consequence of which considerable concessions of territory will be made to the former Power? and to move for Papers. Ho reminded their Lordships that there was a very important trade formerly carried on and passed through Upper Burmah by the mouths of the river Irrawaddy and the other rivers of the British Possessions. In consequence, however, of the disturbances which had taken place, this trade had much decreased of late years, and at the present moment had almost disappeared. The absence of this trade had greatly affected the prosperity of the British Provinces, inhabited by a most hardy body of men, possessing great physical power, and capable of making excellent soldiers. About nine years ago, in consequence of the conduct of the present King of Burmah, we were forced to declare war against him, and since that time he had been guilty of farther atrocities, which had rendered it impossible for us to resume political relations with him. His misgovernment had also given rise to intervention by other Powers, and at the present moment large bodies of Chinese were occupying the frontier town of Bhamo, which was situated on the Irrawaddy. If the present misgovernment of Burmah were to continue, it might be possible that France would consider it necessary to occupy a portion of the Burmese territory. Our relations with Burmah had been for many years past of a friendly character, and the natural protector of the peaceful population of that country was Great Britain, and not France. It was necessary for the prestige of India that we should exercise our influence over Burmah.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Authentic information has reached Her Majesty's Government of the signature of a Convention between France and Burmah supplementary to one concluded in 1873, but up to this time not put in force. The recent Convention appears to be of a purely commercial character. Reports have reached Her Majesty's Government to the effect that concessions of territory have been made by Burmah to France; but they are entirely inconsistent with positive assurances which have been given by the French Government to Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris, and are therefore not credited by Her Majesty's Government. A Copy of the

  1745
  Convention will be laid on the Table as soon as its ratification shall have been reported.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked if there was any intention to resume diplomatic relations with Burmah?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked for Notice of the Question.

NAVY—NAVAL DISCIPLINE—SENTENCES OF PENAL SERVITUDE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will inform the House of the course he has taken with regard to seamen who have incurred sentences of penal servitude for breaches of naval discipline, and also to prevent association with criminals in civil gaols of sailors sent there for breaches of discipline?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, that arrangements had been made by the Board of Admiralty with the Home Secretary that sailors who had been sentenced to penal servitude for breaches of discipline should, on release, be released absolutely as the supervision necessary in ordinary cases was not required in the case of naval prisoners. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord that it was most undesirable that sailors who had been convicted of offences against discipline should be mixed up with ordinary criminals, and he was able to state that the Home Office had offered to hand over to the Admiralty a portion of the gaol accommodation, and naval prisoners would, therefore, be imprisoned separately. He was happy to say that there had been a marked diminution of late in the number of cases of sailors striking their officers, and, in consequence of this, there would be less penal servitude.

INDIA—THE WATER ASSESSMENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay on the Table the despatch of the Governor of Bombay on the assessment of subsoil water, and the reply to it of the Secretary of State?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that there would be no objection to the production of the documents referred to.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL, [H.L.]
  A Bill intituled "An Act for extending the right of voting at parliamentary elections to women"—Was presented by The Lord DENMAN; read 1". (No. 27.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.