Sitting of 22 February 1886

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Henry O'Shea, esquire, for Galway Borough.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Parliamentary Procedure, appointed; Endowed Schools Acts, appointed; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [February 19] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Bedford and Peterborough Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Rivers Purification* [101]; Mines* [102]; Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) * [103]; Leaseholds (Facilities of Purchase of Fee Simple) * [104]; Removal Terms (Burghs) (Scotland) Act (1881) Amendment* [105]; Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) (Scotland)* [106]; Glebe Lands (Ireland) Acts Continuance* [107]; Coal Mines Regulation Act (1872) Amendment* [108]; Real Assets Administration* [109].
Second Reading—Land Registry [91].

QUSTIONS.

  POLITICAL MEETINGS—SPEECH OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN—"RANSOM."
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I shall ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has seen the following passage in Mr. Burns' speech in Hyde Park yesterday at a meeting of the Social Democratic Federation:—
  "You are told by Mr. Chamberlain that the day has come when property should pay ransom to those from whom property has been stolen;"
  and, whether the quotation is correct, and conveys the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): I will spare the hon. Member the trouble of putting the Question down. The quotation is not correct.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— ESTATE OF COLONEL CLIVE.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that Colonel the honourable George Windsor Windsor Clive has sued Bryan Byrne, Bailyland, and other tenants upon his estate in the Dundalk division of the county Louth, for the hanging gale due

  877
  1st November last; whether it is the fact that in former and comparatively prosperous years said hanging gale has not been asked from said tenants until six months after the day on which it became legally due; whether he is aware that this will make the third half-year's rent with law costs which has been demanded by Colonel Olive during the (for farmers) admittedly disastrous year, 1885; and, whether, in view of the great falling off in the prices of agricultural produce, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take steps for relieving the distress of Irish tenants?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): A communication has been made to mo to-day by Colonel Clive which does not coincide with the information which had previously reached me; and if the hon. Member wishes to press that part of his Question, I must ask him to postpone it till further inquiry has been made. With regard to the general question raised in the last paragraph, I will ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the matter until a future day, as I am in communication with the authorities in Dublin on the subject.

  ARMS ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Act restricting the possession of arms in Ireland does not expire on the 1st June next; and, whether the Government intend to introduce at an early date a Bill to renew or extend its provisions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Act will expire on June 1 next, I believe; but it would be quite premature for me to make any announcement now of the intentions of the Government with respect to it.
  MR. LEWISgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on that day fortnight.

  METROPOLIS—LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Report of the late Royal Commission on the City Guilds?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): My hon. Friend is probably aware that in 1885 a Bill on this subject was introduced by the then President of the Local Government Board. I shall confer with my right hon. Friend who now holds that Office as to the re-introduction of that or a similar Bill.

  INDUSTRIAL DWELLINGS ACT, 1885— DISUSED PRISONS, METROPOLIS.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take steps at an early date in order that the disused prisons in the Metropolis named in the Dwellings Act of 1885 may be demolished, and that remunerative occupation for workmen as well as decent and cheap house accommodation for the poor may be provided by the erection of artizans' dwellings on the sites of these prisons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)(who replied) said: The only two prisons of those named in the Act of 1885 which have, up to the present, been finally discontinued are Coldbath Fields and Clerkenwell. Treasury sanction has been asked, but not yet received, for the sale by auction of Coldbath Fields. The Middlesex Justices have not yet decided whether to accept or refuse the re-conveyance of Clerkenwell. With regard to the other two prisons named in the Act, Pentonville will not be discontinued, and the fate of Millbank is not yet decided upon.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL YACHT "OSBORNE."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it be true that the Royal Yacht Osborne is about to undergo extensive alterations; and, if so, whether he will be good enough to inform the House the nature and estimated cost of the same; also the total amount expended on repairs, alterations, and decorations upon ship and engine-room since the period when originally commissioned?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): The Osborne is not about to undergo extensive alterations. A sum of £4,519 was approved on December 14 last for annual refit of hull, machinery, masts, yards, boats,

  879
  rigging, and stores. This amount includes £777 for providing extra accommodation on the bridge, and £54 for five other small alterations. The sums expended on account of repairs, alterations, and decorations of the ship and engine-room since the date of her completion for sea are as follows, completed in 1874:—Hull, £52,509; machinery, £19,044; masts, boats, rigging, stores, &c., £32,066; total, £103,619. A Parliamentary Return of April 27, 1883 (157) gives a great deal of detailed information about this vessel.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE NATIONAL ENSIGN.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there would be any objection to the hoisting of the National Ensign over the Palace of Westminster during the Session of Parliament; and, if there would be no objection, whether he would give orders to have it so hoisted?
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER)(who replied) said: Technically the Houses of Parliament are a Royal Palace comprising the old and new Palaces of Westminster. When the Sovereign is present in the House the Royal Ensign is hoisted on the Victoria Tower. No other ensign could be properly hoisted.

  POST OFFICE (PARCELS POST)—CARRIAGE OF PARCELS IN SUBURBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. BOORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What provision is made for the carriage of packages transmitted by the Parcels Post in suburban and rural districts; and, whether any extra remuneration is given to letter carriers who, in addition to their usual burthen, have to carry heavy parcels?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that the wages of rural postmen did not vary with the weight carried, but with the distance traversed and the time occupied. The maximum weight was 35 lbs., which gradually diminished as the postman went on.

  POST OFFICE—THE POSTAL UNION— EXTENSION TO AUSTRALASIA.
  MR. J. H. HEATON (for Mr. J. HENNIKER)asked the Financial Secre-
  880
  tary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the delay in the extension of the Postal Union system to Australasia; and, is there a probability of the present high rate of postage on letters to and from the Australasian Colonies being reduced in a short time?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER), in reply, said, it was not intended to lower the rate of postage to the Colonies; and no intimation had been received that the Colonies themselves desired any change to be made.

  EGYPT—ARMED STEAMERS ON THE NILE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many shallow water armed fighting steamers are at present engaged in patrolling the Nile, and, whether, at its next rising, it is intended that a flotilla of portable armed steam craft shall be despatched for the purpose of clearing the upper reaches of the river of hostile tribes between Wady Haifa, Dongola, and Berber?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): With the hon. Member's permission, I will reply to this Question. The Nile is at present patrolled by four armed shallow-water steamers, all stern-wheelers—the Lotus and Shaban above Wady Haifa, and the Tamai and El Teb between that place and Assouan. Two other vessels for this duty have been sent out and have arrived at Alexandria. I am not aware of any such intention on the part of the Government as that indicated in the latter part of the Question.

  COAST DEFENCES—DEFENCE OF THE COAST OF DURHAM.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to carry out the official recommendations recently made for the Volunteer Naval and Torpedo Defence of the Wear and the Tees, and the intermediate coast line of South-East Durham?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): Establishments for submarine mining are in process of construction on the Tees and Tyne, Stores and vessels have been purchased for the submarine mining defences of

  881
  those rivers, and also of the Wear. In addition to the defence establishments, negotiations are in progress for the purchase at Middlesbrough of a site on which to erect buildings where instruction can be given in submarine mining. On the Tyne a local Volunteer Force for submarine mining has been raised, and has already been once trained in conjunction with a section of the coast battalion of Royal Engineers.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE) DEPARTMENT— AMMUNITION.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Secretary of State for War, If the statement in The Times of the 6th February is correct, that the late Government have given an order to the firm of Messieurs William Armstrong and Company for half a million's worth of shot and shell; and, if so, can he state for which guns they are intended?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): No, Sir; the statement is not correct.

  SCOTLAND—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT—POLLING PLACES IN ARGYLLSHIRE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If he will lay upon the Table any correspondence that may have passed between the late Secretary for Scotland and the late Lord Advocate and Sheriff of Argyllshire, having reference to the polling places in that county?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is not usual to lay upon the Table of the House official Correspondence of this kind; but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate will be very glad to answer any Questions upon the subject so far as it relates to his period of Office, and I shall be glad to do so in so far as it relates to mine.

  INDIA—RELIGIOUS PROVISIONS—PROTESTANT CHAPLAINS AND CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
  MR. DONALD SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, while Protestant Chaplains with the Army in India are allowed full pay when they fall ill, and when they take their vacation, Catholic Chaplains under similar circumstances are de-
  882
  prived of all pay; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to remedy the unequal treatment of the Catholic Chaplains?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH)(who replied) said: Chaplains on the Indian Establishment—that is, Protestant chaplains—are Government servants appointed by the State. As such, they receive, under the provisions of the Leave Code, allowances when on leave, whether with or without medical certificate. The Roman Catholic priests who minister to the British troops in India are not Government servants, and are not appointed by the State. The Government merely pays them certain allowances for the ministrations which they afford to the soldiers; but beyond this they have no connection with the State. I am not aware that they are deprived of all pay when casually prevented by sickness from doing duty. The question of the position of Roman Catholic priests in India was carefully considered in 1876, and the matter was then placed on the footing on which it now stands. The details of the arrangement are to be found in Return No. 243 of 1876.

  ARMY (SMALL ARMS)—USE OF GERMAN STEEL FOR SWORD BLADES.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Secretary of State for War, If the statement about Cavalry swords in The Times of the 16th instant is authoritative; if so, can he state why the contractor should apply for leave to use German steel when our own factory at Enfield found no difficulty in obtaining English steel; whether the application had been refused; whether it is a fact that, in addition to the blades coming from Germany, the hilts and scabbards were also made and fitted there; whether, in future, he will take care the swords are made in England, as, according to the War Office statement, there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable steel in Sheffield; and, whether he will issue the promised Report at once as so many swords and bayonets have proved defective?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): Yes, Sir; the statement referred to is authoritative. The contractor stated that he was unable to complete the number of swords he had to supply without, to some extent, em-

  883
  ploying Solingen blades, and applied for permission to do so. This permission has been granted, as his contract only binds him to supply swords which shall stand certain tests. The order which was given from the War Office to Solingen to complete the required quantity which could not be obtained in England is for swords with scabbards complete. Orders for swords have not been given, and will not be given, to the foreign trade when the number required within a given time can be procured from the home trade aided by the Government factory at Enfield. The promised Report will not be complete until all the swords and bayonets shall have been tested, which we hope will be accomplished in a few weeks.

  GOVERNMENT OF LONDON— LEGISLATION.
  MR. CREMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government intend at an early date to introduce a Bill dealing with the Government of London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The hon. Member is probably unaware that on Friday I answered an identical Question. I stated then that it was out of my power to make any definite statement on this subject at present.

  EGYPT—THE SLAVE TRADE—THE CONVENTION OF 1877.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention made between Italy and the United Kingdom, on the 21st December last, relative to the Convention entered into by Egypt, on the 4th August 1877, for the suppression of the Slave Trade is to be enforced, or remain comparatively a dead letter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The document to which the hon. Member refers is not a Convention, but a Declaration recording the adhesion of Italy to the Convention of the 4th of August, 1877, between Great Britain and Egypt. Under the provisions of the Slave Trade Act of 1873 the Declaration must be applied by Order in Council. The Order is in course of preparation, and as soon as it is issued the Declaration as regards this country will enter into force.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ARKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay the Report of Mr. Stevenson, C.E., on the condition of the Arklow Harbour works, upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (who replied) said: I shall be happy to lay a copy of this Report on the Table if my hon. Friend will move for it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MICHAEL STOREY.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report of the observations of Mr. Darley, the County Court Judge, in delivering judgment, at the recent quarter sessions held in Wicklow, in the case of Michael Storey, in which he said—
  "It was a very serious matter to send this man to gaol without the option of a fine, to send him to gaol for six months (with hard lahour), because he put his hand against a policeman, saying, 'I won't allow you to cross my land,' was monstrous, and the moment the policeman remonstrated, and said he would arrest him, it was admitted, he allowed the policeman to pass;"
  whether the decision of the magistrates was reversed, and a fine of £5 imposed on Mr. Storey; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the Lord Chancellor to take any notice of the conduct of Messrs. Truell, Acton, and Barton, the magistrates who presided on the occasion, and at the same time take steps to have the fine remitted, or reduced to such an amount as would be sufficient penalty for the offence of a "constructive assault?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I believe the observations of the County Court Judge are correctly quoted. The question of the action of the magistrates in the case is one for the Lord Chancellor; and I shall forward the Papers to him with a view to his dealing with it. With regard to the remission or reduction of the fine, it is right to observe that that penalty was imposed by the Court which reviewed and reversed the decision of the magistrates. However, if a Memorial on the subject is presented to the Lord Lieutenant it will be duly considered.

  INLAND REVENUE—PAY OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  MR. BAUMANNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true, as stated by The Standard and Globe newspapers of January 8th, that extensive reductions are to be made in the scales of pay given to Customs Officers; and, if so, whether care will be taken in applying the new scales to inflict no injury on the prospects of promotion of the officers now on the establishment who entired the service under entirely different conditions, but to confine their effect to those who may choose to enter the service hereafter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, that certain changes were being made in the Customs Department. No one would have his salary reduced in consequence; but he would not give any pledge that some modifications might not be made.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED OUTRAGES AT RICH-FORDSTOWN, CLONAKILTY, CO. CORK.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Cork Examiner newspaper of a recent date of a series of alleged outrages on the holding of Mr. John Lucas, J.P., Richfordstown House, Clonakilty, county Cork; whether the police authorities of the district have furnished any report upon the subject, and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken in consequence, or is intended to be taken; and, whether, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government will consider it their duty to order a full local investigation into all the facts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have to acknowledge the receipt of a newspaper cutting which the hon. Member was good enough to send me in reference to this case. The Police Report of the matter having been laid before the late Attorney General for Ireland, he directed that summonses should be issued against Mr. Lucas and his wife on the charge of feloniously setting fire to their house; and I understand that that charge is being heard to-day. The
  886
  hon. Member will, therefore, not expect me to offer any opinion on the case.

  POST OFFICE—DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. FORWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Post Office have seriously delayed the delivery of telegrams, when addressed in the same manner as letters, which are delivered in course, on the ground that the telegrams were insufficiently addressed; whether parties complaining of the delay in, and, in some cases, non-delivery of telegrams addressed in a similar manner to letters, have been informed that "a direction which may be sufficient for a letter is not sufficient for a telegram;" and, whether Her Majesty's Postmaster General approves of this action on the part of the Post Office officials; and, if so, that the House may be informed of the additional particulars required to be given on the address of a telegram beyond what are required to be stated on the address of a letter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER), in reply, said, that it had been discovered at the Post Office that an address which might be sufficient for a letter might be insufficient for a telegram. A letter insufficiently addressed might pass into the hands of a postman who had others to deliver to the same person; whereas a telegram must be delivered by a messenger, who, perhaps, had never heard the name of the person before to whom it was addressed. What was required was an address which should enable the messenger to deliver the telegram, even without the name of the person to whom it was sent. If the hon. Member would furnish him with the particulars of grievance he would see that the matter should be investigated.

  PARLIAMENT — PRIVILEGE — INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked Mr. Attorney General, with reference to the Resolution of this House which declares—
  "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament. … to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament. … or

  887
  for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament;"
  whether his attention has been called to the action of the Earl of Meath, in reference to the recent election for the East Wicklow Division of the county; whether he is aware that Lord Meath, in his capacity of Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of the county of Wicklow, summoned a meeting of so-called Loyalists, at which he took the chair; whether he has seen a report of Lord Meath's speech on the occasion, in which, referring to the election about to be held, he spoke of the honourable Member for Cork City as the leader of "Communists" and "Anarchists," adding—
  "He was not bringing forward one-half of the villainous projects these unscrupulous revolutionists sought to accomplish;"
  whether he has noticed the following passage in the speech—
  "This autocratic leader went on plainly and without reservation to educate them in the political doctrines they were to support. First, the land of the country was to be taken from all landowners and applied to National purposes. Secondly, no property of any description was to be allowed to accumulate in the hands of any person;"
  whether he has noticed the announcement made to the meeting by Lord Meath, who read a letter from Earl Fitzwilliam, in which it was stated—
  "You will be told by my son what I believe you already know, that I should wish to contribute to the election expenses of any candidate approved by the meeting,"
  to which Lord Meath added—
  "He might say he had received a very large subscription from Earl Fitzwilliam, but he was not at present at liberty to mention the amount;"
  whether it is a fact that several other Peers, including Lord Carysfort and Lord de Vesci, took part in the proceedings; and, what steps he intends to take in support of the Resolution of the House in the case now brought under his notice?
  THE ATTOENEY GENEEAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that it does not come in any special sense within the sphere of my duty to interfere in regard to this Question, which would more properly be addressed to the Leader of the House. However, in courtesy to
  888
  the hon. Member, I may say that I understand that the speech to which reference is here made was spoken before the issue of the Writ for the Election for the Eastern Division of Wicklow; and, under these circumstances, it is not usual to take any notice of a speech so delivered. Indeed, it is customary for Members of the House of Lords belonging to the two great political Parties in the State to take part before the issue of the Writ of Election by addressing public meetings; and in this case the speech was, I understand, delivered before the issue of the Writ.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the Attorney General would take into consideration the desirability, in order to make the matter plain, of inserting the words, "after the issue of the Writ," when a Motion was made for the issue of a new Writ?
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: That is also a Question which would be more properly addressed to the Leader of the House.

  ISLANDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is there any Treaty or exchange of assurances between England and France binding both Powers to respect the independence of the New Hebrides and of Raiatea; is Her Majesty's Government aware that a Convention has recently been entered into by Germany and France, whereby Germany concedes to France the right to take possession of the New Hebrides and Raiatea; was Her Majesty's Government informed by the contracting Powers that such a Convention was about to be made, and were they invited to take part in the Convention; and, have the Governments of the Australasian Colonies requested Her Majesty's Government to insist upon the maintenance of the independence of the New Hebrides and of Raiatea, for the reason that their occupation by any Foreign Power would be contrary to Treaty engagements, and injurious to British interests in the Pacific?
  THE UNDEE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Agreements do exist between Great Britain and France whereby both Powers engage to respect the independence of the groups of islands referred to; but a conditional arrange-

  889
  ment has been entered into with France in relation to the Raiatea group, securing full advantages to British commerce. Her Majesty's Government are aware of the Convention between Germany and France alluded to by the hon. Member; but it is not to the effect stated. It does not affect the agreement between Great Britain and France, but merely stipulates that Germany will do nothing to hinder France from eventually obtaining the islands in question. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government did not receive, and did not expect to receive, notice of such Convention, nor to be invited to take part in it. The Australian Colonies continue to object to the abandonment of the agreement with France concerning the New Hebrides; and Correspondence is passing on the subject with the Colonial Governments.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— UNWHOLESOME HABITATIONS.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to certain correspondence in The Times, and to three leading articles in The Times, which appeared on 25th September and 2nd and 3rd October 1885 respectively, in which it was stated:—That a most dangerous and over-crowded structure in London, without sanitary arrangements, is owned by a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works; that the said member refused to obey the order of the vestry to fill up cesspools, construct drains, lay on water supply, and otherwise cleanse the unwholesome habitation; that the said member refused to obey an order of his own Board to pull down or shore up the dangerous structure; that the said member conspired with certain of the Board's officials to set aside the above order, and to use the public money on the said structure; and further, that the conspiracy was extended to the office in which the official books are kept, and that the books were dealt with in accordance with the fraudulent arrangement; that the structure is still inhabited, notwithstanding that the dwelling was condemned as dangerous by the Board's own officials; and, as neither the Board nor the member concerned have taken the ordinary means of replying to these
  890
  grave charges, will he inquire into this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)(who replied) said, he had no information at the present moment; but he was inquiring into the matter, and the hon. Member would be informed of the results of the inquiry.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—MR. REPTON, PROCURATOR FISCAL FOR EAST FIFE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the appointment of Mr. Benton as Procurator Fiscal of the Eastern Division of Fifeshire has yet been confirmed; if so, on what conditions as to private practice; and, if not, whether Government will refuse confirmation to any appointment to the post except on condition that the Procurator Fiscal be restricted from engaging in private practice?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No, Sir. This appointment has not yet been confirmed; and it has been intimated to Mr. Renton by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it will not be confirmed unless on the condition that he relinquishes his private practice. He has intimated, in reply, that he is willing to assent to that condition.

  ARMY (SMALL ARMS)—STEEL FOR SWORD BAYONETS.
  MR. JOHNSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any difficulty in obtaining from steel manufacturers in this Country a suitable quality of steel for the manufacture of sword bayonets for the British Army; and, if not, whether it is his intention that in future all sword bayonets supplied to British Troops shall be manufactured in England from English steel, and not in Germany or from German steel?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): There is no difficulty in obtaining from firms in this country a suitable steel for sword bayonets; and if the number of sword bayonets required can be procured in this country, either from the Government factory or from private manufacturers, recourse will not be had to the foreign market.

  THE MAURITIUS—APPOINTMENT OF MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
  MR. COXasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have appointed Mr. Clifford Lloyd to be Lieutenant Governor and Colonial Secretary of the Mauritius, a colony where the Roman Catholics number 108,000 and the Protestants 8,000 of the general population; whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have nominated three additional officials, all Protestants, to the Legislative Council of the Mauritius, although the eight officials already on the Council consisted of six Protestants and only two Roman Catholics, whilst the list of electors under the new Constitution contain three thousand three hundred Roman Catholics as against less than eight hundred Protestants, Mussulmans, Hindoos, Chinese, &c.; whether Mr. Henry Adams, a Member of the Legislative Council, has protested against the division of the ecclesiastical grants in the Mauritius, by which the Roman Catholics receive only one shilling and sixpence per head, whilst the Protestants receive eleven shillings and sixpence per head; and, why Her Majesty's Government have always appointed Englishmen to be Roman Catholic Bishops of the Mauritius instead of Prelates of the French Church?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE; MORGAN)said, the late Government appointed Mr. Clifford Lloyd to be Lieutenant Governor and Colonial Secretary of the Mauritius. He believed the population of the Island amounted to 360,000, of which about 108,000 were Roman Catholics and 8,000 Protestants; and he was informed it had not been the practice to recognize any religious disability in the Colony. The late Government nominated three Civil officers to the Legislative Council, who, it appeared, were Protestants; he was informed that the officers so nominated were selected by them on account of their personal fitness and in consideration of the offices which they held. Mr. Henry Adams, a Member of the Council, had given Notice of a Motion in favour of a redistribution of ecclesiastical grants in the Mauritius,
  892
  but withdrew it; he, however, declared his intention of bringing it forward again if he was elected a Member of the new Council. The Roman Catholic Bishops of Mauritius were appointed by the Pope, and not by Her Majesty's Government; but it had always been understood that in a British Colony a Bishop receiving pay from the State should be a British subject.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the Indian population of Mauritius constituted more than two-thirds of the whole. The Registrar General of the Colony had given the following classification of the registered electors:—3,300 Roman Catholics, 450 Protestants, 295 Mahomedans and Hindoos, and 15 Chinese.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the injustice done to the Indian population of the Mauritius, numbering two-thirds of the whole population of the Island, under the arrangement by which they had only 1–15th of the representation.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether His Excellency Sir John Pope Hennessy was consulted in reference to the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd as his Lieutenant Governor?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I must ask the hon. Member to give me Notice of that Question.
  SIR FREDERICK STANLEY: Perhaps I ought to say, on behalf of the late Government, that Sir John Hennessy was not consulted.

  COAL MINES—THE USWORTH COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when the promised full Report of the Evidence taken before the Coroner's Court in connection with the colliery explosion at Usworth will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, that the proofs of the evidence were then being corrected, and would be completed, he hoped, that day. They would then be printed and presented to Parliament in the course of next week.

  SPAIN—CASE OF MR. WELFORD, MISSIONARY AT FERNANDO PO.
  MR. BURTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Welford, Primitive Methodist Missionary at Fernando Po; whether it is true that Mr. Welford was kept a prisoner by the Spanish authorities for thirty days; whether Mr. Welford has since been liberated on parole, but is still denied redress in the form of a trial; whether representations have been made to the Spanish Government on the subject; and, if so, what reply has been received; and, whether the Government will press for the speedy settlement of the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The attention of the late Government was called to this matter in October last. Mr. Welford was arrested on the 7th of September, and imprisoned for 20 days. Through the intervention, however, of the Commander of Her Majesty's Ship Flirt he was released on bail; but he has not as yet been brought to trial. Repeated representations in favour of Mr. Welford have been addressed to the Spanish Government by Her Majesty's Legation at Madrid, and Lord Rosebery has given instructions that their earnest attention shall again be called to this question, with a view to its prompt settlement.

  ARMY (ROYAL ARTILLERY)—VACANCIES FOR SUBALTERN OFFICERS.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, The number of vacancies in the subaltern ranks of the Royal Artillery; and, what steps, if any, will be taken to fill those vacancies other than by the usual routine of a competitive examination and passage through the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN), in reply, said, there were at present 20 vacancies for subaltern officers of the Royal Artillery. Steps were not contemplated for filling these vacancies otherwise than by ordinary appointments from the Royal Military Academy.

  WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken towards erect-
  894
  ing the building on the west side of Westminster Hall which was approved by the last House of Commons, and for which an Estimate was taken on account?
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER)(who replied) said, the quantities for the building were being taken out, and the work would be proceeded with as soon as possible.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT—LOCAL TAXATION—LEGISLATION.
  VISCOUNT CURZONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure this Session dealing with the question of local taxation?
  MR. SAUNDERSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Government intend to introduce a measure dealing with County Government, and when the Bill will be submitted to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with County Government at the earliest possible moment. I am not yet able to say definitely when I shall be able to introduce this measure. It will contain the proposals of the Government with regard to the question of the reform of local taxation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—APPOINTMENT TO THE RECORDBRSHIP OF LIVERPOOL.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any appointment has yet been made to the vacant Re-cordership of Liverpool; whether the Home Office have received any communication from the Corporation of Liverpool in regard to the salary attached to this office; whether any reply has yet been sent to such communication; what arrangements would be made with regard to sittings; and, whether the new Recorder will be allowed to engage in private practice?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; Mr. Hopwood has been appointed. A letter has been received, not from the Town Council, but from the Finance Committee of the Town Council of Liverpool, asking that the salary may be reduced. I have replied that Mr. Hopwood accepted this

  895
  office subject to any alteration in the salary approved by the Secretary of State; and whatever the Town Council may recommend will receive my careful attention. In reply to the further Questions of the noble Lord, I can only say from memory that I believe the same number of sittings will be held at Liverpool as heretofore; and that, as to private practice, Mr. Hopwood will certainly not depart from his Predecessor's rule. If his Predecessor did not take private practice as an understood condition of his taking office, neither will Mr. Hopwood; but I can say no more without Notice.
  MR. FORWOODasked if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to hold over any further action in the matter until the Corporation had had an opportunity of considering his letter?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was no further action to be taken. The appointment had been made on the expressed conditions as to salary which he had explained.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman further; but he must ask if he had any objections to apply to Mr. Hopwood the same limitations which were in force as regarded his Predecessor? The matter was really of great importance to Liverpool.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid that if the noble Lord had given him Notice he could have said what communications had passed, and how they had been dealt with; but, as he had stated, Mr. Hopwood would be governed by the same rules as his Predecessor in office with regard to private practice.
  MR. AMBROSEwished to point out that there was some misapprehension with regard to the Recorder of Liverpool taking private practice. That official always had taken private practice; and, so far from its being——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to put a Question, but not to argue.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR—THE TREATY OF PEACE.
  SIR DONALD CURRIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following telegram from Paris, published in The Daily News of the 19th instant:—
  896
  "Paris, Thursday Night.
  "A member of the Committee named to report on the Patrimonio Treaty informs me that the Hovas would never have accepted that settlement of their quarrel with France had it not been for the screw put upon them by Lord Salisbury's Cabinet. In return for this service M. Haas, the French Agent at Mandalay, was, my informant says, disavowed by his Government, and King Theebaw abandoned;"
  and, to be so good as to inform the House what are the facts of the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The statement referred to is entirely without foundation. Her Majesty's Government have not interfered, directly or indirectly, in the negotiations between France and Madagascar.

  INDIA (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)— PROMOTION—GRIEVANCES OF OFFICERS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact that the complaints of the officers of the Telegraph Department in the Government of India in respect of absence of promotion have been long admitted by the Government of India to be well founded; whether any and what steps have been or are about to be taken to remedy their grievances; and, whether he will communicate with the Government of India with a view of laying before Parliament, at an early date, all the papers relating to the subject?
  The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The fact that there are grounds for complaint has been admitted, and is the subject of correspondence with the Government of India, with the hope of increasing the efficiency of the Department, and remedying all just grievances. As soon as possible information will be given to Parliament.

  BURMAH—THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES—MILITARY EXECUTIONS—THE PROVOST MARSHAL.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will state the result of the promised investigation into the conduct of Colonel Hooper, the Provost Marshal, stated by The Times Correspondent at Mandalay to have attempted to extort evidence from one Burmese prisoner by unauthorised preparations for his execution, and to have photographed other prisoners

  897
  while in the act of being shot; whether his attention has been called to a Despatch from the same Correspondent, published in The Times, of the 29th ultimo, in which the Correspondent asserts that the Military authorities who conducted the inquiry abstained from taking evidence from European civilians, a number of whom he names as having been eyewitnesses of what he described, and received "only the evidence of the implicated parties;" whether, if this be true, he will take steps to secure a thorough and impartial inquiry; and, whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken in the case of Colonel Hooper in connection with this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): I have to say that we have received from Lord Dufferin the following Report—namely, that the investigation of the charges against the Provost Marshal shows that he did photograph men undergoing execution, but that the prisoners were blindfolded, and did not know that they were being photographed, nor were the executions in any way protracted; that on one occasion an attempt was made, under the Provost Marshal's orders, to extract evidence by threats of execution; that for both these offences he will be severely censured, and will lose the preferment which he had otherwise deserved; and that his office exists no longer. The results thus reported by the Viceroy by no means satisfied the Secretary of State. He has, consequently, communicated with the Viceroy by telegraph. As soon as the Secretary of State is in possession of further information, I shall take care to make it known to the House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) will accept this as an answer to his Question.
  DR. CAMERON: In a few days I shall put a further Question.

  RAILWAY RATES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as the late Government had intended to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of excessive Railway Rates, and were prevented from doing so by resignation, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of introducing a similar measure
  898
  dealing with Railway Rates generally; and, whether they are prepared to take immediate action with regard to the prohibitory rates now being charged for agricultural produce and fish, so that our Northern farmers and fishermen can bring their produce to the large centres of population at prices that will compete with that now being imported from the Continent of Europe, and so help in a tangible degree the present trade depression?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): In reply to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question, I beg to state that I have given Notice of my intention to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject of railway rates. In reply to the second branch of the Question, the only action I can take in the matter is to introduce and lose no opportunity of passing this legislation through the House; and this, I need hardly say, I fully intend to do.
  DR. CAMERON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the scope of his proposals?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the proposals extend to Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; I believe the Bill will extend to the whole of the Three Kingdoms.

  BURMAH—THE ANNEXED TERRITORY.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state the limits of the "territories formerly governed by Theebaw" which have been annexed by proclamation to the dominions of the Crown, and whether the territories annexed include the Karennee Country, Manipur, or other Countries marked "Independent" in the map prefixed to Mr. Colquhoun's work on "Burma and the Burmans;" whether it is the case that a garrison of 18,000 men is to be maintained in Burma; whether further Papers on the subject can yet be presented; and, if he will also lay upon the Table Papers relative to the cession of Gwalior, and the accompanying arrangements?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The territories formerly governed by King Theebaw do not include the Karennee Country, nor the protected State of Manipur, nor certain tribes on the West already under the influence of

  899
  the Government of India. The noble Lord will readily see that it would not be possible, at so early a stage of the occupation of the country, to state the precise boundaries of the territories now incorporated in Her Majesty's Dominions. The present number of troops in Burmah, both Upper and Lower, does not amount to 18,000. Until the country is pacified it would be impossible to state what force it will be necessary permanently to maintain there. I hope shortly to lay on the Table further Papers promised by the noble Lord the late Secretary of State as to the Provost Marshal's acts, and as to the executions; but at present there are no other Papers which can be laid upon the Table with advantage. In answer to the noble Lord's last Question, as soon as the Correspondence regarding the cession of the fort of Gwalior is complete, the Secretary of State will consider in what form information can best be given to Parliament?
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman include the number of men shot by the Provost Marshal?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Every information on the subject which we can get I assure the hon. Member will be communicated to the House.

  THE REGISTRAR GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT (IRELAND).
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a certain Minute addressed by the Registrar General of Dublin to the clerks in his Department; and, if so, whether the contemplated changes in the staff whereby the juniors are to be discharged and the seniors to be advanced has the approval of the Right honourable gentleman; and, whether the head of the Department, whose duty it is to have charge of the safe keeping of all documents and records relating to his office, is the gentleman who, on being called upon by the Court, in the case of the Dublin Corporation against the Kingstown Town Commissioners, to produce certain necessary public documents, stated they were then made into pulp, the consequence of which was that the Corporation was nonsuited?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The scheme recently
  900
  adopted for the reorganization of the Registrar General's Department was approved and issued before I took Office, and no occasion has yet arisen for its reconsideration by me. I understand that two gentlemen—one of whom is in his 60th year, and the other in his 54th year—have been selected for pensions in order to forward the work of reorganization. The document which was sought to be produced at the trial referred to was the "press proof" of the Census, which had never been in the custody of the Registrar General; and I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who was counsel for the Corporation on the occasion, that its non-production was not the ground of the non-suit. It transpired in the course of the hearing that the Census Papers of 1861 had been pulped. This was done by order of the Government, in pursuance of an opinion of the Law Officers that these documents are privileged and might be destroyed when they had been used for the official Report.
  MR. P. M'DONALD: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the case was to be proved by the Corporation of Dublin against the Commissioners when these very necessary public documents were destroyed? They were required at the trial, and were, consequently, essentially necessary. I might also ask the right hon. Gentleman if the reasons for the proposed changes were in order to increase the salaries of certain persons who hold high positions in the office, and for this reason it was proposed to discharge some of the clerks of the Department?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am sure the hon. Member will excuse me if I do not answer that. As to the other points respecting the documents, all I can say is that the Attorney General for Ireland, who was counsel for the Corporation, gives it as his opinion that the document was not regarded as essentially necessary.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD SUMMONSES.
  MR. JENNINGSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the facts reported in the daily papers, that, on the 10th of February, upwards of forty summonses were heard at the Thames

  901
  Police Court against parents for not sending their children regularly to school; that the defendants were, in the majority of instances, women of the very poorest class, and that they pleaded their inability to send their children to school on account of illness, poverty, and want of proper clothes; that, nevertheless, fines were imposed in some cases, and that, in default of distress, imprisonment followed; and, whether he is now disposed, considering the great and unusual hardships to which the poor are at present subjected, to use his authority with the magistrates to procure a more merciful administration of the Law in these cases?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have obtained a Report from the Chief Magistrate on the subject of summonses to parents for not sending their children to school. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that women are only by law entitled to appear for their husbands. I am assured that the Metropolitan Magistrates make a rule of always taking into their most careful consideration all extenuating circumstances, as poverty, illness, &c.; in fact, they are always being charged with too merciful an administration of the law. I see no reason to issue any special instructions.

  POLITICAL MEETINGS—SPEECH OF MR. JOHN MORLEY AT CHELMSFORD.
  BARON HENEY DE WOBMSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following is a correct Report of words he uttered at Chelmsford on 7th January 1886:—
  "Do what you will with your Rules of Procedure, you will not have restored the British Parliament, you will not have made the British people master of its own house, until you have devised some scheme or other which will remove the Irish Members from the British House of Commons;"
  and, whether the Right honourable gentleman still adheres to the policy he then advocated?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, will he state whether he is aware that the proposal contained in his speech is exactly similar to a proposal made by Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, late Con-
  902
  servative candidate for North Camberwell?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I was not aware that Mr. Blunt's proposal coincided with the opinion I expressed. The report to which the hon. Member refers appears to be, in substance, correct. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I still adhere to the policy which those words appear to advocate. I think, on the whole, it would be more convenient that the policy to which I adhere should be stated in all its fulness on the proper occasion.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND) —REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON TRAWLING.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the following paragraphs in the Report of the Trawling Commission:—
  "The fishermen were almost unanimous in stating that the decrease of haddock and flat fish had been contemporaneous with trawling:
  "In Norway and Sweden there is no beam trawling:
  "In Denmark, in France (except in a few places for special reasons), and in Germany, off some parts of the Baltic Coast, it is forbidden by law within the three miles limit:
  "The number of fish on particular grounds, especially in narrow waters, may be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl;"
  if it has now been officially admitted by the Government that the great majority of the fishermen and the inhabitants residing near Galway Bay would desire that trawling should be prohibited in the whole or part of the Bay; and, if the Government, either by legislation or otherwise, will endeavour to give effect to their wishes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I think I shall best answer this Question by quoting a passage from a Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries on the subject. The Inspectors say—
  "If it were admitted that the feelings of a certain class of fishermen or of the inhabitants of a certain place against a certain mode of fishing, such as trawling, should be the basis on which that mode of fishing should be prohibited, the Royal Commission should have reported that trawling should be prohibited on the East Coast of Scotland and parts of the East Coast of England in consequence of the feeling exhibited by other fishermen in these places. The practice of trawling should only be prohibited in cases where it may be proved that it is injurious and detrimental to the fisheries, and consequently to

  903
  the public interests. This has not been proved in Galway Bay. On the contrary, the evidence proved to the satisfaction of the Inspectors the necessity for repealing in 1877 a bye-law prohibiting it in certain places in that bay."

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT— FOURTH INSTALMENT OF RATE —POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If, in consideration of the difficulties caused by the agricultural depression, he would permit such unions as might apply for more time to defer the payment of the fourth and last instalment of the Seed Rate for another twelve months?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): We are in communication with the Treasury on this subject; and if the Question is repeated towards the end of the week, I hope to be able to give the hon. Member a definite answer.

  DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS —POWER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE IN EVENT OF RECURRENCE.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Chief Commissioner of Police has absolute power to act on his own responsibility, and take what measures he deems necessary, should the occasion require it, to prevent the recurrence of such riots as disgraced the Metropolis on Monday 8th February, or whether he is bound to seek for instructions first from the Home Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): On Thursday last I explained the relations between the Home Office and the Commissioner of Police with respect to this matter. I gave not merely the dry law, but also the facts. The hon. and gallant Member asks me a Question which is really one of law. On the former occasion I stated that the Chief Commissioner was free to make what arrangements might be considered necessary with respect to any meetings to preserve the peace. I also explained that the Police Orders, after being issued, are forwarded to the Home Office; but the Commissioner does not, of necessity, consult the Home Office previous to giving them.

  BURMAH—LICENSED OPIUM SHOPS.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the consequences of licensing of opium shops in British Burmah, as disclosed in a Memorandum by C. U. Aitchison, esquire, late Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, addressed to the Government of India in 1880, the Government will prohibit the opening of opium shops, and the sale of opium, in the newly annexed territory?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): No information on the subject of the licensing of opium shops in Burmah has yet been received from the Government of India. But I have no doubt they will discourage the sale of opium in the newly-annexed territory, so far as this may be practicable, considering that the drug is believed to be already in common use.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— SCHEDULE A.
  MR. BARRYasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to a statement recently made in The Daily News in reference to the income tax, to the following effect:—
  "We continue to be overwhelmed with letters on the subject of the deduction for income tax which a tenant is allowed to make from his rent. We must adhere to our original statement that the rent of a man's house is free from income tax. We are hopeless of convincing one of our correspondents, who says that 'If a man agrees to take a house at a hundred a-year he has no legal right to deduct the income tax on that hundred a-year.' An Act of Parliament expressly says that he has, and we cannot expect that a gentleman who upsets the authority of the Legislature will accept ours;
  "We will make a final attempt to explain our meaning by taking a concrete case. A. B.'s income from all sources is a thousand a-year. The rent of his house is a hundred a-year. He is entitled to no other exemption. Upon what sum does he really pay income tax? The correspondents to whom we have referred say a thousand pounds. We say nine hundred pounds, because he can deduct the tax from the hundred pounds which he would otherwise owe to his landlord;"
  and, as there is evidently much confusion of opinion on this matter, would he say if the view taken by The Daily News is in conformity with Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): The landlord of premises is liable to the Income Tax

  905
  under Schedule A. It is sometimes called the Property Tax. This tax is in the first instance paid by the tenant, who is entitled by law in the case put to deduct from the rent the amount. The tenant is liable for Income Tax on the full amount of his income; but if the premises are used for business the rent is taken into account in estimating the income. If the house is not used for the purpose of business from which he makes his income, then, like any other expenditure, it is not taken into account. It follows, therefore, that in the case put a tenant would pay on the full sum of £1,000. I hope I may be allowed to say that I do not consider it to be part of my duties, nor has it been considered so by my Predecessors, to answer any legal puzzle which hon. Members may choose to put to me.

  IRELAND—SUPPRESSION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore the authority of the Crown in Ireland by suppressing the so-called National League?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government is very desirous to see the authority of the Crown in Ireland restored to that full state of efficiency which it enjoys in England and Scotland—in a great degree through the sympathy and sense of the people. We deem that the condition of Ireland in that respect is one requiring our closest and most anxious consideration and attention; bat I have already stated that according to such investigations of facts as we have been able to make since our recent accession to Office, we do not conceive it would be wise, or justifiable, or politic on our part to seek the restoration of that authority to full efficiency through the medium of an immediate application to Parliament for special criminal legislation. That answer, of course, includes the negative to the Question which the hon. Gentleman asks.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE.
  MR. NORRISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will give such
  906
  recommendation to the Select Committee on Procedure, as will prevent any Bills of the importance of the Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women) Bill being brought on for discussion in this House after midnight?
  THE FIEST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): It is, of course, no part of my duty individually to give recommendations to the Select Committee. But the subject is one which may fairly be considered in that Committee; and I have no doubt the question will be taken notice of by some Members of that Committee with a view of giving it effect.

  SCOTLAND—THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH—DISESTABLISHMENT.
  SIR DONALD CURRIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the present position of the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland, and the guarantee of Presbyterians under the Treaty of Union, Her Majesty's Government will institute an inquiry, by Royal Commission or otherwise, into the wishes of the Scottish nation in regard to disestablishment, and the future application of the teinds in the event of disestablishment being desired by the people of Scotland, and decided upon by Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): In answer to my hon. Friend, I may say that it has been the feeling of the Members of the present Government, and I think generally of those who are in political sympathy with it, that this important question of the continuance and circumstances of the Established Church in Scotland should be left as much as possible to the spontaneous action and consideration of the country. I need not tell my hon. Friend how very competent the Scotch people are for the purpose of discussing such questions, and of considering whether a change ought to take place; and, if so, in what manner it should be adjusted, and what would be the probable consequences of it, either to the union or disunion of the great Presbyterian bodies. But my opinion is that if we were to appoint any Royal Commission, or appear to stir this question by the use of the Executive authority, it would hardly be consistent with the language that has been held in Scotland and with our desire that an unbiased opi-

  907
  nion should be formed upon it by the people of Scotland.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS— LEGISLATION.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the declaration in favour of a review of the whole subject of Registration contained in his manifesto to the electors of Midlothian, it is the intention of the present Government to introduce any measure for the amendment and simplification of the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary Voters?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I am not surprised at the appearance of this Question, which relates to a subject that has been specially commended to the consideration of the country and the new Parliament. The reason why Her Majesty's Government have not thought themselves justified, at the first moment on the assembling of the new Parliament, in opening this question for discussion in the House of Commons is that perhaps this is not the moment at which it is so urgent as it would be when the life of Parliament is somewhat further advanced. Another reason is that it is our first duty to examine whether we shall not have to make very large demands upon the time of the House with regard to important proposals connected with social order and other great questions in Ireland to which I have previously referred—namely, questions connected with the land and the government of that country.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether, in the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman would refer the question to a Select Committee?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I by no means meet that with a negative, and it will be a subject for consideration.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS' ARRANGEMENTS —SELECT COMMITTEE OF 1867–8— OVER-CROWDING IN THE HOUSE.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will undertake to deal with the subject of overcrowding in the House of Commons, or will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to whom shall be referred the Reports of the Select Committee of 1867–8 on
  908
  "House of Commons Arrangements," and in the meantime will take steps to reprint those Reports with the accompanying drawings?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Whether beneficially in other respects or not, some relief to the state of tension which this question has reached at the opening of Parliament has been afforded by the change of Government which has taken place. It has brought about, if not a perfect division, a more equal division of the Members of this House. I think it very likely that this question may come up for consideration after the House has had a little more experience of its existence and working; and, in the meantime, I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the Reports of the Select Committee of 1867–8 on the House of Commons Arrangements may be very properly reprinted for the use of Members.

  EASTERN AFFAIRS—SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What course the Government propose to take with regard to Sir Drummond Wolff and his mission to Egypt?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHinterposing, asked, whether it would not be better that the debate on that subject should be postponed for a day or two, and not taken after a fixed hour?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): In answer to my right hon. Friend, I have to say that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Rosebery) is expecting a detailed Report and full communications from Sir H. Drummond Wolff, without which, in point of fact, we should not be able accurately to appreciate his position with reference to the very important and complicated and difficult question which he has in hand. At the present juncture we have no intention of interfering with the continuance of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, it had been our intention to proceed with the Vote tonight; but I will at once agree to postpone it. I am, however, informed that the Vote ought to be taken not later than Thursday.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDgave Notice that he would call attention to Par-

  909
  liamentary Papers, Egypt, Nos. 1 and 2, 1885.

  DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS —REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.

    STATEMENT.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I promised on Thursday last to lay on the Table—which I now do—the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of the police on the 8th of this month, and into other circumstances. I am not able now to lay them in the form in which they can be circulated; but I hope they will be circulated either to-morrow or on Wednesday with my Memorandum, and, of course, with the evidence. The evidence is long, and has been taken at sittings held every day during last week—sittings which generally lasted four or five hours—and, of course, it could not be printed and corrected with that rapidity which would have otherwise been possible. I will not now read any considerable part of the Report—which is a long one—but I will road the last paragraph, which says—
    "We conclude our Report by the strong expression of our opinion that the administration and organization of the Metropolitan Police Force require to be thoroughly investigated; and we hope that this investigation will take place without delay."
    I think I should also tell the House that I have communicated the substance of the Report to the Chief Commissioner of Police. I have told him what the recommendations of the Committee are, with my Memorandum upon the subject; and this afternoon I received a letter from Sir Edmund Henderson placing his resignation in my hands for the purpose of facilitating the re-organization of the Department, and that resignation I have accepted. I shall now lose no time whatever in instituting inquiries with a view of remedying the defects to which the last paragraph of the Report refers. Perhaps the House, in conclusion, will allow me to thank—as I very sincerely do—the four Gentlemen who assisted mo in this most difficult inquiry—an inquiry which, without their assistance, it would have been almost impossible for me, only a day or two after entering Office, to undertake satisfactorily, but which I believe the House will find has been most
    910
    satisfactorily undertaken. I trust the Report will receive the approval of the House. I will lay it on the Table, and I hope the whole Papers will be distributed to-morrow or on Wednesday.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the very great importance of the question, an early opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Report?
    MR. CHILDERS: I think the House should have the Report before it before any Question of that sort is asked. If, after reading the Report, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to put the Question, no doubt it will be answered.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what course the Government propose to take with regard to the Report, and especially to that portion of it referring to the re-organization of the police.
    MR. CHILDERS: I have stated that I intend to propose a complete inquiry into the organization and administration of the police. I propose to undertake that inquiry as rapidly as possible. As to the means and machinery by which that inquiry is to be conducted, that is a Question which I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to put on Friday.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked, whether there had not been three exhaustive inquiries into the organization of the Metropolitan Force during the last 18 years?
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could speak as to two of those inquiries; but he was not quite sure whether there had been a third.

    CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN)said, it might be for the convenience of the House if he stated that he intended to postpone until Thursday the introduction of the Crofters Bill.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Local Government Bill, which, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade, was to include Ireland, would be introduced before the 1st of April?
    THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)explained that what the President of the Board of Trade had stated

    911
    with regard to the inclusion of Ireland was as to an entirely different Bill—namely, that dealing with railway rates.

    QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
    THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. MARJORIBANKS)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
    I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
    I rely with confidence on your assurance that the Measures which may he submitted to you will receive your most careful consideration.

  MOTIONS.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—RESOLUTION.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am anxious, Sir, to ask your ruling upon a point of Order, arising out of the Business of the evening. Committee of Supply stands as the first Order this evening; and I apprehend that in that case it is subject to the 21st Standing Order, which provides that—
    "Whenever 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, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply."
    But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposes to move—
    "That the Notices of Motions relating to Parliamentary Procedure and East India, Burma (Expenses of Military Operations) have precedence of the Orders of the Day,"
    so that, although Committee of Supply stands this evening as the first Order of the Day, yet it is by no means the first Business of the evening, and may, in fact, not be reached until a late hour. I, therefore, wish to ask you, Sir, whether, under these circumstances, the Standing Order No. 21 applies to the Order for Committee of Supply to-night, or whether any hon. Member will have the opportunity, on your putting the Question "that you now leave the Chair," of raising any question he may think it
    912
    desirable to raise? I think I have clearly explained the nature of my Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that I do not consider that the fact of the Notices referred to taking precedence over Committee of Supply prevents the subsequent application of the 21st Standing Order to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I am bound by the Rules of the House; and this Standing Order explicitly says—
    "That when on a Monday Committee of Supply shall stand as the first Order"
    the Speaker shall leave the Chair without Question put. The House will observe that, notwithstanding the interpolation of these Motions, Committee of Supply will still stand as the first Order of the Day. I may say, however, that I know of no precedent for the course about to be proposed; but the Standing Order itself is of comparatively recent introduction. I think, under the circumstances, that it is not for me to interfere, and say that Committee of Supply, standing as the first Order of the Day, must be taken if the House should decide that other Business should be taken first. It is, in my judgment, for the House itself to decide whether any other Business, of which proper Notice has been given, shall take precedence of Committee of Supply.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I desire to say a word which may simplify matters. I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in the Question he has put; and I was aware of the point he was about to raise. But I wish to say that I would not have proposed to obtain precedence for these Motions over the Order of the Day for Committee of Supply except upon very specific grounds. As to the first Notice of Motion—namely, that relating to Procedure—I thought it would be greatly for the convenience of the House that no time should be lost, after what has already happened, in referring the subject to a Select Committee; and with regard to the second Notice, relating to the expenses of the Expedition to Burmah, it has been felt by Her Majesty's Government to be our absolute duty to avail ourselves of the very first day on which we could regularly introduce the subject, in order that

    913
    we might obey the spirit of the law we have to administer.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Perhaps, by the indulgence of the House, I may venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although it may be necessary to obey the spirit of the law, yet, at the same time, it surely ought to be necessary to obey the spirit of the Standing Order, and to follow that which has hitherto been the practice of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Notices of Motions relating to Parliamentary Procedure and East India, Burma (Expenses of Military Operations) have precedence of the Orders of the Day."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, before the Motion was put he desired to make a few observations on what appeared to him to be the very inconvenient, if not objectionable, precedent that was about to be made. The spirit of the 21st Standing Order was that it should only apply when Supply was not merely the first Order, but the first and most important Business of the evening; for the object it aimed at was not solely to facilitate the progress of the Government with Supply, but to secure that hon. Members, interested as they all ought to be in the important matters connected with Supply, might know exactly when Supply would be taken. This object would certainly be defeated in a case such as this, for the Motions relating to Procedure and Burmah would occupy an uncertain time, and it was impossible to say at what hour Supply would be taken. As to the Burmah Motion, it was his own opinion that the law would be complied with if it was brought forward at any period of the Session; but, granting that it was imperative that it should be taken that evening, that certainly could not be said of the Motion with regard to Procedure. The House ought not to be asked to take so objectionable a course under cover of this Standing Order, unless the necessity was absolutely imperative, otherwise they would be making a precedent; and on some other occasion they would be asked to postpone Supply to allow of the introduction of the Crofters Bill, or any other measure that the Government might wish to proceed with. It certainly was rather strange that, on
    914
    the very evening when the Prime Minister was going to appoint a Committee to amend the Rules of Procedure, he should propose to contravene the spirit of the Rules already in force. If the Prime Minister could not make some more convincing statement as to the necessity of introducing other Business before Supply, it was to be hoped that, since he had already postponed the most important Vote in Supply, he might practically comply with the spirit of the Standing Order by postponing Supply altogether.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)said, that that was not a subject on which he should wish to have any difference of opinion with any large section of the House, or with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). Indeed, he thought it was the last subject on which he should have met with any such opposition. He would unreservedly grant that the request for precedence, if acceded to, should not be taken as an example for ordinary occasions; and if it was the general desire of the House that Committee of Supply ought not to come on at a late hour that evening, or that it should be altogether postponed, he should have no difficulty in waiving the point, and would not resist. But before making any engagement he would state to the House what he conceived to be the exact state of the case. By the necessity for making that Motion, he virtually submitted to the House the question whether they were, or were not, justified in an interference with the ordinary course of Business, which he admitted ought only to be done on special grounds, and ought not to be a precedent for all occasions. In the view of the Government, it was their duty—as they had not been permitted to make an application to Parliament for leave to charge the Revenues of India before the cost was incurred—it was their duty, in order to act in the spirit of the law, absolutely to take the very first day in their power for making that application; and when the right hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that they ought to pay attention to the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House, then he (Mr. Gladstone) must say it appeared to be an occasion upon which an exclusive attention to the Standing Orders of the

    915
    House would place them in conflict with a much higher authority—namely, with that of the Realm. It was to give effect to a Statute of the Realm that they proposed that night to interfere with the ordinary course of Business as regarded Supply. With respect to the first Motion, he might say that in making that Motion at that early date he had been very much governed by a desire to show respect to the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman had thought the subject of Procedure one of such commanding importance that he had considered it was his duty to give Notice that immediately after the debate on the Address he should propose that the subject should take precedence of all other Business whatsoever. He (Mr. Gladstone) hardly expected, therefore, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the minute criticisms which he had addressed to the House on the subject, especially when they considered what a wholesale invasion he was prepared to make, not only of the usual proceeding of the House, but of the rights and privileges of private Members, in order to give free scope to the discussion of this very important question. It was a question with respect to which the view they had taken was that it was undoubtedly of a very urgent character. Could they have asked the House to do what the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to do? He did not think they could. At the commencement of the Session that would have been too great and, he had almost said, too violent an invasion of the proceedings and of the powers of private Members. But, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government thought it prudent that this subject should not be materially delayed. What was the position in which they stood? Not that night alone, but all Government days for several weeks to come would probably be required for the discussion of Supply. That being so, if he did not propose the Committee on Procedure that night, he would be met with the same objection next Thursday or next Monday, or on any subsequent Government night. In point of fact, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that the proposal with regard to the Committee on Procedure should be postponed for several weeks; because they had no power what-
    916
    ever of securing the introduction of a proposal of this kind, except by Motion in the early part of the evening for the suspension of the Orders of the Day. That was hardly a reasonable proposition, and not consistent with the extraordinary demand the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make on the time of the House in connection with this question. It came to this, then—that Her Majesty's Government had no choice but either to make the proposal in this way, or to submit the question to what he might call indefinite postponement. That they could not consent to, for it would not have been just in regard to the question itself, nor fair or respectful to the right hon. Gentleman or the House. He might also add that there was a peculiarity in this matter. The Government was supposed to have the command of the management of the Business of the House on Mondays and Thursdays. That was hardly a correct supposition, however, for they had that command of arrangements only in respect of Orders of the Day. When it was necessary to make a Motion in precedence of the Orders of the Day, then application had to be made to the House for the purpose, and the judgment of the House taken on the subject. If it were the feeling of the House that the appointment of the Committee on Procedure should be postponed until Monday, or until the most urgent part of Supply was got rid of, the Government would not object. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in the late Administration (Sir Richard Webster), whom he saw in his place, would place a different construction upon the Act of Parliament from what he (Mr. Gladstone) had done; but he thought he might claim to know quite as much as the late Attorney General of the construction of an Act of Parliament, and as to whether that was the right construction to put upon the Act. Of this he was quite sure—there were two things—first of all, his (Mr. Gladstone's) construction was favourable to the authority of Parliament and to the control of the Executive; while the construction of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite removed the control over the Executive established by enactments; secondly, be his (Mr. Gladstone's) construction correct or incorrect, it was a construction which they

    917
    had always entertained and acted upon; and, that being so, it was their duty to ask the House of Commons to act upon it. These were the grounds on which he made the Motion, which he admitted to be exceptional; but he thought the House would see that they were amply sufficient.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that as the Prime Minister had made a direct reference to him, he would venture to lay before the House his view of the construction of this Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he (the Prime Minister) knew a great deal more about Acts of Parliament than he (Sir Richard Webster) did. He freely admitted that, so far as Parliamentary experience went, he could lay no claim to enter into competition with the right hon. Gentleman. But, on the other hand, he would submit to the House that, both from a lawyer's point of view, and from a layman's point of view, they must not regard the construction of an Act of Parliament as affected by anything that passed in Parliamentary debate. Looking to the Act itself, he could not but think that both the letter and the spirit were opposed to the construction the Prime Minister sought to put upon it. At the same time, he might be forgiven for saying that he thought it would be a serious disadvantage if a debate upon the subject of Burmah should take place at a time when the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not be in his place in the House. Probably these two sections of the Act of Parliament were so much the children of the right hon. Gentleman that he could see nothing in them except the thoughts he wished to have expressed there. The 1st section related only to the communication to Parliament of the fact that orders had been sent for the employment of Her Majesty's Forces within three months if Parliament was sitting, and within one month of its reassembling if it should not be sitting when the orders were sent. The other section to which reference had been made did not contain one single word as to the time within which the consent of Parliament should be obtained for the application of the Revenues of India to warlike purposes. The obligation of the 1st section having been fulfilled,
    918
    there was no time limited for the other to be complied with. He fully admitted the power of the Prime Minister to draw distinctions about words in a way which he (Sir Richard Webster) would not attempt, for a single moment, to cope with; but he appealed to the House, and to his hon. and learned Friends on both sides of the House, whether there was one single word in the section of the Act in question with regard to the way in which the expenses in connection with Burmah should be met? He contended, further, that there was not a single word in the section which related to the question of the time when the discussion should arise as to how the expenses should be met; and he would ask the Prime Minister to point out to the House what word there was in the section which made it incumbent on the Government to raise that particular question to-night.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General amounted to this—that the law had been already broken, and that they might break it a little further without criminating themselves to any great extent. What he (Sir George Campbell) would ask was, had the Revenues of India been applied for military operations beyond the frontier or not? He believed it was undoubtedly the fact that Indian Revenue had been devoted to that purpose, and that the law had been broken by the late Government in that respect.
    MR. T. M. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He wished to know from the Speaker whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussing the general question upon the Motion that certain Notices of Motion should have precedence over the Order for Supply?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the Main Question upon the Motion now before the House. The Question now before the House is—
    "That the Notices of Motions relating to Parliamentary Procedure and East India, Burma (Expenses of Military Operations) have precedence of the Orders of the Day."
    The only question is whether they shall be entitled to take precedence of the Order of the Lay for going into Committee of Supply; and whether, on Supply being called on, I should be

    919
    entitled to leave the Chair without Question being put?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: We are discussing whether it is, or is not, necessary to bring on these Motions before Supply; and it appears to me that, as the law has already been broken by the late Government——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling from the Question before the House.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then I will not pursue the matter further.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Prime Minister had not mentioned all the courses which might have been adopted. In his opinion, it would have been a much more convenient—and not at all unusual—course to have been pursued if the right hon. Gentleman had made a Motion that all the Orders of the Day after the first Order should be postponed; and then, after the House had gone into Committee of Supply for either a long or a short time, he might have moved to report Progress in order to discuss this question. Such a course would not have broken either the spirit or the letter of the law.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL)said, he understood that the Motion was a regular one, according to the construction placed by the Speaker on the 21st Standing Order. The other point raised by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) was that there was no immediate necessity or urgency for the Motion according to his interpretation of the 55th section of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. A question which was greatly discussed during the Attorney Generalship of the late Sir John Holker was as to how far that Statute permitted the Government to spend money without having obtained the previous consent of Parliament; and he owned that there was a considerable difficulty in regard to the construction of the Statute. On the whole, he came to the conclusion—and he still adhered to it—that the argument of Sir John Holker at the time the question was raised was a sound one as a matter of legal construction; for he (the Attorney General) conceived it was impossible not to see that cases would arise in which some steps involving an expenditure of money might be taken under Section 54 before it was possible to obtain the consent of the House of Commons. But the
    920
    question now before the House was a very different one. Everybody, he thought, would admit that, although, as a matter of strict construction, it might be legal to spend money without having got the antecedent consent of the House, yet the Government were bound, at the earliest moment after they had taken a step which was at least doubtful, to come before Parliament and obey the spirit of the Act. This was simply what the Government proposed to do now, and this course was in accordance with Constitutional practice. What was the objection raised on the opposite side? It was that the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not in his place. Well, whose fault was that? The noble Lord knew very well that the question would be brought forward, for he had the information given him on Thursday; but, instead of being in his place to discuss it—a matter which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought so important—he had gone on a war expedition of another kind. There was no violation of the true spirit of the order of procedure in the course which the Government proposed to adopt on the present occasion; and he submitted that they were bound to take the earliest moment they could to communicate to the House the steps they had taken, and to obtain the consent of the House. In doing so, they simply obeyed the evident spirit of the Statute as it occurred to him.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he was rather disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Attorney General that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to come forward, at the first possible moment, to ask for a Resolution of this kind; but why, if they had wished to do so, did they not come forward last Friday? It was true that by a Standing Order Supply must be the first Order on a Friday; but the Government did not scruple to override a Standing Order for their own convenience, and they might have done it on Friday. They might just as well have overridden the Standing Order then as now; or they might have allowed the Committee of Supply to go on in its usual course till half-past 6 or 7 o'clock, and then have brought this Motion forward. The Speaker had ruled that the Motion was not in violation of the letter of the

    921
    Standing Order; but would any hon. Member venture to assert that it was not contrary to the spirit of that Order? He protested against the postponement of Supply.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY [19th FEBRUARY].
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS and Mr. JACKS, Two of the Tellers in the Division upon Friday last upon Vote 15 in Committee of Supply, came to the Table and acquainted the House that they had erroneously reported the number of Noes as 136 instead of 146, which was the proper number corresponding with the Division List.
    Ordered, That the Clerk do correct the said error in the Journal of this House by stating the number of Noes as 146 instead of 136.

  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE), in rising to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of Procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the amendment of existing Rules, and upon any New Rules which they may consider desirable for the efficient despatch of business,"
    said: The objcet of the Motion which I make to-night upon exceptional grounds—and it is a Motion of considerable urgency with regard to the Business of the House—is to give the best expedition and despatch that it is in the power of the Government to give to the examination of a question which has, I trust, ceased in substance to be a controversy between the two most numerous Parties in this House. I had better refer to what has taken place with regard to the subject during the course of the present Session. On the evening preceding the delivery of the Queen's Speech I received a courteous communication from the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), inclosing to me an important Paper, which embodied the views of the Government with respect to the subject of Procedure. The right hon. Gentleman invited me to make those views the subject of a previous and friendly communication with a view to the easier settlement of the matter.
    922
    He added that it was his intention, unless I wrote in reply to him that I accepted that offer, to lay a Paper containing the plans of the late Government upon the Table of the House on Thursday at the opening of the Session before the commencement of Business. At that moment—or at least within two or three hours afterwards—I was expecting the usual communication with respect to the Speech from the Throne which, by the courtesy of the Government, is made known to the Leader of any Party; and it was not possible for me, as I at once wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, in those circumstances, considering the importance of the topics before us and the variety of forms which the announcement of them might take, and which it was my duty to consider beforehand—it was impossible for me to make, or for me to ask one of my Friends among the leading men to make, any proper examination or statement about the important Paper of the right hon. Gentleman, or to meet, at so short a notice, his friendly proposal. When the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of what he had said, laid his Paper on the Table of the House, as he was quite justified in doing, on the day when the Speech was delivered, we proceeded to examine that Paper immediately after the delivery of the Queen's Speech on the first night of the debate on the Address. We found that the proposal of the Government, in placing a great variety of particulars before us, naturally did not—and, indeed, could not—be expected to coincide with our views upon the whole of these particulars. But, nevertheless, we arrived at two conclusions—first, that it would be very desirable to make that plan the basis of further and friendly considerations; secondly, inasmuch as we did not see how private Members, independent Members, of the House could be asked to surrender their means and opportunities of bringing subjects of legislation before the House, we came to the conclusion that it would be well to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee; and that Select Committee we thought ought to be constituted upon a different basis from the ordinary basis, which prescribes a limit of 15 Members. We thought it ought to be a Select Committee of very much more considerable extent, perhaps consisting of as many, or more than twice that number, so as

    923
    to give free representation of opinion to the various quarters and sections of the House. Sir, in point of fact, we were desirous not to lose what appeared to us an excellent opportunity of arriving at a discussion of this rather difficult question, necessarily giving rise to a good deal of scope for even friendly differences. We were anxious not to lose the opportunity of approaching this question in a friendly spirit, if it were possible to do so. If this were the 21st of January, the question of reference to a Committee might be a more open question than it is at the present moment; because on the 21st of January, and with the command of the time of the House from that date onwards, there would have been, for any Government, a considerable choice with regard to the taking of Votes in Supply, and a certain portion of Government time might have been devoted, not without advantage, to the consideration of Procedure. But in the condition in which the Government found themselves on taking Office last week it was impossible to do that; and the alternative was either to postpone the subject of Procedure until, perhaps, the crowding of Sessional Business had become greater than at the opening of the Session, or to take the course of asking the House to refer the subject to a Select Committee. From the first of these courses we were dissuaded by the feeling that, in the first place, such a postponement would not be agreeable to the sense entertained by us for a long time past of the importance of a settlement of this matter, nor would it have been agreeable to the sense so distinctly manifested by the Government in Office a month ago with regard to the importance of an immediate and effective prosecution of this subject. Moreover, this circumstance offered us a favourable opportunity, and enables us to form a sanguine hope and expectation, that the proceedings of a Committee of this kind would not be very virtual, and would be useful in results. The question of the devolution of Bills, which was proposed in the plan of the late Government, and which was fully raised by them, opens up a channel through which I believe that we shall proceed with the greatest hope of success in the important business of expediting the performance of the weighty tasks which are incumbent upon this House; and never before has there been a period
    924
    when there was so favourable a prospect of a friendly and effective handling of that subject. With regard to coercive or penal procedure, I certainly still adhere to the opinion that not a great deal is to be hoped from further progress in that direction. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Hear, hear!] I am very glad to see that that opinion has the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman. But, in regard to amicable arrangements for multiplying the means and instruments at the command of the House, I am sanguine enough to believe that we may perform a very great public service by putting that mode of procedure into operation. These are the general grounds on which we propose to refer the subject to a Select Committee, and thereby to give effect, so far as circumstances permit, to the intentions entertained by us, and also by a large number of Gentlemen on the other side of the House. It will be asked of me what course I should propose that Her Majesty's Government should take in respect to the proceedings of this Committee? It will be felt and thought that a Government proposing the appointment of a Select Committee on a subject of this kind charges itself with a great responsibility. It charges itself with the responsibility of making known at once and in full to the Committee the views which it entertains upon the subject, with all the points of the greatest importance. That, Sir, is the course which we intend to take. The Committee will not be bound to have regard to any one Paper or any one piece of evidence in particular; but, no doubt, considering the importance of the Paper laid upon the Table by the right hon. Gentleman, that Paper must have a prominent place in whatever attention the Committee may give to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman may ask whether we propose to submit a Paper of our own, displacing or attempting to displace that Paper. We do not propose to do so, and for this plain reason—that with regard to the main proposals of that Paper we consider ourselves in sympathy with them. But the right hon. Gentleman may make one further demand upon us. I have already said that there are points in which we think some addition, some substitution, some change should be made. And the right hon. Gentleman will ask—"Is it your intention, when you come into the

    925
    Committee, to lay before it the views of the Government upon those points?" In answer to him, I must say, in the most explicit and unequivocal manner, it is our intention to do so. It is really an acknowledgment which we feel to be due to the spirit in which the subject was considered by the late Government that we should not make what would be an unfair and untrue appearance of setting up a rival plan when we do not propose a rival plan. But, on the other hand, it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman and for those who may represent the framers of the plan to know, and to know at once, what are the points, or what are the principal and particular points, upon which we should be prepared to propose modifications of the plan; but it is, however, quite plain that I should be wasting the time of the House were I to enter at this time upon particulars. Were we engaged now in sharp controversy upon every one of the leading items of the subject of Procedure it might be necessary that I should make a statement with regard to those leading items. It might even be necessary that I should, as it were, make my case upon those leading items in order to justify our proposals; but we have before us the broad fact—in the first place, that much time was spent by the late Parliament upon the subject; in the second place, that it is generally felt that the work, as it was left by the late Parliament, was not complete; and, in the third place, that we have now a great degree of concurrence, not only as to the need of resuming, but as to the mode of resuming, the subject; and I am happy to think that, even since I rose, I find that concurrence to be more positive and extensive than I had thought it to be, because we appear to be, in a great degree, at one in the opinion that it is not by penal and restrictive measures—not by a severe Code of Procedure, but by the judicious use of our means of multiplying our instruments of action—that we should really make the greatest and most effective progress. If there is any point upon which the right hon. Gentleman opposite or any Member of the House desires to be informed as to our views and intentions, I shall be most happy to supply it. We accept the responsibility for the Committee we propose. We shall endeavour to deal with it as a
    926
    Committee proposed on the responsibility of the Government. We shall make known to the Committee at once the plan that we propose to adopt, though the main portions I believe to be contained in the plan proposed by the late Administration. I believe that, with these particulars before them, the House will be perfectly ready to judge whether this proposal is a right proposal or not. Little advantage will be gained by entering upon the particulars of Procedure in Debate in the House. I am in hopes that it may not be found necessary to spend a great deal of the time of the House in the discussion of the Motion which the House has agreed to entertain. The grounds on which we propose this Committee I believe to be clearly before you, and I conclude by moving the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of Procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the amendment of existing Rules, and upon any New Rules which they may consider desirable for the efficient despatch of business."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I wish, on my own behalf and that of my Colleagues forming the late Cabinet, to acknowledge the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to our labours in this matter. It is a fair return for the spirit in which we approached the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends when we were in Office; and I would only say that it is a most satisfactory contrast to not a few speeches made by hon. Members now sitting on the Government Bench during the late Election campaign in regard to our conduct on this question. During the whole of the late autumn there was no more favourite subject of accusation against myself and my Colleagues than that we were the friends of Obstruction, and were determined to resist, or at any rate not to support, any alterations of Procedure which would make this House more efficient for its Business. Now, in contradistinction to those accusations, and I may venture to say in complete refutation of them, we have the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues frankly taking up our proposals for the amendment of Procedure, and saying that they are so satisfactory that the Government

    927
    propose, with some small alterations, to recommend them to the adoption of a Select Committee of the House. I trust that that will be remembered in future, as a proof that this kind of accusation brought against a political Party has sometimes no real foundation in fact. We have shown, by our action in this matter, that we are as anxious to improve the Procedure of the House of Commons, and to make the House of Commons, of which we are proud, thoroughly efficient for its purpose as any Liberal or Radical who ever addressed a constituency. I quite agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman as to the question of coercive or penal Rules. It was not our intention, in framing the Standing Orders which I placed on the Paper, to deal either with individual obstruction or misconduct on the part of Members of this House, or even with the greater offence of obstruction of Business by any Party or section of a Party. These are matters with which, to some extent, our existing Standing Orders deal; and if it should be at any future time necessary to take any further steps in that direction, I think those steps must be of a completely different character to any that are included in the proposed new Standing Orders. The objects with which they were framed are simply these—to enable the House to spend its own time to the most profitable purpose, to put a reasonable check, consistently with the liberty of debate, on the undue protraction of debate, and on that garrulity to which I am afraid we are all too prone, and to enable us to transact the Business of the country with somewhat less tear and wear than we suffer from our existing Parliamentary life. Those are the objects, as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, with which, on behalf of the Government, he proposes the appointment of this Committee. He took some exception to the mode in which we had undertaken to deal with this matter. It appeared to us, I must say, that it would be better, considering the importance of this subject, remembering that the right hon. Gentleman himself had placed it on the threshold of all the subjects which, in his opinion, the new Parliament ought to undertake, and had forcibly observed that—
    "Those who were so keen for legislation on one subject or another should recollect that, with regard to each and all of them, the primary
    928
    question was as to the sound working condition of the great instrument by which all legislation is accomplished."
    It occurred to us that the first Business to be done by this House, subject, of course, to matters of great urgency, or those which had to be dealt with within a certain time, was to consider this subject of Procedure. Therefore it was I asked the House, on behalf of the late Government, to give the question precedence. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed the appointment of a Committee. I do not rise now for the purpose of objecting to the appointment of a Committee; but I must say I think our proposal was the best, because it insured, I think, a more early decision upon this most important subject. I remember that on February 20, 1882, when last the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of Parliament to the matter, he then alluded to the numerous Committees which the House had appointed to consider the question of its own Procedure. He told the House that—
    "There have been more Committees of this House upon this subject than upon any other matter. There have been 14 Committees since the Reform Act, or one Committee in every three Sessions and a-half. There have been seven more Committees upon Private Procedure, which is practically part of the subject, making 21 Committees in all, or an average of a new Committee in every two and a-half years."—(3 Hansard, [266] 1134.)
    And what was the result? Why, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman—
    "These Committees, never leading to adequate results, have now, for many years past, taken effect in what I may, for practical purposes, call total failure."
    Now we have another Select Committee appointed. It differs, I admit, from previous Committees in this, if I may accurately interpret the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman—that in spite of the wide terms of the Order of Reference which he has moved, it will not be expected or asked to deal with the many and varied sides of this great subject; but that it will have placed before it, on the authority of the Government, a series of Resolutions which will be framed by the Government; that it will be guided by the Government in its deliberations; and that the Government will then be responsible for carrying its proposals into effect. If that be so, I admit, although I do not think much practical good will

    929
    be gained from the previous consideration of the proposals by a Select Committee, yet that we have some hind of guarantee that something more is likely to come out of its labours than out of the labours of its predecessors. I will only say that, as far as I and my Colleagues in the late Cabinet are concerned, we made the proposals which I placed on the Paper in no Party spirit whatever. We made them after the fullest and most careful consideration, after much consultation with you, Sir, and the authorities of the House; we made them on our responsibility; and what we proposed in Office we shall be prepared, to the best of our ability, to support in Opposition. We shall enter the Committee in that spirit; and although I should have much preferred that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward his proposals for discussion in the House, still, as far as I can, I will do my best to bring the course which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested to a successful issue, in the hope that, by so doing, we may really promote the efficiency and usefulness of the House of Commons.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the House and the country, in his opinion, were to be congratulated on the spirit in which the vexed question of Parliamentary Procedure was being approached. It was not now a Party question, but a Parliamentary one, and that was satisfactory. When the subject was formerly discussed, irritation was caused by the attempt to coerce the House and limit the rights of free speech. That policy was now to be abandoned, and he rejoiced at it. Everyone was agreed that the work of Parliament had increased and was increasing, and that new modes of Procedure required to be adopted; and he was glad to see that the Prime Minister conceived that these modes could best be found in conciliation and mutual forbearance rather than in restraint and restriction. Thus far, he agreed with what had been said; but he could scarcely say that he was as hopeful as to the result of the Committee as the Government seemed to be. The Committee would be appointed, and 15 or 30 Gentlemen, as the case might be, would argue out the subject in much detail upstairs, sitting for that purpose for many days, perhaps for many weeks,
    930
    and then it would all come back and be argued out afresh in that House. There was no subject that more men spoke on than Procedure, and it usually happened that those who thought least spoke oftenest and longest. The Rules of the House, like the rules of a Club, were considered to be matters that everybody understood; but if the Government thought that the Committee would help to bring about an understanding ho had no objection to its being tried, though he was not hopeful as to the result. His main object in rising was to say to hon. Members that it was quite possible, without any New Rules, to contribute very largely to the better progress of Business. There were many amendments that could be put in force, without Rules, by mutual understanding. Take, for example, the custom of giving Notice of Questions. Members read out long Questions on purely local subjects. Many of those who did that declaimed against Obstruction. Yet the reading of those Questions was virtually a kind of Obstruction, although it might be unconscious. There was no necessity for the Questions to be read out. They could be taken to the Clerk at the Table and printed in the Order Papers. Everything that was gained by a Question would be gained by that process. A quarter of an hour a night was sometimes spent in listening to Notices of Questions of that kind, and a quarter of an hour at the commencement of the proceedings was important. Again, the House was not interested in the Questions, the only people who were so being the Members who read them and a section of their constituents. If the new Members who were anxious to advance the proceedings of Parliament would act on that plan, there would be an immediate improvement made in the Procedure without any Committee or without any discussion. There was another suggestion he would offer. All parties were agreed that the answers to the kind of Questions he had indicated might be printed and distributed with the Votes. There was no Order of the House required for doing that; and if the Speaker and the Leader of the House could agree to allow purely Departmental Questions to be replied to in that way, a further saving of time would be effected. He was quite sure that if Members would, in that and many other like ways, have

    931
    regard to the general welfare, and not to the gratification of personal objects, the usefulness and force of Parliament would be very materially increased without any of the elaborate machinery that was sometimes put in operation.
    MR. STEVENSONexpressed his approval of the course taken, and hoped something would immediately be done to save the time of the House. He hoped that the Prime Minister, in the Resolutions to be submitted to the Committee, would not overlook the great difficulties, amounting almost to absolute impossibility, which private Members at present suffered under in getting legislation through the House. There were between 100 and 200 Bills before the House, introduced by private Members, and, under the present Rules of Procedure, there was no certainty that any one of them would pass, if persistently opposed by one or two Members. He urged, therefore, that the Rules of Procedure on Wednesdays should be thoroughly reformed.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he entirely concurred in the course which the Government had decided to take; and he hoped the Select Committee would enter on the discussion of the proposed New Rules, not in a Party spirit, but with a desire, as far as they were able, to promote the conduct of Business in the House of Commons. They could all remember the time spent on this question in the last Parliament. He remembered the Autumn Session, with the large amount of irritation it produced in the minds of many Members on both sides of the House. On that occasion the Rules were half crushed down their throats; and, indeed, there was little or no independent action in criticizing some of those Rules. It was made a Party affair, and he always thought that was a most unfortunate state of things. The result was that the New Rules, being passed without the concurrence of the Opposition and the suppressed dislike of many Liberal Members, were not loyally adopted by the House, and they had been practically inoperative. They were entering on this discussion in a different spirit; and the proposals would be met, not in a Party spirit, but with a desire to promote the conduct of Business. He considered it a very desirable thing that, in the first instance, they should have a
    932
    strong Committee to thoroughly thresh out the proposals made by the Government. At the same time, care should be taken of the rights and privileges of private Members.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, it was touching to hear from his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Rylands) of the pressure which he was under during the Autumn Session. That was all over now; and he, for one, hoped there would be no Party spirit on this occasion. He could not doubt, after the language of the Prime Minister, that the proposal was brought forward in good faith; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) that the Committee would not lead to any practical result unless its deliberations were kept within reasonable limits. He hoped the Committee would not be abnormally large, and that those who would have to make up the Committee would resist the pressure which would be put on them and keep the numbers of the Committee down. For his own part, he hoped that, at no very distant date, they would arrive at a conclusion by means of which they would be enabled to get through the practical Business of the House, and find themselves in bed at an hour which was more likely to promote their health than the hours which they were now obliged to keep.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the House appeared to be willing to accept the reference of the question to a Committee. That was, no doubt, a correct decision; for the House was not a good body to thresh out the details of such proposals as these. He did not share the hopelessness of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Sir William Hart Dyke) with regard, to the results of the labours of the Committee. It was quite true that many Committees on the subject had sat since the Reform Bill with but little result; but the reason of that was that the pressure on the House had not been so great, nor had the scandal of arrears of Business before the House been so marked. There had also been a very strong feeling of reverence for the Rules under which they always had worked, and they had been unwilling to lay their hands upon those Rules in a really reforming spirit. But it must be remembered that what came out of the Committee was

    933
    very much affected by the spirit of those who went into the Committee. There was now a strong feeling, both in that House and throughout the country, that their Procedure was in need of drastic reform. With regard to the question of the numbers, he thought that it should be a large Committee. He quite agreed that a small Committee might be able to get through their business quicker than a large one; but they must remember that there were two things to be thought of—they had not only to thresh out a satisfactory scheme of Procedure, but also to get it accepted by the House. If they could get a large number of acceptances in a Committee, it was certain that the scheme would be more likely to be received by the House. There was another urgent and vital part of the Business to which he wished shortly to refer. Ever since he had been a Member of that House, it had been a matter of complaint that Select Committees before whom great public questions were raised consisted too much of a repetition of the same names. Too many Members were called upon repeatedly in the same Session to serve on different Committees, while too many were left out altogether. There was power and vigour enough in that Assembly to deal oven with such a stupendous task as that before them, if they availed themselves of the whole powers of the House. But, under the system of selecting Committees by arrangement between the two Front Benches, it was impossible to avoid the old evil of having the same name recurring over and over again on different Committees. Everyone who had charge of any subject, or any Bill, was always anxious to get the most experienced men he knew; and such Members were called upon to serve on Committees until they were weary, while a large portion of the House was entirely left out. In that way a large portion of the House did not take its fair share of the Business, while a large amount of practical experience was not made use of. What he hoped to see was, some plan by which the whole House might be employed on Committee work, and by which every Member of the House should serve on some Committee for the purpose of dealing with those subjects which could not be dealt with by the whole House. He fully agreed that it would be of great advantage to get rid of
    934
    some of the useless stages of their proceedings.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped that they would be able to get a Committee which would be thoroughly representative of the general views of the House upon this important question, and not merely those of the two Front Benches. He would suggest whether the Prime Minister should not lay upon the Table his own plan of Procedure, so that it might be considered along with that of the late Government. He was glad that he had heard no suggestion made as to any further application of the Rules with regard to closing the debate after a few Members only on each side had spoken.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had anticipated almost everything that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had desired to say with reference to the appointment of this Committee. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that, in his opinion, the Government had taken a wise course, and that it was desirous, under the circumstances, that the Committee should be a large one. No doubt, a small Committee might succeed in drawing up a plan as thoroughly as a larger one; but, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, the object of a Committee of this kind was not only to draw up a plan, but also to endeavour to bring before the House the greatest possible amount of agreement of representative Members of the House. It was not necessary to say more on that point; but he wished to call attention to one subject which it was fully as necessary to consider. There had, up to the present time, been a general disposition to object to any extension of what had been called "coercive or restrictive regulations." He was entirely in favour of remedial legislation, in preference to coercive or restrictive legislation, if the former would accomplish the object; but, in his opinion, it would be unwise that anything should be said which would make it absolutely impossible for the House to consider the question of the power of the closure as it had operated up to the present year, and as it might be extended or otherwise. Having had two years' experience of that new system, it appeared to him it would be certainly necessary that any Com-

    935
    mittee which had to investigate the Rules of Procedure should discuss and consider what had been, up to the present time, the operation of the Rule, and whether it had been so far successful, or whether it could be in any way amended. And in view of the proposal of his right hon. Friend, it appeared to him to be all the more necessary that the consideration of the question of closure should not be excluded from the scope of the Committee. It appeared to him that if the House were going to consider the closing of its deliberations at 12 o'clock, or half-past 12, or at any fixed hour, it was absolutely necessary, if they did not desire that Business should be a great deal more obstructed instead of being less obstructed, that they should consider whether the power of closure could not be made more effective. In fact, he could not conceive that the Members of the late Government themselves, when they laid these Resolutions on the Table, could have thought that they could lend them any improvement for the transaction of Business, unless they were accompanied by some improvement of the Rule relating to the closure. He could very well understand that they (the Opposition) might not have liked to meddle with that subject themselves; but he thought they must have anticipated that a suggestion of that kind would have emanated from some part of the House. He did not want to discuss in what way the closure ought to be amended at the present time. He did not think it was necessary that they should discuss any of the Resolutions. All he wanted was that it should not be understood that that subject was to be excluded from the consideration of the Committee that might be appointed to consider the question; because, in his opinion, it was intimately and very closely connected with the proposed Resolutions that, as his right hon. Friend told them, were to form practically the basis of the Reference to the Committee.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he hoped that some arrangement would be made by which the proposals of the Government, which were in the nature of Amendments to the scheme of the late Government, would be made public, and that thus they might have the advantage of that publicity which the proposals of the late Administration obtained. They
    936
    should be printed with the Votes and Proceedings of the House from day to day, as they were decided on.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was glad to notice that the present question appeared to be entirely removed from Party influences. The longer they were kept from those influences, the more hope there would be of the efforts of the Committee being brought to a successful issue. He wished to make a practical suggestion. The extension of the franchise last Parliament took place principally by a friendly consultation between the two Parties; and he would submit to the Prime Minister that, as the Conservative Party had placed its proposals before the country, if the proposals of the present Government at all assumed in Committee the appearance of being opposite proposals, then, in a very short time, no matter how the Committee was constituted, Party feeling would arise. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether, by consultation with the Leaders of the Conservative Party, he might not eliminate all questions which might lead to such deplorable results. He would further suggest that there could be no Procedure unless there were Members in the House to take part in it; and there could be no Members continuously present as long as they were accommodated so badly as at present. He thought they should appeal to the Prime Minister to endeavour to ascertain how strong was the feeling in the House on this matter; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree soon to appoint another Committee to investigate the subject.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he had often heard it stated that it would be highly inconvenient for business men to attend the Sittings of the House if they commenced at 2 o'clock. At those periods of the year when it was usual for the House to meet at 2 o'clock twice a-week, he, though a business man himself, found no difficulty in attending.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he strongly objected, as a man of business, to the proposal that the House should meet at 2 o'clock. Two o'clock to 4 were two of the principal business hours of the day, and he declared that the proposed alteration would be most inconvenient; and he would be surprised to find that the Legal Profession did not

    937
    give a similar opinion. He would point out that Ministers did their official work up to 3, when they received deputations, so that they might be in their places by 4 o'clock. He also had a strong objection to a regular October Session. They all knew that any man who sought a seat in the House must be ready when the House was summoned to give up his time to the public service; but, at the same time, they understood that to be on the supposition that, in ordinary times, the House would meet in February and prorogue in August. Unofficial Members of the House having discharged their duties for six months might surely be allowed the remaining six months for business or relaxation. He apprehended the meeting in October would be a very great inconvenience, and he hoped the Committee would give no sanction to it.
    CAPTAIN FIELDsaid, that the House consisted of 670 Members, of whom 320 were old and 350 new Members; and he thought that before the latter were called upon to take part in the reform of the Procedure of the House they ought to be afforded an opportunity of learning what the old Rules were. He was a new Member, and the first thing he did as such was to endeavour to obtain a copy of the Standing Orders and Rules of the House; but he was told there were none available. He was further informed that he might go to a bookseller, and purchase a copy; but he declined to do so. [Laughter.] He maintained that he was entitled to be supplied with a copy; but whether he ought to apply for it to the Speaker, or to the First Commissioner of Works, or to the Serjeant-at-Arms, he was at a loss to know. All he could say was that if, in the course of his career, he should commit any breach of Order, he should plead as an excuse that he had been unable to obtain a copy of the Standing Orders from the authorities of the House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, ho ought to answer the appeals made to him. In the first place, with regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he had perfectly understood the spirit and intention with which he (Mr. Gladstone) had spoken. Their desire was to propose a Committee upon a scale which they deemed to be most agreeable to the
    938
    ideas of the House; and he had been able to gather some light on that subject from the course of the present debate. They would endeavour to make, with regard to the Chairman of the Committee, that arrangement which they thought would be most likely to command approbation and confidence. With regard to the appeal made to him to publish the Amendments which the Government might propose, or additions, or the variations, whatever they might be, that the Government might desire to recommend to the House, there was a great deal to be said in favour of that proposal; but he would rather not give a positive answer upon it at the present moment, because he thought it was a matter that perhaps the Committee itself would be best able to deal with. They might be inclined to publish, not only the suggestions of the Government, but other suggestions also, and he did not at all see any objection to the proposal, or to the spirit in which it had been made; but he thought perhaps the Committee itself would best deal with its consideration. Then, as to the appeal made by his noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) as to what was commonly called the closure, undoubtedly when he said that, in his opinion, the House had more to expect from multiplying its means of action, and judiciously and thriftily applying them, than it had from coercive and restrictive proceedings, he did not mean to go beyond the utterance of a general opinion. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was under the impression that he (Mr. Gladstone) was the person to whose unnatural and perverse attachment to what was called the closure it was due that the House had to occupy so much time upon it during the year 1882. If the right hon. Gentleman were acquainted with the internal history of those proceedings, he would find that he was far wide of the mark in what he had just stated.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I spoke of the irritation consequent upon it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know if he produced the irritation; but he quite agreed there was a good deal of it, and he hoped there would be none of it on that or any proximate occasion. He had not intended to give

    939
    more than a general opinion on the matter; but, obviously, he would suppose, the Committee could not refuse to look into a question of that kind. All he could then say was, that neither in regard to that nor any other point could he conceive that they could wish to enforce beforehand considerations upon a Committee which he believed would be so constituted as to deserve and carry along with it the fullest confidence of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Select Committee appointed, "to consider the question of Procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the amendment of existing Rules, and upon any New Rules which they may consider desirable for the efficient despatch of business."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  EAST INDIA, BURMAH (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS).

    RESOLUTION.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH), in rising to move—
    "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions,"
    said, that he must claim some indulgent allowance as it was only a fortnight since he entered the India Office. The statement which he would make to the House would be short and simple. It was the intention of the Government, following the course announced by their Predecessors, to propose to both Houses of Parliament that there should be a Joint Committee upon the Acts relating to the Government of India; and it would be part of the duty of the Committee to consider whether the meaning of the 54th and 55th sections of the Government of India Act was perfectly clear, or whether anything could be done to remove ambiguities which existed according to many learned authorities. Meanwhile, the Government, acting in the spirit of the Act, sought, at the earliest possible moment, the sanction of Parliament to the step which had been taken of applying the Revenues of India for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Burmese
    940
    War. It was not necessary for him to detain the House with any regular narrative of the events that led to the annexation of Burmah. King Theebaw ascended the Throne in 1878, and, not to go further back, ever since that time the relations of the Indian Government with that of Burmah had been anything but satisfactory. The history of those relations was contained in the Blue Book. Matters culminated in the Ultimatum which was sent by the Viceroy in October last year to Mandalay. That Ultimatum contained certain terms to which the Burmese Government refused to accede, and Theebaw issued a hostile Preclamation threatening to efface the heretic Christian barbarians, and to conquer and annex their country. On November 11 the late Government ordered the Military Expedition to Upper Burmah which Sir Harry Prendergast commanded, and on January 1 Theebaw's Kingdom was annexed under instructions from Her Majesty's late Ministers. When Parliament met it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that Her Majesty had decided that the most certain method of insuring peace and order in those regions was to be found in the permanent incorporation of the Kingdom of Ava with the British Empire. What the present Government had to do was to deal with the situation so created. When they acceded to Office the Viceroy (the Earl of Dufferin) was on his way to Mandalay. Her Majesty's present Government awaited the opinion of Lord Dufferin formed on the spot. He had not gone so committed as to prevent his forming an impartial opinion, and he had now telegraphed a very clear and a very strong opinion in regard to Burmah; and acting upon his opinion, and in view of the situation created by the Proclamation of Annexation, and the announcement in Her Majesty's Speech, Her Majesty's Government had had no doubt whatever as to the course which they should pursue; the annexation effected under the late Government must be maintained, and consequential administrative measures had been authorized. He did not know that he could give much idea of what those administrative measures would be. There could, however, be no doubt that Upper Burmah would be administered under the authority of the Viceroy; and it was hoped that a system

    941
    of administration might be introduced suitable to the peculiarities of the country and the people of Upper Burmah, and not burdensome in cost. The Viceroy was pefecting a scheme with these objects; but Her Majesty's Government were not yet so fully in possession of his views as to Make a more explicit statement at present. Having said that much, he thought the House would expect him to supply some information as to our relations with the great Chinese Empire, our neighbour. With regard to that subject, he need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to show a thoroughly friendly disposition towards China, and he had every reason to believe that that desire was heartily reciprocated by that country. It would be premature, however, to say anything about the precise arrangement that might be come to between this country and China; but the Government were hopeful that the negotiations begun a little while ago would be brought to a perfectly satisfactory termination. As to the cholera, about which there had been one or two rather alarming statements, calculated to make people at home anxious as to the health of the troops, British and Indian, now employed in Upper Burmah, he was able to give most reassuring information to the House. Between November and January a slight outbreak of the malady did occur; but there had been no case of cholera among the troops in Upper Burmah since the first week in January. With respect to the cost of the Expedition, he was happy to say that the estimates which had reached them from the Viceroy at Mandalay, although they were necessarily rough, and perhaps to some extent conjectural, confirmed the statement made by the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India, the estimate of the Viceroy being that the total cost of the Expedition would not exceed £300,000, even if it should reach that figure. The Secretary of State desired that the most ample recognition should be given of the prompt and complete manner in which the Civil and Military Authorities both of the Indian and Madras Governments had equipped, organized, and despatched this Expedition. He desired also to recognize the able conduct of Mr. Bernard, our Chief Commissioner in British Burmah, during the whole of this affair. He was anxious
    942
    to acknowledge the promptitude of General Prendergast and Colonel Sladen in their Expedition up the river and entrance into Mandalay. And, lastly, he wished to say a word as regarded the efficiency of the Indian and British troops in many duties often of a harassing character, and to acknowledge the ready assistance given by the Naval Commander-in-Chief and his forces in furnishing a Naval Brigade, whose services were worthy of all praise. He had already given some information upon a very mournful subject—namely, the conduct of the Provost Marshal at some executions in Upper Burmah. Further information would be given as soon as possible. In a communication received from the Viceroy that evening, he stated that, after inquiries, it was certainly untrue that the troops shot persons indiscriminately who had been made prisoners. Those shot at Mandalay during the past six weeks had been cases of convicted offenders, under sentence by civil officers. The Viceroy explained that occasionally, when taken red-handed, the leaders of marauding parties were shot; but whenever that was done, it was in every case only upon the advice of the civil officer accompanying the column intrusted with the duty of suppressing these dacoits and so-called insurgents, both of whom robbed and murdered innocent villagers. They were cruel and barbarous, the Viceroy said, not to us, but to these innocent villagers. This dacoity had been an old evil in Upper Burmah, but exceptionally ripe under Theebaw's bad government. So far as the Viceroy could ascertain, there had been no undue severity on the part of our troops; and he spoke of the calmness and humanity of General Prendergast, and said Mr. Bernard would not countenance excessive punishment. For the safety of the country, and for the happiness of its inhabitants, it was absolutely necessary to suppress these gangs of robbers, and to punish these robbers and murderers. Further, the Viceroy said that the pacification of the country was being effected as rapidly as possible, although the fact that a large part of the country was covered with jungle rendered the work exceptionally difficult. Coming to the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had given Notice, he observed

    943
    that his hon. Friend proposed to move that it was unjust to defray the expenses of this Expedition out of the Indian Revenues. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle-worth) did not know by what arguments his hon. and learned Friend proposed to support the Amendment. But he anticipated that one of these would be that this was a war for British trade. There could be no doubt that the annexation might have an effect on British trade; he hoped, indeed, that an improvement in the trade of the country might be one of its effects. But a war undertaken for that purpose would have been unjustifiable. Her Majesty's Government was, however, prepared to deny that the war was undertaken for any such purpose. The real ground of the Viceroy's action, as Her Majesty's Government concluded on reading the Papers, was the protection and safety of British Burmah, and of Her Majesty's other Dominions in that part of the world. The Government of King Theebaw had been endeavouring for some time past to establish political relations with other Powers; and its object was clearly to annoy the Government of India. It was obvious that the results of such conduct would eventually be dangerous to the Indian Empire; and it was evident that it was largely on that ground that the Viceroy based his action. If that view were correct, he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle worth) ventured to contend, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the British taxpayers could not be fairly asked to pay the costs of this Expedition, and that it was properly payable out of the Revenues of India. There were two other arguments which might be used against his hon. and learned Friend, though upon the first he did not lay much stress. This was a comparatively small sum. So far as the information sent by the Viceroy was concerned, the expenses of the Expedition were, as he had before observed, estimated not to exceed £300,000. Not only, therefore, was this a comparatively small affair, but the Expedition was distinctly undertaken for the defence of British Burmah and other Possessions in that part of Asia. On the other hand, there was no ground for laying the burden of this war on the British taxpayer. But there was a further argument for placing this burden on the Indian Revenue which he would place before the House. For
    944
    many years British Burmah had been a source of very considerable Revenue to India. Here was an Expedition undertaken for the defence of British Burmah, and so far as the taxpayers of the rest of India were concerned, they were only asked to make a small return out of this large annual contribution. As to the probable future of Upper Burmah, he did not wish to put before the House any very rosy or sanguine view regarding the development of trade likely to spring from our annexation of Upper Burmah. It was safer not to indulge in prophetic anticipations, which were often not realized, and he would not hold out any exaggerated anticipations. There was, however, one fact before the House which was of an encouraging character, and which would form much more solid ground than any anticipation he could put forward, and that was the fact that the population, the Revenue, and the trade of British Burmah had increased enormously since it had become a British Province. In 1862–3 the population of British Burmah was 2,500,000, while in 1883–4 it amounted to 3,700,000. The Revenue in the earlier period he had mentioned did not reach £1,000,000; but in 1883–4 it was nearly £3,000,000. At the former period, the trade of the country, including imports and exports, was under £2,000,000; whereas, in 1883, it approached £10,500,000. That was to say, the Revenue of British Burmah had been trebled in the period referred to, while its trade had been more than quintupled. If any such results should be obtained in Upper Burmah, then this House would have very good reason to be satisfied. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions."—(Sir Ughtred Eay-Shuttleworth.)
    MR. HUNTER, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
    "That this House is of opinion that it would be unjust to defray the expense of the Military operations in the Kingdom of Ava out of the revenues of India,"

    945
    said, that it would be admitted on all sides that they ought to examine such a proposal as that now made by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for India with the most scrupulous care. Indeed, it was impossible to exercise too scrupulous and exacting a care, for the House occupied a peculiarly delicate position in ascertaining whether the expense of the war ought to be paid by the people of India or the people of England. The people of India had no Representative in that House to protect their interests; and there always was a danger that injustice might be done in matters of account between the two countries. Further, the relations between the English Government and the people of India had been compared to that between guardian and ward, There was some truth in the comparison; and as there was nothing more dishonourable to a guardian than to charge upon the estate of his ward expenses incurred for his own personal ends, such conduct was peculiarly cruel and mean when the guardian was very rich, and the ward was very poor. There were two facts as to which, unfortunately, there could be no dispute. First, we had acquired an insolvent Province; and the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India had expressed a hope that it would be possible to introduce a simple form of government, inasmuch as it was probable that for a considerable period the Revenues of the country would not defray the costs of administration. The time had been very unhappily chosen for increasing the burdens and extending the responsibilities of the Indian Empire, seeing that the Government of India had been driven to the last resource of imposing an Income Tax. The Revenue from British Burmah had never paid the interest on the first Burmese War. The cost of that war was £15,000,000, and the largest surplus in British Burmah, after making allowance for exchange, was only £670,000; and the time never would come when it was possible for British Burmah to pay its arrears of interest to the Indian Empire. Who were those who had clamoured for annexation? They were certainly not the people of India, or the Native merchants of British Burmah. Indeed, he denied in toto that there was any widespread feeling in the country favourable to the annexation of Upper Burmah. Even in
    946
    October, 1884, when the relations of the Indian Government and the King of Burmah were admittedly friendly, the Native merchants of Rangoon protested against the views in favour of annexation expressed by the British merchants of that town, because they knew it would be entirely a burden. If the annexation was brought about by the Chambers of Commerce, and, as was undoubtedly the case, this was a war to open up new markets for British trade, for British interests, and not for Indian interests—if it was a war that was urged on by British merchants, and condemned by the people of India—then where was the justice or honour of imposing the expenses of the war upon the Exchequer of India? What aggravated the war in the eyes of the Indian people was that, in their estimation at all events, there never was a war less necessary, or an annexation less desirable. The Government of India, in the Proclamation on which they based their attack on King Theebaw, spoke of the King's Reign as having been marked by the violation of Treaties and by outrages on British subjects, and generally of his having pursued a policy systematically opposed to British interests. But in a despatch from the Government of India, dated March 24, 1885, the Government declared that—
    "Hitherto our Treaties have been, on the whole, respected, our commerce has received protection, and our officers have succeeded in maintaining friendly relations with the officials on the Burmese frontier districts."
    Those, then, were points in which the statements in the Proclamation were flatly contradicted by a despatch sent from India no later than March 24, 1885. The average British trade between British Burmah and Ava in the four years before King Theebaw ascended the Throne was £3,061,174; the average of the four succeeding years was £3,224,814, which, moreover, represented a relatively much larger volume of trade, because, in the meantime, the prices of articles had declined as much as 30 or 40 per cent. Mr. Bernard, our Chief Commissioner in Burmah, who up to that time had steadily opposed annexation, on the 28th of July gave a conditional and qualified assent to a different policy. What was it that occurred in the interval? It was two documents which purported to be copies of an

    947
    engagement entered into by the French Government on the one hand, and by the Burmese Government on the other. This Agreement, it was alleged, would make France and French influence dominant in Burmah, and exclude British trade from the Valley of the Irrawaddy. But what were the facts? The French Government, on September 26, 1885, in a despatch, informed Lord Salisbury that—
    "There was no truth whatever in the report that a Convention had been concluded between France and Burmah by which a concession for railways, with interest guaranteed, is secured to a French Company, control given to the French Government over the Customs of the Irrawaddy River, and a concession granted for the establishment of a bank at Mandalay."
    Thus, on September 26, before the date when the Ultimatum was sent to King Theebaw, our Government were in possession of two facts—in the first place, that their Chief Commissioner was entirely opposed to annexation; in the next place, that he consented conditionally to annexation, if the representations referred to were true, and they had positive information from the French Government that there was no truth whatever in those representations. As to questions of etiquette at the Burmese Court, about which so much had been said, he (Mr. Hunter) considered that taking off the shoes in a hot climate was not worse than taking off the hat in a cold; leaving one's sword outside the Palace was not more absurd than a civilian wearing a sword, to which he was in no way accustomed, when he went into the presence of his Sovereign; and as for sitting on the floor, that was, no doubt, an attitude to which they were not much accustomed, but neither were they to walking backwards, like a crab. He maintained that the blame for the breaking-off of diplomatic relations did not rest with the Burmese, for it appeared from the Blue Book that it was insisted that the request for the return of the British Agent to Mandalay, after he had been withdrawn in the panic after the catastrophe at Cabul, must come from the Court of Ava. He thought this disposed of the pretexts for the war; and as to the Bombay Company, it declined to enter into any compromise with the Burmese Government. There never was a war in which the people of India took less interest, and there never was a clearer case of a commercial war. It was
    948
    unjust—he might use a stronger term— to place this charge upon the people of India; and to give the House an opportunity of expressing approval of that sentiment he moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
    MR. RICHARD: I rise to second the Amendment. I could have wished that my hon. Friend had given a wider scope to his Motion, so that we might test the feeling of the House, not merely on the point of defraying the expenses of our military operations in Burmah from the resources of India, but on the still more important question of the general policy we have lately pursued in that country. For my part, I must state my opinion that the summary annexation of that Kingdom was an act of high-handed violence for which there is no adequate justification. Recent events and present appearances seem to indicate that it was not only an act of injustice, but an act of flagrant folly. By suddenly overturning the existing Government, it looks as though we had consigned the country to what may prove to be a prolonged anarchy; while there is no little danger of our becoming involved in serious troubles and complications in more than one direction, especially with China. I am sorry that the present Government are disposed to endorse and adopt that policy. I believe it would have been better if they had acted as they did in Afghanistan and the Transvaal, and reversed the policy of their Predecessors, instead of following it as they did in Egypt, with what consequences to themselves and the country is now only too well known. The pretext assigned for this act of wholesale confiscation is the misconduct of King Theebaw. But I fear the real motive was that we coveted his possessions, and were determined to have them at any cost. When Naboth's vineyard is wanted, it is not difficult to make out a case, to our own satisfaction at least, why Naboth himself should be put out of the way. There are two strong presumptive and primâ facie reasons which incline me to put this construction on the matter. The first is the general fact that our countrymen, especially in the East, have a perfect passion for annexation. And the reasons for it are not far to seek. For whatever these acts may cost the people of England, or the people of India, they are certain to re-

    949
    dound to the interests of the classes that clamour for them, or such, at least, is their belief. When the issue of the last war with Burmah was pending, there was a discussion on the subject in the House of Lords, when Lord Ellen-borough made a remarkable speech. Some parts of it are so singularly pertinent to the present occasion, that I ask permission to read a few sentences from it. After referring to the pressure brought to bear on the Indian Government by "certain enterprizing British merchants and the Press of Calcutta" in favour of our "occupying the whole Burmese Empire," he added—
    "I hope that my right hon. Friend the Governor General of India will treat that Press with the disregard which it deserves. But, my Lords, there is also another serious pressure which my right hon. Friend ought to disregard, and which it will be more difficult, I am afraid, for him to resist—that is the pressure of a part of the Civil and of the whole Military Service. They have before their eyes the occupation of Afhganistan, which produced a complete revolution in the Army of Bengal. That will always be the case where a great territory is to be occupied even for a time, and still more where a new territory is to be annexed to and brought under our dominion. Young officers are then placed in command of districts; others are placed in political employment, where they actually direct the operation of troops under the command of their superiors. Great rewards and distinctions are obtained, great talents exhibited —and every man, with a natural ambition, looks forward to the promotion he may attain; and then the idea of a new war, likely to terminate in new conquests, is dear to that Army—an Army full of enterprize and of those feelings which naturally excite military men to great actions. Under such circumstances, I view with great alarm the annexation to our Empire of a large portion—aye, or even of any portion—of the Burmese territory."
    Remember this was in 1853, when there were people already demanding that we should occupy the whole Burmese Empire. This leads me to my second reason for believing that the conduct of King Theebaw was a mere pretext for the act now consummated. It is perfectly notorious that the settlers in British Burmah, backed by the Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Chinese Press, have been for a long time—for many years before Theebaw came to the Throne—hankering after their neighbour's possessions in that region, and never ceasing to address vehement exhortations to the Indian Government to go in and seize the land, on any pretence whatever. Colonel Laurie informs us that when he
    950
    was in Rangoon, in 1864–14 years before the accession of Theebaw—he found a loud demand even then for war and annexation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen has already, on a former occasion, referred, as a significent indication of the feeling prevalent at Rangoon, to the pretty sharp rebuke administered by Lord Mayo, in 1869, to the Chief Commissioner, expressing the extreme regret and disapproval with which he would regard any action tending towards further annexation. And when young Margery was murdered on the foolish expedition on which he was sent from China to Burmah, though there was ample evidence that the Burmese Government were in no way implicated in that transaction, and the Governor General in Council issued a special Minute, absolving that Government from all imputation, the Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Chinese Press eagerly seized upon the incident as furnishing a capital pretext for the confiscation of Burmah. The North China Herald said—
    "If the Burmese King's complicity can be proved so much the better. His deposition and the advance of the British Frontier to the borders of Yunnan would be a great political gain."
    And, then, mark this other extract from the same source—
    "The political advantage of occupying Burmese territory would not he confined to India. The contiguity of the British Indian Frontier with that of Yunnan would mean a pressure on China that could hardly fail to be felt at Pekin."
    But it looks now as if China were going to put a rather inconvenient pressure upon us. All this proves that the spoliation of Burmah was a foregone conclusion for many years. The principal points relied upon by those who vindicate the annexation are three. First, the massacres and cruelties perpetrated by the King upon his own relatives to protect himself against rival claimants to the Throne. Secondly, his daring to enter into communication with the French and Italian Governments without our leave. And, thirdly, his quarrel with the Bombay and Burmah Trading Company about certain logs of wood. With regard to the charges of cruelty, I dare say King Theebaw is not a very desirable person. It is likely enough that he followed the abominable custom

    951
    which seems to prevail in that country at the accession of a new Sovereign, of putting out of the way other members of the Royal Family. But I have no doubt myself that some of the representations which have been sent to this country of the "horrible cruelties" committed at Mandalay have been greatly exaggerated, coloured, and cooked for the home market, to prepare for further outcries in favour of annexation. Indeed, some of them bear on their face a questionable character; for we have given to us the minutest details of what was going on in the recesses of Burmese prisons, not only as to the number of executions, but as to the precise mode in every case; and, in some instances, we have the conversations that took place between the prisoners before they were led out to execution. One would like to know how all these particulars were got at. In one of the despatches sent by the Indian Government to Lord Cranbrook when he was at the India Office, they dilate, as usual, upon the cruelties and barbarities practised by the King, and then add, very naively, that all they knew of them was from popular report, and from the statements of one of the rival Princes, who was a pretender for the Throne—not a very satisfactory testimony, surely, on which to rob a man of his Crown and country. Then, our sensibilities are very partial and local, for while we shudder and are filled with indignation at the violent death of 100 or 200 people at Mandalay, we seem quite comfortable in conscience when we know that our own Government, during the last 10 years, must have slaughtered 50,000 or 60,000 human beings. For my part, I am bound to say that I have come to look with a good deal of suspicion on the representations sent home by our countrymen settled in those remote regions, whether they are mercantile adventurers, or newspaper correspondents, or even Government officials. We know, from past and quite recent experience, that it is very easy for British subjects in foreign lands to trump up charges of a formidable kind, against any Ruler with whom they want to pick a quarrel, especially as they have it all their own way, and the inculpated parties have no fair opportunity of stating their own case. We have not forgotten how grossly Shere Ali, and Cetewayo, and the leaders of the Transvaal Boers, and Arabi Bey
    952
    were misrepresented and calumniated by our Representatives abroad, though, unhappily, those calumnies were not discovered until the irreparable mischief they occasioned had been done. One very remarkable thing is the striking family likeness between all these acts of aggression and annexation. We are always told that they are undertaken for the benefit of the people of the countries annexed; that the great body of the inhabitants are passionately in our favour and eager for our coming. We are assured that there will be very little occasion for fighting; let us send a few regiments, or two or three ships of war, and the people would crowd to welcome us, and fall down and embrace our knees with transports of gratitude and loyalty. We were told that this would be the case in the Transvaal and in Zululand. But the very reverse has always happened; for we soon find that the people do not like to have their country stolen from them, do not like to see their Native Government overturned, do not like to see all places of authority and influence usurped by a people who are aliens to them in race, language, and religion. And when, instead of receiving us with welcome and gratitude, they betake themselves to arms to defend their own national independence, we christen them rebels or dacoits, and shoot and hang them, without mercy, to any extent. But whatever may be the rights or wrongs of our quarrel with Burmah, why should India pay for it? Is India in a position to bear further burdens? Not long ago, an Indian official had said that there were 40,000,000 of people in that country who had to go through life on insufficient food; and I have lately seen a statement in The Times, on what I believe is good authority, that in the 19 years between 1861 and 1880 more than 11,500,000 people had died of famine. And is this a people on whose shoulders we should throw the cost of our own quarrels? The bill which they would have to pay for this war may grow to be a very large one. We are told that it would only be £300,000. But we always begin our wars with very modest demands. When we entered upon the Abyssinian War we were assured that the expenditure would not amount to more than £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, whereas it had not been much less than

    953
    £9,000,000. The Government which had promoted the Afghan War had estimated the cost at first at £1,250,000, but that had swollen to £18,000,000 or £20,000,000. And what security had we that the Burmese War might not lead to some such sum? I maintain that we have no right to tax the people of India for this war. They have had no part or lot in bringing on the conflict. They have never been consulted as to its policy; and they are not represented in this House. But though they have no means of expressing their opinions here, they have done so in the only way in their power. I am told that the whole Native Press of India has with one accord pronounced against both the necessity and the equity of this war; and I warn you that the time is not distant, if indeed it has not already come, when it will not be wise or safe for you to disregard Native opinion on matters of this kind.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it would be unjust to defray the expenses of the Military operations in the Kingdom of Ava out of the revenues of India,"—(Mr. Hunter,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had asserted that the Indian people had not been consulted as to the laying upon the Revenues of India of the expenses of the Burmese War; but it must be admitted, nevertheless, that the Indian people had found very able advocates in that House. Those Gentlemen were men of extreme sensibility; and it was noticeable that whenever a discussion arose as to the advance of Russia in Central Asia they were generally found to be apologists of Russia, who pointed out the advantages of extending Russian civilization, while in all cases of the advance of British civilization nothing but invective and disparagement was to be heard from them. He had listened attentively to hear the reasons stated why India should not pay for this war; but, instead of dealing with that question, they confined themselves to considering the question of justification for the war, which
    954
    was quite another matter. At the meeting of Parliament it was, no doubt, a question whether there was or was not any justification for making this war without the sanction of Parliament. But now it was admitted that Lord Dufferin had made out a case for urgency, and shown, by his despatches, that it was necessary to act promptly. Lord Dufferin had explained that he had proceeded without delay in order "to circumscribe the extent of the war, the loss, and the duration of the campaign." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had said that the only people who agitated for the war were the English merchants in Rangoon. He seemed to overlook the fact that Lord Dufferin never consulted the mercantile communities, either in the East or in this country, and that his reasons for declaring war were of a totally different character. Lord Dufferin pointed out in his despatches that the mere misgovernment of Burmah had not been deemed a sufficient reason for his interference, but that he did consider it to be his duty to intervene when the King of Burmah endeavoured to enforce unjust exactions against British subjects. Even, however, after this, he was willing to refer the matter to arbitration. No doubt, the reasons for the war were not stated with that frankness which would convince every reader of the Blue Book. Lord Dufferin was really forced to go to war by the French intrigues in Burmah; and it was undesirable that the Viceroy of India should put the case plainly against a Power with which we were still in friendly alliance. It was said that the French intrigues only commenced in 1884. But that was not the case. In 1882 the Burmese sent a "Scientific Expedition" to Europe, and it remained 18 months in Paris without even calling on Lord Lyons. It was said by the Mover of the Amendment that the French Government explicitly disclaimed any intention of interfering in Burmah. But Lord Lyons reported a remarkable conversation with M. Ferry in 1884, who, while asserting that the French Government merely intended to conclude a Mercantile Treaty with the Burmese, added that the Burmese Expedition had come to France to say that Burmah was quite ready to throw itself into the arms of France, Some valuable information was also afforded by

    955
    the Correspondent of The Bombay Gazette, who stated that the Italian Consul at Mandalay, having obtained access to certain private papers, had discovered a secret engagement between the King of Burmah and the French adventurers out there; that this had been transmitted to the English Government, and had convinced Mr. Bernard and Lord Dufferin of the necessity of immediate action. It was said that the Imperial Government had no right to invade the Dominions of an independent Sovereign; but those who asserted this could not have had any appreciation of the real position of the British in India. They had to protect the people of that country; and it was clearly in the political interests of India that Lord Dufferin made war upon Burmah. Lord Wellesley acted similarly at the beginning of the century in banishing rival European influences from India; and fortunately England possessed, in the brilliant Irishman now ruling over India, a worthy Successor of that other great Irishman who laid so broad and deep the foundations of her Indian Empire. The French Government disclaimed what was going on; but European Governments generally did disclaim intrigues until they were successful. If action had not been taken these French adventurers would have established rights in Burmah, and representations would have been made to every European Government, and there would have been a demand to place the Irrawaddy in the position of the Congo, and so destroy the exclusive British influence over it. The hon. Member (Mr. Richard) had talked of £300,000 being a large sum to be paid by India in the critical state of her finances; but were not the finances of England also in a critical position? And it seemed rather an austere self-denying ordinance to say that the English taxpayers were to bear the expense of all extensions of Her Majesty's Dominions in the East. India surely ought to pay her share. It was, he thought, Lord Lytton who laid down the rule that India might fairly be taxed for wars on her Frontier and to the East of the Isthmus of Suez when no European Power intervened; and that when a European Power intervened England might contribute. India had a commerce of £150,000,000 sterling; and if
    956
    she were an independent State, to protect that commerce she would have to maintain a Fleet on every sea and an Ambassador at every Court, whereas she only made a small payment for the Indian Squadron. Therefore, she might be fairly asked to bear the cost of that small war undertaken in the East for the benefit of the Empire. The Province of British Burmah had, at present, a commerce of fully £5,000,000 sterling carried on with India alone, whereas the whole of its commerce with all the other countries in the world did not amount to double that sum. India was also one of the largest customers of the Chinese, and one great advantage of our having possession of Upper Burmah was that we should get a short cut into the interior Provinces of China never yet touched by our commerce. It was said that the new Province would be a costly possession; but when the hon. Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple) was sent to report on the prospects of British Burmah when it was annexed, he made an estimate that it would yield about 80 lakhs of Revenue some day. That prophecy had been far more than fulfilled, for the Revenue of British Burmah now amounted to 280 lakhs. They might look for similar results from Upper Burmah, especially if the same energy was shown by the present Government in completing the negotiations at Pekin as was displayed by the late Government in bringing the war to a conclusion. He therefore sincerely hoped that the same decision and vigour of purpose would be evinced in realizing for England and India the fruits of that war as were shown both by the Statesmen and the Generals concerned in conducting it to a successful issue.
    MR. McIVERsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had suggested that previous speakers had dealt with subjects not strictly to the point. He (Mr. McIver) feared he should sin in the same direction, for he did not rise to support that particular Amendment, but to speak of what seemed to him a yet graver matter. He only interposed in that debate to express his regret and surprise that Her Majesty's Ministers should not have thought fit—should not have thought it proper or found it convenient—to lay before the House full and adequate grounds why they should

    957
    confirm what he held to be the precipitate action of the late Government in annexing Upper Burmah. The Under Secretary of State for India (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had indicated to the House that there was no going back from the sentence in the Queen's Speech relating to that subject, and had seemed to suggest that though they might drive a coach and four through an Act of Parliament, yet once they had adopted a paragraph in a Royal Message there was an end of the matter. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen called that a fundamental law; but, for himself, he questioned whether it was quite a Constitutional use to make of the Sovereign's name. He would remind the present Advisers of Her Majesty that they had gone back before under much more dubious circumstances in South Africa; and, although he did not refer with unmixed satisfaction to that precedent, yet he would point out that they had gone back before in India. The circumstances then and now might not be identical; but they had given Mysore back to Native rule after 18 years of British rule; and there was no reason why the results should be deemed unsatisfactory in that case. Although the Under Secretary had held out no promise of reconsidering the situation in Upper Burmah, matters had developed there since the annexation which it would be well for Her Majesty's Government to consider. The despatch of the late Secretary of State for India, explaining why they had annexed Upper Burmah, said that Her Majesty's Government derived special gratification from learning that their troops were welcomed by the people of that country, and spoke of the genuine desire on the part of the Natives for our rule. According, however, to recent reports, it required 16,000 British bayonets to keep alive that "genuine desire," which was evinced by the whole country rising in arms. Was it a "genuine desire" which required a large number of executions to take place, and which required that large force to repress those people? The attitude of that people, who were panting to be British, closely resembled that of other peoples who "were struggling, and rightly struggling, to be free." The Burmese did not desire British rule. It might be incomprehensible to some that there should be a
    958
    people so lost to all sense of their own interests; but it seemed to be the fact, nevertheless. The Burmese had a national sentiment. It was not precisely identical in form with what they knew as national sentiment; but it was analogous in its effects. Their idea of government was not as our idea. Our central idea was civil order, personified by the policeman. Their idea was religion, personified by a semi-Divine Royalty. In the Burmese mind, no social scheme was conceivable without a King; life was incomplete, government impossible. Their loyalty or devotion to their King was not personal or dynastic, but purely religious. It was rendered, not because the King was the son of his father, but because he had passed through several stages of existence before he became qualified to be a King. And his position was based on a principle which was the central principle of the Bhuddist religion. The Burmese did not wish to see their King—he might be good, bad, or indifferent—they only wished to know that he existed. That might be considered a strange state of facts; but he was speaking of a feeling which was common to the people of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Burmah. In the past the British respected that feeling. They honoured the religious feelings of the Burmese, and by this course succeeded with them; but now we had needlessly and recklessly outraged this national sentiment. The evidence was to be found in the way that the people, not only of Upper, but of Lower Burmah were set against us, and had broken out in a way which was unprecedented during the last quarter of a century. Telegrams in the newspapers had informed the English people of movements of troops, and of engagements with what were called dacoits. The use of that word was very ingenious, but it was very misleading. Dacoits were being hunted up and down the country by British troops, and we were told of engagements against them at places with grotesque and unfamiliar names—Sittang, Kyeikto, Shwegyeen—and the public assumed that those places were in the newly-annexed but still unconquered region of Upper Burmah. Not a bit of it. As a matter of fact, the places mentioned were not in Upper Burmah at all; they were in the heart

    959
    of British Burmah. They were old settled Provinces, which had enjoyed all the privileges of British rule for more than a quarter of a century. They had enjoyed English law, English policemen, and English tax-collectors. They were quite as settled as Westminster, and far more settled than Limerick. The Commander of the British Forces reported on the excellent demeanour of the people on his way up the river. No doubt, his report was correct. Sir Harry Prendergast was a friend of his own; and he recognized in that Commander not only a man of great personal courage, but a gallant, capable, and skilled General. Sir Harry Prendergast, it must be remembered, only met the riverain people, who were perfectly familiar with foreigners, and who knew the advantages of that contact; and at the time when he interviewed the Natives there was no suggestion that we were going to tamper with the central idea of their social scheme and deprive the Burmese of their Kinghood. But there was no recent Report of Sir Harry Prendergast with regard to the attitude of the people towards us. Only two days before we were informed that in one of our maritime districts, which had been for 30 years in our possession, military operations had been directed against us. Two days before the Hlootdau or Royal Court declared that we must have obtained Mandalay by fraud, because they never imagined there existed people so wild as to pretend that Mandalay could be governed without a King. He ventured, before leaving that subject, to point out to the House how large a part the religious feeling played in this Burmese Question. In the past, great deference had been paid to that feeling; and the first time that we trespassed on that religious feeling was when we entered that country with the loudest protestations that we had no intentions to touch on anything religious. Among the other suggestions justifying annexation was that annexation was the inevitable result of the deposition of King Theebaw. He did not think there was any evidence of that; and although it might be an unpopular suggestion he did not know that there was any absolute evidence that it was necessary to depose King Theebaw. What was the evidence against King Theebaw? The popular story was that he was a drunken savage who
    960
    murdered his mothers-in-law. Some critics had gone so far as to say that he was insane on that ground. But there was no evidence to show that he was drunken, and there was no evidence to show that he was insane. What was known about him? As a wretched boy of 18 he was selected from school to be the husband of his wife. He was not King because he was his father's son, but because he was the husband of the daughter of her mother. There was no evidence that he was in any way responsible for those massacres about which they had heard so much. It was no part of his (Mr. McIver's) duty to whitewash King Theebaw. All he said was that there was no evidence that King Theebaw's deposition was necessary, or that his deposition rendered annexation necessary. He (Mr. McIver) was convinced that if, as he freely admitted, intervention was necessary, nothing was to be gained by annexation which could not have been equally well secured by a strong Protectorate; and by the latter course many great dangers might have been avoided. The assumption of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill), under whose auspices the annexation was carried out, that we might anticipate the same wealth and prosperity in the new Province as in the old Province, was a very pleasing assumption. It was, however, based on the belief that the two Provinces consisted of countries with identical soils. But the prosperity of Lower Burmah was owing exclusively to the fact that it was one of the richest deltas in existence, and that the country which had 3,000,000 inhabitants was able to export nearly 1,000,000 tons of rice per annum. The surplus Revenue, of which they had heard so much that night, consisted almost exclusively of the export duty on that rice. The Province which they had annexed—but not conquered—did not grow rice; it only grew wheat and a little cotton; and it was so poor that a large section of its adult male population crossed the frontier in search of employment, just as the Irish came to this country to assist in the harvest. There was, indeed, no prospect of this Province developing the same wealth as Lower Burmah, or of being anything else but a poor country and a hindrance to its neighbour. It had been suggested that this was a beneficent war; and they

    961
    were told that all the hindrances to trade would be removed; and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Maclean) said that it was a gain to British commerce. Now, on that matter, he would ask on what information or responsible advice was this annexation decided in the first instance, and what additional information and responsible advice had Her Majesty's present Advisers for confirming it, beyond that already received from five Secretaries of State, three Viceroys, and two Commissioners, not a single one of whom had ever given a definite opinion in favour of annexation, whereas any such definite opinion that had been given was directly opposed to annexation? If the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) who annexed Burmah did not receive his advice from responsible officials, from whom did he receive it? He thought the answer was to be found in those pages of the Blue Book which were devoted to the Reports of the Chambers of Commerce. The late Government had given an exaggerated importance to the interests of commerce as represented by the Chambers of Commerce, and had appealed to the worst instincts of a nation of shopkeepers. The doctrine was that, in order to open new channels for trade and find a market for piece-goods and raw spirits, it was well to make war, remove a dynasty, and stifle a nationality. In the Blue Book he did not find one word of responsible advice. The present Government were in a worse position than their Predecessors in adopting this policy. It was suggested that the Viceroy had assented to this annexation; but on the 1st of December the Viceroy said he hoped shortly to submit recommendations as to the future government of Upper Burmah, and before doing so he wished to go to Mandalay in order to study the very "elements of the question." On the 23rd the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India telegraphed to the Viceroy to annex Burmah. They were told now that, after a few hours' residence at Mandalay, the Viceroy had confirmed the annexation. A few days ago some hon. Members were making merry over the rapid capacity for assimilation displayed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), when, after a short sea voyage, he was able to advise Her
    962
    Majesty's Ministers on Irish affairs. But in that case the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with facts, with a large portion of which he was already familiar, and was speaking to people whose language was very much the same as his own. The Missions of the right hon. Gentleman and the Viceroy were very much alike. They were now told that the Viceroy had assented to what had become irrevocable. Both Gentlemen had to confirm a foregone conclusion, and both gave fresh proof of loyalty to Colleagues. The hurried assent of the Viceroy did not improve the position of the present Government; indeed, recent events made it worse. The conduct of the late Secretary of State for India was, at all events, straightforward and consistent. As the prominent Leader of a Party seeking for empirical remedies for depression of trade, he decided to take his advice from Chambers of Commerce, and, having taken it, to stick to it. He was consistent, too, with the teachings of a school which adopted the forward policy of the Earl of Beaconsfield in India. On this occasion he showed his consistency to the extent of the religious observance of a particular date. The Viceroy had asked for time; but the Imperial instincts of the noble Lord would brook no delay. He realized that his own time was short, and he wanted to crown the edifice of his Indian administration and on the proper date. The 1st of January was the birthday of their Indian Empire, the fêete Napoléon of Anglo-Indian Jingoism. On the 1st of January, 1877, the Earl of Beaconsfield made the Queen an Empress. At that time 5,000,000 of Her Imperial Majesty's Indian subjects were preparing to die, and they did die, for want of the food which the money spent on that Imperial pageant would have gone some way to buy. The 1st of January was again selected as the day on which to add another Province to the Empire; but the consistency of the noble Lord could not be imputed to the Liberal Government. If there could be said to be any Liberal policy in relation to India, among its cardinal principles, were those that they must govern India in the interests of its people devote their taxes to internal purposes, and respect their national traditions. That annexation in itself was bad, because their Empire was

    963
    as large as they could well manage; and if annexation were justifiable in any case, it must be on some ground of Imperial importance, such as the safety of their frontier. If a people expressed a desire to be annexed it was essential that their country should be able to pay its way. An increase to their trade, more or less illusory, would not justify the present Government in confirming the act of the late Government, and thus violating all their own principles. What had been done would add another grievous burden to these of the Indian taxpayer. Apart from that, recent events which were associated in the Reports with the word dacoit—events which, had occurred since the noble Lord arrived at his decision—should give the present Government pause. In endorsing the action of the late Government with a larger knowledge of facts, and, therefore, with a smaller justification, they were incurring grave responsibility. Their misfortunes in Egypt were almost entirely due to a similar course. In that case they received a legacy, and accepted it instead of rejecting it. Now they were accepting a new legacy without question; and if they refused to avail themselves of breathing-time, they would saddle the Indian taxpayer with a new and intolerable burden, incur new relations with new and difficult neighbeurs, and awaken feelings of uneasiness and unrest in the breasts of the loyal Native Princes of India.
    THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I am desirous, Sir, of saying a few words in this debate in order to remind the House of the nature of the question we are called upon to decide. Before referring to India, I must first endeavour to do justice to the able speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for the Torquay Division of Devonshire (Mr. M'lver), in whom it is plain, beth from the ability of his speech and from the spirit by which it was animated, that we have received a valuable addition to our ranks. Perhaps he will permit me to observe that, as he himself stated, his speech did not in strictness relate to the question before us. He said that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had departed from what was strictly the question before us, and he intended to follow their example. I do not make the smallest complaint of that course;
    964
    it was to be expected, considering the nature of the subject, and considering the great interest that attaches to the question of Burmah, and the difficulties that Members often feel in finding opportunities for bringing forward the precise Motion they wish to make. It must have been expected, therefore, that this occasion would undoubtedly be used, more or less, in discussing the merits of the Expedition to Burmah. But the merits of the Expedition do not form the question which we have to decide; and I am anxious to bring the House back to the question which is placed before us by the Resolution. I would, in the first place, refer to a matter which was touched upon earlier in the evening, and which is now evidently germane to the subject. There is no allegation and no opinion on the part of the present Government that the law of 1858, according to the construction which we have been disposed to place upon it, has been broken in the present instance. We do not deny that it is perfectly within the competency of these who made war in Burmah to allege that the invasion of Burmah was due to urgent and unforeseen necessity. Now, Sir, as to the construction of that Act of Parliament I will only say a brief word. Do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) suppose that upon the construction of the section in the Act I venture to set my opinion against his cuique in arte suâ credendum. It is the very last thing I think any man ought to do—to enter into a dispute with distinguished lawyers upon the strictly legal question of the construction of an Act of Parliament. All I observe is this—that having been conversant with the motives which dictated the language of the Act, I set out, in my ignorant reading of it, with the assumption that the words had a rational purpose in view. If I am right in holding that their meaning was that the Revenue of India should not be applicable except under certain circumstances without the consent of Parliament, and that these Revenues could not be charged without that consent, then a certain presumption arises in favour of the belief which I ignorantly entertained that the consent of Parliament meant the prior consent of Parliament. On the other hand, the construction which, upon irresistible authority, we

    965
    are told is the legal construction, is to this effect—that the consent of Parliament does not mean a prior consent of Parliament at all; it means the consent of Parliament at any time between this time and the Day of Judgment. There is no limit whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman carefully guarded himself against its being supposed that the Act meant that the consent of Parliament was to be had in three months, in six months, in the next Session, in the next Parliament, in the next generation, or in the next century. He has never committed himself. If at any period in the future such consent be asked for, the Act is made a legal Act; and as you can never be certain that it cannot be asked for a century or two hence, you are never justified in saying that it is not a legal Act. That is the distinct construction put by the late Attorney General; but, at the same time, I bow implicitly to his judgment. As this difficulty has arisen either in the interpretation or construction of the Act, it is quite plain, I trust, that as we are to have a Committee to inquire into the working of the India Act the matter in dispute between us will be entirely settled. Objection may be taken, I know, to our reading of the Act. I will not enter into the question that we never literally complied with the Act; I make that admission, however, at once. It is quite true, and it is always the same case that happens in England. There is no better understood and established law, I think, than this—that in England Her Majesty's Government are not entitled to spend money without the consent of Parliament. That is, without dispute. But what happens in an analogous case on every Vote of Credit submitted to this House? Invariably, before the House gives a Vote of Credit, money has been laid out in the expectation of it. That is a practical consideration which arises in this way. The House never can be asked, and the Government can never determine to ask the House, for a Vote of Credit until it is certain that the Vote will be wanted. That has been the usual and almost invariable rule; but when it comes to be morally certain that the Vote of Credit will be wanted, and there is a moral certainty that it will be given, then it becomes of the utmost importance that not a day should be lost in making the necessary preparation; and,
    966
    as a question of common sense and practical utility, undoubtedly there is established in the English case and also in the Indian case that deviation from the letter of the law which, notwithstanding, is perfectly compatible with the strictest observance of the law. There is no question here about the breaking of the law, and no such allegation has been made. The state of the case is this. It has been alleged by these who have assailed the policy of the invasion and annexation of Burmah that this is a war which has been made for trade. Well, Sir, I must own that in the speeches we heard on the first night of the Session there were sentences and sentiments used which may have induced the belief that that was the main cause why these operations were undertaken. But the late Government has not asserted that it was a war for trade. I do not think that there is any man of weight and experience in this House who would deliberately rise in his place and contend that we should be justified in making any war whatever for the sake of trade. It must be universally admitted that we must have justification of a totally different character. I, therefore, cast entirely aside that allegation. It is not an allegation on which the defenders of the proceedings in Burmah have, at any time, founded their action; and it is, consequently, hardly fair and equitable to take the ground of the defence they offer, and treat it as a justification of the claims of a defence which they do not offer. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has laid down what he thinks is a sound principle to be observed in the Government of India, and a principle which he thinks we are departing from on this occasion. Now, our position is exactly this. If we thought, from the evidence before us, that there was a presumption that this war was a wanton or a needless war, I admit that we should be placed in a position of great difficulty. I will not admit that even in that ease it would follow that a reversal of the annexation ought to take place, because there is a great precedent which I have referred to on former occasions in this House—the precedent of the war and annexation of Scinde, which took place under the Government of Sir Robert Peel. When that annexation was made known there was not a single man in the Cabinet of

    967
    Sir Robert Peel—from Sir Robert Peel to the Duke of Wellington and downwards to myself, who was then the youngest Member of that Cabinet—who did not heartily disapprove of it; and yet there was not a single man there who thought that any step ought to be taken for the purpose of reversing the annexation. The question is not the original justice of the annexation, but whether you will do more good or evil by proceeding to areversal—that is, upon the supposition that it was an unjust annexation. I am bound to say that, as far as we are able to follow the case, we do not find any proof of that allegation. We are not responsible for the policy of the late Government in regard to Burmah; but it is our duty to judge it fairly. My hon. Friend says that Indian funds should be expended in Indian interests. Most certainly; and it is upon the grounds of Indian interests, if at all, that this war and this annexation are to be justified. My hon. Friend says that we should respect the sentiments of national existence. I cordially agree with him. But, at the same time, it is perfectly well known that in India cases have arisen where we have unjustly and greedily made annexation. But other cases have arisen. For example, the conquest and annexation of the Punjaub. In the case of the Punjaub, I believe, there was a real sentiment of nationality to recognize and to respect. But there was a just cause for war, and that led to operations which convinced the British Government of that day and the English nation that the annexation of that country was the best thing for the people of that country, as well as for the security of India. I think experience has shown that that was a sound and a right judgment to arrive at. A distinguished man whom I had the honour of knowing well, and who was greatly concerned in that policy—the late Lord Hardinge—and I am convinced that no amount of temptation or inducement would ever have induced that gallant soldier and sound and prudent statesman to deviate, for one moment, from the strict rule of right, either in India or in any other part of the world; and, therefore, although we may respect this sentiment of nationality, we cannot take it as an absolute rule to guide our actions. My hon. Friend says annexations are bad; and then he admits—what I am rather
    968
    disposed to allow and to assert—that in every case prior to examination the presumption is against annexation. But then, on the other hand, my hon. Friend admits that it may be required for the safety and security of our own frontier and our own people. That is the very ground and justification for the annexation in this case. It was not to extend trade, to gratify passion or ambition, but because a door was threatened to be opened through which would have been brought into India danger, insecurity, loss of happiness, and prosperity. The mass of people depend entirely on our sovereign rule in that country; and it was to defend them, and not for the purpose of giving effect to any idle dreams, that this war was believed to be necessary. My hon. Friend has himself confessed that it was necessary He said that a great deal has been stated about dacoits, and most unnecessarily stated; and among the places which have been referred to be notices places within British Burmah. That I do not contest. I do not contest the fact that disturbances have been produced in British Burmah in consequence of the state of Upper Burmah. But the question we have to consider is whether we are to give credence or not to the allegations of the highest responsible authorities in India on this matter. My hon. Friend thinks that the Earl of Dufferin did not take time enough to make up his mind on the question whether the annexation was just or unjust. I think it would be very difficult indeed, and I think it would be more than difficult—that it would be rash and unwarrantable on our part—were we to lay down in this House at this time, at this distance, and under the circumstances, the exact amount of time it was necessary for the Earl of Dufferin to take in order to make up his mind. We are disposed to place confidence in the Earl of Dufferin. I know of no reason for withholding confidence in him, or questioning the soundness of his judgment. He is a man in whom, from his great public services, as well as from his temper and his character, we have the greatest reason to place confidence. The war that has been made in Burmah has been made for the gravest public reason. It was a war against which I had a certain degree of prepossession myself, simply upon the ground of the promi-

    969
    nence given to the alleged wrongs of a British Company; but it was a war made in perfect good faith; it was a war made, not in any violation of any plain and intelligible principle governing the intercourse of nations, but it was made on grave political causes, and it is supported by great, and, I think, irresistible authority. So much for the war; but, then, what is the question we are now debating? If the war was bad, that issue ought to be directly raised. It is quite evident that the general sense of our administrative system is that India is to pay for what is called a bonâ fide Indian War. I perfectly understood the contention that if a Party in this country is prepared to challenge radically the justice or propriety of a war, then a case may be raised for the purpose of arguing that the expense of it ought not to be borne by India, which cannot be heard upon the question, but by the superior power and authority of this country. But that is not the case. There are no such allegations to be made or sustained; and until such allegations have been made, and made good, it is not to be expected that this House can properly entertain the question whether the charge should be made on the people of India. Nothing, it seems to me, can be more plain than that if we are to make an entire departure from the general rule which makes Indian Wars an Indian charge, it ought to be done on grounds already established to the satisfaction of the House. It will not do, in the course of a debate as to charging the Indian Exchequer, to make speeches, however ingenious and able, which may be answered by other speeches as ingenious and able; it will not do to make that a ground for laying on the British taxpayer the expense of an operation in which he himself had almost as little voice as the Indian taxpayer. That is the question before us to-night. My opinion is that there has not been tonight established a case which would lead us to think that this war is a war on principle worthy of condemnation. I do believe that it has been in reality, and certainly in intention, a defensive war. I do not believe, for a moment, that the late Government would have taken up this question in a spirit of aggression. There is no evidence that they have done be. All the evidence is to the contrary effect. In protesting against the policy of our own Governor General, and of
    970
    these who advised him, you would incur a heavy responsibility. But if that responsibility is to be incurred, and if that question is to be raised, let it be raised on the merits, and not collaterally, as it is on this occasion. No doubt, it has been our duty to depart from the general rule. The general rule is that Indian Wars go to the charge of India; and the whole question now before the House is that authority be given, so far as the House is concerned, to lay that charge upon the people of India.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not very much surprised that the speech of the hon. Member for the Torquay Division of Devonshire (Mr. M'Iver) was not altogether satisfactory to the Prime Minister, for it cannot certainly be a very pleasant thing to say that a number of Liberal principles have been laid down as applicable to this case, and then to be told that every one of them have been broken. I cannot think that that is a very pleasant thing, and I must say that with regard to the principles which the hon. Member has laid down there is a great deal of force in the arguments he has put forward. I do not wish, however, to pursue that subject further. I would rather go back to the more general proposition which has been put before the House. The Prime Minister has himself admitted that a debate of this nature must necessarily take a very wide turn. Upon these occasions, when it is necessary to satisfy the requirements of a statute, it is customary to allow the debate to take a wide turn, and discuss the whole question of the policy of the Military Expedition. On this occasion the Military Expedition has hardly been seriously challenged. I will not, indeed, enter into the arguments of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), because I am satisfied that no circumstances, to his mind, would ever justify a war. Therefore, I cannot hope to satisfy him; but, Sir, if any hon. Gentleman desires to approach the subject with a desire to ascertain and decide from the facts whether the Expedition was legitimate or not he will, after reading the Blue Book which has been laid upon the Table of the House, come to the conclusion which the Prime Minister has distinctly set forth—that that Expedition has been amply justified. I think he will find in the Blue Book abundant

    971
    proof of great patience on the part of the Government of India, and great self-control and self-restraint, and the greatest possible anxiety and desire to avoid and overlook causes of complaint which might have led to a collision. A collision certainly would have occurred much earlier if there had been any desire on the part of the Government of India and the Government at home to bring matters to a climax. But the time came at last when we had to consider not only our relations with King Theebaw, but the character of his relations with other Powers, and when we had also to consider the grievous interference with the trade of Burmah, which, although I do not propose to dwell upon it now, certainly required the most earnest attention on the part of the Government of India. Fortunately, when the time came for dealing with the case, the Governor General who had to deal with it was a man who could not be suspected of any undue leaning on the side of interference outside his duty. The Earl of Dufferin was not a man who was at all inclined rashly to apply the principles of any one particular political Party to the complex system now existing in India. The Earl of Dufferin calmly and carefully considered the whole circumstances of the case; and I do not think the Prime Minister has done more than justice to the Earl of Dufferin, or to these who approve of his action, when he said that the steps which they took in vindication of the duty of England to Burmah were not in intention in any way aggressive. But when the necessity for action arose, the interests of humanity, if not also the success of the Expedition, required that our action should be decisive, and that we should strike quickly, and strike home. I come now to the second point which has been raised in the debate to-night—namely, the question of the expense of the Expedition, and I am the last person to say that the House is not fully entitled—nay, more, that it is absolutely beund—to scrutinize very carefully any questionable expenditure of this description before allowing it to be charged upon the people of India. We are trustees for the people of India, and are bound to respect our trust, and to examine all matters connected with expenditure with the greatest care. I should, therefore, never complain of any
    972
    complete discussion which might take place in this House when such proposals are brought before it. But the question we have to consider on this occasion is, what is the interest of India in the Expedition which has just taken place! Upon that subject we have had a good deal of information. We were advised by the Viceroy of India, speaking with all the authority of his high position, and with all the advantage of the skilled advisers who surround him—we were told by him that the interests of India demanded the annexation, and the same view has been taken at home. All the advisers who surround the Secretary of State, all these in this country who understand the relations between India and Burmah, were of opinion that this Expedition was founded upon justice, and that it was undertaken in the interests of India herself. India's interest in the matter is a great and increasing one. Our trade in Burmah was not only in danger, but had been brought to a standstill by the anarchy which prevailed in Upper Burmah. The danger to Indian interests was real, substantial, and obvious; and I do not think that anything further is needed than the contents of the Blue Book now laid before the House to justify the Resolution which the Under Secretary of State for India has submitted to us. But then it is said—"That may be all very well; but can you justify the annexation of Upper Burmah?" It may be said that, although the Expedition was justifiable, the annexation was not so. Upon that subject I will only say, in answer, that we, who advised the annexation of the country, acted only with the utmost care and deliberation. The whole matter has repeatedly been before the people of India, and the India Office at home. It has been the subject of constant communication officially, and what is called at the India Office "semi-officially," between the Viceroy of India and my noble Friend 0the late Secretary of State (Lord Randolph Churchill). My noble Friend was perfectly aware of the views entertained by the Earl of Dufferin, and he and his Colleagues were thoroughly well acquainted with all the arguments which had been urged for and against the annexation of Upper Burmah. And it was our deliberate opinion, being in possession of all the facts, and having every opportunity

    973
    of forming a deliberate conclusion on the matter, that the annexation ought to take place, and that, in mercy to the population of Burmah, it ought to take place without delay. Our conclusion, therefore, was that Upper Burmah ought to be added to Her Majesty's Dominions. I understand that Her Majesty's present Government entirely concur in that opinion. We believed—and no doubt they also believe—that anything short of the annexation of Burmah would have run the risk of reproducing within a very short time all the evils which have prevailed during past years. If anything short of annexation had been adopted, we should have failed in our duty to the people of India and of Burmah. Unhappily it is the case that our commercial interests in that country have hitherto been prejudicially affected; but we hope that they will be largely benefited by the annexation of Burmah. That, however, has not been the main reason for the annexation; but that step has been primarily dictated by a desire to servo the real interests both of India and the Burmese people. I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean), who addressed the House for the first time this evening in an able and comprehensive speech. My hon. Friend, who, from a thorough knowledge of the subject which I cannot pretend to rival, spoke of the policy of annexing British Burmah, and expressed a sanguine hope that the annexation would prove to be as advantageous as that of British Burmah in the past. We certainly, as the Government who advised that annexation, did so in the hope and belief that there will be a great development of trade in that country. We look forward not only to the promotion of the interests of that country, but of these of England and India also; and I believe that hereafter it will be recognized that the step which has been taken was necessitated by a regard for the best interests of India, and could not possibly have been avoided by any Government in this country.
    DR. CLARK: I rise for the purpose of heartily supporting the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). The effect of the Motion of the Under Secretary of State for India is simply that the Revenues of India shall be charged with
    974
    the expense of this war; and the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to negative that proposition, and to provide that the Revenues of India shall be charged with no portion of the expense. No grounds have been given why the expense should not be charged upon the Imperial Exchequer beyond the general ground that charges of this nature have usually been thrown upon India. Now, when the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech was before the House the noble Lord the then Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked these hon. Members who felt very strongly as to the injustice of the war not to discuss the question upon the Address, but to wait until a Vote was asked for, and upon that Vote to discuss the merits of the Expedition to Burmah. Hence on the question now raised, whether the Revenues of India should bear the charges which have been incurred in the war in Burmah, I think we are entitled to enter fully into the general question upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter). I entertain a strong opinion that the war was altogether unjustifiable. It was a kind of freebooting Expedition undertaken against Burmah—one of the wars entered into at the instance of these modern freebooters, the commercial Jingoes, who believe that they are entitled to do anything in the name of British trade. I have gone carefully over the grounds which have been urged in justification of the steps we have taken, and I cannot see that there has been any justification given for them. I admit that for some time there have been strained relations between the Court of Mandalay and ourselves; but if hon. Members will inquire into the causes of these strained relations, I think they will arrive at the conclusion that the Court of Mandalay was not to blame. What were the questions in regard to which these strained relations sprung up between ourselves and the Court of Mandalay? First of all there was the shoe question. Before 1878 the Court at Mandalay had exercised its rights, and had prevented any Ambassador from a Foreign Power entering the Presence Chamber without taking off his shoes. In the East that was not considered more dishonourable than requiring a Member to take off his hat on entering this Assembly; but it has become a very

    975
    serious matter, and is one of the principal causes which have led to the annexation of Burmah. I do not think, however, that if there had not been a change of Government in 1880 the country would have been annexed on that pretext. King Theebaw refused to have any intercourse with the Representatives of any Foreign Power who did not comply with the usual observances of his country. That had been a vexed question in the time of King Theebaw's Predecessor; and when King Theebaw came to the Throne a sense of irritation sprang up, because, in the first place, our Resident refused to take off his shoes on entering the Presence Chamber; and, secondly, because we refused to give him the right of sending an Ambassador to this country. This may be considered a small matter; but it is well known that small matters seriously affect the dignity of small States. When we entered into negotiations with the King of Burmah he complained that he could only have official communication with this country through a gentleman who was Secretary to a Commissioner; and his first Ambassador was not allowed to go further than our frontier. In 1883, under the Governor Generalship of the Marquess of Ripon, negotiations with regard to a Commercial Treaty, as will be seen by reference to the Blue Book, came to an end. At that time the Burmese Government were willing to waive many of their claims if we had conceded their right to send an Ambassador here; and that, I believe, was the principal ground upon which the negotiations broke down. But surely a question of this kind affects the King of Burmah as much as it would any other Monarch. He was an independent Sovereign just as much as the Emperor of China or the King of Siam. Even the Sultan of Zanzibar has made similar complaints. We have been told by the noble lord the late Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) that there were several reasons for our action which led to the war—that there had been unprovoked attacks and outrages upon British subjects in Burmah. The noble Lord said that in November, 1879, an unprovoked attack was made upon a British steamer lying at anchor in the Upper Irrawaddy, and that in consequence the Government of India had
    976
    recommended a renunciation of all engagements with King Theebaw. Now, what are the facts of that case? The facts are, a Mahommedan merchant from Surat, at a time when the River Irrawaddy was crowded with vessels, went on board the Golden City, and, desiring to go to a part of the vessel which he was warned had been newly painted, was refused. He persisted in making his way, and a disturbance ensued, in which a number of Burmese coolies went to the assistance of the interloper. The resistance of the crew is said to have been an unprovoked attack upon British subjects by the Burmese Government, Can anything be more absurd? Nevertheless, these are the kind of excuses we make for sending out a warlike Expedition and annexing the country. It is also said that a Scindian—a Mahommedan—had been subjected to an unprovoked attack in connection with a question of trading. The fact is that in the case of the Surat merchant he was fined 10 rupees; these who assisted the aggressor were also punished, and every redress was afforded by the Burmese Government. In this case it is quite evident that the real object was simply to get an excuse for raising money from Burmah. It appears that the salt taken into Upper Burmah was taxed at a lower rate than that which was taken into Lower Burmah, and the Government of Lower Burmah were anxious to place a 5s. duty upon salt going into Upper Burmah, in order to make it not worth while for people to smuggle the salt back again. This so-called outrage was made to allow the Government to unduly tax the people of Lower Burmah and make the lives of the unfortunate Burmese harder, because there can be no doubt that the absence of salt is a prolific source of disease both in regard to human beings and cattle. Having gone carefully through the Blue Book, I must confess that I see nothing in the evidence which has been brought before us that is not unimportant and trivial. The most substantial cause of complaint was the attitude of the Burmese in connection with the miserable squabble with the Bombay-Burmah Company. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has shown very clearly, from the despatches which he read from the Earl of

    977
    Dufferin and Mr. Bernard, that up to last year there was no reason or pretext whatever for a war with Burmah, and that up to that period Mr. Bernard urged the Government of India not to interfere. There is one quotation I will refer to, which the hon. Member did not read, which states that there were strong Petitions coming from the Burmese Chamber of Commerce, asking that Upper Burmah should be annexed, because the trading interests were suffering from the state of affairs in Upper Burmah. Upon the 15th of January last year Mr. Bernard writes that King Theebaw was not nominally an ally of the British Government, but an actual ally; and he expresses an opinion that at least it was questionable whether any Power had a right to expect that it would be justified in sending a force up to Mandalay and expelling King Theebaw on the ground that his subjects were suffering from the arbitrary character of his rule. Upon this point, it is said, the Viceroy suggested arbitration; but I do not think that the Viceroy did in reality suggest any fair mode of arbitration. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the case, except to say that before the Blue Book reached me the case of the Burmese Government had been sent to me. I can see no justification for the action taken by the Trading Company. When the question arose the Burmese Government sent down to our frontier station for information, so as to enable them to determine the question, and from the information furnished by the British officer the High Court of Burmah, which is analogous to our House of Lords, gave their decision upon the merits of the case. It may be that the Court was mistaken; it may be, as we have been told, that the evidence sent by our officer was not reliable! It was that which caused all the trouble. What was to be the character of the arbitration? Mr. Bernard admits that he did not desire arbitration, for fear that the French Consul might be appointed the arbiter. The kind of arbitration we suggested was that the Indian Government should appoint the arbiter; and the Burmese Government were asked whether, in that case, they would abide by the decision? Practically, it was to be an arbitration in which the arbiter was to be appointed by one of the parties.
    978
    We have had information to-night that the Italian Consul was suggested; but we were not told that the Italian Consul was the agent for the Italian Company, and agent also for the Bombay-Burmah Company—one of the parties in the case. We are told that higher grounds of policy existed; but from the despatches which have been sent by the Earl of Dufferin and Mr. Bernard in this Bombay Company's trading dispute can we find the only ground for our interference. It is said that French adventurers were obtaining concessions in Upper Burmah. Why should not French adventurers have just as much right to go to Upper Burmah and obtain concessions as the British merchants, such as Price and Maxwell, who went there and obtained concessions? ["Divide!"] I have no desire to take up the time of the House; but we are not going to allow an ancient Monarchy to be annexed without offering a strong protest against it; and we do not intend to allow the Indian Government to be saddled with the expenses of this unjust war without raising our voice in protest also. What is the position of Burmah? Look at the map. The idea of foreign interference is ridiculous, seeing that the only modes of entering into the country by means of the Irrawaddy and Pegu Rivers are, practically, in our hands. When we annexed Pegu we obtained possession of the key of the country, and no one else can get into the country except with our knowledge and consent. Indeed, one accusation made against us is that we have not allowed King Theebaw to obtain sufficient arms to defend himself. To be told, as we have been to-night by the Prime Minister and others, that questions of high policy come in—that to allow the French to get a position in Upper Burmah would leave India open to attack and weaken our position in Lower Burmah—all this is arrant nonsense, because anyone studying the map will see at once that we hold the key of Burmah, and that our Indian Empire is no more affected than China. I will not enter further into the reasons which have induced us to attack Burmah, or the reasons why we have stolen this ancient Kingdom; but perhaps I may be allowed to say a word upon the second part of the question. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are making a

    979
    great noise; but I must be permitted to say that if we keep Burmah there will be two classes who will benefit by it—namely, the Anglo-Indian officials, who will receive pay and pension, and the English merchants, who will find room for further trade. But I am bound to say that the poor overtaxed Indian ryot, who will have to pay for the annexation, will not benefit by it; and that is the reason why I support the Amendment, and am of opinion that the charge ought to be placed upon the Imperial Exchequer instead of the Indian Revenues. In the first place, Burmah is not a portion of India. Tonight it has been assumed that Burmah is a portion of India. Now, Burmah is no more a portion of India than China or our Malay Provinces; and we might just as well annex China and Malay. The Burmese people are different in race, language, and customs, and everything else. In fact, the Burmese are a very distinct people, and occupy a very high and promising position, especially when compared with India. The first thing which struck me on going to Burmah from India was the position which the women occupy there as compared with that which they occupy in India. In India they take no part in public life; but in Burmah the ladies take even a more prominent position than the men; and they are far more civilized. That being the case, and seeing that we have in Ceylon a Crown Colony very similar and near to India, and more associated with Indian interests than Burmah, why not make Burmah a Crown Colony, like Ceylon, allowing the costs to be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer and paid back again? The people of Lower Burmah have been agitating this question for a number of years; and we have now a good opportunity, if we are going to take possession of Burmah, to make it a Crown Colony, and so prevent this Burmese question from interfering with and complicating the very difficult problem of India. At present it is not likely that Burmah will be able to pay its expenses. It is not as rich as Lower Burmah, and a great number of complicated questions will arise. For instance, the King of Burmah claims to be the Suzerain over the Shan States. The Suzerainty over these States is equally claimed by Burmah, Siam, and
    980
    China. I am also afraid that the annexation of Burmah will open up the question of Yunnan, and that we shall be told that as the people of Yunnan are Mahommedans, and as we are the largest Mahommedan Empire in the world, we ought also to annex that country. It may further be stated that we require Siam in order to keep the French out of it. The ryots of India are strongly opposed to the annexation of Burmah; that is the view expressed by the Native Press. I do not see why the Native opinion of India should not be considered as well as British opinion in connection with this question. I am sorry that the Prime Minister has so changed his views since he made his first speeches in Mid Lothian, and I notice with regret how great a difference there is between his speech to-night and his addresses on the occasion of the Mid Lothian Campaign.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: In rising to make a few remarks on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), I ask for the indulgence which this House always accords to a Member who addresses it for the first time. I should not have presumed, at this late hour, to make this claim but for the fact that the subject-matter of the Amendment before the House is one of special interest, not only to myself, but also to a large number of my constituents. I have passed a large portion of my life in India, which is the country more immediately concerned with the Amendment of the hon. Member; and, as an Anglo-Indian, I desire, most emphatically, to express my entire sympathy with the sentiment which I believe lies at the back of the Amendment of the hon. Member, and many of the speeches which have been made on both sides of the House to-night—namely, that in affairs of combined action between the Government of England and the Government of India there is always a certain amount of danger lest the interests of the weaker Government should be sometimes subordinated to the interests of the stronger. I remember, some time ago, that the Prime Minister illustrated the action of the two Governments, when working together, by the famous apologue of the giant and the dwarf; and the right hon. Gentleman told us that the dwarf —India—got all the kicks, while the

    981
    giant—England—got all the halfpence. I confess I have a good deal of sympathy with that opinion, and I also sympathized with the hon. Member for Caithnessshire (Dr. Clark), when, just now, ho deplored the change of opinion which has taken place on the part of the Prime Minister. I was most disappointed not to hear from the Prime Minister, in response to the speech of the hon. Member the Mover of the Amendment, some definite statement of a hard-and-fast rule by which we in Parliament could judge what sum should be paid by England, and what by India. We were told, it is true, that Indian Wars, broadly speaking, should be paid for by India. I think that was the expression of the Prime Minister. Now, I maintain that a much closer and more definite rule is required than that. A rule which, I think, is a very just one, was enunciated by the late Viceroy of India (the Marquess of Ripon) when he stated that wars which the Government of India has exercised the right of initiating, and in regard to which it has been able to control the initiation, the Indian Government should be compelled to pay for, but not for these over which it has had no control whatever—as, for instance, the case of the Egyptian Wars, when Indian troops were employed in Egypt and the Soudan. At that time the Indian Government had no control over the initiation of the Expedition; and, therefore, the Marquess of Ripon urged that the Indian Exchequer ought not be called upon to pay anything towards the cost of that war. With that I entirely agree, and hon. Members will remember that that was really the principle laid down by the Earl of Lytton at the time of the Afghan War. It was then stated by the Earl of Lytton that India should pay for the Afghan War because the Government of India had bad full control over its commencement. Now, at that time some of the Leaders of the Party opposite wished that England should pay at least a portion of the expenses of the war. Well, the feeling of many Anglo-Indians, and of many Indians, was "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes;" and I venture to think that that fear has been realized in later wars. But now, looking at the circumstances of the present war, I would venture to put before the House, and to appeal to the Mover of the Amend-
    982
    ment, whether it is not the case, with regard to this war, that the conditions of Lord Lytton and Lord Ripon have been fulfilled, and that the Government of India has had full control over the initiation of the war? Therefore, it can hardly be said that the Government of India can fairly put forward the same claim—put forward rightly, I think, at the time of the Egyptian War—to be excused from the payment of the cost. Still, I do hope that the result of the discussion to-night, and of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), will be that some Member of the Government will rise in his place, and will endorse that opinion of the Marquess of Ripon and the Earl of Lytton to which I have referred. I turn now to the question which was largely dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment and by other speakers as to the general policy of the war. It has been suggested that the war was a merchants' war. That is a statement which I entirely deny. I would join with any hon. Member of this House in denouncing a war that was initiated simply for the purpose of trade; but if there is one thing which has been brought out more clearly than another, in the Papers which have been laid before Parliament, it is this—that every Indian authority, from the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah to the Viceroy of British India and the Secretary of State, have all, with one accord, absolutely refused to listen to any recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce at Rangoon or anyone else who asked them to engage in a war with Burmah, or to annex Upper Burmah for any purpose of commerce. The hon. Member himself quoted, as a proof that the war was objectionable on some other ground, the very language of the Chief Commissioner of Burmah (Mr. Bernard) and of the Viceroy of India (the Earl of Dufferin), in which they distinctly refused to comply with the requisition of that great meeting of the Rangoon merchants which was referred to by the hon. Member. Now, these are the very authorities who, not much later, endorsed and carried out the principle of the policy of the attack upon Upper Burmah. What was it that had happened in the meantime to produce that change? Why, Sir, all the circumstances of the case had changed, and the change is

    983
    shown and exemplified in the letter of the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah to the Viceroy of India, dated September 4, 1885. The House, I am sure, will see by comparing the letter of the Chief Commissioner, written in the earlier part of the year with his letter in September, 1885, that in the meantime the events had so changed as to render an invasion of Upper Burmah absolutely necessary. What has been the history of our relations with Burmah from the earliest times? We have had the same difficulty which cropped up last year from the earliest times to contend with—namely, the arrogance and ignorance of the Court of Burmah. Why, in point of fact, did Lord Amherst annex Arakan in 1826? Why, simply because, if he had not done so, the King of Ava would have annexed Assam and Cachar. Then, again, in 1852, Lord Dalhousie found it necessary to annex Pegu, a similar attitude of arrogance having forced that step upon him. Coming down to later times, even the pacific Administration of the Earl of Northbrook—and I wish to speak of that Administration in terms of the most complete respect—that pacific Administration was absolutely compelled by the arrogance and by the ignorance of the Court of Ava to take military precautions against that country, and to send what was virtually an Ultimatum to the King of Ava. There was at that time habitual violations of the frontier, and injuries committed on British subjects which were loudly complained of by the Earl of Northbrook. Two hon. Members opposite, speaking of the difficulties which have always occurred in our relations with Burmah, owing to the peculiar customs of that country in regard to the treatment of our Resident, have omitted certain points with regard to that matter. The Government of India have endeavoured for years to maintain a Resident peaceably there—a most necessary measure for the trade of India and of England, if trade is to be carried on with Burmah at all, or if we are to have any relations with that country in any way whatever. We obtained by Treaty in 1862 the right of sending a Resident there. How was that Resident treated? The hon. Member has told us that our Resident was obliged to take off his sword before going into the Royal presence, and to take off his boots
    984
    before gaining admission to the Royal Palace. That is true enough; but there were other indignities which I think the hon. Member ought to have discerned from reading the Blue Book, and which are certainly well known to anyone who has any personal acquaintance with Burmah. It will be remembered that when the Earl of Northbrook sent a Resident there, our Resident complained that on coming into the Royal presence he was ordered to sit on the floor with his feet behind him. Now, Sir, if any hon. Member will attempt to sit on the floor with his feet behind him, I maintain that he will find the task a most difficult one, and one which, in the end, will prove most disastrous to him. Therefore, it is not unreasonable, as the Earl of Northbrook said, for our officers to protest; on the contrary, it was impossible for us to permit such a state of things to exist any longer. And remember that this was the Earl of Northbrook, than whom no more pacific Viceroy has ever ruled in India. I pray the House to listen to this one point. During last year there was a very heavy accession of new causes of complaint, which rendered some action on the part of the Earl of Dufferin's Government absolutely necessary. First of all, there were the actual massacres which have not been spoken of much to-night, but which wore most important. At Mandalay in the preceding October the massacres in the gaol comprised a large number of British subjects from Chittagong. That was a point which did demand the interference of the Indian Government. Further, there was a spirit of lawlessness spread throughout Burmah, and a considerable part of the country was no longer within the control of the King himself. That lawlessness spread into British territory, and the Province of British Burmah would very soon have been in a similar state of lawlessness and disturbance if the Earl of Dufferin had not interfered. Be it remembered that the victims were employés of the Bombay and Burmah Trading Company, and the rafts of that Company were actually fired upon by some of the Burmese soldiers, and that, again, constituted a direct casus belli. But, as has been mentioned to-night, the point that changed the whole aspect of affairs most materially during the past year was the intrigues of the French Consul,

    985
    M. Haas. They had reached such a point that the question was whether we should entirely lose our paramount position on that side of India, or should maintain it by force of arms. There can be no question whatever as to the intrigues of the French Consul; and it is known to the House that the King of Burmah had steadfastly determined to do all he could to draw closer the bonds of friendship between himself and the French and Italians. He had sent out an Embassy for that purpose; and it was on that account, and on account of the various other provocations I have recited—it was these facts, I submit to the House, which induced Mr. Bernard, the Chief Commissioner at Rangoon, and the Earl of Dufferin, to say at last—"This can go on no longer, and we must interfere." I was very glad to hear, in the very lucid statement which was made by the Under Secretary of State for India, his remarks upon the successful operations that have been conducted there, and his praise of our troops. I rejoiced to hear the hon. Gentleman praise the bearing of the Native troops engaged in that Expedition. I feel, Sir, that that praise was entirely deserved, and that it will give real pleasure and satisfaction to our fellow-subjects throughout India. I hope that the Government will follow up the speech of the Under Secretary of State by some statement to-night as to the rules by which, in future, the charges, as between the English and the Indian Exchequers, will be apportioned. One word in conclusion. The time for deciding formally the way in which these charges shall be apportioned is a very appropriate one, for, as has been noticed to-night, there is at present at the head of the Government in India a statesman belonging to the great Liberal Party, who, at the same time, commands the entire confidence of every Member on this side of the House. The Earl of Dufferin is making a great reputation for himself in India; and he has, I am bound to say, been supported most heartily by the late Government, and the Party to which I belong on this side of the House. Therefore, I maintain that the present time is one in which Party questions with regard to India are fairly in abeyance, and when it would be most appropriate for the Government to lay down some hard-and-
    986
    fast rule by which such charges as this may be in future apportioned.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—-Ayes297; Noes 82: Majority 215.

    AYES.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Coddington, W.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Cohen, L. L.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Collings, J.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Colman, J. J.

    Allen, H. G.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J.

    Ambrose, W.

    Compton, Lord W. G.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Coote, T.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Ashton, T. G.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Crawford, D.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

    Crompton, C.

    Baggallay, E.

    Cross, rt. hn. Sir R. A.

    Baily, L. R.

    Crossley, E.

    Baird, J.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Baker, L. J.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Balfour, G. W.

    Denison, E. W.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Denison, W. B.

    Barnes, A.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Dillon, J.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Bass, Sir A.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Bates, Sir E.

    Duff, R. W.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Duncan, D.

    Duncombe, A.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Dyke, rt. hon. Sir W. H.

    Beith, G.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Edwardes-Moss, T. C.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Egerton, hn. A. J. F.

    Bethell, Commander

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Bickersteth, R.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Biddulph, M.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Bigwood, J.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Blaine, R. S.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Feilden, Lt-Gen. R. J.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Fergusson, rt. hn. Sir J.

    Bolton, T. H.

    Field, Captain E.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Finch, G. H.

    Boyd-Kinnear, J.

    Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

    Brand, hon. H. R.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Finlayson, J.

    Brinton, J.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Fletcher, B.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Flower, C.

    Brooks, J.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Brown, A. H.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Bryce, J.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Gent-Davis, R.

    Gill, T. P.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Glyn, hon. P. C.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Charrington, S.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Clarke, E. G.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    M'Culloch, J.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    M'Donald, P.

    Gower, G. G. L.

    M'Iver, L.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Grey. Sir E.

    Magniac, C.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Hamilton, Lord F. S.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Mason, S.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Menzies, R. S.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Milvain, T.

    Harker, W.

    Montagu, S.

    Harrington, E.

    More, B. J.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Mount, W. G.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Newnes, G.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Heneage, right hon. E.

    Norris, E. S.

    Henry, M.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Norton, B.

    Hobhouse, H.

    O'Connor, J.

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    Paget, T. T.

    Holmes, rt. hon. H.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

    Pearce, W.

    Pease, A. E.

    Houldsworth, W. H.

    Pease, H. F.

    Howard, H. G.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Howard, J. M.

    Percy, Lord A. M.

    Hoyle, I.

    Pilkington, G. A.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Pitt-Lewis, G.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Hunter, Sir G.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Hutton, J. F.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Powell, F. S.

    Jacks, W.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Price, T. P.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Priestly, B.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Puleston, J. H.

    James, C. H.

    Quilter, W. C.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Ramsay, J.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Richardson, T.

    Johns, J. W.

    Robertson, H.

    Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Robinson, T.

    Joicey, J.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Jones-Parry, L.

    Ross, A. H.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir U. J.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Round, J.

    Kimber, H.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T.

    Russell, C.

    Russell, E. R.

    Lacaita, C. C.

    Rylands, P.

    Lane, W. J.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Saunders, W.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Seely, C.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lockwood, F.

    Sheridan, H. B.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Sidebottom, W.

    MacInnes, M,

    Sitwell, Sir G. R.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H

    Maclean, J. M.

    Smith, D.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    988

    Stafford, Marquess of

    Wason, E.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Watson, J.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. Sir F.

    Watson, T.

    Wayman, T.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Westlake, J.

    Stewart, M.

    Weston, J. D.

    Strong, R.

    White, J. B.

    Sturgis, H. P.

    Wiggin, H.

    Sullivan, D.

    Will, J. S.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Wilson, I.

    Taylor, F.

    Winn, hon. R.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Tipping, W.

    Woodall, W.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Woodhead, J.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G.O.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart.

    Vanderbyl, P.

    Wroughton, P.

    Vincent, C. E. H'

    Young, C. E. B.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    TELLERS.

    Wardle, H.

    Marjoribanks, hon. E.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Morley, A.

    Warmington, C. M.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Howard, E. S.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Illingworth, A.

    Ince, H. B.

    Allison, R. A.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Kelly, B.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Kenrick, W.

    Blaine, A.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Blake, T.

    Leicester, J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Bright, W. L.

    Mayne, T.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Burt, T.

    Otter, F.

    Buxton, E. N.

    Pickard, B.

    Cameron, C.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Picton, J. A.

    Campbell, H.

    Power, P. J.

    Carew, J. L.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Channing, F. A.

    Rathbone, W.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Cohen, A.

    Robertson, E.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    Robson, W. S.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Cook, E. R.

    Salis-Schwabe, Col. G.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Sexton, T.

    Cox, J. R.

    Shaw, T.

    Craven, J.

    Spensley, hon. H.

    Crawford, W.

    Spicer, H.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Storey, S.

    Crilly, D.

    Stuart, J.

    Dixon, G.

    Sturrock, P.

    Ellis, J.

    Verney, Captain E. H.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Williams, A. J.

    Fenwick, C.

    Williams, J. C.

    Fry, T.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Wilson, J. (Durham)

    Haldane, R. B.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hayden, L. P.

    Yeo, A. F.

    Healy, M.

    Healy, T. M.

    TELLERS.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Holden, A.

    Richard, H.

    Holden, I.

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    989
    Resolved, That Her Majesty having directed a Military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall he applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may ho carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Resolutions [19th February] reported.
    Resolutions 1 to 12 agreed to.
    Resolution 13. £159, Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: Sir, I rise to call attention to a matter connected with this Resolution, which is of much consequence to the Party to which I have the honour to belong. This Vote is for the payment to be made to the officers of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland in connection with the service of re-arranging the polling districts in Ireland under the recent Acts for the registration of voters and redistribution of seats in Ireland. I have respectfully to protest against the manner in which these officers have discharged the duties assigned to them. I think this House, which devoted its time and labours to this important work, did not intend that the Irish voters should be left in the hands of hostile, or, at any rate, unsympathetic officials in that country, who attach to the franchise such conditions as, under its exercise, are either difficult or inconvenient. I think, Sir, I shall succeed in showing you that that is the course which the officials have taken in this matter. I may, perhaps, briefly mention the Acts under which these charges are incurred. The services for which this charge is made were performed in connection with the Registration of Voters Act passed for Ireland in the last Session of Parliament. It became necessary, having regard to the change in the franchise law made by the Representation of the People Act, to rearrange the polling districts in Ireland so as to place the power of voting within easy reach of the humblest voter who succeeded in getting on the Register; and what I charge is that the officials to whom that duty was confided, instead of discharging it in such a manner as to
    990
    render the exercise of the franchise an easy thing, devoted their attention, so far as it lay in their power, to make the exercise of the franchise by voters of the under classes in Ireland as difficult and inconvenient as possible. Now, Sir, I have made inquiries of many Members of the Irish Party as to the circumstances under which voters in their districts were compelled to exercise the franchise; and I think the House will be surprised at some of the figures which I will now lay before them. I have learned from my hon. Friends that in some cases voters had to travel a distance of eight or nine miles to exercise the franchise; I have learned that in some cases it was necessary for voters to travel as much as 14 miles for that purpose, and one extreme case has been brought under my notice in which the voters of one division of Donegal had to travel no less than 20 miles; and I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this represents not merely a journey of 20 but 40 miles, for, having had to travel 20 miles from their home, they had afterwards to go 20 miles to get back, a process which involved the necessity of a journey the day before the poll. The House is aware that the elections in Ireland took place in the month of November. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the weather during the greater part of the time during which the General Election was going forward was of a very inclement character; and I ask the House to consider the hardship involved in compelling voters, many of whom were old and decrepid, to travel this enormous distance before they could exercise the franchise which this House had given them. I say, respectfully, that the facts which I have brought under the notice of the House are facts which are eminently deserving of its attention. I say that it is not for this House to stand by and see the enactments which Parliament has, after great labour and trouble, passed, rendered practically nugatory by officials who—I will not say designedly, but through carelessness—place these obstacles and embarrassments in the path of voters who desire to exercise the franchise. Sir, I have to complain, in this connection, of two things—first, of the state of the law itself; and, in the second place, I have to complain of the mode in which that law is administered. The Registration Act, under which the polling districts in

    991
    Ireland are arranged, does not itself enter on any specific enactment on the subject of polling districts. Instead of laying down rules which were to regulate the polling districts in Ireland, it proceeded simply to revive certain enactments contained in the Ballot Act— namely, the Act passed in the year 1873 —and these provisions incorporated in it from the Ballot Act placed the task of re-arranging the polling districts in Ireland in the hands of the county magistrates. I say that if this House were deliberately to set itself to seek for a tribunal more than any other unsatisfactory for the performance of this duty, they could not have better succeeded than in selecting the tribunal which I have mentioned. To-day, I need hardly tell the House that the magistrates of Ireland are not merely not in sympathy with the people, but are, in this very matter of the franchise, in direct enmity and conflict with them. I ask, Sir, what would be thought of an Act of Parliament in England which vested the duty of arranging the machinery of the franchise in the hands of one of the political Parties? I ask what would be thought in this country if the power of fixing the polling districts, or the power of arranging any other machinery connected with the franchise, were vested solely in the hands of the Liberal Party or in these of the Conservative Party? And let me tell the House that such a condition of things by no means represents the state of things in Ireland that is created when a task of this kind is placed in the hands of the Magisterial Bench, for I need hardly say that the degree of strife between English political Parties by no means represents the corresponding relations between the tenant and landlord classes in Ireland; and for the purposes of this Election it was, practically a contest between landlords on the one side and tenants on the other. Yet in this, as in other matters in Ireland, the unfortunate tenant farmers found that the tribunal selected to sit upon and arrange their electoral rights consisted of landlords who were hostile to them from a political and religious, as well as a social, point of view. But I complain not merely of the enactments which were so introduced—I complain not merely that that tribunal was selected for this purpose; but I also complain that in re-enacting the provisions of the Ballot Act this House, for
    992
    some reasons which it is difficult to understand, left out certain provisions which were in the former Act, and which would have provided a remedy for this very evil. Let me remind the House that the original enactments regulating this matter provided for the power of appeal from the magistrates to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council. Well, when the Registration Act was passed no such provision was contained in it. The original enactment in the Ballot Act provided not that there should be one final fixing of the polling arrangements, but that if it should afterwards turn out that these arrangements were imperfect and unsatisfactory, it should be in the power of the Bench of Magistrates, from time to time, to review, alter, amend, and improve the arrangements they had originally made, so as to remove any grievance which might be found to come up in the working of the scheme formulated. I have said that, for some reason which it is difficult to understand, the enactment under which the present arrangements were made omitted these powers, and so prevented any change in the present imperfect conditions of taking the poll in Ireland until this House again interferes by enactment. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The Registration Act under which this money was spent makes no provision for any interference by the Ordnance Surveyors who take this money and perform these duties—it makes no provision for any functions whatsoever on the part of the Ordnance Surveyors in Ireland. The Registration Act places in the hands of the magistrates this power of fixing the limits of the polling districts, and there is no mention of any plans to be prepared by the Ordnance Survey. And what did the Government do? The Ordnance Office drew up these schemes and sent them down cut and dried to the magistrates, who were only too anxious to have them, and who, in the twinkling of an eye, passed them without the smallest attempt at examination. In fact, the only place in which, as might be expected, the local Bench sought to improve or amend this scheme was the North of Ireland, where, of course, the magistrates were anxious that the utmost facilities should be given to voters to pursue their political persuasion or political views; and the result was that

    993
    while in the North of Ireland this scheme may, to a large extent, have improved and altered so as to meet the exigencies of the case, in the South it was scamped without, as I have said, the least attempt at improving or amending it. Of course, I am aware that the present Administration are not responsible for the preparation of this scheme. I am aware that it was prepared during the period of Office of the late Government; but I respectfully submit to this House that it devolves upon Parliament to see that the large and beneficent enactment which created such an extraordinary change in the political circumstances of Ireland should not be rendered, to a large extent, nugatory and inoperative by the works of unsympathetic officials, who, of course, have no desire that the franchise should be placed within easy reach of the people. I most respectfully ask some undertaking that whenever the Government take in hand the work of improving the condition of the Registration Laws that this important matter will meet with their attention. I would respectfully ask that they should take this matter into their consideration, and put an end to what I think I may, without exaggeration, describe as the great public scandal involved in the condition of things which makes it necessary for a man to travel, as in one case, 50 miles for the purpose of exercising the important political vote conferred on him by the Franchise Act.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): The question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, with considerable clearness, is one worthy of being brought forward at a more timely hour of the evening, and, if the hon. and learned Member will allow me to say so, in some respects on a text which is more strictly appropriate. This Vote is for the purpose of increased field work which was done by the subordinate officers of the Valuation and Boundary Survey in Ireland in surveying the polling districts. In view of the extreme difficulty, in the present state of Parliament, of calling attention to any subject, however important, I am sure I am not inclined to quarrel with any hon. Member for bringing forward a question on any opportunity which may present itself, no matter how slight the connection it may have with the matter before
    994
    the House. But this is a question of paying money to subordinates for carrying out operations in the direction of which they have no control whatever. It is for purely professional and cadastral work of the Valuation and Boundary Survey. Though the hon. and learned Member is in Order in raising the very great and important question that ha has raised, I am still inclined to think that he would not be justified in putting any difficulty in the way of our obtaining the Report of this Vote. With regard to the main question which the hon. and learned Member has brought before the House, I can assure him that he meets with very great sympathy in other quarters of the House than that on which he sits. Many of us are not at all satisfied with the manner of appointing polling places in England. I will not give my hon. and learned Friend at this moment, and after what I have said, my reasons for objecting to the present system of appointing polling places either in England or Ireland. I think it extremely defective, and not in any sense in the right hands; but, having said that, I will ask the hon. and learned Member not to press his opposition to the Report on the present occasion. The work for which this money has been voted has been done. I have every reason to believe that it was well done by the men whose services are in question at this moment; and to reject this Report would, I think, in no way further the cause which the hon. and learned Gentleman has urged. It would be doing serious injustice to public servants, or to the men who have been engaged in this duty; and I, therefore, earnestly trust that the hon. and learned Member will be satisfied with the protest that he has made. When the registration comes again before the House, I am inclined to think he will find that there are a great many of his Colleagues and a great many other Members in this House extremely anxious to act in the direction in which he desires to go. I think I may say he will find amongst these most anxious to have this matter examined and set right not a few sitting on this Bench.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolutions 14 to 16 agreed to.
    Resolution 17. £7,400, Constabulary Force in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In regard to this Vote there is an item I intended to raise a question upon the other night, but was not able to do so in consequence of the prolonged discussion which took place upon another matter. I refer to the item for car hire and extra services, occasioned by the visit of the Prince of Wales to Ireland, and the events which occurred at Mallow when His Royal Highness passed through that place—I refer to the encounter between Inspector Carr and a Member of this House. The then hon. Member for Mallow, now the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien); the then hon. Member for Westmeath, now Member for Dublin (Mr. T. Harrington), and the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), were present on this occasion. Well, I wish to remind the House of what occurred. An action was brought by the hon. Gentleman, at that time Member for Westmeath, against Inspector Carr for the part he had taken in the proceedings. The jury disagreed; but the Government did not pay the Inspector's costs. However, within two or three months this gentleman—District Inspector, County Inspector, or whatever he may have been—was transferred, by way of compensation, to a more lucrative post—that is to say, he was put in charge of the police in Belfast, and in possession of a salary larger than he had previously received by about£200 a-year. Now, if anyone asks in this House whether Inspector Carr's costs were paid on that occasion by the Government, the Government will indignantly reply that such was not the case. But what did they do?—and this is the lesson the Irish people have to draw. They repeated their action in the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who, after being snubbed by the Earl of Carnarvon, was sent out to the Mauritius or the Bahamas, where his salary was doubled. In the case of Inspector Carr, as I have said, he was instantly transferred to Belfast, where he received a salary of £200 more than he had been previously receiving. That is the way the Government, instead of leaving the law to do justice between man and man, deals with its police officials. They will not pay a man's costs, but give him a salary of £200 a-year more. I wish to ask the Government whether they can give any information as to why Inspector Carr was promoted, to Belfast? Was it done by
    996
    the late Government? I believe it was. We have to-night the advantage of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Hart Dyke); and we shall, I hope, have some explanation from him of this promotion by bludgeon work.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I have some acquaintance with the circumstances which led to the action to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. I am cognizant of what took place at Mallow; but I am not aware of what subsequently transpired; therefore I am not in a position to afford the hon. and learned Member the information he seeks.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: This is a case in which the head of the Police Force in Ireland is responsible for the action taken. What was done in regard to the transference of Inspector Carr was done under his direction. I say frankly that I am not aware of the circumstances of this special case of the removal of a Police Inspector from one place to another. Should it be the pleasure of the hon. and learned Member to put a Question to me on this subject on some future day, I shall be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.
    Resolution agreed to.

    LAND REGISTRY BILL [Lords].— [Biil91.]
    (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    LAND REGISTRY BILL [Lords].— [Biil91.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. Fowler): Perhaps the House will allow me to explain, in a sentence or two, why this Bill has been brought in, and why it is necessary to pass it without delay. The House is aware—or these Members who were in the last Parliament will be aware— that during the past four or five years there have been discussions in this House with reference to the cost of working the Land Registry Act in England. Year after year Members have expressed the strongest disapprobation of the large amount of expenditure the working of the Registry has entailed, although they have not been able to protest successfully against the position of affairs. Last summer, when the Estimates were being passed through the House, the question was raised again,

      997
      strong objection being taken to the costs of the Office. I may tell the House that at that time there were in the Office a Registrar receiving a salary of £2,500, and an Assistant Registrar receiving £1,500, and various subordinate officials, the total cost being nearly £6,000. It was explained to the Committee by the then Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) that it was a very difficult thing to deal with an official who had been taken out of the practice of his Profession, and who had filled the Office of Registrar for the long period that Mr. Follett had filled. A pledge was given by the then Secretary to the Treasury, which was supported by the then Home Secretary, that, in the event of the Office of Registrar becoming vacant, the Government would not fill it up without affording the House a previous opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the desirability of continuing the expenditure. I was then sitting on the opposite side of the House. We accepted that pledge; and when a vacancy occurred I believe the right hon. Gentleman, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), stated, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him, that the Government would not fill up the vacancy. But while the pledge was being thus honourably fulfilled a legal difficulty arose with reference to carrying on the business of the Office. The then Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) found it absolutely necessary that someone should be authorized by Parliament to discharge the duties of Registrar. He then introduced the Bill I am now asking the House to read a second time in the House of Commons, by which it was provided that the Lord Chancellor should empower the Assistant Registrar during the vacancy in the Office to perform all the acts, and discharge all the duties, of the Registrar. That Bill was passed rapidly through all its stages in the other House, and then the change in the Government occurred. The present Lord Chancellor has taken the matter up, and has communicated with me in regard to it. I will read to the House what he says, He says—
      "Matters are at a dead-lock, and it is of absolute importance that this Bill should be passed without delay."
      The House will see there are certain duties—duties of an almost perfunctory character, or, at all events, of a Minis-
      998
      terial character—the very essence of which are the signature or authorization of the Registrar for the time being; and what the Government propose is that the Assistant Registrar should be empowered, without increased remuneration, to discharge these duties until the House has had an opportunity of considering what shall be the future constitution and expenditure of the Office. I have a paper before me which I will not trouble the House with; but I can assure the House, from its contents, that there are a great many matters of great concern which are now at a standstill, and which, if they are not dealt with in some such way as that proposed by the Bill, will lead to a great deal of public as well as private inconvenience. The longer the passing of this Bill is delayed the greater will be the inconvenience. I hope the House will give the measure a second reading. I now beg to move the second reading.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
      SIR HENRY HOLLAND: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I may, perhaps, say that I heartily join in what ho has said as to the importance of agreeing to the second reading of the Bill. After the pledge the hon. Member has referred to was given by me to the Committee, we, of course, set to work at the Treasury to deal with the matter. Sir Henry Thring, Mr. Mowatt and I had a meeting at the Land Registry Office, and made an inquiry into the work of the Department. We went through the books, and I am justified in saying that we thought that a considerable saving might be effected. I desire here to say that Mr. Follett did all the work he was required to do by the Act; but now that a vacancy has occurred the pledge which I gave that the Office should not be filled up has been fulfilled. It is necessary that some of the work Mr. Follett used to do, should be performed at once—work such as the signing of certain securities, which can only be done by the Chief Registrar. Cases have been brought under my notice in which business has been entirely suspended owing to there being no one to sign these securities. In these circumstances I trust the House will not object to the second reading of the Bill.
      MR. INCE: I am sorry to appear here to say that I cannot concur in the

      999
      view taken by my hon. Friend on this side of the House (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and by my right hon. Friend on the other side (Sir Henry Holland). I fail to see that because it is necessary that a particular Office should be carried on that, therefore, public faith with a public servant should be broken—and that is what the Government are proposing in pressing on this Bill. The late Government stood in no such position. They acted honourably with their servants, because the position of matters was then this. When the Marquess of Salisbury was in Office the position was this. The late Lord Chancellor had prepared (ready for bringing in) a Bill for the establishment of a new system of Land Transfer and Registry—I am repeating a public statement publicly made. From that it would appear that that Bill was ready to be brought forward in the House of Lords almost immediately; and pending the bringing forward of that matter, which was a matter almost of days, no one complained—I am quite sure the Assistant Registrar of the Land Registry Office would not complain—of the Assistant Registrar being required to perform the duties of Chief Registrar on the same footing as he was carrying on his own duties. But what does the present Government propose to do? They propose to put it in the power of the Lord Chancellor to require the Assistant Registrar to carry on the business of the Registrar's Office, in addition to what he undertook to do when he was appointed, for the same amount paid him when he originally accepted his Office, and to go on doing for an indefinite time all the duties for which the late Mr. Follett was paid the sum of £2,500 a-year. The hon. Gentleman's statement, I maintain, proves a great deal too much. My hon. Friend, I suppose, like myself, knew Mr. Follett very well. Does he mean to tell us that Mr. Follett was a man who would have taken £2,500 a-year for doing nothing? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, I find I am in a hot-bed of economy here. Does the House know what Mr. Follett did, and what the Office has been doing? The Office has been in existence 25 years, and during that period has registered over 3,000 titles. [Laughter.] I am afraid, from the laughter of hon. Gentlemen, that they do not know what this implies. If my hon. Friends around me were hon. and learned also, they would know that
      1000
      it implies a great deal of labour, and the exercise of a great deal of conveyancing skill, and that the man who earns £1,500 a-year in this way would be able to earn a great deal more at the Bar if engaged in a similar vocation. But this is not all. These 3,000 titles are irrespective of a very large number of titles —possibly many more than that—which have been looked into, and which have not been passed on account of irregularities of title. All this work has to be most carefully performed. I have tested the matter in another way, which will, perhaps, come home more to the minds of my hon. and economical Friends. The value of the estates of which the titles have been registered is between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. And that is not all. In addition to that there have been between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 of mortgage debentures dealt with in that Office. All this has involved an immense deal of inquiry into titles, and an immense deal of work. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the staff of the Office—I think he spoke of the various supernumerary officials in the Registration Office—I would inform him that these officials are two clerks and a law stationer; so that, in fact, the whole of the real business of this Office devolves upon the Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar took his office 24 years ago, and the salary he was paid then and has been paid since has been £1,500 a-year. He was when appointed—and here I mention a matter which must be within the knowledge of many hon. and learned Members here, as it certainly is within my own—a gentleman of large knowledge and experience of conveyancing. He has been the working spirit of the Office, has drafted all the rules; and, in fact, the Office has mainly rested on his shoulders—of course, under the supervision of Mr. Follett. I say that a gentleman who has sacrificed his career to enter into an Office of that kind should be dealt with fairly; good faith should be kept with him; and if he should be asked to carry on more onerous duties—for the ultimate responsibility rested on Mr. Follett —I maintain it is neither just nor fair that he should be asked to carry them on for an indefinite time at a remuneration that was fixed when he was in the position of a subordinate. I am not going to suggest, though the idea may have crossed hon. Members'

      1001
      minds, that the labeurer is worthy of his hire; but I must say that if you agree to pay one salary for one class of work, and you put on the shoulders of the man who receives it another and more onerous class of work, the fact should be taken into consideration in relation to salary. My hon. Friend, I am sure, does not want to do an injustice. As I am anxious to give him an opportunity of avoiding that, and to enable him to further consider the matter I will move the adjournment of the debate.
      MR. BAGGALLAY: I beg to second the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ince.)
      MR. AMBROSE: I rise for the purpose of supporting the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Islington (Mr. Ince), because I concur in the view he has expressed of this matter. I do not agree with the sincere and earnest desire of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hampstead (Sir Henry Holland) to cut down expenses wherever it can be done——
      MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate, and that he cannot enter into a discussion of the Main Question.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): On the Question of the adjournment I wish to say that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has put before the House the reasons why this matter is urgent. It comes before the House on the recommendation of the late Lord Chancellor, backed up by the further recommendation of the present Lord Chancellor; and while I do not want to debate the Main Question I may be forgiven for pointing out that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Ince) has not discussed this matter on its merits. He has moved the adjournment, but has suggested no reason why the merits of the measure have not been already sufficiently discussed. He has declared his objection to the Bill with perfect candour—namely, against making the gentleman who has hitherto been the Assistant Registrar responsible for the whole of the work of the Office without an adequate increase of remu-
      1002
      neration. I submit that the question is one the House is fully capable of dealing with at once. It has all the facts before it to enable it to deal with the subject, and I do not think the debate should be adjourned.
      MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Islington (Mr. Ince) is actuated by a desire to promote economy in this matter. He proposes that the Assistant Registrar, whose duties are of such a slight character——
      MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but I would remind him that the debate must now be confined to the Question of adjournment.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): This is really a very urgent matter, because unless some Bill of this kind is passed it is very doubtful whether there is anyone to pass these titles, which may consequently become invalid.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. AMBROSE: I do not know that I should have risen to support this Bill if it had not been for the statement of the hon. Gentlemen the Secretary to the Treasury that it was intended to transfer the duties of the Registrar to the Assistant Registrar, without making any sort of addition to his salary. I do not mean to contend that it is necessary to proceed to appoint a Registrar at the salary paid to the late Registrar. That is not the view that I am prepared to submit to the House at all. I confess to some disappointment at seeing the way the Government are dealing with that to which the country has so long looked forward for cheapening the transfer of land—namely, a Land Registry. It does not seem to me that the system best calculated to improve the Land Registration is such economization as that now proposed—namely, a reduction of the staff to the lowest possible minimum. It seems to me there is great risk in reposing so much responsibility upon the Assistant Registrar, especially in view of the proposed reform in connection with the Land Transfer, if you look to the system of Registration as a means of perfecting and cheapening the transfer of land. That being so, I do not think

      1003
      we should run any risks of serious mistakes being made by the Land Registry which would tend to draw discredit on the Registry system. I must say I think the Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hampstead (Sir Henry Holland) have underrated the work that will have to be done by the Assistant Registrar if this Bill passes. It has been said that the work of the Registrar is not merely Ministerial, but hardly more than—I do not recollect the exact words used—the work of a clerk, mere work of detail. That is an entire misapprehension. The work that has had to be done by the Registrar, in many instances, has been judicial work requiring legal training and knowledge, and entailing very great responsibility. It involves judicial work as to the effect of titles and putting them on the Register, and it is very onerous work, although it does not bring much public fame. There is not that honour about it which falls to the lot of men when they have to appear in public. Everything is done in the Office. A great deal of painstaking is involved, and a large amount of scientific knowledge is necessary to enable the Registrar to discharge his duties satisfactorily. With regard to the Assistant Registrar, he has been holding office for the last 24 years. I am told, and I have every reason to believe it to be the fact, that when he accepted the office he gave up very lucrative work. I ask, is it right, for the sake of cutting down the Estimates, to do this injustice? Is it fair to put on the shoulders of a man who has been a subordinate these responsible duties without increasing his remuneration? It has been said, and I know there is a curious notion prevailing, that there is nothing to do in connection with the Registry. It is true that, comparatively speaking, there have been very few titles registered; but it must be remembered that the titles registered have been accumulating for 24 years, and that there are now 3,000 on the Register. I would ask any Gentleman with any knowledge at all on the subject whether it is not a fact that when a title is once on the Register subsequent transactions under that title have to come under the supervision of the Registry Office to be dealt with by the gentleman who fills the post of Registrar? There are 3,000 titles registered, and all transactions in regard
      1004
      to these—transfers, mortgages, and other dealings—have to come under the Registry Office. There are a large number of mortgages which involve a great deal of work. I should not have risen to oppose the second reading of the Bill if it had not been stated that all this work is to be put on the Assistant Registrar without increasing his salary. If the Bill is read a second time, I shall certainly feel it necessary in Committee to move a clause by which it will become the duty of the Lord Chancellor or the Treasury, when they assign these additional duties to the Assistant Registrar, also to assign additional remuneration.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL): I should like to say a word or two on the Main Question. The first Act which bears on this subject of the registration of titles was an Act passed in 1862, and was followed by the Act in question, which was passed in 1875, at the instance of the then Lord Chancellor, the late Earl Cairns. I speak in the hearing of a great many hon. and learned Friends, and I speak the opinion of the Profession, when I say that from beginning to end these two Acts were signal failures—that they have cost this country a great deal more money than they are worth, and that they have done little better than to establish one or two not unimportant sinecures. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Ince) used an expression which was a strong one to use, and which I think he entirely failed to justify. He accused the Government of a breach of faith, stating that when the late Government were in Office it had been their intention to bring in a general Bill to deal with the whole question of Land Transfer; and, as I understood him, to provide for the Deputy Registrar. That was intended to be a Bill much wider than this; in fact, there is little connection between the two matters; and I know of no pledge or promise as to the Deputy Registrar in relation to it. My hon. and learned Friend says—"Is it to be supposed that Mr. Follett would have taken £2,500 a-year for doing nothing?" In answer to that, I can only say that if the duty of receiving £2,500 a-year for doing little or nothing is cast upon a man, most men will find it a very difficult thing to refuse the burden. There is very little real work to do in the Office; and the advantage the com-

      1005
      munity has gained by it has been very slight. The case of the Deputy Registrar is this—that he has been for many years acting in his present capacity at a salary of £1,500; and it is suggested, or implied, that he had a right to look forward to some advancement. Well, I entirely deny the suggestion that his acceptance of the Deputy Registrarship implied that the Office of Registrar was to be kept up for his benefit in case of a vacancy where the needs of the public service did not require it. I deny that any public servant who accepts a position accepts it under any such implied promise. I should be inclined to say that the question now under discussion is not germane to the Bill. The course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ambrose) as to inserting a clause in the interest of the Deputy Registrar may or not be regular; but it certainly would be most irregular to attempt to stop the second reading by arguments which in no sense go to the merits of the Bill.
      MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not wish to stand long between the House and a division, if there is to be one; because I am perfectly sure there will be but one result of the division. But I venture to say, as a man having some little knowledge of this Land Registry Office, that if there is one complete failure in connection with legal reform it is in connection with this Office. Several persons were appointed to positions in which they had very good salaries, and very little to do. Now, an opportunity is afforded us of making alterations by which we may reduce a thoroughly useless staff. To talk abeut3,000 cases being dealt with in 25 years requiring this staff is absurd—abeut 120 cases a-year, and two and a-half a-week. I undertake to say that any efficient and respectable firm of solicitors would transact the whole of this business for £1,000 a-year, and consider themselves exceedingly well paid. And yet we find the Deputy Registrar suggesting, through an hon. Member of this House, that he should have additional remuneration. The whole thing is absurd. I hope the House will, by a unanimous vote, show they quite appreciate the common sense of the Government in supporting this Bill.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Year after year we
      1006
      have been told that this Office is a sinecure, and now it is said it is not. What are the facts? Will the House allow me to quote what was said by Mr. Arthur Arnold last year, who did not overstate the case? That hon. Gentleman said—
      "Within the past two half-years the number of new estates registered in this Office had been six—two in one half and four in the other; so that this fact came out—that the taxpayers of this country had to pay £1,000 for each now estate registered in this Office. Hon. Members would see at once what a scandalous, extravagant, and wasteful expenditure of money there was in this Department."—(3 Hansard, [299] 741.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    MOTIONS.
      ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS.

        MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
        THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed—
        "To inquire into the operation of 'The Endowed Schools Act, 1869,' and the amending Acts, and to consider and report how far it may be expedient to amend the powers exercised under them by the Charity Commissioners."
        I only wish to remark that a Committee sat last year upon Charitable Trusts, and strongly recommended that a Select Committee on "The Endowed Schools Acts" be moved for this year. My right hon. Friend the President of the Beard of Trade (Mr. Mundella), on the part of the Government, and my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland), who preceded me in my Office, on behalf of the late Government, recommended the appointment of the Committee. I, therefore, move that a Select Committee be appointed.
        Motion agreed to.
        Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of 'The Endowed Schools Act, 1869,' and the amending Acts, and to consider and report how far it may be expedient to amend the powers exercised under them by the Charity Commissioners."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)

        RIVERS PURIFICATION BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Hastings, Bill for the Purification of Hirers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hastings, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Lord

        1007
        Charles Beresford, Sir W. Guyer Hunter, General Sir William Crossman, and Colonel Sandys.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]

        MINES BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Conybeare, Bill to amend the Law relating to Mining Leases and Royalties, the payment of Miners' wages, and the Inspection of Mines throughout the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Borlase, Mr. Burt, Mr. Blake, Mr. Allison, Mr. Abraham (Rhondda Valley), Mr. Mason, and Mr. Saunders.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 102.]

        HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Leveson Gower, Bill to provide for the maintenance of the New Streets at Hyde Park Corner, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leveson Gower, Mr. Fowler, and Mr. Broadhurst.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 103.]

        LEASEHOLDS (FACILITIES OF PUECHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Lawson, Bill to enable the Leaseholders of Houses and Cottages to purchase the fee simple of their property, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Puleston, Colonel Hughes, Mr. Holden, and Mr. Arthur Cohen.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 104.]

        REMOVAL TERMS (BURGHS) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Edmund Robertson, Bill to amend "The Removal Terms (Burghs) (Scotland) Act, 1881," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. J. W. Barclay, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 105.]

        CORRUPT PRACTICES (MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Edmund Robertson, Bill for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices at Municipal Elections in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edmund Robertson and Mr. W. A. Hunter.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

        KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
        Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House —Mr. AGG-GARDNER, Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, Mr. FLOWER, Mr. GRENFELL, Mr. HERBERT, VISCOUNT LEWISHAM, Mr. LONG, Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Mr. RICHARD POWER, BARON DE ROTHSCHILD, Mr. SHEIL, AND Mr. JOHN WILSON (DURHAM)."—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)

        GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND) ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to continue the Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Mr. Henry Fowler.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.]

        COAL MINES EEGULATION ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Bill to amend "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]

        REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Bill to facilitate the administration of Deceased Persons' Estates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. M'Laren, and Mr. Molloy.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]
        House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

Several Lords—Took the Oath.
MINUTES.]—SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders, The Lord Kintore, added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Freshwater Fisheries (Eels)* (15).
Second Reading—Marriages Validity* (11).

METROPOLIS—THE RECENT RIOTS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the noble Lord who represented the Home Department, Whether the Report of the Committee which had been conducting an inquiry in regard to the conduct of the police in the recent riots was likely to be presented that day, and whether it was in print?
  LORD THURLOW: I have to inform the noble Earl that the Home Secretary expects to be able to lay the Report of his Committee on the recent riots before the House of Commons this evening; but it will not be printed for a day or two. The Home Secretary, however, hopes that it will be in the hands of the Members of both Houses of Parliament not later than Wednesday morning next.

ALLOTMENTS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in rising to move for—
  "Return (1.) of all agricultural holdings in England and Wales, both of arable and pasture land, occupied as allotments or field gardens, of one-eighth of an acre and not exceeding four acres; (2.) of all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages; (3.) of all charitable trusts in England and Wales the trustees of which are trustees within the meaning of the first and fourth clauses of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882,"
  said, that he had noticed that in a speech delivered at Hull during the heat of the
  844
  General Election by the President of the Local Government Board that right hon. Gentleman said that many of the great landlords of England had occupied themselves in driving the labourers off their estates. When he read that statement, he almost, like the Pharisee of old, thanked God that he was not as other men were, or even as those landlords; and he supposed that most of their Lordships must have shared that feeling. He had thereupon turned his attention to a search of those documents to which their Lordships looked for information on all subjects of a nature likely to be dealt with by Parliament, and he had hoped to find in the Agricultural Reports statistics showing what was the state of allotments in this country; but he was sorry to say that there were absolutely no Returns whatever dealing with that question for the last 13 years—since 1873. In 1870 a commencement was made in that direction, and in that year there were 102,342 holdings under five acres. There was no Return for 1871; but in 1872 the total number of holdings of from a quarter of an acre to one acre, and from one acre to five acres, was 160,570, of which 49,652 were held by labourers. In 1873 the information went further, giving a Return of the allotments detached from the houses and cottages of labourers; that was to say, all those which did not include the best form of allotments—namely, cottage gardens. They found that even then there were as many as 242,500 allotments in England. If they added to that the number of small holdings of five acres and under which might, when consisting of pasture land, be described as allotments, the grand total was no less than 353,000. In that year there were 765,000 agricultural labourers—that was to say, there was very nearly one allotment or small holding for every two labourers. Since the Commons Act of 1876 was passed, 22,430 acres had been inclosed, and a portion set out in allotments. Under Clause 28 of that Act managers were to report every three or five years; but the Commissioners said there was no power to enforce that being done. In 1873, in 24 counties there were 122,000 allotments, and they ranged on an average from one-eighth to a quarter of an acre, while, in 18 counties, 120,000 allotments averaged a quarter to half-

  845
  an-acre. It was, he thought, only right that they should ask the Government to give them information which was more recent than the year 1873. There was reason to suppose that the supply of allotments was every day coming nearer to the demand, because the agricultural population was anything but increasing in the rural districts. In the decade between 1871 and 1881 our agricultural population decreased by 15·9 per cent, having in the previous decade decreased 17·6 per cent, while the number of allotments was increasing. There was hardly any matter on which there existed less information and more exaggeration than the subject of the land of this country. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Derby) moved in that House for a Return of the owners of land, observing that it had been stated that the owners of land in England and Wales were only 30,000 in number. In order to ascertain whether that was the case, the noble Earl moved for a Return which, when produced, proved that instead of there being only 30,000 owners in this country, there were, after correction for the holdings of the same persons in several counties, no less than 967,000 owners, of whom 700,000 owned less than one acre. The inquiries of the Land and Glebe Owners' Association, for the voluntary extension of the allotments system, which were not exhaustive, showed that the owners of 2,300,000 acres had in force on their estates the system of allotments, and were prepared to extend it to all the labourers on their estates; besides that, the Association had the support of the owners of 25,000 acres of glebe land, and the system was also in operation on the estates of the owners of a further 500,000 acres. Thus, very widespread voluntary efforts were going on all over the country to provide labourers with allotments; and ho trusted that no steps would be taken by Parliament which would throw any obstacle or check in the way of that most salutary system. He was willing to give the President and the Secretary of the Local Government Board credit for having drawn public attention to the question, although their startling proposals in reference to it had savoured somewhat of public plunder. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would not deal with the subject until they were possessed of all the facts connected with the case. If
  846
  they were to legislate in a compulsory manner it was possible that many of those who would otherwise speedily obtain allotments by voluntary agency might have to wait one or two years before the local authority in a district would put the machinery of that compulsory system in operation. An Act was passed in 1882 to provide allotments, the main principle of which was that every charity which owned land the profits of which were distributed in doles should be required to let allotments. But the great majority of the trustees of charity land were unaware of the existence of that Act; and he did not see how they could be expected to put it into operation unless their attention was called to it. He knew of no means by which that could be done except by calling upon the Charity Commissioners for such Returns as he moved for, giving the names of all those charities which came under the provisions of the Allotments Act of 1882. It was desirable that landowners should not only grant allotments, but in these days, when attacks were made upon them, that they should show their determination to do so by a public declaration on the point. Having shown what necessity there was for these Returns, he trusted their Lordships would see that it would be most unjust to landowners to propose any legislation dealing with their property when the data and the facts concerning allotments all over England were in no sense in possession of the public.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Return (1.) of all agricultural holdings in England and Wales, both of arable and pasture land, occupied as allotments or field gardens, of one-eighth of an acre and not exceeding four acres; (2.) of all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages; (3.) of all charitable trusts in England and Wales the trustees of which are trustees within the meaning of the first and fourth clauses of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, he did not propose to follow the noble Earl in the interesting remarks which he had made on the subject of allotments. He would confine himself to answering the Question which had been put to him. He should be very happy to obtain and

  847
  furnish the information which the noble Earl asked for; but he did not think that it would be possible to give it in a special Return at this moment. A special Return would entail a very large expense, and it would be impossible to compile it without impeding other work and throwing difficulties in the way of collecting the Agricultural Returns which were made every year. He would, however, engage that immediately after the Agricultural Returns for this year were made, supplementary Returns would be given, which would, ho believed, contain all the information which the noble Lord required. He would also add a great deal more. In the information which he would give would be included "all agricultural holdings in England and Wales occupied as allotments or field gardens" of one-eighth of an acre and over. They did not propose, as the noble Earl suggested, to make the distinction between arable and pasture land below one acre, which would be exceedingly-difficult to get; and he did not think it would be of very great importance, as he presumed in these small allotments there was, as a rule, very little pasture. Under the second head they proposed to give all garden allotments exceeding one-eighth of an acre attached to cottages, although there was some difficulty in defining what a cottage really was. They also proposed to give particulars as to rent, tenure, and distance from dwellings on certain allotments. At first it was thought that this would be a difficult question; but the Government saw their way now to give the information, and he thought that information would be of considerable value and importance. In regard to the third Question, he would ask the noble Earl to be kind enough to repeat it another day. He admitted the great value of obtaining this information from the Charity Commissioners, and he had been in communication with them on the subject. He did not foresee any very great difficulty in the matter; but there were certain objections which he should like to discuss with the Commissioners before he could finally begin the Return. For the Return to be useful, it was, of course, desirable to be authentic and reliable; and there was some doubt whether the Charity Commissioners could give a Return of this description.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: How soon may we expect the Return? In the middle of the Session, or towards the end of it?
  EARL SPENCER: It would be quite impossible to furnish it under three or four months. It will be begun immediately after the annual Agricultural Returns.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWbegged to thank the noble Earl for the answer which he had given. He had another suggestion to offer for the consideration of the noble Earl. It would be very valuable to know from each farmer how many labourers he had on his farm to whom he gave ground or potatoes; how many he had to whom he gave cow ground; and how many holdings there were between five and ten acres?
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, there was another point to which he should like to call attention—namely, co-operative farming. It was desirable to have a Return of the number of labourers who shared in co-operative farming.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought that this was a totally different subject, and he was not prepared to give Returns as to co-operative farming, however important they might be. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow), he would consider the point brought under notice as to the cases where farmers gave land or potatoes, or otherwise to their labourers.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked, whether there could not be included the manner in which the holdings were held; whether or not sub-let, or not used for the purpose originally granted?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, all these particulars would add enormously to the expense of the Return, besides involving tremendous labour. If they were to adopt all these suggestions, it might be years before they could possibly get the Return out.
  EARL FORTESCUEasked, whether the noble Earl could not add to the Return the number of places where allotments had been provided, and where for many years they had been given up as unlettable as allotments?
  Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

KINGDOM OF AVA.—RESOLUTION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY), in rising to move—
"That Her Majesty having directed a military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions,"
said: My Lords, in moving the Resolution I will point out the clauses in the Act of Parliament which require that this Resolution should be moved. In the Government of India Act, 1858, there are two provisions on the subject of the employment of troops outside Indian territory. The 54th section provides that when any military operations are being carried on beyond Indian territory the fact shall be communicated to Parliament within three months if it be sitting, and within one month if Parliament be not sitting. The other, the 55th, has an immediate bearing on the Resolution which I have to propose. It provides that except for preventing or repelling actual invasion on our Indian Possessions, or for sudden and urgent necessity, the Revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontier of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions. The interpretation of this section has given rise to considerable controversy, the points of which will be found fully stated in the Papers relating to the Abyssinian War of 1867, and more especially in those connected with the war in Afghanistan in 1878–9. Some high authorities have contended that this section requires that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained before the commencement of operations. On the other hand, there is the fact that in several cases this Resolution has been moved after the actual operations have commenced. I do not propose to go into the arguments on either side, because, at all events, I feel certain that Her Majesty's present Government cannot be charged with having neglected their duty. It is perfectly clear that I am proposing the Resolution on the first occasion that it was practicable for me to do so. And I have another reason for not discussing
850
the matter, which is that it is the intention of the Government to propose an inquiry into the operation of the India Act in accordance with the intention of the late Government as announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. As these ambiguities have arisen, it is, I think, desirable that the point should be considered by the Joint Committee of both Houses which it is my intention to move for. Therefore I will not pursue the argument further. The House will not expect from me at this time any narrative of the circumstances which led to the war with Burmah, or of the steps which followed it. All this has been placed fully before Parliament in the Blue Book which has been laid on the Table. It will be enough for me to say that there has been no doubt in the mind of any man who is acquainted with the course of our relations with the late King of Burmah that they were so unsatisfactory that it was impossible they should be allowed to continue. That unsatisfactory state of affairs had lasted for some considerable time. The causes of complaint were various. Efforts which had been made by the Indian Government to bring about a better state of things bad failed; and it was merely a question of time when some step would become necessary to place our relations upon a more satisfactory footing. During the term of Office of Mr. Gladstone's former Government the question was never approached with any nearness, because the Government were occupied with difficulties relating to the North-West Frontier, and, except upon urgent necessity, it would have been clearly unwise to have entered upon any important operation on another frontier of India. The matter came to a head during the tenure of Office by our immediate Predecessors. The Viceroy of India and Her Majesty's late Government were of opinion that it was necessary that a strong step should be taken as regarded the conduct of the King of Burmah. I have been surprised to see that the defence of the late Government has sometimes been placed on this ground—that we were justified in undertaking a war for the purpose of extending British trade. I have no hesitation in saying that a war undertaken simply for that purpose would be an unjustifiable war; but I do not understand—although, no doubt, the advantage of increased trade

851
may result—that it was on that ground that the Viceroy acted. The ground on which he acted was the very unsatisfactory conduct of the King towards the Indian Government, and certain injuries which he had inflicted upon British subjects for which no redress could be obtained. Above all—and this is fully disclosed in the Papers—the King of Burmah had been endeavouring to establish such relations with Foreign Powers as could not fail to produce for us great embarrassment hereafter, and might have an injurious effect upon the peace and security of Her Majesty's Indian Dominions. It seems to me that, taking all the circumstances together, there certainly existed good causes for the war, and I can quite understand why the Viceroy should have advised that active steps should be taken against Burmah, and that Her Majesty's Government should have approved of them. These, however, are past affairs; and I mention them only in order that the House may not suppose that I wish to pass them over, or that I wish to pass any censure upon the late Government for the course they have taken. I now glance at the success of the operations themselves, because it would be very unjust to the Forces who were employed not to acknowledge the manner in which those operations were conducted. There has been already a gracious acknowledgment of the services of Her Majesty's Forces in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; and on behalf of the Government, this being the first opportunity I have had of speaking on the subject, I have to state that much credit is due both to those who planned the Expedition, and to all the troops, naval and military, who were engaged in the operations. The extreme promptitude with which the operations were conducted prevented much effusion of blood that otherwise might have occurred; and this is a point that ought to be carefully borne in mind in estimating the services rendered. If the difficulties of the Expedition were not greater it is because they were anticipated by promptitude of action. On that point I wish to pay a tribute not only to the military, but also to the civil authorities, for the great activity they displayed in making the preparations. I think that the House will feel that our thanks are fully and completely due to all
852
those who were engaged in those operations, and who brought them to so successful an issue. Burmah having been thus rapidly conquered, the question, of course, arose as to the next step to be taken. The Papers presented show that a Proclamation was issued stating that Burmah had become a part of Her Majesty's Dominions; and in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech the following passage occurs:—
"I have decided that the most certain method of insuring peace and order in those regions is to be found in the permanent incorporation of the Kingdom of Ava with my Empire."
At that time Lord Dufferin had not been at Mandalay, and had not had the opportunity which he has since had of examining into the state of affairs on the spot. Since we have acceded to Office, Lord Dufferin has sent home a Report stating fully the views he had formed after examining for himself the state of affairs in Upper Burmah. He informs Her Majesty's Government that having himself felt disposed at first rather towards the formation of Upper Burmah into a Native State under British protection, yet, after a careful examination of all the circumstances on the spot, he was convinced that such a course was inexpedient and impracticable. Having received that opinion in unmistakable terms from the Viceroy, in whom, in common with Her Majesty's late Government, we placed the highest confidence—having regard to the fact that Her Majesty's late Government have already announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech that the Kingdom of Ava would be permanently incorporated in the British Empire, and looking also to the Proclamation which by their instructions had been issued in Burmah—taking all those things into consideration, we have decided without hesitation that the proper course to be pursued—and that course the Viceroy has been instructed to pursue—is to maintain Burmah under the direct administration of the British Grown. As regards the further arrangements to be made, the House will not be surprised when I say that at so early a period, the Viceroy having just, after a few days' sojourn in Mandalay, left that capital, we have not been able to mature the details of administration, and they are at this moment being carefully considered by us in communication with the Viceroy.

853
While we are entirely agreed in our decision, looking to all the circumstances of the case, I do not pretend to look with unmixed satisfaction upon an addition to our responsibilities in India; but I believe the necessity has been forced upon us. I doubt whether those who speak lightly of these accessions to our Empire duly weigh all that is involved. There may be advantages in our possession of Burmah; but, on the other hand, there are drawbacks. Forces will have to be employed there which might be usefully employed elsewhere. Of late years we have wisely made it our policy to avoid as much as possible the annexation of Native States, and not to give rise to the feeling that we were desirous of swallowing up those States. Do not, however, suppose that in making these remarks I am passing any censure upon those who have been engaged in the operations in Burmah, or that the Government are not desirous of making the best of the present position of affairs. The necessity is forced upon us, and the position is one in which the present and the late Government concur in accepting. My hope and belief is, that we shall so govern this addition to Her Majesty's Empire that it will conduce to the happiness and prosperity of the inhabitants of the country, and result in an increase of our trade with China, which may become ultimately very great. As I have mentioned China, it would not be inopportune to say—and I know in what I am about to state I shall have the concurrence of noble Lords opposite—that in considering the relations between Upper Burmah and China there is the utmost desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to treat all matters that may arise in a most friendly spirit with regard to China. I believe also that China is most friendly disposed towards Her Majesty's Government; and where there exists a friendly disposition on both sides and strong common interests, I think we may anticipate that we shall bring any discussion which we may have with the Chinese Government with regard to the frontier to a satisfactory conclusion. We should be on the most cordial terms with China; and I think everyone will see that China, on her part, can have no jealousy of us in that quarter. It is for the interests of both Empires that they should act towards each other on the frontier in such a way
854
that a close and cordial friendship may be formed. Your Lordships may also I desire that I should give some information as to the present condition of Burmah. With regard to that I will I say, in the first place, that there has, no doubt, been a great deal of dacoity since our occupation of the country; but it must be remembered that dacoits have always been there. The Viceroy informs me that dacoity has been exceptionally rife owing to Theebaw's misgovernment, and that the proceedings of the dacoits have been very cruel and barbarous. These proceedings, however, have not, the Viceroy says, been directed against Her Majesty's Government, but against innocent villagers. It is the duty of the authority we have set up to protect the innocent villagers against these men, who have been guilty of murder and plundering of the very worst kind. My noble Friend the Viceroy assures me that in the execution of this duty there has been no unnecessary severity. He says that the general pacification of the country is proceeding as rapidly as can be reasonably expected. The country, however, is largo and overspread with jungle, and it would be unreasonable to expect the immediate establishment of peace. Then, with regard to what is called indiscriminate punishment on the part of the military officers, the Viceroy says in one of his most recent telegrams—
"It is certainly not true that prisoners are indiscriminately shot by troops. Executions at Mandalay by military during past six weeks have been cases of convicted offenders sentenced by civil officers. Elsewhere, when troops take marauders red-handed, leaders are occasionally shot; in each case all act upon advice of civil officers who accompany columns. It is difficult to discriminate between insurgents and dacoits; both classes plunder and kill innocent villagers, and compel peaceable people to join them. It must be understood that these bands have not come into existence since our arrival, but that dacoity has been long rife in the country."
This is the latest information I have from the Viceroy as to the present condition of affairs in Burmah. I have no reason to think that any additional force will be required beyond that now employed. On the contrary, I have heard from the Viceroy that there is even a possibility already of some reduction being made in the force. As to the probable cost of the operations, the Viceroy informs me that it will not ex-

855
change that would be £400,000; at the present rate it is about £300,000 sterling. The able Commissioner of Lower Burmah, Mr. Bernard, thinks it probable that the deficit for the first two, three, or four years will not exceed £20,000 or £30,000. It is very probable that after that period the Expenditure of the country will be balanced by the Revenue, and that eventually there will be a surplus. There is this to be said with regard to those estimates—that since Lower Burmah has been occupied by us its progress has been remarkable as to trade and all other elements of prosperity. No other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions has made greater progress than Lower Burmah. Whether or not Upper Burmah will make equally rapid progress, we may reasonably hope that the administration of the country which the Viceroy intends shall be conducted cheaply will result before long in the Revenue surpassing the Expenditure. The expenditure of the Expedition is calculated as not amounting to more than £300,000 up to 31st of March, which cannot be regarded as a large sum; and it can hardly be contended that this is not a case in which the Indian Revenues may fairly be charged with it. In conclusion, his Lordship moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved to resolve—
"That Her Majesty having directed a military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall he applied to defray the expenses of the military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
LORD HARRISsaid, it was gratifying to the Members of the late Government to find that their undertaking in Burmah met with the approval of Her Majesty's present Advisers. He thought that the noble Earl would perhaps now admit that the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne referring to this matter was not too long, or inserted by way of excuse for the operations in Burmah. He was glad to hear that the Commission which the late Government had thought of moving for with regard to India was to be appointed; and he trusted that one result would be that those who differed on the clauses of the Act of Parliament would come to some satisfactory conclu-
856
sion. He did not gather that it was necessary that the Resolution of the noble Earl should be brought forward within a month after the meeting of Parliament. But it had been out of the power of the present Government to bring it forward within the month. They were, however, to be credited with the desire to bring the Resolution forward as soon after the month as possible. It was not necessary for him to go into the reasons why the late Government thought it right that the country should be annexed; but he might say that the Expedition and annexation were not undertaken solely with the idea of extending our mercantile enterprize. They had responsibilities extending to the people of Lower Burmah. In judging of the matter, all the circumstances which led up to the Expedition must be taken into consideration. The various acts of interference with Her Majesty's subjects on the part of the Burmese Government; their indifference to the Treaties entered into in 1856, 1862, and 1867; their relations with other Powers as well as England—all these matters had to be considered. As the noble Earl had mentioned the civil officials at Madras, who were so active in forwarding the Expedition, he might add a word for the Madras troops, who had not had many opportunities of meeting an enemy in the field, but had on recent occasions shown themselves most conspicuous in actual warfare. He was glad that the course which Her Majesty's late Government thought it most advisable to pursue with regard to the annexation of Upper Burmah would be followed by Her Majesty's present Government. He was entirely unable to agree with the remarks which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) made in a speech he delivered in the autumn, that from among the Royal Princes of Burmah could be found one capable of ascending the Throne. No doubt, the noble Marquess would have had ample choice, for King Theebaw's father left over 70 children; but he should not have had envied him the task of selection, for, from what he heard, he should doubt any one of them being fitted for so onerous a position. The noble Earl referred to the annexation of Native States. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the noble Earl on that point. Great stress had been laid on the fact that the Native Princes of India

857
might be under the impression that a policy of annexation would be pursued in India also. He could not understand the reasons for such an apprehension. It was not the policy of Her Majesty's Government nor of late Governments. Quite the contrary. Only the other day the fortress of Gwalior was restored to the Prince; not very long since the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Rajah of Mysore were restored to power; and the Maharajah Holkar had, on several occasions, received very considerable honours. On all those occasions the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been quite different from a policy of annexation of the Native States; and as long as the Native Princes governed their territories with justice and moderation so long might they be assured that they would be continued in the government. He believed that there was the greatest hope for the peace of the world in the proximity of China and Great Britain. The neighbourhood of two such trading nations argued well for the prospect of peace in that part of the world. When the late Government were in power frequent reports of acts of dacoity in Upper Burmah came to this country. He was afraid that dacoity was the normal state of things in Upper Burmah; and it was not wonderful that those who felt their occupation going should endeavour to strike one last blow for it. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord that there were great hopes of the country being brought into a peaceable condition without much delay; and he trusted that in a very short time the people might be able to settle down to their business, and that we should find, as in the Lower Province, that the Revenue, business, and trade of the country had increased at an enormous rate. He would not go into all the circumstances which led Her Majesty's late Government to think that annexation was the proper course, but would only say that they acted solely from a feeling of the responsibility attaching to them in governing British India, and recognized it to be their duty to the people of Lower Burmah as well as of India to insist that the Treaties to which Theebaw was a party should be recognized by him, that justice and honest treatment should be dealt out to those who were trading in that country, and that no exclusive influence should be allowed to any other nation.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: On the part of the Army I desire to say that I entirely agree with what has been said on both sides of the House as to the manner in which the military operations have been conducted. I entirely endorse the statement of the Secretary of State for India that the fact that this has been a very bloodless and a very short Expedition adds to the credit of those engaged in it.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought the military operations in Burmah were justified by all the circumstances of the case. He also thought, having read with attention the Blue Book which had been circulated among their Lordships, that the greatest moderation had been exercised by successive Administrations in dealing with the affairs of Burmah. It had been shown by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Cranbrook), by Lord Hartington, and by his noble Friend, now Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley), by his noble Friend below him (the Marquess of Ripon) and by the present Viceroy of India. The particular persons who might have to deal with questions of that kind as they arose formed an important element in the conclusion at which a Government might arrive. Two of the officers concerned, Sir Charles Aitchison and Mr. Bernard, were well known for their high character and great moderation of opinions. He quite agreed that in forming a judgment in this matter they must look to all the circumstances of the case, and also to circumstances extending over many years; for difficulties with Burmah arose before the year 1879. He would not like it to be supposed that the war had followed in consequence of any troubles connected with a British Company trading in Burmah, or of any matters of that kind. The causes which had produced this war were far more important, extending over many years, and involving circumstances of far greater moment than any trading difficulties. There was no doubt, whatever the cause of the war might be, that the operations had been admirably organized and successfully carried out; and he was glad to hear the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harris) pay a tribute to the conduct of the Madras Army, which came from him with peculiar grace in consequence of his hereditary connection with that Presidency. It was

859
a great advantage to that Army to have an opportunity of showing what they could do. As to the question of annexation, he looked upon it as one of the very highest importance; and he would certainly have preferred if it had been found possible to have avoided the annexation of Burmah. But he was, at the same time, fully aware of the great difficulties attending any other arrangement, and he was prepared to accept with confidence the deliberate opinion expressed by Lord Dufferin on the subject, that the only course that could be taken with a proper regard to the interests of Her Majesty's Dominions in India was to incorporate Burmah in Her Majesty's Empire. He must, however, express his regret that neither in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, nor in what had fallen from his noble Friend the Secretary of State, nor in the speech of the noble Lord opposite, had there been any mention whatever made of the most important announcement that was ever made by the English Government since the time of its first connection with India—he referred to the Proclamation of the year 1858, in which it was announced that Her Majesty did not desire any extension of Her Dominions in India. That was one of the most solemn steps ever taken by any Government; and he would have liked to see, at the same time that the necessity for annexation was announced, some words used at any rate to show that the great principle that except under imperative circumstances annexation should not be resorted to, would be adhered to. He did not, however, attribute the omission of any notice of that Proclamation to anything more than accident, and certainly not to any disposition on the other side of the House to depart from the great principle that it announced, for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had shown by his conduct, in respect to the Mysore State and upon other occasions, that he accepted and adopted the policy announced in the Proclamation. With regard to the question of the interpretation of the 55th section of the Government of India Act, this was an occasion, if ever there was one, on which it was necessary to refer to it. It was well known that the object and intention of that section was to place a check on the Prerogative of the Crown with respect to the declaration of war in India.
860
That was the explanation which was given by the Earl of Derby and by Lord Beaconsfield (Mr. Disraeli) at the time. The latter, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, in the House of Commons, on July 6, 1858—
"The power of declaring peace and war might he left to the Sovereign under the Constitution of this country, and with a House of Commons that voted the Supplies and had a legitimate and constitutional mode of expressing its opinion. But if the power of declaring war and peace was left entirely in the hands of the Sovereign in India there were not the means of controlling its exercise that existed in this country, and a policy might be pursued extremely injurious to the national interests."—(3 Hansard, [151] 1014)
And he called it a "salutary and politic provision." The present Prime Minister was the originator of that section; and he had expressed the opinion more than once, with the greatest deliberation, that it was the distinct intention of the section that the consent of both Houses of Parliament should precede warlike operations in India, except in the case of invasion or of urgent necessity. In the present case there was no dispute that the war was necessary, neither was there any dispute, he (the Earl of Northbrook) presumed, that there was no great urgency in the case. But, supposing in the opinion of both Houses of Parliament this war were an unjust one. What possible remedy would there be? The war was over and the country had been annexed. He thought their Lordships would see that the provision in the Act which was deliberately intended by both Houses of Parliament to place a check on the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown had unfortunately become a dead letter, and that matters remained precisely in the condition they were before the Government of India Act was passed. Whatever opinion they might hold on the subject, there could be no doubt that that was the practical result; and he confessed that he was somewhat astonished to hear his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India say that this matter was to be referred to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If ever there was a case which did not require elucidation by a Committee this was it. Undoubtedly the highest authorities differed with respect to the interpretation of the clause; but there could be no doubt that the result of this dif-

861
ference of opinion was that the intentions of Parliament had become illusory. He ventured to submit to Her Majesty's Government that it was hardly a case for inquiry. It was a case involving important considerations as to what limitations ought to be placed on the Prerogative of the Crown; and he thought it was too much to ask for a Committee consisting of both Houses of Parliament to help Her Majesty's Government to come to a conclusion as to what really ought to be done to remedy this state of things. The Prime Minister had admitted more than once that the law had been broken. This matter was one of grave importance, and he trusted that the Government would not make the announcement of their conclusion as final, but that they would give a deliberate conclusion on this matter, and announce it to their Lordships. Not only had this war been undertaken, but a territory, he believed as large as Prance, had been annexed to the British Empire without the cognizance by Parliament of the fact, and without any possibility that Parliament could interfere, if it had wished to do so, by an Address to the Crown, to retrace the steps which the Government had taken. This annexation was announced within a fortnight of the meeting of Parliament. The Proclamation was issued on the 31st of December, and Parliament met on the 12th of January. The final step was even taken before the late Government had time to receive a deliberate expression of opinion from the Viceroy of India. That expression of opinion had only been received since the late Government left Office; so they had, notwithstanding the attempt to place a check on the Prerogative of the Crown, made in 1858, a war for which there was really no urgency, which was entered into without the consent of Parliament; in addition to which a large territory was annexed without any possibility of the opinion of Parliament being expressed as to whether that annexation was right or wrong. He did not entertain the opinion that this matter could be left alone and handed over to a Committee of both Houses to inquire into. It was a question which the Government ought to take into their serious consideration, more especially after the strong expression of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister, and decide on their own responsibility what should
862
or should not be the real power of the Houses of Parliament with respect to matters affecting in so serious a degree the interests—it might be, indeed, the safety—of the Indian Empire, and the best interests of this country.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I do not propose to discuss the question raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) because Her Majesty's Government have adopted the course disputed by him. I wish, however, to say that the late Lord Derby in 1867 said, most distinctly, that it was never intended to control the Prerogative of the Sovereign, and the only thing intended was to put a check on the expenditure by Parliament. The present Prime Minister's statement was no doubt strong as to a particular case; but he admitted that, when there were special circumstances, it would be necessary to proceed without the consent of Parliament. I am one of those who think that one of the best courses connected with the proceedings in Burmah was that the blow followed the word, and that there was no time for getting up a contest which might have led to a large amount of bloodshed, disastrous to that country and injurious to this, and by acting promptly and decisively the affair was brought to an end. With respect to the Committee, it will not be charged with the interpretation of the clause, but whether the ambiguity of the clause is such as to need some legislation to put it right. I must warn my noble Friend that we must not interpret Statutes by those who may have brought them in, but by the Legal Authorities who have to construe them at the present day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am greatly obliged to my noble Friend for giving me this opportunity of saying that Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to the observance of the principles laid down in the famous Proclamation of 1858. Nothing has done more to form and strengthen Her Majesty's rule in India than the steady adherence to those principles; and the Native Princes of India will understand that, in the present case, the exception only proves the rule, and that there is no intention on the part of the present Government, and certainly no probability of any intention on the part of any Government which holds power in this country, to depart from the principles of that Pro-

863
clamation. With regard to the second point, I have to point out that it is not a very unusual course to refer to a Committee the examination of the manner in which an Act of Parliament is worked, especially when two clauses of that Act have been declared to be ambiguous. It is not that the Committee will have to determine the meaning of the Act; but they have to consider whether, by the light of experience which we have obtained since the Act came into force, that portion of the Act, or any other portion of it, requires amendment. I think that such a course is more likely to lead to a satisfactory result than that this isolated subject should be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I cannot entirely admit, what the late First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) seems to assume, that the clause of the Act of Parliament is not carried out in its original interpretation. I do not venture to offer any interpretation myself as to what that clause may mean; but I have a very distinct recollection of the occasion when it was inserted, and I do not think that the intention of Parliament has been in the least degree frustrated. What was the circumstance which induced Parliament to insert that clause? It was the Persian War of 1857, a war that was undertaken by the Indian Government, paid for by the Indian Government, and concluded by them without the circumstance coming under the review of Parliament in any way whatever. It was held that that was unconstitutional; that it gave the Queen a power in India which she did not possess in England; but I never understood then, and I do not believe it ever was the intention of making the consent of Parliament a condition precedent before the Government went to war. That is not the law of England, and it was not intended to make it the law in India. What was intended was that in the case of wars waged by the Indian Government, like those waged by England, the whole matter should necessarily come under the control and judgment of Parliament, so that the action of the Executive might be condemned or approved. In that sense, when you remember the precedent of the Persian War, I believe the clause has done its work, because each successive war undertaken from
864
the Indian Revenues has been submitted to Parliament and approved. There is another matter which was referred to in the course of this debate of so much importance that I venture to add a word with respect to it—that is the bearing of this Burmese War upon the Proclamation of 1858. Of course, I entirely concur with the noble Lords when they say that nothing can be further from the minds of statesmen on either side of the House than to impair in the slightest degree the sacredness of the obligations undertaken by the Government in that Proclamation; but I do not believe that this Burmese War has even apparently effected them. That Proclamation was addressed to the Native Princes, who were the Queen's allies and feudatories in India at that time; and the King of Burmah never admitted that he stood in any such relation to the Queen. That Proclamation was no more addressed to the King of Burmah than to the Emperor of Russia, or the Ameer of Samarcand. It was addressed to those Native Princes who stood in a relation of allegiance to the paramount Power; and, therefore, what has occurred in Burmah is not an infraction of the Proclamation. I should be very sorry indeed if the slightest doubt were to be entertained as to the sanctity of that Proclamation. I would avoid even saying that the exception has proved the rule. There has been no exception, and the Proclamation remains in all its integrity. The course of this debate has been thoroughly satisfactory to the Members of the late Government, for it has been well established that this war was not undertaken through any greed of annexation, or through any desire to extend British trade. It has been recognized that it was actually forced upon us. The noble Earl has blamed us a little by implication because we did not wait for Parliament to assemble before giving orders for the commencement of hostile operations.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that what he had referred to was the annexation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl will remember that annexation is not a matter dealt with in the slightest degree in the Act of Parliament. It only deals with military operations. With respect to those operations, I do not wish to penetrate deeply

865
into the question, which is a very delicate one. The subject came before me as Foreign Minister, and it was from the point of view of the Foreign Office that we determined that no delay should take place before action was taken. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India repudiated, and very justly, in his speech the idea that we had undertaken this war for the purpose of extending our trade, and showed that the question whether there should not be more interference in the affairs of Burmah has been under the attention of the India Office for a good many years. I myself remember asking Lord Lawrence in consultation 20 years ago; whether some measures could not be taken for bringing the Government of Burmah to a more reasonable frame of mind and stopping the misgovernment of the country; and I believe that it was nothing but a desire to avoid annexation, or any such breach of our ordinary practice, that induced the Government to tolerate the state of affairs in Burmah for so many years. It was only the necessity of their position which forced the Indian Government to break that reserve at last. I believe that no war has been more thoroughly justified; and in a year or two the change that has been made will result in advantage not only to the people in our Indian Empire, but also to the people whom we have now subjected to the beneficent rule of the Queen.
LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAsaid, that no one who had read the Blue Book relating to our affair with Burmah, or was acquainted with the history of our earliest relations with that country, could attribute for a moment the motive of commercial advantage or the extension of trade as the incentive to war. No other nation in the world would have been so long-suffering and patient under the injuries and insults of the Burmese Government as the British nation. The Burmese had been from the beginning aggressive neighbours. They invaded Assam and Chittagong, and, but for our presence, would have conquered Lower Bengal. The action of the Burmese in endeavouring to form close relations with other European nations whose only means of approaching them would have been through our territory was likely to create serious complications with those nations. Taking into consideration the
866
value of the mineral resources of Burmah and the routes which it supplied through Bhamo for trade with China, he believed the country would amply repay the expenses of its administration. The Punjab, which when first annexed was considered likely to be an unprofitable acquisition, afforded an apposite example. Sir John Lawrence had very anxious doubts regarding the Revenue of that country, which was also liable to the same disturbances as those now prevalent in Burmah. Bands of dacoits committed acts of violence and bloodshed, and the frontiers were disturbed. Sir John Lawrence, by very severe executions, put down acts of violence, and the frontiers were gradually reduced to order, as, no doubt, would be the case in Burmah in a short time. It was extremely gratifying to all who were connected with and interested in India to hear the thorough approval expressed on both sides of the House of the manner in which the Viceroy of India and the forces employed had conducted the conquest and annexation of that country.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL.—(No. 11.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL.—(No. 11.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to remove the doubts which surrounded certain marriages contracted between English and Scotch parties. It often occurred that two people, one of whom was Scotch, desired to be married in an English parish church by banns. The banns of the party residing in England were published in the ordinary way. The Scotch party to the contract produced on the wedding day a certificate stating that the marriage had been proclaimed in an Established Church in Scotland, and that no objection had been raised. The clergyman in England, acting upon this certificate, and considering it as equivalent to a proclamation of banns, married the parties. It was clear to anyone who looked at the Statute 4 Geo. IV., c. 76, that the Scotch certificate did not satisfy the conditions of the Act, which required that the banns

  867
  should be published in the express words of the rubric preceding the service for the solemnization of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer. The result of this state of things was that doubt had been thrown upon the validity of such marriages as he had described. He had from time to time warned the clergy in his diocese that it was dangerous to marry parties on the strength of the Scotch certificate, which, however, appeared such a plausible document that it was difficult for clergymen to realize the danger to which the contracting parties were exposed. The purpose of the Bill was to remove all doubts as to the validity of marriages performed in the way which he had described. The measure consisted practically of a clause found in a Bill passed in 1885 by their Lordships with the object of validating certain marriages. The Bill failed to pass in the other House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that with very little encouragement he would be prepared to re-introduce the Bill to which the right rev. Prelate had referred. It was very desirable to put an end to the continual recurrence of special legislation to render valid marriages about which there were doubts. A very good case had been made out for the second reading of the Bill before the House. It was unfortunate that persons, for want of such legislation, should find themselves in a position of uncertainty about the validity of their marriage. The Bill which passed through this House last year was carefully guarded against any possibility of opening the door to loosely-contracted marriages; it was limited to solemn marriages in church, or other place of worship, or in a Registrar's office; and it was limited to informalities, not in the neglect of, but in the compliance with, those forms required by the existing Marriage Acts which exclude the notion of clandestine or hasty marriages. It was a disappointment to him that, on the change of Government, his Successor on the Woolsack did not accept the principle of the Bill, believing that it would open the door to dangerous laxity. He still believed it would be better to pass a general measure that would obviate the necessity of dealing with classes of
  868
  cases, and would remove doubts as to legal validity where the error was one of form, and not one of substance.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that while he fully concurred in the principle of the Bill, he could not agree to the principle enunciated by the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) that a general Act should be passed to legalize à priori all marriages in which there had been a doubt. He was quite unable to conjecture the amount of confusion and uncertainty which would arise were any such Bill passed.
  Motion agreed, to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENT—VENTILATION OF THE COMMITTEE ROOMS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps have been taken during the Recess to improve the ventilation of the Committee Rooms?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (The Earl of MORLEY), in reply, said, that changes had been made with the view of obviating the objections to the bad ventilation of the Committee Rooms. Larger provision had been made for the ingress of fresh air and the egress of foul air, and he hoped the results would be satisfactory.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND ("BOYCOTTING," &c.)

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table such information as can be given without injury to the Public Service on the present condition of Ireland in respect to "Boycotting" and such outrages? said: My Lords, since I gave Notice of the Question things have happened which have made it even more important to ask it than it was before. The mode in which Questions as to the policy of the Government have been met in this House has relieved me from a difficulty; and I do not intend, after the failure of my noble Friends (Lord Salisbury and Lord Ashbourne), as respects the policy of the Government, to

  869
  endeavour to extort an answer. It seems to me that the Chief of the Government, the master of the pack, has adopted Sir Edmund Henderson's device of putting muzzles on all the pack in this House, probably from some fear that the rabies with which they are supposed to be infected might be prematurely manifested. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer), when he spoke at the beginning of the Session, addressed himself to the late Government as if they had been guilty of great laches, by which they had produced a state of things in Ireland which he ventured to say was "tenfold, and even a hundredfold," worse than that which existed when he was responsible for the government of Ireland. He said that we had interfered with the progress of law and order. I do not intend to go into a defence of the late Government. For the purpose of my Question I will assume that everything was as stated by the noble Earl, and that, in consequence of our policy, there was such an increase in the force of the National League, which no man can separate from "Boycotting," as to make it tenfold or a hundredfold worse than it was when he left Ireland. Well, my Lords, what follows from that? Why, that there is tenfold or a hundredfold more necessity for action on the part of the Government. I have taken the opportunity of refreshing my memory with a reference to the report of the noble Earl's speech; and I find that the noble Earl said it was absolutely necessary that some part of the Crimes Act should be re-enacted. The noble Earl, addressing himself to my noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne), said—
  "I would ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland whether he can now rely upon a jury in Ireland for convicting a man committed for agrarian crime, or crime connected with agrarian matters? I ask him, can ho now rely?"
  He afterwards said—
  "I greatly fear that the condition of Ireland, with regard to intimidation and 'Boycotting,' is more serious than it has ever been before …. I maintain that it has increased tenfold or a hundredfold since I had the responsibility of the Irish Government."
  I want to ask what is going to be done with this intimidation and "Boycotting?" Is it to be stopped, or is it to be left to simmer and get higher, perhaps to boiling point, before anything is done with respect to it? We
  870
  are told that we are not yet in possession of the policy of the Government even as to the maintenance of social order; but have they a policy? Mr. Chamberlain says—"We cannot give it, because we have not one." But the question of a general policy for Ireland is one thing, and the duty of the Executive is quite another thing. The want of a policy on the part of the Government of Ireland may be a serious matter. This is also a point which has been much altered by what has passed in "another place." Mr. Morley says that the question whether he or any other English Minister shall rule Ireland is approaching solution one way or the other. I should like to ask whether, if the rule of Englishmen is to cease in Ireland, Irishmen will be allowed to take part in the ruling of England? It seems to me that that question must arise. But this becomes a very serious matter, indeed, when you are dealing with the question of what an English Minister will do. First of all, he disparages English rule, and takes upon himself a duty which certainly is quite inconsistent with the duty of the Executive Government, because he says he is going to take the place of the Court of Appeal practically, and revise the decisions of the Courts; he will not execute the decrees of the Courts unless he is satisfied that they are just. I know Mr. Morley has qualified that. He says the question—
  "Whether or not the Forces of the Crown should he used in carrying out every eviction for which the shadow of a legal title or justification can be made out is a question which Executive Ministers must decide upon for themselves on their own responsibility upon each case as it arises."
  I know he said afterwards that he meant that the Military Forces—
  "Were not to execute decrees—that is, judicial decrees—which, on the ground of public policy as well as that of equity, may seem unadvisable or unnecessary."
  The Military Forces, however, in Ireland are those who are military armed, and they include the Constabulary. The Constabulary Force are by no means like the police of this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a tolerable thing for a partizan Minister to judge as to what decrees he shall execute, or as to what period the ordinary Civil Authorities will fail to execute the

  871
  law? The first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order; and no one knows that better than the noble Earl opposite, who recently occupied the position of Lord Lieutenant. Let me do the noble Earl justice. I have never said a word about his tenure of Office except as to the courage and ability with which he carried out his duties, and as to the way he grappled with crime and outrage in Ireland. I now call upon him, in conformity with what he has said, to take the steps which he called upon us to take. The noble Earl has stated that the condition of the country was a hundredfold worse than when he had charge of the Government. "Boycotting" and the National League are inextricably involved with one another in Ireland. It is said that rents in some parts of Ireland are collected; but that is not where the National League exists. The two things are connected in a manner which shows the importance of dealing with one and the other. I do not want to say more at this hour of the evening; but I call upon the noble Earl to see that law and order are enforced without delay, and without waiting for the policy which some time or other is to come forth from Her Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I think I have some right to complain that the noble Viscount opposite has unnecessarily raised a question of considerable importance without having given any Notice to me or the House on the subject. No doubt the question is one of great importance; but I only came down here prepared to answer the Question placed upon the Paper by the noble Viscount. I am quite prepared to tell your Lordships what Returns the Government are ready to give with respect to intimidation and outrages and the like in Ireland; but I am not prepared to follow the noble Viscount in a matter which really involves the whole question of the policy of the Government in Ireland, and I am certainly not bound to do so on a casual Question. If I followed the noble Viscount it would carry me through the whole policy of the Government, and I am certainly not prepared to go into that to-night. The noble Viscount, after referring to what passed the other night in this House, said he was not going to try to draw out the Members of the Government with regard
  872
  to their policy. I cannot congratulate him on having carried out his expressed intention; for he did, I think, try very hard to put the case in such a way that I should disclose the policy of the Government with regard to this subject. The statement I made on the first evening of the Session in this House I have not now with me. I did not think that this matter was coming on to-night, and therefore I did not have the opportunity of referring, as the noble Viscount had, to what I said on that occasion; and if I make some mistakes I must throw the blame upon him for not having given me Notice. My recollection is. that I pressed the Government to give information as to the condition of Ireland at the time I was then speaking. I believe I then stated, though the report read by the noble Lord does not bear this out, that if we went by the accounts in the newspapers such and such a state of things had occurred. I therefore pressed the Government to give us reliable information. If the newspaper accounts were true I said the state of intimidation in Ireland was tenfold, perhaps one-hundredfold, worse than what it was when I had the honour and responsibility of government in that country. I believe what I pressed for then was for reliable information as to the state of social order in Ireland, and that was a perfectly legitimate matter upon which to question the Government. I do not at all, therefore, blame the noble Viscount for pressing me and the Government to give this information; and I am quite ready on the part of the Government, if this will satisfy him, to give a Return showing the number of cases of intimidation which have taken place under the ordinary law since the expiration of the Crimes Act last year—distinguishing between the cases disposed of at the Petty Sessions and Assizes and those made the subject of indictment, with the number of convictions. This is the utmost we can do with regard to intimidation. The question of "Boycotting" is rather a new one for official Returns. We are quite ready to give information in the possession of the Irish Government as to the number of persons who are "Boycotted." I believe we have Returns which were made up to the time when I was leaving Office. They were quite new Returns; therefore I am not sure

  873
  that we should rely upon them in so precise a manner as on those which are actual cases tried before the magistrates and the Law Courts. The Returns of the latter eases, of course, are perfectly reliable. But if the House thinks it desirable that we should give the Returns I refer to I shall be perfectly ready to lay them on the Table. They are submitted by the best officers in the country, and they refer to persons that were "Boycotted" on specified dates—on the 30th of June, 30th of September, and the 31st of December in last year. Then the noble Viscount, referring to the statement in "another place" of aright hon. Colleague of mine, said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is going to take the place of the Courts of Law, and settle what are proper and what are improper decrees for the military and police to put in force. I do not understand that the Chief Secretary has said anything of the sort. What he did say was that when a request was made for the military to be called in he should carefully consider whether necessity for the use of the military arose or not. He did not say that with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, but simply made the statement with reference to the Military Forces. I will read the part of his speech which has reference to this matter. He says—
  "While we shall be very careful to exact respect for law, and very careful to see that every subject of the Queen has all those rights to which he is legally entitled, it will be our duty to look into the cases as they arise, and in no case where it can possibly be avoided shall we be inclined to resort to military force."
  Now, I do not know whether the noble Viscount will differ from that. Will he say that the military should be used in the defence of the civil power on all occasions? I must confess that during the years I had the honour of being Lord Lieutenant I always thought it a very grave thing indeed when it was necessary to send the military in support of the civil power. It was a most undesirable thing to do. Where it was expected that obstruction would take place, I always preferred to send as large a force of police as possible rather than of military, whether Infantry or Cavalry. That is what I understand my right hon. Friend to mean. He did not say that he would never use the Forces of the Queen.
  874
  What he did say was that he would look into every case to see whether there was any necessity for bringing these Forces into use. I confess that that seems to me a very different thing from that which the noble Viscount has stated. As far as reluctance to use these Forces is concerned, I entirely concur with the Chief Secretary.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is a remarkable contrast between the anxiety shown by noble Lords opposite at the beginning of the Session not to allow one or two days to intervene before a policy was announced and their demand now that we should abstain from any questions as to a policy even upon matters that affect life and property in Ireland until the magical 1st of April arrives. But if Her Majesty's Government will not announce to us any policy I wish that they would carry that system of silence and reticence out completely. The policy which might convey some comfort and consolation to the Loyal Party in Ireland is scrupulously kept back, while a policy suitable for the consumption of the National League is announced in the other House. A "no-rent manifesto" has been announced by Mr. Morley—at least, that is the way in which it will be interpreted by the tenants of Ireland. It is perfectly true that portions of the speech of Mr. Morley will bear the interpretations put upon them by the noble Earl; but there are other portions which will be abstracted and circulated and sent about to the encouragement of tenants who abstain from fulfilling their legal contracts by conveying to their minds that those legal contracts will not be enforced unless the Chief Secretary, a known sympathizer with Mr. Parnell, considers them to be desirable and equitable. These are the words of Mr. Morley—
  "Decrees which, on the ground of public policy as well as that of equity, may seem inadvisable or unnecessary."
  Now, there has been a strong effort on the part of the noble Earl to convert this statement of Mr. Morley into a much more innocent statement to the effect that he would be very reluctant, unless it was necessary, to use military force. But that is not what Mr. Morley said. Most of us, nay all of us, are very reluctant to employ military force where it is not necessary for the purpose of compelling fulfilment of contracts. But Mr. Morley

  875
  claims a totally different liberty, not to consider whether military force is necessary for the fulfilment of contracts, but to consider whether a contract in itself is one which is equitable, or which public policy requires should be fulfilled after the Court of Law had established the legality of the demands, and to withhold military force as unnecessary if the contract should not approve itself to Mr. Morley's judgment. That is going from a state of law to a state of absolute government, and is taking away the decision of contracts from the Courts of Law and giving it into the hands of a Parliamentary officer deeply prejudiced against one of the classes that take part in these contracts. I can very well fancy that Her Majesty's Government are very loth to accept such a doctrine, and deeply regret that it should have been announced by their Chief Secretary. But I must say that I think we require a more clear assurance that the policy which his words appear to sanction will not be in effect carried out. We require an assurance that the military will be employed, if it be necessary, in order to exact the fulfilment of contracts, whether these contracts are in equity or in policy pleasing to Mr. Morley or not. That is the dangerous part of the announcement that has been made. I confess that it seems to me that the Government are accepting a very deep responsibility when they refuse not for a few days, but for six weeks, to announce any policy at all with respect to the maintenance of law and the preservation of life and property in Ireland. At all events, if they do refuse such an enactment, let them repudiate in clear language the most unfortunate invitation which the authorized Representative of the Irish Government has addressed to the Irish tenants not to pay rents wherever those rents do not approve themselves to the policy of Mr. Morley.

  FRESH WATER FISHERIES (EELS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to declare the meaning of section eleven of the Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878, so far as regards Eels—Was presented by The Lord Thurlow; read 1a. (No. 15.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.