Sitting of 18 May 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£3,360,500, on Account, CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Princess Beatrice's Annuity. Ordered—First Reading—Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) [184].
Committee—Metropolis Management Acts Amendment [138] [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Honorary Freedom of Boroughs [153].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 4)٭ [116], and passed.
Withdrawn—Redistribution of Seats٭ [16].

QUESTIONS.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (IRELAND)—NEWTOWNBARRY BRIDGE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (for Mr. SMALL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a presentment in the barony of Scarawalsh, and county of Wexford, for making a footpath over Newtownbarry Bridge at an expense of £85 was brought forward at the November Presentment Sessions and afterwards passed finally at March Assizes, although, as
  700
  the amount exceeded £50, it ought to have been sent back to the next Presentment Sessions following March Assizes, to be approved or disapproved before being finally passed, according to the provisions of the 6th and 7th William IV. c. 116, s. 27; and, what steps will be taken to rectify this illegal action?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The statements of fact of this Question are, I am informed, correct. A question was raised before the Grand Jury whether the work in question was a new bridge, in which case it should have been referred back under the 27th section of the Act, or an addition to or improvement of an existing bridge, in which case the 27th section would not apply, and the Grand Jury appear to have adopted the latter view. I am advised that it is not necessary that any steps should be taken in respect of the action of the Grand Jury.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURTS—FAIR RENTS—CASE OF—SHORTAL.
  MR. MARUMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of one Shortal, a tenant, who applied to the Land Commission Court, on circuit in Kilkenny, upon the 28th ultimo, to have a fair rent fixed, in ordinary course; whether the landlord resisted the application, on the ground that the tenant succeeded his father, in 1877, in occupation, but that no letters of administration had been taken out by the applicant; that, after the father's death, receipts were given to the representatives (in the plural) of Shortal, deceased; that the tenant now applied to the legal Assistant Commissioner to be appointed special limited administrator, under sections fourteen and three of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881;" whether the legal Assistant Commissioner refused the application upon the ground, amongst others, that the Treasury has issued a Minute requesting the Land Commission Bench not to grant such limited administrations; whether such is the fact; and, if so, will the Government lay a Copy of such alleged Minute upon the Table of the House; whether the difference of assessment of Stamp Duty is the main or only reason of the issue of the alleged Minute; and, whether the Treasury will be prepared to modify the

  701
  the terms of the Minute, if issued, so as not to impair the beneficial operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, especially in regard to small tenancies and poor class of tenants?
  MR. HIBBERT: I have made inquiry into this case, and it appears that Shortal's complaint rests on a misapprehension. No such rule has been made by the Treasury. The sections of the Land Act quoted do not apply to this case; and the application was not dismissed by the Sub-Commissioner, but only adjourned. This is not a small holding, but one for which administration clearly ought to be taken out. I must not be supposed to express any opinion on the merits of the case as between landlord and tenant.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE—THE INSTRUCTIONS TO INSPECTORS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he can now lay upon the Table of the House the "Instructions" to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools with reference to the interpretation which they are required to place on the New Code, and to the manner in which they are required to carry out its provisions?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The reports of the various conferences of Her Majesty's Inspectors are at present under consideration; and I expect that the instructions which are based thereon as to the New Code will be ready in a few days.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE EDUCATION OF THE BLIND, DEAF, AND DUMB—INQUIRY BY ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. ACKERSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Government will grant an inquiry into the education and condition of the deaf in the United Kingdom and Dependencies by means of a Royal Commission, or otherwise?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The question of an inquiry into the education of the blind, deaf, and dumb is now under the consideration of the Government; and I expect that a decision will shortly be arrived at.

  THE WESTERN PACIFIC—THE ANGLOGERMAN COMMISSION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will inform the House if the Anglo-German Commission which lately sat in London for the purpose of considering certain questions connected with the administration of affairs in the Western Pacific has terminated its labours; whether he can state what recommendations the Commissioners have made, especially with regard to trade and navigation, to the labour traffic, and to the question of supplying arms, ammunition, and spirituous liquors to the natives; and, what prospect there is of the Governments of Great Britain and Germany arriving at a common understanding on these subjects?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Anglo-German Commissioners, who have been lately considering this subject, have reported their recommendations to their respective Governments. They have recommended, besides a delimitation of the special spheres of influence of the two Governments, that they shall mutually grant perfect freedom and equality of trade, navigation, and domicile. With regard to the labour traffic, they recommend that Germany should pass laws for the regulation of recruitment similar to those already passed by the British Legislature, both Imperial and Colonial, and which they pronounce sufficient to provide all necessary securities, if they are only properly enforced—in short, they consider that the labour trade should be regulated by an uniform rather than by a common control by the two Governments. As to the sale of arms and intoxicating liquors, they agree that in all places under the control of their respective Governments the gift or sale to Natives of these things should be strictly prohibited. They further recommend, with reference to islands not yet under the control of any European Power, that German and British subjects should be prohibited from carrying thither arms or alcoholic liquors, and they suggest that the other Naval Powers should be invited to adopt a similar course of action with respect to their subjects. With regard to the last Question, I think I may say that, as far as the Governments of Great Britain

  703
  and Germany are concerned, there is every prospect of a common understanding being arrived at on the matters discussed between them.
  MR. GORSTasked, whether Papers were being prepared and would be laid upon the Table?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, Papers were being prepared; but he could not say when they would be laid on the Table.
  MR. GORSTsaid, if they were not produced before it was proposed to take the Vote on this subject, he should oppose it.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he should press on the Papers as well as he could.

  SPAIN—FAILURE OF THE COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will, in the course of the present commercial arrangements with Spain, provide that relief shall be afforded to British exporters in regard to the intricate regulations of the Spanish Customs, which require certificates of origin on all invoices from this country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am well aware of the importance of the subject to which the hon. Member has adverted, and can assure the House that at the proper time it shall receive due attention. I regret, however, to have to state that the commercial negotiations with Spain have come to an unsatisfactory termination. The Spanish Government delayed the presentation to the Cortes of the Declaration of December 21, 1884, which delay prevented the subsequent negotiations intended to remedy the treatment of Yorkshire woollen goods in the Spanish tariff, which is of an especially unfavourable character. They have now further declined to be bound by the engagements recorded in the Declaration in regard to three important matters—(1) to the inclusion of the Colonies of the two Powers; (2) the duration of the intended arrangement, which they seek to terminate in two years' time; and (3) the subsequent negotiations for the conclusion of a definitive Treaty. The ground alleged in support of this contention is that only the portions of the Declaration recorded in the law which has recently passed the Cortes are binding between the two Governments.
  704
  This law only includes the clause relating to most favoured nation treatment in the Peninsula and the United Kingdom, and is subject to the general provision of the Spanish tariff that a Declaration similar to that signed last December will not confer the benefits of the further reductions which are to be made in 1887. Parliament would, therefore, not be asked to make the alteration in the Wine Duties in the United Kingdom proposed in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill in return for an engagement of an incomplete nature and of short duration, which will leave British trade, after a brief interval, again subject to differential treatment. Her Majesty's Government could only look upon this refusal to fulfil fundamental conditions of the Declaration of December 21, 1884, as the breaking off by the Spanish Government of the present negotiations; and Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid has accordingly been instructed to inform the Spanish Government that the negotiations are at an end. Papers are in preparation, and will be distributed during the Whitsuntide Recess.
  MR. BOURKE: Could the noble Lord state what is the position at the present moment with respect to the Most Favoured Nation Clause as regards British goods going to Spain and Spanish goods coming here?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The object of the Declaration which is in the hands of hon. Members is to obtain the admission into Spain of British goods upon an equal footing with those of other Powers. Spanish goods are now admitted into this country on the same terms as those of other Powers, in keeping with the general commercial policy of this country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to ask whether this breakdown of the negotiations will make any difference in the financial proposals of the Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a Question which ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will put it to-morrow.

  IRELAND—SALE OF OYSTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is contrary to Law to sell oysters in Ireland

  705
  during the close fishing season, provided the oysters are imported into Ireland from England or abroad; and, whether the close fishing season is different in England and Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): There is a difference in the close season for oysters in England and Ireland. It would, I think, be very inconvenient to give a legal opinion on an abstract question which may hereafter affect before a legal tribunal some particular case in which it may be sought to enforce a penalty.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS COMMITTEE—SIR JAMES DOUGLASS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Sir James Douglass only received £500 in cash and no shares from the Company who acquired his patent rights in lighthouse burners; whether the Memorandum and Articles of Association of that Company distinctly provide for payment to him of £5,000 in cash and £25,000 in paid-up shares; whether the fact that Sir James Douglass being connected with this Company, while at the same time he held the position of engineer-in-chief to the Trinity House, was the main cause of Dr. Tyndall's withdrawal from the Illuminants Committee; whether, with regard to the Right honourable gentleman's statement that there is no restriction on lighthouse authorities in the purchase of these burners, the House is to understand that the Irish lighthouse authorities are at liberty to procure tenders from any other manufacturers besides the three English firms referred to; and, with respect to the three firms licensed to make these burners, what experience beyond that of other first-class lamp manufacturers have they had, and how many of these particular burners have each of them supplied to the lighthouse authorities?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, ho had again communicated with the Trinity House on this subject, and received a reply to the following effect:—
  "Sir James Douglass received only £500 in cash and shares in the Company. Under the agreement of the original Company the payments mentioned were specified, but as the Company had been wound up that arrangement was dropped. Under the articles of the
  706
  new Company, the benefits and interests of the patentee had been considerably modified."
  The agreement was open to the inspection of the hon. and gallant Member if he pleased. On the 6th of November last, in reply to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), ho stated that the Papers on this subject contained all the information in his possession regarding the withdrawal of Dr. Tyndall. No restriction had been placed on the Lighthouse Authorities beyond a power of veto. No objection had been raised to the employment of any respectable firm competent to execute the work; but the Elder Brethren knew of no respectable lamp manufacturers besides the three firms, who had any experience whatever in the manufacture of these burners.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that Wigham and Co., of Dublin, are not competent to manufacture them?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have told the hon. and gallant Member already that I know nothing of this matter personally; but I have made inquiries of the Elder Brethren. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to ask another Question he must put it on the Paper.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPPAWHITE PRESENTMENT SESSIONS.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the presentment sessions advertised to be held on the 30th April at Cappa white for the barony of Upper Kilnemanagh, county Tipperary, fell through in consequence of the non-attendance of magistrates, although the required number of associated cess payers were present; whether, if no sessions be held in the barony before the next assizes, DO presentment for that barony can be fiated, although there are upwards of 200 road contractors and others who, having completed their contracts, await payment at next assizes, but who will not receive their moneys on account of the noncompliance with the provisions of 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 116; and, whether it is intended to apply any remedj^ to this state of things by enabling the cess payers to proceed with the business without magistrates if the latter do not choose to attend, especially in view of the fact that

  707
  some of the magistrates are frequently not payers of cess?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph of the Question. There is no power in the Government to direct the holding of a special Sessions. I shall ask to be advised as to what steps, if any, can be taken to remedy any public in conveinence that may occur.

  ARTIZANS AND LABOURERS DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT—THE LEITH IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many years the Leith Improvement Scheme, in respect of which that burgh obtained from the Treasury a loan of £100,000, under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Act, has been in operation, and how many artizans' and labourers' dwellings have been erected or commenced under it; and, whether he has sanctioned any alteration of the plans or curtailment of the space originally proposed to be laid out as sites for working class dwellings; and, if not, whether it is true that a portion of that space has been sold for the erection of a distillery, and another portion offered as a site for a theatre?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: The Leith Improvement Scheme was sanctioned by Parliament in 1880. I am informed that the Local Authority obtained possession of the ground—about eight acres in extent—in May, 1883, and that three tenements of four storeys each capable of being formed into dwelling-houses suitable for artizans and labourers are in course of erection, and that one of them is ready for occupation. The Provisional Order contains the following declaration:—
  "The buildings on the lands constituting the improvement areas, when the same shall have teen acquired, shall be taken down and removed gradually, new houses for the accommodation of the population of the working class now occuping these areas being built simultaneously with the taking down and removing of the existing buildings;"
  and no alteration of the scheme has been sanctioned by the Home Secretary. A small portion of the ground, stated to be unsuitable for dwelling-houses has been sold for the extension of a distil-
  708
  lery. No portion has been offered as a site for a theatre; but an offer to take part for that purpose has been refused. In the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in Scotland, which will be published this week, will be found a detailed account of the proceedings at Leith in this matter given by the conjunct Town Clerk of the burgh.
  MR. A. GRANT: In connection with this question, may I ask if it is not the case that the £100,000 borrowed by the Local Authority of Leith was borrowed for the acquisition of the old property only, and whether all this old property has been acquired?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): My hon. Friend refers to details, which will be found in the Be-port of the evidence to be published in a few days.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE CAMEL CORPS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can now inform the House when the Cavalry portions of the Camel Corps in the Upper Nile force can be permitted to rejoin their regiments, or go as Cavalry elsewhere?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The order in which the troops will be moved down the Nile and the time when they can be sent home must depend upon local considerations, the decision as to which must rest with the General Officer commanding on the spot. I have no doubt, however, that the Camel Corps will be among the troops sent home earliest.

  NATIONAL DEBT BILL—SUSPENSION OF THE SINKING FUND.
  LORD GROEGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the National Debt Bill accurately states his proposals to meet the excess of expenditure over income of the financial year 1885–6, by applying towards its discharge the Sinking Fund of the National Debt for the forthcoming year 1886–7; and, whether there is any modern precedent of a Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing in his Budget Statement to meet a deficiency on the current year by the appropriation through an Act of Parliament of the funds of the proximate financial year?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: The proposals of the National Debt Bill as introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are accurately stated in the Question of the noble Lord. In reply to the second part of the Question, if the noble Lord will refer to the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, proposed to Parliament in the first Session of 1880, he will find a very notable instance of a large deficiency being met by the appropriation through an Act of Parliament of funds belonging not only to one but to several future years. This, I believe, is the most modern precedent.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. My Question is, Whether there is any precedent for a Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing in his Budget Statement to meet a deficiency on the current year by the appropriation through an Act of Parliament of the funds of the proximate financial year? If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Financial Statement of 1880–1 he will find that there was no deficiency in the current year, and that it was not proposed to appropriate any funds of a proximate year. It was merely in reference to deficiencies in the past year that these alterations were made.
  MR. HIBBERT: I am informed, and I believe it is the case, that the precedent to which I have referred is one of a similar character to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the fact that on that occasion legislation provided also Ways and Moans to meet the accruing deficiency?
  MR. HIBBERT: On that matter I have made no inquiries.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Then I will repeat the Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL—THE STAFF—APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR GENERAL.
  BARON HENEY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the appointment of Director of Greenwich Hospital, announced in the newspapers, is a new office; if so, will ho state the emoluments thereof, and whether the same will be chargeable to
  710
  Greenwich Hospital Funds; whether there will be any increased charge on those funds consequent on such appointment and the retirement of any officer at present holding the same or an equivalent appointment; and, whether the arrangements connected with these funds are under the control of the Treasury, and the accounts subjected to the supervision of the Exchequer and Audit Office?
  MR. CAINE(who replied) said: Yes; the appointment of Director of Greenwich Hospital is a new office, the emoluments thereof consisting of a salary of £1,000 a-year, chargeable to Greenwich Hospital Funds. The office and the salary are fixed under the recommendations of a recent Departmental Committee. There will be no permanent increase in the cost of management; but, on the contrary, considerable reduction will be effected. Mr. Loveless, who has hitherto held the office of Superintendent of the Greenwich Hospital branch in the Admiralty, has been retired. He has been granted the ordinary pension to which he is entitled in respect of the length of his service, with the same gratuity as was sanctioned be Parliament and the Treasury for clerks of his class who were retired in 1878 and 1879. We have thought it right to recognize by a grant of £300 the special claim which Mr. Loveless has as an officer on the old establishment of Greenwich Hospital, of which he is the last. Mr. Loveless has rendered 40 years of excellent service to Greenwich Hospital, and has been identified with all the important reforms in the management of the charity during this period. The management of Greenwich Hospital Funds is by Act of Parliament vested in the Admiralty, and is not under the control of the Treasury. The accounts are audited by the Exchequer and Audit Department in the same manner as all other Admiralty accounts. I may add that the whole cost of the management of this important Charity is only 21 per cent of its revenues.

  SPAIN—THE BARQUE "MARY MARK."
  MR. HENDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any progress has been made in obtaining a settlement with the Spanish Government of the claim of the owners of the barque Mary Mark, which was run into whilst at anchor by the

  711
  Spanish ram Don Gorge Juan near Belize in July 1883?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This case has repeatedly been brought to the notice of the Spanish Government, but as yet no answer has been received, and on the 7th instant Her Majesty's Minister was instructed to address to them a strong representation, pointing out the necessity for definite action and requesting that if necessary the authorities in Cuba should be communicated with by telegraph.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROSECUTION OF MR. DANIEL RYAN, OF DOON, CO. LIMERICK, FOR RE-ENTRY AFTER EVICTION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Mr. Daniel Ryan, of Doon, county Limerick, and his wife have been prosecuted under the Crimes Act; is it the fact that Mr. Ryan's mother, Mrs. Mary Ryan, an old woman of ninety years of age, was on 16th April evicted from her farm at Carrigbeg, on the property of Major Hare; was she carried out on a pallet, in a dying condition, by emergency bailiffs, after she had just received the last sacrament from the Rev. Patrick O'Donnell, and cast on the roadside, in a bitter wind, despite the entreaties and protest of the clergyman; did the dispensary medical officer of the district, who visited her shortly after the evition, certify that she was unfit to be removed to hospital, and order a nurse to be provided for her; did the relieving officer, finding her in danger of death, order her removal to the adjoining house, and, acting on the recommendation of the doctor, appoint her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Daniel Ryan, to act as nurse; was the nurse so appointed, with her husband, prosecuted under the Crimes Act on a charge of forcible entry, for remaining in attendance upon the dying woman; at whose instance was the prosecution instituted, and what has been the result; and, will any steps be taken to prevent the Crimes Act from being put to such uses?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Daniel Ryan, with his wife and mother, was evicted from his holding on the 16th of April for non-payment of five years' rent. The old woman was in a
  712
  delicate, but not a dying, state. She is, I believe, still alive. On the next day they were found to be again in possession of the house in circumstances which led to the conclusion that re-entry had been forcibly effected. It is not the case that they were there in consequence of the orders of the relieving officer, who, as well as the doctor, did not appear on the scene until after they had re-entered the house. On the fact of the re-entry being reported to the Divisional Magistrate, he, without being aware of all the circumstances of the eviction, came to the conclusion that an offence was disclosed, and directed that Ryan, who had already been informed of the illegality of his action, should again be warned of the consequences of his remaining in the house. This was done, but Ryan still refused to quit. He and his wife were then prosecuted, with the result that the magistrates appeared to have considered that there was no proof to show by whom the forcible re-entry had been committed, and dismissed the case. I am advised, however, that there was primâ facie evidence of the Ryans having forced open the house; but, at the same time, with the full circumstances of the eviction before them, I am inclined to think that the magistrates could not have come to any other decision than the one they arrived at, and that if the Divisional Magistrate had been fully aware of these circumstances he would not have ordered the prosecution. At the same time any hardship which may have attended the case is due not to the administration of the Crimes Act, but to the exercise by the landlord of his right to evict. So far as the Crimes Act is concerned, the prosecution resulted in the acquittal of the accused for an offence which, under the ordinary law, would have rendered them liable to have been indicted for a misdemeanour.

  CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN—ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE AMEER.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is intended to confirm by Treaty the arrangements recently concluded with the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, whether he will in due time lay a Copy of the Treaty upon the Table of the House; and, if not, whether he can state in what manner the arrangenents will be made clear, permanent, and binding?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that there has been no proposal to enter into a Treaty with the Ameer.

  EXCISE—RESTRICTION'S ON THE SCOTCH AND IRISH SPIRIT TRADE.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take early stops to remove the serious restraint on trade, affecting Irish and Scotch spirit merchants, which precludes them from selling spirits in quantities less than two gallons, not to be consumed on the premises, whilst no such trading disability is laid upon English spirit merchants?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: I admit that the anomalies in our system of licences are considerable, but they must be treated as a whole, and I fear it would be impossible to undertake their readjustment in the present Session.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACTS—DUTIES OF THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether any deputies or assistants appointed by the collector general of rates in Dublin or by any other official in Ireland charged with duties under the Franchise and Registration Acts to aid in the discharge of those duties will be liable to the penalties provided by law for disregard or neglect of duty, or will this liability in regard to acts omitted or done by any such deputy or assistant devolve upon the person for whom he acts and by whom he is appointed?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I think the collectors of the Collector General in Dublin, who have a status under the Act of 1849, are officials who would be liable for a neglect of duty under the Franchise Act, so, in my opinion, will all rate collectors. As regards other deputies and assistants, I should not like to give an opinion without knowing the circumstances of each case.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE CANADIAN VOYAGEURS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is
  714
  aware that much annoyance has been caused in Canada by a statement which appeared in the newspaper Truth of April 10th, page 608, in reference to the Canadian voyageurs who were sent with the River Nile expedition, in which they are spoken of as a "disreputable gang" of whom only 25 percent, were efficient the rest being "a nondescript rabble of the loafer class;" and, whether he is in possession of any official reports which confirm or disprove the above allegations?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the best reply I can make to this Question is to lay upon the Table—as I will do this evening—the copy of a letter from Lord Wolseley which, by that Officer's request, I have forwarded to the Colonial Office for transmission to the Governor General of Canada. In that letter it will be seen that Lord Wolseley expresses in the highest terms his appreciation of the valuable aid which the Nile Expedition has received from the Canadian voyageurs.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANTSTAN—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the exact terms in which the agreement of the 17th of March was communicated by Her Majesty's Government to Sir Peter Lumsden?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The information which the hon. Member asks for will be found in the Papers which were distributed on Saturday (.Central Asia, Part 2, No. 236,page 174).

  SOUTH AFRICA—ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there will be any opportunity of discussing the recent annexation to the British dominions of a great territory in the far interior of South Africa, extending up to the 22nd degree of south latitude, and as large as the present Cape Colony or as the United Kingdom, and of eliciting the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to South African affairs? He also wished to know whether there was any truth in the statement ill The Times of that morning to the following effect:—

  715
  "Sechele's reception of Sir Charles Warren's announcement of an Imperial Protectorate was somewhat equivocal. He said,—' When we see what benefits Mankoroane and Montsioa get, we will consider the question; till then go and do what you came to do.' He distinguished the Queen's Government from Mr. Upington's. Sir Charles Warren intended to return, but hearing that Metahele was on the warpath against Khama he decided to proceed against that Chief?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will not attempt to make any answer to the addition to the Question. We have heard nothing on the subject. But with regard to the Question on the Paper, there is an error in describing what took place as a "recent annexation to the British dominions." There has been no such annexation to the British Dominions; but I believe that protection has been given to a large distressed district. As regards the ultimate condition of that district, it is not possible at present to give any precise information, because it is necessary, in the first place, that Sir Charles Warren should definitely give his opinion upon the subject, and, in the second place, that those views should be considered by the High Commissioner. When we are in possession of all the information, it will be our duty to consider the question.
  In reply to a further Question from Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the Protectorate referred to was a conditional one.

  GENERAL GORDON—FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENTS.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called, to the following statements in Despatches of the late General Gordon:—
  April 26th. "Issued hank notes to amount of £2,500, redeemable in six months;"
  July 30th. "Not one pound of the money you sent me got here. We want £200,000 sent to Kassala. The expenses of the garrisons must he met. Khartoum costs £500 per diem. … We have issued paper notes to amount of £26,000 and borrowed £50,000 from merchants, which you will have to meet. I have sent, in addition, £8,000 paper notes for Sennaar. … You are running up a good bill here;"
  August 23rd. "The expenses and pay of the soldiers in the Soudan amount to £1,500 a day. You have now become responsible to these troops for the sum of £300,000;"
  November 4th. "We are building two new steamers. The soldiers are only half a month's pay in arrear. We issued paper money, and also all the cloth in the magazines;"
  716
  whether the fact that General Gordon's notes passed as legal tender in Khartoum was corroborated by the members of his force examined by Lord Wolseley; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to secure that the honour of General Gordon and the Country shall not suffer by the repudiation of the notes issued and the loans effected by him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What appears is that these extracts are correct; but they form part of communications from General Gordon to the Egyptian Government, and they appear to imply that he was acting on behalf of the Egyptian Government in any measures of this kind that he took. However, I only make that remark as probable. We have had no communication on the subject, and we are not aware that the Egyptian Government has had any; but, no doubt, if there are any persons in possession of promises of this character from General Gordon, they will find means of causing them to arrive at some destination or other, with a view to obtaining what they are entitled to.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE PAPERS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, Whether the House might expect to have another series of Papers relating to Central Asia?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We hope so; but there is some difficulty in separating the communications with respect to the engagement at Ak Tepe from the communications with respect to the frontier. As the negotiations with respect to the frontier are not yet concluded, it would be difficult to lay the Papers on the Table; but we hope to effect the separation, and, if so, the Papers will be laid very soon.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that in the Votes distributed on Saturday three sets of Papers were mentioned, Parts 2, 3 and 4. No. 2 only had been given to the House, and he therefore asked when the other Papers might be expected?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, every effort would be made to produce the Papers as soon as possible. They had been laid on the Table formally in order that they might be distributed during the Whitsuntide Recess.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—THE PAPERS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, When they were likely to have any Papers concerning the evacuation of the Soudan?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONstated that the Papers were in course of preparation, and he hoped that they would be laid upon the Table before the Holidays.

  CENTRAL ASIA-RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE BOUNDARY LINE AT AK TEPE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, What the main lines of the Frontier, referred to by the Primo Minister last Tuesday, were, and whether they included the acceptance of such a condition as was mentioned in the Russian Memorandum of January 16, where it was stated that this line was to be conditional on the Ameer not building any fortifications on his own Frontier?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no further communication to make to the House at present on the subject of the Frontier line. What I did on Tuesday last was to give to the House the terms in which the Russian Ambassador wished to describe the arrangement, as he had taken part in it; and it is quite true that he described it, if I remember aright, as an arrangement of the Frontier line which he had recommended for the approval of the Russian Government. Since then there have been some communications respecting a part of that line which have not yet been brought to a conclusion, and, consequently, I cannot go beyond the statement I then made.
  In reply to Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that he had already stated that no Treaty had been concluded between the Ameer of Afghanistan and the Indian Government. He had also stated that the Agreement with the Ameer was sent out in Blue Book No. 1 of 1881, and, secondly, in Blue Book No. 1 of 1884, under date of 16th July, 1883.
  SIB H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Then any arrangements made at the Rawul Pindi Conference have not been consigned to a document?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: We have no written document. We have telegrams, and a despatch is expected, and when it arrives it will be laid on the Table.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONEstated that the Government proposed to take on Thursday as the first Business the Lords' Amendments to the Registration Bill, and after that, if there were time, the introduction of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. They would break off Government Business between 9 and 10 o'clock on Thursday for the purpose of moving that the House on its rising on Friday should adjourn until the following Thursday week. In the event of the Welsh Education Bill not being brought in on Thursday, it would be taken at 2 o'clock on Friday, and the next order would be the second reading of the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill.
  MR. FIRTH: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether the House is to understand that the Government has now finally determined to abandon, during the present Parliament, all efforts to reform what was called the serious anarchy of London government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am extremely sorry to confess the inability of the Government to deal with what we think a very strong and urgent case; but there is no doubt about the fact that we do not entertain the smallest and faintest hope of dealing with the subject during the present Session.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION;—THE AUSTRALIAN CONTINGENT.
  MR. FINCH-HATTONasked, Whether the Government had been able in any way to modify the decision not to invite the Australian contingent to visit this country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Lord Wolseley's suggestion was communicated by the Agent General of New South Wales to the Colonial Government. The reply of that Government was to the effect that they entirely acknowledged the feeling which induced Lord Wolseley to suggest that a portion of the Contingent should visit this country before returning home; but their desire was that the whole Force should return at once.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In reply to Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not like to fix definitely any hour after which he would not make his statement in introducing the Crofters' Bill, because it was very essential that the Bill should go on.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the Prime Minister stated the other night that the Government would break off Supply about 11 o'clock for the purpose of enabling the Lord Advocate to introduce this Bill and make a statement. Did the Prime Minister adhere to that statement?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was necessary to get the Vote on Account. It was a Vote for six weeks, and three weeks out of the six would have lapsed before the House met again. It was a matter of absolute necessity to get that Vote, and, subject only to that contingency, they proposed to break off Supply as he had previously stated.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether, having regard to the fact that the Bill was on the Orders of the House and liable to be blocked, the Lord Advocate would not introduce it and have it printed without a statement?
  [No reply.]

  CENTRAL ASIA—"THE PENJDEH INCIDENT"—GENERAL KOMAROEF AND SIR PETER LUMSDEN.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to give Notice that, having regard to the distinction which appears to have been conferred on General Komaroff, I shall to-morrow ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to confer any mark of honour or distinction upon Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that it will not be in my power to be in the House to-morrow.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: Then I will put the Question down for Thursday.

MOTION.
  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE 12 (NOTICES ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY).
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he desired to draw the attention of the House to the effect of the Motion now made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The question was whether the Motion was made as a matter of privilege or of strict right. There had been only one instance of the course now proposed having been taken under the new Rules, and on that occasion he had considered it his duty to take exception to it. There was something far more involved than the fact of enabling the Government to arrange the order of Business. In former times, on such a Motion, a Member could move an Amendment. Then came the new Rule as to Supply on Monday and Thursday. But the effect of the new Procedure was only a limitation and not a derogation of the rights of private Members. As the Government had allowed Supply to lapse on Friday last, it was a matter of doubtful propriety for the Government to take advantage of their own wrong, and attempt to go into Supply on Monday without Question put. He did not know whether any hon. Member was prepared with any Amendment; but he should be glad to know from the Speaker whether it would be competent to move any such Amendment?
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped that the matter would not be allowed to drop without an authoritative decision from the Speaker as to what the practice ought to be under the new Rules. He submitted to the Chair that it was a question of Order whether the Government by the "Count-out" on Friday had not allowed the Order of Supply to lapse, so that it was necessary there should be made from the Chair the Motion which had just been put to the House. He wished to know whether Amendments, in these circumstances, might be moved, and a discussion take place on any grievance which any hon. Member might bring forward either with or without Notice? He would call attention to the specific words of the 21st Rule of the 21st November, 1882, which was the Standing Order under which the House

  721
  immediately resolved itself into Committee of Supply. That Order was couched in these words—
  "Whenever the Committee of Supply stands as the first Order of the Day on Monday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question."
  That implied that if Mr. Speaker had put the Question, an Amendment could be moved and grievances might be brought forward. He submitted that Mr. Speaker, on the present occasion, by putting the Question, had himself admitted and proved most conclusively that the case did not come within the 21st Rule, because, if that Rule applied, the Speaker ought not to have put any Question at all, but should have left the Chair without Question put. As the Speaker had found it necessary to put the Question, it followed that the 21st Procedure Rule did not apply, and as the Question had now been put, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," Amendments might be moved and a division taken. It was a matter of the utmost importance that the right practice should be settled by the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, and to the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), I have to say that this question was raised, if I remember rightly, towards the middle of July last year. I was quite clearly of opinion, and I then ruled, and I am quite clearly of opinion now, that no debate of a general character, or with reference to grievances, can arise upon the Motion, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply." I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is not making a distinction which should be j made between the Motion, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," and the Motion, "That I do now leave the Chair." The Motion, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," is not at all analogous to the Motion which was made on Friday, "That I do now leave the Chair," to which Motion, by the Rule of the House, any Amendment can be moved, as was done on Friday last. I do not see that any penalty can be placed upon the Government
  722
  of the day by the fact that a "Count-out" took place on Friday. I have looked into the matter, and I regard the Motion, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply" as a merely formal Motion to set up Supply—as formal a Motion as a Motion to postpone an Order of the Day, or to take any Order of the Day in any sequence on any future day. It is merely a formal Motion, and quite different from the Motion, "That I do now leave the Chair." I may also remind the House, with reference to what has been said by the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) as to the Rules, that before the new Rule of 1882 the debate on the Motion, "That I do now leave the Chair," on going into Committee of Supply on Monday, was limited and restricted by a Standing Order of the House, passed, if I remember rightly, in the year 1872, and practically enforced, with very few exceptions, from that date up to 1882, when the now Standing Order was passed which imposed still further limitations. This is, in fact, a Standing Order to restrict debates on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on Monday. There is, therefore, no force in the objection that the new Standing Order has altered the condition of affairs in this respect. I may say that I regard the Motion,'' That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," as merely formal, and that when it is passed I shall leave the Chair without Question put, in accordance with the Standing Order, which enacts that when Committee of Supply stands first, as it will then stand first, on Monday, I shall leave the Chair without putting any Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to say one word in regard to the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). I feel bound to notice the accusation contained in the statement that it is unfair that the Government should take advantage of its own wrong, and I wish to appeal to the House to judge what sort of a wrong it is. There is no doubt that the Government are responsible, as a general rule, for keeping a House on Friday, and that is well understood; but I must also point out that this has reference to

  723
  an ordinary state of things. In an ordinary state of things, it is the imperative duty of my noble Friend near me (Lord Richard Grosvenor), as it has been that of those who preceded him in his office, to do all he could to keep a House on three days a-week. But the noble Lord has had the duty cast upon him, this year, of keeping a House for 50 or 60 days in succession, and on every day of the week without intermission except two or three days at Easter. This has been an extreme aggravation of the very difficult duties of the office held by my noble Friend. In these circumstances, no one will, I think, be disposed to pass very strict judgment upon the noble Lord or upon hon. Members for what occurred on Friday last, after they have had cast upon them the duty of keeping a House for such a length of time. Indeed, a House has been kept without the occasional relief of a "Count-out" for a longer period than in any previous Session.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am quite sure that no one could wish to reflect upon the manner in which the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) discharges his duties—a manner which commands the respect of the whole of the House; but, while we all recognize the additional severity of the duties he has had to perform in the present Session, we must also bear in mind that there is this to be said on the part of the House—that private Members have been deprived of a larger portion of the time of the House usually allotted to private Members than in any previous Session, and, therefore, they consider that they have an exceptional claim to have a House kept on Fridays.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £3.300,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, viz:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:—

  £

  Houses of Parliament

  6,000

  Ireland: —

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSE OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  England: —

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  10,000

  Foreign Office

  10,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  4,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  10,000

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  6,000

  Civil Service Commission

  5,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  10,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,000

  Land Commission for England

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  40,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,300

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5,000

  National Debt Office

  3,000

  Patent Office

  7,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  4,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  3,000

  Registrar General's Office

  6,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  50,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  3,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  5,000

  Secret Service

  15,000

  Scotland: —

  Exchequer and other Offices

  1,000

  Fishery Board

  2,500

  Lunacy Commission

  500

  Board of Supervision

  1,000

  Ireland: —

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary's Office

  4,500

  Charitable Donationsand Bequests Office

  300

  Local Government Board

  10,000

  Public Works Office

  10,000

  Record Office

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  2,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  2,000

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

  England: —

  Law Charges

  13,000

  Criminal Prosecutions

  25,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  60,000

  Wreck Commission

  1,500

  County Courts

  50,000

  Land Registry

  1,000

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  3,000

  Metropolitan Police

  150,000

  Special Police

  4,000

  County and Borough Police, Great Britain

  1,000

  Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

  30,000

  £

  Prisons, England

  60,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  70,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  Scotland: —

  Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

  15,000

  Courts of Law and Justice

  10,000

  Register House Departments

  4,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  15,000

  Ireland: —

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  25,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  10,000

  Court of Bankruptcy

  1,000

  Admiralty Court Registry

  300

  Registry of Deeds

  2,000

  Registry of Judgments

  300

  Land Commission

  10,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  15,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

  25,000

  Constabulary

  250,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  20,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  20,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  1,000

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ARTS.

  England:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Science and Art Department

  30,000

  British Museum

  25,000

  National Gallery

  1,500

  National Portrait Gallery

  400

  Learned Societies, &c.

  4,000

  London University

  2,000

  Scotland: —

  Public Education

  100,000

  Universities, &c

  3,000

  Ireland: —

  Public Education

  170,000

  Teachers' Pension Office

  300

  National Gallery

  500

  Queen's Colleges

  1,000

  Royal Irish Academy

  900

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

  Diplomatic Services

  20,000

  Consular Services

  20,000

  Slave Trade Services

  3,000

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  3,000

  South Africa and St. Helena

  5,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  9,000

  CLASS VI—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  110,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  10,000

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  15,000

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  35,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

  Temporary Commissions

  3,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £2,350,500

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs

  20,000

  Inland Revenue

  80,000

  Post Office

  500,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  180,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  230,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £1,010,000

  Grand Total

  £3,360,500

  MR. HIBBERTwished to give a short explanation of the reason why the Vote on Account was asked for. For several years a Vote on Account had been taken in the latter part of the month of May. Last year it was taken on the 22nd of May. The present Vote would not have been taken until the end of the month had it not been for the intervention of the Whitsuntide Holidays, which compelled the Government to ask the Committee to allow them a Vote on Account earlier than would otherwise have been necessary. The period it was intended to cover was not from the present time, but six weeks from the 1st of June. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had threatened to move to reduce the amount of the Vote by the sum of £2,000,000. Of course, a reduction of £2,000,000 would be a very serious matter, and would compel the Government to come again to the House for another Vote on a very early day. It was only upon certain Votes that the money would be taken for six weeks; in other cases they were asking for money for less than six weeks—such as the Vote for Education. A portion of the Vote on Account would be applied to the Revenue Department Estimates, in reference to which considerable payments would have to be made in the course of a few weeks. With respect to the Secret Service money, it had generally been the custom to vote half of the amount before the end of June, as it was required in the early part of the year. He would only add that, looking at the wants and demands of the various Departments, which had been carefully and thoroughly considered, if the Amendment which the noble Lord intimated his intention to propose were carried, it would involve the inconvenience of an application for another Vote on an earlier day than would be necessary if the Vote were not

  727
  reduced, because the money would be actually required.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not quite understand the position I am anxious to take up in this matter. Of course, he is very anxious for the convenience of the Government; so am I to a certain extent; but there are other things which I value a great deal more. It should be in the power of the House, on an early day after Whitsuntide, if necessary, to compel an immediate discussion of the Central Asian Question; but if the hon. Member takes a Vote on Account for as long a period of time as six weeks, no Member of the House will be able to call attention to the question until six weeks after the re-assembling of the House. That is the position we have to face. It is not one that the Government are likely to sympathize with, but it is one which should be appreciated by independent Members below the Gangway on either side of the House. We do not know what situation might arise in which, however unwilling the Government might be, hon. Members would desire to raise a discussion in a formal manner. Therefore, my object in endeavouring to reduce the Vote would be to compel the Government to come to Parliament at an earlier period. I do not know why that ought to be considered exacting or unreasonable. The object might, perhaps, be gained if the hon. Gentleman, with the acquiescence of the Prime Minister, would consent to the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000; and in that case I will make that proposal, instead of moving the reduction by £2,000,000. I do not expect that the Government will be at all surprised if a conversation should arise upon the Blue Book issued on Saturday. Certainly, I do not know what was the case with other hon. Members; but it caused me to pass a very melancholy Sunday morning in endeavouring to master its contents. It is a most sorry record of official diplomacy. Of course, one cannot help one's thoughts being influenced by the fact that news had come to this country that morning of the great, distinguished, and, as it appears, quite unusual rewards conferred by the Russian Government on General Komaroff. One cannot help feeling that the Russian Government had every rea-
  728
  son to confer unusually high rewards on their officers, and that the House of Commons, at any rate, had no reason to confer any rewards on Her Majesty's Government, in the shape of showing confidence in them, or of abstaining from proceedings which may be disagreeable to them. I do not generally pay much attention to the Press of this country; but, if I do pay attention to it, I am inclined to follow a precept laid down by the Prime Minister some years ago, when he said that the most important portion of the Press was the Provincial Press, and that it reflected the mind of the country more accurately than did the Metropolitan Press. I was very much struck to-day by a quotation in an evening paper from one of the most important papers in the North of England—The Leeds Mercury—owned and directed, I believe, by one of the leading and most prominent Nonconformists in this country. It has been always a most devoted and faithful supporter of the Liberal Government, and particularly of the Prime Minister, who in certain circumstances would have occupied the position of Member for Leeds. The passage is rather remarkable; it may cause the Government to pause and reflect. It will show them that the sentiments we put forward on the Central Asian Question are not confined to the Tory Party, and are not put forward in order to bring about a war or to embarrass the Government. It may indicate to the Government the great national sentiments which are held by the majority of the English people. This is what The Leeds Mercury says about the Blue Book—
  "The insolence and "bad faith, of Russia have been even greater than the most bitter of Russo-phohists had imagined. It is impossible to read the Correspondence without feeling that all through the pretended negotiations of M. de Giers with Earl Granville on the question of the delimitation of the frontier, the Russian Government were deliberately bent upon tricking and defrauding this country. Mr. Gladstone will have to take the responsibility for the existence of the opinion abroad that Sir Peter Lumsden is coming back in something like disgrace, if ho fails to make some striking counter-demonstration to that which the Czar, in the fulness of his power, and of his contempt for the public opinion of England, has just been pleased to offer to the world."
  Now, I wonder what would have been the exclamations of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Press if such language

  729
  had come from any Member on this side of the House. Yet here we find language far stronger than any I have used. ["Oh!"] Yes, far stronger than any I have used, in what I may call the most representative paper of Liberal feeling throughout the country. ["No!"] I believe that to be the character acquired by The Leeds Mercury. I now propose to make a few remarks upon the contents of this Blue Book, with such references as will justify the inquiries I propose to address to Her Majesty's Government. There is much in the Blue Book which is extremely obscure, and much which is only too clear. I say that there is much in it that is obscure. I doubt very much whether any Blue Book submitted to Parliament was ever more edited than the present Blue Book. There are extraordinary gaps in it which are really without parallel. I have done much to study the Foreign Office Blue Books, and have worked hard at them; but I never knew one which had such extraordinary gaps in it, or in which the Papers were more mixed up in a way that can only have been intended to embarrass and confuse the public. The first point to which I would direct attention is the statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on the 13th of March—the most important of all the statements which the Prime Minister has made on this subject. On page 171 of the Blue Book will be found a despatch from Earl Granville to Sir Edward Thornton, dated March 14, which is as follows:—
  "Mr. Gladstone made a statement in the House of Commons last night to the effect that it has been agreed between this country and Russia that no further advance should he made by the Russian or Afghan Forces respectively to points within the debatable or debated ground. This statement was founded on the assurances recorded in my despatches of the 19th ultimo and 3rd instant, and on those given in M. de Giers's Memorandum of the 24th February, and in your telegram of the 5th instant. I have to instruct your Excellency to inquire of M. de Giers whether he agrees that the assurances referred to constitute an agreement to the effect stated by Mr. Gladstone. Her Majesty's Government would be glad to receive an immediate answer on the point, as a Question will be asked on the subject in Parliament on Monday."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 171.]
  Well, Sir, the first thing that strikes one in reading this despatch is that the Prime Minister stated that an agreement had been come to upon a subject of the
  730
  utmost importance between two great Powers, and that the next morning the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs telegraphed to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg to know whether the Prime Minister was correct in making that statement. I referred at once to the assurances contained in Earl Granville's despatch, and I maintain that there is nothing whatever in those assurances to warrant the Prime Minister in making the statement he did—a statement which totally misled the House of Commons. These were the words of the Prime Minister on the 13th of March—
  "As regards the advance of the Forces, it has been agreed between Russia and England that no further advance should be made on either side."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1085.)
  And, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I cannot state the precise date of the agreement; but perhaps it is not very material."—(Ibid. 1086.)
  On Tuesday, the 17th of March, the Prime Minister said the word "agreement" was a little fallacious. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] That is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is reported. If two parties agree upon any particular subject, I want to know if the result of the action of the two parties does not make the agreement, and how it is possible to call an agreement fallacious after it has been agreed upon? On pages 152 and 154 of the Blue Book will be found the assurances upon which the Prime Minister relied; and the House will see that there is nothing whatever in the statement of M. de Giers which the Prime Minister made to the House. Here is the telegram—No. 196, on page 152 of the Blue Book. It is from Sir Edward Thornton to Earl Granville, in reply to a request from Her Majesty's Government that the Russian troops would withdraw from the positions which they occupied, to which request the Russian Government peremptorily declined to accede. The telegram says—
  "I have just received a Memorandum from M. de Giers, in which I am informed that the Russian Government cannot accede to the request that the advanced Russian posts at Sari-Yazi and Zulfikar Pass should be withdrawn; but assurances are at the same time given that orders have been issued to the Commanders of these posts carefully to avoid conflicts with the Afghans, and that such complications need

  731
  only be feared in the event of the Afghans attacking the Russian posts,"—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 152.]
  There is nothing in that telegram to warrant the statement made by the Prime Minister that it had been agreed between England and Russia that no further advance should be made. There is still another despatch on which the Prime Minister based his statement. It is No. 215, on page 164. Sir Edward Thornton writes to Earl Granville on March 5th in the following words:—
  "M. de Giers admits that Russian troops may be making movements within the line which M. de Staal, under instructions from his Government, had recently proposed to your Lordship, but declares that they will on no account go beyond it, and that they will not attack any Afghan troops which they may meet. M. de Giers expresses the greatest confidence that a collision will be avoided unless the Afghans should attack the Russian troops."—[Ibid. 164.]
  I want to point out that the line alluded to in that despatch was far in advance of the actual position occupied by the Russian troops, so that there was nothing whatever in the telegram to justify the Prime Minister's statement that it had been agreed between the two Governments of England and Russia that no further advance should be made on either side. But the most striking confirmation of that will be found on page 177—No. 244, where there is a most interesting despatch from Sir Edward Thornton as to his interview on this subject with M. de Giers. Earl Granville having written to Sir Edward Thornton to ask whether the Prime Minister was justified in making the statement, our Ambassador goes to M. de Giers; and there is a picture in this despatch, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, which shows the position our Ambassador occupies at St. Petersburg. Sir Edward Thornton writes on the 17th of March—
  "My Lord,—On the 15th instant (Sunday), when I had the honour to receive your Lordship's telegram of the 14th instant, I called upon M. de Giers; hut as ho had several people with him on business, I could not obtain admittance. I therefore wrote to him, and begged that his Excellency would receive me on the following morning. He acceded to my request."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 177.]
  That, as I have said, shows the position of our Ambassador in St. Petersburg. A most urgent message was sent to him on a matter involving at any moment a
  732
  war between the two countries; and upon going to M. de Giers, he is told that he cannot obtain admittance because M. do Giers had several people with him on business, and that he might call the next morning if he liked. I do not know how that strikes other hon. Members, but it strikes me as altogether inconsistent with the dignity that should belong to the position of Ambassador to the Queen. Passing from that episode, I will come back to my original assertion that the Prime Minister was not justified in making the statement of which I have referred. Sir Edward Thornton visited M. de Giers the next morning. He says in the despatch to which I have alluded—
  "I began by informing him of the statement which had been made by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on the night of the 13th instant, and I inquired whether he had any objection to make to that statement."—[Ibid.]
  The Prime Minister's statement was that Russia and England had agreed to a certain course, and our Ambassador commences by asking M. de Giers if he had any objection to make to the Prime Minister's statement. Sir Edward Thornton continues—
  "His Excellency replied that, as far as he was personally concerned, he could say that ha had already informed me that no advance would be made to any point beyond the line which had recently been proposed by M. de Staal as a boundary."—[Ibid.]
  Yes; but that line was far in advance of the position held by the Russian troops; and therefore the agreement not to advance from the actual position held, and not to advance beyond the line of M. de Staal, are two totally different things. Sir Edward Thornton goes on to say—
  "I replied that I understood that Russian troops now occupied posts at Pul-i-Khatun, Zulfikar, Ak-Robat, Ak Tépé, and Pul-i-Khisti, and that his Excellency had more than once assured me that no attack would be made on Penjdeh, nor upon any Afghan force, unless the Russians were attacked by the Afghans. Would he authorize me to announce to your Lordship that Russian troops would not advance from the positions they now occupy, unless the Afghans should on their side advance from their positions."—[Ibid.]
  The Prime Minister, therefore, stated that an agreement had been come to, and the day afterwards our Ambassador at St. Petersburg was found endeavouring to negotiate that agreement. Now,

  733
  what does M. de Giers say? Sir Edward Thornton says in the same despatch—
  "M. de Giers replied that he would wish on this point to consult the War Department, and perhaps to take the orders of the Emperor, before giving me a final answer."—[Ibid.]
  This is the agreement, or the sacred covenant, which has opened so largo a book, and which Her Majesty's Government have found it so difficult to close. The agreement which the Prime Minister announced on the 13th of March turns out to be an absolute fiction and phantom, and there is not the slightest justification for it in the smallest possible way. Our Ambassador asked if there was any agreement, and M. de Giers said that as far as he was personally concerned he should not object to restrict the advance to a line far in advance of the positions which the Russians then occupied; but he added that it would be necessary first to consult the War Department, and perhaps to take the orders of the Emperor, before giving a final answer. [An hon. MEMBER: Bead on!] I am going to read on. Sir Edward Thornton, still in the same despatch, says—
  "I then informed his Excellency that your Lordship had expressed a desire to have an immediate answer, because a Question would be asked on the subject in the House of Commons the same evening. M. de Giers then said that ho had no objection to state that the Russian Forces would not advance from the position they now occupy."
  [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Wait a minute. The sentence concludes—
  "Provided the Afghans should not advance or attack them, or unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh."—[Ibid.]
  Yes; but mark how the matter stands. The Prime Minister made the bold statement to the House of Commons, without qualification, that it had been agreed between the two Governments that no further advance should be made on either side. Having made that statement without any justification whatever—at any rate, as far as the public records go—he then proceeds, as far as possible, to get an agreement from Russia which shall bear him out; and what does he get? He gets a perfectly worthless document, because the reservation of M. de Giers—
  "Unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh,"
  734
  covers the whole circumstances of the advance of General Komaroff. It is a very serious matter that the Prime Minister should give the House of Commons information at a critical moment that a solemn covenant had been arrived at between two great Powers, when, as a matter of fact, there had been nothing of the kind, and that he should then instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador, if possible, to extract some kind of agreement, which might be twisted into something or other which would justify the premature statement ho had made. That premature statement was not founded upon facts, and it has cost the country £11,000,000. If this premature statement had not been made, the worthless agreement extorted by Sir Edward Thornton from M. de Giers would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, it was necessary that Her Majesty's Government should put a construction of the utmost value upon such a worthless agreement as that which has been broken by General Komaroff, and the breaking of which induced the Prime Minister to come forward with the violent speech which the House so well recollects, in which he declared that the book had been opened, and could not be closed. I do not know which is the more to be deprecated in the diplomacy of this country at the present moment, the fervid imagination of the Prime Minister, or the weak ineptitude of the Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will consider it consistent with his dignity to offer an explanation. I now come to another point—that is, that I hold Her Majesty's Government primarily responsible for the attack of General Komaroff upon the Afghan position of Penjdeh. It was in their power to prevent that attack on several occasions long before it took place; but they deliberately and wilfully threw away their opportunities of preventing it. I will ask the House to look at certain of the despatches. On page 152 of the Blue Book will be found a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden to Earl Granville, received on February 24, about a month before the attack. In this despatch Sir Poter Lumsden tells Earl Granville—
  "Matters have come to a crisis by the simultaneous movements of Russia on Sunday last on the Murghab and the Heri-Rud. No southern

  735
  limit to zone having teen fixed, Russians may consider themselves at liberty to advance to limit indicated by them and remain there. I cannot advise Afghans to allow post after post to be forced, and trust Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in sending me instructions."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 152.]
  Again, Sir Peter Lumsden telegraphs to Earl Granville, No. 194, page 152—
  "On perusal of your Lordship's despatch to Sir Edward Thornton of the 10th November, and in view of the threatening attitude of Russians on the Murghab, as reported in my telegram of 9th, I have deferred my departure to Guslan viâ Penjdeh, and I shall wait till supplies can be removed to upper route by Morachuk and Chemeni Beed; other routes not practicable owing to dearth of supplies. I have written to officer commanding at Merv, pointing out necessity of both sides avoiding friction, and have proposed that, as I have urged Afghans to limit their patrolling to Orush Dushan, he should limit Russian patrolling to Sari Yazi. Reports as to outposts incident conflicting; Russians, however, retired, but may be induced by fact of passive action of Afghans to return and push further. It is reported that 1,000 Khivan Cavalry have arrived at Merv."—[Ibid.]
  Again he asks for instructions. On February 25th Earl Granville gives him instructions—
  "You should strongly urge the Afghan authorities not to advance."—[Ibid. p. 153.]
  Those instructions are in No. 199 of the despatches. "Strongly urge the Afghan authorities not to advance." That is all the instructions Earl Granville gives. We shall find, if we turn to No. 201, page 154, that Sir Peter Lumsden again telegraphs to Earl Granville on the 19th February, saying—
  "Your Lordship will, I feel sure, see the necessity of sending me early instructions as to course Her Majesty's Government wish me to take under present circumstances."—[Ibid. p. 154.]
  He goes on to describe the critical situation, and in No. 203 he telegraphs—
  "Russian troops to-day occupied Zulfikar Pass, Ak Robat, Pul-i-Khisti."
  In No. 209, in a telegram dated March 2nd, Earl Granville merely tells Sir Peter Lumsden, with reference to all the information as to the advance of the Russian troops, the threatening positions which they occupied, and the imminent danger of a collision—
  "I have received your telegrams of the 17th, 19th, 22nd, and 23rd ultimo relative to the affairs of the Afghan Frontier, and I have to
  736
  state that your proceedings as therein reported are entirely approved by Her Majesty's Government. As regards your future action, continue to be guided by my telegrams of the 20th and 25th Fob."—[Ibid. p. 162.]
  These telegrams told him only to urge the Afghans not to advance. For the telegram of February 20th I must look back to No. 191, on pages 150 and 151. It approves the action of Sir Peter Lumsden, and says that instructions had been sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg. Earl Granville, in a despatch to Sir Edward Thornton on the previous day, February 19, says—
  "On the 20th Nov. last I instructed your Excellency to represent to the Russian Government the embarrassment likely to arise from the presence of Russian troops at Pul-i-Khatun, and to press strongly for their withdrawal to Sarakhs, in which case steps would be taken to obtain the retirement to Penjdeh of the Afghan detachment said to have advanced to Sari Yazi. I added- that unless the Russian frontier authorities abstained from forward movements pending the commencement of the work of the Commission, it would be difficult to restrain the Ameer and his officials from taking such steps as would appear to them necessary in order to safeguard Afghan rights. I have to request your Excellency to remind the Russian Government of this communication, and to point out that in spite of this remonstrance the Russian troops not only continue to hold Pul-i-Khatun, hut have now advanced to Sari Yazi, and that unless these proceedings are immediately arrested collisions will ensue which may lead to the most serious consequences. Her Majesty's Government could not advise the Afghans to withdraw from territory which they claim as their own; but if the Russian Government will give orders to their Military Commanders, pending the decision of the Joint Commission, to withdraw from Sari Yazi, and to make no further movement in advance, Her Majesty's Government will call upon the authorities of the Ameer not to allow any advance of Afghan troops actually in their occupation."—[Ibid. p. 150.]
  This was a month before the outbreak took place. The Russian Government declined altogether to give any guarantee not to advance, and they also declined to withdraw their troops from Sari-Yazi. In a despatch which I have quoted to the House before—No. 212, page 163 of the Blue Book—Earl Granville tells Sir Peter Lumsden that all his action with regard to the Afghan authorities and the Russian commanders are approved by Her Majesty's Government, and asks him to "continue to hold similar language." He adds—
  "Her Majesty's Government cannot advise the Afghans to attack the Russian troops in

  737
  order to dislodge them from the positions they now occupy; but Her Majesty's Government consider that the further advance of the Russians should, subject to military considerations, be resisted by the Afghans."—[Ibid., p. 163.]
  That is, on the 3rd of March. Therefore, on the 3rd of March, knowing the critical situation, knowing the imminence of a collision, knowing that the Russians refused to withdraw their advanced troops, or to give any pledge not to make any further advance, Earl Granville positively directs the Afghan Commander, through Sir Peter Lumsden, to resist the further advance of the Russian troops. Then there is this curious paragraph in the same despatch—
  "Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to your remaining in Afghanistan, where your presence may he the means of stopping further advances of the Russian troops, and preventing the outbreak of hostilities."—[Ibid.]
  Look at the position which was taken by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government address a demand to St. Petersburg, telling the Russian Government that they fear a collision, and that their troops must be withdrawn. The Russian Government refuse to accede to the request, and then the English Government telegraph to Sir Peter Lumsden, instructing him to urge the Afghans to resist; but all the while they accept the refusal of the Russian Government, in the communication from St. Petersburg to London, to withdraw their troops. They thus forced on the Afghans a conflict in which they must have known the Afghans would get worsted, by reason of the inferiority of their arms and the superiority of those of their adversaries. Her Majesty's Government never attempted, at that time—I will not say by strong diplomatic negotiations at St. Petersburg, but by the despatch which was absolutely necessary at the time of an Ultimatum to the Russians, delivered at St. Petersburg—to support their unfortunate Allies on the Frontier at Penj-deh. What right had the Government to direct the Afghans to resist the Russians, and then themselves to adopt the exceedingly pusillanimous line which they took in their negotiations with the Russian Government at St. Petersburg? There is one telegram from Earl Granville to Sir Peter Lumsden which is a perfect picture of that nobleman's pecu-
  738
  liar style and state of mind. I think it is No. 222. On the 4th of March Sir Peter Lumsden had sent this telegram to Earl Granville—
  "Matters remain as reported by me on 1st March. General Komaroff is at Yulatan, and the guns and Infantry are said to be coming on with him. I have impressed on the Afghans the necessity of refraining from action."—[Ibid.,p. 165.]
  On the same day he sent another telegram to say—
  "The Sarikhs are again greatly excited, and are holding meetings to decide what course to adopt. It appears impossible to maintain any longer the passive attitude enforced on Afghans and adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It is reported that 1,000 Infantry and 4 breech-loading guns have arrived at Merv, and that strong reinforcements are expected."—[Ibid.]
  Then he asks for instructions, and this is what Earl Granville, after receiving this news, replies on the 10th of March, No. 222, page 166—
  "We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances."
  What an extraordinary wailing kind of message for a Minister to send to a Representative asking for instructions at a most critical time—
  "We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances."
  What did it mean? Sir Peter Lumsden has been recalled since; but what did it mean at that time? Did it mean that Sir Peter Lumsden was to take the responsibility of directing the Afghans to advance and attack the Russians, or of joining the Afghan Forces to resist the Russians? What on earth did that telegram mean at that critical moment—
  "We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances."
  As a matter of fact, Sir Peter Lumsden had no support at all from them. The only support which the English Government could give to Sir Peter Lumsden was by taking up very strong ground at St. Petersburg. That was the only way that Her Majesty's Government could give support. It would have put a stop to the advance on Penjdeh; and it was an important matter to stop the Russian advance on Penjdeh, because Her Majesty's Government could not send troops to Penjdeh, nor could they make the Afghan troops superior to what they are. But they could have supported the

  739
  action of Sir Peter Lumsden by energetic action at St. Petersburg, and that was exactly the support which it was in their power to give him which they did not give. The only answer the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give to the Envoy who sought instructions in the very difficult circumstances in which he was placed was this wretched, wailing, lamenting kind of telegram, which signified nothing at all, and probably only deluded Sir Peter Lumsden, because he would naturally think that if he took stronger action than he felt himself justified in taking on his own account, he would be backed up by the negotiations going on between London and St. Petersburg. Under all these circumstances, I say that Her Majesty's Government are greatly responsible for the collision which occurred between the Afghans and the Russians, and for the slaughter of the Afghan Forces. They had ample warning of what was going on, for on the 13th of March Sir Edward Thornton telegraphed to Earl Granville another warning. It will be seen in No. 224, page 166, that Sir Edward Thornton telegraphed to Earl Granville on the 13th of March as follows:—
  "A rumour has just reached me, in a manner which gives me ground for believing it to he true, that a telegram has been received by the Russian Minister of War from General Komaroff, Commander-in-Chief in the Trans-Caspian region, to the effect that for the safety of the Russian troops on the Afghan Border it is absolutely necessary that Penjdeh should be taken, and that the General had asked leave to order that place to he attacked. It was added that the Russian Government are now considering what answer should be sent to the above-mentioned telegram."
  Earl Granville said, in reply—
  "Her Majesty's Government desire that Your Excellency should urge in the strongest manner upon the Russian Government that if this report be true, orders may he immediately given to prevent the proposed attack."—[Ibid., pp. 166–7.]
  That was on the 13th of March, and on the 10th of March Earl Granville had informed Sir Peter Lumsden that the Government would give him full support. I do not call that full support. The only thing which would have been giving really full support would have been for Earl Granville to have directed Sir Edward Thornton to tell the Russian Government that any attack on Penjdeh, or any attack upon our Allies, the Afghans, would be a casus belli be-
  740
  tween England and Russia. If you had given your Ally that full support, the attack on Penjdeh, in all human probability, would never have taken place. I find, also, in No. 243, at page 176, a curious instance of Earl Granville's singular weakness. The Ambassador to St. Petersburg had taken a very strong line on the 16th of March, and this is what Sir Edward Thornton says—
  "I called upon M. de Giers, on the afternoon of the 14th instant, and mentioned to His Excellency the rumour which I had the honour to report to your Lordship in my telegram of the 13th instant. He expressed great surprise at this rumour, said that, of course, no such telegram could have reached St. Petersburg without his having heard of it, and assured me there could be no foundation for it. I expressed my satisfaction at this assurance, and pointed out to him that, in my opinion, any such incident as an attack upon Penjdeh would put an end to any possibility of negotiations between the two countries, and might lead to the most disastrous consequences."—[Ibid., p. 176.]
  Here you have Her Majesty's Ambassador acting absolutely on his own responsibility. He did this without orders from Earl Granville. He had no instruction whatever; and is it not curious that, although with regard to the action of our Ambassador, wherever it is described in these despatches, there is shortly afterwards another despatch saying that the action of our Representative is approved—it will scarcely be believed that this is the only instance where there is no despatch in this Blue Book from Earl Granville to Sir Edward Thornton expressing an approval of what the Ambassador had done? It is the only time there was an approach towards anything like an Ultimatum to Russia, and it is made on the authority of the Ambassador himself without instructions from his Government, and it is the only one act of the Ambassador at St. Petersburg which is not approved by Earl Granville. So much for that matter. My contention is that the Government is mainly responsible for the conflict in Penjdeh, which was attended with the rout and slaughter of their Allies. It was in their power, long before that conflict took place, to have prevented it. I pass to another point; it helps in laying the foundation for a debate which probably will come off sooner or later. I wish to come to the suggestions of the Prime Minister with regard to the discoveries which we should make when we

  741
  got certain Papers in our hands. There has been no precedent, so far as I can find, and I doubt whether the Prime Minister can instance one, for a Minister of the Crown making use of Papers not produced, as the Prime Minister did, on Monday last. He said—"When, you get the Papers, suppose you find so and so." In all my experience I know of no such precedent. He said—"Suppose you find the Ameer does not care about Penjdeh, about which you are so anxious." But after the Prime Minister has made that statement, seeing that the Papers do not bear it out, I should certainly like to press for further information bearing on that point. I am inclined to doubt the possibility of the Ameer being in the frame of mind in which the Prime Minister suggested that he was. What are the facts of the matter? We find the Ameer's troops advanced to Penjdeh in June last. He reinforced his troops when the Russians came nearer, and he thought they were going to be attacked. The Russians still advanced, and eventually the Afghan troops, acting under the Ameer's orders, risked a battle with the Russians in which they were defeated with great loss. Is that the action of a man who does not care about Penjdeh? The action of the Ameer from June, 1884, to March, 1885, has been constantly to protect and guard Penjdeh, and yet the Prime Minister suggests that the Ameer did not care about Penjdeh. But there is something in this Blue Book which casts the greatest doubt on the suggestion of the Prime Minister. The Committee will find, in the early part of the Blue Book, a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden to Earl Granville, stating that the Ameer had written to him protesting strongly against the continued occupation of Pul-i-Khatun by Russian troops. On page 122 there is a remarkable despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden, inclosing a letter from the Ameer, to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. I will not read the whole of the letter, but merely part of it. The Ameer, wrote to Sir Peter Lumsden in the most friendly manner, in answer to another letter sent by Sir Peter Lumsden to himself. He says—
  "I hope that you will with great courage and valour negotiate with the Russian Agents regarding the disputed frontier line, and that you may rest assured that they have not in hand a
  742
  dot in writing from me at any time which may be a pretext to enable them to enter and take possession of the Afghan land. I am so firm in resisting for my rights, that if the Russian Agents should wish to take a piece or fragment from the ruins of the Afghanistan frontier, it will be impossible for them to do so as long as the Afghans have strength and power to resist."—[Ibid., 122.]
  That was the Ameer's frame of mind with regard, to all the positions held by the Afghan troops on the 31st of October last; and bearing in mind the action taken by his troops long after that, and the battle they fought in defence of Penjdeh, unless the deliberate statement of the Prime Minister is supported by Papers laid on the Table, I do not think the country will readily give its consent to the theory that the Ameer did not particularly care about Penjdeh. But with regard to Penjdeh itself, even if the Ameer wore inclined to give it up to Russia, the Committee must be aware that the Government are flying in the face of the deliberate opinions of Sir Peter Lumsden, Colonel Stewart, and Colonel Ridgeway, and every single officer of experience who is able to give reliable information, and the Committee will find most important documents in this Book bearing on the value of Penjdeh. A high authority, yesterday, whom I asked whether in his opinion Penjdeh was vital to Afghanistan or not, replied—"All I can tell you is that if the Russians have got Penjdeh they have got the key of Afghanistan." I mention this because I desire to have further information from the 'Prime Minister as to the state of Penjdeh. I want to press the Prime Minister to give some assurance whether, in the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government have or have not ceded Penjdeh to Russia? I think it is a fair question to put to the Government. There are several other questions I should like to address to the Government; but I fear I have detained the Committee too long. There are other Members who will also have questions to ask, and I will therefore content myself with these. In order to put some pressure on the Government to answer this inquiry I will move to reduce the Vote by the sum not of £2,000,000, which I gave Notice of, but of £1,000,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,260,600, be granted to Her Majesty, on

  743
  account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(Lord Randolph Churchill)
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Vote before the Committee, I must tell the noble Lord that we cannot possibly accede to his Motion. In framing this Vote, we have adopted what I believe is the usual course fixed for the second Vote of Credit which it may be requisite to ask for—namely, six weeks on account. We have endeavoured, in what has passed in the course of the Session, to do all we could for the purpose of getting on with Supply, and that is all that is usually expected, or that can be equitably expected from the Government in connection with the arrangement of Parliamentary Business. I believe that the effect will be that the sum asked for six weeks would really last four or five weeks. The state of things in which we stand is really this. The House of Commons will meet afresh, I believe, on the 4th of June, and it will then meet with the finances of the year settled, with legislative Business of urgency and importance to carry forward, especially that which relates to the Crofters' Bill, and with the possibility that reasonable claims may be made to proceed on some day or days with a discussion of our policy. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for us to agree to a reduction such as that proposed by the noble Lord, whether he proposes to reduce the Vote by £2,000,000 or £1,000,000. The noble Lord has taken a course to-day which I believe to be entirely unusual, and, without any Notice of his intention to raise a debate upon the contents of a Blue Book of great importance, he has made his own comments upon that Blue Book. I do not complain in the least of the noble Lord so doing. There is no limit to the right of Gentlemen to introduce subjects with Notice or without Notice; but the noble Lord's position and mine are rather different. My mind is occupied from day to day with a succession of questions of public interest, of difficulty and moment. It is impossible for me to enter into the details of a Blue Book, so as to be able to pretend to give the Committee any satisfactory information with regard to it, unless I had the opportunity of carefully examining that Blue Book beforehand. I
  744
  shall, therefore, be very limited in my replies to the noble Lord. I observe the noble Lord proceeds in this form. He states that all he has said is in the nature of inquiry. I do not know whether it is in the nature of inquiry, but it was in the nature also of the broadest measure of condemnation, when the noble Lord took it upon him to state that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the action at Penjdeh, which, he said, they might have prevented. He did not point out in what way they might have prevented that action. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.] I entirely failed to hear of that in the speech of the noble Lord. I was obliged to spend my time in turning over page after page of the Blue Book, as the noble Lord proceeded with his quotations, in order to ascertain what the points were which the noble Lord urged in support of his accusation. Of accusations I have heard plenty, but of suggestions as to what Her Majesty's Government were to do, I did not hear anything from the noble Lord. The position of Her Majesty's Government was one of very great difficulty and delicacy. The one object to which it was their duty almost entirely to confine themselves was, while they were preparing for the ultimate negotiations as to the Frontier, to take the best measures they could both with Sir Peter Lumsden on the spot, and likewise at St. Petersburg, to prevent a collision. They did take those measures with incessant care from day to day, and I do not believe that the noble Lord will be able to show that anything has been done or anything omitted which could possibly have that result. The noble Lord, in another part of his speech, said it was impossible to suppose that the Ameer of Afghanistan can have been indifferent about the retention of Penjdeh, because his troops fought for it. The noble Lord spoke as if the Ameer had been on the spot, and had the power of considering from day to day what the troops were doing at a great distance, and with difficult means of communication.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg the Prime Minister's pardon. Does not the right hon. Gentleman direct the troops in the Soudan? What is the difference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The difference is this. In the first place, it is not true

  745
  without qualification that we do direct the troops in the Soudan. It is not true without qualification that we direct the details of the military movements. ["Oh!"] I must say I am astonished at the ignorance which is shown by Gentlemen opposite as to the details of military affairs. It is also true that Her Majesty's Government have the greatest confidence in their military officers in the Soudan, and that they can trust and rely on the character and proceedings of the British Generals and British troops; but, at the same time, they do exercise a control over them, and they do exercise a control over them which it is impossible for them to exercise over the troops of the Ameer. Does the noble Lord perceive that difference?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord does not perceive that at all. He thinks we have just the same power of controlling the troops of the Ameer as our own.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No. What I said was that the Ameer had the same control over his own troops as Her Majesty's Government have over the British troops in the Soudan.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is flying from the point. [Opposition cries of "No!"] Well, Sir, the clamour which has become usual on that side of the House is, unhappily, establishing new Rules for the conduct of Business, which will have the effect, I am afraid, of establishing not only new Rules, but forming new impediments to the progress of Business at a time when I am no longer here either to profit or to suffer from these altered methods of procedure. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) does not seem to understand that there was a different point raised by the noble Lord. The noble Lord raised two points—one with regard to the Ameer, and the other with regard to our control over the troops in the Soudan. He chose to establish that comparison, and it was my duty to point out the difference between those points. I was pointing out the difference—[Cries of "No!" and "Order!"] I must say that some of the Gentlemen who interrupt me should either alter their modes of proceeding, or suggest a method by which hereafter the debates of this House are to be carried on. It is hardly possible, I am afraid, under present
  746
  circumstances, to do justice or to pay proper respect to the House, and preserve the proper and necessary continuity of my remarks, if conduct so extraordinary, so unparalleled—[Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] Yes; I must tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire that it is unparalleled. I am sorry that he should give it encouragement.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to say that I was extremely sorry at the interruptions; but what I endeavoured to express a negative view upon was the statement that they had been unparalleled. I have heard interruptions of the same kind ever since I have been in the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not heard such interruptions; but I accept thankfully the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he regretted the interruptions on the present occasion, and I withdraw my criticism upon what I thought to be the sentiment that he entertained. Coming back to the point under consideration, I said that there was a great deal of difference between the control which Her Majesty's Government exercised over their own troops and their own forces and the control which they could exercise over the forces of the Ameer. I say does the noble Lord admit that difference? I understood him to say that he does not admit it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord does not admit that difference?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have no desire to interrupt the Prime Minister; but the right hon. Gentleman has really mis-stated my case altogether. I said that if the Ameer did not care about Penjdeh he would not have allowed his troops to fight for it; and then I said that the control of the Ameer over his troops was as great as that of Her Majesty's Government over the forces in the Soudan.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That was not my point. The point which I was discussing at that moment was not the control of the Ameer over his troops, but the control of the British Government over the Ameer's troops. I was pressing upon the Committee that the position of the British Government was

  747
  most peculiar, in as much as they had responsibility for a Frontier defended by troops over which they had not the usual, or any complete military control. Have I made that point clear as far as the noble Lord and the Committee are concerned? Then the noble Lord says that the Ameer had as complete control over his troops as the British Government had over the forces in the Soudan. I entirely differ from that proposition. I entirely deny it. In the first place, the control of this Government is not required to the same extent, and it can be conveyed by telegraph in the shortest possible time. The Ameer, on the contrary, is at a distance, and was at this period at a distance of I know not how many days, with no telegraph, with no rapid means of communication, and with the greatest difficulties in regard to the nature of the country to contend with. Therefore, my position, in answer to the noble Lord, is that you cannot infer that because the Ameer's troops, in the exercise of their duty, as they supposed, defended a particular point, the Ameer was a party to their defending that point at that time. Still less can you infer that the Ameer attached, or did not attach, any importance to the permanent retention of that point. The noble Lord says that his speech is one in the nature of an inquiry. As to the painful subject upon which I just touched, I assure hon. Gentlemen that if I take notice of these interruptions it is not really on my own account. They matter very little to a person whose future intervention in political conflicts is much more likely to be measured by weeks than by months, and certainly by months than by years. It is because of the deep conviction I have that a great blow has been struck at the liberties and the dignity of this House by the modes of proceeding which have within the last few years—the last very few years, speaking with great respect for the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—been introduced into its debates. The noble Lord says that his speech is in the nature of an inquiry; but his inquiry did not prevent him from declaring his conviction that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the conflict at Penjdeh. When we come to a deliberate debate, it will be found that Her Majesty's Government have given every support that they could to
  748
  their Agents on the spot, to Sir Peter Lumsden, and at St. Petersburg; and the question how the agreement of the 16th of March failed to be fulfilled and how bloodshed resulted will be submitted to a high and impartial authority. The noble Lord referred to what he calls "my unusual course" in speaking of the possible contents of the Papers on the views of the Ameer regarding Penjdeh. A variety of matters connected with the Central Asian Question had been stated; and all I said was, "What defence will you have if, when the Papers are published, you find that you were wrong in this or that particular?" The noble Lord says that was an unusual proceeding; but it was a proceeding drawn forth by a proceeding still more unusual, for the general practice of this House is that when great questions of policy are depending to wait for the production of the Papers, and when the Papers have been produced, then to have a discussion upon them. It was my duty to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite of the dangerous ground upon which they were entering, and I believe the warning I then gave has been proved to have been needed. The noble Lord now says that he finds reason to doubt whether my warning was justified. I say that it was justified. I am not entitled to quote Papers which are not before the House, and I am not entitled, therefore, to state what specific expressions formed the grounds on which I proceeded; but it would have been extremely wrong on my part to say as much as I did if I had not been in possession of information which warranted my statement. The noble Lord will find that the inferences he has drawn are perfectly baseless. The Ameer says, in the passage which the noble Lord quoted last, that the Afghan troops would fight for every part of Afghanistan. Undoubtedly; the Afghans are a brave people, and they would fight, and have fought, for everything they believed; to belong to the territory of their master, or any territory held in the name of their Sovereign. In the letter of the Ameer there is no reference whatever to Penjdeh. There is no reference to any territory in particular; but there is a statement which speaks of Afghan land, and of a determination to hold it. The noble Lord has entered upon another question in

  749
  regard to which I perfectly admit he is entitled to an explanation from me, though it is impossible for me to give that explanation at the present time. The noble Lord thinks that I made on the 13th of March a statement which is not justified by the facts, and the questions which are raised are these. First of all, whether what I stated was accurate with respect to the substance of the communications that had passed between the two Governments? Now, Sir, that question I must reserve, for it is totally impossible, I am afraid, for me to recollect what I said on that occasion or on subsequent occasions. But the noble Lord has quoted the description of what I said given in a despatch from the Foreign Office, which he was perfectly justified in quoting. I quite admit the legitimacy of that proceeding; but I must take the liberty to ascertain, as exactly as I can, what was said, in order that I may be able to state to the Committee whether I recited with perfect accuracy the state of the communications between the two Governments. But there is one point which the noble Lord does not seem to understand. He appears to think that because I stated that there was a concurrence of view between the two Governments on certain matters, therefore it was wrong for the Foreign Office to refer to St. Petersburg, and to endeavour to obtain an authentic declaration upon that matter from the Russian Government itself. There the noble Lord will, perhaps, allow me to say he is mistaken; for the basis upon which. I proceeded was this. Certain negotiations were going on, and communications had been received from Sir Edward Thornton. I had no right to hold the Russian Government bound by these communications; but I had a right to believe that a concurrence of opinion had been arrived at, and I had a right to recite the fact, because I believed it to be true, that a concurrence of opinion had been arrived at. I had no right to assume that the Report of a British Ambassador to his Government was a document binding upon the Russian Government. Consequently it was perfectly regular, and, as I think, very prudent, to make a reference to St. Petersburg at once, for the purpose of removing any doubt upon the subject, and of obtaining that which could be relied upon as the actual utterance of
  750
  the Russian Government. And, Sir, I am happy to observe that there does not seem to be any great discrepancy in this matter. The Committee is aware of all the recent information we have received. The Committee knows that from day to day we endeavoured to tell exactly what had happened, after the alarming news which came from the Frontier. Long before that we endeavoured to give to the House all the information which reached us. We were engaged in endeavouring to obviate the risk of a conflict on the Frontier. We had no reason to believe that the question we were negotiating was one of hopeless difficulty; but we had reason to believe that an armed collision would tend very greatly to complicate the question, and we were therefore anxious, in the first place, to obtain from the Russian Government an assurance that there would be no advance of her troops. That would have obviated all risk. Secondly, in order to allay excitement in this and in other countries we desired to make known what the position of the question was. On the 13th of March I made the statement which the noble Lord impugns. And whether that statement was or was not accurate at that time, in regard to it at present I make no assumption. But, having been reported at St. Petersburg, it was accepted there with an addition, which was immediately stated to the House. The main object, that there was to be no advance, was attained; and if there was a question of advancing beyond the positions occupied, or of advancing beyond a certain line, at any rate it could not have acted upon the minds of hon. Members for more than a very few days. The noble Lord understood that which I think is clear to the Committee, that when our Ambassador at St. Petersburg had recited to us his conversation with the Foreign Minister, it was our duty to endeavour to obtain the substance of that interview in an absolutely authentic form. The noble Lord has alluded to a sacred covenant, and he appears to think that what I referred to on the 13th of March was the "sacred covenant." It was nothing of the kind. It was to this matter, and not to my statement of the 13th of March, that I applied the term "sacred covenant," and in my opinion that was a just and proper description of a covenant, a failure to keep which

  751
  involved the loss of hundreds of lives, and shook the whole civilized world with the apprehensions of war. A covenant of such a description well deserved to be described by me as a sacred covenant. But that is not what I spoke of on the 13th of March. That was a preliminary statement subject to verification. The verification was obtained from the Russian Government, with an addition which we thought it wise at the time to accept, but which has since been described, and truly described, as a material addition. The Russian Government, with that addition, accepted the terms we had used. That I say was the sacred covenant, but it was not the language I had used on the 13th of March. On the present occasion I can go no further. I will endeavour to examine and see how far I am responsible for the accusation which the noble Lord has brought against me, and whether I have been guilty of some slight inaccuracy in my communications to the House. At present I am not in a position to affirm or deny; but as soon as I can I will take care to ascertain the exact position of the facts, and to put them in the possession of the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir Arthur Otway, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has not only challenged the proceedings of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for raising these questions now, but he has also blamed us for raising a discussion on this subject before we were in possession of Papers. Last week, when on the occasion of the Report of the Vote for £11,000,000 we had a most legitimate opportunity for calling attention to the subject, and were proceeding to inquire into the facts that had led to that Vote, we were told to wait until we had the Papers in our hands, which it was said would throw light upon the negotiations, and we were further told that if we went on without those Papers we should be liable to go entirely wrong. We were likewise informed that when we examined the Papers we might find that we were altogether in error in regard to Penjdeh, because it might be found that the Ameer did not attach any importance to the possession of that place. What is our position now? When we come to look into the Papers we find that they contain very inadequate infor-
  752
  mation on many important points. We find that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister challenges even statements made on the strength of those Papers, because there are other Papers which have not been presented; and he not obscurely intimates on one particular point on which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock questioned him that there was something very important still to come forward with regard to it in Papers that would be laid upon the Table of the House. The noble Lord asked—"What is your authority for saying, or intimating, or giving the House to suppose that when we see these Papers we might find that the Ameer does not attach any importance to the possession of Penjdeh?" The noble Lord, at the same time, referred to the letter of the Ameer, written at the time of the appointment of Sir Peter Lumsden, in which the Ameer said—
  "I hope that you [Sir Peter Lumsden] will with great courage and valour negotiate with the Russian Agents regarding the disputed frontier line, and that you may rest assured that they [the Russians] have not in hand a dot in writing from me at any time which may be a pretext to enable them to enter and take possession of the Afghan land. I am so firm in resisting for my rights, that if the Russian Agents should wish to take a piece or fragment from the ruins of the Afghanistan frontier, it will be impossible for them to do so as long as the Afghans have strength and power to resist."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 122.]
  Those were the views of the Ameer, and, Sir, Her Majesty's Government seem to have understood the matter in the same light. If we turn to page 163 of the Blue Book, we find that Earl Granville, writing to Sir Peter Lumsden on the 3rd of March, 1885, said that Her Majesty's Government could not advise the Afghans to attack the Russian troops in order to dislodge them from the positions they then occupied; but that Her Majesty's Government considered that the further advance of the Russians should, subject to military considerations, be resisted by the Afghans. Thus you had before you the impression formed and expressed by the Ameer with regard to the Frontier of Afghanistan, and you have endorsed a gloss upon it by the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government. But you cast imputations upon the Ameer and say—" Suppose when you have the Papers you find that the Ameer does

  753
  not care for Penjdeh?" The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intimates still that there is matter in the other Papers not yet presented which may change the whole situation. Then, Sir, I ask when are we to discuss this question? All that we can obtain from Her Majesty's Government is that we are to wait for Papers; that they are not ready yet; that they are coming in a week or so, and that when we do get them we shall, perhaps, find that they alter the whole state of affairs. Then, with regard to another observation of the noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says—" What do you mean by this? You charge us with being responsible for the slaughter which has taken place and the destruction which has fallen upon the Afghans. How do you show that? The noble Lord makes no attempt to prove so grave an assertion." But it seems to me that the noble Lord did make the attempt. I do not pretend to say what the right hon. Gentleman's exact words were; but, in point of fact, he did take exception to the noble Lord's not having, as he said, proved the statement which he made that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for what had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman asked how the Government wore to have prevented it? The noble Lord expressly dwelt upon the point, and said that it was to have been done not by sending troops to Penjdeh, not by encouraging Sir Peter Lumsden to expect support from Her Majesty's Government, or by sending him absolutely useless telegrams, but by putting pressure on the Russian Government at headquarters—at St. Petersburg. That was a reasonable view which might very well be put forward and urged, and I think the noble Lord pressed that view in a very powerful manner, and that he had shown it was in that way that assistance should have been given. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has also dwelt upon that passage in the speech of the noble Lord, in which he referred to the assurance given to the House on the 13th of March last that an agreement had been come to of a certain character, which agreement, when we came to see the Papers, we ascertained had not been made. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a matter of explanation, and he gave us the best explanation that we have been able to obtain—namely, that
  754
  there was a qualification in the words; and it will be recollected that we mentioned at the time to the House that there was such qualification, and that it created a certain sensation when it became known. But what we want to point out is, that in these important matters, when we are relying on the statements of Ministers, we are anxious to know how far we can rely upon the statements they make, and that if we find that those statements, made in an authoritative manner, are not after all supported by the despatches, it leads to this result—that our confidence is shaken in all that has been said by Ministers with regard to this matter. It is entirely within the right and province of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, or any Member of this House, to put interrogatories to Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of ascertaining precisely the position in which do stand, and to obtain some explanation of things which on the face of the Papers are of great importance to the nation. The matter is one of such importance that I do not think the Committee is at all to blame for exercising thereon a considerable amount of curiosity, and I cannot think that a short discussion upon it now does in any way prejudice the question between this country and Russia.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with regard to the agreement with the Russian Government might justly be described as factitious, because he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) believed that that plea had been invented or revised by the right hon. Gentleman under the influence of those subterranean diplomatic agencies which had been so long rife in the country. At all events, they knew that the agreement had altogether failed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was justified in describing the arrangement as a binding and sacred covenant; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) held that anyone who studied the Papers would see that if the Prime Minister was not justified in doing so on the 13th of March, much less was he justified in describing it as a binding agreement on the 27th of April. So far from that being the case, the Russian Government had added a reservation as to the disturbance at Penjdeh which made it utterly valueless. No-

  755
  thing, then, could justify the Prime Minister in speaking of the arrangement as a binding agreement. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to what had taken place last week. On Monday or Tuesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came down to the House with another important statement with regard to the Prussian Government. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Earl of Kimberley and M. de Staal had agreed upon a new Frontier line, and he led the House to hope that they had arrived at a settlement of the boundary between Afghanistan and the Russian Dominions. But said the right hon. Gentleman—"it is sent to St. Petersburg to be ratified." What had occurred since? Why, it was the old thing over again—the right hon. Gentleman came down three days afterwards and said he was mistaken in reference to that agreement. Now, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asserted that they had a right to know, and without delay, what was that new Frontier which the Russian Ambassador had accepted. They had a right to know, because by the withholding of information the country had undoubtedly drifted into a position in which a surrender of all that we had hitherto claimed was almost inevitable, and further surrenders might take place while the country and the Opposition were endeavouring to obtain information from Pier Majesty's Government with regard to the actual position of the Afghan Frontier question. What was the Frontier line that had been agreed upon? Was it arranged that Penjdeh or Akrobat should be given up to Russia? He could tell Her Majesty's Government that if they would be frank and state to the country the line of Frontier that had been agreed upon, they would receive far more strength than weakness thereby. If the contents of the Blue Book which he held in his hand had been published before Easter, he believed that the Russian Government would not have dared to make the attempts to advance which they had made since that time. Her Majesty's Government assumed that they were making peace certain by an abject surrender; but he ventured to tell them that they were making war certain, and that probably within a short space of time. They were destroying the belief of the Afghans in the power and deter-
  756
  mination of Great Britain, and they were encouraging the Russian Government to continue to seek successes, by the very policy to which might be traced the breach of all covenants and previous agreements in respect of Afghanistan. The House were told that the Ameer did not care for Penjdeh. There could be no doubt whatever that that place constituted a most important position he did not know whether or not the Ameer was a great strategist; he did not know that the Ameer had ever been to Penjdeh; but he did know that the leading strategists in India and in this country regarded Penjdeh as a point of vital importance to the defence of Afghanistan. And how did Her Majesty's Government regard it? They had urged the Afghans to keep Penjdeh; they approved of their occupying that position and strengthening themselves there; they had advised the Afghans not to yield Penjdeh to Komaroff's threats. He would like to know how Her Majesty's Government could come down to the House of Commons and confess, under those circumstances, that they had surrendered Penjdeh to Russia? He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not very well acquainted with the contents of the Blue Book; but he wanted to point out that as long ago as March last Her Majesty's Government were clearly informed in one of the despatches that Penjdeh had formed part of Afghanistan ever since Afghanistan became a Kingdom, and that, as one of the Dependencies under the rule of Shore Ali, the tribes there paid tribute to the Ruler of Afghanistan. That was not his opinion, nor the opinion of the Ameer; but it was the solemn and deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers in March last. Hon. Gentlemen on those Benches wanted to know what were the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for abandoning Penjdeh to Russia? What had happened since the Prime Minister, on Monday or Tuesday last, stated with regard to the disputed Frontier that a line had been agreed upon? Why, one of the most striking events, at any rate, which had happened had shown the people of England how little the Russian Government cared for the Government of Great Britain, and how little it was desirous of preserving a good feeling between themselves and the British

  757
  Government. The Czar had conferred the highest honours in his power upon the unprovoked aggressor of Penjdeh; he had written him an autograph letter, thanking him for his conduct in Afghanistan, which was conveyed to him at Pul-i-Khisti, and he was also presented with a jewelled sword. And, further, all the time that had been going on fresh attempts were being made on the Frontier, which the House were led to believe had been settled last Monday. Sir Peter Lumsden had been recalled from the position to which Her Majesty's Government had sent him; our prestige in the East was being rapidly destroyed, and the recall of that distinguished officer, as contrasted with the honours which had been conferred on General Komaroff, would, of course, be taken as a sign of weakness alike in Europe and in Asia. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to the way in which the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter was regarded in Foreign States and in India amongst our subjects there. Notwithstanding the case with which the Prime Minister was accustomed to dispose of the opinions of the Foreign Press and the leading organs of Europe, he could tell him that those opinions were far more nearly akin to the real sentiments of the people of this country and the view which would be taken of this matter in future history than the opinions of those organs in England that supported the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The number of these was, he felt bound to say, sufficiently scarce at the present time. One of the leading Russian organs said that the British Government had solemnly renounced its unreasonable pretensions, and bowed to the strong will of Russia, in consenting to accept the Russian programme for the arrangement of affairs in Central Asia, and that it was enough to make the shadow of concession to England in order to give her the means of escaping from the dangerous dilemma in which she was placed. That was describing, in language which could not be exceeded, the surrender of the Government of Great Britain. But he would also refer to the opinion of one of the leading journals of India, which more nearly concerned them than the opinions of the Russian Press. The Hindoo Patriot said
  758
  that the Russian Government was carrying things entirely in their own way; that the people of India were witnesses of England's humiliation; that their regret knew no bounds, and that, as people loyal and faithful to the Grown, they felt covered with shame and degradation. That was the language of a very influential organ which circulated largely amongst our fellow-subjects in India. He repeated that they had a right to demand from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a statement which would give the House a clear idea of this new Frontier line. They wished to know to what extent Her Majesty's Government had thus far consented to surrender to Russia in order that they might strengthen their hands, enable them to show a little determination, and, if possible, to obviate further surrender in the future. The House at that time knew pretty well what form the demands of Russia were likely to assume—they knew that the discovery had been made by Russia that the Sarikh Turkomans wanted pasture land further South than Penjdeh; they knew, also, that further insidious advances were being made Eastward; and he said that they had a right, in view of the surrenders which the Blue Book foreshadowed, and which would no doubt increase, to demand from Her Majesty's Government a clear definition of the boundary line on which Earl Granville, the Earl of Kimberley, and M. de Staal had agreed upon between themselves. The Blue Book published a few mornings ago made some very extraordinary disclosures; it showed, in the first place, that Her Majesty's Government had no excuse whatever for self-deception in this matter. The Russian demand was set forth with the greatest clearness in the despatch of M. de Giers of the 3rd of October, in which the Russian Foreign Minister demanded a Frontier extending as far down as the Paropamisus Hills. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) ventured to say that if the people of this country had at the time found that the Russian Government demanded that the Frontier should be extended as far South as that range, the Government would have had considerably more strength in their negotiations with Russia than had been the case. It was shown that there had never been any intention on the part of the Rus-

  759
  sian Government to send a Boundary Commissioner to the Frontiers of Afghanistan earlier than the month of February or the month of March. The Memorandum relating to the Frontier contained an extraordinary clause, which he had ventured to read to the House on the occasion of his having put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, to the effect that the Russians would only accept that extreme Southern boundary as far as the Paropamisus Hills, on condition that the Afghans would not fortify that Frontier in such a way as should be a menace to the neighbouring population. The Committee would know very well what that meant—it meant that the Ameer should not fortify his Frontier at all; the Russian Government would say that any fortification of the Hills was a menace to the Sarikhs or the Turkomans, of whom the Russian Government had made so much use. If any hon. Gentleman had any belief in the honour and in the pacific intentions of the Russian Government, he recommended them to read this Blue Book very carefully, because he did not think that the contents of any Blue Book ever laid on the Table of House made greater revelations to Parliament than this; and he had no doubt whatever that it had been very considerably expurgated. He did not altogether join with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his critical, and, he was bound to say, very effective, denunciation of the conduct of Earl Granville in this matter. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was not a great admirer of that noble Earl in his foreign policy, and he had little doubt that there were some Ministers on the Treasury Bench who would not be altogether sorry to see Earl Granville overthrown; but, with regard to the despatches from which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had quoted, he did not think that there was much fault to be found with Earl Granville in that case, because the weakness had, in his opinion, been far more in the Cabinet than with Earl Granville. He believed the weakness rested far more with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who always advocated a policy of scuttling, than with the noble Earl; and he thought it was juster to lay the blame where it ought properly to be
  760
  placed than upon a Minister whose probable failure was his misfortune rather than his fault. There were traces in the Papers that Earl Granville, although he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was at that moment in a position to lay his finger upon them, did appreciate the seriousness of the crisis, and did write a despatch which, if followed up, would have had a salutary effect. But the noble Earl had always been pulled up by that mysterious agency behind him, and the divided councils of the Cabinet, arising from the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, no doubt, but particularly from that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, as he had said, was always the advocate in that House of the policy of "scuttle." There were facts stated in those Papers which proved that Earl Granville was early in the day alive to the real meaning of the Russian advance. Lord Granville wrote for an explanation to M. de Giers, and in rather an ingenious way, for he did not say that Her Majesty's Government took the view; but he said that if the Russian Government did not withdraw their Force, and did not prohibit General Komaroff to advance, Her Majesty's Government would find it very difficult to make the Indian Government refrain from taking proceedings. He could not give the exact words of the despatch to which he was referring; but he believed that he had fairly paraphrased it; and it showed that the Indian Government, at all events, were alive to the danger which the progress of Russia on the Frontier of Afghanistan involved. He regretted the more that he could not at the moment give the number of the despatch, because it went to the noble Earl's credit. Well, then, he believed that the weakness displayed by the Government had arisen mainly from the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and not so much from the action of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As he had said, there were evidences in the Blue Book that the noble Earl had seen the danger of the situation, although there was no doubt he had been pulled back by the action of the Cabinet. He did not wish to detain the Committee on this subject further

  761
  than to say that the Blue Books were full of important and suggestive matter, which illustrated the truth of the remarkable prophecy or statement of Viscount Palmerston with regard to the action of Russia, and to which he would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Viscount Palmerston said that the policy of Russia was to push her encroachments as fast and as far as the want of firmness on the part of other nations would allow her to go. That was exactly what had been done by Russia on the Afghan Frontier. While the Russian Government had been putting off Her Majesty's Government and allaying apprehension by smooth language at home, the Russian officers had instructions to push on and seize everything they could; and there could be no doubt that they were so instructed from St. Petersburg; because the answer of General Komaroff to the British officer was that he was acting under Royal orders; that his orders were to advance to Pul-i-Khisti; and the General appealed to our officer and said—"You also are officers of a Sovereign, and you know that orders must be obeyed;" and if further proof were needed that the instructions of the Russian General were sent from St. Petersburg it would be found in the fact that the Czar himself had conferred the highest decoration on General Komaroff and upon his aide-de-camp, and written the former an autograph letter endorsing all that had been done. On the 24th of October last Earl Granville, writing to Sir Edward Thornton, said—
  "I mentioned, however, the delays which were at present occurring, and the difficulties which were made in regard to the date and place of meeting of the Afghan Boundary Commission, and which I thought were very unfortunate. These difficulties were almost certain to be considered by the Government of India as being purposely created by the Russian Government, with the object of postponing the operations of the Commission until the Russian authorities on the spot had had time to arrange matters in the manner they thought most favourable to their views."—[Central Asia No. 2(1885), p. 95.]
  That was a pretty plain hint that even Earl Granville saw what the real meaning of the Russian action was, and yet the Government kept back all information from the House. He suspected that when they came to examine some
  762
  of the statements which had been made by Ministers in the House in answer to Questions, and in debate with regard to the different advances of the Russians, they would find very grave discrepancies between them and the statements made in the Blue Book. What were the facts with regard to the Afghan Frontier? Last July the Boundary Commission was agreed to. The Commissioners were to meet in October, and our Commissioner was ready on the spot early in November. The Russian Commissioner had not yet appeared upon the scene, but the Russian Forces had advanced. The next point of interest was the demand of Her Majesty's Government for the withdrawal of the Russian Forces. That was the only piece of real firmness the Government had displayed; but that was allowed to lapse. What was the reply of the Russian Government to the demand for the withdrawal of its Forces? Why, it was another leap forward of from 40 to CO miles all along the Frontier, coming close to Zulfikar and Akrobat and up to the bridge at Pul-i-Khisti. Then came the famous agreement of the 13th of March, an agreement which seemed to have been entirely devised—he would not say invented—by the Prime Minister out of his inner conscience. The right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues were so astonished to hear of the agreement that they insisted upon a telegram being sent to St. Petersburg to ascertain whether it was correct. Then came back the halting ratification or approval from M. de Giers, that the Russians would not advance unless some extraordinary circumstance occurred. That was the modification which enabled the Prime Minister to inform Parliament that the agreement was no longer a fallacious agreement or arrangement, but a solemn and binding covenant. That was the burden of the Prime Minister's argument that night. The right hon. Gentleman had said that night that on the 13th of March there was an agreement, that he telegraphed to know whether the Russian Government sanctioned the agreement, and on the 17th of March he received the answer that Russia did sanction it plus this extraordinary reservation. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) maintained that, so far from turning the agreement or arrangement of the 13th of March into a "binding and solemn

  763
  covenant," the reply of M. de Giers made the agreement absolutely worthless, and that was the view which the St. Petersburg Press and Government took of the reply of M. de Giers. But when the Prime Minister made his bellicose speech of the 22nd of April in order to carry the Vote of £11,000,000, he, with all the flowers of oratory, developed the fallacious agreement or arrangement of the 13th of March into one of the most solemn and binding covenants ever made between two nations. In this case, unfortunately for Her Majesty's Government, the Russians were less open to the charge of perfidy than usual. They hinted pretty clearly all through that they meant to get up a disturbance at Penjdeh, and therefore everyone was prepared for that disturbance. What was the object of that disturbance? It was to obtain a strategical position of great value, to terrify the Afghans and destroy our repute amongst those people, and to establish amongst our Allies throughout Central Asia a belief in the Czar's irresistible might. That object the Russians fully attained. Now, the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the Frontier line bade fair to be as fallacious as that with regard to the agreement. The Frontier line said to have been agreed upon last Monday had not yet been agreed upon, and Parliament did not know that it ever would be agreed upon. A case for fuller information had been made out. The House had the right to demand, not only that the new Blue Book should be published at once, but that Her Majesty's Government should inform the country just how much they were now prepared to surrender, and whether their surrender included Zulfikar, Penjdeh, and the other places which it was known that the Russian Government were trying to obtain.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when he referred to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he stated that the noble Lord did not suggest what the Government ought to have done in the event of any armed collision. He now was given to understand that the noble Lord did point out what the Government ought to have done, and that was to declare that any advance of the Russian Forces would be a casus belli. If the noble Lord said that, undoubtedly
  764
  his (Mr. Gladstone's) remarks were not warranted.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not point out what the Government ought to have done, but he ventured to indicate the course that might have been adopted under certain circumstances. He wished now, as there was to be no division, and as the Government were not inclined to give way, to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Motion be, by leave, withdrawn."
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should like to take that opportunity, the first he had had since the Blue Book was published, of bearing his testimony to the admirable way in which Sir Peter Lumsden had done his work. He should have thought that after the rewards which had been given to General Komaroff the Prime Minister would have felt it incumbent upon him to take the first opportunity of acknowledging to the House and the country the admirable manner in which Sir Peter Lumsden had performed his work, and of giving expression to the confidence which the Government had all along had in that gallant officer. It was only due to that officer, who had had to perform a task, perhaps, as difficult as that which any Envoy ever sent from this country had had to discharge, that he should receive some public recognition from Her Majesty's Government, and yet the Prime Minister had not said a word on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when Sir Peter Lumsden left this country he left on the clear and distinct understanding that all arrangements had been made for the Russian Envoy to meet him at a certain time, he believed at Sarakhs. What were they to say when a General of Sir Peter Lumden's position, one who was intimate with Afghan affairs, one who was on the best of terms with the Ameer, received no recognition from the First Minister of the Crown? He (Mr. Onslow) should like to know if Sir Peter Lumsden had been recalled at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, or if he in any way hinted before he was recalled that he was of no use and could not agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Did the intimation come originally from the Secretary of State for

  765
  Foreign Affairs that Sir Peter Lumsden was no longer required on the Frontier of Afghanistan? There was no doubt whatever that there were many despatches of great importance, which had not found a place in the Blue Book; and, putting two and two together, his own impression was that Sir Peter Lumsden had more than once hinted he could do no more on the borders of Afghanistan. It was not often that officers trained in India had to deal officially with officers representing European Powers; but he (Mr. Onslow) contended that no man could have acted in this matter with greater tact than Sir Peter Lumsden had displayed; he had in every way endeavoured to prevent a conflict between the Afghans and the Russians, and it was no fault of his that he had not succeeded. He (Mr. Onslow) desired to say one or two words about the agreement which the Prime Minister had referred to that night. He was in the House on the 13th of March when the Prime Minister said that an arrangement had been arrived at with the Government of St. Petersburg; and he, in common with everyone else, thought the words of the right hon. Gentleman were most portentous. Just before the House rose on the 13th of March the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not in the House; but the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) were present, and the Government were asked to explain more fully what the agreement was. His (Mr. Onslow's) impression was that there was not a single Member of the Cabinet who believed there was any agreement arrived at, and that impression was justified by the remarks of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. The noble Marquess, on being pressed to give his opinion, said—
  "I was not in the House when the Prime Minister gave his answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) this evening; but it is now asked of me somewhat to extend the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman made. I feel that I should be taking a great responsibility, affecting not only the Government, but interests far transcending those affecting any Government, if I were to attempt now to extend any answer given by the Prime Minister, the purport of which I am not sufficiently acquainted with."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1195–6.)
  766
  It struck many hon. Members at the time that the noble Marquess had at least been told what the Prime Minister said earlier in the evening; certainly there were several Members of the Government present who could have told the noble Marquess exactly what the Prime Minister said. Reading between the lines, it appeared to him (Mr. Onslow) that the Prime Minister, when he made use of the word "agreement" and afterwards "arrangement," went too far even for the Members of his Cabinet. He hoped that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) or some other Member of the Government would now rise in his place and state the opinion of the Government of the way in which Sir Peter Lumsden had done his work, and in that manner somewhat counteract the influence that had been spread abroad by the announcement of the rewards showered upon General Komaroff.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Prime Minister had expressed annoyance at some interruptions which took place, during the course of his speech, in the quarter of the House in which the Irish Members sat. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was very sorry that a blow was being struck at the character of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman felt stung because he was treated as plenty of other Members had been treated, and were treated nightly. He might say, judging from his experience in the House, extending now over many years, that no Minister who had ever sat on the Treasury Bench had struck greater blows at the character of the House of Commons than the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentle man had been a party to the suspension of certain Members of the House—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have no relevancy whatever to the Question before the Committee, which is that the Amendment be withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he objected to the Amendment being withdrawn, and he might be permitted to say that upon the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) the Prime Minister made a remarkably weak speech. On one day the Prime Minister said that an agreement had been entered

  767
  into with the Russian Government; but on the very next day a telegram was sent to the Government of St. Petersburg to ascertain whether they would confirm what the Prime Minister had said. In his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have obtained the assent of the Government of St. Petersburg to the agreement before he stated that the agreement existed. The position of the Prime Minister on that point was perfectly untenable, and not only so, but the position of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly untenable with regard to the allegation or insinuation that the Ameer of Afghanistan did not care for that part of his Dominions in which Penjdeh was situated. That statement or insinuation was entirely upset by what the Ameer wrote—namely, that he would defend every part of his Dominions. In point of fact, what the Government had done was to mislead the Ameer, for they had led him to believe that they would support him and protect him from the attacks of the Russians; but when it came to the point they were not prepared to do so. The Government had simply acted the part of traitors to the interests of the Ameer. It was one thing for the Earl of Dufferin to make a parade of troops, but quite another thing to meet the Russians. At the same time, he (Mr. Biggar) did not believe with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the English Government could, by any pressure they might have brought to bear on the Government of St. Petersburg, have stopped the advance of the Russians. The Russians knew their power, and they knew England's weakness. The great mistake the English had made in dealing with the Ameer was to make him believe they were prepared to do what they had not the power to do. The Ameer had found out the weakness of the British and the cowardice of the English Government; he had come to know the power of the Russians, and the result would be that we should soon find that the Ameer and the Czar were fighting on the same side as the common enemies of England. The Prime Minister said that night that the Government were always willing to give the House information. He wondered the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to make such a statement. It
  768
  was a notorious fact that, night after night, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) and other hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition himself (Sir Stafford Northcote), had put Questions to the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), with the result that the Questions had been evaded, and no information whatever given. The Prime Minister seemed to think that anything at all was good enough for the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman made the most outrageous statements, and thought that no dissatisfaction should be expressed from any quarter of the House. He (Mr. Biggar) never heard a weaker speech than that which the Prime Minister had delivered that night. He certainly thought that if the Government of this country was to be carried on, the Leadership should be in stronger hands than those in which it was at present.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 74: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 195.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  W. H. SMITHsaid, there was one question he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). Some time ago it was arranged that the work of the City Parochial Charities Commission should be transferred to the offices of the Charity Commission; but, unfortunately, for some reason or other, the arrangements had been delayed, or had not been carried out as completely and as fully as they ought to have been. He wished to obtain an assurance from his hon. Friend that the alterations or additions to the offices of the Charity Commission should be completed forthwith, so that the valuable labours of the City Parochial Charities Commission should be facilitated as much as possible.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, there had been some delay in carrying out the alterations in the offices of the Charity Commission; but he was hopeful that the alterations would shortly be completed.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, it was a matter of very considerable importance that the

  769
  City Parochial Charities Commission should, as had been promised so far back as the end of last year, be housed in the same building as the Charity Commission. He would remind the Secretary to the Treasury that the duties of the City Parochial Charities Commission were confined by the Act of 1883 to a fixed period of years, and that, therefore, it was desirable that the most rapid progress should be made with the work. Larger London—London outside the ancient city for whose benefit the funds were to be applied—was looking with some anxiety for the Schedules of the Commissioners, and for the schemes which where to follow, and while the bringing together of the two offices was delayed, progress was necessarily retarded.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) could scarcely have read the last Report of the Charity Commissioners, because, if he had done so, he would have found that in the month of November last sanction was given to the proposal to enlarge the building, and that the necessary works were now far advanced towards completion. [Mr. BRYCE: I am aware of it.] If the hon. and learned Member was aware of it, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not quite see what the hon. and learned Member's purpose was in rising to address the Committee, because he did not inform the Committee that that was the state of the case. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) had a much more interesting question connected with the Charity Commission to raise than one in regard to the building. The Commissioners represented that they would require a very considerable increase of staff. It seemed to him there was every indication of a larger demand being made upon the Votes for the Charity Commission, and therefore he thought it behaved the Treasury to put a little check upon that demand. He supposed the increased accommodation was necessary; but with regard to the prospective increase on account of staff, he thought it would be well if the Treasury led the Commissioners to understand that they were not at liberty to make what drafts they liked on the public money. Before the Vote was passed, he wished to ask one or two questions
  770
  upon the different matters included in it. There was the matter of the Secret Service. Inasmuch as £10,000 a-year came out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of Secret Service, and as the question of Secret Service was one attracting very careful investigation at the present time, he did not see why the Treasury should not consent to eliminate from this Vote the item of £15,000 for the Service. It was perfectly clear that it was not necessary to vote this money; £10,000 had already been voted, and the further sum now asked for would exhaust the whole Vote. They wore told that this Vote was wanted to enable the Government to go on for six weeks; but the Government really wished to take money for the 12 months. As the Consolidated Fund was never audited, the Committee ought to pause before they handed over to the Government the whole of this Vote. Then there was another matter on which he desired to address a question to the Government, and that was the grant in aid of Cyprus. He did not see that anything was taken on that account, and he ventured to inquire whether the Government had abandoned their intention of asking for any grant in aid of Cyprus? Having resorted to ail the sources of information open to him, his own opinion was that there was no real necessity for any grant in aid of Cyprus; that the administration of Cyprus was so dishonest and scandalous that the enormous amount of money taken from the taxpayers of this country on that account had not found its way into the local Exchequer; that the peculations, notorious and recognized by judicial tribunals, had been so great—["Order!" Mr. GLADSTONE: This is irrelevant.] He thought he was perfectly in Order in showing why it was that an omission from the Vote appeared in so strange a connection as the Cyprus Vote; and the Prime Minister's suggestion to the Chairman that his remarks were irrelevant might have been made in a lower tone of voice. He wanted to know why in this Vote the whole of the Secret Service money was taken, while nothing was taken for the Cyprus grant in aid? It was an indication, or it was not, of a change of policy on the part of the Government with regard to Cyprus. He wanted to know whether the Government had so changed their policy that they had

  771
  abandoned their intention of asking for any more money on account of Cyprus? There was another question to which he should like to obtain an answer if he could. It was with regard to the Vice Consul of the Levant. The Vice Consul of the British Government in the town of Caifa, on the bay of St. Jean D'Arc, was a German. Running down to that bay was a range of mountains called Mount Carmel, and on the spur of those mountains was a very famous monastery. He believed that the inmates of that monastery claimed that their Order was established as far back as the days of the Prophet Elias. He could not answer for the correctness of their traditions; but in a country where there were so many Freemasons who dated from the Creation, the antiquity claimed by the inmates of this monastery was not surprising. The monks of Mount Carmel were now claiming the protection of the Consuls and diplomatic officers of the different nationalities in that neighbourhood against the aggressions of a number of Germans. There were along that coast many Germans who called themselves Templars or Millearians, and they were under the leadership of a man named Hoffman, who had established himself at Jerusalem, and who was at the head of what he was pleased to call the theological school of Wurtenburg, having branches at Jaffa and Jerusalem.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he failed to see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were relevant to the present Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in the Vote was included £20,000 for Consular Services, and he was interested in pointing out the position of a certain Consular officer in the town of Caifa in the Levant. He presumed the salary of the officer was included in the Vote, and therefore he should not feel himself justified in assenting to the Vote being taken until he had obtained something like a satisfactory explanation as to the officer's position. The British Vice Consul at Caifa was a German, and a number of Germans under the leadership of a man named Hoffman had made a sudden raid upon the possessions of the ancient monastery of Mount Carmel. They had broken down the boundary walls; they had by force dispossessed the monks of their property; they had made a road across what used
  772
  to be the ground of the monastery; and generally they had imperilled the legal position of the monastery, and done a great deal of damage to the property of the establishment. The French Consular officer at Beyrout had so far been able to do something to protect the monks; but at Caifa, which was the Consular station immediately adjoining Mount Carmel, the British Consular officer was not an Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman, but a German—a Mr. Johan Schmitz. This officer was placed in a very embarrassing and invidious position. If he was called upon to vindicate the claims of those who were British subjects and members of the community at Mount Carmel, he had also, on the other hand, to consider that the aggressors were his own countrymen; and what made the position of Mr. Schmitz still more difficult was that the man who led the aggressors was Mr. Phillip Keller, brother of Mr. Pritz Keller, the German Vice Consul. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought it obvious the Government should take steps to secure the absolute independence of the British Vice Consul at Caifa.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and he did not hear him say that the inmates of the monastery were British subjects.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I did not say they were.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If they are not British subjects, what title has the British Vice Consul in the neighbourhood to interfere on their behalf?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not say the inmates of the monastery were British subjects, neither did he say they were not—that was after the Prime Minister's own style of argument. There were a number of Englishmen and Irishmen in the neighbourhood; but how far they represented in their own individual personalities the property of the community he was not able to say, because he was not conversant with the rules. He believed the Order of Mount Carmel was one of those Orders in which it was customary to take the vows of poverty; and, therefore, he supposed no individual could claim to have a legal right to any portion of the property of the monastery. The Prime Minister must know that there were persons of all nationalities in the

  773
  community, as there had been for centuries. The papers which he (Mr. A. O'Connor) held in his hand showed that there were in the monastery, at any rate, two or three different nationalities. There were, for instance, Bavarians; but the Bavarian members of the community appeared to think they had little chance of redress at the hands of their own Government or Vice Consul, because they had addressed their remonstrances, not to the Germans at all, but to the French Consular General at Beyrout. What he (Mr. A. O'Connor) was concerned in was not so much the property of the monastery, not the individual interests of any monks, none of whom he knew personally; but what he wished to point out was that a number of Germans had made a raid upon the monastery, and by the use of considerable violence—they used firearms in their attack—had broken down a portion of the inclosure of this beautiful monastery, and caused the inmates to submit to all sorts of encroachments. The British Vice Consul at Caifa was a German, a countryman of the aggressors. So far, the Vice Consul had acted very fairly; but the community felt they had not the same protection from the gentleman, whose countrymen were the aggressors, as they would have if the Vice Consul was not of the same nationality, but of an independent nationality, like the British. All he was anxious to secure was that the Government would extend to the Vice Consul at Caifa that amount of support as would place him in a position of absolute independence with regard to this matter.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought the Committee would not be surprised if he stated that some of the facts which had been stated by the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) were facts in regard to which he should like to make some inquiry before giving a reply. The Vice Consul at Caifa had generally been a German, and for this reason—that at Caifa there was a largo German Colony, and it was more easy to find in that Colony a German gentleman able to take the Vice Consular office than it would be to send a gentleman from England. The hon. Gentleman had said the Vice Consul was Mr. Johan Schmitz. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Schmitz, and he was much
  774
  struck by that gentleman's ability. He formed the impression that he was speaking to a man, not only of very high character, but one who possessed an intimate acquaintance with that part of the world, and one in whom the people would have great confidence. He was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman made no specific complaint against Mr. Schmitz in regard to this particular matter. It seemed that because Mr. Schmitz was a German, it was supposed he was not an altogether impartial man. Well, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was bound to say that in his belief any such fear was quite groundless. He did not understand there was any allegation that the inmates of the monastery were British subjects; but, nevertheless, he would undertake to make inquiries, and, if he found it necessary, proper steps would be taken. He was very anxious, however, that no impression should be left on the minds of hon. Gentlemen that the Foreign Office had any reason to doubt the ability or impartiality of Mr. Schmitz.
  MR. ABTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was obliged to the noble Lord for the terms in which he had answered his inquiry, and he should be perfectly content to leave the matter in the noble Lord's hands. He wished only to say that he had received a letter from Jerusalem in reference to this matter, and in the letter this passage occurred—
  "The English Vice Consul at Beyrout has acted well so far, hut he is a German."
  There was not the least imputation upon the character of the officer.
  MR. PARNELLwished to address a few words to the Committee with regard to this Vote of Credit, and to make a suggestion which he hoped might be regarded by the Government as a practical one. A Vote on Account—and this was the second which had been asked for by the Government that Session—practically withdrew from Parliament all control over the Estimates. A Vote on Account had always been held to be a Vote of a somewhat unconstitutional character. That was repeatedly said in past Parliaments. He recollected it was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Member for Limerick (Mr. Isaac Butt), who formerly led the Irish Party in the House of Commons—he recollected that hon. and learned Gentleman, who was admittedly

  775
  one of the greatest Irish authorities on British Constitutional Law, pointing out how, practically speaking, enormous Votes on Account deprived Parliament of all control over the Estimates. This Vote on Account was to extend over six weeks. In all probability Parliament would then be very near its close, and if the Government used the sum of money which they proposed to get by this Vote on Account, they would practically be relieved from the necessity of bringing forward Supply in the usual manner on Mondays and Thursdays during the interval. Consequently, Supply would very possibly be thrown into the last week of the Session. It would be admitted by any candid person that such a result as that would absolutely deprive Parliament of control over the Estimates. Now, the Government were very backward with Supply—["No, no!"] He thought they were very backward, having regard to the very large number of important Irish questions which would arise this Session on the Estimates, and having regard to the fact that Parliament would in all probability rise much sooner than the middle of the month of August, which was usually the time of Prorogation. Prom the point of view of absolute time, the Government might be as forward with Supply as they had been in previous Sessions; but having regard to the circumstances of the Session, they were certainly backward in this respect. The objections to relegating Supply to the last days of the Session had been repeatedly urged upon the Government from time to time; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the Pules of Procedure which he submitted to Parliament and devoted an entire Session to passing, arranged that there should be given two days a-week, clear of Motions against the Speaker leaving the Chair, on which the Committee of the House should discuss items in Supply. The object of that was that every facility should be afforded for Supply being properly considered. Monday and Thursday were now at the disposal of the Government for the purposes of Supply, and what he wished to ask of them was this. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was the proper person to address his inquiry to. He wished to know whether in future the Govern-
  776
  ment proposed to devote Monday and Thursday for the purpose of obtaining Supply until Supply was obtained? Every Session hon. Members found themselves placed in this position—that they were compelled to pass Supply without due discussion, or were threatened with physical force. They were constantly told that the House would be required to sit up all night, and in the end the Votes were passed with little or no discussion. The result of that state of things was the Irish Estimates were usually thrown over until the last fortnight or 10 days of the Session, and really received no discussion at all. That was a most inconvenient practice, and it was absolutely destructive of the interests of Ireland. He believed that enormous good would result from the full and efficient discussion of the Irish Estimates, and that such light would be thrown upon the system of government by permanent officials in Ireland as would surprise the House of Commons and open its eyes upon a great many matters in regard to which it was now ignorant. Therefore, what he asked was whether the Government proposed to take advantage of the Standing Order of the House, which enabled them to bring on Supply on Mondays and Thursdays without preliminary discussion, in such a way as to secure Mondays and Thursdays for Supply during the very short period of the Session which still remained until that Supply should have been obtained? His hon. Friends and himself had many questions which they desired to raise in Committee of Supply, and he was afraid that they would be compelled to raise some of them on the present Vote on Account, if it were made apparent that Mondays and Thursdays were not to be used for purposes of Supply, but for some other purpose. For his part, and he believed he might also speak for his hon. Friends, if it were certain that Her Majesty's Government would devote Monday and Thursday to Supply during the rest of the Session, until Supply was taken, they would be willing to forego their right to raise these points, which in despair of obtaining another opportunity they proposed to raise on the present Vote.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that at the present moment Supply was more forward than usual. The hon. Gentleman

  777
  was quite mistaken in supposing that it was unusually backward. More time had been devoted to Supply in the pre sent Session up to that period than in former Sessions, and they were only asking for a Vote on Account which would enable he Public Services to be regulated for about six weeks after Whitsuntide. The hon. Member said, looking at the certain fact that in about six weeks hence the Session would be nearly closed—
  MR. PARNELL: I never said anything about a "certain fact."
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member spoke of a confident assumption.
  MR. PARNELL: No; I said there was a probability.
  MR. GLADSTONEcontinued. The hon. Member, whether he spoke of it as a certain fact or a confident assumption, undoubtedly intimated that the Session would be near its close about six weeks hence; and he then proposed that the Government should set aside every Monday and Thursday for the rest of the Session for the purpose of bringing forward Supply. Almost in the same breath the hon. Member asked when the Government were going to proceed with the Labourers Bill. What was the meaning of that request? The hon. Member must know that it was a question which it was absolutely impossible for him (Mr. Gladstone) to answer. If the hon. Member would number up the days which had already been secured for Supply in the course of the present year, he would have no reason to complain. Of course, it was the natural desire, not of the present Government only, but of any Government, to got forward with Supply as much as they could. In this case they had already indicated that desire, and they had reduced the number of Bills they were about to present to Parliament. Indeed, he did not know whether they had not even gone too far in the exercise of that desire; but, at any rate, having, in the three months of the Session which wore already passed given substantial evidence of their desire to got on with Supply, it was impossible for them to say that every Monday and Thursday during the rest of the Session would also be devoted to Supply until Supply was obtained. What, in that case, would become of the other Business of the House. Take Votes of Censure for in-
  778
  stance. There had already been four or five Votes of Censure upon the conduct of the Government, moved by hon. Members on the other side of the House. He presumed that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) felt very great interest in those Votes of Censure, seeing that he invariably supported them.
  MR. KENNY: Quite right. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not understand why, under such circumstances, the hon. Member should desire to bar the door against more Votes of Censure. It was enough, however, to say that it would not be consistent with his public duty if he wore to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, he would say that it was the desire of the Government to devote as much time as possible to the speedy prosecution of Supply.
  MR. HIBBERTwished to add one word to the observations which had been made by the Prime Minister, in order to show the number of days which had been devoted to Supply in the present Session and in some three or four previous Sessions. This year there had already been 13 nights devoted to the consideration of the Estimates in Committee of Supply. In 1881, up to the 31st of May, there were only two; in 1882, two; in 1883, five; and in 1884, only one. This year there had already been 13 Supply nights, and it must be borne in mind that all the Votes were much more discussed now, he would not say than in any previous year, but certainly more than was generally the case in previou.3 years. In 1882 only five Votes were taken up to the end of the month of May; in 1883, 30 Votes; end in 1884, only three. This year, up to the present date, 26 Votes had been taken, and they had been obtained under the greatest difficulty, because, as hon. Members opposite would allow, nearly every Vote had been very seriously discussed. In regard to the opportunities which would still remain for discussing the Votes not yet disposed of, he would point out that the total amount of Votes to be taken was £26,000,000, and the Government were now asking for a Vote on Account to the extent of £3,200,000, having previously obtained about £3,300,000, which would still leave more than £19,000,000 to be taken hereafter, so that ample opportunities

  779
  would exist for discussion. There was one other subject to which attention had been called by an hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) who spoke earlier—namely, the Secret Service money. No answer had yet been given to the inquiry of the hon. Member, and it was only right that an answer should be given. The amount asked for on account of Secret Service was not the whole amount of that item. A sum of £10,000 had already been voted, and an additional sum of £15,000 was asked for that night; but £25,000 would still be left. In previous years it had been the custom to give part of the Secret Service money in every Vote on Account.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that there was a further sum of £10,000 charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he refrained from going into that matter, because it formed no part of the Vote asked for that night. The Committee, indeed, had no right to consider it in discussing the Estimates, as it was done by virtue of an Act of Parliament. Then, again, in regard to Cyprus—there was no money asked under that head in the present Vote. It had sometimes been the custom to ask for a reduced amount upon every item contained in the Estimates; but wherever it had been possible to do without a Vote on Account, he had withdrawn that particular Vote, and had, consequently, been able to reduce the total amount of the Vote asked for.
  MR. WARTONwished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman. He wanted to know whether, bearing in mind the Vote on Account already voted, and adding it to the Vote on Account now asked for, there would be any one item in the Estimates in respect of which there would be no balance left to be voted hereafter?
  MR. HIBBERT: No, none; except the Votes already passed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was quite plain, from the contention of the Prime Minister in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the Government had no intention of facilitating the discussion of the Estimates themselves, and when the Session was a little further advanced the pressure of Public Business would be pleaded by the Government as a ground for passing the Estimates without adequate consideration or debate. He thought
  780
  the request of his hon. Friend was an extremely reasonable one. A year or two ago, under the new Procedure Rules, the Government obtained from the House special facilities for pushing forward the Business of Supply. The Standing Order now enabled them to devote the whole of Monday and Thursday in every week to the Business of Supply, without the intervention of those Motions with regard to grievances which Members were formerly able to bring forward. The request of his hon. Friend was that the Government should devote to the Business of Supply—that being one of the chief functions of the House—those days in the week which, at the expenditure of great time and labour, they had procured from the House for Supply, so as to prevent any interruption from dilatory Motions. The Prime Minister chose to be jocular and satirical. Without the slightest necessity the right hon. Gentleman referred to Votes of Censure, and very irrelevantly dragged in the remark that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Irish Members who sat upon those Benches were usually found voting in support of Votes of Censure. It was not the Irish Members alone who were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government were among the most condemnable persons in the Realm. That opinion was shared by a considerable body of Members in that House, and when Votes of Censure had been proposed the Irish Members had felt themselves obliged to come to the conclusion that the balance of merit lay on the side of those by whom the Votes of Censure were proposed. It might be their misfortune or their fault; but, undoubtedly, that had invariably been the case. Occasionally they found the Prime Minister of a very exacting temperament; but certainly that evening the right hon. Gentleman had taken a most amiable and easily satisfied view of the financial condition of the country. The right hon. Gentleman denied that Supply was at all backward. If they compared the number of Votes obtained in this with other Sessions, and the amount of money in hand as compared with other years, perhaps it might be found that they were not very much behind; but there were seven Departments of the Civil Service for which the House had to vote Supply, and each contained various important sub-sections. At present they

  781
  had only just reached Class II., so that practically there were still six Classes to be voted, and they had not as yet touched any of the great Revenue Departments. They were now on the eve of the Whitsuntide Recess, and they had before them a programme which included several measures of the greatest importance, one of them a measure relating to Ireland, which would provide ample material for discussion for the rest of the Session, even if no other measure was to be considered. Yet with this programme of legislative work, including the Crimes Act, the Government, with cheerful hopefulness, persisted in the assertion that Supply was in a forward condition. He was afraid that it would not be possible to undeceive them on that point except by the test of experience; but, before the Session was brought to a close, he was of opinion that they would find that the condition in which Supply was left was not altogether favourable to the progress of legislative work. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one that was well calculated to promote the general Business of the House. It was that every day in the week except Monday and Thursday should be taken for other Business, and that Monday and Thursday should be devoted to Supply. The remarks of his hon. Friend as to the insidious and persistent manner in which the control over Supply was now withdrawn from the House was amply borne out by the experience of the last few years. Hon. Members sitting on those Benches had watched with something akin to anxiety and alarm the gradual growth of this easy, slothful, and immoral system of tiding over the regular Business of Supply by Votes on Account. It could scarcely be forgotten that the House practically did no Business in Supply at all last year. In the first place, the Government asked for a Vote on Account, then at Easter they asked for another Vote to make up for deficiencies in the Supply of the previous year, and, having obtained two Votes of that kind before Easter, the Government took a third at Whitsuntide. By that means the Business of Supply was put off until the month of August, when, the Votes were discussed in empty Houses after midnight. He contended that it was nothing less than
  782
  a fraud upon the overburdened taxpayers of the country to Vote millions and tens of millions of money in empty Houses after midnight, because the Government knew that under such circumstances effective criticism of the Estimates was not possible at the end of August, and by the immoral course they pursued they wore able at one stroke to get rid of discussion in the House of Commons and to hoodwink and cheat the taxpayers of the country. If the taxpayers of the country knew what grave and serious evils were produced by this practice of postponing the real consideration of Supply, they would take to heart the words which had dropped from his hon. Friend that evening, and the task of exhorting the Government to restore to the House of Commons the Constitutional function of supervising and checking the Public Expenditure would not be left to the Irish Members, but on both sides of the House there would be a united voice of protest and condemnation from Members of all Nationalities in every part of the House against these easy methods by which, from Easter to Whitsuntide, and from Whitsuntide to August, this process of stealthily dipping their hands into the public purse and plundering the taxpayer was carried on. His hon. Friend proposed that the Government should put an end to this system. If they would agree, even from this day, to devote the two days a-week which the House had given to them uninteruptedly to Supply, the House would have some little assurance that the expenditure of hundreds of thousands and even of millions of the public money would be checked with something dike that degree of intelligence and care which a man would devote to the conduct of his own private concerns. Was it tolerable that £80,000,000 a-year should be paid in this country for the maintenance of the Public Service, and that it should be thrown away, or its application placed entirely at the discretion of the Government officials themselves, who paid this enormous sum of money out of the public purse without any check whatever from the accredited Representatives of the people? That was the system which was going on now; and unless the Government retraced their steps and adopted a more satisfactory policy in regard to the expenditure of the public

  783
  money, he thought they would find that the exhortations of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would appeal to the common sense of the subjects of the Queen, without regard to nationality, who would require proper and adequate facilities for the discharge of such important Business, and would strongly and effectively protest against the generally easy method now adopted of disposing of such questions.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he had intended the other evening to call the attention of the Government to the case of the brothers Delahunty—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. KENNYresumed. He said, he had had worse luck the other evening, however, than he had now, for on that occasion the House was counted out, and he had no opportunity to bring on the case. He brought the matter forward now in the hope that the Government would exercise that equity in the case which the facts of it demanded. Now, the two men to whose case he referred were accused in the year 1882 with an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act. They were accused of having fired at a man named Donnellan. They were immediately arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act, and were conveyed to the county gaol at Ennis, which was about 22 miles away from the scene of the alleged outrage. The alleged offence was one which in no way could be considered as an agrarian outrage, because it was not connected with any dispute about land, and it was not connected with any conspiracy, as far as any person had yet ventured to assert; and he was entirely at a loss, therefore, to understand what was the reason which influenced the Government to bring the case under the exceptional law, unless it was that the Prevention of Crime Act was an exceptional law which at that time the Goverment were desirous of experimenting upon. The prisoners instructed a local solicitor for their defence; and when he returned from the locality in which the outrage was supposed to have been committed, the day before they were to be brought up at Ennis, he was informed that they
  784
  had been conveyed another 30 miles, to another part of the country, and had there been returned before magistrates to whom they were strange. Having been returned for trial, they were kept in gaol until the Cork Winter Assizes, when they were brought up on this charge. The evidence against them was purely circumstantial. It was perfectly true that the man who was fired at alleged that he saw these two men fire at him; but as it was alleged by the witnesses that only one shot was fired, both of those men could not have fired. He was not certain whether the weapon used was a rifle or a pistol; he could not say whether there were one or two shots fired, and no injury whatever was done. It was on a charge of this kind that these two men were sent to penal servitude for life. The evidence might have been strong enough to find these two men guilty; but the evidence for the defence was managed in an exceedingly bad manner, mainly owing to the fact that the solicitor for the defence was not present at Cork to instruct counsel who were appearing for the defence. He had to point out in regard to that, however, that after the Government had deprived these men of the solicitor whom they selected to defend them, they had been obliged to instruct a man who did not pay proper attention, or perhaps was not able to devote that attention, to the case which it deserved. But there wore other matters which he wished to bring forward. The evidence was of a particularly suspicious character. It was that class of evidence which was well known in Ireland, and was always used when no other evidence was forthcoming—the evidence of informers. The Crown suborned various witnesses to appear at Cork, and amongst them was a man named Michael Hayes, a blacksmith. His evidence was of vital importance to the prisoners; but the Crown kept him in their custody in Cork, and then at the last moment refused to call him. Mr. D. B. Sullivan, who was the barrister appearing for the defence, thereupon exercised what he (Mr. Kenny) thought was a wise discretion in refusing to call a man for the defence who for a whole fortnight had been in the safe custody of the Crown officials. Then, again, not more than a year since a man named Patrick Slattery made a dying declaration, in which he stated that he

  785
  had been suborned by a police sergeant to give false evidence against the Delahuntys. That man made two distinct declarations on two different occasions—one about two weeks before his death, and the other about a week before his death. The last of those was made before two magistrates of the county, and the first and original document was made before the parish priest and the man's own brother. Now, he claimed this—that if a dying man in England left a declaration behind him that he had been suborned to give false evidence against two men in prison, that would be considered sufficient by the Home Secretary to justify an inquiry into such a case. He claimed, moreover, that in the case of the notorious burglar, Charles Peace, when he stated that he, and not a man in prison, had shot a certain policeman, that was not only considered sufficient for the Home Secretary to make inquiries into the case, but to liberate the prisoner and compensate him. This was not an agrarian case. It was not arising out of land, and was not a special question at all. The whole fact of the matter was that it was a case in which two men took occasion to vent their spite on two other men at whose hands they believed they had received some injury. It was on account of some injury, or an imaginary injury, that this charge was launched against the Delahuntys. Now, the two men who were in prison under a sentence of penal servitude for life were men against whom no evil report was ever launched previous to their arrest on this occasion. It was true that about two months before this charge was made the two Donnellans had made a charge against them, and they were taken to the Ennis Bridewell; but the gentleman on the Bench knew the spite of the Donnellans, and would not listen to their charge, and liberated the Delahuntys. The alleged outrage arose this way. The boy Donnellan alleged that he was driving cattle about 700 yards from his father's field. Donnellan, himself, said that as he was passing through the furze bush he was fired at by one of the Delahuntys, and that they then ran away. He (Mr. Kenny) had seen the place where the outrage was said to have occurred, and the distance would certainly not be more than four yards between the place where Donnellan said he was walking and the place where it
  786
  was alleged the Delahuntys fired the shot.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had endeavoured, but he had been unable, to trace any connection between the observations of the hon. Member and the items of this Vote; and he must say that if the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, endeavoured to retry in that Committee, or go through, a case which had already been tried by a judicial tribunal, he did not see how it would be possible to get through Supply at all, and he must call the serious attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was really retrying a case and advancing opinions of his own upon it, and he (the Chairman) did not see that it had anything to do with the Votes before them.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he would respectfully point out that there was a Vote for Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland, and he believed that this case would come strictly under a heading of that kind, He submitted that he was perfectly in Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be in Order in referring to a case under that Vote, but not in retrying it. He was giving all the evidence in the case, and was giving them his own version of the case; and if every hon. Member adopted a similar course they would never get through Committee.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that any statement he made in that House must necessarily be an ex parte statement. All he was endeavouring to do was to give reasons in support of the request which he wished to make to the Government to grant an inquiry into this case. If the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would rise in his place and say that there should be an inquiry, he would resume his seat; but, failing that, he must use all the arguments he could in support of an inquiry. Well, Donnellan said he was shot at; and the boy, 700 yards off, said he heard a gun shot or pistol shot, and about 10 minutes afterwards he saw the Delahuntys coming in the direction from which the shot was fired. That would have been scarcely sufficient to have convicted the two Delahuntys; and it was after that that the suborned witness was suborned to corroborate the statement of the young Donnellan as to the circumstances under which the shot was fired.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was endeavouring to establish that the decision given upon a certain trial had not been in accordance with the evidence, and in that he was not in Order. That Committee was not competent to try such a case. If there was any allegation against any person in Ireland whose salary came under that Vote, there would be no reason whatever why the hon. Member should not state the reasons for rejecting that salary.
  MR. KENNYsaid, it would not be necessary for his purpose for him to go into detail as to the evidence that was given at the trial, and he was quite willing to drop that portion of his remarks, although he claimed that it was an interference with the continuity of his remarks that he was not allowed to go into that matter. But he would ask the Chairman's leave to state one fact which occurred at the trial. It was this. The counsel for the defence was placed at a great and grave disadvantage on account of the fact that the solicitor who had originally instructed him had left Cork, and did not return until after the trial had taken place. He would show that that was material by showing what an important bearing his absence had on the action of one witness, who alleged that a certain girl had given one of the Delahuntys a pistol. Counsel was unable to call a witness to refute that statement, owing to the absence of the defendant's solicitor. But he (Mr. Kenny) had in his possession an affidavit from the girl, who said that, so far from her having given a pistol to one of the Delahuntys, she never had such a thing in her possession. In consequence of the ruling of the Chair, he (Mr. Kenny) was prevented from making out his case as he otherwise would; but he must point out this. This suborned witness, Michael Slattery—he did not say he was not a man of bad character; but if there was a moment when such a man would tell the truth it was the moment in which he was about to die, and the fact that at that moment he had made the declaration he had made ought to have been quite enough to induce the Lord Lieutenant to grant an inquiry. Now, this boy said he was driving cattle in the neigbourhood; but he (Mr. Kenny) had evidence from the
  788
  boy's own mother that at the time the alleged outrage occurred he was seven miles away. He would not believe that any woman would falsely accuse her own son, under such circumstances, of having committed perjury.
  MR. GREGORYrose to Order, and said he believed they were now upon a Vote on Account; but the hon. Member was now taking them into the most minute details concerning a certain trial, and involving the administration of justice and the conduct of a Judge and jury, which, he contended, was altogether out of Order. It had been sprung upon them without Notice, and without any Papers on the subject having been placed before them; and he would ask, therefore, if the hon. Member was in Order?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already twice stated that the hon. Member appeared to him to be exceeding the privileges accorded by the House even in Committee of Supply. His arguments would be valid and good if they were upon a substantive Motion, but they were not so on a Vote in Committee of Supply. The points to which the hon. Member alluded, important as they were, had no connection with the Vote before the Committee. He was unwilling to proceed further; but, in his opinion, the remarks of the hon. Member did not apply to the Vote.
  MR. SEXTON,on the point of Order, contended that his hon. Friend was entitled to put his case before the Committee. His remarks did not deal with the trial, but with what had happened since. He would respectfully point out that this portion of the Vote was for Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland, and contained the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland, who might or might not advise the Crown as to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in the case of those men "who were now in penal servitude. In his opinion, his hon Friend had made out a complete case for endeavouring to obtain an inquiry into the case of those men, whom he believed should be released from penal servitude.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that if the hon. Member desired to impugn the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland, whose salary was contained in this Vote, it would be a different matter; but he had brought before the Com-

  789
  mittee various legal matters which the Committee was not competent to decide, and which had nothing to do with the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he thought that if he was allowed to go into some of the evidence he ought to be allowed to go into all of it. He had no objection, however, to name Mr. Peter O'Brien, who conducted the prosecution, as the official whose conduct he would impugn.
  THE CHAIRMANasked whether Mr. O'Brien's salary was included in the Vote?
  MR. KENNYsaid, he believed it was. He was Grown Prosecutor in those cases. He (Mr. Kenny) could not say exactly what he was; but he was in the habit of going round the country prosecuting on behalf of the Crown. He was referring, when he was interrupted, to the woman's statement that the evidence of her own son was not true; but, beyond that, he had further affidavits showing that an effort was made to suborn other people before Slattery was obtained.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he should be obliged to call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat if he continued in that strain. He could not allow the ease of the Delahuntys to be tried over again.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that, of course, if he were ruled out of Order in referring to this subject, he would resume his seat; but, at the same time, he should have preferred not to have been called upon to resume his seat in that way.
  MR. SEXTONpointed out that the hon. Member had given an outline of the case he wished to bring forward, and had asked the Government to grant an inquiry into the case of two men now in penal servitude. Ho would now call upon their Attorney General, therefore, to reply and state whether he could grant an inquiry or not.
  MR. KENNY,rising to Order, desired to know if it would be competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to reply to a case which ho had not been allowed to finish?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in Order in replying in detail to a case which had boon only half-opened by the hon. Member.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that last Session they impugned the conduct of
  790
  the then Chief Secretary, and opposed the grant of his salary. They endeavoured to obtain a promise that there should be an inquiry made into the case of Bryan Kilmartin. He had been sentenced to penal servitude for life for shooting at a man. The Chief Secretary rose in his place and said that, having seen all the Papers in connection with the case, he was of opinion that the conviction was right, and that Bryan Kilmartin ought to remain in prison. But Kilmartin had the good fortune to have the sympathy of some other Members in that House, and tho hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), and another Member sitting opposite, got up and said that the Irish Members had made out their case. The consequence was that the Prime Minister got up and threw over the then Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary, and promised an inquiry. The inquiry was held, and it then turned out that that trial and sentence of Kilmartin were unjust. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made use of an exclamation which he (Mr. O'Connor) would like to have translated into a more articulate expression. If the sentence was not unjust, why was Kilmartin released from penal servitude? But, however that was, the Chief Secretary at that time was thrown over. In this Vote the salary of the Chief Secretary was involved. Now, in order to make himself perfectly in Order in this matter, he emphatically stated that it was the deliberate intention of the then Chief Secretary, and it must be the whole effort of the person who occupied the position of Chief Secretary, to smother and suffocate inquiry into such cases as this in order to strengthen their own plea in support of the re-enactment of the Prevention of Crime Act. On the general question he shared the opinion of nine out of every 10 people in Ireland, who believed that, by the "white terror" which the present Lord Lieutenant had established in Ireland, the Delahuntys had been driven into penal servitude without sufficient evidence; and the best work which the present Chief Secretary could apply himself to would be to institute inquiries into all such cases. The right hon. Gentleman who now held the Office of Chief Secretary could not do better than inaugurate his appointment to his present position by instituting an inquiry into this case.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANconfessed that he did not understand the object of the speech which had just been delivered. The hon. Member had introduced into the discussion another case which had been brought before the House last Session. That was another case altogether. The question which they were now discussing was whether the hon. Member was entitled to bring up all these matters on a Vote on Account, and that was the point which the Chairman had decided in such strong terms over and over again. He did not see any connection between the two cases.
  MR.T.P.O'CONNOR: Same charge; same trial; same sentence!
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But it was a different case altogether. The hon. Member had stated that the Chief Secretary was thrown over. He had stated that the Chief Secretary's object was to huddle up—
  MR.T.P.O'CONNOR: Smother up!
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: To smother up such cases as this; but the trial of the Delahuntys had nothing to do with the Prevention of Crime Act.
  MR. KENNY: They were tried under that Act.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They were tried at the ordinary Winter Assizes, without any reference to the Prevention of Crime Act whatever.
  MR. KENNY: By a Crimes Act Special Jury!
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANcontended that the trial had nothing to do with the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act. The question was whether upon a Vote on Account such as this the hon. Member should be allowed to go into such matters. The hon. Member had introduced the name of Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, who had happened to prosecute on the occasion referred to; but there was no certainty that Serjeant O'Brien would be so employed in future, and, therefore, the whole point of the hon. Member fell to the ground.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland stated that he failed to see any analogy between the two cases cited. The right hon. Gentleman was not usually so difficult of perception, and he (Mr. Sexton) thought
  792
  that he could in a few words show that there was a perfect analogy between the cases. These men, Bryan Kilmartin and the Delahuntys, were both accused of the same crime; they were both tried by juries specially selected from the panels by the Government in Ireland; they were both convicted of that crime and sent into penal servitude; and after the Delahuntys and the other man got into penal servitude, a man dying made a confession which threw a new light upon the case. Now, there was the analogy, and he regarded it as very instructive, and as a very complete analogy. When the man said he had done the crime, it was at first laughed at, scouted, and represented as grotesque in the House of Commons; but hon. Gentlemen on these Benches happened to excite the sympathy of two Members. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) happened to be in the House when he brought forward the case. The House heard the matter with its usual inattention, for the voice was the voice of an Irish Member; but owing to the fact that the two Members referred to were present, he and his hon. Friends managed to get a hearing, and the promise that an inquiry should be held. Well, that inquiry was held, and at the first blush it appeared to the legal mind of the gentleman who attended the inquiry on the part of the Crown that the man who was then suffering penal servitude was innocent. Did the right hon. Gentleman now ask where was the analogy? It was in the fact that a man on his dying-bed, knowing himself to be about to die, had said not that he had done the crime himself, but that he had himself been suborned by the police to suborn witnesses to make their case good. Did the right hon. Gentleman say there was any difference? There was no difference whatever; all the circumstances in the two cases were parallel with each other. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland get up at the Table of the House and say that he persisted in the statement of the Chief Secretary, that there was no analogy between the two cases? The argument of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was that Bryan Kilmartin, having

  793
  been released after inquiry because a dying man confessed that he had done the crime for which the other was condemned to penal servitude, an inquiry ought to be held equally in the case of the Delahuntys, and that it should be granted by Her Majesty's Government on the ground that a man had made a solemn confession of subornation on his dying bed. Would anyone say that there was a flaw in that reasoning? If there was a proper case for inquiry in one instance, there was, he contended, a proper case for inquiry in the other. But the right bon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said there was no point in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway. They all knew that the Government wanted to continue the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland, and it was the policy of Irish officials accordingly to turn a deaf ear to arguments such as his hon. Friend had addressed to the Committee; they knew also that Earl Spencer was opposed to the advocates of Home Rule, and they were all aware that the right hon. Gentleman was the mouthpiece of Earl Spencer, and, notwithstanding the child-like simplicity of the right hon. Gentleman, they could hardly suppose him to be in favour of such a demand as that which his hon. Friend the Member for Galway had made, that an inquiry should be granted. And what was the objection of the Government to the granting of that inquiry? He would tell the right hon. Gentleman. It would show that convictions had been repeatedly had and sentences given on suborned evidence; the disquiet existing in the public mind, caused by the conviction of Kilmartin, would be doubled; and not only would a stronger feeling be spread against the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland, but all honest Englishmen would say to the Government—"If you procure convictions on this evidence under the ordinary law, so much the more reason is there why we should deny you the further powers asked for." Did that suit the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? When they found that the law in Ireland was such as to put the lives of innocent men in peril by the tricks of the Crown Prosecutors, they said that the powers which put special facilities into the hands of the police for hanging men should not be given, and that Her Ma-
  794
  jesty's Government should rely upon the ordinary law alone. He would now refer to the Tubbercurry case. That case had already been several times referred to; it was a matter not relating to officials in Dublin Castle; it had nothing to do with the Prevention of Crime Act; it concerned 12 men of his own district who had been suddenly seized in their beds and hurried away to Sligo Gaol. He might say, at that point, that when the Government in Ireland took a man out of his bed at night, they never failed to make a plump charge against him; the charge was usually in keeping with the melodramatic effect of the arrest. Accordingly, these men were charged with treason-felony and intent to murder; they were thrown into gaol; they were forbidden to see each other, and forbidden to see their legal advisers. While they were segregated, the police went to their private houses, and went into every detail week by week and day after day in their private lives. Then followed a series of remands which lasted from the month of April to July; in the month of July the Assizes were held, but the Crown, after having got its informers together, refused to go on with the trial; the men were sent back into gaol; they were taken from Sligo to Dublin, and from Dublin to Sligo, until the month of October last. He (Mr. Sexton) had repeatedly raised this case in the House of Commons; he had asked that the evidence should be again considered, but the Government knew what they were about; they put an informer in the cell with the accused persons, who endeavoured to worm himself into their confidence. At last the Government found that this system of dealing with the prisoners was of no avail, and they brought them to trial. The jury, when they heard the evidence of the informer, failed to convict the first man tried; they acquitted him, and they added to their verdict a strong expression of opinion. The 11 other men remained to be tried; and now what he had to point out bore upon the question of expenses. There was a large sum in the present Vote for Law Charges, and he objected to voting any money for that purpose until he heard what was going to be done in the Tubbercurry case. The law provided that where people were brought away from their place of abode to be tried, the Crown

  795
  should pay the costs of the defence. The Crown had agreed to pay the costs and the expenses of the prisoners in question. He was aware that the sums expended by the prosecution upon witnesses were so excessive, that one gentleman who spent only 20 minutes in Court altogether had a cheque sent to him for a sum of money so extravagant that he felt bound in self-respect and manly shame to send the cheque back. What did that mean? It meant to convey to the people in Ireland that any man who was ready to give evidence against innocent persons would have any sum of money placed at his disposal. This was the most shameless system of corruption and bribery that it was possible to conceive. These men were kept up to last October in gaol; at the last moment they were brought upon a charge of treason-felony and conspiracy to murder. He (Mr. Sexton) happened to be in Court at the time, and knew most of the persons accused. He offered himself as bail; the Crown refused; he went day after day to the Court, and would it be believed that afterwards the Crown accepted him as bail in the sum of £200 for the whole of the prisoners—those 12 felons and conspirers to murder? Could anything furnish a more clear proof than this of the shameless and bogus character of the case? If the Crown had had in their possession a shadow of proof, he asked the Committee to say whether they were likely to have accepted the bail of one man? Eventually the case fell through. The informer would not swear to the men. Then came the question of the expenses of these persons who had been put upon their trial at a distance from their place of abode. Some of them were shopkeepers who had been taken away from their homes and businesses; they had witnesses to the number of 40; their neighbours and other people who knew them had been brought from the North-West of Ireland, by ear and by railway, to Sligo and Dublin; they had been kept in Dublin during three weeks, lodging and living there at their own expense, and hanging on the will of the Crown Prosecutor. Then they were told that they might go home, as there would be no trial at all. The Crown Prosecutors, after bribing informers, failed to make out any case against the accused persons, and they were told they
  796
  might go away. They obtained a sum of money on account in October last. He was speaking in the month of May, and from the former time to the present he had never ceased to call upon Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the common duty of honesty by paying these men their expenses. The Government were ready enough to pay £500 to a man who committed perjury; any man who was ready to commit perjury, to supplement the story of informers, or to back up and assist the police in bringing innocent men to the gallows, would not have to wait 24 hours for the payment of his expenses; but when people came into Court and said—"I know these men; I believe them to be innocent," they would have to wait weeks and months without having their claim listened to. A man so placed might have to return home 160 miles at his own expense, and his Representative in that House might very likely go on for another year asking for his expenses. He had repeatedly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in that House, and he had first assured him that he was in communication with the solicitor in Sligo, and then that efforts were being made to get the money paid. Then another change of venue was tried, and the matter was put into the hands of the Treasury at Whitehall. Ten days ago he asked whether the Treasury meant to pay the money or not? Half a-year had passed, and he asked whether the men were to be ruined for the want of the costs incurred in defending themselves in a bogus case, which the Government had shirked and failed to bring before a jury? Ten days ago the right hon. Gentleman said that an order had been issued; whereupon he (Mr. Sexton) tried to ascertain by whom that order had been issued, but he had failed to get any satisfaction; he could only learn that it was issued by the Treasury. He suffered himself then to believe that the Crown had at last paid the money to these people for the defence that had been thrown upon them; but what was his amazement at getting a letter that morning from the solicitor for the defence to say that he could not understand the reply given to him, that he had received his own costs, but that he could assure him that these costs incurred by the witnesses early last year had not been paid up to the present

  797
  moment. Well, he thought the career of a footpad, who openly robbed on the highway, was more respectable than to admit of an action of this kind. The Government had been guilty of taking 12 respectable farmers and men of business out of their own county, thrown them on their defence, kept them in Dublin for weeks and weeks together, and then, after a year, still deluded their Representatives in the House of Commons with promises which were never carried into effect. He did not know how, after this experience, innocent people were to be protected from false charges by the testimony of respectable persons who knew them; but it appeared that to such a pass as this had they come with respect to Irish prosecutions.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that after the ruling of the Chairman, he should not be in Order in going into the legal case referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he had no objection to raise to the manner in which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the expenses of the witnesses in the case of the men arrested at Tubbercurry. Those persons were entitled by Act of Parliament to their expenses and costs; it was their right to be paid. It appeared before the trial came on, and in order to enable them to be present to give evidence, the sum of £120 was paid on account for the expenses of the witnesses for the prisoners. After the Crown declined to proceed, the solicitor for the defence, who had a right to be paid his bill of costs, furnished a bill of costs claiming a large sum. The Crown Solicitor alleged that the £120 paid were sufficient, and that the bill of costs was too large; and the result was that ultimately the bill of costs of the solicitor for the defence was referred to Mr. Coll, the Crown Solicitor for Dublin, for taxation, and he certified the amount to the satisfaction of Mr. Tully, the solicitor for the prisoners. That bill ought to have included, according to the usual practice in all such cases, the expenses of the witnesses, as well as his own professional charges. The bill was then referred to the Treasury for payment, and an order for the amount certified had been made in the usual way—because, although the officials in Dublin acted in the first instance, it
  798
  was from the Treasury that the order must proceed—and the solicitor for the defence had received the amount. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman suggested that the bill in question did not include the witnesses' expenses; if so, he thought it would be well for him for him to make inquiry on the subject. If the bill did not include the expenses to which the Act of Parliament entitled the parties, it was the fault of the solicitor who prepared it; but so far as he was at present aware, all the expenses properly claimable were included, or ought to be. If that be so, the question was one between the parties and the solicitor; and he was perfectly sure, judging from the practice, that the hon. Member would find that it was so, and that Mr. Tully was mistaken when he said that his bill of costs was distinct from the costs of the witnesses.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he noticed that, in trying to explain the extraordinary system of arithmetical deception under which the men of Tubbercurry had been victimized, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had given no explanation whatever of the extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Irish Government to make any inquiry in cases like that which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had managed, at an earlier period of the evening, to place before the Committee. He (Mr. O'Brien) again referred to the case of the Delahuntys, because, as in that case, so in a great many others, there was suspicion on the evidence that a gross and cruel miscarriage of justice had taken place, and the proof was just as clear and convincing as it was in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. The fact was, as he believed, that the question which the Government asked themselves was—"How will an investigation affect other cases?" And it was that fact which made the Irish Government so fearful of entering into an investigation of these cases. The position sometimes taken up by the Irish Government appeared to be that there were other numerous cases in which there was reason to suspect that there had been fearful wrong and injustice done, and that, because there were so many cases, none of them ought to be investigated, for fear that it might turn out that in some

  799
  of those cases innocent men in Ireland had been sent to the gallows. It was idle for Irish Members to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had that night attempted to do, that there was no analogy between the two cases brought forward, or that the suspicions in the one case were not just as strong as in the other. The conviction of Bryan Kilmartin had been as strenuously upheld by the Government in that House as the conviction of the Delahuntys would be. It was so upheld until an inquiry was forced upon Earl Spencer, and Kilmartin's case was shown to be a fallacious one. He believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not come forward in the House and give a guarantee that, if an inquiry were granted, the result would not be the same—namely, the release of these men. He (Mr. O'Brien) was able to say, as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said, that the people in Ireland believed that the Irish Government—he would not say knew, but, at all events, strongly suspected that in this case the result of an investigation would be to show that a frightful scandal in the administration of justice had occurred, and that it would result in the liberation of these men. The fact was, that Earl Spencer and the English Government knew, in the case of the Prevention of Crime Act, the mot d'ordre had been to obtain convictions by any means. They knew that the trials in all the cases under that Act had been scrambled through in haste, in a state of panic, and that little regard had been paid to the defences of the prisoners; that all sorts of witnesses had been pressed into the service of the prosecution, and that a number of gross miscarriages of justice were the consequence. He believed that it was because Earl Spencer was afraid to re-open that dark and blood-stained page of his administration in Ireland that there was now this extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Government on this occasion to grant Irish Members an inquiry into the case of the Delahuntys by an independent tribunal, which would show how convictions were obtained in Ireland. At all events, so long as the Government maintained the attitude they had taken up with regard to this case, and in so many others, he
  800
  said that the House could not be surprised that the Representatives of the Irish people should resist to the utmost extremity any proposal to arm Earl Spencer again with powers that had been so misused that it was impossible to expect from them in future anything like an honest result.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not think it ought to be allowed to go forth that that House was at any time in the slightest degree indisposed to discuss any case that might be brought before it if it could be shown that any useful purpose would be served by such discussion. He did not think it had ever shown the slightest indisposition to listen to any case that was properly brought forward and represented by any of its Members; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking it was a highly inconvenient course, and one that did not tend to raise the character or the credit of that House, to have questions of the kind that had just been raised—questions of a judicial nature, involving important considerations connected with the administration of justice—suddenly sprung upon the House without having been previously put upon the Notice Paper, without even a moment's warning, and without any evidence or documents upon which the House could decide, but altogether unexpectedly entered upon and discussed in the manner in which hon. Members seemed disposed to raise them on that occasion. The discussion that had been introduced by hon. Members below the Gangway had turned upon two cases, and presented two different aspects—one with regard to the treatment of the Delahuntys, and the other with regard to the action that had been taken in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners, the latter being a matter not so much with reference to the administration of justice as with respect to matters affecting the Government of Ireland subsequent to the institution of judicial proceedings; and he could not but think that this latter case had been fully met by what had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. It appeared, from that statement, that the Government had made an allowance for the expenses of the defence in connection with that case. That allowance was, as he understood, made, in the first instance, by the pay-

  801
  ment of a sum of money on account for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the defence; and, in the second place, by a payment very properly made for the remuneration of the solicitor. The solicitor would, indeed, have failed to do justice to himself or his clients if he had not sent in an account of the expenses unpaid on the previous account; and he thought it might he assumed that such an account was sent in, and that the expenses were paid by the Government of Ireland. But another question, which was wholly inappropriate to such an occasion as the discussion of the Vote under consideration, had also been raised by hon. Members from Ireland, and that was the case of the Delahuntys—a case on which points had been presented, involving questions as to the administration of criminal justice, the conduct of the case before the Court in which it had been tried, the action of the Judge and jury, the verdict the jury had returned, and the evidence on which that verdict had been found. He thought it a most inconvenient course that such questions should be raised before that House, and that it should be asked to take upon itself the functions of a Court of Criminal Appeal. But, at any rate, if the House were to be called on to perform such duties, it ought at least to have placed before it a full Report of the evidence on which the trial it was asked to review had proceeded. It should be in possession of all that had been stated by the witnesses who had been called, the ruling of the Judge, and the record of the sentence that had been pronounced. The House ought, indeed, to have a complete record before it of everything that had taken place before it was asked to form an opinion. For his own part, he did not wish to be called upon to pronounce an opinion until he was in possession of the fullest information; and he did not think it was within the functions of that House to occupy the position of a Court of Criminal Appeal; at any rate, if it were to be called upon to act in that capacity, it ought to have all the facts fully laid before it. He remembered a case that had been brought before the House at the beginning of the Session—he alluded to the Maamtrasna case, in which he had taken a good deal of interest; but he had thought, at the time it was brought forward, it was inconvenient to
  802
  raise it in the manner in which it was then put before the House. But having carefully looked into that case, he had felt no doubt as to its nature, and he had ventured to say so to the House in support of the opinion he had then expressed. He should do the same in any other case of a similar character that might be put before the House, and on which it might be called on to pronounce an opinion. As a member of the Legal Profession, he should think it his duty to express his opinion, not merely by the vote he might feel called upon to give, but also orally, and in detail, as to the grounds on which that opinion was based. With regard to the case of the Delahuntys, which had been introduced into this discussion, he had before him now a statement of that case, which he had reserved for consideration, and which he should be prepared to go into and discuss at such a time as it could be properly brought before that House. He should be willing to entertain the questions arising upon it whenever it could be properly brought on, and to give a judicial decision on its merits as far as his powers would allow; but he must, on the present occasion, protest against the bringing forward of cases of this kind, involving questions as to the administration of justice—cases that had been submitted to a jury, and conducted with all the forms of procedure belonging to a trial by jury. He protested against such cases being made matters of oral statement in that House without any evidence being submitted by which the House might be guided to an opinion, for the House could not have any opportunity of forming anything like a reasonable judgment, or of entering into the evidence that was given, or the facts upon which the verdict had been founded, from the way in which the case had been brought forward. He very much regretted that the discussion could not have been stopped at an earlier period of the evening; and, as far as he might be allowed to do so, as a very humble Member of that House, he protested against the course that had been adopted. He objected to the continuance of a discussion on a question of this kind, although, as he had stated, he was willing to enter into the matter whenever it could be brought on after proper Notice, and with a proper opportunity of considering it. He trusted the

  803
  Committee generally would concur in this protest against such cases being suddenly sprung upon it, and its being called upon to pronounce an opinion on such very imperfect evidence as had been brought forward on this occasion, when the matter under discussion was merely made the subject of vague declamation and loud clamour against the Government of Ireland.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had protested very strongly against two things. He had protested against their going into a discussion on the administration of justice in Ireland; and he had also protested against the bringing forward of cases such as had been referred to without proper Notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that, in reference to the case of the Delahuntys, the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had obtained the first place on the Notice Paper of last Friday for the discussion of that case upon a Motion of which he had given four weeks' Notice. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) was fully prepared on that occasion to have gone into the whole of the circumstances connected with the case; but the Government had succeeded in preventing his doing so by permitting the House to be counted out, and the practical result of that proceeding was that the discussion of the question involved in the Motion had to be postponed from Friday until Monday. Had the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who had so sharply commented on the misconduct of those who brought forward this case without Notice, looked at the Order Book, he would have seen that four weeks' notice had been given of the intention to discuss that particular matter. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the Committee would agree with him that four weeks afforded sufficient opportunity for hon. Members generally to have considered the case, and ample opportunity for the Government to defend the course that had been taken with regard to it, if they had any defence to offer; but, for his own part, he did not think they had any defence at all. Surely a period of four weeks was sufficient for the hon. Member for East Sussex to have read up the Delahunty case, so as to have enabled him to give his judicial verdict upon the facts. The hon. Gentleman
  804
  had stated that those who brought forward these cases were in the habit of making vague and declamatory speeches in that House. He (Mr. Biggar) was inclined to dispute the dictum of the hon. Member on that point. On the contrary, he was inclined to think that his hon. Friends who brought forward these cases were in the habit of stating them, chapter and verse, and of giving all the facts they had to bring forward with very great moderation. It ought to be remembered, on the other hand, that the Government were in possession of the Crown briefs, and of all the facts and circumstances connected with these cases, and that consequently they were in the best possible position for defending what had been done, if they had any defence to offer. But, as he had said before, he did not think they had any defence. What, he asked, was the defence of the Irish Members for the course they pursued? Their defence was that such a thing as justice did not exist in Ireland. They asserted that the system of hiring perjurers to give evidence in the Law Courts was notorious. They stated, moreover, that the authorities packed the juries, and changed the venue of trials in such a way that if any person who happened to belong to the popular Party in Ireland were proceeded against before a jury so selected, rightly or wrongly, he was sure to be convicted, with or without evidence; while, on the other hand, if an offender were proceeded against who did not belong to the popular Party, it was equally certain that the jury would, rightly or wrongly, acquit him. In the Newry case, the prisoner was brought to Belfast, where they had not the slightest idea of justice. It was, in fact, well known that a Belfast jury never gave an honest verdict, and he founded this statement upon his own knowledge. In that Newry case, the charge was that of firing out of the window of the Newry Orange Hall, and the prisoner was taken to Belfast, in order, as the Attorney General for Ireland would put it, to obtain an honest verdict from a Belfast jury, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) knowing very well that such a thing as an honest verdict from a Belfast jury was what could not possibly be had. Let the Government cease to hire perjured witnesses; let them cease to pack juries;

  805
  let them cease to change the venue of trials to places where it was well known conviction or acquittal would take place, just as it suited their own particular views, and the Irish Members would have no cause to complain. But so long as they persisted in taking care that justice was not honestly administered, so long would the Irish Party protest against their proceedings, and draw the attention of the House to what was going on, whenever the opportunity occurred. He thought the complaint of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) against the Irish Members was unreasonable. They knew the cause of these packed juries, and that the Government were guilty of being accessories after the fact in all these cases of misconduct. They suborned juries, and perpetrated all the crimes they could possibly conceive, and yet the Attorney General for Ireland was ready to got up and declare that they had never packed a jury, although the fact that they did so was well known to everyone in Ireland.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Chairman to the question on which he had a short time ago ruled him (Mr. Kenny) out of Order. On the point of Order he would refer the Chairman to a case analogous to that which he had mentioned—namely, the case of Bryan Kilmartin. During the last Session of the present Parliament, a question was raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in Committee on the identical Vote on which he (Mr. Kenny) had endeavoured to raise the question arising out of the Delahuntys' case; and inasmuch as the point was discussed in Committee, and not on the Motion to go into Committee, he had now to ask whether he was not entitled to continue the discussion of the Delahuntys' case, on the ground that it was of the same nature as the Kilmartin case which had been discussed last Session?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the case to which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had referred as having been discussed last Session was not ruled out of Order, and he could not say that the Chairman was wrong on that occasion. He could only judge of each case as it was presented to him. He had considered that the hon. Gentleman was giving in his speech too great development to the details of a case that had been tried before a Judge, and there-
  806
  fore it was that he had advised him not to continue in that course. He could not say that the Kilmartin case being considered in Committee of Supply was improperly allowed to be discussed; but he must point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee was a Vote on Account, in which there were various items put down for the Civil Service, and it was impossible to conduct the Business of Supply if cases that had been tried in Ireland were on such occasions as this to be tried over again in that House.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he would ask whether, in the event of his not carrying the case he had endeavoured to bring forward any further, the Attorney General for Ireland would not be entitled to reply on behalf of the Government, and state what action the Government proposed to pursue in regard to the prisoners?
  THE CHAIRMANasked whether the hon. Member merely put the question as an inquiry addressed to the Attorney General for Ireland, or whether he wished to know if the Attorney General would be in Order in replying?
  MR. KENNYsaid, the Chairman had declared him to be out of Order in the statement he was making; but he had now shown that a perfectly identical matter had been allowed to be brought forward in Committee of Supply on a previous occasion, and as the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) was enabled to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he trusted the Attorney General for Ireland would be considered equally in Order in replying to the remarks which he (Mr. Kenny) had made on the case of the Delahuntys.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, until he heard the Attorney General for Ireland, he could not say whether it would be in Order or not.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the Government were not prepared to institute an inquiry, as the case to which the hon. Member for Ennis had referred had been fully and fairly tried, and to re-try the case in that House would not only be extremely inconvenient, but would, as the Chairman had already ruled, be out of Order. If, however, the hon. Member would bring the case

  807
  forward on a future occasion as a substantive Motion, he should then be prepared to state the reasons why the Government were not prepared to grant an inquiry.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the statement just made by the Attorney General for Ireland was one that would greatly disappoint the expectations of the Irish people, and he was still more disappointed at finding that the present Chief Secretary had not availed himself of the opportunity of replying to the distinct challenge that had been offered to Her Majesty's Government. He very much regretted that after his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny) had been permitted to bring forward his case, even in the mutilated form it had assumed through his not having been able to complete it, the Chief Secretary had not taken the opportunity of offering some opinion upon it. The Attorney General for Ireland had got up and stated that it was most inconvenient that cases of this kind should be brought forward and retried in that House. That was the stereotyped answer that was always given when a demand was made for inquiry into any Irish case which he had ever known brought before that House. It was invariably said that the course pursued in bringing the case forward was most inconvenient, and that the House could not judge the matter. This was a piece of cant which he should have thought would by that time have been expelled from the Parliamentary vocabulary even of Law Officers of the Crown. He would point out that when the Irish Members had brought forward the Kilmartin case the same sort of thing had occurred. The Chief Secretary for Ireland then said—
  "The case was carefully gone into by the Judge who tried it. All the papers were sent to the Chief Secretary, whose sole function it is to represent the mercy of the Crown, and the power which the Crown has of re-trying the case. [Mr. SEXTON: Who was the Judge who tried it?] Judge Lawson. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Irish Members.] Yes; Judge Lawson, than whom, I must say, there is no abler nor juster Judge. The Lord Lieutenant went carefully into the case himself; and as an application had been made to me in this House, and as it was not improbable that the question would come before the House upon the Estimates, His Excellency submitted the papers to me, and I studied them with great care. I may say that I entirely concur with the judgment of His Excellency and of Judge Lawson that the case stands quite complete and separate from the
  808
  confession of Gauly, and that that confession does not shake the case as it stands in the very least particular."—(3 Hansard, [291] 1193.)
  And within two months the man, who had been sentenced to penal servitude for life, was restored to liberty. He (Mr. O'Connor) had ventured in that case to raise his voice in favour of the man, and the Home Secretary then said—
  "In dealing with a matter of this kind, it certainly requires the calmest exercise of judicial faculties, and I hope that it will not be approached in the spirit of the speech to which we have just listened. We are, however, used to the violent and abusive language in which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has indulged."—(Ibid. 1200–1.)
  He (Mr. O'Connor) would like to know what hon. Members would say if he were to apply the same sort of language to them. The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded thus—
  "I say that habitually the language used by the hon. Member, and by hon. Members sitting by him, towards my right hon. Friends is violent, abusive, and most unjustifiable."—(Ibid. 1201.)
  The result, however, of his (Mr. O'Connor's) most violent, abusive, and unjustifiable language was that the Irish Members had forced an inquiry down the throat of the right hon. Gentleman. If they had the Prime Minister present, and one or two English Members were to get up and join their voices to those of his hon. Friends who had brought forward the case of the Delahunty's, an investigation would doubtless be ordered, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have to swallow his words, and the unfortunate prisoners would be restored from a penal servitude which was almost worse than death to their homes and families. He thought the conduct of the Government in refusing the inquiry asked for had been most unreasonable.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he doubted whether he was in Order in making any statement upon this subject; but, while he could only repeat that the Government were not prepared to institute the inquiry asked for, he might also say that if the subject were brought up as a substantive Motion, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would be prepared to go into the whole case.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he could not understand the attitude assumed by the

  809
  Government in regard to this question. It appeared that if his hon. Friends had been enabled to bring the case before the House on a former occasion—which they had been prevented from doing—the Attorney General for Ireland would have been prepared to have met their statements. If that were so, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to meet the ease and to refuse the inquiry asked for, why had not the Government kept a House, so that the matter might have been discussed last Friday? His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had given Notice of his Motion four weeks ago; and, although it would have come on at an early hour last Friday, he was not aware that at the time it was to have been gone into there was a single Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench, with the exception of the Attorney General for Ireland. There might possibly have been one or two others present; but, in any case, the Government had made no attempt to keep 40 Members in the House. He remembered at one time seeing 13 Members of the Government seated on the Treasury Bench; but every one of their followers was sent out of the House, so that the Irish Members should not have an opportunity of entering upon the discussion of the Motion that had been put upon the Paper. If there were any desire on the part of the Government that the question should be considered, why did they not otter the Irish Members a night on which it could be discussed in a more regular form than it could take on the present occasion? As far as the case had already been gone into, he submitted that it had been made out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny), and that, inasmuch as the Chairman had allowed the hon. Member to proceed with a great portion of his speech, it was clear that the Attorney General for Ireland would have been perfectly entitled to go into at least that part of the speech which had not been ruled out of Order. He had, at any rate, placed such a statement before the Committee as would have persuaded any fair-minded man that an inquiry was necessary in order to ascertain the truth of the charges that had been made with regard to the conviction of the unfortunate men for whom he had pleaded. In his opinion, it was perfectly idle to sup-
  810
  pose that any hon. Member sitting on those Benches could believe that the Government of Ireland, or any single individual connected with the administration of justice in that country, was disposed to do what was right and just. They knew that perfectly well, because they lived in the country, and had witnessed the acts of injustice that were constantly being perpetrated. They knew that no Irish official ever cared what became of the unfortunate people of Ireland, as long as he could maintain the confidence of his superiors and draw a salary. The Irish Members had from time to time furnished many instances of that. During the present Session, unfortunately, the Government had debarred the Irish Members from taking any important discussion on the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. That was not the first occasion on which they had, during the present Session, endeavoured to impugn the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and had been ruled out of Order. It was very difficult, there fore, for them to know what course they ought to take with a view of having Irish grievances discussed by that House. If the Government continued the practice they had began with regard to the conduct of Business in that House, their time would be so monopolized that they would not be able until the end of the Session, and until the Prevention of Crime Act had been renewed, to find an opportunity for debating matters of that kind. They, therefore, felt it to be their imperative duty to avail themselves of every possible opportunity, no matter how unfavourable it might be, of bringing under the notice of the House the conduct of the officers of the Crown in such eases as those of the Delahuntys and the Tubbercurry prisoners. The Irish. Members had been reviled by an hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) for not having given sufficient details to enable him to form a correct judgment on the case that had been submitted. If the hon. Member to whom he referred were then present, he would remind him that they were not allowed to go into the question in the way they desired to do. If they had been permitted, they would have been able to have enlightened that hon. Gentleman to a considerable extent, so that if he were not absolutely prejudiced on the subject, he would have felt bound

  811
  to have voted with the Irish Members; but he had no confidence in the kind of judgment the hon. Gentleman would have been likely to have formed. He had stated that he had had in his possession for some time a pamphlet containing a statement of the facts; but, notwithstanding that there had for some weeks been a Motion on the Paper for a discussion of the question, the hon. Gentleman had not yet opened that pamphlet. He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite had come into the House prepared to take a fair view of the subject. He was afraid that most of them came there prejudiced against anything which the Irish Members might bring forward, and that it was, therefore, impossible to convince them, no matter what facts might be brought forward. He would not be astonished at anything that would be said against Irish law officials or against special jurors. He would give one of the reasons why. Mr. Peter O'Brien had given the greatest offence to Catholic jurors in Cork by his conduct as Crown Prosecutor in challenging Catholics on special juries—such offence, indeed, that those gentlemen had signed a Memorial against his conduct, and had declared that if they could possibly avoid it they would not serve even upon a common jury, seeing that they were not to be permitted by the Crown to serve on special juries. The moment the names of those gentlemen were called in Court they were, one after another, told to stand aside as being unworthy of belief on their oaths, whilst those who were empannelled were almost invariably Masons and Orangemen. Masons and Orangemen were put on the juries wherever it was possible; and he submitted that so long as such conduct was allowed to go on in Ireland—and there was no Court of Appeal there in criminal cases—and so long as Irish Representatives had to come over to the British Parliament, they would be obliged to bring such matters as these under the notice of the House of Commons. It was all very well to say that the House of Commons was not to be made a Court of Appeal; but if it was not made a Court of Appeal, what Court of Appeal were the Irish Members to resort to? The Irish Members came here, very much against their will, to discuss these matters. It was not a pleasure to them to have to raise such
  812
  questions—to bring before the notice of the House such glaring instances of cruelty as they had to raise from time to time. They did it with the greatest reluctance; but they were obliged to do it in the due discharge of their duty. He regretted that the Government had taken the course they had taken with regard to the Irish Members this Session. He himself had had a Notice on the Paper with regard to a most important matter involving the conduct of certain officials who were paid under the Vote now under consideration, and he had obtained an opportunity for bringing the discussion on; but the Government had taken the evening from him. On other occasions, when Irish Members bad had Questions on the Paper, the Government had monopolized the entire time of the House, and the result had been that they had been unable to bring under the notice of the House and of the country, through the House, the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant and his underlings had behaved. He did not suppose that anything the Irish Representatives could say or do would influence the majority of the Members of the House; nay, he did not expect any English Members would go into the Lobby with them, because those who came to take part in the division would come in from the Smoking Room or the Dining Room simply to vote for the Government, without having heard a word that had been said by the Irish Members, or knowing anything of the subject, or caring anything about it. But this course on the part of English Members, however persevered in, would not prevent Irish Representatives from bringing forward these questions, and debating them as fully as the Rules of the House permitted, if they believed that by so doing they enlightened public opinion outside. Of course, it would be highly inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, if there were a full House, to hear the representations of the Irish Members. In the course of a week or two the Prevention of Crime Act would be before the House—a Bill would be introduced to renew it; and if a full House heard the just demand of the Irish Members for an inquiry into this case it might accede to it; the result, there could not be the slightest doubt, would be the release of the men now suffering penal servitude, and that would

  813
  be a strong argument against the renewal of the Act. The men had been convicted because they were tried by a tribunal upon which no reliance could be placed. It only required some impartial tribunal to investigate such cases, and within a month they would have the majority of the men convicted under the Prevention of Crime Act set free. It might be said that if that Act were done away with Earl Spencer would resign. But what would that matter to the Irish people? Under any circumstances he could not be much longer in the country; and when he went the people would, at any rate, have the consolation of knowing that he could not be succeeded by a worse Lord Lieutenant. But even though the Lord Lieutenant threatened resignation, and even though to prevent that resignation certain clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act were renewed, he (Mr. Deasy) did not see that that justified them in keeping in prison men who were innocent of the offences for which they had been tried. But it was useless for him to go more fully into the matter now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had had an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny); but he had not availed himself of it. They knew why he had not done so. It was not because in adopting that course he would have been out of Order, but because he had no valid reason to give for the course the Government had taken in the matter. It was useless, therefore, to endeavour to impress upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the desirability of granting an inquiry. It was waste of time to tell him that they believed these men to be innocent, because there could be no doubt he knew it as well as they did themselves.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not wish to say many words on this question. He was only anxious to support the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) in the view of the case he had just put before the Committee. The Government at present were tied to the car of Lord Spencer, and wherever he led them they were bound to go. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was anxious to quote a passage which had come under his eyes only that evening in turning over the
  814
  letters of Junius. Junius, speaking of a certain politician, said—
  "In what repute can he conceive that he stands with his people when he sees, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that, whatever be the office, the suspicion of his favour is fatal to the candidate?"
  He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) contended that that was the position in which the present Viceroy of Ireland found himself, and that if that had been written by a writer of the present day it could not have more correctly described Lord Spencer's repute amongst all classes of the Irish people. Such was the condition of Ireland, because while the Viceroy was really the Leader and the despot of the Government in Ireland they could have nothing but dissatisfaction, both in large cases and in small, in all Departments of the Government. Irish Members could only do as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had done—namely, endeavour, by impressing that condition on the House of Commons again and again, to awaken them to a sense of the impossibility of the Government, under such conditions and under such a Leader, acting in a manner satisfactory to the Irish people.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he had another question to raise which he had brought before the House at an early period of the Session, but which, owing to the Forms of the House, he had been unable to state for more than a few minutes' time, Mr. Speaker having ruled him out of Order. However, having brought the subject under the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he felt sure that by that time he would have informed himself upon it, and would be able now to give a reason why Mr. John O'Brien, Town Councillor of the City of Cork, had not been placed upon the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum. He (Mr. Deasy) had to complain of the manner in which that Board of Governors discharged its duties. The manner was unsatisfactory, and it was because of the kind of men who wore placed upon it by the Lord Lieutenant, who had the making of the appointments in his own hands. But, before he went any further, he (Mr. Deasy) would point out to the Chairman that there was a sum for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant included in the Vote before the Committee, and that,

  815
  therefore, he was entitled to refer to a body of Governors whose appointment was vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and who had intrusted to them, the administration of money that was paid under a different class altogether to that which was paid under these Votes. Boards of Governors generally in Ireland were mainly constituted of the landlord classes, the people who made the money and paid the rates for the maintenance of those asylums having no representation? whatever upon them except by the goodwill of the Lord Lieutenant—and he must say that, as a general rule, Lord Lieutenants in Ireland had not evinced any very general disposition to place on those Boards men at all representative of the people whose money the Boards squandered. Take, for instance, the composition of the Board in Cork. There were such men upon it as Lord Mount Cashell, who was about a century old; Lord Bantry, who spent the greater part of his time in Australia and other places abroad; and others of the same kind who never for a moment considered the interests of the people or the amount of money they squandered so long as they were able to appoint their own friends to lucrative positions. The Corporation of the Cit of Cork contributed £7,000 annually towards the maintenance of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, and the Government contributed largely. Of course, he had no objection, under those circumstances, to the Government nominating a certain portion of the Board; but he had a great objection to the ratepayers of the City of Cork not being allowed to appoint a single representative of their own on the Board of Governors, without the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. The ratepayers had had grave reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Governors. Four or five years ago they found that a number of contracts were improperly given in connection with the Asylum, and they had good cause to believe that a great deal of the money found by the ratepayers was misspent. The Corporation had been in the habit of nominating members of the Board, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; but when two vacancies occurred some time ago, and two gentlemen were nominated to fill them, Earl Spencer only selected one of the nominees, and that gentleman he had appointed the very day after his
  816
  nomination, doubtless for the reason that he was a member of an Orange Lodge and one of the leading Masons of Cork. The other gentleman, Mr. John O'Brien, the Lord Lieutenant had absolutely refused to appoint. It was now well understood why Earl Spencer had refused to confirm the nomination. It was because Mr. O'Brien had refused to be present at a dinner given to the Lord Lieutenant about a couple of years ago, and because Mr. O'Brien had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a plank bed. The imprisonment and plank bed were bestowed upon Mr. O'Brien for making a speech which he (Mr. Deasy) should consider moderate. Another reason why that gentleman had not been appointed was because the Lord Lieutenant feared that if he were put on the Board of Governors the little game of the Orange Freemasons on the Board would be, to a certain extent, spoiled—that they would be no longer allowed to vote addresses to Earl Spencer without opposition. The District Asylum had been the only place in Cork at which the Lord Lieutenant had received a cheer when on a visit to that city a short time ago, and probably he did not wish to have the apple of discord thrown in amongst his devoted friends. At airy rate, whatever the reason was, his Lordship had refused to appoint Mr. John O'Brien in spite of his nomination by the Corporation. The people of Cork complained of that, because they had been anxious to have Mr. O'Brien on the Board in order to advocate reforms, particularly in regard to the giving out of contracts, as it had been ascertained—in the woollen business especially—that tenders had been refused which were at a far lower figure than those which had been accepted, the reason being that the persons who had sent in the lowest tenders did not quite come up to the Dublin Castle standard. The interests of Cork, in fact, had been to such an extent prejudiced by the action of the Lord Lieutenant, by refusing to appoint the nominee of the Corporation of that city, that it was almost time to advise the Corporation to bring the Lord Lieutenant to reason by refusing to grant the supplies necessary for the working of the Asylum. There was a Motion down for consideration in the Town Council to take such

  817
  a step, unless the Lord Lieutenant could see his way to appoint Mr. O'Brien. The Board did not want to be intruded upon by any outsider who would be anxious to act honestly and in the interest of the ratepayers; and it could be easily understood why they were reluctant to be so intruded upon, when it was borne in mind that only 12 months ago the auditors had surcharged the Chairman and two other Governors £250 for illegal expenditure. The auditors were under the Local Government Board, which was under the control of the Lord Lieutenant; and ultimately, the matter going before the high officials on the representation of the Governors, the items in respect of which the surcharge was made were admitted. This was a gross fraud on the ratepayers of the district, and he hoped that the Government, as they did not seem inclined to bring in a Bill for the reform of County Government, or any measure which would deal with a question of that kind, would at least see that in those matters the interests of the ratepayers, who contributed so largely to the maintenance of pauper lunatics, were properly represented on the Board of Governors. There was not upon the Cork District Lunatic Asylum Board a single representative of the agricultural classes—a single person representing the farmers of that vast county, although they had to pay a large proportion of the expenses of the Asylum, the landlords in respect of their property contributing not a single farthing'—that was, contributing nothing in respect of that part of their property which they did not occupy themselves. There was every reason why the people of Cork, as well as the tenant farmers, should complain of having the present system in force any longer; but, as that was not the question under discussion, he should confine himself to urging upon the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the desirability of reconsidering the case of Mr. John O'Brien, and of advising the Lord Lieutenant to have that gentleman appointed on the Board of Governors of the Cork District Asylum in compliance with the demand of the Corporation of the City. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do that, he would probably hear more about that matter than he had heard that evening, because there would not be a Vote coming under the notice
  818
  of the House which related to County Government in that county, to the contributions for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, or the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, upon which he (Mr. Deasy) would not be prepared to raise this question. He should like, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Government to retain in office in the Asylum Dr. Eames, a doctor whose case had been discussed more than once in that House? It would be remembered that Dr. Eames was one of the physicians appointed by the Government to examine into the case of James Ellis French, and one of the physicians who pronounced James Ellis French to be insane, though a short time afterwards he was declared by a jury to be perfectly sane, and was sent to gaol. That case of French was not the only one in which Dr. Eames had shown his incapacity to take charge of cases in the Asylum. About 12 months ago one of his (Mr. Deasy's) own constituents applied to Dr. Fames for a form of tender, or a form for a milk contract. Dr. Eames told him he wanted a form of committal; and before the unfortunate man could show that he was perfectly sane, and that he only applied for a form for a milk contract, a strait-jacket was put on him and he was placed in a cell. The man afterwards brought an action against the doctor, and the doctor paid him some damages. So that in the brief period of about 12 months two clear cases of incompetence were proved against Dr. Eames. The Irish Members, however, might as well hold their tongues as mention the matter at all except through the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would promise to make an inquiry into the capacity of Dr. Eames for filling his present post, because he had himself serious doubts of the man's sanity. He made the statement with great reluctance here; but there was a general impression abroad that Dr. Eames was not a fit man to be intrusted with the care of the unfortunate people in this Asylum. Another question in connection with this matter which he should like to raise was—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member whether Dr. Eames's salary is included in the Vote before the Committee, because the question was gone into very fully a few days ago, and it was not admitted then that he was a

  819
  salaried servant of the Government. Is his salary in any way included in this vote?
  MR. DEASYsaid, Dr. Eames's salary would come under Class VI., which was for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Ireland. There was another Vote for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant which, he maintained, would render this subject in Order. But his further remarks would not have so much to do with Dr. Eames as with pauper lunatics, which would come under the head of Class VI., Vote 5. The Cork Asylum was built for about 1,200 patients; but at present there were not 900 in it, while the workhouse was overcrowded with poor people, and had to accommodate 300 pauper lunatics. Those unfortunate lunatics had no chance of recovering on account of their surroundings, no proper provision being made for them; and his contention was that they should be removed to the Cork District Asylum, where there was ample room for their reception, where they would be properly treated, and where the percentage of recoveries would be far and away higher than in the workhouse. So long as there was room in the Asylum those people ought to be sent there for proper treatment; and he submitted that the Board of Guardians ought to be compelled by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to send their pauper lunatics there under a doctor's certificates, and the Board of Governors obliged to receive them. If the Government would be content to pay a portion of the expense of their maintenance there was no reason why those helpless people should not be admitted into the District Asylum. Hundreds of people were treated in the Asylum, the expense of whose maintenance should not, under any circumstances, be thrown upon the rates. People were taken in, no matter where they came from—whether from England, America, or Australia—and became chargeable to the Cork ratepayers. The people of Ireland had not the privileges that people similarly circumstanced possessed in England, consequently the people of the City and County of Cork, and the people of Kerry, were saddled with large and very unjust expenses in respect of lunatics who were landed at the ports within the district who ought not to be treated in Ireland at all, but who could not,
  820
  under the existing law, be sent back to the Unions to which they belonged. In conclusion, he wished to express a hope that as the Government did not intend to introduce their County Government Bill that Session, the Chief Secretary would take care that power was conferred upon the authorities in Ireland enabling them to compel Boards of Governors to levy the rates fairly and to expend them honestly.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, he would endeavour to draw the attention of the Committee to a few figures which bore on this subject. The ratepayers of Ireland paid nearly £130,000 per annum for the support of pauper lunatics—they paid £123,702, whilst the Government contributed £98,200 this year, according to Vote 5 in Class VI., and in 1883 they contributed £92,866. Those figures showed a very great increase, and whilst the figures were increasing for the support of pauper lunatics they had the anomaly that the population of the country was decreasing at a great ratio. He thought he should be correct in stating that the population of Ireland had decreased since the last Census by 200,000 persons. Then, what was the cause of the increase in the amount expended on pauper lunatics—was it that pauper lunatics in Ireland were on the increase? No, that was not the fact, as the figures showed; then it must be due to some extravagance on the part of the Directors, who were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That had been particularly the case in Cork; and the Corporation had discovered that great irregularities prevailed on the Board in connection with the issuing of contracts. Those irregularities had been conspicuous in connection with contracts for the purchase of the woollen materials used in clothing the pauper lunatics. Well, the Cork Corporation, as they had contributed so largely to the support of the pauper lunatics, and as the Lord Lieutenant, on a former occasion, acceded to their request to have a certain number of their body appointed on the Governing Board of the Cork District Asylum, thought it would be advisable to send to the Board a man who was an expert in the matter of those contracts, and upon whom would devolve the duty of seeing that the pauper lunatics were well treated, and that the taxpayers and the Imperial Revenues were not

  821
  cheated by the maladministration of the Governors appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. Therefore, they decided to send to the Board a man who was an expert in the woollen trade, and they selected a Councillor of great integrity and repute, Mr. John O'Brien. The name of that gentleman was sent up to the Lord Lieutenant, and day upon day, week upon week, month upon month elapsed, and yet Mr. O'Brien was not appointed to the Board. Why was it? "Was it because he was not a competent business man? No; that could not be the case, because he had made his own business a success and he (Mr. O'Connor) held that anyone capable of making his own business a success was a fit and proper person to look after the business of other people. Was it, then, because he was a bad public man? That could not be either, because he was a respected and faithful representative of the people in the locality in which he dwelt. Then, what was the reason? They could come to one conclusion, and one only—namely, because he had slept for two months on a plank bed for the commission of an offence and a breach of laws the Irish people considered more honoured in the breach than the observance. He (Mr. O'Connor) held that the offence Mr. O'Brien had committed was no reason why he should not be intrusted with the administration of the affairs of the Cork District Asylum. The Government saw amongst the Irish Members many who had suffered the miseries of imprisonment, and yet they asked them to come here and aid and assist them in the enactment of laws for the better government of Her Majesty's subjects. The Irish Members were, therefore, entitled to ask—"Is what is right in St. Stephen's wrong in connection with the Cork District Lunatic Asylum?" Yet such was the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Government hinted at the passing of laws for the better government of Ireland—they promised them laws for the development of County Government and for the improvement of Local Government generally, and it would be in the hands of such a Viceroy as Earl Spencer that they would place the administration of those laws. Look at what a muddle the Lord Lieutenant had brought things to in Limerick—see the collision he had brought
  822
  about between the authorities of Dublin Castle through the imposition of an unjust tax; and yet the contest that was going on between Dublin Castle and Limerick was taking place elsewhere, although it had not received equal notoriety. And yet they would sustain in his position a Lord Lieutenant who placed himself in opposition to localities in this way, and would, furthermore, place in his hands the administration of those laws which had been promised to the people of Ireland for their better government.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the question which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) had raised was, after all, only a portion of a much wider question which he thought the Government, whatever might be the pressure on their time and resources, ought to take in hand at the soonest possible moment. Every year, whenever occasion offered, he had urged this matter on the attention of the House; and he should think he was remiss in his duty if he failed on that occasion also to state what he thought ought to be done in this regard. The question of the whole treatment of paupers and pauper lunatics generally in Ireland was a question which could scarcely be studied without feelings of indignation and disgust. Only two months ago he had put a question to one of the officials of the Government as to the condition of the district lunatic asylums in Ireland. He had asked whether it was not the fact that out of 22 asylums there were not 11 in which the number of inmates far exceeded the number for which the buildings were registered? The Government had to admit that it was a fact; but in palliation of it it was urged that there were other lunatic asylums which were not up to their full establishment. But that had nothing to do with the case. In at least 50 per cent of the district lunatic asylums of Ireland, the number of patients was so great that there was not adequate accommodation for them, and the staff was insufficient to look properly after them. Another portion of the case related to lunatics who were the inmates of workhouses; and he supposed there was not in the United Kingdom any class more deserving of commiseration, and having a greater claim on the attention and time of the House, than this

  823
  unfortunate set of people, who were absolutely unable to do anything for themselves. What was the fact? Why, in many of the pauper establishments in Ireland there was absolutely no classification whatever. The consequence was that lunatics were the habitual, daily, and nightly companions of persons who were sane. In certain poorhouses in Ireland—however it might amuse the Home Secretary who was laughing—they were habitually required, day after day, to spend the whole of their time from morning till night in the company of lunatics. He had mentioned more than once the case of Dingle Asylum, in West Kerry. They there found female lunatics left in a large shed which could not be called a room, with no floor but the cold earth—a shed which served also for the children's playground. In the whole of Europe no people could be found who were in a more mournful condition than those in that place. He had cited the case of that institution now for three years in succession, and not only that case, but the treatment of paupers generally in the workhouses of Ireland deserved a very searching investigation. He had on more than one occasion observed, and he would observe again, that the amount of nourishment given to many of those paupers would not keep a mere idle person in a normal condition of health. Three years ago he had privately obtained particulars of the amount of food given to the adults, and the sick, and the children in some of those workhouses. He would not go into the amount of nutritious elements—the nitrogen and carbon—contained in the food, nor the weights, nor go into a comparison of the quantity and quality of the food supplied to those poor people and that supplied to prisoners in England; but he had shown, and could do so again, to conviction that the state of the unfortunate people in the Irish workhouses was something disgraceful. He had submitted the figures to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who had admitted that the quantities as marked out were fairly open to challenge. The right hon. Gentleman, at his (Mr. A. O'Connor's) request, after investigating the Roturn submitted to him, handed it to the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. Gentleman
  824
  the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). That right hon. Gentleman had promised that in the ensuing Recess he would cause a careful investigation to be made into the subject; but he (Mr. A. O'Connor) was sorry to say that investigation was never made. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was succeeded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) a similar promise was obtained from him; but it was kept in precisely the same way. Now, in his turn, he wished to ask the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) if he would cause some inquiry to be made, not only into the condition of the lunatics in the Irish workhouses, but into the amount of food given to the rest of the inmates? Such an inquiry would not be a very difficult thing to institute. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was willing to lay on the Table of the House a Return of the scales of dietary in force in the West of Ireland—in the two Provinces of Connaught and Munster? He was certain that if the right hon. Gentleman would obtain such a Return, and would submit it when obtained to competent authorities to report to him as to the amount of nourishment to be obtained from those scales, and necessary for ordinary adults in fair health, and even without the necessity of doing anything like heavy physical labour, he would come to the conclusion which the medical authorities who had been consulted had come to already—namely, that there was not a sufficient amount of nourishment given to those poor people to keep them in a normal state of health. The consequence was that they had an amount of debility, helplessness, and hopelessness in the Irish workhouses that would not be dreamed of in this country, and that the mortality amongst the workhouse children was greater than it was amongst the children of the poorest people outside the workhouses.
  COLONEL NOLANtrusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would now reply to the various points raised, as he (Colonel Nolan) desired to touch upon a different topic.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr.

  825
  A. O'Connor), he refers to certain promises which have been made to him—he does not unfold a tale of a very encouraging character. He says he received promises from my two Predecessors, which, in neither case, were fulfilled. Well, Sir, I shall avoid the somewhat dangerous step taken by my Predecessors. I will say this, however—that I fully recognize the importance of both the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the dietary scales in workhouses, perhaps the best way to proceed will be for the hon. Member to kindly communicate to me the facts which he wishes to bring out, and I can assure him that I shall be very glad indeed if anything can be done to satisfy him with regard to the matter in question—I shall be especially glad if any disclosures lean bring about will lead to any necessary amelioration of the dietary of the workhouses. As to the other point—namely, the pauper lunatics, I quite appreciate the great importance of that matter; and I shall be very glad indeed if, by any attention I can bestow upon it, it can be put on a better footing than it is. I am not without a little experience with regard to investigation on that particular point. I will not go very far in giving additional promises; but I admit with the hon. Member that the subject is one well worthy of being inquired into, and if he can suggest any particular way in which an improvement can be effected I shall be very glad to meet him. As to the other points alluded to at considerable length by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy), I can only say that these matters connected with the Cork District Lunatic Asylum were fully brought up and discussed in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates. The whole question concerning the conduct of Dr. Eames, and of the appointment of another Governor, were brought up, and I was then able to make a reply on the whole case, with the facts and papers before me. I have nothing to add to the reply that I then made. I was able, for instance, to show the hon. Member that the reason why no appointment was made to the Board of Governors by Earl Spencer was because there was no necessity at that moment for any addition to be made to the Board, especially of representatives of the town. I showed that in proportion to the money paid by
  826
  towns were more liberally represented than were the country districts. I am speaking now from memory, and I have not the figures before me. It was on that ground, and on that ground alone, that no appointment was made at the time it was proposed. The Cork Corporation claimed the right to nominate, which, as a matter of fact, was never conceded to them. It has always been customary, as far as possible, to consult local interests; but the responsibility for appointing proper people for the position rests with the Lord Lieutenant. It is not a responsibility that the Lord Lieutenant covets or desires to retain. He would be much bettor pleased if in the process of time, as I hope it may be, the whole duty is handed over to some Local Authority; but as long as the duty falls upon him he is bound to discharge it, and cannot devolve it on any other body.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary give me, if I move for it, a Return of the dietary scales in force in the workhouses?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see that there can be any objection; but I will consult with the hon. Gentleman on the subject. I can make no promise.
  MR. PARNELL: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the junior Member for the City of Cork as to the question of the appointment or the non-appointment of Mr. John O'Brien on the Board of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum is singularly illustrative of the policy of the Irish Executive, and of the difference which exists between that policy and the supposed policy of the Liberal Cabinet and Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his speech just now, stated that the Lord Lieutenant is most desirous that the duties in connection with the governing of this lunatic asylum shall be handed over to some Local Authority, and certainly the action of the Lord Lieutenaut is very indicative of the extent of his power for the handing over of these duties. The law, as it stands at present, does provide for a certain amount of local action and responsibility—a very small amount of local action and responsibility—on the part of the Cork Corporation. As the law stands, the Cork Corporation have

  827
  the right of nominating for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant three members out of 60 who compose the Board of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum. Up to very recently the Corporation had the right of nominating four. As a matter of fact, they have that right still. On a recent occasion a vacancy occurred in this number of four nominated by the Corporation, thus reducing the members so nominated to three. Well, the Corporation of Cork met to consider who they should nominate to fill this fourth place. Due notice of the nomination was given, and all the formalities provided by the law were complied with. It was not contended that their action was illegal, ultra vires, or irregular in any respect. The result was that, after a formal debate and division, the Corporation, by a majority, decided to recommend to the Lord Lieutenant, as their nominee, Mr. John O'Brien, one, I believe, of their own number—a Town Councillor of the City of Cork, and consequently a gentleman admirably fitted for the discharge of the duties of membership of the Cork Lunatic Asylum. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that Earl Spencer is desirous of effecting an extension of local elective responsibility; but in this particular case, where an opportunity was given to him to recognize that responsibility and that authority, what did he do? Why, he threw it on one side. We have been told by the Government for a number of years, and especially by the Prime Minister, what their desire to extend the system of elective local authority in Ireland is; and where it does exist, even to such a small and partial extent as a right to nominate four members out of a Board consisting of some 60, nearly all the balance of the 60 being nominated by the Government, what does the Lord Lieutenant do? He thrusts upon one side, without ceremony, the nomination of the Local Authority, limited as their power is, being, as they are, only a nominating authority, the Lord Lieutenant having the right to override their nomination. The Lord Lieutenant refuses to accept the nomination, and he leaves the representation of the Corporation of Cork upon this Board—which manages the affairs of a lunatic asylum, towards the expenses of which the Corporation of the City contributes £7,000
  828
  a-year out of the rates of the citizens—at three instead of four members. Now, the City of Cork pays one-fourth of the income of the Asylum. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is the Chief Secretary of a Liberal Government which is most desirous of extending local self-government in Ireland—which, in fact, are in tears because, owing to the necessity of passing a Coercion Act, they cannot pay any attention to the enlargement of the local responsibility of the country. The Government is most desirous, and has been for a number of years, of doing this; and here we see an Irish Chief Secretary coming forward to defend the action of a Lord Lieutenant who absolutely tramples on all the principles of local self-government in Ireland, and of the representation of the taxpayers. Here is the City of Cork, which contributes a quarter of the income of the Lunatic Asylum, asking for four members out of 60, or 1–15th of the representation on the Board, and its demands are ignominiously flouted by Earl Spencer, no valid reason being given for that conduct, which the Irish Members contend is entirely inconsistent with all the representations of the Government and of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman said, a while ago, that this question had been fully discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, and that he had already given a full reply. Now, I venture to contend that neither of these questions was discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, and that the right hon. Gentleman did not give a full reply. I have before me a report of the discussion. I find that the Chairman of Committees—I am quite sure most properly ruled—that the discussion was out of Order, and refused to allow the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) to proceed with it. He found that, it was not germane to the Vote. The Vote then before the Committee had reference to a limited portion of the Asylum, and had no relation to the question of the appointment of Mr. John O'Brien. The Chairman ruled it out of Order, and it is, therefore, preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that a question so ruled out of Order, as beyond the intention of the Vote, was fully discussed.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We discussed the question for quite an hour.
  MR. PARNELL: Hansard does not mention how long the discussion took; but I have before me the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee, in which he decided on two occasions that the discussion could not proceed, and decided it during the speech of the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of Cork, who was bringing the matter forward. Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is reasonable to suppose that a question can be fully and properly discussed on a Vote when the Chairman rules that that Vote is not of sufficient scope to allow it to be discussed in accordance with the merits and facts of the case? I turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not find there any sufficient reply to even the limited arguments that were used by my hon. Friend, or which my hon. Friend had been permitted to use up to the time of the Chairman's intervention. Before sitting down I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether we are to suppose that the attitude he has exhibited in reference to this question, and the spirit which he has shown in defending the acts of Earl Spencer in reference to this matter, are an indication of the spirit in which the Government intend to propose a settlement of the question of local self-government in Ireland? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that so long as we see such action as that of Earl Spencer in reference to a matter of this kind, and such action as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and so long as we hear such speeches as those that have proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman in defending Earl Spencer's action in reference to this matter—which is not a question connected with the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice, or the integrity of the Empire, or the upholding of the Union, or any other of the great functions and things that Englishmen are ready to die to maintain—so long, I say, as we see this spirit on the part of the Irish Executive, so long shall I entertain the opinion that it will be better for them to leave local self government alone. I say that if the spirit of Earl Spencer is to be the spirit with which the Liberal Cabinet and the Liberal Party intend to propose a settlement of the question of local government in the next Parliament they had far better not put their hands to it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has not precisely represented the state of affairs as to what he calls the rights of the Corporation. The Cork Corporation have no rights in the matter at all, in a legal sense. The Corporation have no right in the world to nominate or take any steps in the matter; but out of courtesy it is usual to listen to the recommendations made by the Corporation. The person upon whom responsibility devolves under the Act of Parliament is the Lord Lieutenant, and there is no question at all under the Act of any right or privilege whatever belonging to the Corporation. It is a mere question of courteous interchange of opinion. As a rule, the recommendations of the Cork Corporation have been acceded to. [Mr. PARNELL: Always.] No; not always. I am speaking from knowledge on the matter, and from having had in my possession all the Papers bearing on the point. I am able to say that there have been cases before in which the nomination of the Corporation has not been adopted. The reason this particular name—Mr. John O'Brien—was not put on the list was because the list was already full, and there was no occasion to appoint a new Governor. It rests with the Lord Lieutenant to say whether he will appoint many or few, and in his opinion there was no occasion to appoint more at this time. As to the number which may be nominated by the town of Cork, it is not limited to three or four. But, considering the proportion of the expenses contributed by the town, the Executive have to consider how many of the Governors shall belong to the town, whether their names are submitted by the Corporation or not. It will be found that there are a larger number of townsmen in proportion to their contribution than there are country members. That is my recollection; but I only wish to put the hon. Gentleman right by saying that the Corporation has no legal right in the matter, and that the whole responsibility rests with the Lord Lieutenant. So long as that responsibility rests on him, which he himself considers, and which I consider, to be almost an anomalous position of things, it is impossible for him to devolve it upon the Corporation of Cork, or anyone else.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked whether it was not the unbroken cus-

  831
  tom and usage to appoint the City Members as Governors of the Institution? Was not that the unbroken custom and usage down to the time when his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) became Member for the City of Cork; and when he did become Member for the City, was not the hitherto unbroken custom broken through? Was it not the fact that at the present time neither of the Members for the City of Cork was a Governor of the Institution? Was it not the fact that the present Government, which professed to be thirsting for the establishment of local institutions everywhere, had gone in this case entirely against the spirit of the locality, and had, so to speak, disestablished the popular Members for the City of Cork, while they had established in perpetuity the less popular—he would not say the unpopular—Members for the county?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas sorry to say that he was unable to refer to any Papers on the subject, and that was one of the consequences and inconveniences of bringing the matter on in that way. When the question was raised on the Supplementary Estimates, when the Vote for Lunatic Asylums was under discussion, he took care to have all the Papers and all the necessary information at hand; but now he had nothing to refer to. Still, he remembered the facts as to the question of the Members for the City of Cork being necessarily supposed to be also members of the Board of Governors.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I did not say "necessarily;" I said "by usage and custom."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, by almost invariable custom and usage. According to the best of his recollection the custom had not been invariable; and he thought it was departed from at a more remote date than that to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had referred. But the question was raised by the Cork Corporation, and he certainly had not been able to discover that it had been at all associated with the advent of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Parnell). The Corporation wished that the practice should be revived; and when his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) opinion was asked, he said he did not think the Member of Parliament for the City was necessarily a proper person to be put
  832
  upon the Board of Governors, because such a Member was not always connected with the borough in any other way than by his Membership. Many Members had no connection with the locality they represented at all. They did not reside there, they had no intimate knowledge of the facts necessary to be known for the efficient discharge of local duties, and they would be altogether undesirable persons to appoint upon such Institutions. He knew that if there was an asylum in his own constituency he should be very unwilling to be put upon the Governing Board, because he was very seldom there, and he was not properly qualified in regard to an intimate knowledge of local requirements; but the county Members in most cases were resident in the county. They were gentlemen who could take an interest in its local affairs, and they were in an altogether different position from Members of Parliament, who had no local qualification, and who were merely associated with a place in a Parliamentary sense.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had complained of want of Notice. If those Irish Members who were interested in the question had not been able to give Notice, the fault was not theirs. The Government now came forward for a Vote on Account for a certain number of weeks' Supplies. They must have known what they wanted beforehand. They must have been well aware a week or a fortnight or a month ago that they would want this particular Vote that week. Why, then, did they not say so? Why did they only give Notice late on Friday night that the Vote would be asked for to-night? The Irish Members had had no time to collect Papers or information. The fact was that the precipitancy of the Government in asking for the Vote was entirely due to their own studious reserve in refraining from giving any Notice of it until the last possible moment. As to the complaint of want of Notice, they were all quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman did not really want Notice, for what he wanted in documents he was always able to make up in ingenuity. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward this argument—that Members of Parliament were elected to Asylum Boards when they were really connected with

  833
  the locality, and that the county Members were placed upon the Board for that very reason. Well, if that were so, why was not his hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) appointed? That hon. Gentleman lived within two miles of the city, within the Parliamentary boundary, was an elector, was a ratepayer, was a Member for the city, was a member of the Board of Guardians—in fact, he combined in himself as many urban qualifications as a local candidate could possibly have. But because he did not troop after the Government Whips in the Lobby, but followed his Colleague in the representation of the city (Mr. Parnell), and took an independent view of Irish questions, he was not fit, forsooth, to sit upon the Cork Lunatic Asylum Board. Such was the principle upon which Members of Parliament were excluded from posts of public importance and honour in Ireland. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman meant anything, it meant that. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to account for the fact that a merely nominal Home Ruler like the Member for the county, or a fossil Tory like the late Member for the city, was good enough to sit upon the Cork Lunatic Asylum Board; but that, according to the wise and discreet exercise of the jurisdiction and privileges of Earl Spencer, a Member of the really National Party headed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) was not fit for anything of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman had crammed more inaccuracies into his speech than he (Mr. Sexton) had ever heard in a speech of the same extent. He had said that the number of vacancies upon the Board was filled up. As a matter of fact, there was no particular number to be filled up.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I did not allude to a fixed number.
  MR. SEXTON: You said there were no vacancies.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not allude to a fixed number.
  MR. SEXTON: Then what was it that was to be tilled up? The Lord Lieutenant could make 100 or 1,000 Governors at his pleasure.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not use the phrase. I said that on a former occasion the Board was filled up. What I said was that Earl
  834
  Spencer did not make these particular appointments because he considered the number of Governors was sufficient; there was no necessity to make more. If I used the phrase, "The number was filled up," I did not mean to convey what the hon. Gentleman assumes at all. It rests with the Lord Lieutenant to appoint many or few, as he thinks fit.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, so far, was satisfactory. No doubt, the number of members who should be upon the Board was quite within the power of Earl Spencer, who could make as many or as few as he chose. But what was the next point? The right hon. Gentleman had declared that this was not the first refusal which the Lord Lieutenant had given to the county, and that he had done on former occasions what he had done now. The object of that argument was to show that the Lord Lieutenant was not, on this occasion, influenced by any objectionable or indefensible motive. But ho (Mr. Sexton) maintained that nothing of the kind ever occurred before. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant at first refused to appoint Alderman Nagle; but in the long run he did appoint him.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps he may appoint this one, too.
  MR. SEXTONdared say he might. If the Lord Lieutenant had any sense lie would do so, because he would find that the inconvenience which would spring up from an absolute refusal to appoint this Gentleman would be much greater than would be compensated by any self-satisfaction which the noble Earl might derive from the refusal. The only instance which could be given was not a case in point, for there was no refusal in the end. The Corporation had always had four members appointed; but now they had only three. The annual income for the support of the Asylum was £26,000, and of that sum the Cork Corporation paid £7,000, or one-fourth. The Asylum had 40 Governors, and the Corporation, according to any reasonable calculation, ought to have the appointment of 10 of them. If this inequality between the proportion of cost defrayed by the Corporation and the power of nominating members of the Governing Board were to be found to exist, say, in the case of Liverpool, or in the case of the particular

  835
  Scotch town in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was interested—what would be the result? Sup pose there was an Asylum there, and the Corporation paid one-fourth of the total income, and the Corporation, by law, reason, usage, or custom, had acquired a right to nominate a certain number of the Governors, what would the Scotch people say the proportion ought to be? Why, not four, but 10, of the members of the Governing Board; and the Lord Advocate would have to get up in his most oily and honeyed manner, and say that the matter should be made right. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were informed that a Corporation in Scotland was paying one-fourth of the income of such an Institution, he would say that common sense and equity alike dictated that that Corporation should have a corresponding share of the government of the Institution, and in 24 hours it would all be made right. But the Irish people in such a case were to be put off with all manner of fallacies and delusions, which practically amounted to this—that the Corporation of Cork were to have the right of suggesting a certain number of members, but that the Lord Lieutenant was to have the right of rejecting them. That was a very unequal kind of right. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that this Corporation, which paid a certain proportion of the money for the maintenance of this Asylum, ought to have, 1d. for 1d., a share in its government proportionate to that amount. There was no other reasonable arrangement which could be come to, and why should Earl Spencer be allowed to overturn and upset the reasonable and ancient Constitutional maxim that representation should accord with and follow taxation? He had only one fact to add. There were two vacancies in the past year, and the Lord Lieutenant had refused to fill them. The Corporation used to have four members upon the Board, and now they had only three; and not only did the Lord Lieutenant refuse to fill up that Corporation vacancy, but he had also refused to fill up the two vacancies that had arisen outside the Corporation, be-3ause, if he filled up either of those, the object of refusing to fill up the Corporation vacancy would at once be apparent. Earl Spencer was, therefore, forced to allow the other vacancies to remain
  836
  unfilled. It was the shallowest pretence to say that because certain Governors lived in the city they might be regarded as representing the city. The citizens' money was paid out of the purse of the Corporation, and the Corporation had a right to elect a fair proportion of the Governors who were to administer the fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made many feeble attempts to defend lame cases during his short period of Office, but never had he excelled the feebleness and lameness of that night.
  COLONEL NOLANpointed out that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary admitted that the case was anomalous, he was not the first person to use that phrase in this connection, and could not lay claim to originality, because a Predecessor of his in the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—spoke more strongly still about nine years ago, and said it was "the most anomalous method of appointment he knew anywhere," and that "it ought to be remedied." Well, they had four years of a Conservative Administration after that, and there was no remedy. They had since had five years of a Liberal Administration, and not the slightest shadow of a remedy. Considering that they were now within three or four months of a General Election, he did not think the Liberal Chief Secretary had spoken nearly so strongly as the Conservative Chief Secretary, and not in so favourable a sense, because the Conservative Chief Secretary gave them very strong promises. It was true that those promises were never realized, but still they were very strong; whereas the promises of the present Chief Secretary were very mild indeed. As to the placing of Members of Parliament upon the Asylum Governing Board, the action of the Government was as far as possible the adoption of the local feeling of the aristocracy and county residents. The Sheriffs took the greatest trouble to keep the Home Rule Members of Parliament out of everything. About two years ago there was some arrangement made—some word went round that the Home Rule Members were to be kept off, and there had been a regular systematic attempt, which had increased

  837
  of late, to keep the Home Rule Members from everything as far as possible, and that had been done in several cases. In one case in his (Colonel Nolan's) own county the3' had to keep off his Colleague, who sat on the Government side of the House, because that Colleague must suffer for his (Colonel Nolan's) politics—a most unfortunate matter for the hon. Gentleman he referred to. That, at all events, was the general opinion of the county. As a matter of fact, the Irish Home Rule Members were there to vote the money, and then the English Members and a few of the aristocracy of Ireland administered it. That was a system which was of very little importance so far as the Asylums were concerned; but it was important in the way in which it affected the general system of the administration of Imperial and local funds. In that respect this case of the Asylums was about as strong and fair an illustration of the general system as could be brought forward. Hon. Members were simply brought there to be good boys and vote millions of money. He was very glad that the Irish Members took no part in voting the Credit of £11,000,000 for the preparations against Russia. The fact was that the Leader of the Opposition did not get up at the proper time to exercise his natural functions, and so the Vote was unexpectedly agreed to. The Irish Members objected to the general system under which they were brought there to vote away money the administration of which was to be left entirely to other hands. However, he did not wish to dwell so much upon that point as to draw attention to two or three practical facts. The Irish Members had, at all events, this advantage, that they could make themselves heard in this place. They had no power of administration in their own country, and no power of dictating foreign policy; and they were now getting to this condition, that they did not vote all this money—it was taken from them whether they liked it or not. But though they were not allowed to share in the administration of their country, they could, at all events, talk about it, and he would like to bring one or two facts before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. In the first place, he rather thought these Votes on Account were too much objected to and abused. They were really an excellent
  838
  system, for they gave an opportunity two or three times in a Session of bringing the general state of Ireland before the country. The only objection that he had to the present Vote—nearly £3,500,000—was that it was too large. He would rather see it brought forward £1,500,000 at a time, for then it would afford more opportunities for discussion. That was the more important, as the Prime Minister had confiscated all the days on which private Members had the opportunity of bringing questions before the House. It was most important, then, that the Irish Members should use these opportunities when they did arise. There were two or three questions which he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee. The first question related to the Police Act, under which the people had to pay heavily, and that constituted a great grievance in his own county of Galway. He had no objection to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland giving directions for individual protection where it was needed. It had been done in Galway; but in his part of the county he could see no necessity for it. He said that where this individual protection was given it should come from the ordinary Constabulary Force, and be paid for in the ordinary way out of the sums annually voted for that Body by Parliament. He believed that the law of the country, if properly administered, was ample for the protection of the people. The Constabulary Force was managed to a certain extent by the Government, and to a certain extent by local men. If it was said by anyone that there were not enough constables in a county a larger number were sent there, and the poor people in the districts had to pay for them. And it was that which constituted the grievance of which he had to complain. He believed that if there were an Official in that House whose position was dependent upon his pleasing the people, this matter would have been inquired into in order to see how the law was administered, and then he was convinced that it would have been found that the sum at present voted by Parliament was sufficient for the requirements of the country in respect of police protection. Whether the practice he was complaining of was continued for the purpose of keeping open a sore he knew not; but whether it was so or not,

  839
  the money was being screwed out of people who could not pay it, and, under the circumstances, he thought it constituted a very proper case to bring forward in that House. The second subject to which he desired to call attention was the extraordinary inaction of the Board of Works so far as arterial drainage was concerned. When the Land Act was passing through Parliament he had suggested that the tenant farmers should be allowed to get small sums for the purpose of draining their land. That was agreed to, and embodied in the Act; but he believed the minimum sum to be advanced was fixed at £50—at any rate, it was fixed at £50 by the Board of Works. He had never contended that the tenant farmers should be able to obtain small loans of £5 or £10, because that would be on the face of it bad and careless legislation; but he did contend that several tenant farmers, having each to do drainage to the value of £10, should be allowed to club together, and by thus making up the required minimum get their small amount of drainage done. But they were not allowed to get the money in this way, as he was informed, owing to the laziness of the officials of the Board of Works in Ireland. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to go into these matters of detail; but he did hope that he would pay some attention to the subject, and that he would not always be looking after the police work of the country. That had been the case with the right hon. Gentleman and his Predecessor, although he would not say that it had been so with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the late Conservative Government. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he would look into the matters he (Colonel Nolan) was laying before the Committee, and would do something to remedy the grievances complained of, he would make a greater change in the state of Ireland in six months than had been made by the Government in 10 or 15 years. He did not blame the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for the existing state of things, because he did not consider that the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of Office had been long enough to enable him to understand the question thoroughly; but, as he had stated, his experience of Chief
  840
  Secretaries during the last 10 years was that they had chiefly occupied themselves in watching the Dublin police who were brought up to take their orders from the Chief Secretary. If the police in Ireland were placed under a more enlightened system the people of the country would, instead of looking upon them as their enemies, regard them as their best friends. The next subject he wished to refer to was the Irish Privy Council, with regard to which he had given Notice of a Motion. It was quite true that he had secured a day for the discussion of that Motion; so he had with regard to other Motions; but the days on which they would have come forward had been confiscated, and it was very likely the same thing would happen with regard to the Motion about the Privy Council, seeing that it related to matters connected with Ireland. He should not be surprised if it were to be confiscated in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity for talking on the Coercion Law. Now, with regard to the Privy Council, Ireland. The late Lord Chancellor was an eminent lawyer, and against his memory he had nothing to say. He had, however, to refer to his action in the case of a railway in his county of Galway, which passed through a district which was doubtless well known to many Members of that House, and which, because of its romantic character, was very much visited. The baronies had voted a large sum of money—as much as 2s. 8d. in the pound—for that railway, which, although he would not go into the question whether it was a good or a bad railway, he was under the impression was a good and useful one. Now, the railway in question, although it had passed all the other Bodies, was thrown out by the Privy Council. He was not going to say that the Privy Council were extremely wrong in the course they took; but his own opinion was that the railway ought to have been passed. In this matter the Tramway Act had broken down.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member must not pursue that subject now. He could not anticipate his Notice on this Vote.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should, of course, obey the ruling of the Chairman, and would branch forth into another matter, which was not altogether without connection with that on which he

  841
  had been speaking. He pointed out the inexpediency of voting any money for Privy Councillors or any Judicial Officers on the Treasury Bench. Without saying that they were not good Officers, which was entirely beside the question, he was of opinion that instead of the Privy Council there ought to be some Local Body in Ireland more or less elected by the people. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), although ho had not gone into the matter at length, had already spoken upon that proposal. He was satisfied that, if they had in Ireland a body of men constituted in the manner he had described, instead of the Privy Council, to attend to these matters, they might, in a comparatively short time, effect a number of necessary useful and permanent reforms in the country.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member could not continue to discuss the subject of the Privy Council. There was nothing in the Vote relating to that Body.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he knew that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were not very much in favour of the proposal he made with regard to the Privy Council. The Government would not allow Irish Members to have any voice in the spending of the £8,000,000 voted for Ireland, and even when he and his hon. Friends remonstrated in connection with any portion of the money voted they would not listen to them. He said it was more than hard—it was in the nature of tyranny—to extract Irish money from the pockets of the people, take the whole of it, administer the whole of it, and then to refuse to listen to reasonable remonstrances, which had for their object the improvement of the condition of the Irish people. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was a member of the Privy Council, and there was the Supreme Court of Judicature connected with the Privy Council. He wished to point out that the Privy Council in Ireland was a Body which consisted almost exclusively of paid members. He believed that the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was a member, and with that exception and one or two others all the members of the Privy Council, were paid under the Vote before them.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was not in Order in discussing that subject. There was nothing whatever on the Estimate for the Privy Council.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should take an early opportunity of objecting to the Privy Council in Ireland; and he would now urge some objections against the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant, and move its reduction by the sum of £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, of course, be in Order in referring to the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote.
  COLONEL NOLANasked on what Vote ho could discuss the question of the Privy Council?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be in Order in discussing it when a Vote for the Privy Council was proposed.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he objected to the item of £50,000, and he did so on the ground of the appointment of the Officers of the Privy Council. In England they did not have Judges on the Privy Council; a few of them were, no doubt, Privy Councillors; but in Ireland the words Judge and Privy Councillor were synonymous, and their salaries were voted in that House. He acknowledged that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was a great authority on the subject; and ho believed that the hon. Member said they were not paid out of this Vote, but from the Consolidated Fund. He (Colonel Nolan) knew that was the case; but he and his hon. Friends contended that, although they were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, they received a good many extra allowances under these Votes. The three points to which he had called attention were—first, the grievance of the people of Ireland with regard to the Constabulary; secondly, the inefficient action of the Board of Works in relation to drainage in Ireland; and, thirdly, the objectionable constitution of the Irish Privy Council, for which, ho contended, another Body ought to be substituted. Those three points, if not cardinal, were, at all events, in the second class, and were well worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  843
  Lieutenant of Ireland. If the reforms he had indicated were carried out, it would show the people of Ireland that their welfare was a matter of concern to their Governors; and, in that case, he believed that they would have a much greater respect for them than they had at present.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had not the figures relating to the police with him, and did not wish to quote them from memory; but if the hon. and gallant Member would be good enough to put a Question to him in the House upon the subject, he believed he should be able to give him a satisfactory reply, and one that would show that a very considerable reduction had been made. With regard to the Board of Works, he quite saw the importance of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated; but the matter in no way came under his supervision, and he was, therefore, afraid that he could give no information on the question of loans to tenant farmers. Then with regard to the Privy Council in Ireland, the hon. and gallant Member was well aware that this question of dealing with railway and other schemes was not peculiar to Ireland; it had reference also to England. There had been, he believed, either a Bill or a Motion before the House that Session to constitute a Body in the Provinces—in some parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland—to deal with all those questions. In some respects it was thought that that would be more satisfactory than the existing arrangement. The Privy Council in Ireland was very different from the Privy Council in England—it corresponded to what was in England called the Judicial Committee; but the subject was too large for him either to form an opinion upon or to discuss at that time in the morning (1 A.M.), although it was one well worthy of attention.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th May]—
  844
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the tenure of land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Mr. Speaker, in presenting such a Bill as this to the House, the first point upon which it may naturally be expected that I should offer some explanation is the ground of necessity or expediency which calls for such a measure; but I think that, in the present case, this is a matter which may be dealt with in a very few words. It is well known to the House that in the month of March, 1883, a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and into other matters affecting the same or relating thereto. That Commission took a great body of evidence, and visited, I believe, nearly all the localities concerned, and were thus enabled to place before the public an amount of information such as they did not previously possess. Besides the evidence taken there was the Report, with which, I suppose, all who have taken an interest in this matter are familiar; and, without going into the particular conclusions contained in that Report, it is enough for the purposes of this Bill to say that the Commissioners arrived at the result that legislation was essential, or, at least, highly expedient. But perhaps I ought to remind the House of the Resolution which the House arrived at on the 14th of November, 1883, and that without any dissentient voice. It was—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or to apply such other remedies as they deem advisable; and that this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission at page 110 of its Report, that ' The mere vindication of authority and repression of resistance would not establish the relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant, in the absence of which the country would not be truly at peace, and all our inquiries and counsels would be expended in vain.'"
  Well, Sir, it is only necessary, I think,

  845
  to add that the public opinion of the country, as manifested through its ordinary channels, does concur in the demdnd that there should be some legislative provision made with the view of endeavouring to remedy the evils which, I think, are admitted or established to exist. Therefore, upon that point I do not propose to say anything more; and I shall at once proceed to bring under the notice of the House the leading provisions of the measure which Her Majesty's Government have resolved to submit for the judgment of the House, and to explain the reasons for these leading provisions.
  Now, in considering what form of legislation should be adopted, I need not assure the House that very careful attention has been given to the suggestions of the Royal Commission contained in their Report, and in particular to those suggestions which had relation to what is the main topic concerned—I mean that of the land. I suppose that hon. Members generally are aware that the leading recommendations on that head were that a local constitution of aquasi-corporate character should be given to Highland townships, and that provisions should be made for their conservation, improvement, and extension. Now, these suggestions, although well meant, and indicating a feeling of much sympathy with and a great appreciation of historical facts and associations, did not appear to the Government to afford a basis for satisfactory legislation. While, no doubt, there has been something in the nature of townships in the Highlands of Scotland for probably as long as history records, these have never had anything like a municipal or corporate constitution; and, therefore, to follow the recommendations of the Commission in this matter would have been to create, for the first time, something entirely novel and devoid of any analogy or precedent in the rural economy of Scotland. And, furthermore, the suggestions on that head must have been observed by those who read them to be exceedingly complicated; and anything like complication in matters affecting a simple and primitive people is manifestly undesirable if more obvious and more simple remedies can be applied. I think, therefore, that, without entering upon a detailed criticism of these proposals, it is probably enough
  846
  to say that the result of the considerations of the Government, concurring, I believe, with the opinion entertained by those who have considered the matter outside the Government, is that that idea of providing for the conservation on a legal basis of existing townships and creating new ones is not one to which it would be proper to ask the House to give legislative sanction.
  Well, then, passing from that, the leading proposals that have been made, not so much, perhaps, I should say, in the Report as in the discussions which have arisen out of the Report, may, I think, be classed under four heads—I mean that the demands which have been made either by or on behalf of the Crofters in relation to the essential matter of the land may be conveniently formulated thus:—In the first place, for security of tenure; in the second place, for fair rents ascertained by some impartial authority; in the third place, for compensation for improvements upon a somewhat more liberal and somewhat different scale from that provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883; and lastly, for what is designated by the words "more land"—meaning that there should be some provision made for enlarging existing holdings, and providing land for those who have it not at present.
  Now, in regard to these matters, I may say that the Bill which I ask leave now to introduce does make provision for security of tenure in the Crofter districts; and I shall give explanation, by-and-bye, in regard to the definitions which we propose to submit of a "Crofter" and of "Crofter districts," to show how the provisions which we propose will be confined, geographically and otherwise, within the territorial limits in which the conditions exist which seem to require such provisions. In the meantime, I may say that in these districts we propose by this Bill to provide that a Crofter shall not be removed from the holding of which he is tenant except in consequence of the breach of one or more of the specific conditions which are to be termed "statutory conditions." And I may shortly mention what these conditions are:—That the Crofter shall pay his rent at the terms at which it is due and payable; that he shall not execute any deed purporting to assign his tenancy; that he—

  847
  "Shall not, to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord, persistently injure the holding by the dilapidations of buildings or, after notice has been given by the landlord to the crofter not to commit or to desist from the particular injury specified in such notice, by the deterioration of the soil;"
  and then follows another condition, the importance of which will be obvious to all who are familiar with the evils of sub-division and sub-letting of holdings. It is that—
  "The crofter shall not, without the consent of his landlord, in writing, subdivide his holding or sublet the same or any part thereof, or erect or suffer to be erected thereon any dwelling house otherwise than in substitution for those already upon the holding at the time of the passing of this Act."
  Then follow provisions relative to bankruptcy, and not establishing houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the reservation of the usual rights belonging to a landlord over property which is in the hands of a tenant. Now, these are, briefly stated, the provisions proposed to be made with respect to the matter of security of tenure; and I may in that connection read the definition we propose for the word "Crofter," so as to show the class of persons for whom the security of tenure is meant to be provided. A "Crofter" means
  "A tenant of a holding from year to year, who habitually resides on his holding, the rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds in money, and which is situated in a crofting parish."
  The meaning of a "Crofting parish" I shall afterwards explain. So that the class of persons for whom this security is proposed to be provided are those who are possessed of what is generally known as a holding from year to year, or tenancy at will, which is legally interpreted to be a holding from year to year or for a year. The reasons for distinguishing the circumstances of persons so situated from persons holding a lease will, I think, be obvious. Such being, shortly, the nature of the provisions which we propose with respect to security of tenure, it may naturally be asked what are the reasons for which this security is proposed to be provided for the class of Crofters, and what are the conditions which differentiate their state from that of the rest of the tenantry of Scotland, for whom no such provision is proposed, nor, indeed, suggested? Now, I think that to anyone
  848
  who is familiar with the essential differences between the tenantry throughout Scotland generally and the small holders of land in Crofting districts, the answer will be very plain. For very many years, throughout the greater part of Scotland, land has been held by tenants under contract, free in the true sense—a contract entered into between intelligent and independent tenants on the one hand, and their landlords on the other, the bargain being generally for a lease for a number of years, such number as they considered for their mutual interest, but most commonly for 19 years. Under that system, agriculture undoubtedly has greatly flourished in Scotland—indeed, to an extent which I suppose is not surpassed in any other country—in those places where the conditions I have just mentioned have prevailed. In these localities, the custom has been for the landlord to equip the farm with buildings and fences, and generally with drainage, and, in short, to bring the farm into a lettable condition, and then to put it into the market as a commercial subject. It is offered for and taken as a commercial subject so equipped; and therefore it is literally as well as technically true that where these conditions exist, and where they have long existed, there is, in the fullest sense, freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. Bargains are made in the manner that best suit the conditions of the contracting parties, and any proposal to interfere with such arrangements made by persons so circumstanced would not meet with the approbation, I should think, either of the House or of the country. But, then, Sir, the condition of the Highlands generally, and particularly of the Crofter districts of the Highlands, because it is to them alone that this Bill applies, is very different not only historically—and by that I mean not only in ancient history, but in recent history—but also very different in actual present fact. Not to go very far back—I mean what would not be very far back in the history of the more settled parts of the country—down to the middle of the last century, as is well known, the Highlanders of Scotland were under the clan system, and, so long as the clan system prevailed, the members of the clan shared the land very much with the Chief; it was practically in their common occupa-

  849
  tion. I suppose that there was nothing in the nature of a very specific bargain or arrangement between them, and whether their being upon the land was due to legal right or to other reasons of family and of clan need not be entered into; the material fact is that, at all events, down to the breaking up of the system in the middle of the last century, the poor tenants and clansmen were in the enjoyment of a practical, if not a legal, security of tenure of the holdings which they occupied. No doubt great changes wore made after the clan system was broken up, because there was a gradual, and in some cases a rapid, progress towards treating the land of the Highlands thus peopled by the clans more in a commercial manner. There has been a constant progress in that direction, not always with the full assent of one of the groups of persons concerned—I mean the occupiers of the soil—and I am afraid not without many hardships being suffered by them, particularly in the latter part of the last and the earlier part of this century. But, not to refer to these in any detail—to the clearances, I mean, of the latter part of the last century and the earlier part of this—it is enough to know that there was undoubtedly much hardship at that time, and bitter feelings were, no doubt, then engendered, which I am afraid have never since entirely died out. But, however that may be, there has remained and there still exists in the Highlands and Islands a very large body of small tenants, commonly denominated Crofters, living under conditions which cannot be at all assimilated to those I have just described as prevailing throughout Scotland generally. Amongst the differences between the Highlands and Islands and the rest of Scotland are, in the former, the smallness of the holdings; the fact that usually they are not held under lease; and the fact that they are not generally equipped by the landlord or treated as commercial subjects put upon the market as the Lowland farms arc. In short, a whole group of special conditions surrounds the inhabitants, practically indigenous inhabitants, of the Highlands and Islands, and designates them as altogether different, in the essential particulars I have just mentioned, from those of the rest of the country, making provisions not only equitable, but pos-
  850
  sibly necessary, for them which would be both inappropriate and unnecessary for the tenants of the other parts of Scotland. I do not desire to weary or delay the House, at this hour, by reading much in proof of what I have just stated; but I may read one or two very short passages from documents of authority, and those not very ancient, which bear out what I have just said. Probably there is no Report that carries greater weight than that presented by Sir John M'Neill to the Board of Supervision in 1851 with regard to the then condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In one passage of his Report, Sir John M'Niell describes the existing conditions thus—
  "The rent of the croft once fixed remains unchanged, unless in the event of a general increase or reduction of all the rents on the property or part of the property in which it is situated; and in all cases that rent includes the hill grazing, which is almost always attached to it. Once established in his small farm, the crofter's name is entered on the Rent Roll, and so long as he pays Ins rent he does not expect to be removed, unless as a punishment for delinquency. On some of the old hereditary properties the occupation of the croft has by custom become hereditary—the son, if in a condition to take the croft, succeeding to his father as a matter of course; and this custom has generally been respected by persons who have recently acquired largo properties where it was established. But where estates have been much divided, and especially where small properties have been purchased on speculation, or acquired by persons not previously acquainted with the custom, it has not been so generally regarded."
  This passage will show that the proposal to give security of tenure to the class of poor tenants generally known as "Crofters" is really nothing more than to confer a legislative sanction upon the custom and the usage prevailing on well and benevolently managed estates. If that is a true representation of the matter, I think the House need not have any difficulty in accepting the proposition. What we propose is simply what good landlords have been in the habit of doing, according to Sir John M'Neill, and no one knew the Highlands better than he did. I will read other two lines from another part of his Report, in which he speaks thus. He says—
  "A more secure tenure of the lands they occupy would tend to make industrious and respectable crofters more diligent and successful cultivators."
  That, I believe, is a view which will meet with general assent, because, be-

  851
  sides the sense of relief from strife and contention, there will be a stimulus to exertion and encouragement to industry arising from that security which is at present absent. Now, although in the Report of the recent Commission the plan was preferred of dealing with Crofter communities in their quasi-corporate capacity rather than the scheme of giving security to the individual Crofter, the very eminent and distinguished persons who constituted the Commission did not overlook the importance of considering the individual, and I will read a very few lines from a passage in their Report, in which I think this is very well brought out. They say—
  "It would obviously be idle to set apart particular areas of land as an asylum for a particular class of cultivators, and to deny to the individual cultivator those securities which are necessary to the safe and profitable exercise of his industry. In view of the suffering endured in times past by the people through inconsiderate removals, of which they retain a lasting impression, and of the dread they express of similar treatment hereafter, though that may be in some degree unreal, as well as for the purpose of giving an impulse to ameliorations, we are of opinion that special provisions would here be justifiable which would not be requisite among other orders of men more independent, better informed, and more capable of governing their own destinies."
  Now, this passage seems strongly to support the propriety—and, indeed, the necessity—of making some such proposal as we now submit for giving security of tenure to these small Crofters. It would enable them to pursue their industry without fear, and with that confidence and those encouragements which are likely to arise from such security. And, if the question be asked whether there is any precedent for, or any example of, the Legislature interfering to give additional security to the occupants of land in Scotland, I would refer to one which is well known in that country—I mean the old Scotch Act of 1449.' Prior to that time, a contract of lease was regarded in law as being what it really is in fact, a purely personal contract, and it fell when the land changed hands. That, however, was manifestly so inexpedient, and worked such great hardships, that the Legislature of that day, in its quaint language, enacted this brief Statute—
  "It is ordained for the safetie and favour of puir people that labouris the ground, that they
  852
  and all utheris, that has taken, or sail take, landes in time to come fra Lordes, and has termes and zeires thereof, that suppose the Lordes sell or annaly that land or landes: the takers sail remain with their talkes, unto the is chew of their termes, quhais hands that ever thay landes cum to, for sick like maill, as they took them for."
  That was, undoubtedly, an instance in which the Legislature converted into a real right what was merely a personal contract, and thereby gave a measure of security to the poor tenants of the country generally, who, I fear, were not at that time much better circumstanced than many of the Crofters are now; and, therefore, if any precedent were wanted for interference where it appears equitable and necessary, that Act would supply it. Mr. Tytler, the well-known historian, says of the Act, in his History of Scotland, vol. iii. page 121—
  "A wise and memorable Act in its future consequences on the security of property, the liberty of the great body of the people, and the improvement of the country."
  Now, when we find the condition of matters disclosed in the last Report of the Royal Commission on the state of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands, there does seem to be a call for giving them—no doubt in a different measure and kind—that security which is essential, in their own opinion, and in the opinion of those who know most about the subject, to enable them to pursue their calling with prosperity and success. Well, that is the main provision in regard to the question of security of tenure.
  But I ought to add, in this connection, that it is not proposed in the Bill to give a power of assigning the right which is thus made secure to the tenant; and it is necessary, in explanation of this, to point out to the House that there is a vital and essential distinction between the view entertained, as I understand, in England and that which prevails in Scotland in regard to the matter of the assignability of leases. I understand in England a lease or a tenancy is presumably assignable. In Scotland the presumption is the other way. A lease of ordinary duration is not assignable, even up to 19 or 21 years; it is only when you get to leases of such long duration that assignation or transfer must have been contemplated that it is permitted—when you get to leases of

  853
  37 or 58 years or the like. Now, the tenure we are here dealing with, as I have pointed out, is a tenure from year year, and that is a tenure to which, certainly, the quality of assignability or right of transfer has never been attached by law, or, I believe, by custom, in Scotland. It has never been the custom, apart from the consent of the landlord, in tenancies of that kind and duration to give the right of transfer to another, or, as it is known in the terminology of other systems, "free sale." So that if it were proposed in this Bill to give that right, it would be adding an entirely new quality to the right as it existed before, and to the right which is proposed by this Bill to be made secure. It would, in short, be converting the right with which this Bill deals into a substantially different thing, which would not be regarded as just by those who have other interests in the land. And I may add that I greatly doubt whether that right, if conferred, would be truly for the benefit of the persons for whose advantage this legislation is intended, because there can be no doubt that if such a right were conferred, the effect of it would be to perpetuate small holdings, which it would be very desirable in course of time—not by harsh or rough methods, but by gentle processes, coming about through the lapse of leases, and like—to consolidate into larger, though not into very largo, holdings. Accordingly, while we propose by this Bill that the right to the holding or the tenancy shall descend to the heirs of the tenant, we do not propose to give the power of selling or transferring that right to strangers; and I believe those who are familiar not only with the law, but with the customs, of Scotland, will approve of this.
  Now, it is only necessary, in conclusion on this part of the matter, to say that it was a topic requiring very careful consideration, particularly in the view of the Report of the Commission, whether the security of tenure should be limited to the tenants in holdings above a particular figure, or whether it should be made universal. There were important considerations, no doubt, both ways; but the decision come to by the Government is that it would not be right to place any restriction upon the extent or scope of the
  854
  security thus given, but that it should belong to Crofters generally—all who answer the definition which I have now given. Those who have studied the Report of the Commission are aware that some of the beneficial provisions which they suggested were limited to holdings of over £6 in value. They saw what must be obvious to anyone familiar with the subject—namely, that the multitude of small holdings is a great evil, and that anything that tended unduly to perpetuate that would not be politic or expedient. Accordingly, they limited their suggestions to the case of Crofters holding at a rental of not loss than £6. But it unfortunately happens that any benefit so limited would reach an exceedingly small number of the persons for whose behoof it it was intended. From the information we have obtained, it would appear that the holdings above £6 vary at some places from a fifth to not more than a tenth in others of all the holdings; and, accordingly, if the security which it is proposed to confer wore limited to those above that or any higher figure, it would leave all the rest in the position of insecurity in which they now stand. But as the provision for security, which we propose to confer, is coupled with a refusal to give the power of assignment or sale, there will, in course of time, as families die out or go voluntarily, come about that consolidation of too small holdings which is admittedly desirable, although not brought about by harsh, but gentle and natural methods. Accordingly, we do not propose to place any rental limitation upon the benefits intended to be conferred. I do not know that upon this point I need say anything more, as the Bill will very soon be in the hands of hon. Members. I trust that I have, necessarily with brevity at this hour of the morning, stated what the provisions are with regard to security, and what are the leading reasons for which we propose to give that security.
  The next point is what is generally termed "fair rent." It seems to be a necessary corollary of a provision for security of tenure, that you should also enact some method by which the rent is to be fixed if the parties are unable to agree, because any provision for security would plainly be illusory which left

  855
  it to the final arbitrament of one of the contracting parties to say what the rent should be. And, accordingly, while it will be left open by this Bill for the parties to fix their rents by agreement—to continue the present rent if it is satisfactory, or to fix a new rent by agreement, if they please—it is also proposed to provide that, in case of their being unable to agree, they may apply to have a fair rent fixed by valuers to be appointed under the Act. And there is a provision that the valuers, after hearing the parties, considering all the circumstances of the case, and particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements suitable to the holding, such improvements having been executed or paid for by the Crofter or his predecessors in the same family within 30 years, without their having received any assistance or consideration therefor from the landlord or his predecessors in title, and such improvements not having been executed in virtue of the stipulations of a lease, or in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings—may determine what is such fair rent, and pronounce an order accordingly. There is adequate machinery, which I need not weary the House by going over, for the appointment of these valuers—who it is proposed shall be appointed by the Secretary of State—for performing their work, and discharging the various functions which they will have to perform under the Act. I may say also that there is no desire to shut out the parties from voluntarily fixing upon an arbitrator. There is a provision for having recourse to an arbitrator mutually chosen, instead of the valuers, if the parties prefer that mode of determining the rent; so that under the Bill it is proposed to give not only security of tenure, but "fair rents," to persons in the situation of the Crofters, as I have defined them. I may say, in this connection, that it is by no means an unfamiliar thing in the management of estates in Scotland to invoke a valuer to fix the rents—I do not mean a judicial valuer, because, of course, that does not exist at present—but it is a very common thing in well-managed estates, where the landlord and tenant are unable to agree as to the rent, to call in a third person, who is asked to fix the rent. And, therefore, in that matter also, what
  856
  is here proposed is to give legislative sanction to the custom already by no means uncommon throughout the country.
  Now, Sir, the third point, with regard to which we propose to make certain enactments, is that of compensation for improvements. I ought to offer a few words of explanation in regard to that, because the subject of compensation for improvements was so recently before the House—within two years—that any change or any extension of the provisions then made may require some justification. But I hope and believe that, when regard is had to the nature, on the one hand, of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, and the large body of subjects with which it deals, and, on the other hand, to the special conditions and circumstances of Crofter holdings, it will be seen that very many of the provisions and safeguards which were requisite and proper in that Act would be inappropriate, and probably oppressive, if applied to Crofter holdings. It will be in the recollection of the House that the antecedent or subsequent consent of the landlord was required to the first class of improvements dealt with under the Act of 1883—I mean such improvements as the making or enlarging of buildings, or any extensive changes calculated to alter the character of the holding, important fences, and the like—and the reasons for these provisions, which satisfied the House at the time, are obvious. The ordinary custom in Scotland, at all events, is for the landlord to provide the buildings. If a tenant had been allowed at his will to change the character of the subject, and to put up any building, however expensive and possibly inappropriate, heavy burdens might have been thrown on the landlord in the way of compensation claims, which he could not be justly asked to bear. But that is not a consideration which has any real validity in the case of the small holdings to which this Bill applies. I have already pointed out for another purpose, and in another connection, that it is not to be permitted to erect dwelling-houses other than in substitution for those already on the holding, the obvious reason for that provision in the place where it is introduced being to prevent squatting, as it is generally called. But it also has a secondary effect in this connec-

  857
  tion—namely, to provide against what would not be a danger on the part of the Crofters, the erection of unduly extravagant houses; so that I do not think anyone who is familiar with the conditions of life in the Crofter class would feel that there was any necessity for asking the antecedent consent of the landlord to erecting the modest kinds of houses which, in point of practice, are almost invariably erected by the Crofters themselves. The custom has been, in general cases, for the Crofters to erect their own dwellings and outhouses, instead of, as on the large farms in the Low Country, for the landlord to do so; and it is to be further noted that, in view of the simple manners and customs prevailing in those parts of the country, to ask this antecedent consent would really be to impose a condition which might often be innocently omitted, and which might very frequently be burdensome. The result, therefore, is, as regards such things as buildings, that we do not propose to demand that antecedent or subsequent consent—for both are provided for in the Act of 1883—which, although perfectly fit and perfectly proper to an Act having a universal extension and application to farms of all kinds, would seem not to be necessary, or indeed appropriate, to the simple conditions of tenancy and life in the class with which this Bill deals. All, therefore, that would be required to give rise to a claim for compensation under this Bill is that the buildings shall be suitable to the holding. That, of course, would give ample latitude of judgment to the valuers who would be invoked to assess the compensation. If they thought the buildings were not suitable to the holding, the valuers would not value them, or only value them in so far as they were suitable, and, therefore, no injustice would be done. The same remarks would apply to the matter of drainage. It will be in the recollection of the House that drainage was left in an intermediate condition by the Act of 1883. While the antecedent or subsequent consent of the landlord was not there required, as in the case of permanent buildings, a notice was required. Well, we thought that that would be an unnecessary condition to prescribe in the case of Crofter holdings; it would be very apt to be overlooked. The amount
  858
  of drainage could not be very extensive, and generally it would be obvious. Therefore, in these and other matters we propose to make more simple and more elastic provisions, appropriate, as we think, to the conditions of the holdings to which they will apply. I need say no more on the throe points which I have mentioned—namely, security of tenure, fair rents fixed by an independent authority, and compensation for improvements, because they are all dealt with in the manner I have described, and I hope in a manner which, in the opinion of the House, will be consonant with justice.
  The next matter is of a very different kind—I mean the fourth demand commonly put forward, the demand for more land. Now, that is a matter with regard to which, after very full and careful consideration, the Government have not seen that they could propose any legislative compulsory measures, and I think the reasons for this will be very plain. The common form in which this demand is made is for an enlargement by way of tenancy of holdings which are too small, or for the breaking up of holdings which are in the occupation either of the proprietors or of large tacksmen, with a view to dividing them amongst small tenants. It will be observed that that is a kind of proposal for which, so far as I am aware, there is no precedent whatever—I mean putting an obligation upon an owner to let land which he has never himself let, and to let it to persons to whom he may not desire to let it. Therefore, it would require to be justified by very strong and weighty reasons, and none such have occurred to us. Hitherto, it has always been customary, where it was thought necessary in some public interest to take land, to take it, by way of purchase out and out, on payment of a full price. It would therefore seem, unless an entirely new departure is to be made, that any proposal to enlarge the holdings by compulsory enactment must involve the conditions usually attached to such taking of land—I mean taking it by out and out purchase. But who would in such a ease be the purchaser? I fear we could not expect the Crofter to be the purchaser, for the very condition of this legislation is that he has not the means, and therefore to expect that he should be the pur-

  859
  chaser of the land added to his holding or of land which was not yet in his possession, would be to expect what was impossible from him. Well, could it be the State? That would involve a very large proposal, and one which, down to this time, has not been sanctioned by Parliament—I mean the proposal that the State should acquire large stretches of land and let it off to tenants. I do not suppose that that is a proposal that would be entertained. Well, then, if neither the Crofter nor the State could buy the land, who could? We know there are proposals in the air, proposals deserving of careful consideration, to allow municipal communities to acquire land under certain conditions; but there is no community of that character which could acquire the land which it is proposed to add to existing holdings or to allot as holdings to those who at present have none. Therefore, without delaying the House at this late hour by any elaborate argument on the subject, I may simply repeat that, while fully recognizing the great importance of adding to the extent of the holdings held by the Crofters in Scotland, and of providing holdings for those who have none, we have not seen our way to make a legislative proposal on the subject in this Bill. But it does not follow that means may not be devised, or indeed be ready at hand, for making the requisite extension of the Crofter holdings. It is quite open, of course, to the proprietors of the Highlands and Islands, who have so largely the interests of their poor tenants at heart, to enlarge the holdings, and possibly to break up farms which have previously been in their own occupation, and plant Crofters upon them. It is satisfactory to know that the feeling of the Highland proprietors is entirely favourable to making provisions of that kind. It will probably be in the knowledge of many hon. Members that at a most important meeting held in January last, at Inverness, it was resolved—
  "That this meeting, composed of proprietors in the counties of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Argyll, having in view certain complaints as to insufficiency of holdings on the part of crofters which were recently laid before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the condition of the Crofters and Cotters in the Highlands and Islands, and the recent appeal made to Highland proprietors by the Home Secretary in his place
  860
  in the House of Commons, Resolve severally to offer to crofters an undertaking to increase the size of their holdings as suitable opportunities offer, and where the crofters are in a position profitably to occupy and stock the same."
  It is clear, from this, that there is a disposition on the part of the Highland proprietors to do that which it does not appear to us that we could invite the Legislature to sanction—namely, to extend the size of existing holdings and to provide holdings where there are none. In this Resolution, the words "as suitable opportunities offer" are very properly used. All who are familiar with the condition of the Scotch Highlands at present are aware that suitable opportunities seem to be offering themselves very largely, because it is a fact that the system of large sheep farms, to inaugurate which the clearances already referred to were made, has greatly broken down, or, at all events, is by no means prosperous at this time. Many such farms are coming on the market without any possibility of getting tenants, so that the means of making enlargements of Crofter holdings which are so much required will probably be found ready to the hand of the proprietors who have so laudably manifested their disposition to meet this want. Although we have been unable to propose any compulsory provision for bringing about the enlargement contemplated, we have had it in view that it will probably be made by the proprietors, and have introduced into the Bill a provision for loans from the Public Works Commissioners being advanced to aid the tenants in stocking any additions which may be made to their lands. By Clause 14 the Bill provides that—
  "On the application of any landlord stating that he intends to enlarge the holding of a crofter who is his tenant, or whose holding is conterminuous with his property, and that such crofter is unable without assistance to stock the additional land, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may, if they think proper, advance to such landlord, on the security of the estate of which the intended addition to the holding forms part, a sum to enable the crofter to stock such additional land not exceeding five years rent of the entire holding of the crofter including such addition. Such sum shall be repayable in such half-yearly instalments as will repay the whole sum with interest at three and half per centum per annum in twenty-five years."
  This provision seems to go as far as we think the Government can go in the matter of aiding the Crofters in obtaining

  861
  that enlargement which the Government cannot undertake to initiate.
  Now, it will probably be thought right I should say a word with regard to the case of the Cottars, a class of persons in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland who have no land at all, who are not subject in any way to contract with anyone, who pay no rent to anyone, and who stand in no relation of occupancy to anyone—a class of persons who have come to be there very much by sufferance. It would, of course, be impossible to propose that security of tenure should be given to persons who have, unhappily, no legally recognized tenure at all; but, at the same time, inasmuch as these persons have in very many cases, probably in most cases, been permitted to erect houses upon lands of which they are in the occupancy in fact, it has appeared to the Government that it would be right to extend the provisions for compensation for improvements to them—that is to say, to enact that where a man who is not a tenant has been tacitly permitted to put up a house, if it should be proposed to remove him from that house, its value should be paid to him by the proprietor. That is all we propose to provide with respect to the case of the Cottars.
  It may probably be asked by what definitions or in what way do we propose to restrain the operation of this Bill within the territorial limits in which the conditions which have made its proposals necessary exist? I ought to add a few words on that head. I have already explained that the Crofter, within the meaning of the Bill, is a tenant of a holding held from year to year, and who habitually resides on his holding, the rent of which does not exceed £30 in money, and which is situated in a Crofting parish. The definition which we propose of a Crofting parish is this—
  "A parish, in which there are at the commencement of this Act, or have been, within eighty years prior thereto, holdings consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others and in which there still are crofters at the commencement of this Act."
  It is well known that one of the notes or marks of the Highland Crofter tenure was the occupancy of a certain portion of arable land with a certain portion of hill grazing. Originally, both were occupied in common; but with regard
  862
  to arable land, that was so plainly inexpedient that it was abandoned, probably about the beginning of the century, in most cases, if not earlier. But while the arable land previously held in common was thus divided into several holdings, there was, from the nature of the case, no such sub-division of the grazing ground, without which the Crofter cannot profitably carry on his business. The co-existing occupation of arable land with grazing land, either now or within a limited period, seems to afford, coupled with the other parts of the definition, a sufficient indication of what should be a Crofting parish. I shall now only explain, by way of further territorial definition or limitation, that we propose to provide that the Crofter parishes, or districts forming the aggregates of parishes, should be within the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Boss, Sutherland, Caithnesss Orkney, and Shetland. These are the counties to which the Act will apply; and as a means of ascertaining which parishes are Crofting parishes in the sense I have just explained, it is proposed that Her Majesty should appoint three Commissioners, who, after due inquiry, should ascertain the facts entering into the definition, should determine which are Crofting parishes or aggregates of Crofting parishes in these counties, and should determine whether the Act should apply to such parishes. There seems to be a practical consensus of opinion that these are the counties to which this remedial legislation should apply. I may remind hon. Members that in a Bill now before this House, a Bill called the Suspension of Evictions Bill, these are the counties which are mentioned; and at the Inverness meeting—that very influential and important meeting—those present were proprietors in the counties of Caithness, (Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Argyll; so that, on all hands, we seem to have a recognition that the counties here named are the counties in which alone the proposed legislation is necessary. When, besides pointing out the counties, we add the other conditions, and provide the means of ascertaining where the specified conditions exist, it would seem that there is everything that is requisite to determine the particular places in which the necessity exists, and in which, therefore, the propriety exists for this

  863
  legislation, marking them off quite distinctly from the rest of the country, where a wholly different state of things exists from that which I have referred to as well known to prevail in the Highlands.
  I do not think at this hour (1.50) I should detain the House any further on the subject of land, because they will see the provisions of the Bill very shortly; but I will, in a few sentences, refer to one or two of the matters which are contained by way of recommendation in the Report of the Crofters' Commission, merely for the purpose of showing that they have not been neglected or overlooked by the Government, although they have not dealt with them in this Bill.
  The matter second in order and in importance, which was considered in the Report of the Commission, was that of fisheries and communications, and the importance of this matter will be fully recognized by all who know how very largely the future prosperity of the Western Highlands and Islands must be expected to spring from the successful prosecution of the fishing industry. That matter has not been overlooked. The first point involved is that of harbours. Something has been done at one place already—I mean the harbour of Ness. But the larger question of harbours, as bearing upon that part of the country, is involved in the general consideration of the Report of the Commission and the Committee upon Harbours with which the House is familiar. It would be impossible to deal separately with these places—at all events, to make any separate determination with regard to them—while the whole question of harbours is under consideration.
  Well, next to harbours, there is probably nothing of greater importance to the successful prosecution of the fishing industry than facility of communication, both postal and telegraphic communication and communication by steamer. If the House will allow me, I will mention, in a few sentences, how very important the additions recently made to and the improvements made upon all those services to the Western Highlands have been. I need not point out how important the telegraph is, as the herring trade is increasing, making it possible for the boats to go where the
  864
  herrings are, for the vessels that are to take away the catch to come and bring barrels and salt and all the equipments which are necessary for the fishing industry. Anyone who knows what has accrued to Shetland within the last few years from the improvement of the telegraphic communication, and the enormous wealth which has been poured into those Northern Islands from that cause, will readily perceive the importance of this matter. Well, within the last 18 months, in the Western Hebrides, there has been a telegraph station opened at Castlebain, in the Orkneys, at Burray, St. Margaret's Hope, and St. Mary's Holm, in the Shetlands, at Keawiek and Walls; and a station is now in the course of being opened at Gutchen in the Shetland Islands. And, further, I may add, that to meet the requirements of business under the 6d. tariff, a new telegraph cable is about to be laid between the Shetland Islands and the mainland; so that I think the House will see that that matter has been by no means overlooked by the Government. Then in regard to the essential matter of the Mail Service and Steamer Service, by which communication may be made and the catch of the fish brought to market, there has been also a very marked improvement. The Mail Packet Service between Strome Perry and Stornoway has been established, six days a-week in summer and three in winter, bringing the service direct to the end of the railway. Besides that, there is additional weekly Mail Service to Orkney, and several Post Offices have been established in the Orkney Isles; so that these matters pertaining to the successful prosecution of the fishing industry, though not provided for in this Bill, have been fully kept in view.
  There is another matter of importance which is dealt with in the Report, that commonly called the educational grievance—I mean the very heavy tax which had come to be laid on the owners and occupants in the Highlands and Islands from causes well known—the working out of the Education Act of 1872. Well, the Government in that matter, also, displayed their appreciation of what was reported by the Commissioners, and there was despatched last autumn to the Highlands and Islands the very able and accomplished Senior Examiner of the Scotch

  865
  Education Department—Mr. Craik—who made a very valuable Report, which was laid on the Table of the House in October, and within the last few weeks there had been laid on the Table a Minute by the Education Department showing how they are prepared to make material improvements in the condition of the grants in these parts of the country, thereby alleviating the burden upon the ratepayers.
  There are various other matters, relating to the housing of the poor and the like, into which I do not propose to enter. I will merely say that evidence was taken a few weeks ago in Edinburgh by the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, comprehending evidence as to the Crofters' district. There are other minor matters upon which I should not feel justified in detaining the House at this late hour. I have en-deavoured as shortly as possible to put before the House the leading provisions of the Bill which the Government will submit for its acceptance and the reasons for which these provisions are proposed.
  MR. ELTONsaid, he begged to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate on the admirable speech he had just made, and on the admirable motive which had dominated the Bill. As far as he was aware, there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who sympathized with him in this matter, and wished to give some security to the small holders, perhaps rather more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seemed to show in his speech. While he congratulated the Lord Advocate on having given up certain proposals, he must say that in his opinion there was neither danger nor difficulty shown, inasmuch as the tenure which he was dealing with was really the English copyhold tenure, which people in England were now proposing to abolish. Therefore, he might say it would be as usual—Scotland 300 or 400 years behind the Sister Country. If the qualities described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were added together, he thought it would be found that the Lord Advocate was creating what had been for many years a curse in this country—the copyhold system; and he therefore hoped that it would be found possible to amend the proposal by the addition
  866
  of some modifications in Committee. In describing the Crofters, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no doubt described a class of people who, under similar circumstances, likewise existed in England. That being the case, it could hardly be doubted that the principles proposed to be laid down in the Bill would radiate into other parts of the Kingdom. It was, ho thought, impossible to draw a line and say into which county those principles might not have to be extended. There was one point in the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which struck him as calling for some comment; and although he had no wish to detain the House at that hour (2.5 A.M.), he would make one remark upon it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated to the House that the Bill, in that portion of it which related to security of tenure, only proposed to make compulsory that which benevolent landlords were voluntarily doing already. It seemed to him that in that case the proposed provision was open to the remark that it had a tendency to dry up the springs of benevolence. There was no reason why everything which a good man did should be made compulsory to be done by law; and, therefore, if this principle were to be extended to other parts of the country, it would be necessary to consider whether they could not obtain the same results by giving greater facilities for the voluntary concessions of landlords.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wished to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate on the Bill which he had asked leave to introduce, and he thought he might also congratulate the Crofters on the large instalment of their demands which the Bill proposed to give them. It did not, perhaps, contain all that they wished for; but he thought it contained as much as could be expected at the present time. He congratulated the farmers of Scotland also on the introduction of the Bill. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Elton) in saying that it would be impossible to confine the advantages proposed by the Bill to particular districts of Scotland; they must, in his opinion, be extended over the whole country, and, he thought, with very great advantage both to landlords and tenants. The proposals with regard to fair rents and security of

  867
  tenure were very good indeed; but he considered it, on the other hand, a mistake to introduce compensation into the measure. It would have been, in his judgment, far better to give the tenants free sale. The difficulty of the position would come to an end sooner by free sale than by compensation. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was as well acquainted as he (Mr. Barclay) was with the opinions of farmers in Scotland on this subject; but he said that compensation under the existing Act had been tried and proved to be a failure; the expenses were so great that they swallowed up nearly the whole amount awarded as compensation, and in some cases damages had been awarded to the landlords in respect of claims for compensation, which but for the Act would not have been heard of, exceeding the amount of compensation awarded. He therefore thought it desirable that the Government should reconsider this question, and give the tenant at once free sale of the interest in his holding, and so relieve the landlords of any responsibility in the matter. The Lord Advocate had very ingeniously and properly set forth the claim to security of tenure which tenants on the West Coast of Scotland possessed; but he (Mr. Barclay) did not know that there was any difference in the tenure of land there and in other parts of Scotland. The tenure of land had been from time immemorial—that was, from the time of the Clans—the same in Lowlands and Highlands; and he could not recognize that a tenant, who might be turned out at the end of any year, had a greater claim to his holding than a tenant who had certain possession for 19 years. But when they came to land held for generations, as was the case with a good many farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland, the claim was stronger than under a tenure from year to year, as the people had on the West Coast of Scotland. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman set forth that the landlords, as a general rule, had done the whole of the permanent improvements on their estates. Well, he thought there were great differences of opinion on that point. The practice was very different in different parts of Scotland, and in those parts with which he was acquainted he must say that a large
  868
  proportion of the improvements had been effected by the tenants. He knew of many cases in which tenants had settled on a barren moor and built a house for themselves, reclaimed the land, made it what it was, and, in short, done more for the land than any of the tenants in the West of Scotland. Now, if tenants on the West Coast had by improvements obtained a right to security of tenure, were not tenants on the East Coast entitled to as much? However, that was a matter of which the tenants in Scotland would judge for themselves. Seeing that the rights of the Highland Crofters were recognized, tenants in other parts would doubtless come forward and assert their right to an equal degree of security. While he agreed with the justice of the claims which the Lord Advocate had set forth on behalf of the tenants on the West Coast of Scotland, he thought it unfortunate that those claims had not been recognized until the people themselves had taken strong measures to assert their rights. He was afraid that if the inhabitants on the West Coast of Scotland had not displayed a certain amount of lawlessness, and made it necessary for the Government to send military and naval forces to that quarter, their claims, however just, would not have been recognized by Parliament. That, he repeated, was an unfortunate circumstance, and it offered a very bad example to the tenants in other parts of Scotland, who would no doubt say to themselves that there was nothing to be hoped for by submitting and waiting for Parliament to help them, and that they must take strong measures to assert their rights. Under those circumstances, they might look forward to claims being advanced with greater pressure than they had hitherto been. There remained just one point on which he hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give some information. It related to evictions; and he would ask whether measures would be taken to protect the interests of tenants in the West of Scotland who were under eviction at the present moment, or of those against whom summonses of eviction had been taken out; or would some provision be made for securing the just interests of those people in the present Bill? That was a matter of the greatest importance to many people, and he hoped

  869
  that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that at once the case of the tenants situated as he had mentioned would be taken into the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that at that late hour (2 A.M.) he would not attempt to enter on anything like a full criticism of the proposals which had been so lucidly explained to them by the Lord Advocate. He could not, however, forbear from expressing his regret that in framing those proposals Government had not been guided a little more by the Report of the Royal Commission, but had based their intended legislation so largely upon vague discussions which had arisen out of that Report. He regretted it the more because, while the Commissioners had approached the subject with the avowed object of maintaining and increasing the number of Crofter holdings in Scotland, and so bridging over the gap that at present existed in that country between the wealthy and the very poor classes of agriculturists, and of remedying to some extent the evils which had arisen in Scotland out of the concentration of the landed property in the country in a very few hands, the Lord Advocate had stated that, in his opinion, it was desirable gradually to consolidate crofts into largo holdings, and had framed his proposals with that object in view. The Lord Advocate had said that the proposals of the Bill which he was about to introduce divided themselves into four; but the fourth head, he explained, related to the extension of holdings, with a view of meeting the demand for more land; and as that proposal, as he had sketched it, was of the feeblest description, he (Dr. Cameron) thought that practically the heads of the Bill might be considered as consisting of but three main provisions—those for security of tenure, those relating to fair rents, and those relating to compensation for improvements. With regard to the latter, he concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in the regret which he had expressed that the free sale of the Crofter's interest in his holding was proposed to be forbidden. With regard to the inclusion of the smaller Crofters in the provisions of the Bill, he doubted whether the advantages which they would secure under
  870
  it would at all compensate them for the loss of those rights of cutting peat and heather and gathering sea-ware which the Commissioners recommended should be conferred upon them without increase of rent. They all knew the important part which common hill pasture played in the crofting system; but the Lord Advocate had said not one word about grazing rights, and any attempt to grapple with the subject without dealing with that question must be eminently unsatisfactory. Then, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his speech, had said not one word about any amendment of the present laws as to notices to quit, although the Commission reported in favour of such an amendment; nor had he said anything about the subject of arrears, although they all knew the mischiefs which arose out of the present system under which incoming tenants were often obliged to take over the arrears of their predecessors, and the Commissioners had reported in favour of forbidding such a practice. Again, the Commissioners had reported as to the urgent necessity of at once putting a stop to the system of confiscation, of Crofters' rights in common grazing lands, which had already swallowed up all such lands as existed on the mainland, but which was still, according to the Commissioners, being actively pursued in some of the Islands. Why was all provision dealing with such a clamant injustice to be omitted from this Land Bill? Again, in this Land Bill, as described by the Lord Advocate, there was not to be the smallest attempt at the establishment of a peasant proprietary. The Royal Commissioners had found the most prosperous of the crofting population of Scotland in the "Lairds of Harray," a class of peasant proprietors whose good husbandry and comfortable independence excited their strongly-expressed admiration. They had recommended steps intended to increase the numbers of the peasant proprietors of Scotland; but, for the first time in connection with all the modern land legislation which had been attempted in that House, all provision bearing on this most important matter was proposed to be omitted in the Scottish Crofting Bill. Again, the whole world was aware of the intimate connection between the extension of deer

  871
  forests and the dearth of land so much complained of. Even the Commission, which comprised the proprietors of 1–20th of the entire acreage occupied by deer forests in Scotland, had felt constrained to make certain proposals on that subject in its Report. But not by a single word had the right hon. and learned Gentleman so much as hinted at the existence of this universally admitted evil in Scotland. He (Dr. Cameron) regretted, too, that the Lord Advocate had altogether ignored the special case of the fishing Crofters, and those obligations on the part of proprietors to erect proper fences, which led to so many disputes wherever crofting prevailed. He was quite aware that the Bill before the House did not pretend to deal with the grievances of the Crofting population in any other direction than as regarded the Land Question, pure and simple. But all the instances of omission to deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners which he had enumerated related exclusively to that branch of the subject. He admitted that what was proposed was a considerable step in the right direction; but it fell very far short of what would be needed for a final settlement of the question. He and those who thought with him on the subject would do their best in Committee to enlarge the scope of the measure and improve its usefulness; and if they failed, as it was very probable in the present Parliament they should, such a foundation as that laid down in the Lord Advocate's Bill would afford them a most useful basis from which to start when they came to face the question in the altered conditions of the next Session; and on that foundation they might then fairly hope to raise a legislative edifice which might less unworthily embody the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Finally, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could give any intimation of the date at which it was proposed to take the second reading of the Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was one point in the criticisms which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had bestowed upon the Bill on which he desired that justice should be done to his right hon. and learned
  872
  Friend the Lord Advocate as against the Commissioners. The hon. Member said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman differed from the Commissioners in his desire to perpetuate small crofts, and that the Bill had been conceived in a spirit adverse to the Commissioners, who desired to stereotype and continue the smallest holdings. But he would point out that Her Majesty's Government had gone a great deal further than the Commissioners had gone. The Commissioners laid down that some of the remedies suggested were not to be applicable to any holdings of under £6 value. His hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Mackintosh) had not demurred to that principle at all, but he said he could not agree to the amount named, £6; he did not, he said, wish to perpetuate small holdings, but he desired that the figure might be fixed at £4. The Government, however, proposed no limit at all. By far the larger number of holdings were under £6, and therefore he claimed for the measure of the Government that in this respect it was far more liberal than the proposals of the Commissioners. Now, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had asked a good many questions as to things which he said were not in the Bill. It was quite true that many of them were not; but at that hour (2.30) it would be too late to enter in a satisfactory manner into the reasons why the Government had not been able to deal with them in this measure. His hon. Friend also asked a pertinent question as to when the second reading of the Bill would be taken; but he was afraid that to that inquiry he could only give a general answer—that was to say, that it would be taken after Whitsuntide. As little time as possible would be allowed to elapse, and in the meantime the people of Scotland would have an opportunity of fully considering the measure. His hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Elton) had said that the Government were creating in Scotland a class of occupiers who very much resembled the copyholders in England. That, he was ready to admit, was an accurate description of the Bill; and although in England copyhold tenure might have become more or less obsolete, he ventured to say that it had been for centuries the tenure

  873
  which, more than any other, united the people of England to the soil; and it was the liberality of the Common Law which recognized in men, who were little more than squatters on the soil, rights which were to be respected by Courts of Law, that mitigated the severity of feudal tenure in a manner beneficial to the people of England and the national interest. Therefore, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend could have passed a greater or more just encomium on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government than in saying they were going to give to the people of Scotland those rights which the Common Law of England some centuries ago gave to a similar class of people in this country. That was all Her Majesty's Government thought the Crofters were entitled to, and it was all that they desired to accomplish.
  MR. D. CAMERONsaid, at that hour it was almost impossible to consider the provisions of the Bill, and he should be sorry to commit himself, or any of his hon. Friends, by expressing any opinion on its merits either one way or the other. He thought they all required some time for further consideration. All he would say then was that ho trusted the measure would prove to be the lasting settlement of a difficult question which they all desired.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he trusted that when the second reading of the Bill came forward it would be put down as the first Order of the Day, so that hon. Members might have a full opportunity of discussing this most important question. Perhaps the Lord Advocate could say when the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): To-morrow morning.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]

  PRINCESS BEATRICE'S ANNUITY BILL.
  H.R.H. Princess Beatrice, Message from Her Majesty [12th May],—Resolution reported and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUBBERT.
HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS BILL [Lords].— [Bill 153.]
(Mr. Norwood.)
HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS BILL [Lords].— [Bill 153.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that before the Speaker left the Chair he should like to ask for an explanation on one point contained in it. Some years ago there was an Act passed for Ireland to allow Corporations, by the vote of a majority of each, to confer the freedom of their towns upon distinguished persons. The present measure was, he understood, to affect the whole of the United Kingdom, and was to make the number necessary to give assent to the bestowal of the freedom of a city or town two-thirds instead of a bare majority. He had not been aware that this Bill was to override the law of Ireland. In Committee he should move an Amendment to dispose of the artificial majority provision, and to require the assent of only a bare majority to the bestowal of a freedom. He considered a bare majority sufficient, seeing that it was by a bare majority that all money was spent by Corporations, and that Mayors, Sheriffs, and other officers were elected. In Committee he should move this Amendment to the 1st clause, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman promoting the Bill would see no objection to it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to admit persons of distinction as honorary freemen of boroughs).
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to move in line 7 of the clause to leave out "not less than two-thirds of their number," in order to insert "a majority of their members." He failed to see why, for this special purpose, two-thirds should be required, while for all other purposes a bare majority sufficed. He hoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Norwood) would not put hon. Members to further trouble in resisting this proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "not less than two-thirds of their number," in order to insert the words "a majority of their number."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. NORWOODsaid, this was a Bill which had come down from the House of Lords, where it had been carefully considered; and he thought there was considerable force in the argument that two-thirds majority should be required in order to prevent honorary distinctions from being hastily and improperly conferred. The fact of there being a necessity for a majority of two-thirds, he thought, added importance to the honour conferred. He did not think the limitation was an improper one.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that as this was a matter affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, and as it was, therefore, desirable that hon. Members belonging to all sections in the House should have an opportunity of considering the point under discussion, he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  MR. SEXTONasked the hon. Member (Mr. Norwood) whether it would not further his object to accede to the Amendment? Under the Act of 1876 power was given to certain boroughs to confer those honorary distinctions by a majority. The present Prime Minister and the late American Minister had both been presented with the freedom of cities under that Act.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he felt favourably disposed towards the proposal of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that under the circumstances he would agree to the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 138.]
(Viscount Lewisham, Sir Charles Mills, Sir Trevor Latvrence, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Boord.)
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 138.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Election of two members instead of one).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have a Motion on the Paper to omit the 1st clause, because to attempt to amend it would be rather a complicated undertaking. I take this opportunity of saying that, so far as I am concerned, I shall not be able to support the proposals of my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Firth), which are inconsistent with those I have placed on the Paper. The object of the Bill is to slightly increase the number of Members of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Since the adoption of the Metropolis Management Act, the parishes, or some of them, have increased very considerably in population and wealth, and some which are not represented are now much larger than others which received representation under that Act. In the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, I have proposed to increase the Board only so far as it can be done without injustice to those parishes passed over as not having sufficiently increased, and I have endeavoured to make the arrangement consistent with the scope of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend and Colleague has proposed to largely increase the numbers. The Metropolitan Board of Works have placed their scheme before Parliament. The Government had hoped to be able to make progress with the London Government Bill; but it is, of course, impossible to do it in the present Parliament. Next Session, should they be again returned to power, they hope to be able to do it; but, in the meantime, they do not desire to see such a revolution take place in the Metropolitan Board of Works as the adoption of the Amendments of my hon. and learned Friend would involve.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that the first Amendment of his right hon. Colleague which would decide the point now raised would come on in Clause 3; and

  877
  it would, therefore, be necessary for him (Mr. Firth) to make the few observations he had to make either then or now. If the Amendment the right hon. Baronet intended to propose to Clause 3 were carried, the Amendments he (Mr. Firth) had on the Paper would not be admissible. Perhaps he ought to explain those Amendments; but at '20 minutes to 3 o'clock in the morning he could not be expected to say much. The Amendments he had put down were those which embodied the Earl of Camperdown's proposal in 1877—the Bill the noble Earl introduced in that year as the result of the long conference which was held on the question. If the Metropolitan Board of Works was to be enlarged effectually, or modified at all, it seemed to him advisable that the work should be fairly well done, and the proposal he made would do it fairly well. His Amendments would not do it completely; but they would give the thing a fair start on an intelligible basis, which, at present, the Metropolitan Board of Works did not rest upon. They would increase the number of members of the Board to 100 from 45, at which number it had remained for so long, notwithstanding that since it was established the work upon it had quadrupled. He proposed, also, to make the Board directly elective, at present no one, as a mere ratepayer, having any control over it. Looking at the limited representation and the amount of money the Board had to spend, no one familiar with the working of the Body would say that it was a fair state of things as the matter stood; and he was of opinion that if anything was to be done, something should be done which was worth doing. With all deference both to the right hon. Baronet and those in charge of the Bill, he wished to say that what they proposed to do was not worth doing. If he wore asked as to the proposed separation of Plumstead and Lewisham whether it was not a good thing to do that, he should reply—"Certainly not; I do not think it is worth while patching up a broken-kneed institution in that way, especially at this hour." So far as the right hon. Baronet's Amendments wont, no doubt they were excellent; but they went a very little way—they would not amount to more than a bucketful in place of a great ocean of necessity. They could
  878
  not think of attempting to remodel the government of 4,000,000 of people at that hour of the morning—[Cries of "Progess!"]—but he would not enter into that matter at that hour. If Plumstead and Lewisham wished to be united let them be so.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress. I think that to begin a discussion at a quarter to 3 o'clock in the morning upon an alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works when the Chairman of that Board is not present is most unreasonable.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: He is a consenting party.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW: I do not think it fair to go on with the Bill now under the circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) has described.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With regard to the reference that has been made to the absence of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, I must say that he has offered no opposition to the Bill.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: Oh; but the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board offers no opposition to anything.
  MR. FIRTH: The organ of the Board expresses a strong approval of the proposal I make.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the two Members for Chelsea differed on matters of fact as well as on matters of policy, for whilst one stated that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was in favour of the Bill as the Government proposed to amend it, the other declared that that Gentleman was in favour of his proposal.
  MR. FIRTH: I did not say that. I said the organ of the Board, meaning a newspaper representing it, assents to my view of the subject.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he knew that extraordinary things took place in that House very frequently; but it was simply scandalous to attempt to go on with a Bill of that character at such an hour.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Aye 1; Noes 28: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
  And it appearing on the Division that 40 Members were not present in the Committee;
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair:—
  House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Viscount St. Vincent, after the death of his brother.
Public BILLS—Second Heading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3)٭; Registration (Occupation Voters) ٭ (111); Registration of Voters Scotland٭ (112); Registration of Voters (Ireland)٭ (116).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)٭(84).
Report—Barristers Admission (Ireland)٭ (100).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order ٭ (96), and passed.

SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (ARBITRATION) BILL.

  MOTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN. in moving that the Bill be re-committed to the same Select Committee to whom the said Bill was committed, said, that the Bill was promoted by the South-Eastern Bail-way Company for the purpose of having referred to arbitration certain matters in dispute between them and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, which disputes, he believed, arose out of one of those lamentable arrangements by which Bail way Companies were frequently in the habit of depriving the public of the benefit of competition. The amount in question was something approaching to £10.000,000. The Bill came in due course before their Lordships' House, and passed a second reading without any comment whatever. If there had been anything very erroneous in principle about the Bill, his noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) would, no doubt, as he always did, have taken notice of it. His noble Friend's attention had evidently been called to the Bill, for he made the remark that he presumed that both parties assented to the proposed arbitration; but he did not think it worth while to ascertain whether that was the case or not, and the Bill was read a second time. As a matter of fact, he believed that the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company did not consent to arbitration, but was vehemently opposed to it; but the contention of the other party was that the matter could

  651
  not possibly be dealt with by the ordinary Courts of Law, and that it ought to be referred to arbitration. Whether they were right or wrong in that contention he knew not. After being read a second time, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, presided over by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Camperdown). The counsel for the promoters stated the object of the Bill, and read the Preamble to the Committee; but no sooner had he come to the first enactment clause, when the counsel for the other side got up and objected to the Bill being proceeded with, on the ground that it was objectionable in principle, because it was a Bill to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law. The Chairman of the Committee, struck with that argument, asked for a precedent; and although it was a mistake to suppose that a precedent was necessary for an Act of Parliament, their Lordships every Session being called upon to pass Acts wholly without precedent, yet the promoters' counsel was able to cite the precedent of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Arbitration Bill of 1869, the Preamble of which was almost on all fours with the present Bill. The Chairman of the Committee, however, demanded a precedent for acting precisely in the same way. Now, his point was that if there were no precedent at all it did not in the least affect the question; because by reading the Bill a second time their Lordships had decided that the principle of the Bill was a proper one; and what the Select Committee had to do was to inquire whether the allegations in the Preamble could be sustained by evidence. The Committee, however, absolutely refused to hear one word on the merits, and said that it was not desirable to proceed with the Bill because of its principle. The action of the Committee had created, so far, a most dangerous precedent in regard to Private Bills; because their Lordships' House, in reading a Bill a second time, affirmed generally its principle, subject to the proof of its Preamble in Committee, and in this case the Committee had declined to allow any evidence to be given in support of the Preamble. The Committee, he submitted, had committed an error of judgment, as the wisest men were liable to do; and he, therefore, now moved that the Bill be re-committed.
  Moved, "That the Bill he re-committed to the same Select Committee to whom the said Bill was committed."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill, wished to give his version of what took place. The Committee were perfectly unanimous in their decision, and after reflection he thought they had arrived at what was the only sensible conclusion in the matter. The Bill, which was not an ordinary one, was brought forward by the South-Eastern Railway Company for the settlement of certain disputes between them and the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, and the latter Company was strongly opposed to the Bill. The Preamble said that, whereas under agreements large sums of money had been divided between the two Companies, and whereas disputes had arisen as to the validity of such agreements—what the disputes were was not stated—and whereas claims had been made by each Company upon the other involving long and intricate investigations and many complicated matters which were unsuited for a Court of Law—that was, unsuited in the opinion of the South-Eastern Company—therefore it was expedient to appoint a Court of Arbitration, to which all claims in connection with the agreement between the Companies were to be referred. That Court of Arbitration was to be empowered, if it thought fit, to declare the agreement void, to alter, vary, or rescind it in whole or in part, and to require the two Companies to enter into a new or modified agreement. It simply came to this, therefore—that the South-Eastern Railway Company having a dispute with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, which was actually at that moment before a Court of Law, introduced this Bill for the purpose of stopping all the operations of the Courts of Law, and of substituting a Court of Arbitration which they proposed to set up. It would be acknowledged that, even if the parties were agreed, such a Bill was not quite of an ordinary character; but, as a matter of fact, the London, Chatham, and Dover Company opposed the measure tooth and nail, their contention being that the questions at issue were at that moment before a Court of Law. The noble Earl had referred to a precedent cited by one of the counsel for the promoters. He desired

  653
  to point out, however, that there was a great difference between the two eases. In the case of the London, Chatham, and Dover Act of 1869 the parties were agreed; but in the case under consideration they were disagreed. He thought that was a tolerably important difference between the two cases. The noble Earl said this Bill was read a second time, and that if there was anything objectionable in the principle of the Bill the noble Earl at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) would have stepped in. When the 15111 was read a second time the noble Earl was nut in possession of information that the measure was opposed. The Bill wras handed over by the House to a Select Committee; and if the Committee discovered in the Preamble of the Bill—that was to say, in its principle—something which, in their opinion, appeared objectionable, and that it was inadvisable to proceed with it, he asked their Lord-hips whether it would be right to put the parties to the additional expense of inquiring into facts, quarrels, and disputes between the different officials and Chairmen of the Companies when the Committee had made up their minds that the principle of the measure was one which it was not expedient for them to sanction? The noble Earl said that there was no precedent for what the Committee had done; but in 1876 the South Wales Atlantic Steamship Company Bill was unanimously rejected by a Committee on the preliminary objection that it was a Bill to alter existing legal rights. He could assure their Lordships that the Committee over which he presided gave a most attentive consideration to the principle of this Bill; but the objections to it appeared so overwhelming to them that they thought it was inadvisable to proceed any further with it. If their Lordships wished to re-commit the Bill, he, of course, would bow to any decision which might be arrived at; but he should like to point out that the principle of the measure was one which ought to be discussed in the House itself. Was it right, when there were two parties to a dispute, and when that dispute was before a Court of Law, that on the application of one of those parties a Bill should be passed totally suspending the operation of the Courts of Law, calling into question and possibly upsetting an agreement
  654
  which had been acted on by both parties for 20 years? He submitted that a question of that kind ought to be decided in the House. At the same time, he hoped their Lordships would uphold the decision of the Committee.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, the noble Earl moved the re-committal of this Bill on the ground that, having been read a second time in their Lordships' House, the principle (if the measure was thereby admitted. He thought that was a wrong contention. The pith of this Bill was contained in the Preamble; and when their Lordships were asked to re-commit it they were virtually asked to say that the Preamble had been proved. The point they had to consider was, whether it was advisable to allow such a Bill to proceed? The questions in dispute between the two Companies were at that moment before the Law Courts; and until the Courts had given a decision in the matter it seemed to him to be an objectionable proceeding to come forward and ask for the appointment of a special Court to consider the question. If their Lordships consented to the re-committal of the Bill they would virtually come to a decision to allow the measure to proceed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he hoped that the House would decline to give any countenance to the Motion of the noble Earl. He demurred entirely to the proposition laid down by the noble Earl that that House, by reading this Bill a second time, had affirmed its principle, so as to take the consideration of that principle out of the province of the Select Committee. The Members of that House, who were not Members of the Standing Orders or the Select Committee, knew nothing of the merits of any Private Bill; and if the House were, under such circumstances, to reverse the decision of the Select Committee, the present system of Private Bill legislation would be a perfect delusion and a snare, and ought to be abolished. But if there was one case in which such a course would be more objectionable than another it would be in regard to the present Bill. The second reading of this Bill would never have been proposed by the noble Earl at the Table, if he had not—as he expressly stated in his note upon it—assumed, as of course, that both Companies concerned had consented to it. The pro-

  655
  moters of the Bill, after they had seen that note, omitted to inform the noble Earl at the Table, or the Standing Orders Committee, that there was no such consent. It was only the other day that the House, on the Motion of the late Earl Cairns, refused to give a second reading to a Bill similar to this in principle, which proposed to alter a Parliamentary contract between Trinity College, Dublin, and their lessees, because it was not consented to. The House, when it read the present Bill a second time, was left in ignorance that it was not consented to. He noticed also that the Bill provided, forsooth, to lay new duties on the Lord Chancellor by casting on him the task of appointing arbitrators. His consent to undertake this duty had never been asked, and, as a matter of fact, he entirely objected to it. The Motion to re-commit the Bill was entirely without justification.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in reply, said that he neither advocated nor opposed the Bill; but contended that the Committee had acted wrongly in the matter. He thought that the whole House was the proper tribunal to consider the principle of a Bill.
  Resolved in the negative.

EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—ABANDONMENT BY ENGLAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, until a settled government has been established in the Eastern Soudan, in the interests of civilization, of the native population, and of commerce, and for the security of Egypt, this country cannot relieve itself of the responsibilities it has incurred through the warlike operations that have during the last two years been twice undertaken in that part of the Soudan,"
  said, the Resolution told its own story. He was not one of those who saw evil in all that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did; on the contrary, he congratulated him on the efforts he was making to maintain peace, for he did not think that they were in a position, without an ally or friend, to enter into a contest with Russia with a light heart. He hoped that the efforts of the noble Earl might lead to a satisfactory solution of that great question. But in regard to the policy of the Government in Egypt, he confessed he was
  656
  unable to find anything for satisfaction from beginning to end. If there could be a free expression of opinion in the House of Commons, he did not believe that the Government in regard to this matter would be supported by a majority of the House. He did not know why their troops were ever sent to Egypt; for it appeared to him that it could not matter to England who ruled in that country—whether it were Ismail, Tewfik, or Arabi—provided only one thing', and that was that the Suez Canal was safe. But it was to the interest of whoever ruled in that country that the Canal should be safe, and the only danger the Canal had ever run was the outcome of the interference of this country; because it was well known that Arabi's chief engineer did all he could to induce Arabi to break up the Canal. But the Motion which he was about to submit to the House did not turn upon the question of Egypt, but upon the question of the Soudan; and, looking at that question, he could not help feeling very strongly that when Her Majesty's Government enthroned Sir Evelyn Baring on the seat of the Pharoahs, and announced that they intended to give up the Soudan, that was a very highhanded act on the part of the Government of a country which was nothing but an intruder in Egypt. In doing so they entirely gave the go-by to the Egyptian Government and to Turkey, the Suzerain of Egypt. Let them assume for a moment the position of things reversed, and Turkey in the same position with reference to this country as this country was with reference to Turkey and Egypt, and that Turkey, being dissatisfied with our rule, bombarded Portsmouth, seized London, and occupied England, and then announced that, in consequence of the Government's mal-administration of affairs in Ireland, she would hand over that country to the representatives of the ancient Milesian Kings, of whom, out of 168, history tells us only 20 died natural deaths. He thought that was a fair analogy to draw, and he could perceive no difference in the two cases. However, the point to which he wished especially to direct the attention of the House was the question of the Eastern Soudan; and in doing so he would not again refer to the circumstances connected with Lord Wolseley's aquatic expedition up the Nile, which

  657
  had at least shown this—that our troops should have been sent out sooner, nor would he dwell upon the delay of Tier Majesty's Government, which was the direct cause of its failure. Every man knew the strong things Lord Wolseley had said with reference to that delay; and how he had written home to a friend saying—
  "What would I not give now for those three months that were wasted while Mr. Gladstone was making up his mind!"
  All those matters were fully gone into a few days since by his noble Friend (Viscount Bury); and, therefore, he would confine himself to the question of the Eastern Soudan. It mattered not what cause took them there, whether it was to smash Osman Digna or to relieve the garrisons who were slaughtered by their delay in starting; it mattered not whether it was to relieve Gordon or for the suppression of the Mahdi. It was sufficient that they had been there, and had done what they had done, and that they were still in that country. The Government and those who supported them had incurred responsibilities which they could not cast aside, and he was anxious to bring those responsibilities home to them. What were those responsibilities? On the 2nd of August, 1883, only 20 months ago, Mr. Power, with two other Englishmen and a guide, and three camels, was on his way to join General Hicks, and described the people around Suakin as very handsome and beautifully built, and although they looked most fierce, they were gentle, civil, and good-natured fellows. Let them compare that state of things, when a party of three Englishmen and a guide, with no armed escort, could travel quietly from Suakin to Berber, with the state of things existing now, when no one could move out of camp unless strongly escorted, like a Cabinet Minister in London. That would give a measure of the responsibilities this country had incurred by its interference. Nothing could show better the results of the policy that had boon pursued than the change that had taken place in the character of that population. In his original Resolution he had asked the House to affirm that the railway that had been commenced from Suakin to Berber should be completed; but many noble Lords had urged upon him that they were not prepared to do so, and he
  658
  had therefore left it out of his present Motion, though he believed a railway to be the real civilizing element in that country. If, however, the House would affirm the rest of the Resolution, the major would include the minor; for the first thing the Government would have to do in establishing a settled government would be to make a railway. The benefits of a railway, commercially and strategically speaking, would, he believed, be untold. The strategical benefits would be discussed by his noble and gallant Friend who would second the Resolution (Lord Napier of Magdala); but with regard to its commercial value, he believed it was put before Her Majesty's Government that a railway from Suakin to Berber would tap all the unknown wealth supposed to exist in that part of Africa—a fact of which the Marquess of Hartington seemed to be aware when he recently spoke on the subject. General Gordon, in a letter dated the 17th of December, 1882, expressed the view that no real progress could be reckoned on in the Soudan until a railway was made between Suakin and Berber. A railway was a mil quâ non for the well-being of the Soudan. Now, there might be difficulties in the way of the construction of this railway; but they were certainly not insuperable. He had just had a conversation with a gentleman who had constructed 1,200 miles of rail way through a country very like the Eastern Soudan, and who was ready to form a Company for the purpose of completing the railway projected there. At any rate, the Government could not get rid of all their responsibility to those whom they would leave in the Soudan for the next five months. The Government proposed to give the friendly tribes a few thousand pounds in order to induce them to protect the railway that had been begun. They should, at least, make the pounds guineas. The way to treat the friendlies was to pay them well, to organize them, as had been done in India, and to teach them to trust you. They ought to learn that by working for us they would benefit themselves. They would naturally prefer to carry British gold in their loin-cloths, rather than British lead in their loins. If the confidence of the Natives could be gained, the country would surely subside into quietude, and then trade and commerce could be de-

  659
  veloped. If the Government should now cast aside the responsibilities which they had incurred, and if the treasure and blood of this country had been spent and spilt for no purpose, the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers could only be described as insensate. It was a policy which would make England ridiculous and the laughing stock of the civilized world. Personally, he felt very strongly upon this question of the Soudan, as all those of their Lordships who had had friends and relatives there would no doubt do. The first Expedition had been successful, as it practically opened up the road to Berber; and he understood that it was confidently stated by General Graham that he was prepared to march to that place if he had been instructed to do so. The Government should not have put an end to that Expedition by bringing General Graham and the troops home. The consequence had been a large amount of slaughter and expenditure of money without any practical result; and the second Expedition was deemed necessary through the incompleteness of the first, and the vacillation and inconsistency of the Government. In the second Expedition, every man, whether Native or British, who perished in it, was as much slain by the vacillation and inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government as if slain and done to death by their hands. In their Lordships' House the breath of public opinion circulated freely; they did not inhale the mephitic and Cancusified atmosphere which "elsewhere" numbed the senses and paralyzed independent action, and he trusted that their Lordships would not decline to support him in voting for the Resolution. Feeling strongly as he did the responsibilities the Government had incurred, he wished to purge his conscience of any responsibility in leaving the Soudan to barbarism, after all the waste of treasure and blood which had taken place. For if we now ingloriously retired what records, what monuments should we leave of our temporary occupation of the land of the Pharaohs? Why, nothing but chaos, perpetuated slavery, an accursed name, an abandoned railway, and bleaching skeletons.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA,in seconding the Resolution, said, he considered that if the Earl of Dufferin's proposals had been carried out Egypt
  660
  would be now in a much better state. He would not now refer to the causes which had altered the state of Egypt; but say that a great burden had been undertaken by the Government. When they occupied that country, they incurred the full responsibility of government. He believed that, in the first instance, the notion of the abandonment of the Soudan by Egypt was referable to the opinion expressed by General Gordon that the insurrection was the result of the bad government of the Egyptians. It appeared scarcely honourable to restore a government which General Gordon described in such strong terms. But there was a better course open, and that was to improve the government of the Soudan, instead of abandoning all control of it. Few people would now approve the Mission of General Gordon to Khartoum. General Gordon was a great man; but he was sent upon an impossible task. He would not re-open the wound caused by the delays and refusals to relieve him; but by General Gordon's defeat and death their military character had sustained a great blow—he would almost say an irretrievable blow. It was the opinion of that man that the possession of Khartoum and the Frontier of the Nile were necessary for the protection of Egypt. To that end, and also to recover their military character, it was necessary that their Forces should retake Khartoum. That was then the opinion of the Government, and to accomplish the object a railway from Suakin to Berber was a necessary consequence. Why Her Majesty's Government had now abandoned that idea he did not know. At what time had they abandoned it? Just at the very time when success was attending upon General Gordon. From private letters which he had received, it appeared that General Graham himself was most anxious to go forward. English officers were 30 miles from Suakin among the tribes, and were perfectly safe. It was only necessary to get control of the land between the Nile and the Red Sea, and then they would be in a fair way to get the tribes on their side. Their presence between the Red Sea and the Nile would have had a most material influence on the tribes, and would have gone a long way towards the establishment of a settled government at Khartoum, and towards

  661
  the future security of Egypt. He did not know whether Her Majesty's Government had any reasons which were not before the public, and which had led to the sudden abandonment of this Expedition. He was not aware that it had been caused by the health of the troops. The climate had not been complained of, although warm. The troops had been supplied with all necessaries, and probably suffered no more than the troops suffered in India. It was possible that the want of those troops for other purposes might have caused their withdrawal. They had been called for Reserve and for other purposes; but it had been quite open for Her Majesty's Government, when they made up their minds to go to Khartoum, to supplement the British Army in such a manner as would have prevented the unnecessary abandonment of this Expedition. He most cordially supported the view of the noble Earl who had brought forward this Motion, and he hoped their Lordships would be brought to consider it favourably.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, until a settled government has been established in Eastern Soudan, in the interests of civilization, of the native population, and of commerce, and for the security of Egypt, this country cannot relieve itself of the responsibilities it has incurred through the warlike operations that have, during the last two years, been twice undertaken in that part of the Soudan."—(The Karl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he was sorry the noble Earl had persevered with a proposition which was contrary to the almost unanimous conviction of the people. Among those politicians who would shortly have to face a General Election, he did not know where to find anyone, whether Conservative or Liberal, who was willing to come forward in support of the measures insisted on by the noble Earl in his Resolution and speech, and he had hoped that in their Lordships' House also the universal feeling of relief would have prevailed, and that the Marquess of Hartington's announcement would have been acquiesced in with a good grace. Their Lordships were asked to pass a Resolution hostile to the evacuation of the Soudan, though the recall of the Forces was so much approved everywhere else that in "another place" its announcement called forth congratulations from one of the most eloquent and enlightened of Con-
  662
  servative Leaders—a noble Lord who was generally excessively adverse to Her Majesty's Ministers. He thought he was justified in appealing to the political friends of that noble Lord not to condemn a measure which they had not the most distant chance of reversing, and which was so decisively approved by those Tories who would bear the brunt of the coming elections. The overwhelming weight of public opinion against the Resolution rendered the discussion purely academic. It was now fully understood that to make and hold a railway in the Soudan would be to inflict on themselves an open wound which would never heal while they were there. To the inhabitants of that region it must be what the Channel Tunnel would be to us—an entrance for aliens who would enslave them. For the time being we had become their enemies, and it would be difficult to bring to a close their blood feud against us. He read in The Times of May 11 that an unquenchable fire of resentment against us burned in the hearts of the Hadendowas. A railway from Suakin to Berber would be a total failure as a commercial undertaking; all it could do would be to destroy the present carrying trade. That the inhabitants well knew, and they would never consent to their own ruin. The Marquess of Hartington's assurances were most satisfactory on every point but one—that of the proposed gift of Suakin to some Foreign Power. It was not ours to give away, though if it were he would regret such a transfer the more deeply, because last year one of the Marquess of Hartington's motives in sending the first of those ghastly Expeditions was to preserve Suakin from being taken by any other Power—an object which might, to some extent, explain and excuse its occupation by us, unless after going there to keep foreigners out we now came away to let them in. But he had a confident hope that with friendly pressure from their supporters in "another place"—those supporters on whom the noble Marquess on the Opposition Bench once conferred the title of "Mahdis below the Gangway"—the Government would reconsider the matter, and remove what looked like a grave inconsistency from an otherwise well-considered settlement. According to the telegram he had already quoted from The Times of May 11, there were

  663
  not 10 Natives of Suakin who, in their hearts, were not for Osman Digna, and who had not living or slaughtered friends and relatives in his Army; and whenever the English left they would rise and unite with their fellow-countrymen. In Frank Power's posthumous Letters from Khartoum, he described those Hadendowas about Suakin, who in consequence of the efforts to exterminate them were now our formidable enemies, as
  "Very handsome, beautifully built, and like reddish bronze statues. … I never saw one of them unarmed; but though they look most fierce they are gentle, civil, good-natured fellows."
  He would venture to urge on the favourable consideration of the Government the enfranchisement of Suakin from all foreign, Egyptian, or Turkish misrule, and on that basis to conclude a real and durable peace in the Soudan. Having adverted to the only part of their intention which ought not to be ratified, he could the more warmly join in the thanks and congratulations Her Majesty's Government had received for the moral courage with which they had wiped out a bad debt. They had explained their altered views with a frankness and a dignity which deserved the entire respect of friends and foes. All must make mistakes sometimes; but it was a proof of superior statesmanship that they had not yielded to the moral cowardice of remaining in the vicious circle of a war waged for a railway which had first to be made to render warlike operations practicable. On former occasions he had, unfortunately, had to differ about the Soudan from the noble Earl who led the Government in that House; he hoped it would now not be thought impertinent in him to assure the noble Earl of the grateful sense he should ever entertain of the wisdom, patriotism, and humanity of the actual policy of his Colleagues and himself. Those who expected the Soudanese to take over in a lump all the results of European civilization—cast iron, cotton, capitalists, not to speak of public-houses, police, and prisons for the accommodation of all the adventurers who would not fail to rush into a newly opened out country, builders of railways, and founders of settled governments by paper resolutions—were too much dominated by the idea of a uniform plan for the
  664
  human species which they would treat as if it all started from the same point, proceeded on one line, and must arrive at an identical goal. They forgot to reckon with the indelible characteristics of different races. The germ of a modern English statesman or Peer had been contained in the contemporaries of Alfred or William the Norman; but Arabs could by no possible process of natural selection and survival of the fittest become the ancestors of men resembling their Lordships. Every race was confined to its own type and ideal, which it might or might not realize, but from which it could not deviate. There was an equivocation of meaning in such words as "barbarism" and "civilization," which would mislead if they proceeded to convert philanthropic formulas and commonplaces into action upon mankind in distant parts of the world. It was a serious mistake to regard nomadic life as necessarily barbarous, because it was incompatible with that particular kind of refinement which we habitually and exclusively called "civilization." The ideas which he had endeavoured to express to their Lordships had been made clearer and stronger in his mind by reading a volume published in ls78 by the celebrated Orientalist, Ernest Renan. From an account he gave of the Soudanese Arabs, it would seem they had been settled where they now were before the Anglo-Saxons came to England. During all that time their political existence had been growing round the great fundamental institution of the family far more entirety than had ever been the case among ourselves. They had never known anything like monarchy, feudalism, aristocracy, or democracy, in our sense of those words. The Soudanese nomads had preserved their language in unchanged purity; while in the towns it had everywhere decayed. It was unfair to accuse the Bedouins of being the principal or the real authors of the Slave Trade, which had its source in the market demand of Turkish cities. If that was stopped the traffic would cease. He believed that negroes were invariably well treated among the Hadendowas. Certainly, on the whole, the Arabs had been benefactors to the Black races of the Soudan. The Islamic movement, which had spread so enormously among the negroes, and the Arabic language and literature were

  665
  better adapted to the Africans than any European influences, and had done much to help them to evolve a civilization of their own. Respect for the noble Earl's motives had led him on into those remarks on his abstract proposition. His excuse must be that it was impassible to treat any opinion of his with indifference. He would, however, ask him whether he would not be satisfied with having made his speech, without requiring the House to pronounce on the random responsibilities he would so liberally incur; but if the noble Earl pressed the question to a division, he hoped the House would in no way associate itself with theories which—if by any possibility they could be reduced to practice—would exhaust the vitality of England in order to complete the devastation of the Soudan. In conclusion, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after the first ("That"), and insert the following words ("this House accepts with satisfaction the promise of Her Majesty's Government to recall Her Forces from the Soudan, and considers the construction of a railway from Suakin by military force through a hostile population would be inconsistent with the pledge just given to Parliament and the country. Moreover this House declines to assume any responsibility for commercial, civilizing, or philanthropic enterprises outside the admitted obligations and interests of Great Britain.")—(The Lord Wentworth.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: A few days ago I addressed to your Lordships a few words, from which you might gather that my feeling is, in this matter, with my noble Friend. But it by no means follows that we are to be bound to vote for an adverse Resolution, even when two and two make four; and I have heard the suggestion somewhere, about how far it is expedient to commit one House of Parliament to an abstract expression of opinion on a course of policy which has already been determined on by the Executive Government, with at least the silent sanction of the other House. But my doubts as to my course have been relieved and solved by the adverse and counter Motion and speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I should, indeed, be ashamed of myself if I could vote for this Amendment—so weak, so inconsistent in its terms, so at variance with everything that is reasonable; and when I turn from the words of the Mo-
  666
  tion to the speech of the noble Lord, I am confirmed in my private opinion that it is my duty to vote with my noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss). The noble Lord who has just sat down has referred to how this matter may be dealt with at the elections; but we in this House at least are free from such influences, and can state our opinions freely on questions of public policy; and, being free to do so, it is our duty to do so. But, my Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches is, I believe, thoroughly wrong in his impression of the state of public feeling. There is, no doubt, a general sense of relief in getting out of a great difficulty which is felt by those on both sides; but my belief is that, as regards the people, there is a great mass of opinion wholly unformed which is passive on this question, and which desires to be informed on the merits of it; and I do not think that these persons will be much enlightened by the speech of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. The noble Lord spoke of the courage of the Government in wiping out a bad debt; but is that a debt due by the Government, or by others to the Government? The noble Lord must remember that it is a debt duo by the Government—a bad debt—and yet the noble Lord says they were brave in wiping it out. I will pass, however, from this matter to lay before your Lordships seriously the grounds upon which I disagree with the course which the Government has pursued in this question; but it is impossible to state these grounds without going a little into the whole of the Egyptian Question. It is very easy to attack the Government on the whole of their Egyptian policy—I rather suspect there are one or two Members of the Government who could do it admirably. But that is not my object. It may be the duty of the Opposition to find fault with a course which has been full of difficulties and mistakes, and which the Government themselves would admit has been full of misadventures; but sitting on this side of the House, and not concerned immediately in the political contest, I feel that it is my duty to say wherein I think the Government has been right, as well as where it has been wrong, and where there were difficulties more or less insuperable. At the very beginning of their coming into Office the clouds were gathering on the horizon

  667
  over the Nile Valley, and it was impossible not to see that there were great difficulties in their way. In the first place, I think that the Government started with this great difficulty—that our English and British interests are identified with the strength of one of the great remaining Mahommedan Empires in the world. We may give what reason for it we like; but it is a fact that there is not at present a single Mahommedan Government in the world with which Europeans are in contact which is not in a state of hopeless decrepitude and decay. You have the Government of Persia, you have the Government of Turkey, you have the Government of Egypt, and those smaller Governments which have been already swallowed up by the ambition of France. That is a difficulty for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible. They could not make the Egyptian Government a good Government; and they have had the additional difficulty of having to deal with the traditional jealousy of the French people, and their claim to exercise a superior influence in Egypt over that exercised by other nations. And I must, in passing, say that France has one great claim to influence in Egypt which we have not. It was through the genius of one of her sons, and against the influence and the power of this country, that the Suez Canal was conceived and cut. These were insuperable difficulties with which the Government had to deal. I do not admit that the evil of the Dual Control was entirely owing to the late Government. The Dual Government was a very great improvement—at least, we all used to think so and to say so—upon the previous condition of things; but it brought us into intimate contact with French officials in a degree and in a manner that might awaken jealousies and cause friction. These were among the difficulties of the problem with which Her Majesty's Government had to deal in the beginning, and for which we ought to give them due credit in regard to the course which they pursued. Then came Arabi's rebellion. Having had some private means of observing the growth of misgovernment in Egypt, the crowds of adventurers who settled upon her, and the hundreds and thousands of them who were enjoying salaries and doing nothing at all, and believing at
  668
  first that Arabi's rebellion was a rebellion of the Native Egyptians against the monstrous misgovernment of their country, I had a great amount of sympathy with it. But further inquiry convinced me that there was no hope in Arabi; and it was impossible for any English Government to allow the Government of Egypt to fall into the hands of Janissaries, who I believe would have been a purely military Government. There would not have been an Army full of civilized officers, such as the Army of France or that of any other European country, but one simply of Janissaries. When that rebellion arose I recognized the duty of Her Majesty's Government to support the Khedive. Any other English Government in their place would, I think, have taken that course; I doubt whether any other Government would have found it possible to shrink from it. Then we get a step further. When our Fleet was sent to Alexandria the bombardment of that place if Arabi was obstinate was inevitable in consequence. Our ships would not stand by and see powerful fortifications raised against themselves. I do not think that the Government can be held responsible for the bombardment of the forts of Alexandria. It was a bombardment of the forts—not of the town—and that destruction of property which took place in the town arose, not from the bombardment by our ships, but from the excesses of the population and the troops of Arabi. Therefore, I cannot say I think the Government were to blame for that. But look at the consequences; look at the irritation in Egypt caused by the immense loss of property in connection with the military operations. The English Government offered the French Government co-operation in the military operations. The French Government refused that co-operation, and left us to act alone. I have asked myself again and again whether up to this step there is any point in the course of their policy at which we could reasonably say that the Government could have taken any other course than that which they pursued; and I have not been able to fix on any one which any other Government would not probably have taken. Then we come to the landing of the Army. The bombardment of Alexandria was found to be insufficient, and we had to land our Army and to fight

  669
  the Egyptian Army. That campaign ended in the destruction of the Egyptian Army—in the complete demoralization and destruction of the Egyptian Army. That, in itself, was a most deplorable consequence. It destroyed the only arm in Egypt for the maintenance of order and good government, and it threw upon us an immense responsibility. The only circumstance we can rejoice at in reference to the history of that Egyptian Campaign is the conduct of our troops on this and on all other occasions. I suppose there never has been a Military Expedition so nicely and accurately planned and crowned with such complete success. But that, I maintain, threw on us the full responsibility of our being the masters of Egypt. We had bombarded Alexandria; we had landed our troops; we had destroyed the Egyptian Army; we were the masters of Egypt. And now we come to the summit of the watershed from which the two different policies divide. This is the point at which I venture to think Her Majesty's Government began to err. They did not see, or would not acknowledge, that we were the complete masters of Egypt and responsible for its government. And here I cannot but allude to a sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and repeated more or less by several of his Colleagues, and that is the general doctrine that England is over-weighted by her duties as they stand at present—a dangerous doctrine for any English Government to lay down. I had the honour to be a Member of the Government under Lord Aberdeen before the Crimean War, and I remember well the painful force with which accusations were made against us, not so much that we did this or did the other, but that we were a Government at whose head was a statesman who had spoken so loudly in favour of peace that all the Governments of Europe believed that he would never go to war. It is, I think, dangerous for any Government, and especially for any Prime Minister, to be credited all over the world with holding the doctrine that England is over-weighted with her duty. There is a sense in which we may all possibly agree with this doctrine which the Government have preached over and over again. In Parliament there are many obstructions to legislative functions. We cannot,
  670
  either of us on either side, carry all the measures that we should like to see pass; and in that sense I can understand that a great Parliamentary Leader like Mr. Gladstone should fret under the difficulty of his position, and should say that in respect of legislative work we are over-weighted. But if you say that England is over-weighted by her Empire in the world, that is a very different thing; and I am afraid that is the opinion which is attributed to him, and, what is more, it is the mistaken policy on which the Government have acted. The Government have been often taunted with having no policy. I do not agree with that. They have always had a policy, and it was founded on that doctrine to which I have referred—that we were to get out of Egypt as fast as we could. There have been circumstances in which I should entirely agree with that policy. There are very few of us—I doubt whether any party in the country has formed a deliberate desire to conquer and annex Egypt. We did not wish to go there in a military capacity, but the force of circumstances sent us; and if we could see in Egypt a good and firm Government established it would be our duty to go out and leave it to conduct the administration of that country. But what I cannot understand is that men in the position of my noble Friends should delude themselves into the belief that in course of a few weeks or months, or even in the course of a year, a year and a half, or two years, having destroyed the Egyptian Army and put the Egyptian Government completely under their feet, they could almost immediately set up a Government in Egypt which would be able to hold its ground against any other Power. To establish a settled and firm Government in Egypt after all that has occurred must be the work of a long time. I myself have no belief in a firm or settled Government in the hands of Turkish Pashas. There may be good men among them; but the great mass of the Turkish Pashas are incurably corrupt. But the Government of Egypt has hitherto been a Government of Turkish Pashas; and how my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government could have been led to suppose that under such a system of rule it would be possible to establish a firm and settled Government I am at a loss to understand. Then the next great step was

  671
  the announcement of the withdrawal from the Soudan. As to that I will only say this—that if it was determined to withdraw from the Soudan for political and financial reasons, it was our absolute duty, being the masters of Egypt, to see that the garrisons in the Soudan were safe. That I hold to have been an honourable obligation which should have been fully recognized. Our repeated declarations that we would not hold the Soudan were fatal to their safety. They could not get out; it struck terror into their hearts; it inspired their enemies with courage, and rendered their delivery almost impossible. We come, my Lords, to the next step, which was the sending out of General Gordon. Now, here, again, I have never been able to see the great debt which attached to my noble Friends below me for sending out General Gordon. He had governed the Soudan with universal acceptability, except to the slave traders. He was beloved by the people; he had a personal influence such as no other man ever had in that country; and I think it was not unnatural that the Government should say—"Here is the man to get us out of this difficulty." But then the policy was monstrous that you should send such a man as General Gordon—perhaps the noblest character of our modern times—and intimate that on no account would you help him. If you sent General Gordon you were bound by every obligation of honour as well as policy to hold yourselves in readiness to rescue him by arms. As things then stood, to many of us in this country it seemed possible that the personal influence of General Gordon—so pure, so powerful, so magnetic in its character—might have been able to withdraw the garrisons without fighting. We thought it was possible. I confess that I did; and, therefore, I was not sorry to see General Gordon sent. We come to the time when it was perfectly well known—in May, 1884—that General Gordon was besieged. I remember very well, somewhere about the 10th of May, when I first heard that the Government would not acknowledge that General Gordon was besieged or beset. I think there was some dispute as to the particular word that ought to be applied; but the Government knew from the end of April that they could not get a communication from General Gordon, and that they
  672
  could not get a communication to General Gordon. They were giving large bribes to individual Arabs to get messages sent through; and that was the time, I think, when the moral obligation of the Government came into force, and when not a moment ought to have been lost in organizing an Expedition for his relief. But the time was lost; we did not know how to make up our minds; and from. May to August no determination was taken by the Government. I cannot help saying that I believe that delay, leading to the fall of Khartoum, will remain a permanent blot on the memory of the Government of this country. When Lord Wolseley's wonderful Expedition—for, as regards the conduct of the soldiers and the energy of every man in that Expedition, it has been one of the most wonderful Expeditions—it has been the admiration of the world—was known to have failed in its main purpose, when it was known that the life of Genera] Gordon had been sacrificed at the last moment, not only by delay, but by treachery in his own camp—when that was fully known the Prime Minister came down to the House of Commons, and announced that
  "After mature deliberation the Government had determined that it was still their duty to go on to Khartoum, to overthrow the power of the Mahdi, to open up the Berber route, to construct the Suakin Railway,"
  and, in short, to go on with the Expedition. What was the secret of that determination? The noble Lord (Lord Wentworth) talks of the universal assent with which the miserable retreat from the Soudan is now received. Does he not know that there was the same silent assent to the announcement of the Government that they would carry on their victorious arms to Khartoum; does he not know that public opinion to a large extent in this country is, and on such subjects always must be, as clay in the hands of the potter? The Government are responsible for the policy, and especially when a man so distinguished, so eloquent, and with the illustrious career of Mr. Gladstone announces a policy of this kind they are willing and ready to agree with it. That announcement was made on the 19th of February. My noble Friend the Marquess near me (the Marquess of Ripon) the other night tried to make out in conversation with me that it was made at a time when it

  673
  was doubtful whether General Gordon was killed or not. My noble Friend is kind to the Government; but I cannot agree with him as to the fact that there was no doubt as to the death of General Gordon. The truth was that the spirit of the country up to that time was in a state of ferment and excitement. The Government has always shown itself sensitive of the ups and downs of public opinion; and against that policy which they themselves announced there was the firm everlasting operation of this doctrine of overweighting—that England is overweighted, and too weak to do this—and that the moment public excitement relaxed—as it was sure to do when there was no more fighting, and no more telegrams giving accounts of glorious actions and bloody fights—the doctrine of overweighting, that fatal doctrine of overweighting had then its place, and intimations, first taken up by and made through the Press and then in Parliament, were made that it was a matter for consideration whether we should go to or fall back from Khartoum. I think all these variations of policy have been the source of the greatest evil, and will be in future times, which are not far distant, a source of great danger to this country. Another reason has been found out now for going back from our resolution to go to Khartoum, and that is, that the Mahdi is not quite so strong as we supposed him to be. I never believed in the invasion of Lower Egypt by the Mahdi. My reason for wishing the Expedition to be sent to Khartoum was the reason which the whole country felt at the time, and to which the Government gave way—namely, that the honour and interests of England were concerned. But if this argument is to have any weight, if it turns out that the Mahdi is not so strong as he was before, what is the real lesson to be learnt from that? I, for one, should be glad if we are to go out of the Soudan to hear that the Mahdi had established a powerful Government there. The only chance for peace in that country is that one great man should establish an Empire. That has been the natural course of civilization in the Monarchies of the East. But I complain that we are not restoring the country to one man who would be able to found a settled Government for the benefit of the people;
  674
  we are restoring the country to absolute anarchy, where every tribe is cutting the throats of the other, and where the Mahdi is one of a dozen struggling Chiefs, who leave the country, as centuries before, in misery and desolation. That is no excuse for the Government in the vacillation they have shown on this subject. It may be said that the policy of the Government may sometimes in such cases be guided by events. It is impossible to deny that. There was a great occasion in the civilized world not long ago when the course of events seemed wholly out of control, when, as in this case, everything happened that was unexpected. There was a memorable case in which a great magistrate, a great ruler, had to consider "what does this wonderful course of events indicate to me as my duty to my country?" That was the case of President Lincoln, called from the position of a lath splitter to the government of almost the mightiest people in the world. He came to the conclusion that the course of events and the will of a Higher Power dictated to him a policy full of danger and difficulty which he may have avoided by saying—"We are overweighted." He said—
  "Looking to the indication of the Supreme Governor of the world, looking to the events which it is clear to me are intended to be brought about, I will declare—although I have no right to do so, but as an act of war—that slavery is ended forever in the United States."
  He took that tremendous responsibility upon him. He did not consider himself or his people to be overweighted; and, through one of the mightiest and most terrible struggles we have ever known, he abolished for ever slavery in the States of America. Now, I do think that in all this course of events our duty has been indicated by a Higher Power; and to me it is plain what that duty is. Look to the great Continent of Africa, and consider for a moment what it involves. It is one of the four quarters of the globe round which the commerce of the world has circulated for nearly 400 years, and yet until the other day was almost unknown in its interior. Now, suddenly all the nations of the world have awakened to the value of that Continent as a field for colonization and commerce. In the South at the Cape and up in the East and West the Portuguese Government; on the West

  675
  Coast the beneficent enterprizes of the King of the Belgians; and Germany for the first time, too, has exhibited a desire to open that great Continent to the civilization of the world. It is clear how events are tending; and, in my opinion, we ought to take our part in this great and magnificent work. We have already done three parts of our work. We have shown the Arabs our power. They have felt our power both on the coast of the Red Sea and up the Nile, and they were beginning to waver in their resistance to us. Now, my Lords, I believe that the possession of Khartoum by a great civilized Power, or, if you like, by a great civilizing Company, such as that which the King of the Belgians has established on the Congo, would open for us a mart of commerce the extent of which is unknown. My noble Friend the late Viceroy of India stated the other night, in the course of the conversation that ensued, that he confessed he had great doubts as to how far civilization could be promoted by war, and I heard murmurs of applause on the Bench below. I must say that I never heard a sentiment expressed, especially by an ex-Viceroy of India, and assented to by a Government, which was absolutely of so small value. If my noble Friend asked me how I should define civilization, I should reply that my noble Friend himself is the very impersonation of civilization. I remember some years ago, at a dinner party, when the conversation turned upon the difficulty of defining civilization, Lord Macaulay replied—"Civilization; why there is no difficulty in the least in defining it; we are civilization; we gentlemen who sit round this table." And I should consider my noble Friend, especially in his capacity of Viceroy of India, when exercising his most beneficent rule there, as the very impersonation of civilization. He went to govern a country which is more or less governed by the sword; and he encouraged the conquered in obtaining larger authority over the conquerors, and increased the liberty of the Native Press. These are acts of the highest civilization. My Lords, it was the great conquerors of India—it was Clive, Warren Hastings, and Dalhousie, and all the long list of Governors General—it was they who enabled us to civilize India by securing it. And, my Lords, it has ever
  676
  been so in the history of the world. I will almost lay it down as a general rule that no order and no civilization can be begun among any people until the sword has opened the way. Archbishop Whateley, indeed, maintained this thesis—that no savage or barbarian people have ever risen to civilization except by contact with a higher race, and that that contact has been almost invariably due to conquest. I apply that doctrine to the Arabs. The account which the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has given was most poetical. He said all the good in the Soudan had been due to the Arabs. I do not know where he obtains his information from. My information is very different. The Arabs for many hundred years have been the curse of that country. They are especially a conquering race; they are also an uncivilizing race. They brought no civilization with them. They are a race of warriors, of robbers, of murderers, who hate manual labour of all kinds, who hate argiculture, and who leave everything in the way of labour to their women and slaves. There are large parts of that country which have been wholly devastated by them, and others in which the whole population has been either reduced to slavery or altogether exterminated. Need I quote authorities against the statements of the noble Lord? I should like to quote one, to which I hope he will be disposed to give due weight. General Gordon says—
  "The Arab himself would consider it a disgrace to practise any manual labour. He is especially a hunter, a robber, and a warrior, and after caring for his cattle devotes all his energies to slave-hunting and war."
  This is General Gordon's opinion of those Arabs of whom the noble Lord says that they have done so much good for the Soudan. There is one important point to which I now desire to allude, and that is the value of the Soudan as a field for commerce. I have seen no allusions to the statistical information on this point. General Gordon, while Governor of the Soudan, stated that the debt of the Soudan was £327,000, its revenue £579,000, and the expenses £651,000, leaving a deficit of only £72,000 a-year; and anyone who wishes to see how that small deficit could be converted into a surplus has only to read the journal of General

  677
  Gordon while Governor of the Soudan. He shows that the government of the country from Cairo was so bad that it had reduced some Provinces to beggary, and that there was the most gross jobbery on the part of the Khedive. There was, for instance, a contract for rails for £660,000, and the Khedive undertook that he should pay 10 to 20 per cent on the materials which were not used. Only £150,000 worth of material was taken, and the Khedive accordingly had to pay 10 to 20 per cent on £450,000, and this he wished to lay as an additional debt on the Soudan. Again, there were two steamers, which cost £10,000 each, which he wished to be taken off his hands; but while all the profits earned by them were to go to him the whole burden of their cost was to be thrown on the Revenue of the Soudan. That was the way in which the Soudan debt had been accumulated; and if a decent Government were established there would soon be a rising Revenue and a large surplus. General Gordon had estimated that 18 Black battalions,costingabout£200,000 a-year, would be ample for the whole of the country. We have already broken the back of the resistance in the Soudan, and I believe that very little perseverance on the part of the British Government would have enabled it to establish a stable Government. Under these circumstances, I say we are turning our backs without having any information from the Government; we are turning away from undertaking our share in a great duty—the duty which the other Governments of Europe are undertaking with a light heart, but from which we are turning away, because, forsooth, we are "overweighted." I will only allude to one other matter, and that is the speech made by the Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons the other night. I know nothing of the Marquess of Hartington's opinions, and have not seen him for many months; but on reading that speech it seemed to me to be that of a Minister speaking against his own heart, and in obedience to the cry—"For Heaven's sake let us keep at least together." The Marquess of Hartington did his duty, and announced what the Government had decided to do; but he said not a word of defence. There was a passage which I could not read without a feeling of shame and humilia-
  678
  tion, and it was that part of his speech in which he stated that the Soudan would be abandoned "unless some other civilized Power undertakes it." What is the power that is to take up the burden from which Great Britain shrinks? Is it Italy, which has shown considerable public spirit in this matter, and seems to desire to take part in the civilization of Africa? Is it France? Is it Belgium? Is it Russia? Or is it Bismarck? Well, my Lords, I can only say my belief is this—that if the British people should see now or a short time hence one or other of the Great Powers of Europe landing at Suakin and taking up the duty which we have laid down; if we should see them establishing a successful Government in Upper Egypt and opening up the millions and millions of people who lie between Khartoum and Suakin, and perhaps imposing differential duties against England and her commerce—we shall bitterly regret the day when we had a Government whose policy appeared to be animated by the consideration that England is overweighted with her responsibilities.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I will not trespass long upon your Lordships' time, for I am placed in a somewhat difficult position. After my experience of Votes of Censure in your Lordships' House, I am hardly aware of the position in which this question stands—whether it is really a Motion made in which one or two individual Peers in your Lordships' House of great distinction take an interest, or whether it is a Motion supported by the whole Opposition in regard to the conduct of the Government in this respect. [The Earl of WEMYSS dissented.] The noble Earl shakes his head; therefore, I take it that I am not to speak except to answer what he himself and those who support him have said. With regard to the noble Earl himself, I cannot help remarking upon the great change the noble Earl has made in his Motion—a great change over which the noble Earl himself very lightly glided. In his Motion he laid down originally that it was absolutely essential to the honour of this country, and essential for a great many other things, that a certain railway should be made from Suakin to Berber. Absolutely essential to the honour of this country that a railway undertaken as a military railway to carry out certain military operations which are not to be

  679
  continued? That that is essential to the honour of the country? But the noble Earl found even his most ardent Friends could not support him in such a proposition as that, and he has judiciously omitted it from his Motion. There is one point on which I entirely agree with the noble Earl in his eloquent and in his perfectly true description, only equalled by the eloquence of the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll), of what the British Army has done in Egypt. The noble Earl quoted an expression of the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that the British Army was fit to go anywhere and do anything; but I am not quite sure that that is perfectly consistent with the language the noble Earl has used for many years with regard to the state of the Army. But I accept it as a truism at the present time. I certainly could not agree, however, with the noble and gallant Field Marshal (Lord Napier of Magdala) when he said that irretrievable disgrace had been suffered by our military force. It appears to me utterly absurd to say that of soldiers who in every single engagement have distinguished themselves to such a degree, and whose efforts have always been crowned with victory. It may be perfectly true that the Government at home, who are not called upon to expose their persons to climate or enemies, have been unwilling to expose the British Army to future difficulties; but in saying that irretrievable disgrace has visited that force I do not understand what the gallant Field Marshal can have meant. I hold, on the contrary, that the military reputation of this country stands on as high a pinnacle at this moment as it has ever done.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: The best thing for the Government to do would be to show themselves able to retrieve that reputation.
  EARL GEANVILLE: That is entirely begging the question. We may have been perfectly wrong. General Gordon himself may have been perfectly wrong in thinking that, by perfectly peaceable means, he, by his great authority and his knowledge of the country and the people, would be successful, without military assistance, when he left this country. He expressed a strong opinion that he would be able to bring things to a satisfactory conclusion, and he may have been wrong; but that has abso-
  680
  lutely nothing to do with the military reputation of the British Army. The noble and gallant Lord said the reason why our policy was wrong was that our officers were anxious to go on. I should like to know whether that desire to go on is confined to British officers? Take French officers, and especially Russian officers—you will find that men in the Military Profession are always anxious to go forward, whatever the opinion of those at home as to matters of policy may be. Then the noble Earl said it did not signify what the cause was that took us to the Soudan. I am bound to say it signifies very much. It was, if possible, to save General Gordon. I do not believe it was a question of time—that is purely a matter of opinion. I believe that treachery would have had effect at whatever time the Relief Expedition might have arrived. Then the noble Earl went on and gave from Mr. Power's letters—charming letters—a description of the happy state of the Soudan before these operations took place. The noble Duke contradicted that by saying that the Government was perfectly detestable. The noble Earl, however, omitted two or three matters entirely in dealing with those letters. I refer to some of the passages relating to the perfect abomination and cruelty practised by that Government.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: All I intended to convey was that the country was perfectly safe and quiet at the time that Mr. Power made the journey which he describes.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am glad the noble Earl gives up entirely the question of good government. I beg him to refer to the letters when he gets time, and he will find the descriptions of the cruelties and abominations of the Government there exceeds anything General Gordon himself has said. Then the noble Earl compared our position in Egypt to that of Turkey conquering this country and announcing her intention of cutting off Ireland from us. As to that I must say that if anybody should conquer this country, I believe they would find that, on the whole, our administration is somewhat better than that existing in Egypt. If the Government in Egypt was entirely destroyed and put an end to, I admit there might be some obligation to replace it. But I cannot see, because you go to a country which is badly

  681
  governed, and you are there for a certain time and for a certain object, that it is an obligation which surpasses every other consideration that you should be obliged to put a good Government in its stead. The arguments we have heard, except those from the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, have been en tirely advanced with regard to the necessity of going to Khartoum. The noble Duke, in a very remarkable and most important speech, stated the same kind of principle, with which I entirely disagree; but his statement of the facts was very fair and straightforward. He began by thanking God that we, in this House, had no constituencies, and that we could therefore say exactly what we liked. That is an advantage of which the noble Duke has taken full avail. The noble Duke said the feeling of the people was quite different to that of the Government, and that the people would like us to take Khartoum—
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I said there was a great mass of unformed opinion, and that the people were waiting to be informed.
  EARL GRANVILLE: That is a very different thing indeed. I certainly understood the noble Duke to say that, from his knowledge, the opinion of the country was that we should go on. Whether there is a certain amount of unformed opinion I do not know; but I feel perfectly convinced that the feeling of this country is not that we should expose our Army to all the evils of conquering Khartoum and remaining there. The noble Duke was not enamoured of the Government existing in the Soudan up till recentlj7. Neither is he favourable to the Arabs; and the result he came to was that it is the duty of this Government to be not fearful of extending their responsibilities and of establishing a despotic Government at Khartoum with the object of civilizing the desert that surrounds that city. That was the only practical suggestion that the noble Duke made, and I think it goes very much beyond the range of practical policy. The noble Duke has referred to Mr. Gladstone; but I deny that Mr. Gladstone has ever shown—when there was a necessity for war—any desire to shrink from it. The noble Duke, Mr. Gladstone, and myself were associated together in the Crimean War; and during the Franco-German War we took
  682
  measures which would have entailed war if certain matters had arisen with regard to Belgium. Mr. Gladstone laid down the other day, in language which electrified the House of Commons and the country, that he was prepared to go as far as possible to maintain the honour of the country; but to say that Mr. Gladstone is opposed to going to war when a real necessity arises is a very different thing. The noble Duke forgets one thing when he disputes the opinion of the House of Commons and of the constituencies. There is, I believe, no absolute Sovereign in the world who can command the energies of a nation to that degree that a Government in this country can, if it is backed up by the opinion of the nation. I believe that our latent power—I do not say our immediate power—of defence—in some cases even of aggression—is greater in a degree than we ourselves realize, or than is realized by other countries; but I am convinced that the power can only be usefully put into action when the opinion of the country is unanimously in favour of its exercise. Therefore, in moulding your policy you cannot exclude from sight the views which the people of England will take of the course proposed to be pursued. I believe that self-government will be better for the Soudanese people than the imposition of a foreign and Egyptian Government. To the establishment of a purely English Government in the heart of Africa, which is the only other alternative, this country will never consent. I will not enter into the question of civilization by war. No doubt civilization sometimes follows war. That, however, appears to me a very different thing from instituting war voluntarily, on the strength of vague opinion, which you cannot be sure of carrying out. The chief tendency of this debate has been to show that, in the opinion of some distinguished individuals in your Lordships' House, it is desirable that we should go on and conquer, and even for an indefinite time keep, Khartoum, with the view of creating a stable Government, which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) himself has told us is a thing which could only be done in many years' time.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that the people of this country were divided into two classes—those who wished to remain

  683
  in the Soudan, and those very sorry that they had ever gone there. He belonged himself to the latter class. He had never been able to understand the reason of the first Expedition to Suakin. It was ostensibly sent out to rescue a garrison which was annihilated before they began operations against the Arabs. He was equally at a loss to understand why the second Expedition was undertaken. Those murderous Expeditions had, in fact, always been incomprehensible to him. But whatever the conduct of the Government had been in the past, they were now pursuing what he held to be the right policy; and he should, therefore, have no hesitation in supporting them, as against the Resolution of the noble Earl. The successes of their troops would not be considered less great because they were now abandoning an undertaking which ought never to have been begun. It was said that they ought not to leave the Soudan, lest it should lapse into anarchy. But they should leave intact the system of tribal Government which prevailed in that region; and, consequently, there was no special reason to apprehend anarchy. The tribes would still remain subject to their own forms of Government. Glorious as the work of civilization in the Soudan might be, he did not think that it was their duty to undertake it. They had done their fair share of duty as a civilizing Power. Their object in keeping India, for example, was not to benefit themselves, but simply to benefit the inhabitants of that vast country. Were they obliged to establish a second India in Africa? He did not underrate the power of this country; but he thought they had quite enough on their hands without undertaking anything more.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDobserved that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had adroitly confused the good conduct of the soldiers in the field with the military reputation of the country. The soldiers had been placed in circumstances of difficulty, not by their own act, and had behaved nobly. The military reputation of the country included the capacity of the Government to organize, and direct to a successful issue, a military operation. In that the Government had ignominiously failed, and their military reputation had correspondingly suffered. When the Return of those who had died
  684
  in Egypt should be furnished, the public would read that melancholy record with shame and sorrow, and would grieve that so many good lives had been lost to so little purpose.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he had listened with disappointment to the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had expected to hear some reasons given for the extraordinary change of policy which had taken place. The noble Earl had vindicated the character of their soldiers; but that vindication was quite unnecessary. The noble Earl had thought it to be necessary, owing to some misunderstanding of what was said by the noble and gallant Lord the Field Marshal (Lord Napier of Magdala) who sat on the Cross Benches. The noble Earl seemed to think that the noble and gallant Lord had said that indelible disgrace had fallen upon the British Army; but what he did say was, that owing to the death of General Gordon and the capture of Khartoum an indelible disgrace had fallen upon them—his noble and gallant Friend said nothing at all about the Army. Only a short time ago, the noble and gallant Lord passed a well-deserved eulogium upon the gallant way in which their soldiers had behaved. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was also mistaken in supposing that the noble and gallant Lord had said anything about the government of the Soudan; what the noble and gallant Lord commented upon was the fact that that country was so peaceful that it had been possible for three Englishmen to travel 30 miles from Suakin and be safe. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made use of an argument which was generally brought forward in debates of that kind, and had asked whether the House wished the country to incur the great expense of going to Khartoum and establishing a settled Government there, and so on. But he would remind the noble Earl that what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Napier of Magdala) recommended to be done was what Her Majesty's Government a few weeks ago said they intended to do. They did not want a justification of what the Government announced as their policy a short time ago; what they wanted was a justifica-

  685
  tion of the change that had since taken place. He would not go into the details of all "this sad, eventful history;" he would limit himself to what had taken place in the Soudan. He believed their misfortunes in that country originated in the fact that they allowed their Representative to tell Egypt that she must abandon the Soudan, without making any provision for the evacuation of the garrisons, and without making any provision for their safety ourselves. He did not think it was possible for him to use words too strong to express what he felt on that point. He thought no nation was ever guilty of a more cowardly or criminal act than this country was, in compelling Egypt to abandon her own soldiers—not allowing her to do anything for them, while not taking any step to secure their safety ourselves. The result of that was, that General Gordon was sent on his Mission to Khartoum. And that was the only point upon which he could not agree with the noble Duke. He could not understand how Hor Majesty's Government were to be justified for thinking that General Gordon could possibly carry out such an undertaking; for their Lordships would remember that he was sent, not only to report on the best means of evacuating the garrisons, but that he was allowed by Her Majesty's Government to accept the post of Governor General of the Soudan, and that it was his duty, not only to report upon the garrisons, but to take means for evacuating them, and to check the Slave Trade. He could not understand how the Government could think that that great task could be successfully accomplished by one man, sent out unaided, as General Gordon was. He wanted to impress upon their Lordships that there was no doubt about what the duties of General Gordon were, and about the objects of Lord Wolseley's Expedition. The object of sending out that Expedition was primarily the rescue of General Gordon and those whom he wished to bring away, and also to provide a proper defence against an attack on Egypt. There were also other aims—namely, the evacuation of the garrisons, crushing the Mahdi, establishing some sort of orderly Government, and checking the Slave Trade. All those details were specified, and some of them were not
  686
  possible to be carried out. General Gordon was killed and Khartoum was taken, and the garrisons could not he saved. But there remained other work for the Expedition to do. After the failure of the Expedition in its primary object of rescuing General Gordon, Her Majesty's Government formulated distinctly what their intentions were and what their policy was. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, in a debate on the 18th of February, that orders might have been given to Lord Wolseley to retreat on the fall of Khartoum; but the noble Earl dismissed that idea, his own words being that there were overwhelming objections to that course, both military and political, because it would not only have exposed Egypt to great danger of invasion, but it might have exposed England to injury and insult in other parts of the world. The noble Earl said it was necessary to explain to General Wolseley what the policy of the Government was—namely, to check the advance of the Mahdi, and for that purpose to destroy the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum. At the same time, the Prime Minister made a very similar statement in "another place." He said the Mahdi had become powerful by the fall of Khartoum, and the Government were determined to destroy the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum; and in many words he said what the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said in few words—that it was necessary to do so for the safety of Egypt, and that they were in honour bound to set up some form of Government in the Soudan, and to check the Slave Trade. The noble Earl spoke very clearly on that point. He said the Government must explain that what they desired to see was a settled Government in the Soudan, the best that could be established, and that some arrangement must be made with the Egyptian Government by way of subsidy; and that the establishment of a settled Government in the Soudan faithfully interpreted the desire of the Government. The noble Earl finished by saying that, as far as their interests were concerned, their policy was that they should hold their own in the country for the benefit and advantage of the people, and in the best manner that could be arranged. The Marquess of Hartington, in the other House,

  687
  spoke, if possible, more strongly, and in the same direction. He said that after the fall of Khartoum the lesson must be taught, not only to Central Africa, but to the whole Empire, that the policy of the Government would not be reversed; that it concerned the safety of their Indian Empire, and so on. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies also spoke perfectly clearly and strongly. He said it was clear that, with a fanatical Army and Chief at Khartoum, Egypt would not be safe, and that they were bound to secure the Khedive from the danger of an irruption from that quarter; that the Government did not say that Khartoum and Berber were to be held by this or that Chief, but that they did say they must be held by some power that was not opposed to the maintenance of peace, and that was not a danger to the independence of Egypt. "What he wished to impress upon their Lordships was, that Her Majesty's Government, only a very few weeks ago, announced as strongly and plainly as men could speak that their policy was to go on to Khartoum; that they considered it necessary to do so for the safety of Egypt; that their object was to set up some stable form of Government there, and to put a check on the Slave Trade. The way in which that was begun was by giving instructions to Lord Wolseley, and he therefore determined to concentrate his troops in summer quarters; a railway was to be constructed, and an autumn campaign was to be undertaken. Having those instructions from Her Majesty's Government, Lord Wolseley spoke in the same strain himself. Speaking to one of General Gordon's officers, who had escaped from Khartoum, he said—
  "We mean to destroy the power of the Hahdi at Khartoum, no matter how long it will take;"
  and he further said—
  "You know Her Majesty's Government are incapable of drawing hack from any enterprize they have begun."
  That was an unfortunate statement for Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly certain that they were not only capable of drawing back from an enterprize they had begun, but that they were actually incapable of continuing in any enterprize on which they had started. From those facts it was clear that the Government formulated a
  688
  strong and distinct policy a short time ago; and what he desired to find out, if the Government would give them any information, was what had occurred to change the policy of the Government. It had been given as a reason by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the Prime Minister in the other House that, owing to present circumstances, it was necessary to hold the whole of the military resources of the country available for service, including the Forces in the Soudan. That was perfectly natural and understandable; but surely no one would dispute that the whole military resources of the country were available wherever they might be required for the purposes of the Empire. But the real reason came out shortly after. The Marquess of Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain in the other House explained, practically, that the Government had changed their policy because, as they said, though the Government policy had changed, circumstances had changed also, that the Mahdi was no longer in Khartoum, that he had not advanced as they had expected he would do, and that the same necessity for going to Khartoum no longer existed. But although the Mahdi was not personally at Khartoum, he had only withdrawn temporarily. It was very dangerous to trust to rumours as to the strength or weakness of the Mahdi. Before Abu Klea Lord Wolseley himself reported that he did not expect any resistance; and the Mudir of Dongola, of all authorities, said that the Mahdi's forces were decimated by sickness, that his men were dying of starvation, and that he was being deserted. Exactly the same thing was said now, and, for all they could tell, with no more truth than on former occasions. He entreated Her Majesty's Government not to place reliance, as they did, on rumours that the Mahdi's strength had fallen off, and that his men had dispersed. No doubt, for a time they had done so, in order to complete their agricultural operations; but no sooner would the backs of our soldiers be turned than infallibly they would re-assemble, and the Mahdi would be as strong as before. He would remind their Lordships that the Mahdi himself, in a Proclamation which he made not long ago, said he had no intention of following us any more, and that he was going to stop and let the

  689
  sun do its work upon our troops. Now, Her Majesty's Government said that because the Mahdi did not follow them up, and because his men appeared to have fallen off, there was no necessity to go to Khartoum. Her Majesty's Government, by the course they wore pursuing, were really signing the commission of the Mahdi as a Mahdi. He required success to prove his title to be a Mahdi; and if they left the country, as the Government said they were going to do, he would be successful; he would have conquered, and they would be unsuccessful. They had not done a single thing that they went to the Soudan to do; they had not rescued General Gordon—they were too late; they had not taken Khartoum—they were too late; they had not evacuated a single garrison; they had not checked the Slave Trade. They had done none of those things which the Government two or three weeks ago said they were determined should be done: and if they did none of those things, not only would the Arabs think we were beaten, but they would have a right to say that we were beaten. He believed that Khartoum was so situated geographically that it must always be of great importance. They could not over-estimate its position. Khartoum was the most important point of North Africa for commerce. All the trade of the Soudan went by Khartoum. If they wished to get rid of the Slave Trade, to work the railway, and to introduce some other kind of industry, they must go to Khartoum. Unless they gave the people something else to do, the people must go into the only business they had, which was the Slave Trade. If they wanted to protect Egypt and make it safe—to set up some form of Government, even if they had to nurse it for awhile, and to stem the barbarism of the Mahdi—the only point at which they could do that was at Khartoum. Let thorn make their railway to Berber, bring out the produce of the vast Provinces of the Soudan—and let them remember what a vast produce General Gordon sent out before, when he was Governor General; let their goods go into the country, let them establish their influence, and they would not only do more to check the Slave Trade than by any other means, but they would erect a real barrier against the incursions of nomadic tribes and of
  690
  religious fanaticism—the only real barrier that could keep back the tide of that fanaticism from Egypt. If they went down to Dongola or Wady Haifa, or any other line that might be chosen, nothing would keep back the fanaticism of the Mahdi from getting at the tribes behind them. There were things that could not be got over, and among them was the importance, geographically, ethnographically, and commercially, of Khartoum, and the necessity of communicating with it by railway. If that were carried out, as the Government intended a short time ago, then the blood that had been shed would have some justification. But if nothing was done to carry out the policy which they promulgated three or four weeks ago, there was no justification whatever for the blood that had been shed and for the money that had been spent. In that case Her Majesty's Government were guilty of, and ought to be indicted for, wilful murder, for they would have done nothing to carry out the aims and ends which they had said they had in view.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should not have risen to join in this debate but that I understand it is the intention of my noble Friend who opened this debate to press his Motion to a division; and I wish to explain why I do not propose to vote with him. With respect to the past history of this question, very much has been said to-night which is very valuable, but which it is needless to repeat. It is impossible to exaggerate the failure of the Government in Egypt. They have failed in every object which they undertook. They have failed to make their railway; they have failed to check the Mahdi; they have failed to set up a Government in the Soudan; they have failed to rescue numbers of persons; they have failed to relieve the garrisons that have been slaughtered, and they have failed to rescue the heroic General Gordon. They have committed all these failures, and they have committed them at a terrible price—at the price of Arab blood, poured out like water upon the desert, for no cause or reason whatever—blood which has been as much thrown away, blood that is as much causelessly shed, as blood that is shed—I hardly like to use the word, but it has already been used by noble Friend—by any vulgar murderer at home. Of course,

  691
  I do not accuse the Government of anything but the most philanthropic and benevolent motives; but I am speaking not of motives, but of results; and, remembering that the only justification of the terrible sufferings of war is that there should be some definite cause which is really worth striving for, that no such cause has been attained by the Government, and that no adequate efforts have been made by them to secure their object, I say that it has been sacrificed by sheer mismanagement, blundering, and indecision and delay. It is not adverse fortune abroad that has condemned all their efforts to failure, but adverse imbecility at home. I repeat that all this noble Arab blood has been causelessly shed. What must be said of that blood, though happily less in quantity, still most precious, of our own countrymen—men drawn in many cases from families with which your Lordships are familiar—and also of men drawn from all classes in the country, for whom your sympathy is not the less keen—men who freely gave up their lives for their country's good, and never grudged the sacrifice, but who, we feel, have not given up their lives at the bidding of their country, but only to keep in power an incompetent Government at home. It is impossible, I say, to exaggerate the terrible failures of the Government; but, at the same time, it is impossible to reflect without sorrow upon the state of things which we leave behind us. My noble Friend who introduced this Motion very pointedly showed, by reference to the letters of Mr. Power, the difference between the state of the Soudan and the attitude of its people towards us before those operations commenced, and what its state and the feelings of its people are now. He showed that we have turned the greatest friendliness into the greatest hostility; and it is an hostility which will not only strike ourselves. We have sown Hood feuds in the desert from one end to the other; we have pointed out to Osman Digna and to the Mahdi, who are their enemies, whom they are and whom they are not to trust; and having marked upon them the stigma of that hostility, so that there can be no mistake in the minds of those Chiefs as to who are their enemies, we have left these men, who in friendliness to us have sacrificed their safe position, un-
  692
  protected, undefended, to the savage vengeance of their foes. A further question is, in what state do we leave—not only the tribes of the desert—in what state do we leave the power of England? The power of England depends in no small degree in a belief of the reality of her professions and the strength and honesty of her purposes. We have induced our gallant General, Lord Wolseley, openly in the sight of all Egypt and of all the world, to commit himself to promises that have not been kept, to threats that have not been fulfilled, and to a profession of power which has been reduced to impotent bravado. He is honest, resolute, and brave enough. He has no doubt of the truth and reality of the words he has been speaking; but he has found to his cost that he is an agent on behalf of principals who have not the capacity or the courage to act up to the words which they have authorized him to speak. The great disgrace does not fall upon him alone, but it falls upon England, and upon England's cause throughout the world; and it affixes the stigma of insincerity to any declaration which in any part of the world for many years to come we may make. It will be remembered everywhere against us that we have asked for the friendship and alliance of men whom we have afterwards abandoned to their fate; and that through the most trusted General of our Army we have made promises and have announced intentions which within a few weeks we found that we had not the resolution to maintain. My Lords, all these things are very painful to think of; and, if any good could be done by casting censure upon Her Majesty's Government, I should feel no hesitation in doing it. But this is not a mere Vote of Censure. It looks to the future as well as to the past; and when it looks to the future I must ask what there is in the present state of affairs which justifies us in departing from that rule which, I admit, is not absolutely inexorable, but which is generally observed—that the devising of policy should be left to the Government, and that the judgment of policy when it has been devised should be left to Parliament. I have not got the exact form of my noble Friend's words; but we are asked to say that a settled Government should be established in the Eastern Soudan. I think that was a reasonable demand two months ago;

  693
  but what has taken place since then? Our strength in these countries is not the mere strength of the sword—it is the strength of the power which we can exercise over the feelings, over the allegiance, and over the belief of their inhabitants. We can do nothing if we are look upon from one end of the country to another as enemies, or if we are looked upon with distrust. And what my noble Friend asks us to do is not merely to carry out the policy to which we assented six weeks ago; but he asks his to do it in the face of circumstances which have been fundamentally altered by the action of Her Majesty's Government. Another retreat has taken place; another abandonment has taken place; another disavowal of our former promises; another indication of the instability of our purpose, and the worthlessness of our resolutions. It will be weighted with all the disgrace of the last fortnight that we shall undertake this duty which my noble Friend asks us to declare it to be necessary to undertake before we leave the Soudan. I am not prepared to say that my noble Friend is wrong, and that these things ought not to be done; but I ask whether circumstances exist which would justify us in stepping outside the well-known path of a Legislative Assembly, in laying down a policy for the future? I say that the circumstances are no longer the same as they were; because by the action of Her Majesty's Government we have lost much of our physical, and all of our moral, force. Whether we ought still to undertake this duty I cannot tell until I have more information. No information has been given to us. We have so little information that, actually, after promising again and again that he would explain to us the policy of the Government in Egypt, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has left it to his Colleagues in the other House, and ho has never to this day told us what the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt is. I hope that is a sign of grace; I hope it shows that he was acting with great reluctance in regard to the policy into which he was forced by his Colleagues. But, be that as it may, it is an indication of the paucity of the information we have received. What resolution we may come to when we know all the circumstances of the case, when all the correspondence is laid before us, when we are really able to ascertain what the opinion of the Gene-
  694
  rals on the spot is, when we know more of the steps that have led up to this disastrous abandonment, I do not attempt to forecast. I do not wish to pledge myself at all; but I do not feel that, as we stand now, we are in a position to make this declaration of policy which my noble Friend asks from us. And I have one more cause for hesitation which prevents mo voting for the Resolution. This may mean a large war—a long succession of military operations. In whose hands will those military operations be placed? In the hands of the present Government? Is there the slightest ground for believing that they will be conducted with vigour or success? On the contrary, everything in the past points to the probability that they will be planned with as little foresight, will be conducted with as much procrastination, and will end in as much disaster, as those which they have already carried on. I decline to do anything to set on foot a series of operations of which that would be the issue; and believing that no advantage will result to the House from adopting this Resolution—though I believe heartily in many of the sentiments which have fallen from my noble Friend in the course of his eloquent speech—I feel that I should not be justified in voting with him.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not rise to protract this debate, but to answer one question that has been repeatedly put by speakers in the course of this discussion. We have been asked—"What is the meaning of the change, or the apparent change, in your purpose—why do you not go to Khartoum, as you said you would do some months ago—why have you abandoned that intention now?" Well, if there has been any modification of opinion on that subject, it is not confined to one side of the House; because, if I recollect aright, earlier in the Session the noble Marquess opposite laid it down in very positive terms that we should not go to Khartoum.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said anything about going to Khartoum, or leaving the Soudan.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Marquess told us he believes that the circumstances are altered. That is true; but if that is a plea for him, it is equally a plea for us. If I am asked why we

  695
  do not propose to go to Khartoum now, my answer is, what are we to go there for? Do you mean to go merely in order to come away again? What would be the use of that? We spoke, no doubt, of breaking the power of the Mahdi; but for what purpose did we desire that his power should be broken? We do not object to any person who may be the Ruler of Khartoum. We have all along disclaimed any intention of establishing a permanent influence there. From first to last our object has been one and the same—namely, to take such steps as seemed to us necessary and likely to be effectual for the protection of Egypt. That is the only interest we have in the matter; and we believe that the necessary lesson has been taught to the Arabs, and that after the experience they have had of the English arms they will not attack us again, nor attempt to molest our Egyptian garrisons. We also believe that the Mahdi is no longer a dangerous enemy; and, therefore, why should we throw away any more lives merely for the purpose of advancing to Khartoum? If we were intending to abandon Egypt, and to leave to the mercy of any invading Power those Egyptian Natives whom we had undertaken to protect, then I quite admit that the charge which has been made against ns would be true. But we have not avowed any intention of that kind; we have not formed and such intention; and so long as we hold ourselves responsible for the defence of Egypt, which so long as we occupy it we do, then, whether Egypt will be defended most effectually on the Frontier or by aggressive operations in the Soudan may be an important military question, but it is not a question of policy. It has been said by some noble Lords that there has been no justification for the Arab blood shed; but the justification is very clear and perfectly conclusive to my mind. Who are these Arab tribes? They were engaged in an aggressive movement for the propagation by force of arms of their religious views. We have checked them; we may feel tolerably sure that after the defeats they have sustained they will not repeat their attempt; and, therefore, the operations in which we have been engaged have had the desired result. I cannot pass entirely without notice the remarks of the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of
  696
  Argyll), who ranged over various topics which were, no doubt, very important, but most of which have been discussed by your Lordships on several previous occasions. I must protest, however, against a doctrine which the noble Duke avowed plainly and frankly, and which I think is accepted by a good many of your Lordships. The noble Duke said that we should fail in our duties to civilization, and should not be realizing the designs of Providence, if we did not undertake to subjugate that country of the Soudan in the interests of civilization. The noble Duke was very indignant with us that we had declined to undertake that task; and he was still more indignant that we had declined to do it on the ground that we are over weighted already. I maintain that it is not our business to take possession of every part of the world which is inhabited by savages, and which it might be in our power to civilize. I want to know where obligations of this kind are to end. Have we no duties nearer home? Is it assured that our civilization is so perfect that we have nothing to do within a few miles of the place where we are now sitting? Can we say that we are so absolutely free from poverty and distress that we can afford to spend millions upon millions on the improvement of races with whom we have no connection? And, further, if it be the duty, which I do not admit, on the part of any Power which is civilized to conquer savage races for the purpose of improving their condition, then I contend we have done our full share of that work, and are doing it now. I do not go into the question how far our object has been to benefit them, or how far our presence has been an unmixed benefit; but when we consider the millions of people whom we have to look after at home, and the claims upon us of our Empire with its immense population, I think it is rather extraordinary on the part of anyone, whether he be an Englishman or a foreigner, to say to us—"You have not done your share in the civilizing work." The noble Duke said that other nations were going into Africa and undertaking the duty which we had refused to undertake; but the other nations referred to hero only tried to colonize Africa because they had no Colonies elsewhere. We have established our hold on all those parts of the world which

  697
  are best suited to European Settlements; they have only taken those parts which we have left. The noble Duke then proceeded to draw a graphic picture of the benefits which would arise from our occupation of the Soudan. I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject, but I have read the writings of recent travellers in that country; and I believe those countries hold out very different prospects from those which are claimed for it. Trade, no doubt, exists; but the only trade is that in slaves and in ivory, the former of which we are putting down, the latter of which will soon come to an end when the few elephants which remain are destroyed. But even if I am wrong—if we are to derive great benefits from the trade of the Soudan, is it necessary for that purpose to conquer the country? You can hardly imagine a more savage race of people than the great majority of those who inhabit the West Coast of Africa; but it is a matter of old observation that our best trade is done with races there with whom we have no connection as rulers, or in any way except as traders. There is one other remark I would make. We are told that by holding the Soudan we should induce the Arabs to accept our civilization, and make ourselves popular with them. I can name a country a good deal nearer home where we have effectually established our political and administrative power, and where we have not succeeded, nevertheless, in gaining the affections of the people. I very much doubt whether at any time we could bring, unless at quite disproportionate expense, that vast and desert country within the reach of civilization, even if we could reckon upon peace and the absolute non-interference of other European Powers, which, as we know, is not a condition likely to be realized.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that this subject involved, not only the policy of the Government in the Soudan, but their whole policy. This question, indeed, was a pivot on which the judgment of the country would be asked on the whole Government policy at the next Election. In listening to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, he had hoped to hear a policy enunciated which would serve as a kind of rock to which they might cling in the midst of the political devastation
  698
  which surrounded them. He had been disappointed, however. He maintained that the function of the Opposition was not one merely of criticism; they ought to place an alternative policy before the country. He did not think it would have been difficult for the noble Marquess to have given some indication in that respect; but in the absence of such an indication they could only assume that the fatal error which clung to the character of the Liberal Party was also characteristic of the Conservative Party—namely, a persistent trimming. He regretted that neither from the Government nor from the Leader of the Opposition had their Lordships received the indication of a definite policy with regard to the Soudan. The statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) as to spending millions in the Soudan came with a very bad grace from a Government which had already wasted some £10,000,000 in Egypt, and that for no apparent object whatever.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the supposition of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) that the Mahdi was overawed by our Forces was quite unfounded, and the anxiety of the Government to withdraw from the Soudan would greatly embolden him. If he were quiet now, it was reculer pour mieux sauter—he was a fanatic who would convert all whom he captured to his form of Mahommedanism on pain of death. But as to the Government—in the words of the Poet Cowper, late a Clerk of their Lordships' House, wrote what was applicable to the Ministry—
  "They trust in armies, but their courage dies;"
  —not the courage of the troops, who want support at home. The Ministry also trust—
  "In wisdom, wealth, in fortune, and in lies"
  —not lies by themselves, but in their believing reports of the enemy being daunted; and, in the words of the poet which follow:—
  "And all they trust in fails them, as it must,
  If he command in whom they place no trust."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in reply, said, that he had listened with some astonishment to the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby), and the reasons

  699
  which had been given for the occupation of the Soudan. He did not believe in blank cartridge Motions, and was anxious to divide. Without having had any communication with the Leaders of the Conservative Party, ho had expected they would have supported this Motion, especially having regard to the fact that the House carried a somewhat similar Resolution by a large majority on the 25th of February; but he was disappointed in this reasonable expectation, and having regard to the empty state of the House at that moment he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He was quite satisfied with the debate that it had aroused.
  Amendment and Original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.