Sitting of 20 December 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation),
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Solicitors* [347], and passed.
Withdrawn—Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory (re-comm.) [273].

QUESTIONS.

  DISPENSARIES (IRELAND)—THE DISPENSARY DOCTOR OF THE ARDAGH DISTRICT.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board Inspector, Dr. Thomson, on two occasions—namely, June 4 and July 17, 1888, wrote to the Newcastle Union, stating that the Board would require the dispensary doctor of Ardagh District to reside within the district; and, at what distance from the centre of such district does the present medical officer reside?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR): It is the case that the Local Government Board in consequence of a recommendation of their late Medical Inspector, addressed the Dispensary Committee requesting them to call upon the medical officer of the Ardagh District to reside within the district; but, having fully considered the representations made by the Dispensary Committee, the Local Government Board decided not to insist on the present arrangement being disturbed. Athea, where the medical officer previously re sided, and Newcastle, the present residence, are about equidistant from the centre of the district—namely, some six miles.

  ARMY-RETIRED MEDICAL OFFICERS
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state how many retired Army medi-
  860
  cal officers are now employed, and what saving on the pension list is effected thereby; whether, in order still further to reduce the charges for Non-Effective Services, any increased number will be employed; and, whether the practice will be extended to other Departments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Fifty-nine retired medical officers are now employed. The saving on the pension list is rather nominal than real, as the officer still draws the full amount of his retired pay. The real saving is on the effective list, where the payment is only £150 a-year, instead of the full pay and allowances of an officer on the active list. This for 59 officers cannot be less than £8,100 a-year. In the future there will be a non-effective saving, consequent on a smaller number of officers passing through the effective list. An increase in the number of these appointments in the Medical and other Departments is about to be carried out.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONERS—ALLOWANCES AND SALARIES.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Assistant Land Commissioners first appointed under the Land Act of 1881 have been deprived since August last of the 21 s. per night allowance for expenses which they received during the seven years expiring in that month, and in lieu thereof now receive an additional salary only of £50 per annum; will he state at whose suggestion this change was made; and does it apply to Commissioners Litton and Wrench, whose term of office expired also in August; if it does not apply to these two Commissioners, what are the grounds for the difference in treatment; will he inform the House what alterations have been made in the salaries and expenses allowed to the Registrars originally appointed to the Sub-Commission; and, whether he will consider the desirability of placing these Registrars on the terms promised them when appointed, considering the extra duties now imposed upon them by the additional sets of lay Commissioners added to the Sub-Commission?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied): said, Assistant Land Commissioners were appointed in 1881 for seven years, and their appointments, therefore, ceased in September last. From that date new appointments were made, some of them being given to the holders of the lapsed offices. In making the new appointments the Treasury made a change in the scale of remuneration of the office. The appointments of 1881 were made on a salary of £750, with a subsistence allowance of £1 1s. for each night absent on duty. The scale sanctioned for the new appointment is an inclusive salary of £800 a-year. The Treasury made the change on their own responsibility, after full inquiry. I believe the new rates afford remuneration adequate to the work to be done, and I can hold out no expectation of their being altered. Commissioners Litton and Wrench are not in any way affected by the change. The Sub-Registrars appointed in 1881 received salary £250, subsistence £1 1s. The scale has now been fixed at an inclusive salary of £500.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—KEEL, ACHILL, CO. MAYO.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the pier and harbour constructed at Keel, in Achill, County Mayo, out of the funds of the recent Relief Act, under the supervision of the Board of Works, has gone to pieces, especially that portion of it constructed and superintended by Messrs. Peddy and Cowen, the latter County Surveyor of Mayo; and, if it is true that Mr. Cowen, County Surveyor, Westport, has now given it by contract to a Coastguard pensioner to be patched up; and, if so, why the Board of Works has not, in the first instance, intrusted the execution of this important work to competent hands?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am making inquiries on the subject of this Question.

  COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS—DISTRAINT ON A CROWN FARM, OXFORDSHIRE.
  MR. F. W. MACLEANasked the Secretary to the
  862
  Treasury, Whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests distrained, on October 1 last, on a farm called Leafield Farm, in Oxfordshire, held of the Crown, for rent which was not due and payable until October 10 last, and without any previous demand having been made upon the tenant for payment of such rent; and, if so, under what right or authority they so acted; whether the Commissioners demanded possession of the farmhouse to be given up on October 10, refusing to the outgoing tenant permission to occupy any part thereof in accordance with the usual custom, to enable him to dispose of the stock and produce of the farm; whether the Commissioners have taken proceedings in ejectment against the tenant, because he refuses to give up possession until he has been paid, either by the incoming tenant or by the Commissioners, the value of his unexhausted improvements; and, whether, if this be so, such ejectment action will be proceeded with?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Instructions were given to distrain for the rent due in respect of the last quarter of the tenancy, expiring on October 10 last, which rent was payable on July 5 last. No distress was actually made, as the rent in arrear was paid to the bailiff. Under the lease the tenant had no claim to occupy the farmhouse; but, as usual, authority has been given to occupy for a short time part of the barns and outhouses. A valuer has been appointed, and there is no wish on the part of the Crown to delay a settlement. It is necessary to obtain possession of the farmhouse, as the holding has been let as from Michaelmas last.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—INTIMIDATION AT CATTLE SALES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE(for Mr. BYRON REED) (Bradford, E.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Leeds Daily News of Thursday, December 6, as follows:—
  "An Irish landowner recently evicted several tenants. His bailiff, acting under instructions, distrained the cattle of one of the evicted tenants. On attempting to dispose of them in Ireland he was Boycotted. Consequently they were consigned to a salesman in

  863
  Liverpool, the bailiff going with them, and being followed by the evicted tenant. He (the tenant) is said to have informed the cattle salesman that if he disposed of the cattle it would be at his own peril. The salesman, therefore, refused to sell, and the cattle were taken by the bailiff to Newcastle. The same proceedings took place there as at Liverpool, the cattle not being sold. The bailiff then brought them to Leeds, where they were sold yesterday at the cattle market. The evicted tenant, who stood by, was heard to say to the salesman, Mr. David Wright, of Halifax—'At your peril sell the cattle: your portrait will be taken, and you will be shot.' Notwithstanding this threat, Mr Wright disposed of the cattle at full market prices, although many persons refused to purchase;"
  and, whether the Government will take any steps to prevent such cases of intimidation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): In reply to inquiries I have made I have received Reports from the authorities at Liverpool, Leeds, and Newcastle-on-Tyne, which do not, however, enable me to trace the consignments of cattle with any certainty. The paragraph quoted in the Question appears to be inaccurate in many particulars; but there is some evidence to show that attempts were made to interfere by threats with a sale of cattle at Leeds and another at Wakefield. These acts are, undoubtedly, breaches of the law; and if I am able to procure sufficient evidence I shall certainly direct prosecutions to be instituted.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, if the threats were not essentially due to the repugnance of the dealers to buy; and whether the right hon Gentleman had any evidence of the two statements in the Question—"At your peril sell the cattle," and "Your portrait will be taken, and you will be shot."
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; I have evidence not that the tenant—for I cannot identify the person—but a man, said to be an Irishman, threatened the salesman at Halifax in the words quoted. I have no evidence to show that there was any indisposition on the part of the purchasers to buy.
  MR. SEXTON: What is the nature of the evidence on which it is said the person was from Ireland?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In the first instance the Report of the Mayor; in the second the Report of the Chief Constable; and in the third also the Report of the Mayor.
  MR. SEXTON: Do they only say that he was said to be an Irishman, or do they offer any evidence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: They make the statement.

  AMIRALTY-LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will cause a favourable reply to be sent to the Memorials, one of which has now been under his consideration for upwards of a year, presented by the Lower Division clerks in that Department, and in which they ask to be placed in the same position with regard to sick leave, &c., as that held by the other clerks and established messengers in that Office?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD BARTLETT)(who replied) said: The Memorial has been received; but, in view of the fact that Regulations governing the Civil Service generally are likely to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it has not been considered expedient to vary the existing Regulation in the Admiralty alone.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—DRAINAGE—DISTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that advertisements relating to the drainage works on the River Shannon are given to The Western Star, of Ballinasloe, and to The Galway Express, of the town of Galway, both Conservative papers, while The Western News, of Ballinasloe, a Liberal paper having four times the circulation of either of these journals, has been passed over and has got none of these advertisements; and, if so, would he instruct the Board of Works, or those who control such matters, to remedy this state of things?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The advertisements were sent by the Parliamentary agents; but I will inquire into the matter; and if I find that the paper in question has a larger circulation than those to which the advertise-

  865
  ments
  are at present given, and if it is not a newspaper which breaks the law, I will do what I can to put the matter right.

  EJECTMENT (IRELAND)—MR. W. KILROE, OF SHANNON BRIDGE, KINO'S COUNTY,
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that William Kilroe, of Shannon Bridge, King's County, has been served with a process of ejectment by Lord Ashbrook, which is to be tried at Birr on the 27th instant; that Mr. Kilroe and his father have reclaimed 25 acres of the land from which he is now about to be evicted, according to survey made for purpose of sale in the Encumbered Estates Court; and, whether it is a fact that Mr. Kilroe served notice on the Land Commissioners in October, 1887, and has got no answer up to the present; and, if so, would the Government take action, with a view to the protection of Mr. Kilroe, as otherwise his farms will be taken from him, and his improvements confiscated, owing to delay of Land Commissioners?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): With reference to this case, if a decree of ejectment were granted, it would be competent for the tenant, before the eviction took place, to apply for a stay on payment of the arrears in such instalments as the Court might order. It is true that Mr. Kilroe served notice on the Land Commissioners in October 1887; but he was unable to say when the case would be heard.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS—CAPTAIN BLAKENEY'S ESTATE, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it be true that the tenants on Captain Blakeney's estate near Glantane, County Galway, served originating notices, in October, 1887, to have a fair rent fixed, and that the Irish Land Commissioners have not as yet intimated when they are to adjudicate in these cases; that, in the mean time, these tenants are being subjected to law costs if they be unable to meet
  866
  the demands of Captain Blakeney on rent day; and, if so, would the Government take such action as would bring about a speedy settlement of these cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners report that originating notices were served in October, 1887, by tenants on Captain Blakeney's estate, County Galway. I am not aware of the tenants being subjected to any costs. There will be a Sub-Commission sitting for the union of Mount Bellew, in which these cases are situated, about February or March next. But it is not possible for the Land Commissioners to say at present how many of the cases referred to will be on the first list.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC—SAMOA—DISTURBANCES.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received information of the successful rising of the Samoan people against Tamasese; whether the seat of Government and the Government Offices are now in the hands of Mataafa; whether a vast majority of the Samoan people recognise Mataafa as the representative of the exiled King, Malietoa; whether Mataafa is de facto King of Samoa; whether the Government recognize Mataafa as King of Samoa; and, whether, during the present troubles, the Government could undertake to station a man-of-war at Apia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Our latest information is of the 10th of October, when it appeared that the result of the fighting between the adherents of Tamasese and Mataafa had been so far in favour of the latter. Tamasese had transferred the seat of his Government. Her Majesty's Consul had, in pursuance of his orders, observed neutrality between the contending parties. Tamasese was recognized as the de facto Ruler, and no fresh recognition of any one else has yet been made. We are as yet hardly in a position to express a decided opinion as to the predominant balance of strength.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last paragraph of my Question?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: A man-of-war is there at present.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AT SIERRA LEONE—EXECUTION OF NATIVES.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has yet received information that three natives—W. T. G. Caulker T. C. Caulker, and Lahai—were tried in the Colony of Sierra Leone for murder, convicted, recommended to mercy by the jury, and, notwithstanding that recommendation and much local feeling, and a petition in course of preparation in their favour, hanged at Shaingay on the 6th of June; whether the murder charged was the death of a man in fight in the course of a war by one Native Chief upon another; whether two of the unfortunate men executed were acting in the war in obedience to the commands of their natural Chief, T. C. Caulker; and, whether the Government have directed that similar cases shall be reported to them before the death penalty is inflicted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: As was stated in answer to a Question on the 22nd of June, three natives so named were tried in Sierra Leone for murder and convicted, and were executed at Shaingay on the 6th of June. They were recommended to mercy by the jury; but the Secretary of State has not been informed that there was much local feeling, or that a Petition was in course of preparation. No such Petition was presented, although 37 days elapsed between the sentence and execution. The recommendation of the jury was carefully considered by the late Governor and his Executive Council. The murder was committed in a raid made upon Shaingay, a place in British territory, by the direction of the two Caulkers, the circumstances of which are set forth in Despatches presented to Parliament in September, 1887. The Caulkers were members of a Chiefs family, but were not Chiefs, nor were they acting in obedience to their Chief; the third man
  868
  executed was acting under the direction of the other two. All of them were British subjects. In answer to the last paragraph of the Question, I have to say that the Government have not so directed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT, 1882—LICENCES.
  MR. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 precludes the Board of Trade or Local Authorities from granting licences to one or more persons, firms, or Companies to light the same area; whether the Act contains restrictions as to the breaking up of any street without the written consent of the Board of Trade; whether inquiries are made by the Board of Trade as to the ability of undertakers to carry out the work before licences are granted; whether he can state what number of licences have been granted since the last Return was issued; and, whether it is a fact that the reason assigned by Companies which obtained licences under the Act of 1882 for abandoning these was the enormous law costs which would have been incurred owing to the opposition of the Local Boards or Councils?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Electric Lighting Act, 1882, does not preclude the granting of licences to one or more persons, firms, or Companies to light the same area. With reference to the second Question, the Board of Trade cannot give power to break up streets except under a licence or Provisional Order. As regards the third Question, inquiries such as those suggested by the hon. Member are made by the Board of Trade. Two licences have been granted since the last Report to Parliament. In reply to the last part of the Question, I have to say that no such reason as that referred to by the hon. Member has, to my knowledge, been assigned for the abandonment of licences.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882, 1888—SUPPLY BY SEVERAL COMPANIES IN THE PARISH OF KENSINGTON.
  MR. ROWNTREEfor (Sir HENRY ROSCOE) (Manchester, S.)
  869
  asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to notices given for supplying electric light in the parish of Kensington, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, by the four following Companies—namely, the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Company, Limited; the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company, Limited; the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited; and the House to House Electric Supply Company, Limited; whether he is aware that the said Companies propose to conduct their operations mainly, or very largely, within the same area, and in many instances to take power to break up the same streets, roads, or places; whether it is the duty of the Board of Trade, before making any Provisional Order, to take cognizance, of its own motion, of such primâ facie objections; and, whether the Board will not take any such cognizance unless and until it is moved thereto by the Local Authority, or other parties interested?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The answer to the first three Questions of the hon. Member is "Yes;" and the answer to the last is, that it is the duty and practice of the Board of Trade, in framing a Provisional Order, to consider any objections to which their attention is called, and also any such as may occur to them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the applications now being made by various Companies to supply Kensington and other parts of the Metropolis with electric light, If he will take care that concessions are not sanctioned till the applicants have given some substantial guarantees that they will really carry out the proposed works, and not merely hawk about the concessions in the market, and throw them up if no profit is made there, as was so generally the case when Provisional Orders were granted under the former Act?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that in the case of all Provisional Orders and of most licences a deposit was required from the undertakers, and the powers so given could not be transferred without the sanction of the Board of Trade.

  PUBLIC HEALTH-LABOUR IN THE DOCKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Report, published in The Lancet, of "the Lancet Special Commission on the dangers attending Labour in the Docks," and especially to the following passages:—
  "Men are ruptured, their spines injured, their bones broken, and their skulls fractured, so as to get ships loaded and unloaded a little quicker and a little cheaper;"
  and, whether he will direct that inquiry shall be made forthwith into the truth of these statements?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said he had no means of making any further inquiry; and he doubted whether such inquiry was necessary pending the Report of the Sweating Committee. He would consider the question, and see whether it could be dealt with by any legislation affecting the laws relating to our merchant shipping.

  RIOTS, &c., (IRELAND)—MILITARY RIOT IN ATHLONE.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that on Monday night the 10th a large number of soldiers belonging to the Wiltshire Regiment, stationed in Athlone, left their barracks, and on entering the town attacked and gutted some shops belonging to publicans, taking forcibly several bottles of liquor, and breaking windows and fan-lights with stones; and whether he will order an inquiry as to the cause of those outrages?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is reported by the Military Authorities in Ireland that there is no foundation whatever for the statements in the Question.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1837—APPLICATIONS BY SANITARY AUTHORITIES.
  MR. COBBasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as the period has now expired during which Sanitary Authorities can advertise that it is their intention to make application for acquiring land compulsorily for

  871
  allotments under "The Allotments Act, 1887," he can state how many of such proposed applications have been advertised, and the names of the Sanitary Authorities proposing to make them?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The period during which Sanitary Authorities can advertise their intention to apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order for the compulsory purchase of land for allotments under the Allotments Act has expired; but the Board have no information as to the cases in which advertisements are issued until they receive the application for a Provisional Order. The time during which such applications may be made will not expire until the 31st of December.

  THE EGYPTIAN ARMY—THE TITLE OF "SIRDAR."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can explain how the British officer commanding the Egyptian Army got the title of "Sirdar," borne by Native Chiefs in Afghanistan and the Punjab, but unknown to Arabs and Turks? The hon. Gentleman said, after the news which had come to hand that day, he was rather ashamed to ask a Question about a mere name. Perhaps he might supplement it by asking whether the troops supplied from Suakin were under the orders of the Sirdars; and whether the news published in the papers was authentic?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There is nothing in the records of the Foreign Office to show how the title originated, but I believe that Sarcar is the generally recognized title among the Arabs for Commander-in-Chief, as Seraskier is among the Turks, and that the word is Persian in origin. It was preferred for the reason I have mentioned by Sir Evelyn Wood. As to the news from Suakin—[Order, order!]

  EGYPT—THE MIXED TRIBUNALS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can
  872
  give any further information with respect to the negotiations regarding the Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, and say whether jurisdiction over the Egyptian Government is to be renewed to them for another term of years; if so, whether that is to be done unconditionally, or in consideration of the surrender of some of the privileges of Europeans, and their subjection to the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunal for all purposes, criminal as well as civil?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The question of the conditions under which prolongation should be granted is, at the present moment, under the consideration of the Powers. There has been no question of subjecting Europeans to the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals for all purposes, criminal as well as civil, though proposals have been made for a certain extension of their jurisdiction recommended by an International Commission in 1884, and for arrangements to facilitate the enactment and enforcement of Regulations of ordinary police.

  ARMY—THE HONOURABLE ARTILLERY COMPANY.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Royal Warrant has been withdrawn from the Honourable Artillery Company; and, if so, whether any independent inquiry has been made on behalf of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales as to the condition of the Company, at which inquiry the general body of the members have had an opportunity of giving evidence and stating their views; and, whether he has any information to show what is likely to be the effect of the withdrawal on the future welfare of the Company?
  MR. CAUSTONalso asked, whether it is true that Her Majesty's Warrant has been withdrawn from the Honourable Artillery Company; whether the Honourable Artillery Company is not the oldest military organization in the Kingdom; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to revive the regiment under a new Warrant; and, if so, in what form?
  MR. GILLIATalso asked, if it is true, as stated in the papers, that not only have the distinguished

  873
  Commanding Officers of the old and Constitutional corps of the Honourable Artillery Company resigned their commissions, but that the corps itself has been disarmed; if he will state under what circumstances, and for what reasons, this has been done; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My answer to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rowlands) is, No. The warrant has not been withdrawn, nor would such a step be taken without very full and careful inquiry. I have every hope that the necessity for such action will never arise in connection with so ancient a corps as the Honourable Artillery Company. But the officer commanding the Honourable Artillery Company has officially reported to me that this corps is in a most unsatisfactory state as regards discipline. Owing to this state of indiscipline, and to the resignation of the Captain General, the Commanding Officer, and the Adjutant, this corps cannot be recognized as being efficient; and the usual course has been adopted in withdrawing the arms and equipment, which are the property of the State. I hope that no long time will elapse before such re-organization has taken place as will put the Company in a thoroughly satisfactory state.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked, whether a full opportunity would be given to the Members of the corps of expressing their views upon its present condition in the course of any inquiries that might take place; and, also, whether the dissatisfaction which existed in the corps was the result of officers who were considered to have neglected their duty during a long period being put over the men?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; I have no information in my possession which would lead to that conclusion. With regard to any expression of opinion, it is perfectly open to the men to make any representations they think fit.
  MR. NORRISasked, whether immediate steps would not be taken for the re-formation of this ancient, loyal, and distinguished regiment?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already answered that Question. I hope that the steps which are contemplated may be taken as soon as possible.

  ARMY—UNSANITARY CONDITION OF THE ROYAL BARRACKS, DUBLIN.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can make arrangements to send no fresh troops to the Royal Barracks, Dublin, until these barracks have been declared to be in a sanitary condition by the eminent sanitary engineer whom he has commissioned to inspect and report upon them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Unless military reasons should imperatively demand it, no fresh troops will be moved, for the present, into the Royal Barracks, Dublin. I cannot pledge myself further than this.
  MR. ISAACS: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made, by an independent authority, as to the effect upon the health of the troops, and of the inhabitants of Dublin generally, in the discharge of the sewage of the city into the River Liffey, and the present state of that river?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That is an inquiry which I think would be going rather beyond the scope of the War Office; but it is one of very grave importance, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has called attention to the matter. I should be exceedingly glad if a more general inquiry could take place into the whole of that subject.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench the propriety of the Government facilitating the efforts of the Corporation to improve the health of the City of Dublin by granting them a loan on easy terms of State money?
  [No reply.]
  COLONEL HAMBRO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of the number of officers and men who, during the last 10 years, have died of typhoid fever contracted in these barracks; and will he also lay before the House the confidential Reports of Commanding Officers on their unhealthy state?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I think a Return very much of the character asked for was laid before the House of Lords last year; but I will look into it, and if it

  875
  does not give the figures I shall be very glad to give them. With regard to the confidential Reports of Commanding Officers, I imagine it would be un-usual to lay them upon the Table of the House; but any information that I can fairly give shall certainly be given.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the alleged unsanitary condition of the Royal Barracks, Dublin; whether it is a fact that an officer of the Black Watch last week, and Lieutenant Colonel Coddington, R.E., this week, died in these barracks of typhoid fever; and, whether steps will be immediately taken to remedy the terrible unhealthy condition of these military barracks?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Lieutenant Colonel Coddington's death did not occur at, or in connection with, the Royal Barracks, but at Mountjoy Barracks, in the Phoenix Park, which is rather the head-quarters of the Ordnance Survey than a barracks in the strict sense. As regards the general question of the Royal Barracks, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers I have already given in this House, from which he will see that every effort is being made to track out the sources of disease, and to remove, as far as possible, all causes which have contributed to bring about the mortality we all so greatly deplore.
  In reply to further Questions,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was perfectly true that two Commissioners had presented adverse Reports upon the sanitary condition of the Royal Barracks; and, as he had previously stated, their recommendations, in the main, had been carried out. He was not quite sure whether the officer who, unfortunately, died a short time ago belonged to the Black Watch or not. [Several MEMBERS: Yes.] It had not come to his knowledge that the Commanding Officer of a regiment at the Curragh had refused to move his corps into the Royal Barracks because of their unsanitary condition.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,) (for Mr. CRAIG SELLAR) (Lanarkshire, Partick): asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention
  876
  of the Government to introduce a measure next Session dealing with the subject of Private Bill Legislation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is, of course, impossible for the Government to determine at present the exact course of their legislative proposals next Session. It must be remembered that there are several important Bills, such as the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill, the Universities (Scotland) Bill, and other measures of the present Session which will have to be re-introduced, and to which we must assign a prominent place. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject of Private Bill Legislation will receive the most earnest attention of the Government when they come to make up their legislative programme; and that they will be very glad if a measure dealing with that subject can be introduced next Session.

  COAL MINES, &c., REGULATION ACT, 1887, SEC. 80—MINES' INSPECTORS—THE CERTIFICATES.
  CAPTAIN EDWARDS-HEATHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is now able to say whether the additional certificates which have been sent to the Home Office entitle Isaac Dale, Thomas Oswald, William Butcher, Thomas Scragg, Joseph Brindley, and Caleb Johnson to receive second-class certificates under section 80 of "The Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act, 1887"?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): The applications of the persons mentioned in the Question are still under consideration. There has been a change in the Inspectorship of the district, which has caused delay.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS—SITTING AT ATHLONE.
  MR. H. CAMPBELL(for Mr. HAYDEN) (Leitrim, S.): asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At what time, even approximately, the Sub-Commissioners for the Land Courts may be expected to sit at Roscommon or Athlone

  877
  to hear the cases of leaseholders especially; and, whether all the cases or leaseholders who served originating notices prior to November 1, 1888, will he listed for hearing for that district at the next Sessions of the Land Sub-Commissioners in Roscommon or Athlone?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Land Commissioners reported that a Sub-Commission would commence its sittings in the County Roscommon, at Boyle, on the 12th of January. The several unions in the county would be taken in rotation; and the Sub-Commission would probably sit in South Roscommon about February or March. It would not be possible to list all the cases for the sitting referred to.

  INDIA—ACT FOR THE BETTER GOVERNING OF INDIA—C. 106, s. 56—CASE OF CAPTAIN J. B. CHATTERTON.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, (1) Whether, in view of the provisions of the Act for the better government of India, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, the power claimed in the Order of Removal of 11th March, 1869, that Her Majesty the Queen always had power to dispense with an officer's services upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State, cause being shown, was valid and binding in respect of officers affected by the above-mentioned statutory enactment; (2) whether it is the fact that, by decisions now at the Home Office, and dated September and October, 1884, such Order has been disavowed and rendered null and void; (8) whether the said Order is still in force, and being acted upon in respect of the case of Captain J. B. Chatterton; (4) and, whether the said Order of the 11th of March, 1869, was issued by the Secretary of State for India with authority from Her Majesty, in accordance with the above Statute; and, if not, whether the Order in question will be rescinded, and compensation awarded to Captain Chatterton for the permanent physical injury inflicted upon him under such Order?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): (1) There is nothing in the Statute referred to which abridges the right of the Secretary of State to dispense with the
  878
  active services of an officer of the old Indian Army; (2) No; (3) Yes; (4) The Order was properly issued in 1869; and the present Secretary of State has no intention of rescinding it.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—ARREST OF MR. GORRIE, OF CRIEFF, PERTHSHIRE.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that a Mr. Gorrie, of Crieff, in Perthshire, was on the evening of December 1, while walking by himself on the pavement in a street of that town, accosted by a policeman, ordered to come off the pavement, and then arrested and locked up all night in a cell, though he offered to find bail, and that he was charged by the police with a breach of the peace opposite to the house and shop of a certain Mr. Bain, who appeared in Mr. Gorrie's behalf, and swore that, his door being open, he heard all that occurred, and that Mr. Gorrie neither swore nor in any way committed a breach of the peace; whether Baillie Cochrane found Gorrie guilty, but dismissed him with a warning, and in doing so, laid stress upon the fact that Gorrie had been previously convicted; whether it is the fact that upon such previous occasion Gorrie was sentenced to 100 days' imprisonment, and that such sentence was, under the circumstances of the case, illegal; whether the action of the police was legal in arresting and locking up the man without allowing him to get bail; and, whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances of the case generally?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING)(who replied) said: The Lord Advocate has made inquiry into this case. Gorrie was charged on December 3, with having on December 1 committed breach of the peace on two different occasions. An agent who appeared for him asked for an adjournment to the 5th, on which day the case was tried, evidence being led for the defence as well as for the prosecution. The magistrate found him guilty of the first charge; but found the second charge not proven. The evidence of Mr. Bain referred to the latter charge only. The previous convictions, by desire of the Magistrate, were not put in evidence against Gorrie,

  879
  who was dismissed with an admonition, the magistrate thinking that leniency might have a beneficial effect on him. It was the fact that Gorrie was, on a previous occasion, sentenced to 100 days' imprisonment; and, as regards the legality of the sentence, I beg to refer the hon. Member to an answer given in this House by the late Lord Advocate on the 12th of April. The action of the police in arresting and detaining Gorrie was legal. No application was made for liberation on bail before Gorrie was taken before the magistrate on the 3rd.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, if Gorrie offered to find bail when locked up?
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: No, Sir. That is not my information.

  SOUTH AFRICA-BRITISH BECHUANALAND.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government entertain any intention of transferring British Bechuanaland, or the British Protectorate to the North of Bechuanaland, to the Cape Colony; and, if so, what circumstances have led Her Majesty's Government to alter its declared determination to maintain the Imperial control over Bechuanaland?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: There has been no alteration of intention since the previous recent Questions on this subject were answered; and Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any statement or announcement indicating such alteration.
  DR. CLARKasked, Whether it was not the case that Her Majesty's Government had, on several occasions, asked the Cape Colony to take over Bechuanaland, and that they had always refused?
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought that Notice of such a Question should be given.

  SOUTH AFRICA—MATABELELAND—THE CHIEF LOBENGULA.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a person, named Rudd, has recently been with the Chief Lobengula, whose territory has been declared to be within the sphere of British influence,
  880
  negotiating for a transfer of the whole of the mining rights in that Chief's territory; whether inquiry will be made on the subject; whether, as any such transfer, if carried out, would deprive that country of a chief source of revenue for its future government, the High Commissioner will be directed to issue a Proclamation, declaring that no such concessions will be recognized by Her Majesty's Government unless previously sanctioned by the officer of the Imperial Government administering the territory; and, whether it is the intention to appoint an Imperial officer to reside in that territory; and when?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied): said, the answer to the first paragraph of the Question is, Yes. Inquiry has been made, and the High Commissioner has reported that a full account is on its way home. As we have at present no Protectorate in Matabeleland, we have no right to interfere with any grant or concession which Lobengula may choose to make; nor have we any right to issue such a Proclamation as that suggested in the third paragraph of the Question. In reply to the last part of the Question, there is no such present intention; nor has Lobengula desired such an officer.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION—THE GRANT OF £5,000.
  MR. JASPER MOREasked the Vice Chamberlain, Whether it is the intention of the Government to expend, within the present financial year, the whole of the sum of £5,000 which was voted for the promotion of agricultural education; whether the surplus of this sum, not already allocated to dairy schools, will be given according to the recommendation of the Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools, or in what way, and at what time, further grants of this sum will be given; and, whether a sum will be granted for agricultural experiments?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (VISCOUNT LEWISHAM): The amount to be expended will depend upon the number of applications received from Societies and other Bodies. Fresh applications are still being received. The principle upon which the Agricul-

  881
  tural Committee have acted has been to make Grants in Aid—(1) To dairy schools in actual operation; (2) in aid of lectures on dairying and agriculture; and (3) to assist Societies in conducting useful agricultural experiments. Any unexpended balance of the Vote at the end of the financial year will be surrendered to the Exchequer.

  CYPRUS—IMPROVED POSTAL FACILITIES.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration, during the Recess, the Petition presented on Monday last to the House of Commons from inhabitants, merchants, and traders of the Island of Cyprus, praying for improved postal facilities, such as formerly existed between that Island and Alexandria, the present arrangement, which places the Island about 14 days from European markets, being most injurious to its commercial interests and advancement; whether he is aware that £3,000 is all that is required in the nature of a subsidy for the running of a steamer weekly from Alexandria with cargo and mails; and, whether it is a fact that the Revenue raised by taxation in the Island is about £180,000 per annum, whilst the expenses of adminstration do not exceed £115,000 per annum, thus leaving a large margin in hand?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am aware that such a Memorial has been presented. The expenses of running a steamer weekly to Alexandria would involve a dead loss of £3,000 if the lowest tender, that of a French Company, were accepted; and something like £6,000 if we took the lowest British tender. Seeing that the Revenue of Cyprus falls far short of our expenses connected with that Island, which include the tribute due from us to Turkey, it is clearly impossible to place such a charge upon the taxpayers of Cyprus, and I am not prepared to throw it on the taxpayers of this country.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "SULTAN"—COLLISION IN THE TAGUS—THE "VILLE DE VITTORIA."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Under
  882
  what Estimate or Sub-head is to be found the sum of £20,000, either paid or to be paid the French Government as compensation to the owners of the passenger ship Ville de Vittoria, run down and sunk in Lisbon Harbour by Her Majesty's flag-ship Sultan, drowning part of the passengers and crew?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The sum in question was paid out of savings on Navy Votes of 1887–8.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, before Western Australia is handed over to responsible Government, and the lands of the temperate part of that Continent are placed under the control of the present Colonists, Parliament must be consulted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: The hon. Member must be aware that it has been repeatedly stated in the House that Parliament must be consulted, and must legislate, before responsible Government can be established in Western Australia.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: With regard to land?
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is involved.

  COMPANIES' ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1867—SECTION 23—"THE IRISH EXHIBITION IN LONDON."
  MR. COGHILLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state whether the "Irish Exhibition in London" was registered by the Board of Trade with limited liability, without the addition of the word "Limited" to its name, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Companies' Act Amendment Act of 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 33; whether he is aware that a prospectus was sent out by the responsible officers of the Company, containing no reference whatever to the fact that it was a Company limited by guarantee; that the amount of the guarantee was only that of seven subscribers of £10 each; that serious misunderstandings have arisen in the minds of creditors and others as to the responsibility for the Company's debts; and

  883
  that the Company owes at the present moment from £15,000 to £20,000; whether other Companies besides the "Irish Exhibition in London" have been registered by the Board of Trade without the addition of the word "Limited;" whether any such Companies have been wound up; and whether inconvenience to creditors, arising from the omission of the word "Limited," has resulted; and, whether, to prevent similar misunderstandings, for the future, he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill to repeal Section 23 of the Companies' Act Amendment Act of 1867?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes, Sir; the objects of the Irish Exhibition in London, as disclosed in the Memorandum and Articles of Association, were certainly such as to bring it within the meaning of the section referred to by the hon. Member. The prospectus of the Company was not before the Board of Trade, nor has the Department any cognizance of its financial position. Several other Companies besides the Irish Exhibition in London have been registered without the addition of the word "Limited;" but the Board of Trade have no knowledge of the winding up of any such Companies, nor are they aware of any cases where inconvenience to creditors has arisen from the omission of the word "Limited." Many licences under the section are applied for in the course of the year. The question of the amendment of all the Companies Acts is now under consideration, and the point referred to shall be borne in mind.

  POST OFFICE—FORWARDING RE-ADDRESSED LETTERS.
  MR. ATKINSONhad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Postmaster General, If he will reciprocate the conduct of Foreign Postal Authorities, by allowing paid letters of all kinds to follow the addresses in the United Kingdom without further charge; if he will cause the many communications on public business which are addressed to Members of Parliament at the House of Commons to be re-addressed and delivered without further charge for postage; and, if he will cause the sums due from right hon. Members of the House for arrears of postage on re-ad-
  884
  dressed letters to be collected, so that all Members of the House may have equal treatment in this respect?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES: This Question has been on the Paper six or seven times, and it is desirable to answer it. As regards ordinary letters passing through the post from place to place in this country, I am unable to see any reason why they should escape the ordinary postal rate when re-directed and transmitted a second time to a different address. The second service entails on the Department at least as great, if not greater, trouble than the first. Letters from abroad, in similar cases, are relieved from a second charge by the Rules of the Postal Union. Several years have elapsed since Members of this House renounced the exceptional privilege of franking. I do not think it desirable to re-establish this in any form; and I do not believe that the majority of Members of this House desire to receive more favourable treatment for their correspondence than that accorded to their constituents. I am not aware of any case in which any Member of this House has successfully evaded the surcharge upon re-directed letters or papers; but if the hon. Member will supply me with any instance of this, I will inquire into it, and take steps to prevent the recurrence of any such evasion.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—THE MAYOR OF CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a prosecution of several policemen by the Mayor of Cork, when it was given in evidence that the Mayor was surrounded and prevented from proceeding by policemen with drawn swords and fixed bayonets, and that, having explained that he was the Mayor of Cork, was answered by the police—"I don't care to the devil who who you are;" whether, at the order of District Inspector Pearson, the Mayor was subsequently permitted to pass, but was again stopped at North Gate Bridge and treated by the police with considerable violence; whether it was sworn that cordons of police were, upon the occasion referred to, stationed at various points in the City of Cork, preventing

  885
  by force of arms the citizens of Cork proceeding on their lawful business; whether it is true, as stated in the Cork daily papers, that the magistrate, Sir D. V. O'Sullivan, who delivered judgment, said—"That, taking into consideration the serious consequences of a criminal conviction to Sergeant Kennedy, &c., the Bench had determined to dismiss the case;" and, whether, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such scenes in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that two policemen, not several, as alleged in the Question, were prosecuted by the Mayor of Cork on the occasion referred to. The expression attributed to one of the police was neither heard by the District Inspector, who was in charge, nor was any complaint made to him in regard to it. The Mayor was encouraging the driver of his car to break through the body of police who were on duty. He was prevented by these men, who did not know him, as they had been drafted in from the county; but the District Inspector at once let him pass through. At North Gate Bridge some 14 cars arrived close after a police escort, and among them the Mayor's car. The Mayor was allowed to pass through. There were no men stationed anywhere to prevent the people passing on their ordinary business; but to prevent a procession of cars from following a prisoner and his escort. I have seen no authoritative report of the proceedings before the magistrates; but they dismissed the charges against both the policemen.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the reports in the Cork papers of the prosecution by the Mayor of Cork of two police constables (Constable Booth and Sergeant Kennedy) for assault and obstruction, committed on the occasion of Father Kennedy being conveyed to Cork Gaol; is he aware that the Mayor was refused the names and numbers of the constables on duty at North Gate Bridge, where the alleged assault took place; and, whether the Constabulary authorities are justified in withholding the names or numbers of policemen charged with assault by the magistrate of the city?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that it is not the case that the Mayor of Cork was refused the names and numbers of the constables on duty at the place mentioned. He asked for the name of one constable, specifying simply his number. The District Inspector said that he did not know at the time what constable bore that number; but referred him to the County Inspector. Upon application to him the name was at once furnished. As a matter of fact, it was proved that the constable referred to was not on duty at North Gate Bridge.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC—TONGA—THE CURRENCY.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that by Order of the Tongan Government only English coin is accepted in Tonga in payment of Customs and similar dues; whether this leaves the Chilian dollar available for all other purposes a legal tender at 3s.; whether, in consequence of the fact that this is more than the Chilian dollar can buy, the effect of the Tongan Order is to throw upon importers the whole cost of introducing the English coin required by the Tongan Government; whether it is true that this hardship falls exclusively on English merchants in consequence of Treasury Bonds, the only other legal tender for Customs, &c., being sold exclusively to Germans; and, whether a remonstrance will be addressed to the Tongan Government on this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The latest intelligence showed that, on account of the inconvenience caused by the circulation at equal rates of two currencies of different standards of value, and I believe as an experimental measure, the Government of Tonga have declared that money paid in taxes will be received if in sterling coin at $8 for 32 s., and if in Chilian dollars at $9 for 36 s. As regards paragraph 2, the Premier is reported not to lave given a final decision. As to three, its statement would be correct if hose in the two former were so. Four, I am unable to answer. Five, we have no recent information; and, without good ground for such action, Her

  887
  Majesty's Government cannot undertake to offer decided advice in the matter.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—SALE OF THE VERNER ESTATES.
  MR. JASPER MORE(for Mr. T. W. RUSSELL) (Tyrone, S.): asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the estates of the late Sir N. M. Verner, in Tyrone, Monaghan, and Armagh, have been sold to the tenants under the Land Purchase Act, a portion of last year's rent being included in the purchase money; whether, since the contract for sale was completed, the Trustee of the Estates has brought a large number of ejectments for arrears of rent against some of the tenants, and served summonses in the case of others, against whom ejectment decrees have already been obtained; and, whether such proceedings are in conformity with the provisions of the Land Purchase Act; and, if he will direct the attention of the Commissioners to the action of this Trustee?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALEOUR): The Land Commissioners report that no agreements for the sale of the estate named have been lodged in their Office, nor have they any knowledge of the ejectment proceedings referred to. I have received a letter this morning from the Trustee of the Estate; and I shall be glad to show it to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.

  LAND ACT (IRELAND) 1870—REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
  MR. JASPER MORE(for Mr. LEA) (Londonderry, E.): asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If all purchasers under the Irish Land Act of 1870, who have applied for the extended time for the repayment of their loans allowed by the Land Act of last year, have been given the extra period permitted by that Act?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In a few cases where the extension of the term to the full period would have reduced the annuity payable for the remainder of the term to less than 4 per cent. the Treasury have made no concession as to extension of time. In certain cases outstanding where the borrowers were in arrear, an agreement
  888
  has not yet been arrived at as to the instalment of arrears to be paid up before the benefits of the Act of last Session are extended to them.

  THE TRUCK ACTS—ALLEGED BREACHES AT HARLESDEN.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that, so far back as July last, the Inspector of Factories had evidence of gross breaches of the Truck Act at Harlesden, by the payment of wage to brickmakers otherwise than in current coin of the realm; and, if he will state why no prosecution has taken place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I am aware that the Chief Inspector of Factories reported that the Truck Act had been infringed under the circumstances mentioned in the Question. The Report was referred to the Treasury Solicitor, with directions to prosecute if there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The Treasury Solicitor, after making very careful inquiries, advised that, in view of the difficulty of obtaining a conviction, it would not be expedient to undertake a prosecution. I have directed the Inspector to keep careful watch.

  VACCINATION ACTS—CONVICTION OF ENOCH HARPER, AT HALESOWEN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the following facts:—That Enoch Harper, of Quinton, was convicted at Halesowen Petty Sessions, on March 13, 1888, of disobeying a vaccination order, dated January 3, 1888, and fined £1 and 9s. costs; that he pronounced the proceedings irregular, and ordered the fines to be remitted; that the conviction has never been quashed, and still stands on the records of the Court; that no fresh vaccination order has been issued as to the child in question; that, notwithstanding that the conviction is un-quashed, and no fresh order has been issued, Enoch Harper was summoned again for disobedience to the vaccination order of January 3, and on June 19, 1888, fined £1 and 9s. costs; and, whether this second conviction for the same

  889
  offence, without the issue of a fresh vaccination order, is illegal; and, if so, whether he will direct the fine and costs imposed on Enoch Harper on June 19 to be refunded to him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The facts are correctly stated in the Question. Whether or not a fresh vaccination order was necessary to make the second conviction good is a matter of law, which was not raised before the magistrates at the time, and upon which it is no part of my duty to express an opinion. Mr. Harper is evading the law; and as he can move to have the conviction quashed, if he is so advised, I see no reason calling upon me to interfere.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—REDUCTION OF INSPECTOR HILL.
  MR. LAFONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that Mr. Hill, attached to the Bermondsey Division of the Metropolitan Police, M Division, has been reduced from first-class Inspector to the rank of sergeant; and if the sole reason assigned was the delay of a telegram for a few minutes through no fault of Mr. Hill's, although he was in charge at the time; and, if he can see his way to re-instating a deserving officer to the rank he has been deprived of?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Inspector Hill has been reduced from the rank of first-class Inspector to that of sergeant for several grave derelictions of duty, the particulars of which I had better not mention publicly, but which I will give to my hon. Friend if he wishes. There is no ground, therefore, for re-instating that officer to the rank of which he has been properly deprived.

  CUSTOMS (STATISTICAL OFFICE)—WITHHOLDING OF BACK PAY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Upon what ground the back pay authorized by a Treasury Minute of the 27th of October last, in favour of certain copyists in the Statistical Office, Customs, is withheld in the case of those copyists who have received bonuses; and, whether he will make arrangements for the payment of the money before Christmas?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Arrangements have been made by which the copyists can receive the money referred to on application.

  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT)—INCREASE OF STAFF.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether his application for an increase of staff for the Savings Bank Department has been under the consideration of the Treasury for some months; whether, in consequence of the delay in arriving at the decision, the work of the Department is greatly in arrear; whether the work now performed on extra duty (exclusive of that necessary for the preparation of the annual balance sheet) can be entirely provided for by the introduction of the seven hours' scale; and, whether he will take immediate steps to relieve the officers of the Department from the performance of extra duty such as has been necessary during the last 12 months?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member puts to me four Questions. To the first the answer is that the case is as stated; and to the second that, owing to the cordial co-operation of the staff, the work of the Department cannot be described as greatly in arrear, although no doubt it is not so forward as it was this time last year. How far the work now performed by extra duty can be provided for by the seven hours' scale is a question which is now engaging my careful attention, and that of the Treasury, and I am not yet prepared to express a positive opinion on the point. In the matter of extra duty no efforts shall be wanting on my part to procure the relief required.

  ARMY—MR. FARINI'S MACHINE RIFLES.
  COLONEL EYREasked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Field newspaper, of Saturday last, December 15, as to the penetration attained by a bullet, the invention of Mr. Farini, and to the machinery by which rifles can, without alteration, be converted into machine guns?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The article will be referred for the observations of the Small Arms Committee; but I may pay that the bore is the same as that of the new magazine rifle, and that the greatest velocity mentioned is less than that laid down as the standard for the new arm.

  SOUTH AFRICA—MATABELELAND—THE CHIEF LOBENGULA.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Lobengula's country is included in the British Protectorate in South Africa; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State has received information from the High Commissioner relative to a concession of all mineral rights in Matabeleland and Mashonaland to an English Company; whether such concession has been sanctioned by the High Commissioner; and, whether it is a fact that payment to the Chief Lobengula for this concession has been made by a large supply of arms and ammunition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied): said, as has been frequently explained to the House during the present Session, the protectorate over part of Khama's territory, which is distinct from that of Lobengula, does not include the territory of the latter. The Secretary of State has been informed that a concession of the nature referred to has been granted to a Mr. Rudd. The High Commissioner has no power to sanction concessions granted by Lobengula, who is an independent King. It has been stated that £100 per month, in addition to a number of rifles, will be the consideration for the reported concession. On these points the Secretary of State is in communication with the High Commissioner.

  FRANCE—POLL TAX AT THE FRENCH CHANNEL PORTS.
  MR. LEGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have passed with the French Government respecting the additional Poll Tax about to be levied upon all persons entering and leaving the French Channel Ports?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No communication has passed with the French Government on this subject. We have, however, been informed, both by Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris and the Consul at Boulogne, of the fact of an increase having been made.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—MAJOR MAC-DONALD'S MISSION IN THE NIGER DISTRICT.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the instructions given to Major Macdonald in regard to his Mission of Inquiry in the Niger District?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No instructions have yet been given; but they will be confidential, and I cannot undertake to present them.
  In reply to Mr. LAFONE (Southwark, Bermondsey),
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, Major Macdonald would arrive at the river at the time it was at the proper height to ascend it.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—AN EDITION IN THE WELSH LANGUAGE.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the request of all the Members of Parliament for Wales and Monmouthshire that the Local Government Act should be issued in Welsh will be granted; and, if so, how soon the Act will be published?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITOHIE), in reply, said, that he originally returned an unfavourable answer to the request that the Act should be translated into Welsh. Since then he had received deputations which consisted practically of the whole of the Representatives from Wales on both sides of the House, urging on him that this translation should be made and published, and stating they regarded it as an entirely exceptional case, and as not forming a precedent for anything of the kind in the future. Under these circumstances, he had come to the conclusion to have the Act translated into

  893
  Welsh, and he hoped that no undue delay would take place in the matter.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS ACT—THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE RAINHILL ASYLUM, LANCASHIRE.
  MR. HOYLEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that a proposition to award a retiring pension of £800 a-year to the medical officer of the Lunatic Asylum, Rainhill, Lancashire, is to be considered at their next Court on the 26th instant; and, whether, in consideration of the impending transfer of the county asylums to the County Council, any representation can be made to the Justices by which the imposition of such a charge on the county rates may be deferred until the Council enters on its duties?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have no information as to the proposition referred to. The Committee of Visitors of a lunatic asylum may, under the Lunatic Asylums Acts, award a superannuation allowance to any officer of the asylum who, from confirmed sickness, age, or in firmity, becomes incapable of executing his office in person, or who has been an officer in the asylum for not less than 15 years, and is not under 50 years of age. The allowance is not to exceed two-thirds of the salary payable at the time of retirement. No such allowance, however, can be charged on the county rates until the award has been confirmed by a Resolution of Quarter Sessions. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction; and I cannot undertake to make any representations to the Justices as to the exercise of their statutory powers in the matter.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE—CERTIFICATES.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it would be practicable to include in the certificate of service granted to men of the Royal Naval Reserve who have served their full time an endorsement of character, as reported from time to time by the Drill Instructors, and similar to that given to seamen leaving the Royal Navy, in order to assist men of good haracter in obtaining employment
  894
  ashore when no longer able, on account of age, to follow their calling at sea?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY)(who replied) said: There is no objection, as far as the Admiralty is concerned; but it is a question for the Board of Trade, which issues the certificates to Royal Naval Reserve men, to decide whether it would be practicable; and the Admiralty have not had time to obtain the opinion of the Board of Trade upon this point.

  ARMY—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS, SEC. 5, PAR. 76—MILITARY ATTACHES.
  CAPTAIN SELWYNasked the Secretary of State for War, How many regimental officers are now serving in contravention of Section 5, Paragraph 76, of the Queen's Regulations for the Army; whether the Regulation in this paragraph applies to military attachés and to officers on the Staff of the Viceroy of India; and, if not, why these officers are allowed to be absent from their regiments for more than five or six years; how long have the military attachés at Paris and Berlin, and the military secretary to the Viceroy of India, been absent from their regiments; and, whether, after such absence, these officers are to be allowed to return and in a short time command their regiments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There are now seven officers serving on the personal Staff of General Officers who have exceeded the period of Staff service laid down in the Queen's Regulations; but in every case their retention of office has been advisedly sanctioned. The Rule does not apply to military attachés who hold their appointments for a period of five years, subject to renewal if considered desirable for the good of the Service. The Staff of the Viceroy of India and of Colonial Governors are appointed for six years. The military attaché at Paris has been absent from his regiment since January 1, 1877. During that time he has held several appointments with advantage to the State, and has taken a distinguished part in two campaigns. The military attaché at Berlin has been continuously absent from his regiment since January, 1879. He also has served with distinction during that period in

  895
  two campaigns. His second period of service shortly expires, and he is to rejoin his battalion as second in command. The military secretary to the Viceroy of India has held positions on the personal Staff of successive Viceroys at their particular request since December, 1875. While serving on the Staff he has taken part in three campaigns, in one of which he earned the Victoria Cross.

  RAILWAYS—ACCIDENT AT SYSTON, MIDLAND RAILWAY—MAJOR MARINDIN'S REPORT.
  MR. BRADLAUGH(for Mr. CHANNING) (Northampton, E.)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has considered the Report of Major Marindin on the fatal accident to platelayers near Syston, on the Midland Railway; whether it appears from that Report that such Rules of the Midland Company as affect the platelayers refer to the protection of the trains, and not to the protection of the platelayers themselves; whether in the recorded Regulations for foggy weather, issued last September by the London and North Western Railway, there are no Rules for the special protection of platelayers in their work; and, whether, having regard to the frequent loss of life, he will cause a Board of Trade Circular to be issued to all the Companies, drawing attention to Major Marindin's Report, and especially to his comments on the absence of—
  "Rules providing for men being posted out to protect gangs at ordinary work on curves or other places where the view of the line is restricted, or for their protection by other means;"
  and to his recommendation that—
  "Additions should be made to the Rules, defining accurately the precautions which should be taken for the safety of men working upon the line….and making it clear that during fogs no work which can possibly be avoided is to be carried on upon any part of the line where the men will be in danger?"
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes, Sir; I have seen the Report referred to, and the facts disclosed in that Report are as stated by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have no information as to Rules issued by the London and North-Western Railway Company last September; but a Circular to the Companies has been
  896
  issued calling attention to the Report on the accident in question and the recommendations made therein.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—RETURN OF JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. E. SPENCERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it would be possible for the Irish Land Commissioners to publish the temporary adjustments of judicial rents since the passing of the Act of 1877, at a date prior to Christmas?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners hope to be able to publish the Schedule referred to on the 23rd of this month.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE SOUTH KENSINGTON COLLECTIONS.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now give the names of the Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of the South Kensington Collections; and, whether he will direct the attention of the Committee to the Report and Evidence of the Duke of Devonshire's Commission, so far as it relates to this subject, and also the Reports and Evidence of subsequent Committees which Government have, from time to time, appointed without acting upon their recommendations?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHEN)(who replied) said: I am still in communication with several of the gentlemen whom it is proposed to put on the Committee, consequently I cannot as yet state the names. With regard to the Reports of previous Commissions or Committees, the attitude of the Government was shown in an answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury in the House on the 26th of last month. The Duke of Devonshire's Commission, to which the hon. Member refers, reported in 1874 that it was desirable that the Scientific Collections should be subjected to a critical revision, with a view to restricting them to such objects as are of National interest or utility. Similarly, the Committees which sat in 1883, whose Reports were adopted by Sir Frederick Bramwell's

  897
  Committee in 1885, held that the Scientific Collections might be weeded with advantage. Sir Frederick Bramwell's Committee omitted to deal specifically with this question; and for this reason my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided in 1885 that nothing could be done until the Collections had been thoroughly sifted by some independent authority. It is this object which the new Committee is intended to effect.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked whether there was to be any Representative of Ireland on this Committee?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the suggestion had not been made to the First Lord of the Treasury. The Committee was to be selected, not with a view to the representation of Parliamentary Parties or separate Nationalities, but to collect the best men to judge of scientific and artistic objects.
  MR. SEXTONthought that it was inexpedient that Ireland should be entirely unrepresented.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is able to state when effect will be given to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments; and, whether any Order in Council dealing with such recommendations will be published before the ensuing Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)(who replied) said: The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments are receiving our careful consideration. I need scarcely say that great caution is necessary in devising new Regulations for a large Body like the Civil Service discharging duties of such varied character. We have directed that, pending final orders on the subject, a Civil servant is not to accept a Directorship of a public Company. In like manner we have directed that no fresh grants of duty pay are to be made. We art making arrangements under which all persons under the age of 60 applying to retire from the Public Service will be
  898
  subjected to the examination of a Government medical officer. We intend, at the beginning of next Session, to introduce a Bill amending the Superannuation Act in the direction of some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CONGRESS OF SANITARY INSPECTORS—RECOGNITION OF SANITARY SERVICE.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any acceptance will be accorded to the Memorial of the Congress of Sanitary Inspectors of June last, submitting the expediency of the adoption of one presented from the late Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., and the Heads of Sanitary Institutions, praying that the like recognition may be given to distinguished sanitary service in saving life that is given to distinguished naval and military service?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)(who replied) said: The hon. Member does not state in his Question to whom the Memorial referred to was addressed; and, though I have made inquiries on the subject, I have as yet been unable to trace it, and am not in a position, therefore, to give any information on the subject.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT—FATAL ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, Whether the Government would give instructions for the preparation of a Return showing the number of fatal accidents in mines and factories during the seven years before and the seven years after the passing of the Employers' Liability Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had some time ago directed the preparation of such a Return.

  EGYPT—SUAKIN—DEFEAT OF THE DERVISHES.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can confirm the news in the public Press, to the effect that the forces under General Grenfell have fought a successful en-

  899
  gagement; and whether he can place the House in possession of fuller information on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): We received a telegram this morning from General Grenfell, dated from Suakin at 8.30 this morning, which curiously, making allowance for difference of time, reached this country at 7.30 a.m. It says—
  "Attacked trenches 7 a.m. this morning, Black Brigade storming them with great gallantry. Enemy fought desperately, losing very heavily. We captured both their guns. King's Own Borderers and Welsh punished enemy severely by their excellent volley firing. Navy assisted greatly by machine gun fire and 64-pounder. Enemy in full retreat on Hasheen and Handoub."
  And in a later telegram he gives further information, which I shall summarize. He estimates the dervish loss at 400. The 20th Hussars charged the dervish cavalry very brilliantly. Our loss, four privates of the 20th Hussars killed; Lieutenant Brown, Royal Irish Rifles, and Lieutenant David, of the Marines, and a few privates, whose names are given, slightly wounded. Among the Egyptian troops a sergeant and 17 men wounded, and 13 others received slight wounds, but are still with their regiments. The Egyptian troops seem to have amply justified the confidence placed in them by General Grenfell.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—EXECUTIONS AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had received any information as to the news in to-day's papers as to the executions at Zanzibar, and the intention of the Sultan to continue those operations; and, whether he had communicated with the British Consul with a view to stop them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Information was received yesterday by telegraph that several executions of a barbarous character had taken place at Zanzibar, and that others were impending. Her Majesty's Consul General stated that he had remonstrated with the Sultan. He has to-day reported that four more executions had taken place. Instructions have been sent to Colonel Euan Smith
  900
  directing him to repeat his remonstrances; to protest in the strongest terms against the course on which the Sultan has entered; to invite the co-operation of his colleagues; and to warn him of the disastrous consequences to himself that are likely to ensue.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In reply to The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. Sexton) (Belfast, W.),
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that the Government did not intend to proceed with this Bill.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—RETURN OF EVICTIONS AND COERCION PROSECUTIONS ON THE CLANRICARDE ESTATE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked, Whether the Government had any objection to granting a Return of Evictions and Coercion Prosecutions on the Clanricarde Estate?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was not prepared to grant the Return at present; but he would consider the matter. It would require very long and difficult inquiries to furnish such a Return.

  IRELAND-LAND PURCHASE RETURNS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the Return which was asked for by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Wootton Isaacson), Whether that Return was intended as a substitute for the much fuller Return on Land Purchase which he (Mr. John Morley) had proposed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the right hon. Gedtleman seemed under a misapprehension. The Government would not consent to the Return asked for by the hon. Member.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked, if the fuller Return which he himself had previously proposed would be granted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the Land Commissioners would have no difficulty in giving the Return substan-

  901
  tially in the form asked for by the right hon. Gentleman.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading: read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he desired to call attention to the construction by the Government of the Statute of Edward III. c. 34, about persons finding security. He would point out that the words which the Home Secretary quoted from Dalton and Hawkins, as being literally construed by the Courts, only applied to the case of a riot or riotous proceeding. There had been no case in England during the last 60 years in which a person had been compelled to give sureties for his good behaviour, except on the allegation of acts tending to a breach of the peace, or the apprehension that a breach of the peace might be committed. He had had no opportunity of making himself acquainted with the Irish practice, but he had looked into Macnally. Many curious Statutes besides that of Edward III. might be found in Macnally, all of which were finally swept away by the Act of Geo., as the 10 & 11 Charles I., c. 16, which enacts—
    "That young gentlemen of this Kingdom"—that is, Ireland—"who will not apply themselves to labour, but live idly and inordinately, having no means of their own, or from their kindred, who walk about with greyhounds, cosher or cess upon the country or exact drink or money, the Justices may bind to their good behaviour, and commit them to gaol, and hind them to their loyalty and allegiance with sureties."
    And by 6 Anne, c. 11—
    "All loose, idle vagrants, and such as pretend to be Irish gentlemen, and will not work or betake themselves to any honest trade or livelihood, but wander about demanding victuals, and coshering from house to house amongst their fosterers, followers, and others; and also loose persons of infamous lives and characters, shall be sent to gaol unless they give security for their good behaviour."
    The English translation of 34 Edward III. in several respects did not agree
    902
    with the Norman-French, to which he must refer. The Chief Secretary said the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland decided that this Statute gave power to the Justices to call upon persons who were not of good fame to give security, and in default to commit them to prison. His contention was that the Statute did not authorize them to do this. A reference to the Norman-French of the Statute itself showed that it did nothing of the kind, for it instructed the Justices to prendre de touz ceux qi sont de bone fame security for their behaviour. The negative had been inserted by the English translators, who had misconceived the object of the Statute, and had been guilty of very bad translation. The Home Secretary and the Irish lawyers ought, however, to have been warned by the fact that the English versions contained a note saying that qi sont of the actual text, in certain MSS. and old printed copies, read qi ne sont. In the Norman-French there was no negative. The Statute in reality directed the Justices after having arrested the rioters, barrators, and persons who had been pillors and robbers in parts beyond the seas to put them in prison; but if any of them were found to be of good fame they were to be liberated on giving sureties, and the others—that is, those who were not of such good fame, were to be duly punished. The clause must be read as a whole; power was given to arrest all the persons mentioned. Those of good fame might be released on giving sufficient sureties, and les auts duement punir. There was no separate enactment authorizing the taking sureties from those not of good fame, and to read the "not" which stood within brackets into the original text made it ridiculous. He believed the present Government was not the only offender, but that its Predecessors had also perverted the real meaning of the Statute. Possibly the point had never been raised before the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland, nor that as to the repealing effect of the 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, s. 1. It was curious that neither in the chronological index nor in the revised Statutes was there any note that the part of 34 Edward III. relating to vagabonds had been repealed. There was, of course, no appeal in criminal cases, but the matter could be raised by error in law, and if he had been one of the parties

    903
    concerned he would have carried it to the highest Court of Appeal. He thought it was unfair for the Government to put into prison under the disputable, obsolete, and possibly repealed provisions of the Act of Edward III. poor and ignorant men who might not have the money to get the point argued before the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he desired to call attention to the great grievances now existing in Wales. He was sorry to have to state that Wales at the present time was literally simmering with discontent. He did not think the House realized the state of feeling now existing in the Principality. There had been for several years an almost entire neglect of Welsh questions in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, according to the Rules of the House, the Welsh Members scarcely ever had an opportunity of raising a discussion upon those questions. He would refer particularly to the tithe question, with which they were all familiar. As Representatives of Wales they had done their utmost to dissuade the people from anything in the nature of violence. They had urged them to use only Constitutional means, but they could not ignore the fact that the state of feeling in Wales was very disturbed.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Of course the limits of discussion are very wide on these occasions, but I do not know how the hon. Member proposes to connect this subject with the Bill before the House. The Appropriation Bill is subject to the same Rules which affect other Bills, and the point to be discussed must be somewhat relevant to the Bill.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether it was competent for anyone to move any sort of Amendment to the second reading of the Appropriation Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it had not been customary, but since 1870 Amendments had repeatedly been moved.
    MR. S. SMITHasked, whether the employment of military in the collection of tithes in Wales would bring the question within the purview of the Appropriation Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the action of any Department of the Government would bring it within the purview of
    904
    the Bill. He was not aware from the opening of the hon. Gentleman's speech that he was going to refer to the action of the military.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, that it had been thought necessary several times to call out the military to recover payment of tithes, and that was a most serious state of things. It showed an immense amount of repugnance to tithes, and the necessity, by wise and conciliatory legislation, of putting an end to the present state of things. He thought he might also fairly call attention to the failure of the House to redeem the pledges which had been given with respect to intermediate education in Wales. The feeling in Wales was very strong on that subject. He trusted the Government would give an early opportunity for discussing the question. The Land Question also excited a great deal of feeling in that country. In the town of Buckley, in Flintshire, a large number of small occupiers had built cottages on common land in the full belief that they would be free from the payment of rent except common rent. But of late a right had been claimed over them by the lord of the manor. A law ought to be passed to prevent the appropriation by others of the property of industrious men, as Parliament had done in the case of Ireland. There was another grievance, which was connected with the appointment of Welsh magistrates. In almost every part of Wales the magistrates were separated in sentiment from the people. That was owing to the fact that their appointment depended entirely on the discretion of a few individuals. A note from the Lord Chancellor would be sufficient to induce them to act more justly. The Welsh were a very patient, law-abiding people, but it was quite possible that patience might be too much abused.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that it was time for the Government to make up heir minds as to what they would do with regard to Bechuaualand and Zulu-and. Were they going to hand over Bechuanaland to the Cape Colony; if not, on what conditions were they going to keep it? He was told that the Cape Colony had been asked to take over Bechuaualand; that they had demanded 250,000 a-year as a subsidy to induce them to do so; and that the Government were willing to give a smaller sum. The

    905
    condition of the Colony was deplorable. In the capital there was not a single school for white children, who were therefore brought up without education. In the whole Colony there were only two schools, which were kept by missionaries. Was that a fit state of things for a British Colony? Again, in the capital there was not a single surgeon, and in the gaol there was gaol fever, and the prisoners were dying of it. In 1866 the income of the Colony was £6,700, while the expenditure was £110,000, of which the British taxpayer had to find £102,000. The reason why so much money was spent was because of the preposterous Police Force, upon which about £100,000 was spent; the fact being that it was a force not of police, but of soldiers. As Bechuanaland was a British Colony, why not send out there a couple of companies, whom you would pay 1s. a-day per head, instead of, as at present, paying 6s. a-head? If we were going to keep the country as a Colony, we must spend money on it. We had taken the worst part of the country—a barren and waterless region—while the Northern portion of the territory was well watered and fertile. There was no doubt that Europeans and white men would go on extending over the country from the North, and that black men would continue to come from the South. Something should be done to regulate these two ways; and the question was, at whose expense and under whose authority was it to be done? Until now the practice had been to do all these things at the expense of the Imperial Government; but if the Government were going to develop the Crown Colonies, they should wait until those Colonies repaid the money which the Imperial Government had spent on them before they handed them over. During the last five years we had spent £1,000,000 on Bechuanaland, and had been spending £100,000 on the country ever since. Why should we do this, and then hand the country over to the Cape Colony? The wiser course would be to allow the Cape Colony to do all these things itself. The Cape Colony offered to take over the territory now called Bechuanaland; but the Imperial Government refused to sanction this, and took the country over itself. Bechuanaland was a very healthy country, and it would be much better to have the cheap soldiers of Europe there—men
    906
    who could be hired for 1s. a-day—than dear Colonial soldiers. Another question was that of Zululand. While the Zulus were satisfied with the arrangements made regarding the boundary, we foolishly annexed their country without getting the sanction of the Zulu King and the Zulu Chiefs. But it was inevitable that Natal would get Zululand; and the only solution of the difficulty would be to annex Zululand to Natal, making Natal responsible for the government of the country. The Colonial Secretary promised some time ago to examine into the causes that brought about the late war, and the man who was responsible for that war was the man who had appointed the Commissioner to try the prisoners. The trials had been postponed until the end of January; but he had no doubt the Court would bring in a verdict of "Guilty" against the King and his uncles.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that although he could not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, no one would assert that there had been sufficient discussion on the Diplomatic and Colonial Votes, which, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), were squeezed into one night. That did not allow adequate discussion of the great questions which arose on the Votes. He expressed the opinion that the British Constitution was a used-up force, which required to be re-modelled from top to bottom; but he only wished to draw attention to one part of the rusty old machine—namely, that part which enabled the Executive Government to carry through these great territorial questions without the sanction or control of Parliament. In these days there seemed to be a revival of the theory of "Divine right" on the part of the Executive Government for the time being, by which the Executive Government in the name of the Crown exercised an absolutely despotic power in regard to questions of peace or war and the acquisition or disposal of territories, and the only power that House had of re straining the Executive Government was the power of the purse. The course followed in the present Session, however, of squeezing the Diplomatic and Colonial Estimates into one night, had practically taken away that sole remain-

    907
    ing power from the House of Commons. The Government were believed to have extended a British Protectorate over the territory of Brunei and Sarawak, and he asked by what Parliamentary sanction that obligation had been imposed on the people of this country? He believed he was correct in saying that they had scarcely any knowledge of what had been done. He proposed to call attention to a list of cases in which the power referred to had been exercised, or to some extent exercised, by Her Majesty's Government without the sanction of Parliament. The first case was that of Western Australia, in connection with which Her Majesty's Government, he believed, were regulated by Statute; but he gathered that, without consulting Parliament, and almost unknown to the people of this country, Her Majesty's Government had gone a great length in negotiating with the Colonists of Western Australia with a view to the transfer of that great territory to a responsible Government. They were told that the Northern—that was to say the hot—portion of this territory was to be reserved, but that the temperate portion, which would be invaluable for colonization purposes, was to be given away. He protested against the giving away in this manner of enormous territory to which our own poor people, against whom in these days the door was being shut in so many quarters of the globe, might be emigrated and colonized. This was pre-eminently a case in which the Government ought to have gone so far without consulting the country. In the case of New Guinea, again, there had been practically a double operation—an annexation and an alienation. The country had been made a British Colony, and that British Colony had at the same time been practically handed over to colonization. He need only mention the acquisition of North Borneo and the Malay States. Then there was the great question of Bechuanaland and the enormous extension of "British influence" up to the Zambesi River. It was all very well to say there had only been an extension of "British influence," but they all knew that in these matters a Protectorate followed to-morrow and annexation the day after. Next came the burning question of East Africa, where we had not only established a great British Company, but had also
    908
    committed ourselves to the establishment of a great German Company. Having read the Charter of the British East African Company, his impression was that it not only gave that Company the right to acquire by the best means in their power territory extending from the coast of Zanzibar up to the Victoria Nyanza, but would also enable them to acquire the territory in which the African Lakes Company, a cognate Company, was now carrying on war and annex that also. The next annexation to which he would allude, made without the consent of Parliament, was one which was only incubating at the present moment—he referred to the Oil River Territory. Then there was the mission to establish British influence in the sources of the Niger, and before Parliament again met they might hear of a Soudan Company being established to rule over the Soudan. Her Majesty's Government ought to give the House some information before Parliament separated as to the position they intended to assume with regard to this question. Now that our troops had raised the siege of Suakin, he hoped the Government would say what they were going to do next, and give a pledge that the military operations should not be carried to any considerable distance into the Soudan. He should also like to know on whom the discretion would rest as to the present conduct of operations? He begged to move his Amendment.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON, in seconding the Amendment, said, that this was probably the last occasion on which he would have an opportunity of saying a word regarding the events occurring around Suakin. He felt very strongly on this question; but he was afraid that his views would not receive much sympathy from the House as at present constituted. He protested with all the strength in his power against the senseless and shameless slaughter of Arabs, the news of which had disgraced the country that morning. The taking of the lives of any set of men without due care, without due precaution, without due investigation, was to his mind one of the most shameful things that any individual or nation could do. The slaughter was shameless because the House had no clear indication from any

    909
    authority or from the Government as to what was to follow. What was the object of all this slaughter? What was the ultimate result to be? It reflected greatly on the good name of this country that those attacks should be made without greater care being taken, without greater deliberation, without full discussion, and after all the facts had been laid before the House. "When the life of man is in debate, no time can be too long, no pains too great." What had the Arabs who were slaughtered that morning done? For a long time they had been cruelly oppressed by, he supposed, the worst Government the world had ever seen—the old Egyptian Government. For some time past they had been, in the words of the late Prime Minister, "rightly struggling to be free." It might be said in excuse for the slaughter that the Arabs were attacking Suakin. He admitted that there was some force in the reason; but he asked the House to look at the situation. The town belonged to the Arabs, not to us. [Laughter.] Yes; the town belonged to the inhabitants of the district just as much as Liverpool belonged to Englishmen. If the French took Liverpool we should consider it a noble act to strive and take it back. Would it not be well sometimes to consider the right and the wrong before indulging in these things? The House might recollect that a deputation came to the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) about the abandonment of Candahar. The noble Lord then said one of the best things he ever said. The deputation talked about the use that Candahar would be to us for trade and about British prestige, and the noble Lord said—"The first thing to consider is, what right have we to be there?" That was a question with regard to Suakin which it would be rather difficult for the Government to answer. He hoped that the old Slave Trade argument would not be trotted out again, for, if anything had been proved by recent debates, it was that that was an old bogey, and that we had done no good in our attempts to stop the Slave Trade. On the contrary, we had done more harm than good, and all our action had only caused it to be carried on in a more cruel way than before. Then it might be said that Suakin was held for the Egyptian Government; but
    910
    Lord Salisbury had declared that it was of no use to them, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had said the same thing. Could the House find any other two questions upon which those two statesmen agreed? Surely it was strong evidence that the town was of no use to the Egyptian Government when it was found that the Leaders of both Parties agreed to this effect. Another argument which would be used was that our prestige would suffer if we gave the town up; but surely the brave man ought to be able to say that he was wrong; it was only the coward who declared that he was right in the face of all evidence to the contrary. It really came to this—we were defending a town to which we had no right against the people with whom we had no quarrel, and for objects which no one was able to explain. Then it was said that we must teach the Arabs that we were their masters. That was the argument of Cain in regard to Abel. ["No, no!"] Yes; Cain said he must be the master of Abel, and he killed him. They talked about the cruel executions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, but they had that morning, by their troops, by their black men, and by the Egyptian Army, contrived to kill 400 people who were defending their own country; with their machinery of murder, their machine guns, they had mowed them down wholesale. He did not think anyone could say that that was a thing of which this nation could be proud. Members were going home to keep Christmas. He wondered how hon. Gentlemen who were responsible for this wholesale murder would feel, keeping their Christmas festival. Let them think of the men who had been killed, and of the other wretched men who were at that moment dying on the desert, and then go to their churches and talk about peace and goodwill to men. No doubt this would be very popular in the country. They would have pœans of praise from the mob and brilliant articles from able editors who urged people to fight but did not go themselves, and thanksgivings in the churches. But if this slaughter were the outcome of Christianity and civilization, then Christianity was a sham, and civilization was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. He wished the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington

    911
    (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been present. He honoured the noble Lord for the course he had taken. They might find fault with him for inconsistency in some matters, but all through this business he had been true as steel, and in favour of oppressed Nationalities against our cruel policy of shooting men down for defending their own country. Two years ago the noble Lord, in an interesting speech on our warlike expenditure, asked whether a policy would always be adopted that was opposed to the peace-loving instincts of a democratic people? He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) feared that the people were not educated enough on these questions; they were slow to understand them; but if they did endorse these continual attacks on an oppressed people, then he said they were one of the most degraded democracies that had ever obtained political power, and that they would deserve to suffer the same oppressions themselves. It was an extraordinary position, and he felt as if they had gone back six years and he was protesting against the bombardment of Alexandria. But then they had had no warning. Now, they had done the same thing over and over again; £30,000,000 sterling had been spent in these senseless wars; the characters of most of their statesmen at home had been damaged, and they had got into difficulties with Continental nations; and to start the thing again now, especially at the season of Christmas, when peace and goodwill should prevail, was a sort of madness most discreditable to this country. He made that protest—he could do no more. He seconded the Amendment by way of protest against this hideous drama, in order that some information might be given before they were launched into further horrors, so that the people might form their judgment before other hideous and horrible things were done in their name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is unwilling to read this Bill a second time till it has better information of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Soudan."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he rose at once, and at a moment's notice, to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), whose speech reminded him of St. Simeon Stylites sitting on his column preaching to the unregenerate people on that side of the House. The hon. Baronet seemed to be the apostle of the doctrine of universal scuttle, of national self-abasement, with self-effacement, and of political abnegation. He should leave him in the enjoyment of that doctrine. What did the hon. Baronet say in his extraordinary speech? He said that the military operations were undertaken without any previous discussion in Parliament. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Without sufficient discussion.] Now, he appealed to the House whether this subject as to Suakin had not been discussed threadbare? Then the hon. Baronet asked, with what object were the operations undertaken? Was it necessary to remind him that the officially declared object was the defence of Suakin? That fully; but nothing beyond that—no operations whatever from the far-off interior. A policy at Suakin was wholly apart from any policy respecting the Soudan. At present the British policy was to leave the Soudan to itself. The Arabs had attacked that town, which was in possession of an Egyptian garrison under British authority; they had shelled the town, taken the lives of Egyptian soldiers and inhabitants, run up the price of provisions, narrowed employment, and, in fact, had threatened the garrison of the town with extermination, and had done this without any provocation whatever. All this had been done for the single purpose of carrying on the Slave Trade. The hon. Baronet said these Arabs had suffered from Egyptian domination. They were, no doubt, for a long time under Egyptian authority, but that authority was of the lightest and most shadowy description. However, whatever shadow there ever was of Egyptian supremacy over them had undoubtedly disappeared for the last three or four years, and they had, therefore, no justification or reason whatever for attacking Suakin. Then the hon. Baronet said the town was theirs.

    913
    Now, Suakin was not, and never had been theirs, and they had never had anything whatever to do with the place. Suakin belonged to the Egyptian Government and the people of Egypt. The Arabs engaged in the operations were dwellers in a distant country, in the Upper Valley of the Nile. They crossed a broad desert to attack a town which had belonged to Egypt for 50 years.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, what he maintained was that the dervishes came to help the inhabitants.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, the inhabitants were a mixed people chiefly engaged in trade, and they had nothing to do with the Arabs, who were wholly and absolutely a separate body. They came up to Suakin for no such purpose as the hon. Baronet had foreshadowed. He was surprised at the references made by the hon. Baronet, so well known for his humanity, to the suppression of the Slave Trade, in connection with which England had spent so much of English life and strength and so much of English treasure. The success of our efforts for suppression was derided; and, indeed, there had been but too much of failure. That was all the greater reason for persevering till we achieved full success. For such success the retention of Suakin was essential. The Arabs knew that, and, therefore, they attacked the place. The hon. Baronet, in his usual manner, spoke lightly of British prestige, and averred that the Arabs, if driven away now, would come back again presently. Would they? That would entirely depend on the arrangements which the British Government might make in the future. The hon. Baronet spoke of 400 men being killed by British artillery and British bayonets for defending their country. Now, these men were not defending their own country; on the contrary, it was widely separated from their own; they were attacking somebody else's country; practically our country—the country of the inhabitants of Suakin, which was under the Egyptian Government and British protection. We were the defenders, and the Arabs the aggressive and attacking party. Having criticized the remarks of the hon. Baronet, he desired to make one or two general observations. While we should make no terms whatever with these Khartoum Arabs, we should endeavour, by negotia-
    914
    tions, to settle matters with the friendly tribes on the coast of the Red Sea. In this respect he agreed with the substance of what was said by the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). Though he could not altogether approve the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, yet that did not prevent him from acknowledging the merit of their substance. The inhabitants of Suakin were largely dependent on these tribes for water and provisions, and it was, therefore, important to be on friendly terms with them. But, what was more, the invading Arabs from the Nile could not get these necessaries except through those tribes. So by making a settlement with the tribes the British Government could cut off the supplies on which invaders must depend. The hon. Baronet had appealed to their social and political consciences, and asked them how, at this Christmas season, in the sight of Almighty God, they could go home in peace after slaughtering all these Arabs? He would answer this challenge. We had undertaken these operations for the protection of those whom we had undertaken to protect, and that, in doing so, we were fulfilling a political duty which involved many important considerations, the first of which was this—that we were aiming a blow at those who added to the sorrows of the human race, and we were striking off the fetters from the slave.
    MR. W. A. MARTHURsaid, he had been unable to agree with his hon. Friends around him with regard to the Egyptian policy of the Government. He had, however, opposed the military operations, because he did not know with what object they had been undertaken. It might be a Jingo sentiment, but he had always been in favour of a frank declaration that we should never come out of Egypt. He thought it was wrong to bombard Alexandria; but, having done what we had done, after spending so much money, after sacrificing so many lives, disorganizing and smashing up the Government, it was preposterous for us to abandon the people of Egypt to the misgovernment which must succeed our departure. Why did not the Government say plainly whether they intended to go out of Egypt or to stay there? He should cordially welcome any statement from Her Majesty's Government that they

    915
    proposed to remain in Egypt, and should be prepared on such a statement to support the policy of defending Suakin against the dervishes. If, however, the Government were intending to leave Egypt, he considered it was monstrous to go on spending money and destroying lives in defending Suakin. He appealed to the Government to state distinctly what their Egyptian policy was; so long, however, as they declined to make any definite announcement, the only thing he could do was to oppose their doing anything at all, and persistently to vote against every part of their policy in that country.
    MR. PICTONsaid, that if he had known that those were the views of the hon. Member he should never have spent six days in helping him to get into that House. The hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that human life had been sacrificed unnecessarily, and he (Mr. Picton) was quite in agreement with him. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard Temple) said that he agreed with the criticism that the Government had not taken pains to negotiate with the coast tribes near Suakin.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that he had never said so. He was not aware what negotiations had taken place. What he said was that negotiations should take place in the future.
    MR. PICTONasked whether humanity and Christianity did not require that such negotiations should have been made before the outbreak of hostilities? We had now roused a bitter spirit of vengeance.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to confuse two sets of persons of whom he spoke. Negotiation with these Arabs was out of the question. The persons with whom we should negotiate were the friendly tribes—a totally different class.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he was quite aware of the hon. Member's argument, but his (Mr. Picton's) point was that the negotiations with the leaders of the Native tribes ought to have been opened before there had been any bloodshed. He believed that before this morning's battle the local tribes and their leaders would have been more willing to negotiate than afterwards. That being so,
    916
    the hon. Baronet had conceded his (Mr Picton's) whole point, which was that human life had been needlessly sacrificed. It was high time, as representing a great, valiant, and Christian nation, that the House of Commons should show a little more appreciation of the value of human life than it had hitherto done. He regretted that the terrible announcement of the slaughter of these people—described as a "brilliant victory"—should have been received with cheers, as he feared that such an example was likely to intensify the warlike feeling which, unhappily, was too apparent among the public outside. Death was terrible under any condition, but it was more terrible still when it occurred under such conditions as the destruction of the 400 lives that were sacrificed that morning. He was sure that no hon. Gentleman opposite would in private contend that it was right to regard with feelings of triumph any wholesale slaughter. There were occasions when congratulations over victory might be exchanged, as, for instance, if our country were threatened with invasion; but in the case of the battle at Suakin the circumstances were totally different. Neither British subjects nor those whom Great Britain was defending were in any danger; and the only crime of the coast tribes was that they had accepted the opinion of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to the effect that Suakin was no proper interest of England or Egypt, and they had simply resolved to carry out that policy. The Government had exhibited that vacillation and uncertainty in their policy with regard to Suakin which usually led to bloodshed. It was not in the interest of repressing the Slave Trade they had acted. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of descending to the low, vulgar glee caused by bloodshed in this country, would feel the solemnity of the responsibility pressing upon them, they would take the wiser, more prudent, and more philanthropic policy of entering into negotiations, not with the Khartoum Arabs, but with the Native tribes along the coast of the Red Sea.
    MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he thought that hon. Members might be allowed to discuss the wisdom of keeping any particular city in the desert without having such words as "scuttle,"

    917
    "surrender," and "national self-effacement" hurled at them across the floor of the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple) said that their defence of Suakin was not aggressive; but he asked hon. Members to consider the hypothetical case of a French force some day taking Brighton by force and maintaining themselves there. If the English people were in consequence to attack Brighton, were they to be told by the French that their policy was aggressive? That would be, to his mind, a defensive policy, because its object would be to win back English territory. The hon. Baronet talked of the Slave Trade as an excuse for keeping Suakin, but it was a pity he did not quote any evidence. He (Mr. Philipps) had read all the Blue Books on the Slave Trade, and he could not find one line which would justify the assertion that the retention of Suakin had stopped the embarkation of a single slave. It was rather strange that hon. Members opposite should at last be showing some zeal in suppressing the Slave Trade, for not many years ago a Conservative Government had issued a Fugitive Slave Circular. The hon. Baronet offered another excuse for retaining Suakin. He said we were defending the inhabitants of Suakin against their invaders. Even if that were true, what business was that of ours? Why should the poor suffering taxpayers of this country be called upon to defend the inhabitants of Suakin against anyone? Most of those on the Opposition side of the House objected to the occupation of Suakin—first, because they believed it to be of no use; and, secondly, because they believed its retention was a national crime. In his opinion hon. Members opposite had only one real reason for the policy they supported, although they had given three; and that was that they coveted Suakin, and believed in some vague way that it would be of some use to the British Empire. They dare not, however, use that argument, because they knew that the English people would not listen to it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated in very energetic language his views upon this question; and he said that "we" object to the occupation of Suakin, in the first
    918
    place because there is no use in it, and in the second place because its retention is a national crime. I wonder whether when he said "we object" he thought that he was expressing the view of the Party who sit opposite, and the view of those who are generally upon the Front Bench opposite? [The Front Opposition Bench was quite vacant.] Though the hon. Member may have read all the Blue Books on the subject of slavery he has not read those upon the subject of Egypt and Suakin, otherwise he would have seen that one of the chief reasons for the defence and occupation of Suakin is that the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) undertook to defend the ports upon the Red Sea, and entered into an engagement which we have to carry out. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must clearly see that to regard the holding of Suakin as a national crime is not the view of the responsible Leaders of the Opposition. The whole fallacy of this matter came out in a striking form in the speech of the hon. Member. The idea is that Suakin belongs to the dervishes.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I never said that Suakin belonged to the dervishes, or anything of the kind.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Quite so. That shows the hon. Gentleman's confusion of mind. He did not see the effect of his own argument. His argument was that if Brighton, belonging to the English, were taken by the French and then attacked by the English, that would not be an aggressive policy on the part of England, showing that the hon. Member thinks that the inhabitants of Suakin and the tribes are practically the same people. It is not only the hon. Gentleman who has fallen into that error. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that Suakin belonged to a people struggling to be free. But the dervishes against whom we are fighting are not struggling to be free or to make Suakin free. They come from hundreds of miles away. Everyone who studies the case carefully must say that the dervishes threatening Suakin are of a totally different nationality from those people who are at Suakin. They have never established any right to Suakin. That is the point. We are there at the wish

    919
    and with the concurrence of the rulers of the country, whereas the dervishes are there as enemies of the people, who have come from a distance.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPELL: They were called in by the inland tribes.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member believes that, I must say that I must give him up, as that is utterly opposed to the whole evidence. The hon. Member has been travelling so far over all parts of the globe for his arguments this evening that we must forgive him if on some particular point he falls now and then into error. The friendly tribes have complained to us over and over again that they have been prevented and discouraged from making raids on the Arabs who have been coming to despoil them. The friendly tribes are entirely opposed to the dervishes. It is extremely important if any hon. Members, or any part of the country, believe that Suakin belongs in the slightest degree to the dervishes or to the allies of the dervishes, that they should be informed that that is a complete mistake. The whole of the argument, as I said, as to its being a crime to hold Suakin is based upon this error. Let it further be remembered that it is the religious fanaticism of the dervishes and their Slave Trade tendencies which have animated them in all these campaigns. That is evident from all the information in our possession. I pass now to answer the questions which have been put as to the intentions of the Government. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) asks for a reiterated pledge from the Government that we will not advance further into the country. But why should he claim a reiterated pledge? What is the good of giving a pledge three or four times, if the first and second time that pledge receives no credence at the hands of hon. Members? Does the hon. Member think it would be worthy of the Government of a country like this to say before a battle is fought that we intended no aggression and no distant expeditions, and that the moment after the battle had been fought we should change our minds? He need not be under any apprehension of this kind. We have not viewed the attack upon the intrenchments of the dervishes as one of those extraordinary operations which require so much attention as has
    920
    been given to it. It was a military operation undertaken to turn out a comparatively small force. Now that that is completed, the general policy of the Government will not be altered in the slightest degree. I will not add to what the Government have said already with regard to their determination to adhere to the pledges which they have made. Then hon. Members have asked what is our policy with regard to Egypt in general? There, again, we have given the most specific declarations. We have said that our policy is the same policy which was embodied in the Convention negotiated by Sir H. Drummond Wolff with the Sultan of Turkey. We are pledged before Europe not to occupy Egypt permanently. That is the distinct pledge we have given, and there is no reason why we should repeat that pledge. Our policy is to remain in Egypt until Egypt is strong enough to hold her own, and until the new régime which has been established is in a position to be able to maintain internal order, and to maintain itself sufficiently against external enemies to the south, or in any other direction. That is the policy which has been announced, and I believe that that is a policy which generally commends itself even to the bulk of hon. Members opposite. From that policy we do not intend to deviate. I deny entirely that there is any obscurity as to the policy of the Government as regards Egypt. I say distinctly that we do not look upon the occupation of Egypt as strengthening the position of this country. It is with no desire for aggrandizement that we have occupied Egypt; and, whatever views may prevail in any part of the country, I can assure the House that the Government adhere to the policy which they have so often stated. That is all I wish to say upon the immediate question before the House on this Amendment. I really think the Amendment might be withdrawn in view of the fact that the statements I have made are sufficiently explicit, even if they are not satisfactory to some hon. Members opposite. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I should be in Order in replying to the other hon. Members who have raised points in debate before this Amendment was moved? If so, I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark).
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether we should not confine ourselves to the subject immediately under discussion?
    MR. SPEAKER: This is one of the subjects which did arise before the Amendment was moved; but it may be for the convenience of hon. Members that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman should relate to the immediate subject before the House.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then, Sir, I will only say that the events at Suakin are an encouragement even in the direction desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as proving the bravery and dash of the Egyptian troops themselves. It has been a source of great satisfaction that these troops, carefully trained as they have been under English officers, though often depreciated in various quarters, have yet shown themselves, under proper leadership, capable of dealing with fanatical dervishes who are considered to be some of the bravest soldiers in the world. I think that this should be duly acknowledged by the people of this country, and it will show to the public at large that our efforts to train the Egyptian soldiers have not been in vain.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 49: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 356.)
    Main Question again proposed,
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he should like to obtain some further information with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement in relation to the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa. The country, he thought, would be anxious to be assured that there was no danger of this Agreement extending to operations on land. The effectiveness of the blockade had been much undermined by the practice of slave dhows sailing under the French flag, and he thought it would be well if some precise arrangement with regard to this matter was entered into with the French Government, otherwise complications might arise, especially if the Germans were to search a dhow carrying the French Flag. It was to be regretted that an International Conference had not been held on the subject, so that this matter of the Flag might be
    922
    settled between the different nations, who might also have agreed that slave trading should be treated as piracy. If a few examples could be made of slavers taken red-handed being immediately shot, more would be done to put down the Slave Trade than could be done by any Anglo-German Agreement, though he did not say the Government could have done otherwise than accept the proposal of a friendly Power.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)said, he might assure the hon. Member once more that operations on the mainland of Africa were altogether outside the joint operations they had undertaken with Germany. Those objects were very plainly laid down, and he did not think there was any probability of their being departed from. Some inconvenience had, no doubt, been caused by the use of the French Flag by certain slave dhows. The French Government had not unnaturally objected to the right of searching vessels carrying the French Flag being exercised by any but Frenchmen, except under a regular blockade; but they expressed themselves as most earnest to put down this abuse, and there was good reason to believe that it would be checked by the French authorities themselves. There was every ground for hoping that now that the principal civilized nations of the world were banded together against this traffic they would succeed in putting it down.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had on the Paper a Notice of Motion, which he was precluded from moving by the result of the Division. He, therefore, rose to urge that it would lead to a more satisfactory system of finance if a portion of the present large military and civil expenditure in Ireland were devoted to public works. There were signs that during the winter, in Galway and other large towns, there would be a large amount of unemployed labour which might be advantageously engaged upon public works. The taxes collected in Ireland exceeded £8,000,000, and of this Ireland got the benefit of about £2,000,000. The civil expenditure was excessive, and the military expenditure was heavier than that of France, Germany, or Russia. A million might very well be spent in developing the resources

    923
    of the country by railways and harbours. The present Government was particularly pledged to a policy of development, but it had refused to do anything, because the House would not pass, without discussion, Bills for combined drainage and navigation, which would have involved a great waste of money. Two years had passed without the Government redeeming their promise, and now it would take a year and a-half before anything could be done which needed legislation. In the meantime the Irish people desired to have some of their own money spent in the country in order to relieve distress resulting from lack of employment.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he desired to call attention to the wrong done to the poorest class of his constituents—agricultural labourers in Essex—by the action of the Charity Commissioners in diverting endowments left for the indigent poor to purposes which did not directly benefit them. There was one case of an endowment of £100 a-year, which was cut up into £50 for a schoolmaster, £30 for buildings, £10 for buying books, and £5 for the care of a well; and the residue, which was nonexistent, was left for the poor. These things were not what the labourers wanted. What they asked for was a percentage of the net income of the funds in question to go towards the reduction, of the necessary legal and other expenses in connection with the allotments scheme of last Session. The reason why the Allotments Act was, to a certain extent, unworkable, was because of the great initial expenses connected with it. If 5 or 10 per cent of the funds to which he had alluded, and which the labourers had a right to, could be devoted to the reduction of these expenses, there was no doubt that a great deal of land which was now doing nothing in Essex would be let out in allotments. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this matter during the Recess.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he thought that the Home Secretary ought to give a reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) earlier in the evening with regard to the construction of the Statute of Edward III. as to the jurisdiction of magistrates in holding to bail persons of
    924
    ill-fame. It was perfectly clear that the Statute, read with the word "not," which he believed had been inserted in error by the editor of the Revised Statutes, had no meaning, and that without the word "not" it dealt with two classes of persons. First, rioters and garrotters, whom the magistrates were directed to commit to prison; and, secondly, persons who had previously been of bad fame, but having mended their ways had become of good fame; and these the Justices were able to admit to bail and set them free. In his opinion it was abundantly clear that the construction of the Statute in Ireland, by which respectable people had been committed to prison, was an absurd one. A solicitor was now in custody in Ireland under this Statute, because he, being a respectable person and attending a sale of cattle, refused to give security to be of good behaviour. The Statute was not applicable to such cases, but to a class of persons not now in existence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that he did not rise when the hon. Member for Northampton sat down, because the argument was more fitted for a Court of Law than for the House of Commons, and because a discussion of the Statute of Edward III., of which they had not an undoubted text before them, would be a waste of time. The meaning placed upon the Statute by the hon. Member was ludicrous. It amounted to this—that only robbers, &c. of good fame were to give security. In some of the versions the negative to which the hon. Member referred was not present, while in others it was. The point, no doubt, was an interesting one to legal antiquarians, but he might say that from the time of Lord Coke downwards the Statute had been treated as if the negative were in it. Every text book, and, he thought, every Court in England for 300 years had read the Statute with the negative in it; and if the Statute were not in the original roll, the matter was so established as part of the jurisdiction of the peace that he would not risk 6d. upon the chance of an appeal to any Superior Court to try and obtain a declaration that the jurisdiction did not exist.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he wished, before the Bill

    925
    was read a second time, to refer to a question as to which his constituents felt deeply. When the Police Vote was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) not only expressed his desire for the maintenance of law and order in the Metropolis, but stated that he was as anxious as any man to maintain the right of the people to meet on open spaces or in public meeting for the purpose of ventilating their grievances. In order to test the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Cremer) would repeat the question which he had asked when the Home Secretary made that statement, and to which as yet no reply had been given. The question was, whether the Government were willing to afford the people of London an opportunity of meeting in some central place to discuss their grievances, whenever they thought it advisable, under the same rules and regulations as applied to meetings in the Public Parks? If the Horse Guards' Parade was used for that purpose, interference with the traffic of the Metropolis would be avoided. Now, the cost of organizing a large meeting in London in a public hall was not much less than £100; and it was simply impossible for working men to incur that amount of expenditure. Metropolitan Members sitting on that side of the House had incurred some odium owing to their desire to prevent collisions between the people and the police in respect to the assertion of the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square; and he wished to know whether the Government would allow the central open space which he had mentioned to be used in the way he had indicated? If nothing were done in that matter, more would be heard about it, he believed, at the next Election. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was being looked forward to with interest and curiosity out-of-doors, because, if an unsatisfactory answer were given, he might observe—although he would not stoop to hint a threat in such a matter—it was not impossible, before the House re-assembled next year, that difficulties might recur in regard to meetings in Trafalgar Square or other open spaces, and he was anxious that the contest between the right hon. Gentleman, the police authorities, and the people of London should be closed.
    926
    He had also to complain of what he contended was a system of sweating practised against the workmen employed under a firm of contractors—Messrs. Mowlem, Burt, and Freeman—in connection with that House, the British Museum, and other Government establishments. The wages of the men, "which were always scanty enough, were, under that system, subjected to a deduction of 1d. per hour, making them still less than the sums voted by the House would provide. Since he brought this matter forward some time ago he was informed that, notwithstanding the promise which the Chief Commissioner of Works had then given to seriously consider the question, a fresh contract for three years had been signed with Messrs. Mowlem, Burt, and Freeman on the same terms. It was, he urged, an extraordinary thing that a Government which had sanctioned the appointment of the Committee to inquire into the evils of the sweating system should not set a better example in regard to the working men in their employment; and unless the evil to which he referred was remedied in the meantime he would next year move the reduction of the Vote for every Government Office where the contract system prevailed. He desired also to call attention to the conduct of the Government and of the Charity Commissioners in respect to endowments, and the effect which it was producing on the minds of the agricultural labourers and workmen generally, who entertained the belief that their endowments were being filched from them—that the poor were being robbed for the benefit of the rich—and they naturally asked by what right that was done. He asked hon. Members to seriously consider what there was to prevent working men from taking to heart the lesson thus taught them and applying the same doctrine to the property of the wealthy classes.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he wished to call attention to the miscarriage of justice at Edlingham, in the imprisonment of the men Brannaghan and Murphy. He maintained that this was not a matter which ought to be huddled up. A certain amount of suspicion and distrust had been created in the public mind by the fact that at the second trial the charge of attempt to murder had been abandoned, and consequently the case had not been fully

    927
    investigated. He urged the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary either to make public the evidence which was taken at the inquiry already held, or to hold a fresh inquiry of such a character as to allow the proceedings to be published. So far as he was aware there was no desire for a criminal prosecution in this case, but there was an urgent desire that steps should be taken to make it more difficult in future for miscarriages of justice of this kind to occur. This end was only likely to be secured by the fullest publicity. He desired next to call attention to the protracted sittings of Crown Courts in the country in consequence of insufficient time being allowed for the business of Assizes to be transacted. He hoped steps would be taken to secure the attendance at Assizes, where they were likely to be required, of the barristers or Queen's Counsel included with the Judges in the Commission.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALOUR)said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was unable by the Rules of Debate to speak again, he would say that his right hon. Friend thought that the present condition of affairs with reference to the Edlingham burglary was extremely unsatisfactory. That arose from the fact that the two cases were not really brought before the jury at the last trial. In no sense was it due to the fault of his right hon. Friend, who went out of his way to see that the eases should be brought before the jury and the evidence re-surveyed. That, however, was not done; and his right hon. Friend now thought that it would not be desirable to hold such an inquiry as that suggested, because it could not be an inquiry on oath. It was, therefore, scarcely possible that an inquiry of this kind would conduce to the ends of justice, or that the case would be improved by the method suggested by the hon. Member. A question had been raised as to the holding of meetings in open spaces. His right hon. Friend reiterated the expression of opinion previously given. He was anxious to further as much as he could the interests of all who desired to discuss public questions in London. There were, however, other interests to be thought of in reference to those meetings, and the particular
    928
    remedy suggested was still under the consideration of his right hon. Friend and those who were charged with the management of and responsibility for the space at the Horse Guards. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) complained that Ireland was particularly ill-used in connection with the distribution of Imperial funds. The conclusion he had himself arrived at from a study of public documents was very different; it was that Ireland was not only well but generously treated in that respect. On the authority of a man named Mulhall, the hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that the military expenditure in Ireland was greater than in any other country in Europe, not excepting France or Germany. Well, on the only occasion on which he had looked into Mulhall's book, he found that Mulhall was grievously in error. Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the people for whom he spoke would like to see the Military Forces of the Crown diminished in Ireland? His own observation was that no heavier punishment could be inflicted on any locality in Ireland than to withdraw the Military Forces of the Crown from it.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The money could be spent on public works.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that would not be the least consolation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to see a policy of public works carried into effect on a large scale. So did the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that one of the chief objects to be gained was to retain in Ireland a population which could not otherwise exist there. If there was any likelihood of the population of any district being permanently able to find employment in their own country, he should rejoice in starting public works to enable them to tide over a period of temporary depression. But the idea of a permanent policy of public works for the purpose of providing wages for a class of the population which could not otherwise find a subsistence in the country he should regard as absolutely disastrous to the class in whose interest it was proposed. The policy of public works was not stopped, because the Government had not been able to carry out their drainage scheme. Under the existing law, it

    929
    was competent for the Treasury to lend large sums for those harbour and railway works which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and which he himself also desired to see carried out. But when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that 2½ years had elapsed since the Government promised a policy of public works, and nothing had been done, he must protest against such an accusation. In the first place, a Royal Commission was appointed to make a searching inquiry, and when they had done so they distinctly laid down that the work to be first taken in hand was a main drainage scheme. He laid a main drainage scheme on the Table, which differed in many respects, but particularly in two, from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In the first place, they gave larger powers to the locality to determine what should or should not be done under these schemes, and, in the next place, they altered the suggestions of the Commission in the direction of far more generous grants—[Colonel NOLAN: No, no!]—for the purpose of carrying out the great object of arterial drainage.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that they cut down the Shannon to one-third.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was speaking of the schemes as a whole, and, taking them as a whole, as they had been brought by the Government. The scheme of the Government, therefore, was far more generous than they were, in the early shape, put before the country in the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. and gallant Gentleman accused the Government of combining drainage and navigation. But they had so altered the scheme which was to apply both to the Bann and the Shannon, that in no case in future should the interests of navigation in any way interfere with the interests of drainage.
    MR. PHILIPPSasked the Government whether, at the earliest possible period next Session, they would bring forward some measure dealing with the question of mineral royalties? In the constituency he represented it was felt to be a very great grievance indeed.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! Such a subject does not come within the scope of a discussion on the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, with reference to the subject of public works in Ireland, the Government simply offered those works as moral bribes to induce the people to depart from a patriotic course of action. The Irish people did not want such doles from the British Parliament. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, he contended that it had never yet been raised before the Courts. With regard to the appointment of Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act; in the list of the 10 new Land Commissions he could find the names not only of several men who had been landlords themselves, and recognized as landlords, but of men who had actually figured in the Land Courts as landlords' valuers. One of these was Mr. Deane, one of the most prominent Tories and supporters of the landlord party in Dublin, a secretary of the Dublin Constitutional Club, an active Tory registration agent, and a man who has been working with the landlord party for the whole of his public life. In 1881 he became a landlords' valuer in Dublin, and some of his exploits in that capacity had become notorious, and, indeed, were calculated to give the impression that he would not be appointed to act impartially between landlord and tenant. A Dublin tenant-farmer, writing to him in reference to Mr. Deane's appointment, said, "I intended to go into the Land Court, but after Mr. Deane's appointment I gave it up." The Government were sowing dragons' teeth in Ireland, and they were cultivating an agitation which would exceed anything that had gone before.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter which had already been brought before the House, but which he feared had not received due attention. That was the condition of the nailmakers and chainmakers of Cradley Heath, Staffordshire. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was absent. The information from Cradley Heath was not satisfactory. There was an epidemic of fever in the place. Representations had been made by many influential persons in the district, and strong appeals had been made to Members of Parliament to draw the attention of the Government to the question.

    931
    The same tactics, however, were followed in this case as in the Metropolis, and persons who were anxious to ventilate their grievances were hustled and assaulted by the police. The hon. Member was proceeding in some detail to discuss the imperfect sanitation of the district and the misery and poverty of these chainmakers, when
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that he was anticipating a Motion which was on the Paper for that day.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that he would ask the Government whether their attention had been called to a passage in Mr. Burnett's report referring to the evasion of the Truck Acts, and the existence in the district of shops full of provisions, which were usually kept closed, and to which admittance was with difficulty obtained, but which undoubtedly carried on a secret business with the workpeople in contravention of the law? There was no legal proof, and in only one case had the police effected an entrance, and it was eminently a case for searching inquiry. He should be glad to know whether the Government intended to take any action. When distinct evidence was produced emphasizing and reiterating the accounts of the insanitary condition of the district, and when it was known that the people could not deal with the state of things themselves, a case had been made out which demanded the immediate attention of the Government. If the matter were not dealt with the endurance of the people might come to an end, and they might demand the ear of the country in another manner.
    MR. GILLsaid, he must press the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland for an answer to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton in regard to the Statute of Edward III. He asked the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether the Attorney General would issue his fiat to enable Mr. Hurley, a solicitor, to move for a writ of error, and, if necessary, to have the matter brought to the House of Lords to test the applicability of the Act of Edward III. to his case. He also wished to draw attention to the new use to which the Police Force in Ireland was being put. During the last 12 months or two years the Police
    932
    Force had been constantly employed for the purpose of following the movements of certain well-known popular men throughout Ireland. A remarkable illustration of this fact had been provided when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had cited to the public extracts from police note-books with regard to the movements of Mr. Mandeville. The Chief Secretary had recently expressed his opinion that the use of handcuffs should not be resorted to except in certain exceptional cases, and he desired to know whether that expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman would be construed as a specific instruction to the police of Ireland on the subject.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's statement with reference to the use of handcuffs was perfectly clear, and that he had nothing to add to it. With regard to the action which the Attorney General would take if a writ of error were issued, that matter rested entirely in the discretion of the Attorney General, and he could not possibly give, by anticipation, an opinion as to what course would be pursued in the event of a writ of error being presented to him for his fiat. No doubt he would do what was right.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, he wished, as the Representative of more inhabitants than any other Member of the House, to express the great and inexpressible dissatisfaction of the people at the manner in which the Government of Ireland was being conducted. The result of the attention which he had given to the subject was that he believed that the people of Ireland were at this moment abandoned by their National protectors—namely, the Government of the country. There was nothing in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or of any Member of the Government, to show the least desire that the people committed to the control of the police should not suffer from their violence. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the Irish Magistrates and the Constabulary received from the Ministerial Bench the gravest encouragement to do what they liked in Ireland, with the assurance that the people would meet with no protection from the Government.

    933
    It was not wonderful that the Irish Members should protest in season or out of season against such a state of things. To suppose that the Business of the House under the present conditions could be conducted with smoothness and rapidity, or with satisfaction to the country, was to indulge in the idlest of dreams. The present state of things was not to be cured by any process but one, which could be very well conjectured by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. The Government must now go forward with the policy to which they were committed. It was a course of procedure which handed over the people of Ireland to the Constabulary; and he failed to see that the Government were at all anxious to allay the apprehension which existed in this country as well as in Ireland with regard to this state of things. If the Government intended to meet the House next Session under such circumstances as now existed, did they expect to get Business rapidly carried forward? It did not rest with a majority of that House to carry out any method which would remedy the present state of affairs with regard to Business while Ireland was governed as it now was, because in order to proceed with any proposal of the kind they would have to silence the Representatives of the people to such an extent that the country would not sanction it. A good deal had been said about the prolonged debates on the Estimates; but he might say that the public money would not be voted away in the future as it had been in the past without much consideration. Even if the Irish Members were so recreant to their constituents as not to examine the Irish Estimates as they ought to be examined, many English Members on those Benches would rise in their places to discuss the Estimates, in order to have the present infamous administration brought to the front.
    DR. FITZGERALDsaid, he contended that it was the bounden duty of the House of Commons to protect the Irish people from violence. He wished to refer to a peaceable meeting at Longford, which was dispersed with violence by the police without warning or the reading of the riot Act, and he had to complain that agents of the Irish Government disturbed quiet counties and towns and outraged the
    934
    people, and that instead of the offenders being brought to justice they were promoted and pensioned. The police, who ought to be protectors of the people, were perverted by the Government into an armed force of banditti, demanding ransom from the people on behalf of the landlords, who were associated, he might say, in conspiracy with the Irish Executive. It was because he desired that law should be respected and not outraged in Ireland that he asked the House to intervene between the police and their violence, and he hoped that they would soon see removed from power a Government which was at once a curse to the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and also the worst enemy to the best interests of England.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES (No. 2) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered forthwith.
    First Amendment disagreed to.
    Second Amendment amended, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments:"—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the Quorum.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by The Lords to which this House hath disagreed, reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY (re-committea) BILL.
    BILL 273.
    (Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)in moving that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn, pointed out that the locality was in favour of the Bill; but that, owing to the opposition offered to the progress of the measure at this period of the

    935
    Session, it was impossible to proceed further with it now. He would suggest to the hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper with reference to the stoppage of a certain footpath, they should confer with the people of the neighbourhood with the view of seeing whether it was not possible for them to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. If the footpath in question was not stopped up, it would be impossible to carry on a dangerous trade within a certain distance of it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and Bill withdrawn."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Employers' Liability Act, 1880 (Continuance) * (307); Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland)* (308); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) * (309); Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1888, Repeal, negatived.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment (No. 4) (299); Sand Grouse Protecion * (305), and passed.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Preferential Payment of Wages (No. 2) (301), and passed.
Withdrawn—County Court Appeals (Ireland) * (297).

ARMY—THE HON. ARTILLERY COMPANY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that he would ask the Under Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice, with respect to the disarmament of the Hon. Artillery Company. Their Lordships had seen with regret that this disarmament had taken place, but beyond that very little was known. It was a subject that interested the country to some considerable extent, and any information would be desirable. Could the noble Lord inform their Lordships as to the causes which had led to the disarmament; as to the present condition of the corps; as to whether the corps were alive, dead, or in a condition of suspended animation; and as to whether any steps were likely to be taken in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Lord HARRIS): In reply to my noble Friend, I have to state that the cause which led to the withdrawal of the guns, arms, and equipment of the Hon. Artillery Company was an official Report to the Se-

  853
  cretory of State from the officer commanding the corps that it was in a most unsatisfactory state as regards discipline. Owing to this state of indiscipline, and to the resiguation of the Captain General, the commanding officer, and the adjutant, this corps cannot be recognized as a properly constituted military body, and the usual course has been adopted in withdrawing the arms and equipment, which are the property of the State. It is not the case that the Warrant has been withdrawn, and the Secretary of State hopes that the necessity for such a course will never arise in the case of a corps so ancient as the Hon. Artillery Company.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with for the remainder of the Session.
PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 301.)
(The Earl of Dunraven.)
PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 301.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments made: Then (Standing Order No. XXXV. having been dispensed with) the said Amendments reported.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had to move an Amendment of the fourth paragraph of the 1st clause. This clause enumerated debts which were to be paid in priority to all other debts, and the fourth paragraph said that, in the event of the landlord's having distrained, "or having received any payment or undertaking in consideration of not so distraining" the preferential debts to which priority was given should be a first charge on the goods distrained on, or on the money so paid or payable. The Amendment was that the words quoted should be omitted so as to exempt the payment made or undertaking given to the landlord from any claim in respect of the debts to which priority is given.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 1, sub-section 4, line 18, to leave out ("or having received any payment or undertaking in consideration of not so distraining.")—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. As
  854
  far as it went it would defeat the object of the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUEsupported the Amendment, describing this paragraph of the clause as one of those gushing proposals which would defeat their object and operate injuriously, as the Usury Laws did. Indeed, the paragraph with those words in it was a provision for promoting evictions by depriving a landlord of the opportunity of showing consideration for a tenant, and punishing him if he did so.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 15.
  The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule) resolved in the negative.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY COURTS APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 297.)
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
COUNTY COURTS APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 297.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the principle of the Bill appeared to be correct, but in details considerable Amendments were required, and he did not intend to proceed with it to any further stage this Session. A few years ago an equity jurisdiction was given to the County Courts in Ireland; but the appeal from the County Courts under that jurisdiction was given, not to the Court of Assize, as was the case in Common Law appeals, but to the Chancery Division. The appeals to the Chancery Division were found to be expensive, and productive of delay and inconvenience; and the object of this Bill was to transfer the appeals from the Chancery Division to the Court of Assize, so as to have but one Court of Appeal. He believed that the principle of the Bill was a sound one.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): said, that the Bill seemed to him to raise a very important principle, and he could not assent to its being

  855
  affirmed without considering the matter fully. As the noble and learned Lord did not propose to proceed further with the Bill this Session, no harm would be done by reading it a second time, on the understanding that it did not bind them to affirm the principle of the Bill.
  Objection being raised,
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 4) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 4) BILL.

  (No. 299.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Crofter Commission was appointed under the Act of 1886 to decide upon fair rents and to deal with arrears. It was hoped, when the Act was passed, that a great many cases would be decided out of Court between landlords and crofters. The expectation, however, had not been realized, and in no case had an arrangement been come to out of Court. Throughout the crofter counties specified under the Act the number of applications made to the Commissioners, and still unheard, was very large indeed, and this state of affairs had given rise to great dissatisfaction in all quarters. The matter had been very strongly brought under his notice by proprietors and crofters alike, and also on behalf of the Judicial Authorities in various places, and he had received urgent communications asking that the Commissioners should hurry, as far as possible, with their work. After consulting with the Commissioners, he had, as far as he could, met the views of those who had desired to have their applications heard; but it was impossible that applications could be heard in very many instances, because the Crofter Commissioners could not be in more places than one. The dissatisfaction was so great that it was clear that the work of the Commission must be expedited, and that could not be done except by Act of Parliament. The Act of 1886 appointed three Crofter Commissioners, and it was enacted that two should form a quorum. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the
  856
  Commissioners to divide their labours, and only one Court could be held at a time. The object of the Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time was to enable the three Commissioners to sit in separate Courts with the assistance of Assessors. By this means three Courts would be held instead of one, and the work would be greatly expedited. So many cases had already been heard that it was absolutely essential in the future that the decisions of the Commissioners as to rent and arrears should be carried out upon the same principle. All must be agreed that the principle upon which those decisions had been founded in the past must be acted upon in the future, and they might rest satisfied that the Commissioners were fully acquainted with that principle. Under the arrangement proposed in the Bill there was no occasion to alter the principle upon which decisions had hitherto been made. He should like to bear testimony to the enormous amount of labour which the Commissioners had given to the work which they had had to perform; but they could not possibly, without assistance, get through the business which was still before them. He might add that the request for additional assistance had not come from one section only, but from all parties who were interested in the matter. Under the circumstances, he had no hesitation in asking their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Motion agreed to; Committee negatived; Then (Standing Order No. XXXV. having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ACT, 1888, REPEAL BILL.
(The Lord Denman.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ACT, 1888, REPEAL BILL.

  (No. 282.) FIRST READING.
  Order of the Day for the First Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  Objected to; and,
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  LORD DENMAN: What!
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): The Not-Contents have it.
  LORD DENMAN: I demur, my Lords, to the justice of this proceeding.
  LORD HALSBURY: Order, order! The House has already decided, and the noble Lord is not in Order.
  LORD DENMAN: I did not hear the Question put, and I hope my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) will not persist in taking advantage of my deafness. I have been 34 years a Member of this House, and it seems that I am entitled to speak in every month except October, but I maintain that I am entitled to be heard now. I maintain there is a precedent for the course which I am adopting. When this County Council Electors Bill was presented an idea got into the head of the Prime Minister that no Bill could be presented and repealed in the same year. In 1753 the Duke of Newcastle presented a Bill for the naturalization of the Jews. It was supported by Lord Chatham, and repealed the very same year. There have been very great defects found in the whole framing of these Bills relating to local government. They have been carried in a most irregular manner, through both Houses of Parliament, and I earnestly hope that a different system will prevail, or the liberties of England are gone.

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SWEATING SYSTEM.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to move—
  "That the Select Committee on the Sweating System have power to employ a gentleman for the purpose of visiting the various districts in the United Kingdom where it had been alleged that the sweating system existed, and examining into the evidence proposed to be submitted to the Select Committee,"
  said, it depended altogether on their Lordships whether or not they re-appointed the Select Committee, which they appointed at the commencement of the Session, on the sweating system. He earnestly hoped they would do so; in fact, he assumed that they would. Their Lordships could readily understand that in an inquiry of this kind there was some considerable difficulty as to the nature and character of the evidence
  858
  to be received. It was impossible for the Committee to undertake that matter for themselves when the evidence which should come before them was in the Provinces. It was quite impossible, without the aid of a Committee clerk, to obtain any information as to the nature of the evidence to be brought before the Committee from long distances. Their Lordships' Committee, therefore, considered that to enable them to carry on their work, if they were re-appointed next Session, it was essential that they should have some assistance in that matter. The Home Office had placed at the disposition of the Committee a gentleman who was well capable of doing the work, and there was, he believed, no difficulty in the matter, except the technical one that the Committee itself had no power to appoint this gentleman. Therefore it was that he came to their Lordships with this Resolution.
  Moved, "That the Select Committee on the Sweating System have power to employ a gentleman for the purpose of visiting the various districts in the United Kingdom where it has been alleged that the sweating system exists, and examining into the evidence proposed to be submitted to the Select Committee."—(The Karl of Dunraven.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): said, that if any technical difficulty existed in that matter, Her Majesty's Government were quite willing and desirous that it should be removed—that was to say, if it was necessary for the Committee to have any authority from the House to employ a gentleman for the purpose mentioned. Her Majesty's Government were as anxious as the noble Earl was that there should be a thorough inquiry into the question referred to the Select Committee; but he was informed that it would be sufficient if the Committee applied to the Treasury for leave to appoint the gentleman alluded to for the purpose indicated in the Motion. If, however, the case was otherwise, the Government, as far as they were concerned, would be happy to support the noble Earl.
  On Question, agreed to.

  SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to the salmon fisheries of Scotland, and to establish a close time for trout and char in

  859
  Scotland—Was presented by The Lord Ker (M. of Lothian); read 1a (No. 309.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.