Sitting of 16 August 1889

QUESTION'S.

  IRELAND—CAPTAIN PRESTON, R.M.
  Mr. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Captain Preston, R.M., at Keady, County Armagh, on July 25th, refused an adjournment of certain cases for one month, and on application of District Inspector Starkie fixed the cases for August 8th; and that when the parties had gone to great expense and appeared in Court on August 8th, no Resident Magistrate was present, nor was the District Inspector present to prosecute; and, if he can state the reason of the absence of the Resident Magistrate and District Inspector?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I understand that on the application of the District Inspector the cases of assault on Wallace and others were adjourned by Captain Preston, R.M., and two Local Magistrates to the following Keady Petty Sessions, the 8th inst., on the ground that Wallace, who was injured, was unable to attend. There was an application to adjourn for a month and another for six weeks. The fact that the case was not proceeded with on the 8th was in no way due to no Resident Magistrate being present, as the Court was fully constituted by the attendance of two Local Magistrates, but solely to the unavoidable absence of
  1456
  the District Inspector who, as was explained in the Petty Sessions Court on the 8th inst., was in Dublin attending as a witness in a case of manslaughter.

  THE STAFF OF THE ARMY.
  COLONEL COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that any officers of the Army Service Corps, unqualified by either Staff College certificates or by service on the staff in the field, have recently been appointed to important posts on the Staff of the Army, tenable hitherto only by officers qualified as above; and whether it is intended to abolish the Staff College qualifications for other branches of the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: Officers of the Army Service Corps have not been appointed to any staff positions of which the duties have hitherto been reserved for combatant officers with Staff College certificates or service in the field. The distinction maintained hitherto between supply, transport, and finance duties and general staff duties has been abolished, and a portion of the former are now open to competent officers with the usual staff qualifications; but it is necessary that some or most of these appointments should be filled by men who have previously performed similar duties departmentally. Beyond providing for the changes thus indicated, it is not contemplated to alter the regulations affecting staff appointments.

  IRELAND—LAND LAW AMENDMENT.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a meeting of the labourers and cottiers of County Armagh, held at Derrycorr on 3rd August, in which, as reported in the Lurgan Times, they requested the Government to have the Land Law amended, so that whatever terms were given farmers in purchasing their holdings should also be conceded to the labourers for the purchase of their cottages and plots of garden, repayable in 49 years at four per cent interest; and, if the Government would consider the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are not aware of any meeting of the kind referred to in the question, and, moreover, I do not see that I can add anything to the reply which I gave to a question of the hon. Member on the 26th of July.
  MR. BLANE: All I ask is that the right hon. Gentleman will give to the labourers the same terms as those which are given to the farmers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must himself see that it would be premature for the Government to pledge themselves in regard to the provisions of any Bill which they may hereafter bring before the House.
  MR. BLANE: I merely ask that the same facilities should be given by the Government to the labourers as those which are given to the farmers. I do not ask for more.

  BODMIN GAOL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that, on Wednesday, 3rd July, George Symons, aged 22, of Parc-Bracket Street, Camborne, after serving a month's imprisonment with hard labour in the Cornwall County Gaol, Bodmin, on a charge of day poaching, had suffered so much from the prison treatment that he was in a semi-unconscious state when brought home, and died on the following Monday; that he was much emaciated when released; that his own clothes, which he had to resume on leaving the gaol, were in such a damp condition that they were covered with blue mould; that no inquest was held, a certificate of death from inflammation being supplied by the medical attendant at Camborne; and -will the Government order any inquiry?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: It appears that George Symons, on admission to prison, was pronounced fit to undergo his sentence of one month's imprisonment; that during his imprisonment he made no complaint to the Acting Governor or to the prison doctor; nor, indeed, when he was seen by them the day before his discharge. He left the prison on Wednesday, July 3rd, in good spirits; and
  1458
  the senior officer reports that his clothes were clean and dry, and that he made no complaint as to their condition. His death on the following Monday was, according to two local newspapers, attributed to excessive eating. No grounds for an inquiry seem to exist in this case.
  DR. KENNY: Does it not follow that if excessive eating followed the release from prison the man must have been starved in gaol?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRELAND—DERRY GAOL.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if John M'Gee, who died at Dunfanaghy, County Donegal, on his way home from Londonderry Prison, was suffering from typhus fever a considerable time before his discharge, and if his case had been reported to the Lord Lieutenant as being in danger of death before his discharge; if any Report were made that his health was impaired by the imprisonment, and what was the nature of the Reports sent, and the date of each; what was the date of his transfer to the prison hospital; how long was he there, and under what circumstances was he sent back to his cell; how long was he in his cell suffering from fever; and, will the Government lay the Medical Reports of the case upon the Table of the House?
  MR. M'ARTHURput a question on the same subject, and added that he had received a telegram from Derry informing him that the prison doctor had stated that Mr. Conybeare was suffering from skin disease.
  DR. KENNY: With reference to the cases of M'Gee and Seyes, two of the Falcarragh prisoners recently confined in Derry Gaol, and who have died since their liberation, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state the dates on which they first complained to the prison doctor, and the entries, if any, made in his report book by the doctor as to their respective cases; whether they were removed from their cells to prison hospital; and, if so, the dates on which they were removed, and whether the cells they had occupied were flagged or boarded, the diseases from which they were respectively suffering when

  1459
  they were removed to hospital, if they were so removed, and the dates of their liberation; whether he can give similar particulars concerning the case of Diver, an untried prisoner from Gweedore recntly liberated in ill-health; and, whether inquests have yet been held on John M'Gee and Michael Seyes, and, if so, he can state the findings of the juries in each case?
  MR. SEXTON: I have also to ask the Chief Secretary what account he can now give of the sanitary state of Derry Prison, and of the circumstances of the illness and death of John M'Gee and Michael Seyes, and the illness of Patrick Driver, all tenants imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and lately released from Derry Prison; whether M'Gee was twice in the gaol hospital during his imprisonment, and on each occasion was sent back to ordinary treatment against his protest, and on the second occasion was too weak to dress himself; whether the prison records of his illness will be laid upon the Table; whether, at the time of his release, M'Gee was in a delirious condition, and fell down on being deprived, by the intervention of a warder, of assistance in walking out of prison; whether M'Gee died within 48 hours after his release; and, whether emergency men in charge of an evicted farm at Falcarragh, his native place, hoisted the Union Jack on hearing of his death?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The results now received of the special investigation made by the medical member of the General Prisons Board show that Londonderry Prison has, for at least a period of 20 years, enjoyed a remarkable immunity from the principal zymotic diseases. There has been no case of fever among the prisoners during that period, nor is there any now. A thorough examination of the sanitary arrangements has satisfied Dr. O'Farrell that there is nothing in the present condition of the prison which could be in any way injurious to health. From references contained in the questions, some hon. Members appear to be under the impression that the prisoners specially named in the question were under sentences imposed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act. That is not the case. M'Gee
  1460
  and Seyes were convicted before a jury at the last Spring Assizes. Diver was an untried prisoner. Two prisoners convicted under that Act were recently discharged—namely, the Rev. Mr. Stephens, on the ground of ill-health (though he himself is understood to have protested that he was well), and F. Kelly, on the conclusion of his sentence. The prisoner M'Gee was in the prison hospital from the 1st of June till the 3rd of July, when he was transferred to his cell, as his further detention in hospital was not considered necessary. He was, however, still carefully looked after by the doctor in his cell, and, getting worse, he was again placed in hospital on the 24th of July, and detained there until the expiration of his sentence on the 8th of August, when he was discharged on his own demand. The doctor was most unwilling that he should go out. He specially warned him that he was not fit to travel, and he offered to get him into the County Infirmary if he was unwilling to remain in the prison hospital. M'Gee, however, insisted on going away, and refused to use the van provided for him, and, on his way home, travelled 20 miles on an outside car in inclement weather. An inquest in his case is proceeding. Seyes was discharged on the 13th of last month. He was then recovering from an attack of pneumonia of one lung, and through the recommendation of the medical officer, the remission of the remainder of his sentence had been granted, as it was believed that his recovery would be more rapid in his native air. At the time when the order for discharge was received, however, the medical officer thought that the prisoner was not fit to travel, and he urged him not to go. The prisoner, however, insisted on taking his discharge, and there was no power to detain him. He is said to have since died; but whether of fever or some independent cause is not known to the authorities. Diver, an untried prisoner, awaiting his trial on a charge of murder, was committed to prison on the 28th of February, 1889, and between that date and the 29th of July he was treated in hospital on three different occasions for spitting and passing blood. On the 29th of July he was discharged on bail on this ground, and

  1461
  he is believed to be making a good recovery. There does not appear to be any reason to apprehend any risk of contagion in the case of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, or any other prisoner.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information similar to that conveyed in the telegram to me—namely, that the doctor of the prison has reported that Mr. Conybeare is suffering from skin disease, and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made?
  MR. SEXTON: There is one part of my question which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered, whether on each of the two occasions that Mr. M'Gee was sent back from the hospital to his cell against his protest; whether, on the second occasion, he was too weak to dress himself; whether the prison records about his illness will be laid on the Table; whether at the time of his release he was in a delirious condition, and whether he fell to the ground when deprived of the support of the warders on leaving the gaol? I would further ask how it happens that Seyes and Magee were so ill as not to be fit to travel; whether Magee died in 48 hours after his release; and if an Emergency man did not raise the Union Jack at one of the houses at Falcaragh upon hearing of Magee's death?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no truth in regard to the Union Jack being raised. I believe that Magee died owing to an illness contracted through travelling on an outside car during inclement weather against the doctor's orders. I do not believe Magee was in a delirious condition when released, and there is no truth in the statement that when he was sent from the hospital to his cell he protested against that course being taken. The confidential Report of Dr. O'Farrell has been received, and I will consider the desirability of placing it on the Table.
  MR. SEXTON: Also the prison records.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think they will be required in addition to Dr. O'Farrell's Report.
  MR. M'ARTHUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received a telegram about the health of the hon. Member for Camborne?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no telegram. All these things are carefully watched, and I have no doubt that I shall receive full information.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Government have been obliged to discharge four prisoners from Derry Gaol in the last three weeks owing to the condition of the building, and have not two of them died, the others being so seriously ill that they have been admitted to bail, although bail was previously refused? Under such circumstances, I request that an independent medical man may be sent to the gaol to investigate the condition of the prison.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet read Dr. O'Farrell's Report. I see no reason for ordering an inquiry, although no doubt there are circumstances which are still deserving of examination. But it has been found that the illness in each of the cases spoken of was not due either to the medical treatment or to the unsanitary condition of the prison itself.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: One of the prisoners who is now dead was, prior to his imprisonment, as fine a young man as could be found in the whole country. It is precisely a similar case as that of the man Larkin, whose father was unable to recognise him after he had been in prison.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there are any grounds for an independent inquiry. No doubt there have been these unfortunate cases. Occasionally things of this kind must occur, but the death rate in Derry Gaol is much lower than the death rate in Derry town.
  DR. KENNY: The fact that the death rate in the gaol is lower than that in the town does not amount to much. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered a portion of my question— namely, whether the cells are boarded or flagged. Will he give us the Reports to the Prison Board upon these cases, from beginning to end?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I can see my way to lay the Reports upon the Table I will do so. They contain all the information the hon. Gentleman requires.

  ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CLAIM ON INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of T. M. Bonar, of Staplehill, Bristol, who in October, 1888, insured himself against accidents with five different Insurance Companies, and in May, 1889, made claims against each of them for a broken leg alleged to have resulted from an accident sustained in Glasgow; and whether it is the case that two eminent Glasgow surgeons who examined the case deponed that Bonar's leg had never been broken, and that Dr. Campbell, the medical attendant whose name was appended to each of the five certificates sent in in support of the different claims, has deponed that his purported signature is in every case a forgery; and, if so, if he would state the grounds on which the Crown Office directed the public prosecutor at Glasgow not to bring forward the case for trial?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: My attention has been called to this case. It is the fact that an eminent surgeon who saw Bonar's leg was of opinion that it had not been broken, but he thought the injury sufficiently serious to justify the use of splints, and he granted a certificate upon which one of the Insurance Companies made a grant of £6 a week for two weeks. As this was the only sum of money actually obtained from any of the companies, and as it was paid upon the certificate which I have mentioned, and not upon the strength of any of those to which Dr. Campbell's name was improperly appended, Crown counsel were of opinion that a conviction would not be obtained, and that the circumstances, although highly irregular, were not such as to justify a prosecution.

  NUISANCE AT KENSINGTON.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the existence of a nuisance caused to some of the residents in the parish of Kensington by the burning of bricks in certain fields outside that parish; and whether Her Majesty's Government will
  1464
  promote or support legislation, with the view of making such nuisances removable by law?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State's attention has been called, by a memorial submitted to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Kensington, to the existence of the alleged nuisance. Apart from such remedies as may be open to individuals for injury to private rights, the abatement of nuisances in the Metropolis is committed by Statute to Local Authorities, such as Vestries and District Boards, and the Secretary of State has no power to initiate proceedings, except where the nuisance complained of amounts to smoke nuisance within the meaning of the Act of 1853, or where it is made to appear to the Secretary of State that the Local Authorities fail to proceed actively and impartially in noticing and suppressing nuisances. No pledge can be given as to legislation.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: In consequence of the answer of my hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that early next Session I will ask leave to bring in a Bill to deal with such nuisances affecting the Metropolis.

  IRELAND—LAW AND POLICE— PAYMENT OF WITNESSES.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaint has reached him that Francis Sherlock, of Cootehill, who was a witness in a case against John Glennan and others on the 11th and 12th October, 1888, at Cavan, received a letter from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace to the effect that he had paid a cheque for 10s. 6d. not to Sherlock but to Buchanan; and whether this man will get paid his expenses out of pocket and loss of time also?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears that Buchanan forged the names of Goss and Sherlock to two cheques of 10s. 6d. each, which had been issued in payment of their expenses as witnesses, and entrusted to him for transmission to them. Buchanan was subsequently sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the forgery. In the circumstances, the Crown Solicitor was authorised on the 30th July to issue further cheques to Messrs. Goss and Sherlock for these amounts, which, I presume, they have

  1465
  before this received. Mr. Sherlock put forward a further claim for expenses and loss of time, which, however, it was found, upon inquiry, could not be sustained as a charge against public moneys.

  THE DUBLIN AND WEXFORD TRAINS.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is a fact that the trains to and from Dublin and Wexford stop at a station only one mile from Newcastle, and that no letters are sent either way, but that the letters are carried on foot seven miles to Newtown Kennedy, at a very great loss of time and inconvenience to the traders; and, whether he will arrange that in future letters be lifted at Newcastle Station by the train service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The hon. Member is correct in stating that the trains to and from Dublin and Wexford stop at a station which is about one mile from the Newcastle Post Office, and that no letters to and from this office are conveyed by these trains. The correspondence is conveyed on foot between the Newcastle and Newtown Mount Kennedy offices, which are three miles apart. The morning delivery of letters commences at Newcastle at 7 a.m., and no improvement in this respect is needed. The day mail letters are delivered at 5 p.m., at the same time as the collection for the night mail takes place. An acceleration could be made iii the hour of delivering the day mail letters, and a later hour for posting letters in the evening could be granted, if the train service were utilised; but the amount of correspondence is far too small to justify the additional expenditure which this alteration would involve.

  BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having in view the hardship inflicted upon small landowners by their being driven to the expense of opposing before a Parliamentary Committee the inclusion within a borough boundary of land of a rural character, he will make provision that the attention of Parliament shall be directed to any future case in which it is proposed to
  1466
  obtain an extension of the boundary of a borough by a Local Bill, instead of by application for a Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1888?"
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: In the case of Bills promoted by Local Authorities dealing with matters under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board the Board, in accordance with the Standing Order, submit Reports to the Committees to which the Bills are referred. Attention would be drawn in these Reports to any proposal to extend a borough by Local Bill.

  BELTED CRUISERS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any truth in the statement of the Times correspondent of August 10th—namely,
  "I must, however, call attention to the fact that in one of the belted cruisers of our squadron if the sheet anchor is let go there is absolutely no means of weighing it, as a six-inch wire hawser has been supplied in lieu of a chain cable. Nautical men will know what this means. And, further, if there is steam on the main engines it is also on all the auxiliary engines, as no stop-valves are fitted. Fires had to be put out the other day in order to make good a leak in a joint of the steam pipe of the capstan engine;"
  and, if so, whether he will ascertain who is to blame for such shortcomings?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The allowance of chain cables at present supplied to the belted cruisers is 350 fathoms, and if proved to be necessary that amount will, after the manœuvres, be increased. The other statement with regard to the absence of stop-valves has evidently been made under a misapprehension, as there is a separate system for the auxiliary and main engines, and in no case would it be necessary to draw the fires in order to repair a leak in the steam pipe of the capstan engine.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS IN NEWRY.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Stephen M'Cann, of Lislea, Camlough, County Armagh, and 25 other tenants on the

  1467
  estate of the late Mr. Edward Quin, of Newry, bad their applications for having a fair rent fixed dismissed by Mr. D. Tuckey, B.L., at Newry Land Commission, and that, in the judgment, the Commissioners stated that the leases were dated between the years 1826 and 1832, the period covered by the two subletting Acts, and that the cases were dismissed owing to a defect in the Act of last Session, which did not embrace leases which contained no non-alienation clause; and, whether the Government would amend the law so as to cover the leases mentioned?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have introduced a Bill—the Leaseholders Bill—to remedy this defect, and that when I have repeatedly endeavoured to move the Second Reading, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have always objected, and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, will the Government give facilities for the progress of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that it is the fact that the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers does deal with the subject raised in the question of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Blane), and my impression is that it has been objected to by hon. Gentlemen sitting in that quarter of the House. In reply to the question on the Paper, I may say that I have received no Report in regard to the cases mentioned. Personally, I should be extremely glad if the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) were to become law.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSFER OF POWERS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Provisional Order Government Departments (transfer of Powers) Bill is to be abandoned in consequence of the Report of the Select Committee; if a similar Bill will be introduced next year; and, if not, how the Government propose to carry out the undertaking they gave last year to enlarge the powers of County Councils by transferring to them certain duties of the Government Departments?
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government have, by introducing the Government Departments (Transfer of Powers) Provisional Order Bill, fulfilled the undertaking under which they came last Session, and I regret that the Report of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred precludes the Bill being proceeded with this year. No enlargement of the powers of the County Councils can take place without legislation, and I cannot give any assurance as to the legislation that may be proposed next Session.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to give notice that on a future day I will call attention to this subject.

  THE ULSTER AND TYRONE CANAL.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the agreement of transfer, in accordance with "The Ulster and Tyrone Navigation Act, 1888," has been ratified; and, if so, when; whether the Company has yet received any money from the Treasury; and, if so, how much whether the Company has yet executed any repairs or performed any work on these canals; and, if so, to what extent; and, whether in addition to the grant the Company has obtained or is seeking for a loan from the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: 1. The agreement for the transfer of the Ulster and Tyrone Canals to the Lagan Navigation was completed on the 8th March and the transfer has been carried out. 2. The Company has commenced the work of repair, and has, I am informed, done about 25 per cent of the contemplated work. 3. The Board of Public Works has advanced to the Company out of the Parliamentary Grant the sum of £1,500. No loan has been or is in process of negotiation at present.

  FOREIGN OFFICE LIST.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the publication known as the Foreign Office List, with a large royal crown upon it, is a Government publication or is subsidised by the Government and edited by a Government official; if so, whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned its being made up in great part of trade

  1469
  advertisements, and mixed and interleaved with such advertisements, so as to render it very troublesome to find indexes, maps, &c, hid among the copious advertisements of patent medicines, insurance offices, and other matters?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The Foreign Office List is not an official publication, and is not subsidised by Her Majesty's Government. It purports to be edited by a member of the Civil Service. There is only one page of advertisements interleaved immediately before the maps and one before the Index at the end of the book.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Have the publishers any authority for putting the mark of the crown upon this publication?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  HYDERABAD—BRITISH RESIDENT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Howell, having been appointed to the Hyderabad Residency at an exceptionally difficult crisis, and having acted in the capacity of Resident to the satisfaction of the Government for 18 months or upwards, has lately been removed because he differed from the Nizam's Ministers in regard to the grant of fresh concessions to the parties in London who obtained the Deccan Mines Concessions in collusion with the Nizam's representative; whether the Secretary of State in Council has disapproved of the arrangement so made, and referred it back to India; and whether, under these circumstances, care will be to maintain the independence of judgment of the British Resident?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: Mr. Howell was never appointed Resident at Hyderabad. He was in March, 1888, directed to officiate as Resident during the absence of the late incumbent of that office, and he continued in the temporary post until a successor was appointed. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the non-appointment of Mr. Howell to the permanent office was due to any difference of opinion with the Nizam's Ministers in respect to the Deccan Mining Company. The Secretary of State has
  1470
  not disapproved of the arrangements made. He has no doubt that the Viceroy, in selecting an officer for the important post of Resident at Hyderabad, has exercised the discretion vested in him with due regard to the public interest.

  UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report in the Daily News of 26th June of an inquest held at the Coroner's Court, High Street, Borough, on the body of a child named James Abraham Smith, when evidence was given to the effect that the child had been attended and prescribed for by an unqualified medical practitioner; that a qualified practitioner who had been called in and had declined to give a certificate, deposed to making a post mortem examination, which showed that death was due to narcotic poisoning; that a certificate was afterwards signed by another doctor who had never seen the child, but stated the cause of death to be dentition and convulsions; and, whether the Registrar General proposes to take any action in the matter?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiry of the Registrar General and am informed that the death of a child named Smith was registered on the certificate of Mr. Carr, a duly registered medical practitioner, who stated on his certificate that he had attended the child during its last illness, and that the cause of death was, to the best of his knowledge, "Dentition. Convulsions." From information received by the local registrar from other sources, he thought that the case was of a suspicious character, and sent information to the coroner. An inquest was held and a verdict found that the cause of death was narcotic poisoning, but whether caused by an overdose of prescription given by an unqualified practitioner there was not sufficient evidence to show. The coroner requested the registrar to inform the Registrar General that Mr. Carr had certified that he had attended the child, although he had in fact never seen it, the child having been attended by Mr. Carr's unqualified assistant. The Registrar General has asked to be furnished with a copy of the depositions.

  1471
  He has not yet received them, and he has therefore at present no evidence on which to take action.

  THE ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Dublin Society to whom in 1888 and 1889 sums of £5,000 were paid for the encouragement of the breeding of horses and cattle in Ireland, out of the share of the Probate Duties allotted to Ireland, is a body subject to any proper control; whether he will state how many bulls have stood for service under this Grant in the mountainous districts of Ireland where the poorer portion of the population reside; whether in such cases, if any, he will state the name of the place where the bull stood, and the breed to which he belonged; whether it is a fact that no stallion has stood under this Grant in the County Kerry either in 1888 or 1889; and, whether the County Kerry has been excluded from the scheme proposed for stallions in 1890; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for this systematic exclusion of the County Kerry from the benefits of this Grant as regards stallions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet received a Report upon this question, and must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to defer it.

  THE DUTIES OF THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at a Court which was held at Kings-court, County Cavan, on the 7th instant, presided over by Messrs. A. M. Harpur and H. Turner, Resident Magistrates, where Margaret Fitzsimons, of Tullybrick, was prosecuted for having taken forcible possession of the house from which her husband was evicted on 11th April last, and Sergeant Robert Backhouse, Royal Irish Constabulary, Kings-court, deposed that on the day following the eviction he, on behalf of Samuel Eatkins, who had taken the farm, offered Mrs. Fitzsimons £15, if she would leave the premises; whether it is part of the duty of the police to act as agent for persons like Eatkins, and to facilitate their getting possession of evicted farms; and, whether he is aware that Mrs.
  1472
  Fitzsimons had Samuel Eatkins summoned for assaulting and threatening to shoot her, but that these summonses, having been postponed five times at Petty Sessions on the intervention of the police, pending the prosecution of Mrs. Fitzsimons, were finally dismissed by Mr. A. M. Harpur, Resident Magistrate, on the ground that Mrs. Fitzsimons was a trespasser, and that therefore Eatkins was entitled to take the law in his own hands and to assault and threaten to shoot her?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the case that Sergeant Backhouse acted on behalf of Eatkins in the matter. Eatkins when reporting to the police that the farm had been retaken forcible possession of mentioned that he would gladly give Mrs. Fitzsimons £10 or £15 to leave quietly. The sergeant when on patrol duty at the farm stated during a friendly conversation with Mrs. Fitzsimons that it would be better for her if she left quietly getting at the same time this sum of money than to have to leave eventually without it. Mrs. Fitzsimons summoned Eatkins for an alleged assault. The case was postponed five times, at first on the application of Eatkins' solicitor on the ground that the Crown were considering a case of forcible possession against Mrs. Fitzsimons, and that it would be almost impossible to separate the two cases, and at the end of July Mrs. Fitzsimons further charged Eatkins with threatening to shoot her. All these cases were heard before Mr. Harper at Petty Sessions on 7th August. He decided that there was no evidence of the alleged assault or attempted shooting, and that Mrs. Fitzsimons was a trespasser. He did not say that Eatkins was entitled to take the law into his hands.

  THE 3RD LEICESTERSHIRE REGIMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 3rd Battalion Leicestershire Regiment, at their last annual training, was obliged to go to Stratford-on-Avon for its musketry course, owing to the refusal of the Volunteer Authorities at Ashby-de-la-Zouch to let the regiment in question use the ranges at Ashby, which are hired by the Volun-

  1473
  teers; and that the cost of transport of the 3rd Leicestershire Regiment from Leicestershire to Stratford-on-Avon and back exceeded £240; whether it is a fact this refusal also extends to the 17th Regimental District Depôt; and, whether, if this is so, the War Office will consider the advisability of providing a range for the 17th Regimental District Depôt, and the 3rd Leicestershire Regiment, which will be within reasonable distance of their headquarters?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The range at Ashby is private property, and the owner will not permit its use by the Regular troops and the Militia. The 3rd Battalion Leicestershire Regiment was, therefore, sent for musketry to Stratford-on-Avon as the nearest range available. Every effort has been made, hitherto without success, to obtain ground for a range nearer the headquarters of the regimental district.

  THE TEMPLETON AND HOPE ESTATES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large number of the tenantry on the Templeton and Hope estates in the Castleblayney Union have had applications to have a fair rent fixed listed for hearing by the Land Sub-Commission for nearly two years, and which have not yet been heard; whether he is aware that the landlords of these estates are issuing ejectments against these tenants, with the purpose of depriving them of the right to have fair rents fixed; and whether he will cause the Land Commission to promptly afford facilities for hearing the cases of these tenants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have not yet received a Report I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question.

  ORANGEMEN AND CATHOLICS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Saturday evening, the 3rd instant, between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., an Orange fife and drum band from Ballymena stopped opposite the Roman Catholic church in the town of Antrim, and there, surrounded by a large crowd, obstructed the thoroughfare and played
  1474
  Party tunes, including "Kick the Pope," while the priests and people were at their devotions in the church; that, when the sergeant of police ordered them to move away, a member of the band used most insulting language and brandished a drum stick in the sergeant's face; and that the band, on going away, began to curse the Pope and make use of other insulting language in the presence of the police; whether this same band misconducted themselves in Antrim on another occasion within the last three years, when the police were chased into their barracks; whether any, and what, steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of this conduct and to protect the Catholic people from insult when attending devotions in their church; and whether he can state if there is any Roman Catholic holding the Commission of the Peace within the Petty Sessions district of Antrim, and, if not, why some of the eligible Catholics living there are not appointed Magistrates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the Constabulary Report received in the matter it would appear that the facts are altogether exaggerated in the question. So far as the police are aware, there was no Divine Service going on in the chapel. The parish priest was observed at the chapel door and afterwards at his house, and he did not inform them that there was any service going on. A drummer did shake his drumstick at the sergeant, but the band do not appear to have cursed anybody or used insulting language. It is not the case that this band ever chased the police into their barracks or committed any breach of the peace. The police will at all times take every possible step to prevent any interruption to Divine Service. There appears to be one Roman Catholic Magistrate who has attended occasionally at the Antrim Petty Sessions. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland is always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified Roman Catholics who may be recommended to him for appointment to the Commission of the Peace by the Lieutenant of the County.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that on a recent occasion when a Nationalist band defended themselves against an attack by the crowd, the bandsmen were all summoned? In this

  1475
  case it appears that the band defied the police.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information.

  CATTLE DISEASE.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain if he can say whether the Lord President of the Council has received a copy of a Report agreed to at a special meeting of the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, again inviting the Privy Council to re-consider their intention to permit the importation of animals from Holland without the safeguard of slaughter or quarantine, which has been insisted on as necessary for the exclusion of contagious disease since 1877; whether in view of his statement that footh-and-mouth disease existed in Schleswig-Holstein as lately as 16th July last, and of the admitted existence of footh-and-mouth disease in other parts of Germany and in Belgium, the Privy Council remain satisfied that Holland can, by means of existing regulations, offer reasonable security against the possible passage of contagion through the Netherlands to this country if no precautions whatever are taken at the ports; whether he can inform the House of the precise date at which the Privy Council became satisfied of the reasonable security of the Netherlands; and, whether, under existing circumstances and in the face of the alarm very generally felt in this country, he can hold out any hope of the revocation of the Order admitting Dutch animals, or will at all events assent to a further postponement of its excecution?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,: A letter has been received from the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the subject of the importation of animals from Holland without being subject to slaughter or quarantine. The Privy Council were satisfied at the date of the passing of the Animals Amendment Order on March 1 last that the Netherlands Government had complied with the provisions of the 5th schedule to the Act of 1878, paragraph 4, and having regard to the terms of the Act they felt that they had no option but to admit cattle from that country without being subject
  1476
  to slaughter or quarantine. Since that date nothing has occurred to alter the view their Lordships then took, and under the circumstances they do not propose to further suspend the operation of the Order.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: Arising out of the question may I ask whether, in view of the fact that foot-and-mouth disease exists not only in Germany but also in Belgium, attention will be called by the Privy Council to the Order of the 1st of March, at all events until the Board of Agriculture have considered the subject.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The Board of Agriculture will have to be guided by the same Act of Parliament as the Privy Council.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Vice Chamberlain whether, with reference to the detailed Return now in course of preparation relative to the cost of compensation for slaughter of animals in outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in the United Kingdom, he can state to the House the total sum accounted for as paid for compensation in England and Scotland respectively in each of the last three years, distinguishing the amount incurred in respect of diseased cattle, and cattle in contact with animals suffering from disease?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The following amounts were returned as having been paid as compensation for the slaughter of diseased and healthy animals in the years 1886, 1887, and 1888, but in some cases in the two former years the amount received by the Local Authorities for the sale of carcases was not deducted:—England, 1886, diseased, £ 14,641 2s. 3d.; healthy, £7,809 11s. 11d.—total, £22,450 14s. 2d.; 1887, diseased, £10,534 10s. 10d.; healthy, £7,209 0s. 9d.— total £17,743 11s. 7d.; 1888, diseased, £10,260 15s.; healthy, £37,176 16s. 10d.;—total, £47,437 11s. 10d., together £87,631 17s. 7d. Scotland, 1886, diseased, £6,299 5s. 2d.; healthy, £8,832 0s. 5d—total, £15,131 5s. 7d.; 1887, diseased, £10,863 14s. 4d.; healthy, £15,657 1s. 10d.—total, £26,520 16s. 2d.; 1888, diseased, £3,005 12s. 4d.; healthy, £20,512 12s. 3d.—total, £23,518 4s. 7d., together

  1477
  £65,170 6s. 4d. Total England and Scotland in the three years, £152,802 3s. 11d.

  THE COINAGE.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact that the Bank of England have been instructed not to issue any more half-sovereigns at present, but to put into circulation instead as many double florins and crowns as possible; and whether, taking into consideration the serious inconvenience likely to arise there from to farmers during harvest he will at once allow the usual issue of half sovereigns to take place?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: No, Sir; instructions have not been given to suspend the issue of half-sovereigns altogether, but I have requested the Bank of England to limit the issue of this most expensive coin as far as possible, and in consequence of the numerous complaints made in this House and elsewhere with regard to the difficulty of obtaining sufficient silver coin, I have urged the Bank to do their best to meet these complaints. The proportion of half sovereigns in circulation is immense. The remonstrance of my hon. Friend comes from the only quarter of the kingdom from which so far any murmurs have reached me. They have been stimulated by a circular from a private bank stating erroneously that I had altogether suspended the coinage of half-sovereigns. As to the question of inconvenience in the greater use of silver, I admit the possibility of somewhat greater trouble to bankers and employers; but, on the other hand, far from being inconvenient to those who receive the coin, in the great majority of cases one of the first things which the receiver of wages hast o do is to change the sovereign or half-sovereign which has been given him, and that change in many quarters of the country has not been readily procured. I understand that an employer of labour in the eastern counties said he wanted £2,000 in half-sovereigns every week. That is more than any single individual has a right to demand of that particular coin. The wear and tear of a half-sovereign is nearly as great as that of a whole one. The percentage of loss,
  1478
  therefore, is nearly double on it. There are supposed to be £20,000,000 in circulation of half-sovereigns—i.e., 40,000,000 of this coin. They may not circulate in equal proportions in all parts of the country; but the sum total seems to be much more than enough to perform the functions at present expected from this coin.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Have the Bank of England increased the circulation of double florins and double half-crowns, and will the right hon. Gentleman give directions to have the value of the coin stated on the reverse of either of those two coins, to obviate the difficulty which many persons experience in distinguishing between them?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There is practically the same difference between the four-shilling piece and the five-shilling piece in design as there is between the two-shilling piece and the half-crown, but no doubt the amount is not stated on either of the two coins. The matter has been brought to my attention, and if I could be sure that the circulation of this class of coin, which I believe to be not at all inconvenient to many of the working classes, would be increased by a change, I should be glad to consider the point.
  MR. BROADHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty that has been experienced in obtaining small silver coins?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have given an answer once or twice upon that point, but am glad to repeat it. There is a large stock of shillings and sixpences at the Bank of England. If they have not been circulated in the country so extensively as may have been desired, it has been because the bankers themselves did not pay them out to their customers. So far as the Mint is concerned there are large stocks of the coins, and the profit upon them is sufficient to make the Government desire to stimulate their circulation.

  THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state whether any, and what, classification prevails in the Postal Telegraph Service; whether the like classification prevails in all towns; and what

  1479
  appointments are properly described as of the first class?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member will find the classification of the telegraph staff fully set forth in a Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, ordered by the House to be printed on the 17th of June, 1881. The classification then approved applies to the central staff as well as to the staff in the provincial offices. Appointments which belong to the first class are those to which the highest class of duty appertains.

  THE 4TH HUSSARS.
  MR. LAFONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Island Bridge Barracks were duly handed over to the 4th Hussars on their arrival from Cork, and that the headquarters, recruits, and married men were settled there; if the Royal Barracks were too unhealthy for the 5th Dragoon Guards, why the 4th Hussars are to be removed there; and, if they are removed from Island Bridge, whether the expenses incurred by the married men will be repaid them?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The details of these removals are all arranged by the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, and I have not yet received a Report on the circumstances, and I would only now repeat what I said yesterday—that in the cavalry barracks in question there has been no recent case of fever nor any evidence of unhealthy condition.

  THE CRAWFORD CASE.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the indignation expressed by Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy and the Parsee community of Bombay at certain statements recently published in the Blue Book on the Crawford case; and whether any opportunity will be afforded to the author of those statements of publicly explaining them?
  SIR J. GORST: No representation on this subject has been made to Her Majesty's Government.

  THE BOMBAY-BURMA TRADING CORPORATION.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether sanction has been ac-
  1480
  corded by the Secretary of State to the concession of a monopoly in the working of the forests of Upper Burma to the Bombay-Burma Trading Corporation; and whether the Correspondence on this subject, with the text of the contracts or agreements between the Government of India and the Bombay-Burma Trading Corporation, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR J. GORST: The Bombay-Burma Trading Corporation were in possession of a monopoly, granted by the late King, at the time of the conquest of Burma. An agreement on the basis of the rights then possessed by the Corporation was made a year ago between the Corporation and the Secretary of State in Council. Papers on the subject, if moved for, will be laid on the Table.

  SEIZURE OF FISHING NETS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the seizure of five fishing nets belonging to Martin Kennedy and Lachlan Curry, fishermen, in Loch-in-daal, on the night July 23rd-24th, by Major Wise, a lessee of certain fishings in Islay; whether it is true, as stated, that the seizure of nets referred to took place half-a-mile beyond the protected line, and was consequently illegal; whether it is true that a fortnight after the seizure of the nets, Major Wise had not lodged any complaint with the criminal authorities, but retained the nets, and refused to deliver them to their owners; and, if, on inquiry, it appears that the appropriation and retention of the nets was illegal, in view of the frequency of similar treatment of fishermen by fishing tenants in the Highlands, he will instruct the Procurator Fiscal to institute proceedings in this case?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question until next week.

  THE MAILS TO THE NORTH.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received an excerpt from the Minutes of the meeting of the Magistrates and Town Council of Thurso on the unsatisfactory state of the conveyance of the mails to the North; whether it is

  1481
  the case that the mail trains have been two and three hours late for several weeks; and why the Postal Authorities have ceased sending the sorting van to Wick?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I beg to say that I have received a copy of the Minute of the Town Council of Thurso on the subject of the Mail Service, and it is now under consideration. I regret that it is the fact that since the beginning of this month the night mail train has been very late, and strong representations have been addressed to the Highland Railway Company. The principal cause appears to be the pressure of the traffic owing to the large number of passengers proceeding to the North for the shooting season. The sorting carriages never proceeded so far North as Wick. But it is true that the journey was shortened last year in connection with the arbitration with the railway company, the reason for curtailment being that the advantage derived from the longer journey was not sufficient to justify the large expenditure which the continuance of the previous arrangement seemed likely to involve.

  THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM OF DERRY —DERRY GAOL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that the sewerage system of Derry is a tide locked sewerage, and that the Corporation, although aware of the defects of this system, have deferred the question of the proper ventilation of the sewers indefinitely; also that the sewerage of the gaol runs into this defective sewerage of the city; and whether, inasmuch as the gaol is situated at the very summit level of the city, and necessarily becomes the receptacle of the sewer gases, which must rise up to it and escape through the ordinary sewer traps into the gaol, he will take steps to remedy this danger to the health of prisoners in this gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer this question until Tuesday, because before that date the Local Government Board inform me they will not be able to send a Report.
  In reply to Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I gather from the Report of Dr. O'Farrell that no danger need be entertained.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Seeing that the medical officer of the prison, Sir William Miller, is closely connected with the Corporation and that there is a distinct charge brought against the Corporation, is it not advisable that there should be a distinct medical investigation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must await the Report of the Local Government Board before I can answer that question.

  THE MACCLESFIELD SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Macclesfield Savings Bank, in which Mr. Andrews, the Actuary of the Manchester Savings Bank, advised the Actuary of the Macclesfield Bank as to the use and disposal of the separate surplus fund; whether the separate surplus fund of Trustee Banks, in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, can be drawn upon and used in the manner suggested; and, whether the Treasury will take steps to prevent the squandering and any misuse of the separate surplus funds of Trustee Banks, in the manner indicated in Mr. Andrew's letter, or otherwise?
  MR. GOSCHEN: My attention has been called to the whole of the able Report of the Commissioner to inquire into the affairs of the Macclesfield Savings Bank. Mr. Andrew's advice to the Actuary of the Macclesfield Savings Bank seems to consist of two parts. In so far as he recommends that the separate surplus fund should be used for building a new bank, if such new building was required by the increase of business, I do not think his advice is open to exception; but his further suggestion (if I rightly understand the letter) that the bank should increase its expenditure, not, as it seems, because greater experience was necessary, but because there happened to be money which he considered available for it, seems to me very regrettable. The nature of the purposes to which the

  1483
  separate surplus fund can be applied seems open to some doubt. I believe that the National Debt Commissioners have power, by means of the certificate required before any portion of the fund is paid over to any bank, to prevent any "squandering or misuse." But I agree with the Report of the Committee that those purposes should be more clearly defined by legislation.

  THE CASE OF SAMUEL HUNTER.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a Memorial from certain persons in the borough of Salford, praying for a remission or mitigation of the sentence passed on one Samuel Hunter for forgery and perjury; whether he will state the number of signatures to such Memorial, and what number of them were members of the Gas Committee, in connection with which frauds were discovered; whether he has given any reply to such Memorial; and, if so, what reply has been given; and, whether, before giving any reply, he will consent to lay upon the Table of this House a copy of the said Memorial, together with the names and descriptions of the persons who signed the Memorial?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Yes, Sir. Such a Memorial was received on the 13th inst. It is signed by 26 persons, among them being the Chairman of the Gas Committee, the Mayor of Salford, and several Aldermen and Councillors. No reply has yet been sent to the Memorial. It would be contrary to all precedent to lay a Memorial on a criminal case on the Table of the House.
  MR. HOWELL: Will the request of the memorialists be acceded to before a copy of the Memorial has been laid upon the Table?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: It would be contrary to precedent to lay a copy of the Memorial upon the Table of the House.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to give notice that if the Home Secretary accedes to the prayer of the Memorial I will call attention to the whole question, and ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider it.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASE IN THE INDIAN ARMY.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are in possession of any statistics from India relative to the alleged increase of contagious disease in the Indian Army since the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts; and whether he can give any information on the subject?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: So far as the British troops are concerned, the admissions for venereal disease have risen from a yearly ratio of 323 per 1,000 for the year 1887 to 560 per 1,000 for the first four months of 1889.
  In reply to Mr. Stuart (Shoreditch, Hoxton),
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid: The statistics are made out on the responsibility of the Medical Department.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Debate on the Cantonment Bill in the Legislative Council of India, on the 14th inst., is correctly reported in the London newspapers of the 15th inst.; whether General Chesney then stated that the suspension of the Contagious Diseases Act had resulted in an alarming increase of disease among soldiers; whether General Sir F. Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief, then stated that the percentage of soldiers upon the sick list had doubled since the suspension of the Act; and, whether the Cantonment Bill contains powers and provisions which will mitigate the prevalence of this disease and the sufferings caused by it?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has seen the reports in the Press of the Debate in the Legislative Council and has no reason to doubt the correctness of such reports. The Cantonment Bill contains provisions for mitigating the prevalence of all contagious diseases within Cantonments; and regulations for that purpose are now under the consideration of the Government of India.

  THE NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been

  1485
  called to a resolution passed by the Northumberland County Council to prevent any Member of the said Council from bringing forward a Motion for building abridge which may be required in his locality; and whether such a prohibition is legal and in accordance with the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888?"
  MR. RITCHIE: I have been in communication with the Clerk to the County Council of Northumberland, and am informed that no such resolution as that referred to in the question of the hon. Member has been passed by the County Council.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. Burt,
  MR. RITCHIEsaid: I believe that some resolution has been passed by the County Council, but if the hon. Member wishes for further information he had better put a question on the Paper.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix a day for the Indian Budget statement?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I am not in a position to name a day for the Indian Budget. It will be necessary in the first place to make considerable progress in Supply.

  THE CONDITION OF THE WESTERN COAST AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have received any Report from the Secretary for Scotland concerning his recent inquiries into the condition and needs of the population on the Western Coast and Islands of Scotland; and whether he is now prepared to state the intentions of the Government in reference to the provision of piers and harbours and of railway or other communication calculated to benefit the fishing industry in these districts?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have received a Report from the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the subject in question, and they will give that Report their most careful consideration during the Recess. They hope to be able to bring in a Bill next
  1486
  Session dealing with the subject on the same lines as those of the Piers and Harbours Bill dealing with Ireland.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Scotch Members on the subject before they make any proposal to the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. and learned Member will see that any proposal which is made must be made on the authority and responsibility of the Government. The Scotch Members will be afforded a full opportunity of expressing their opinion.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the Report be laid on the Table and circulated among the Members of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; it is a confidential Report.

  AN AUTUMN SESSION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will consider the advisability of a short adjournment before reaching the later autumn months; and, if so, whether the Scotch Votes will be taken before or after the adjournment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Member is the only Member of this House who desires that there should be an Autumn Session. I am sorry that I am not in a position to say when the remaining Scotch Votes will be taken, but certainly not in an Autumn Session.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will a fair notice be given when the Scotch Votes will be taken, so that the Scotch Members may have an opportunity of attending? Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that they shall not be taken again at a time when the House is indisposed to take any other business?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I presume that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy of the Votes and Proceedings of the House, and if he will look at it he will see when the Scotch Estimates are down.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: But a considerable number of Scotch Members are absent, and I wish to know if they will receive fair notice?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE FEMALE TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the Civil Service Commissioners have held no examination in Ireland of candidates for female telegraph service in the General Post Office since September 1888, when only three places were offered in Dublin, whereas several examinations have been held in London and Edinburgh since that date; and when the next examination in Ireland will take place?
  MR. RAIKES: The reason why no examination has taken place for female telegraphists, Dublin, since September, 1888, is that no vacancies have occurred since March, 1888, and the three successful candidates in the September, 1888, examination are still at the Postal Telegraph School, Dublin, waiting their turn for appointment. I am unable to state when it will be necessary to hold another examination.

PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [LORDS]
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Edward James Harland, Baronet, for the City of Belfast (Northern Division).

THE TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I ask leave to submit to you, Sir, a question relating to the Bill which stands first on the Order Paper to-day— namely, the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill. You are aware of the Amendments which it is proposed to introduce into this Bill, and I would ask you what is the practice and the rule of this House with respect to the introduction of Amendments of a very extensive character into a Bill during its passage through Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the authority which we all refer to on these occasions. I have here Sir Erskine May's book on Parliamentary Practice, in which it is stated that—
"When a Bill has been committed pro formâ it is not regular to introduce, without full explanation, Amendments of so extensive a character as virtually to constitute it a different
1488
Bill from that which has been read a second time by the House and committed. In 1856, the Partnership Amendment Bill having been committed pro formâ, it was extensively amended, but no Amendment was inserted which it was not clearly competent for the Committee to entertain; yet, when an objection was urged that it had become a new Bill, the Minister in charge of it, while denying the alleged extent of the Amendments, consented to withdraw the Bill. When the Amendments affect the principle of the Bill, the more regular and convenient course is to withdraw the Bill and present another."
That is what Sir Erskine May says. I observe that on the occasion here referred to Mr. Henley, a Member of great experience in the practice of this House, objected to the introduction of extensive Amendments affecting the principle of the Bill. Mr. Lowe said that—
"The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill should be rejected, on the ground that there had been an abuse of the forms of the House by the practical substitution of a new Bill."
Then Mr. Henley said that—
"He felt that the new clauses had essentially altered the character of the measure, and that much inconvenience would result if the principles of what was really a new Bill were discussed in Committee."
Accordingly that Bill was withdrawn, in order that a new Bill might be introduced. I would now ask you, Sir, kindly to say whether, when Amendments are of so extensive a character as practically to constitute a new Bill and to introduce essentially new principles into a Bill, it is not the rule and practice of this House that the Bill should be withdrawn, in order that a new measure may be introduced in its place?
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member was good enough to give me notice that he would put this question to me, and as a very important principle is involved I propose, with the leave of the House, to go fully into the matter. I will first cite two precedents which, if they do not bear immediately upon this question, certainly illustrate the principle involved in it—the precedents of 1873 and 1878. In 1873 the University Tests (Dublin) Bill was introduced, and after leave had been given the measure was very much changed—so changed that the Speaker, having been appealed to, held that the Bill then before the House was not the same Bill for which leave had been given, and that Bill was

1489
accordingly withdrawn. In 1878 there was another Bill, the Hypothec (Scotland) Bill. When the Order for the Second Reading was read, objection was taken that the Bill had been so transformed as virtually to amount to a new Bill, and the Speaker then from the Chair ruled that, inasmuch as the Bill was a different Bill from that for the introduction of which leave had been given, a new Bill ought to be substituted, and the leave of the House should be asked to introduce it. The House will be good enough to observe that those are two cases of objection taken before the Second Reading, when the alterations had been introduced on the sole authority of the Member who had introduced it, and not by a Committee of the House. But the measure now before us—namely, the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill— is in a different position, for it has got into Committee. If I correctly gather the feeling of the House, it is that I should give a ruling with reference to this particular Bill. I wish expressly to say that in answering before a question upon this subject I desired to safeguard, as I do now desire to safeguard, the rights and the jurisdiction of the Chairman of Committees. I do not think it is proper that an appeal should be made from his decision to mine, and the House must run the risk of any collision of opinion, which, however, I may say very respectfully I do not think is very likely to occur. I now come to the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman as a precedent—namely, the Partnership Amendment Bill of 1856. That Bill was committed pro formâ, and a great number of Amendments were proposed in Committee, which so changed the Bill as to transform it into an entirely new Bill. The objection was taken, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, by Mr. Henley that the Bill was entirely different, and that it would be inconvenient to discuss in Committee clauses the principles of which had not been affirmed at the stage of Second Reading. That, I think, is a most powerful and cogent argument. Now the present Bill, the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill, having been in Committee for some time, new clauses have been put down upon the Paper by the Government, and on comparing the Bill as it would stand with these new clauses embodied in it with the original
1490
Bill, that—namely, for the introduction of which leave was given, and which was read a second time, I am bound to say that I see a complete difference between them. In fact, nothing of the old Bill remains except the Saving Clause, the Interpretation Clause, and I think two or three other lines at most. An hon. MEMBER: "A line and a half;" and cries of "Order!"] In these circumstances, it seems to me that the Bill would assume such a shape that it would differ largely from that for the introduction of which leave was given. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what is the rule and practice of the House? I hope I am not afraid of taking responsibility upon myself; but in this case I do not wish to travel beyond the proper responsibility which attaches to me, and I express the practice of the House rather than the rule of the House, if I may distinguish between them. The practice of the House has unquestionably been, when a Bill has been so transformed, as in my opinion this Bill has been, that a new Bill should be introduced; that leave should be given to introduce it; and that the Second Reading stage should be gone through, when the general principles of the measure, as distinguished from its component clauses, can be affirmed. I express my opinion upon this point without the least hesitation, and I desire to affirm that opinion very strongly. Having said this much, I think I ought now to leave the matter in the hands of the House and the Government. I could not stop the Bill on the point of order as constituting a new Bill; but I do unhesitatingly affirm that the practice of the House has been in a case of this kind to withdraw the old Bill and then to introduce a new Bill in the amended form.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with great attention to the ruling which you, Sir, have now given on the question which has been addressed to you by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—a question arising out of the objection which was taken yesterday or the day before to our proceeding further with this Bill. I understand you to say that it would be contrary to the practice of this House that, in the circumstances in which we are placed, the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill in its present form should be further proceeded with. The first

1491
duty which I have to discharge in this House is to pay respect to any ruling which you may give from the Chair. It is with very great regret that I feel myself obliged in these circumstances to withdraw this Bill, which we had hoped to pass with the support of the great majority of the House. We were ready to agree to the changes proposed to be introduced into the Bill, although they would have undoubtedly altered very considerably the substance of a measure dealing with a question of great complexity and difficulty, and we certainly endeavoured to meet, as far as we possibly could, the reasonable objections of those who differed from us with regard to the course to be followed with a view to promote law and order in certain parts of Her Majesty's dominions. But, in the circumstances, there is only one course for me to pursue—namely, to move, with very great regret, that the Order for resuming the consideration of this Bill in Committee be discharged.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Order for resuming Committee on the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill be read and discharged and the Bill withdrawn."
SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand the object which I have in view. If the Government will now proceed with a new Bill in the form in which the Attorney General for the convenience of the House has drawn up those Amendments I, for my part, concur so entirely in the general principles of those Amendments—I am not speaking of all the details—that I will undertake to do all I can to assist the Government in passing such a Bill. The reason why I have objected to proceeding in the particular form of amending the old Bill is, first of all, because I believe—in fact, I may say I know—that considerable portions—not the whole, but considerable and important portions of the plan of the Government, portions of which I strongly approve, including the abolition of the power of distraint, could not have been introduced in the old Bill, and could only have been introduced in a new Bill. There are other portions, the portions that deal with the remission of the tithe in certain circumstances and the deduction from the rent to the landlord—those are parts of the Bill I think extremely important and valuable, and they could
1492
not have been proceeded with, in my opinion, under your ruling, Sir, which excluded the Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol, which was almost identical in its effect. If we are to go on with the old Bill and attempt to renew it "lock, stock, and barrel," we should make a mess of the whole concern. We should not be able to introduce any of the principles which the Government have desired to introduce, and the Paper would be in a state of chaos. What I desire is that the Government should introduce a clean Bill, if I may be allowed to call it so—such a Bill as that circulated in the form of the Amendments of the Attorney General. We can then consider that Bill and deal with it. It contains a principle which we on this side of the House approve of and have supported—namely, that the tithe shall be put upon the owner and not on the occupier. It contains a further principle, that the tithe shall be reduced when the rents and profits are not adequate to meet it. That is the principle we approve of and are prepared to support, and we also especially approve of the principle that in the future the power of distraint shall be abolished. These are three very valuable principles, but there is yet another principle in the proposed new Bill. There is the constitution for the first time of a universal Land Court for this country. The Government have proposed that the County Court should be appointed to inquire into and investigate rents, and to see what relation tithe bears to rent, and that if the rent is not adequate to meet the tithe, the tithe shall be proportionately reduced—that is, the Government propose to appoint a Land Court of Arbitration throughout the country to deal with all rents and all tithes. So valuable and, as some Gentlemen may think, so revolutionary a principle has probably never been introduced by any Government, not to say by a Conservative Government. Even if the Bill disappears, the principle it enshrines will remain, and if the Bill is introduced the principle of a Land Court will be affirmed, because from a Land Court like the Court proposed in this Bill, appointed for the purpose of deciding by arbitration how much tithe shall be struck off in consideration of the fall in rents and profits of land, from establishing a Court to ascertain what are

1493
the "rents and profits"—vague terms and difficult to define—but the Court is to determine how much of the tithe, or if the whole of it, is to be remitted—everyone can see that there is only another step to giving these Land Courts power to adjudicate between landlords and tenants, with power to reduce the rents. All I can say is that these Amendments of the Attorney General, upon which I congratulate him, which propound the principle of these Land Courts, which are to have plenary and absolute jurisdiction, I think without appeal, to determine per se the rights existing between the tithe owner and the landowner——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is travelling somewhat wide of the question. It is my duty to inform him that according to the ruling of my predecessor in the year 1875 it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the merits or demerits of a Bill on a Motion for the discharge of the Order.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I was only discussing the merits of the Bill, Sir; but perhaps I was falling into the grave error of writers of epitaphs, and was including in my remarks too many encomiastic adjectives. What I desire to say, Sir, is that I myself, and I believe I may say a good many Gentlemen on this side of the House—though I have no right to speak for all on this side of the House—would be very glad to see the principles of this Bill established; and if the Government are in earnest in this matter, and if they will to-day introduce this Bill, already drafted and printed, and propose it for a Second Reading on Monday, so far as I am concerned they will have my support. I see there are some Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who are not at all anxious to see this Bill passed; but I am happy to say that is not the feeling of all hon. Gentlemen opposite, for I am happy to see that the hon. Member for Maldon, to whom great credit has attached, and will attach, for the independent course he has taken in this matter, has a Notice on the Paper to-day that he will introduce a Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill, and I hope he will do so. If he introduces the Government Bill I think he might carry it, as he carried, or rather did not carry, the Instruction winch has converted the Government.
1494
So far as I am concerned I shall be very happy to assist the Government in passing this Bill if they will introduce it. Do not let it be objected to on the ground of loss of time. There will be much less loss of time in discussing a Bill in this clear and concise form presented by the Amendments than the time that would be lost in discussing the chaotic mass of Amendments to the old Bill as it stands. Do not let it be said, if the Government are not going on with the Bill, it is because they have not time. The Government have quite as much time for dealing with a new Bill in this concise form as they would have had for discussing the Amendments to the old Bill. I make this offer to the Government sincerely, and I hope they will accept it.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise, Sir, at once to acknowledge the encomiastic adjectives of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman generally uses adjectives in great abundance. He has asked the Government to introduce a Bill similar in character to that which they hoped to pass with the Amendments on the Paper, and he has offered his personal assistance to the Government to pass such a Bill into law. If, Sir, the Government had any hope whatever that that offer of the right hon. Gentleman's would result in the speedy, rapid, and successful consideration by this House of this important measure they certainly would give most careful consideration to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; but we have to consider the language of the right hon. Gentleman by the light of the acts of his hon. Friends whom he usually leads. I find on the Paper to-day three pages of Amendments proceeding from the opposite side of the House—three pages of Amendments to these valuable proposals of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. If this is the work of the 24 hours which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said would be absolutely insufficient to consider the Amendments of my hon. and learned Friend, what will be the effect of the further delay which, according to the forms of the House, must necessarily intervene before we reach the Committee stage with a new Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends will give the Government an assurance that this Bill as it is now

1495
shadowed forth will be passed forthwith, the Government will at once go on with it. But I read the Amendments on the Paper, and I see expressed in those Amendments determined opposition to the Bill as proposed. What interpretation, therefore, can I put upon these friendly assurances, these encomiastic adjectives of the right hon. Gentleman? I have heard this language used before by right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Front Opposition Bench, and I have been obliged on many occasions to discount it by the action and conduct of their friends. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give those assurances which have frequently been given, and which, I might almost say, were uniformly given by Oppositions in times past, though not during the present Parliament I am sorry to say—if he can give those assurances, then we shall be exceedingly glad to avail ourselves of his suggestion.
MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, as a Representative of that part of the country which has been pointedly alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, that, speaking for my Colleagues and myself, while we are not unwilling to give a general approval to some of the broad principles of the new Bill, we shall feel bound to weigh and scrutinise most carefully its details, some of which may arouse our most strenuous opposition.
MR. SWETENHAM: Before the Order is discharged I desire to say that it is with very great regret I heard the determination of the Government. But I would ask you, Sir, whether it is not competent at the present time for the Government to withdraw the Amendments of the Attorney General and to take up the Bill where it was before they were put on the Paper? I think it would be most deeply to be deplored that this Session should terminate without a Bill passing which would certainly have the effect of restoring, or helping to restore, law and order in many parts of the country. To quote an expression used by the South Wales Daily News, "the tithe question is a useful lever for effecting disestablishment." As strongly as I can, I urge the Government to go on with the Bill. I may be permitted to say that, so far as the Amendments of the Attorney Gene-
1496
ral are concerned, I entirely agree with them in principle. Not only in this House, but for the last three or four years on every platform in the country it has been declared that among the many things for Parliament to do is the putting the tithe upon the owner, as was intended by the Tithe Commutation Act. While I agree entirely with the principle expressed in the Amendments of the Government, I cannot conceal from myself that even on the Ministerial side of the House there will certainly be Amendments to those Amendments. This will have the effect of keeping up the discussion for a long time. Therefore, unless the Government see their way to take up the original Bill, I hope they will persevere with the Motion to withdraw the Bill altogether.
MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I hope I may be allowed to say a few words, for I have taken great interest in this subject, which I have pressed upon the attention of the House, I hope not unduly. I hope the Leader of the House heard the remarks of his follower who has just sat down, because they will bring home to him and to the country that the opposition to the Bill does not proceed alone from this side of the House. I hope we shall not have it said that our opposition prevented the passing of the Bill. If the House will allow me I will shortly explain my own position. There are two parties in. the State who are much interested in tithe reform—one who object on conscientious grounds to the payment of tithes, and the other, in the agricultural interest, who only wish for a fair tithe. I am one of the latter, and should be prepared to support any Bill brought forward by the Government in the sense referred to by the right hon. Member for Derby. At the same time, I must admit that I think that the principle of re-adjustment ought to be included in any measure brought forward.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: In a few words I should like to state my view of this very complicated situation. I listened, Sir, with great respect to your ruling, and with great interest to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of the Leader of the House. When I heard the right hon. Member for

1497
Derby I hoped there was a prospect of settling this vexed and thorny question, because I am bound to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for straightforwardness when he says he is willing to help the Government in passing the amended Bill. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great responsibility when he addresses the House, because, unfortunately, the usual Leader of the Opposition is not present. We are, therefore, bound to take what was said by the right hon. Member for Derby as the words of the responsible Leader of the Opposition. We had, then, an announcement from the Opposition, expressed through their Leader, that they would give their best assistance in passing the amended Bill. Now, I desire to say, with a full sense of my responsibility as representing as large a number of tithe-owners as any Member in the House; that I am prepared also to give the Government every assistance in passing the Bill, as it is proposed that it should be introduced. In doing so I am, of course, ready to make geat sacrifices on behalf of many tithe owners. At the same time, there is such a prospect of solving this vexed question as has never occurred before, and is not likely to occur again for a long time. I accordingly earnestly beg my right hon. Friend to re-consider the half decision at which he has arrived, and between now and Monday to come to the conclusion to introduce a new Bill. I know I am speaking the mind of at least some hon. Members on this side. I can promise the assistance of myself and my friends in passing such a measure. There must in such a question be compromise; there must be surrender, even loss. I earnestly hope that this question, which relates not only to the just rights of tithe owners, but to the peace of a great part of the country, may be peaceably settled. Such a settlement will not only remove the grievances of tithe owners and tithe payers, but will calm the disturbances which ha^ arisen in so many parts of the country.
MR. A. THOMAS: I do not profess to express any opinion but my own when I say I do not believe that any settlement short of disestablishment will give any satisfaction to the Principality, and therefore I shall give all the opposition I can to the measure.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: It has invariably been the practice in the House to accept the statement of a leader as expressing the opinion that he could carry his Party with him. I think it, therefore, somewhat discreditable that the right hon. Member for Denbighshire, rising after the right hon. Member for Derby, should have expressed a different view. I appeal to the Leader of the House, although the confidence of the Party has been somewhat shaken, to proceed even at the last moment with this Bill, which has been promised for three years, and is now almost brought to maturity. My right hon. Friend has declared that this Bill has been brought forward for the sake of maintaining order in the Principality. To maintain order is the duty of every Government, and is certainly the first duty of a Conservative Government. I earnestly trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will assure his supporters that he intends to stick to the Amendments of the Attorney General, and not to leave his Party in the extremely disagreeable position in which they now stand.
MR. DILLWYN: I do not intend to prolong the Debate, or to enter into the question as between the Bill abandoned and the Bill to be proposed; but, after what has been said from this side, I do not think I ought to sit quiet and allow it to be supposed that I will support the new Bill. I at once enter my protest against being supposed to agree with the provisions of this Bill. As my right hon. Friend said just now, it will require most careful consideration, and many of its provisions will be met with stern opposition.
Order for Committee read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (GREAT BRITAIN AND SWITZERLAND).
Address for—
"Copy of Correspondence on the subject of the reciprocal admission of Medical Practitioners qualified in either Country to practise in Great Britain and Switzerland."—(Mr. Tapling).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Amendment to Arbitration Bill (Lords);

1499
Amendments to Amendments to County Court Appeals (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment; Paymaster General Bill, with an Amendment; Poor Law Bill; Official Secrets Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. G. HOWELL: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to proceed with the Statute Law Revision Bill?
MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman now state what will be the effect of the withdrawal of the Tithe Bill on the immediate progress of business?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Light Railways Bill, and whether the Leader of the House will cause the Bill to be examined in the light of the recent ruling of the Speaker, in order to see whether the measure is not substantially a new Bill?
MR. BYEON REED: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House any information with regard to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Derby, that a new Tithe Bill should be introduced?
SIR J. SWINBURNE: May I ask whether the Government will grant facilities for passing the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill?
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: May I remind the Leader of the House that we have had the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill in its present form only about half an hour in our hands?
MR. T. W. RUSSELLI think, Sir, it is time that Irish Members should know what the Government intend to do with regard to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I think it will be convenient if the First Lord of the Treasury will state, when he moves the Motion with regard to Saturday's Sitting, what Bills the Government intend to proceed with.

SITTING OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think that would be a convenient course. I beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name, namely—
1500
"That this House do sit to-morrow, and that such sitting be held subject to the Standing Orders which regulate the sitting of the House on Wednesdays."
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will see, if he looks at the Paper, that there is practically no seriously opposed business to be dealt with, with the exception of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill.
Several hon. Members: The Technical Instruction Bill.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe there is a very strong desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to pass the Technical Instruction Bill, and we propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Mather.) With regard to the Statute Law Revision Bill, there is a notice on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) against that measure. These Statute Law Revision Bills were prepared by a most impartial and able Commission, whose duties have always been exercised with great ability and with great advantage to the public; and I should be sorry if the Bill had to be postponed. If, however, serious objection be taken to it, I cannot say it has been before Parliament a sufficient time to justify us in pressing it. With regard to the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill, I understand that no new clause has been inserted in that measure; and it cannot be said that the Bill is in the slightest degree altered. The Standing Committee have, as they were fully entitled to do, struck out many of the clauses of the Bill; but the measure remains substantially as it was. Under these circumstances we think we are bound to proceed with the measure, and I believe it will be convenient to hon. Members to take it to-morrow. I am exceedingly anxious that the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill should be passed, and we will endeavour to find an opportunity for the consideration of that measure. The business to-morrow will be* the Light Railways Bill, and Supply, if we can reach it. I think it would be convenient to hon. Members from Ireland if we took the Irish Estimates on Monday. We propose to take the Votes in Class II. in their regular order. As to the question put my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed), I

1501
can say nothing beyond what I have already stated to the House. I must remind the hon. Member and those who take an interest in the tithe question that notice is given of serious and protracted opposition to the measure as amended by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and, under the circumstances, I think the Government would, at this period of the Session, be incurring a very great responsibility in asking the House to take up the question, unless we received assurances from the Party opposite generally, such as have been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), that the Bill will be passed through its remaining stages with the adequate despatch which is necessary at this period of the Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House will sit to-morrow, and that such sitting be held subject to the Standing Orders which regulate the sittings of the House on Wednesdays."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to ignore the exceedingly strong representations which have been made to them from Australia with reference to the Western Australia Constitution Bill?
MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The First Lord of the Treasury stated on Thursday that no contentious business would be taken on Saturday. The Light Railways Bill is distinctly contentious business, and I, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the pledge he has given.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I venture to think that the House is entitled to a distinct assurrance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to what business the Government intend to take during the remainder of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has now all the time of the House, and he intends to take all the days of the week as well. We are entitled to hear what Bills are to be proceeded with, whether any are coming from the Lords, and what attitude the Government will assume towards the private Bills which are on the Paper, and which
1502
subject hon. Members who oppose them to a great deal of trouble There are 26 Government Bills on the Paper, 21 private Members' Bills, and 80 Votes in Supply still to be taken, and this is the 16th of August. With regard to the Statute Law Revision Bills, I have had great pleasure in helping these measures forward during the last two or three years, and in order to enable the cheap edition of the Statutes to be published. But the cheap edition was no sooner published, bringing the Statute Law revision down to 1800, than a Bill is introduced to repeal some of the Acts which were reprinted as representing the Statute Law of the country. Without very considerable explanation, I cannot consent to that. It is proposed to go back to the reign of Edward III. in regard to the repeal of Acts. I am afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in Committee dealing with the Acts of Edward III., we shall have something to say about one of them. This Bill deals with the Acts of the present reign, including the Tithes Commutation Bill, Lands Clauses Act, the Railway (Clauses Consolidation Act, and the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act. We cannot consent to deal with the statutory legislation of the present reign simply upon the allegation of a Government Department or Secretary of State that such legislation is unnecessary That is the sole reason why I object to the Government proceeding with the Statute Law Revision Bills during the present Session. I suggest that the Bill be postponed until next Session, and then that it should be referred to a Select Committee, on whose Report the House might act.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: The Light Railways Bill has been entirety altered in the Standing Committee, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that unless he abandons his intention of proceeding with the Bill to-morrow, I shall certainly feel it necessary to vote against a Motion for a Saturday Sitting.
MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: May I ask whether the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill will be proceeded with?
SIR W. HARCOURT: There are 26 Government Bills on the Paper for to-morrow and Monday. It the right hon. Gentleman will put his pencil through a large number of those we shall know

1503
better where we are. Without expressing any opinion of my own upon the Light Railways Bill, it is clear that it is a highly controversial measure, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it to-morrow. I see in the Statute Law Revision Bill what is quite new to me—namely, the repeal of certain Statutes as "unnecessary," by omitting "the words 'and be it enacted' and all the words that follow."
SIR R. WEBSTER: It is in order to save printing, and the saving on the whole will amount to half a volume.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a very good reason. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to reduce the list of Bills.
MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that Lord Knutsford has promised several hon. Members that he will not proceed further than the Second Reading of the Western Australia Bill?
SIR J. PULESTON: It will be some consolation to a large number of Members of this House if the right hon. Gentleman will give the House an assurance that the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill will be one of the first measures introduced next Session.
MR. LABOUCHERE: My right hon. Friend has said we all want to get away, and for my part I want to get away so much that I am going away, so that I can speak about what is going to happen after I have gone with more impartiality than hon. Members who are going to stay. At the present period of the Session the demand for a Saturday sitting is reasonable; but we are in a peculiar position. Ministers have taken the days of private Members, and have recklessly wasted them. I think we ought to take the first opportunity of expressing our disapproval of the reckless waste of public time on the part of the Government. I shall feel it my duty to register in a Division my opinion that Her Majesty's Ministers have scandalously wasted the public time.
MR. HOWELL: I have gone through the Statute Law Revision Bill, and find that 19–20ths of it consist of simple repeals of unnecessary words in existing Acts of Parliament, about which, I suppose, there can be no contention on the part of anybody except lawyers who
1504
want to make the law as complicated as possible. The Bill removes from the Statute Book a lot of rubbish which ought never to have encumbered it. I hope the Government will press the Bill through the House.
COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has an enormous majority, will give the House a chance of passing the Light Railways Bill to-morrow.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it well to answer the questions which have been so far asked of me before they are entirely obliterated by a series of others. I believe the most important question put to me is that which has reference to the Light Railways Bill, and while I recognise the warmth of feeling which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) has shown in reference to that Bill, as I wish to pass the measure, and do not wish to waste a sitting, I think it would be desirable not to take the Bill to-morrow, after the opposition that has been shown, but to put it down as the first order on Monday. I hope I will then have the support of hon. Members in passing it through as quickly as possible.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: Will it now be necessary to have a sitting to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, certainly. With reference to the Statute Law Revision Bill, I am desirous that the Statute Book should be purged of useless and unnecessary enactments, but I must admit that it is reasonable that the House should have an opportunity of examining and considering a measure of that kind. I recognise the fairness of the contention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) with regard to a Bill which has only been in the hands of hon. Members for three days, and I cannot at this period of the Session press the House to consider it. Even although it may be all that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) describes it, still it justifies and requires examination. I am asked to expunge certain Bills from the Order Paper. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there are remarkably few Bills which would in the ordinary course of things be considered at all contentious. The right hon. Member (Sir W. Harcourt) said there were 26 Government Bills on the Paper for to-morrow and Monday. As

1505
a matter of fact, there are about that number of Government Orders on the Paper, but the number of Bills is very much less. There is the Interpretation Bill, upon which a question is raised as to whether Wales should be included in England or not. I do not know that there need be much difficulty about that.
MR. THOMAS ELLIS: There will be.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know that we shall make any difficulty about it. The Technical Instruction Bill, I believe, will not take an hour to consider in Committee. Then comes the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which I suppose will take a few minutes only. The Judicial Rents (Ireland) Bill follows, and it depends on hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway whether that Bill shall pass or not. [Cries of "No" from Irish Members.] Very well, then. The next is the Steam Trawling (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced at the instance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and should not take long. The Infectious Diseases Notification Bill and the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill ought to go through without delay. The Council of India Bill ought not to take five minutes of the time of the House if hon. Members have any regard for economy of administration in India. The Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Bill, I think, will be accepted without discussion. Then, as to the Western Australia Bill, I have been appealed to by the Member for Fermanagh. I am under an engagement to the House not to proceed beyond the SECOND READING of that Bill. I hope to take the Second Reading, but it will be at a late period of the Session, so as not to interfere with or impede other business. There are two Bills—the Registration of Assurance and the Local Registration of Titles Bill. Those Bills will not be proceeded with. The London County Council (Money) Bill is a necessary measure.
MR. SEXTON: The Bann Drainage Bill.
MR. W. H. SMITH: It stands for Monday, and if it is opposed it will not be proceeded with.
MR. T. M. HEALY: And the Suck Bill.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Suck Bill also will. The Merchant Shipping (Colours) Bill is a matter of little importance. With regard to private Members' Bills we have no control over tnem; and I can assure hon. Members that no effort will be lost to bring the Session to a close at the earliest moment.
MR. STUART: I wish to ask whether the County Council Bill will be taken on Monday or not, and, if Supply is to be the business tomorrow, what Supply will be taken?
MR. PICTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will exclude from to-morrow's business Class V. I really think this is a matter of very serious consideration. The House has been unable during this Session, on account of the exclusive possession of its time by the Government, to give attention to the most important affairs which naturally arise under that Vote. We have all the rest of the world outside Her Majesty's Dominions to consider under that Vote. I can understand that there are some questions of foreign policy that the Government would be very glad to exclude from consideration on this Vote, but is a course which no Government ought to take which respects itself. Apart from that there are many questions affecting poor uneducated natives in other parts of the world who cannot help themselves, and who look for help and defence and counsel to the representatives of the constituencies in this country. I think it a little unfair that a day like Saturday should be taken for questions of this kind. It was only last night that there was any intimation given that there would be a Saturday Sitting at all. There are large numbers of Members interested in these questions, who find it absolutely impossible to make arrangements to be present to-morrow. Of course, we are not excluded from bringing forward these questions on Report of Supply, and if the Diplomatic Votes are run through in a small House to-morrow, we shall be compelled to take the only remaining opportunity open to us on Report of Supply to bring forward our objections.
SIR R. N. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman has been in several Parliaments. I appeal to him, and to the right hon. Member for Denbigh on the Front Bench (Mr. Osborne Morgan),

1507
whether it has not been the practice to hold Saturday Sittings at this period of the Session, and whether a similar Motion has not constantly been made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Lothian?
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government have stated their intention of giving time for the consideration of the Intoxicating Liquors Sunday (Ireland) Bill, to which in the abstract I have no objection whatever. But I oppose it, because the licenses are entirely under the control of the Resident Magistrates, and so long as that is the case I will continue to oppose it. But there are other and more important questions affecting Ireland, among them the subject of appeals in criminal cases. The Chief Secretary some years ago said we should have an appeal in all cases, and the Bill I proposes carries out the intentions of the Government in that sense. I would ask the Government whether if they are going to support a private Member's Bill, with regard to the curtailment of the liquor traffic, I am not entitled to ask for some consideration of the subject of appeals in criminal cases, which is a question of far greater Constitutional importance than the Intoxicating Liquors Bill.
MR. T. E. ELLIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Technical Education Bill will be taken to-morrow, and, if so, whether it will be put early among the Orders, that we may have time to discuss it and take the sense of the House?
MR. NOLAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in giving facilities for the consideration of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, he has considered the fact that one of the hon. Members who took a very great interest in this question, and who was the head of the opposition to it in Committee, is at present in custody through the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and has been for the past four months?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I omitted one Bill, the Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service with regard to Superannuation. That Bill is necessary. As to postponing Class V., we are scolded if we postpone Estimates, and now, when a quiet Saturday Sitting is offered, we are asked to postpone Votes. I shall,
1508
however, agree to postpone Class V. if not reached to-night. As to the hon. Member for Longford, no doubt he will find an opportunity for himself. I am ignorant of the merits of his measure, which possibly may be opposed. If it is an unopposed Bill, he is perfectly well aware that the measure will pass through the House without any difficulty and without any assistance of the Government.
MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision with regard to Class V.? There are a large number of Members present who are interested in the important subjects to be discussed under that Vote, and it would be inconvenient to postpone Class V. until a period of the Session when they, perhaps, cannot attend. The hon. Member for Leicester is quite alone in asking for the postponement of Class V.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Really, Sir, I see no reason why, if we reach Class V. to-night, it should not be disposed of.
MR. STUART: As to the London County Council Bill, I wish to know when it will be put down, in order that Members may not attend unnecessarily.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I hope we may be able to take it on Monday.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Indian Budget will not be taken to-morrow week?
MR. H. W. LAWSON: There is no opposition whatever to the London County Council Bill. A new clause is to be moved which can be taken after 12, and upon which a Division can be challenged. I can say on behalf of my Metropolitan colleagues on this side of the House that we have no wish to stop the progress of the Bill. All we desire is to express our opinions on the subject.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member asked me whether it would be convenient not to take the Indian Budget until Monday week. I hope it may be taken before then.
The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 83.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
Resolved,
"That this House will sit to-morrow, and that such Sitting be held subject to the Stand-

1509
ing Orders which regulate the Sitting of the House on Wednesdays."

MOTION.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY (NO. 2 BILL).
  On Motion of Mr. Gray's Bill to amend the Law relating to the Recovery of Tithe Rent-Charge, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Gray, Colonel Cotton, Mr. John Talbot, Sir John Puleston, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Seale-Hayne.
  Bill presented, and road first time. [Bill 381]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 376.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a matter in this Bill on which I propose to offer a few observations, namely, the Land Commission. I think the position of the Land Commissioners is unsatisfactory. I have in the first place to congratulate the Government on the course they have taken with regard to the leaseholders. I suppose it was absolutely necessary that they should deal with their case; at the same time I think that they have acted in this matter rightly. Certainly I have no hesitation whatever in giving them that credit. But, Mr. Speaker, that is only one portion of the Bill. With regard to the Land Commission, I think that for the last two or three years the position must have been most unsatisfactory to the gentlemen concerned, Mr. Wrench, Mr. John George MacCarthy, and Professor Lynch and Mr. Litton. I think it is most unsatisfactory that gentlemen occupying these onerous and weighty positions should be left entirely at the mercy of the Government of the day. Mr. Litton and Mr Wrench were appointed in 1881. Mr. Litton was appointed for seven years, and Mr. Vernon was appointed with him. Mr. Vernon died, and Mr. Wrench got the balance of the seven years. But instead of getting an absolute term, these gentlemen are carried on from year to year, not knowing the moment when the Government may turn them out of office. I am not going to express any opinion either as to Mr. Wrench or Mr. Litton personally, except that gentlemen in the position of Judges, especially Judges
  1510
  where property is concerned, ought to be in a position of absolute independence. I think it is most unfair to the suitors in this Court that these gentlemen should be placed in the position of not knowing when their appointments come to an end. If that is so with regard to Mr. Litton and Mr. Wrench, how much more is it so with regard to the Commissioners under Lord Ashbourne's Act. Take the case of Mr. Lynch and Mr. MacCarthy. It is most unsatisfactory that they should be placed under the suspicion of being open to the nods and becks and winks of their superiors. I do say that gentlemen in the position of Judges, and exercising functions with regard to the expenditure of millions of money, should be put in a position which would remove them from the level of Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner, and other gentlemen of their notoriety and reputation. Sir, a Bill ought to be introduced putting the Land Commissioners in the position of irremovables, at any rate for several years to come. I say the same with, regard to the Land Purchase Commissioners—even more strongly in regard to them, because the Government have proclaimed, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has proclaimed for them, that this position in regard to Ireland is the position of land purchase. If you take the case of the Auditor General of Public Accounts, be is irremovable except on an address from both Houses. I think it is a most undesirable state of affairs that these gentlemen should not be placed in an equally strong position. If the Government were to bring in a Bill I think it would be certain to pass, almost without discussion.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I entirely agree with the substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. It is extremely unsatisfactory to leave these Judges in what is, after all, a great Appeal Court on a yearly tenure, and I should like to put an end to the present arrangement. I tried to do so last year in a Bill which there was not time to discuss; and I had hoped to bring in another Bill dealing with the matter this year. This, however, has been found impossible; but it is the desire of the Government to carry out next year this scheme.
  MR. LEA: It seems rather unusual to take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at this time, and I trust those who have charge of it will give us at least a week's notice before it goes into Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL (No. 365.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: There are two questions I wish to ask—whether the intereston English and Scotch loans has been reduced from 4 per cent to 3⅛ per cent, as in the case of Irish loans; and, whether there is also a long list of Irish loans written off? I should like some explanation of this.
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the reduction of the rate, there are no loans in England and Scotland of the kind on which the interest has been reduced in Ireland. Every year those amounts are written off which are deemed irrecoverable, but this does not discharge the debtors from their legal liabilities. It is thought desirable to err, if at all, on the side of over-caution.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I congratulate the Government on having introduced this Bill. There is, however, one deserving class, the Irish labourers, who have to pay for the loans, and who are still charged 4 per cent interest oh the amounts advanced for their cottages. The reduction would be to them a substantial concession, and there is no reason why the Bill should not include loans under the Labourers' Act.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I presume the hon. and learned Member's suggestion will have to be considered in connection with artisans' and labourers' dwellings generally. But the matter is one deserving consideration, and I will not fail to consider it.
  MR. FLYNN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that artisans' dwellings stand on a different footing to labourers' holdings. In the case of the former the rating is of such a character that any deficiency in the value is small; whereas in the case of the rural ratepayers, they are saddling
  1512
  themselves with a heavy burden, and if the rate of interest can possibly be reduced to 3⅛ it will be a substantial relief to them.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration the reduction of interest upon drainage loans in England, where we are paying 6½ per cant, while in Ireland the money is raised for one-half that amount?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would remind the hon. Baronet that the Legislature has stepped in and dealt with the landlords and tenants of Ireland on different principles to those which have been followed in this country.
  MR. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact, in dealing with the subject, that the artisans' dwellings are the only security, whereas in Ireland there is the security of the rates?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

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

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,487, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask for some explanation with regard to the grant for the purchase of pictures. When an unusually extravagant bargain was concluded some time back, the House was given to understand that the grant would be suspended until the purchase-money had been wiped off. That has not been done, yet a sum of £5,000 for the purchase of pictures is put down in the Estimates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D, Purchase of Pictures, be reduced by £3,800."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I must admit that in this case, from the hon. Member's point of view, the Government have been guilty of some extrava-

  1513
  gance. It is true that when the purchase to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made it was agreed that for a time the grant for the purchase of pictures should be suspended, though no definite number of years was fixed. No doubt, however, it is in spirit intended that the grant should be suspended to enable the amount to be spread over a number of years. That arrangement has continued, but from time to time appeals are made to the Government when opportunities offer to purchase pictures which in the opinion of authorities ought not to be missed. I believe the plan will work satisfactorily and economically. I believe the Government have done right to give the £5,000. It is a less sum than we have formerly given, and it will continue at that small sum for a period of years.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: Mr. Courtney, I wish in a very few words to impress upon the Financial Secretary the growing intensity of interest taken by our Metropolitan population in the movement for nationalising our national collections, in reality as well as in name, by opening them on the Sunday so that the vast majority of the people may be enabled to enjoy and make use of them. The case could not be better put than by one of the Trustees of the British Museum, who said with regard to this Institution—
  "The real question was whether certain public collections formed by the State and paid for by taxation levied on all classes of the community, should he accessible to the great mass of the people during the only day of the week on which it was practicable for them to visit them, He thought there was a strong primâ facie case in favour of the principle of the resolution, and it became stronger when they looked at the size and character of the metropolis. The city in which they lived was the largest capital in the world, and certainly not the most picturesque. Residents in small towns could easily escape from them by a moderate walk; but there were upwards of 2,000,000 of people who lived in the interior of London who could not escape from the long succession of streets, often squalid and generally dreary, and where, certainly on a Sunday, there was nothing to give pleasure or create interest."
  These are the words of a supporter of the present Government, Lord Derby, who always speaks with great common
  1514
  sense on social questions. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are advancing by leaps and bounds in this matter. Formerly, no public collection was open on the Sunday. Now, more than half the free libraries of the Metropolis are open on that day. There was a great stride made when not only the libraries but the resources of the People's Palace were opened upon Sunday. It was quite in vain that the Lord's Day Observance Society tried to get up a petition amongst the dwellers in the East End to stop the action of the managers of the People's Palace. The Report which has been issued from Birmingham by Mr. Whitworth Wallis gives astounding proofs of the interest taken by the people in this concession. And surely in London we ought not to be in a worse position than they are in Birmingham, Manchester, and others of our large towns. A vote was taken in the County Council this year on the subject, and only nine formed the minority. The Trades Council have unanimously voted in its favour, and twice the Trades Congress by a majority of two to one have affirmed the desirability of opening our National collections on the Sunday. We owe the First Commissioner of Works a debt of gratitude for the manner in which he has dealt with the parks. Kew Gardens, Hampton Court, and Greenwich Hospital are open on Sunday, and there is no reason why the National Gallery should not be thrown open for the enjoyment of the great mass of the people, who have not time to visit it during the week. So far from such a course being detrimental to the interests of true religion, it would be an immense lever in the work of social reform. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that some of the most eminent of the trustees have expressed themselves in favour of this course. As to the financial question, recently it was my privilege to forward to the trustees a letter signed by the Duke of Westminster and Lord Thurlow, offering to supply the necessary funds, but I do not think it possible that the Financial Secretary would grudge the small sum needed. I am quite certain that neither he nor any other Member of the Government desires to make Sunday more oppressive and monotonous to the great mass of

  1515
  the people of London than any other day of the week. I hope that during the next few months the Government will consider this subject, and that next year some definite action will be taken with regard to it.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Sir, I can see no reason myself why, if Hampton Court, Kew Gardens, and other places are open on Sunday, the National Galleries should not also be open. The opposition comes from a party who think that Sunday ought to be rather a day of punishment than a day of enjoyment. But my hon. Friend opposite is hardly consistent in this matter, for I can recollect a case not very long ago in which he opposed the opening of places of refreshment on Sunday, and voted that they should be all closed on that day. I do not want to raise unpleasant feelings among hon Gentlemen opposite. Nor to doubt their consistency which I dare say they believe they possess to a very great extent. I merely mention this fact, that I think the encouragement of the Salvation Army, and things of that sort have militated against the opening of the National Museum. But I did not rise for the purpose of making these observations. I am, Sir, going to make some criticisms on the action of the Directors of the National Gallery, notwithstanding that they are extremely thin skinned. The misforture of our present system is that our Art and other collections are not under one responsible Minister, who knows something about them. And I wish to call the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to an extraordinary freak on the part of the Directors of the National Gallery. The matter has been brought before the Government already. I refer to the changes which have been made in the names of the pictures. Claude Lorraine is now called "Geleé." Why should that be? "Guido" is turned into "Reni," Paolo Veronese is called "Caliavi," "Raphael" Sanzi, and so on. The attention of the Government has been called to this matter, and I have been informed that in many cases the names by which the artists are best known are painted on the frames. That is so, but these names have been painted be small that it is almost impossible to
  1516
  discover these old historical names. I would ask the Secretary of the Treasury to give instruction to those who manage the National Gallery, to see that the names by which artists are historically and familiarly known, are written up in larger and more legible letters on the picture frames. It would not cost a great deal to do this. At the Louvre where the system of double nomenclature is adopted, the well-known name of the painter is written in letters quite as large as the proper name. I would urge the Government to have this reform carried out.
  MR. MURPHY: I rise to support the appeal of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) that the National Gallery and kindred Institutions may be open to the public on Sundays. I am in a position to say how the privilege is appreciated in towns where it has been granted. It is largely valued in Dublin. There, the National Gallery and the Museum, which corresponds in some measure with the British Museum, the Zoological Gardens, and the Botanical Gardens are all open to the public on Sunday, and the number of people who attend on that day shows the advantage the public derive from the system. The number of people who attend the National Gallery and Museums on Sunday is larger than on all the other days of the week put together. As I conceive that the object of these exhibitions is that the public shall enjoy them, the fact that they are visited more on Sunday than other days is, to my mind, a conclusive reason why, of all days in the week, they should be open on Sunday. Moreover, I think these places should be open at night. Now that we have the electric light, I think it should be availed of in these places so as to give an opportunity for people who are engaged during the day to visit them. I do not think the small additional expense which would be involved by throwing open the Museums at night and on Sundays should be allowed to stand in the way of this reform, having regard to the benefit which would he conferred on so many people.
  SIR F. FITZWYGRAM: I heartily concur in the proposal for the opening of the National I Gallery and Museums on Sunday. I have always been opposed to those

  1517
  Sabbatarian views which would make the Sunday a black letter day, and I do not think that either religion or morality can be promoted by opening the drinking shops on Sunday and closing the Museums. I would moreover strongly advocate, regardless of the question of expense, the opening of our public Galleries and Museums at night. Night is the time when the majority of the public can best avail themselves of the opportunity of visiting these places which are, and ought to be, National Museums.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I also would support the appeal of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras for Sunday opening, and I would make a suggestion on the subject. I regret that this discussion was not raised on the Vote for the British Museum, as I think Museums are more proper things to open on Sundays than even Picture Galleries. But we refrained from entering upon the subject last night knowing that the Irish Members had a very important question to raise in connection with the Vote for the British Museum. Though I do not believe the people of London care much for this old Art, yet, no doubt, people who come from the country and do not know better, like to visit the public galleries, and I think they should have facilities for doing so at the time most convenient to them. I do not say whether I am a Sabbatarian or an Anti-Sabbatarian, but I think this matter should be decided by the people according to their own views. I say to the people of London, "It is not for me to decide this question, but for you." A feeling is growing up in Scotland for the granting of facilities of this kind, and I hold that the decision of the matter should be left to the public in the different localities. What I would suggest in the present Vote is this: We are told that the County Council of London by a large majority have voted and petitioned in favour of the opening of the Galleries and Museums on Sunday. Well, I think that is a great test of the feeling of the public, but I would carry it further and say to the County Council, "If you are in earnest in this matter bear the extra expense yourself." Though these institutions are, no doubt, national, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the people of London have special facilities
  1518
  for availing themselves of them, and I think they should show their willingness to bear any expense which the acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras would entail. If the localities are willing to incur the expense the Government should raise no difficulty in the matter. As to the grant of £5,000 for new pictures, the Secretary to the Treasury has pleaded guilty to having paid this money in breach of an understanding that no further money was to be granted pending the making of a final arrangement. It is the old story. However much you give the Trustees of the National Gallery they must have more. But much as I dislike this grant, and however contrary it is to the understanding, it is impossible to resist it in such a House as this. I protest against the Vote being taken at such a late period of the Session.
  SIR J. PULESTON: There is a great deal of feeling throughout the country on this question of the Sunday opening of Museums, and I hope it will not be lightly considered on an occasion like the present. I believe that a large preponderance of the working masses are opposed to the principle, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will hesitate before they accept the advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to divide the Committee.
  MR. LAWSON: I do not intend to divide the Committee, but I would point out that the Trades Union Council have passed a resolution by a majority of two to one in favour of the Sunday opening of Museums, whilst the London Trades Council have passed a similar resolution unanimously, and the Edinburgh Trades Council have passed one by a large majority.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £1,291, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890, for Grants in Aid of the Expen-

  1519
  diture of certain Learned Societies in Great Britain and Ireland."
  DR. CLARK: Under "a" I see an item of £1,000, which it is proposed to grant for a catalogue of scientific papers. I suppose this is to be given to the Royal Society. I want to know on what ground this sum should be given to the Fellows of the Royal Society? I am not prepared to vote a penny to that Institution, or to the Royal Irish Academy, so long as Scotland is treated so shabbily. The Royal Society of Edinburgh only receives £300 a year, which comes back again to the Exchequer in the shape of rent and taxes; whereas the Royal Irish Academy receives £2,000 a year, and the Royal Society of London £4,000 a year, and £15,000 a year for meteorological work. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, for the Royal Society, be reduced by £1,000."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. JACKSON: There have been already published, at the public expense, three volumes of this catalogue, and another volume has now been prepared. These societies come to the Treasury and say that on previous occasions they have come to us and we have paid for these extra volumes. The Government came to the conclusion that, instead of undertaking to pay the whole cost of the pubtion, they should grant £1,000 and leave leave the expenditure, whatever it is, to bemet by the Royal Society. Some small sums have been received as the proceeds of sales, and they have been paid into the Exchequer.
  DR. CLARK: Where are these scientific papers? Are they in the British Museum, or in the Library of the Royal Society, and are they open to the general public, or only to the Fellows of the Society? Is this catalogue a catalogue of papers of the Royal Society, or of scientific papers generally?
  MR. JACKSON: Of scientific papers generally.
  DR. CLARK: Where? All over the world?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  4. £8,810, to complete the sum for the London University.
  5. £21,000, to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain.
  DR. CLARK: There is a sum of £15,000 distributed amongst colleges. I should like to hear the names of the colleges to which the money goes, the grounds on which it is allocated, and whether any of it is given to Scotland.
  MR. JACKSON: The question has not been one of England or Scotland, but in what way the objects can best be attained which the grant is intended to promote. I believe that general satisfaction is expressed at the way in which the money has been allocated by the Committee which was appointed for that purpose. The colleges which have received the grants are these:—

  £

  Owens College Manchester

  1,800

  University College, London

  1,700

  King's College, London

  1,700

  Liverpool University College

  1,500

  Mason College, Birmingham

  1,400

  Yorkshire College, Leeds

  1,400

  Nottingham University College

  1,400

  Bristol University College

  1,200

  Durham College of Science, New-castle-on-Tyne

  1,200

  Firth College, Sheffield

  1,200

  Dundee University College

  500

  DR. CLARK: What is the basis upon which the grants have been made?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not read his Parliamentary Papers, because full information has been given on the subject in a paper entitled, "Grant to University Colleges in Great Britain." The concluding words of the Report of the Committee are as follows:—
  "In determining the distribution of the grant, your Committee calculated the amount to he given to each college under two heads, A. and B.; A. being regarded as assisting in providing appliances (professorial staff and apparatus) for adequate and full instruction of a University character in arts and science, and B. being in proportion to the amount of local support and instruction given. In consequence of the suggestion in the Minute that regard should be paid to 'the financial position, especially of the newer and poorer colleges,' your Committee determined that on this occasion no college should receive more than £1,800. Considerable differences of opinion showed themselves on the question of giving chief prominence to tried efficiency, or to poverty and newness. The amounts eventually arrived at harmonise these as far as was found possible. Under A., your Committee allotted a fixed sum to each college, and a grant to the college for each professor or head of a department; under B., they gave a

  1521
  certain percentage on the total amount of local subscriptions and students' fees. It is difficult to award a grant in proportion to the number of students directly, as a distinction must be drawn between those attending a few lectures in a desultory manner and those giving their whole time to college work. To get over this difficulty your Committee have taken the income from students' fees as a basis. A grant so determined will be in direct proportion to the amount of instruction given; those taking short courses or attending some evening classes paying small fees, and so on in proportion. Thus the grant under B. is, roughly, a percentage on the college income from all sources."
  It was thought that this was the truest way of appropriating the money so as to secure the greatest advantage from the expenditure.
  DR. CLARK: I am glad to have got this information. Probably this Paper is one of those that a Member only obtains by applying for. I have not had one. I tried to get the Librarian to obtain one for me, but he was unable to do it. Now that I know the facts I find that Scotland, as usual, has been neglected. There was no Scotch Member on the Committee, and nothing has been given to Anderson's College, Glasgow, which Dr. Birkbeck, who was a student there, took as his model in establishing colleges throughout England. That college, though all these other colleges practically originated from it, does not get a farthing. The Heriot-Watt College does not get anything, and only £500 out of the £15,000 goes to Scotland. Scotland gets only one-thirtieth of the money. It is too late this Session to raise this question, but undoubtedly next year, if there is no change made, I shall move a reduction of the Vote, and raise a claim for the Scotch colleges.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I really think Scotland has been unfairly treated in this matter. Why should she only receive one-thirtieth part of this grant? The University of St. Andrew's has done much to give an excellent scientific education, and if any institution obtains aid of this kind St. Andrew's ought. I cannot understand why Dundee should get £500, and poor St. Andrew's, with its desire to give scientific instruction, should get nothing at all. I cannot conceive how the thing has been arrived at, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us who were the
  1522
  members of the Committee. I gather there was no representative of Scotland upon it.
  MR. JACKSON: I had no idea that there was any ignorance as to what was taking place. The members of the Committee were Sir John Lubbock, Sir Henry Boscoe, Dr. Percival, Mr. G. B. Brown, and Mr. R. G. C. Mowbray. I find that in the Report of the Committee it is said there was only one application from Scotland and that that application was met. The application was in respect of the University College of Dundee. Surely it was perfectly well known that a certain sum of money had been set aside by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be used in this particular way. Of course, all the colleges and institutions which did come within the terms laid down for the apportionment of the grant were open to make application.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am sure there could not have been a better Committee as far as England was concerned, but as to Scotland not one member of the Committee had the smallest connection or personal knowledge of that country. As to the absence of applications, we find that many Members of the House of Commons did not know much about this matter. Is it surprising, therefore, that the people of Scotland did not know much about it?
  MR. CALDWELL: I must confess to a good deal of ignorance in this matter. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he was going to set aside a sum for the encouragement of scientific researches in the Universities, I really thought his remarks applied to England and Wales. I know that some of the scientific classes in Glasgow are in a very distressed condition; certainly had we known that the grants would be extended to Scotland we should have applied for aid. However, I am sure the Treasury have no wish to treat Scotland differently to any other part of the United Kingdom, and that now the subject has been broached they will see that the claims of Scotland are properly considered.
  DR. CLARK: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question—namely, whether this grant is only for the present year or for a number of years? I know that some of the colleges I have mentioned have applied to the Treasury

  1523
  and been refused, and I am not aware that the other colleges had any notice given to them. There was no Scotchman on the Committee, and it is quite evident that Scotland has been neglected. The authorities of the Scottish colleges did not know this money could be got. Otherwise I know they would have made application. If the grant is only for the present year I have no objection to offer, but if it is for a number of years I shall have to take a Division.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is only for this year; the Vote will have to come up again next year. The hon. Gentleman forgets that we have this year increased the grant to the Scottish Universities by £8,000, and that we help the Scottish Universities as we do not help the English Universities. We now give £42,000 a year to the Scottish Universities, and there is but a very small parallel grant given in England—namely, that given to the London and Victoria Universities. The hon. Member may rest assured he will have an opportunity another year of pressing the claims of any Scotch college.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I understand that as regards the English colleges this Vote is presented in pursuance of a system which is perpetual, but that that is not the case so far as the Scotch colleges to which a grant has been made is concerned. Although an allowance has been made to the Dundee University College that institution has not been placed on the same footing as the English colleges. I am informed there is this difference between the University College of Dundee and all the other colleges—that the average grant made to the English University colleges is about £1,500 per annum, while the amount allowed to the Dundee colleges is only £500. Another difference is that the English colleges are assured that the grant in their case is to be a perpetual grant, whereas the grant to the Dundee College is expressly limited to this one year. Now that, on the face of it, looks very like undue preference. I understand, too, that one reason why the Dundee College received a grant was that in a very short time it will occupy peculiar relations to one of the Scottish Universities. I respectfully submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Secretary to the Treasury that, however excellent may be the plan to which
  1524
  they have assented, they have certainly manifested an undue preference for the English colleges.
  MR. MOWBRAY: As a member of the Committee entrusted with the distribution of this grant, let me say it was precisely because there was an idea that the University College of Dundee might be brought into connection with the University system of Scotland that the Committee considered the case of the Dundee College to be an exceptional one for this year, and we treated it therefore in an exceptional manner. As to the absence of Scotch Members on the Committee, I should like to observe that Dundee was in the very favourable position that the Member for South Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe), who was a member of the Committee, is himself a member of the Governing Body of Dundee, and therefore takes a great interest in the welfare of that institution. As to notice being given to the Scottish colleges, I can only say that as soon as the appointment of the Committee took place, I received a letter from the Principal of Dundee College, laying the claims of the college before me. It appears to me that if the heads of the other colleges, who are now disposed to put in a claim for a share of this grant, had shown the same activity, their cases might also have been considered. As a matter of fact, there was not the slightest suggestion made that any other college in Scotland laid claim to a grant.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is one point I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, and that is that the claims of the Scotch Universities are peculiar, because their maintenance is one of the conditions of the Union. They have no national property to fall back upon, because it has been merged in that of the United Kingdom. The position of the Scotch Universities must be maintained by the Imperial Government. It is a responsibility from which they are not entitled to relieve themselves.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have not the least doubt that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray), and the other members of the Committee, acted in perfect good faith, but it does not seem to me that the hon. Member's statement has bettered the case as far as Scotland is concerned. He says that the Dundee

  1525
  College was really represented in the Committee, and therefore it got a grant. Those who were not in the swim, so to speak, got nothing. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Government will see their way to give some grant to the other Scotch Colleges.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Dundee College is exceptionally treated, because of its probable connection with the University system of Scotland. The Universities of Scotland will be unwilling to encourage this affiliation if they have to pay for it. I protest against the grant to Dundee being so small as it is and being limited to one year.
  DR. CLARK: As this question will come up next year, I will not say much more about it. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has scarcely fairly stated the case. In this very Vote there is £12,000 set down for the North Wales Colleges. In Vote 16, £36,000 is taken for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, of which we get back about £5,000. The three old English Universities were endowed, but all the new Universities started since then get grants from Parliament. I am not prepared to admit the great increase in the grant to the Scottish Universities; but it must be borne in mind that the property by which those Universities were maintained became British property by the Act of Union, and, therefore, you ought to maintain those institutions. I think, too, you ought to maintain them in a decent fashion, and not begrudge every farthing you give them.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £116,698 (including a Supplementary sum of £7,650), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have given notice of an Amendment to reduce the amount of the salary of the Minister to the Argentine Republic by £1,300. There are many Ministers in South America. Most of these Ministers used
  1526
  to be Consuls General and Ministers Resident, but they have been raised to Ministers Plenipotentiary. Why they have been so raised except to spend a little more money and give a little more patronage I do not know. In the case of the Argentine Republic you converted your Consul General into a Minister Resident, and then you converted him into an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. I have no objection to our Representative having any number of titles he likes; but, unfortunately, when a change of this kind is made it costs the country a great deal. £3,000 a year is paid to the Envoy Extraordinary to the Argentine Republic, £500 to the Secretary to the Legation, and £200 to his clerk, and £435 to the Second Secretary to the Legation; £400 is allowed for rent. In the case of a Minister Resident and Consul General there is no Secretary to the Legation, and there is no Second Secretary. The Minister Resident and Consul General at Chili receives £2,000, without any allowance for rent; in all our representative at Chili costs us £2,250, as against £4,535, the cost of the Legation in the Argentine Republic. Chili is just as respectable and important a country as the Argentine Republic. In Peru and Paraguay, which are close by, you find Ministers Resident and Consuls General. Besides an Envoy Extraordinary in the Argentine Republic you have at Buenos Ayres a Consul, to whom you give £900 a year, with an allowance for office; and in Chili you also have a Consul receiving, I think, £1,000 a year. If you have a Minister Resident and Consul General in the capital of the country, you surely do not require to have a Consul General at £900 or £1,000 per annum besides office expenses. But my great point in regard to the Argentine Republic is that really there is no difference between the Argentine Republic and any other place in South America. There is not sufficient difference to justify you in spending £3,000 more upon the Mission there than upon the Mission to any other South American Republic. A friend of mine told me the other day that it is really an absolute waste of money. He said—
  "The inhabitants of the Argentine Republic are very sensible people. They despise all this fuss and show; they know nothing about an

  1527
  Envoy Extraordinary; they want a quiet, decent, honest man, who receives a reasonable salary, without all this fuss and bother, costing £5,000 a year."
  They are perfectly satisfied with your Minister Resident and Consul General, or they would be satisfied with having a Consul General alone. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,300, which will bring the salary of the Envoy Extraordinary to about the level of the salaries of our Representatives in other South American Republics.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item A, Salaries, &c, be reduced by £1,300, part of the salary of the Minister to the Argentine Republic."—(Mr. Lahouchere.)
  MR. BBADLAUGH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers my hon. Colleague, I should like to ask him if he can give us any further information as to the result of the investigation concerning the unfortunate emigrants who suffered such severe privations in the Argentine Republic, and I would at the same time ask whether it is not possible for our Representative in the Argentine Republic—Minister, Consul General, or whoever he may be—to send information to this country before the evils rise to such an extent that of necessity they are brought before the attention of this House. I admit that after attention was drawn to these matters in the House the Foreign Office acted with great promptitude, and a great deal was done to relieve the distress, but it was after the distress had risen to a height to attract public attention, and while the agents of the Argentine Republic were still allowed to tempt emigrants.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: I will first answer the points raised by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He has moved the reduction of the Vote for the salary of Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, and he says he does not know what good reason there can be for raising the rank of Her Majesty's Representative at these places in South America.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: At this place alone.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Yes, in the Argentine Republic. The hon.
  1528
  Member thinks the duties might well be discharged by an official of lower rank, and that the staff of a Minister Plenipotentiary is not required, and that the South American Republics are indifferent to representation of this country by officers of high rank. These, I think, are the chief grounds upon which he moved the reduction. Now, on all these points I must traverse what the hon. Gentleman has said. On this subject I think I cannot do better than refer to the Report of the Committee which sat on the Diplomatic and Consular establishments in 1870. In that Report it was stated that it was desirable to give Her Majesty's Representatives at various places places in South America the rank of Minister without increasing their pay. Lord Hammond, who was then Under Secretary of State, gave evidence before that Committee as to the importance of keeping Representatives of the higher rank at those posts; and he said so keenly did these South African Republics feel the importance attached to our representation being by officials of high rank that one of these Governments, when accrediting a Minister jointly to this country and France, fixed the residence of their Representative at Paris instead of London, because we kept a Representative of lower rank in South America. Lord Hammond particularly noticed the case of the Argentine Republic, and dwelt on the importance of British interests there. Since 1870, the Argentine Republic has greatly advanced. The country has developed in an extraordinary degree during the last 10 years. Last year about 1,100 persons emigrated from this country to the Republic, and there are probably 100,000 British subjects there now. Our commercial interests there have very much increased, and undoubtedly our relations with that Republic are more important now than with any other South American country, except, perhaps, Brazil. Her Majesty's Representative at Buenos Ayres was already a Minister Plenipotentiary when we were represented by a Chargé d' affaires at other places in South America, and it has always been considered that the post there is more important. The tide of emigration which has flowed towards Buenos Ayres and the Argentine Republic has thrown a great deal of extra work on Her

  1529
  Majesty's Minister there, and I cannot speak too highly of the manner in which that official has devoted himself to the interests of the poor people who have emigrated there in large numbers. He has been well seconded by the British residents, who formed themselves into a Committee for the assistance of poor emigrants, and requested the British Minister to put himself at their head. The junior Member for Northampton has asked a question as to the result of the inquiries made with regard to emigration. I have had considerable experience in watching emigration to our own possessions and to foreign countries, and I have never heard of so much care being taken of emigrants in any country as in the Argentine Republic, except in our own possessions. The Argentine Government, according to our information, have made careful and liberal arrangements for their reception and distribution. No doubt there has been mischief done by unscrupulous agents in Europe who have held out hopes to all sorts of people of fortunes to be made in the Argentine Republic, and many unsuitable persons were sent from Ireland—bad characters and persons of idle habits. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I suppose even in Ireland there are people of bad habits, I am speaking of facts within my own knowledge when I say that most unsuitable persons were collected and sent out as emigrants to the Argentine Republic, but there is abundant evidence that able-bodied men with small families can do as well there as in our Australian Colonies. Great pains are being taken to form Englishmen and Irishmen into special settlements under conditions suited to their former habits, and where their interests can be looked after much better than if they were scattered through the whole country. I believe the Argentine Government are now very much more careful as to the agents they employ, and we have done our best to furnish, the Emigration Office in London and the Irish Government with all the information that can be obtained from the full Reports sent home by Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, so that those who think of emigrating there may have before them the exact prospects they may anticipate, and need not go out with any false ideas.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask whether there has come to hand the result of the investigations into the alleged insufficient supply of food to emigrants and bad treatment on the voyage out by the agents of the Argentine Republic?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, that has been gone into, and the Papers, if they are moved for, will give the House all the information we possess on this subject. I cannot find there was much wrong in the food supply on the voyage except, perhaps, on one vessel where there was a dishonest steward. On the whole, I do not think that the emigrants suffer greater hardships than may be expected by newcomers in any country. I think the Committee will see that no case has been made out to justify the reduction of the Vote on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not think that anybody who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has made out a case against the reduction. The right hon. Gentleman has based his defence on one ground. He defends the expenditure of £3,000 a year more in the Argentine Republic than in other South American Republics on account of the rank of our Representative, on the ground that there is a large emigration from this country to Buenos Ayres and that the Minister looks after the emigrants. Now the right hon. Gentleman has distinguished himself as a Governor and in other ways, but I do not think he was ever on a mission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had some diplomatic experience at Constantinople. But I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that the last place an emigrant thinks of going to is the Legation if there happens to be a Consulate. No emigrant to America ever dreams of going to the British Minister at Washington. I really do not think the right hon. Gentleman supports his position in any way when he says there are more emigrants go to the Argentine Republic than to other South American Republics. He tells us there was a Committee in 1870, and no doubt there was, and the rank of our Representatives is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Probably some 50 people in the Republic know the difference between a Minister

  1531
  Plenipotentiary and a Chargé d' affaires, and it may make them happier. The Committee wanted to do something, and they made their recommendations. We know how these things happen in Committees. But you do not carry this out fairly; you make a distinction in regard to the Argentine Republic. Now, Monte Video is almost opposite Buenos Ayres, just as Calais is opposite Dover.
  SIR R. FOWLER: Ninety miles apart.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, I know; and Calais is only 24 miles off. You have Uruguay on the one side, and, I suppose, there are a considerable number of emigrants there, and there you have a Consul General to whom you pay £1,600, or, with his clerk, £1,750; and at Buenos Ayres, opposite Monte Video, you have a Minister and his Secretary, &c., costing £4,635. The right hon. Gentleman mentions a case in which he says a South American Republic, influenced by the rank of our Representative out there, fixed the residence of their joint Representative for England and France in Paris. Well, of course it is the same in South America as in North America—the people like Paris, they look upon Paris as a place for good people to go to. Having a choice between London and Paris they prefer Paris. It may be bad taste, but so it is. Really, considering the Ministers we have had from these South American Republics—I have known some of them—the less we have of them the better. So far as I am concerned they may all live in Paris. I am not speaking of present Representatives—let these be exceptions—but my experience of these gentlemen who have the title of Ministers is, that they get little salary; they get their livelihood in a precarious, speculative sort of way; they make bogus treaties, and they play billiards. When we are told that we ought to pay £3,000 extra to one of these South American Republics, because if we do not that Republic may positively be so antagonistic that they will send their Minister to live at Paris instead of in London, it is a litle too absurd. If that view is the true one, then we ought to make them all Ambassadors at once for fear of exciting jealousy. It is the duty of the Under Secretary to defend it; but with his experience of the Foreign Office, he must
  1532
  know perfectly well that it is an utterly useless and wasteful expenditure of public money. Under the circumstances, I must ask the Committee to divide.
  MR. MOLLOY: I shall support my hon. Friend, not that I can enter into these diplomatic distinctions and what he calls fuss and feathers, for I am bound to admit I do not understand these things; but in regard to emigration I may say a word or two. Our Ambassador—or whatever he is called—in the Argentine Republic took no precautions whatever in regard to the arrival of emigrants.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. The Minister engaged himself with the Relief Committee beforehand, when he heard that a large number of English and Irish emigrants were coming. It happened that a large number of emigrants had arrived a day or two before, and the barracks where emigrants are accommodated on their arrival were full. The Minister with the British Relief Committee took immediate action. The Committee provided for some of the poor people in their own houses, and but for the relief afforded by the Committee the people would have suffered much more than they did.
  MR. MOLLOY: The fact remains that no action was taken by the Minister until the British residents formed themselves into a committee and went to the Minister and induced him to put himself at their head. Agents came from the Argentine Confederation to England and Ireland to induce people to emigrate, but what notice of this was taken before these agents came over? The intention was well known in Buenos Ayres, and yet no information was given, no precaution was taken; the evil was allowed to be done, and no action was taken until the British residents took the matter up, and, thus invoked, the Minister gave his assistance. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. For what purpose I cannot conceive, the right hon. Gentleman stated, as an excuse for the miseries that these unfortunate people suffered, that the emigrants were mostly Irish and of bad character.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No.
  MR. MOLLOY: I noticed at the same time that the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1533
  chequer tried to stop the right hon. Gentleman by pulling his coat-tail. Now this is a grave accusation to make. We know these people who went out yielded to the temptations of the Argentine agents over here, and owing to the want of precautions taken by our Minister. What warrant has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the people who went from Ireland were mostly composed of idlers and bad characters?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I never said such a thing. I said that too little care was taken in the selection of suitable emigrants, and that many sent from Ireland were not fitted to make good colonists; that a considerable number were of idle habits. It was the fault of selection. I know that there are a large number of Irishmen now in the Argentine Republic who are doing exceedingly well, and are good colonists from every point of view. I never said anything approaching the statement that the Irish emigrants were chiefly bad characters. I said there were many who were unfortunately chosen.
  MR. MOLLOY: The great majority of them.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I never said so.
  MR. MOLLOY: Certainly the impression conveyed was that a large number were composed of idlers and bad characters, and I at once drew attention to the remark across the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchecquer tried to check it. Does anybody know if an emigrant is well fitted until he becomes acquainted with the habits and work of a new country? Still the fact remains that the Minister Plenipotentiary, with practically nothing to do—I have visited some of these countries, and I know their life is that of case and leisure—allowed these agents to come to England and Ireland and induce these families to go out, and sent no word of warning that might have saved them from the miseries they underwent. There is nothing more unfortunate in the history of my country than the miseries that emigrants have had to undergo. I have seen them landed in foreign countries where we have Ambassadors, Consuls, and an expensive Diplomatic Service, and yet they have become absorbed in the miseries and vices of a foreign city, and no help
  1534
  has been afforded to give them a fair chance; the men become drunkards, the women become something worse. How is it with all this expenditure on the Diplomatic Service no precautions are taken against these things? Go to any country you like, it is not from the diplomats the emigrants get any assistance, whatever help there is comes from private associations. And here in this House we have excuses made, and no word of sympathy for the unfortunate people who have suffered these miseries that a word of warning might have prevented. So far as I know, and I have made some inquiry, notwithstanding the examples we have had, notwithstanding the evil that has been done, no public warning has been sent by the Minister. It may be he has done so in private but that is of no use to the public. The agents are still endeavouring to get people to emigrate, and there is no warning of the dangers and difficulties before them. I shall support the hon. Member in his Motion for a reduction, not on the ground he has himself taken, but on the ground that the work for which these gentlemen are paid has not been done, and in order to mark the opinion of the Committee with regard to the grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister Plenipotentiary in the Argentine Republic.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Before we divide I should like to assure the Committee of my own knowledge that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement of the hon. Member that her Majesty's representative at Buenos Ayres has been in the least degree indifferent to any of his duties, and particularly in looking after emigrants who have gone out there. That gentleman has gone out of his way to take an immense deal of trouble to assist them. He has also sent home a large quantity of useful information, as will be seen when the Papers are distributed.
  MR. MOLLOY: I do not dispute that he is doing so now—
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: And has done so all along.
  MR. MOLLOY: I challenge denial when I say that no warning of any sort was sent by our Minister Plenipotentiary to this country, and the truth is a number of unfortunate families have been dragged to ruin through his dereliction of duty.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the distinction between a Minister Resident, or Envoy Extraordinary, and a Consul? The business of the former is to communicate with the Government respecting political matters, while the latter has to send home Commercial Reports. You have at Buenos Ayres, in addition to the Minister Resident, a Consul General who receives a salary of £1,000 a year, besides expenses to the extent of £500 a year. You have also a Consul at Rosario who gets £500 per annum. Why do not these gentlemen look after emigrants, and why is so much more given to our Representatives at Buenos Ayres than at Monte Video?
  MR. SEXTON: I did not hear the formal speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I heard the account given of it by my hon. Friend, and I must say that the few words which have just been uttered have not materially qualified that account. In defending the inaction of the Minister to the Argentine Republic the right hon. Gentleman has defamed the character of the people of Ireland. You give this Minister a salary of £3,000 a year, while your Consul gets £1,000 a year, and when it is obvious that poor people have been seduced from Ireland by false representations, these officials might surely have issued a warning as to the conditions under which the emigrants could be safely conducted. But the Consul gave no such information, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why. Surely the Minister could have made some arrangements for the reception of these emigrants and have issued some notification to the people at home, which would prevent a recurrence of these disgraceful calamities. It does not appear that up to a recent date any sort of information was given, though the Minister now seems to be atoning for his neglect. With regard to the attack which the right hon. Gentleman felt himself justified in making on these emigrants, my hon. Friend informs me that he spoke of them as people of bad character, and I think we are entitled to know what he meant by that, for it is not to be tolerated that a Minister should rise in his place and fling general imputations of bad character against these poor helpless people. It is the first time I have
  1536
  heard, either in this House, or out of it, that the Irish emigrant is unwilling to turn himself to any particular work, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what work it was that these emigrants were unwilling to do. If the charge be true that these people were idle and not good colonists, then they must be different from all the Irish emigrants I have ever heard of, and I think the Home Secretary, who has had some experience of Ireland, will be able to confirm me when I say that if there is any hard work to be done, the Irish emigrant is the man to do it. I repeat that these Irish people are about the best colonists that can be obtained. They are as ready and as able as any other people to accommodate themselves to different kinds of labour. If the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about the Argentine Republic, he would know that it is Irishmen who have done most to build up the prosperity and make the progress of that Republic; and, in the face of these facts, I think he was not judicious in rising at the Table and making an attack on an inoffensive people who were led to a distant part of the world by false representations. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on the Ministerial Bench at the time, and did not interfere; but had the First Lord of the Treasury been present, no doubt he would have used his influence to prevent such unfounded charges being made.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have heard my answer to the hon. Member for Northampton with respect to the hardships suffered by some emigrants to the Argentine Republic. I thought it proper to give the information which I have received, and which will soon be in the hands of Members. What I said was that for the most part the emigrants did very well, but that in some cases there had been a careless selection of emigrants, some of whom were not suitable, and others not of good character. As a fact, I believe that some of the emigrants have proved excellent colonists. In Ireland, as in England, I suppose, some are fitted for emigration more than others. I cannot help it if the right hon. Gentleman is not pleased. I am glad to know that the

  1537
  Minister has been doing his duty and exerting himself on behalf of colonists.
  DR. CLARK: I think good reason has been shown for this reduction. Why should the Argentine Republic have both a Minister and a Consul, while seven other South American States are satisfied with a Minister and Consul General combined in one person? Why should the Argentine Republic have a special envoy?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already answered that point. I cannot help it if the hon. Member was not in the House when I answered the hon. Member for Northampton.
  DR. CLARK: I was in the House and heard the attempted explanation of the right hon. Gentleman; but certainly, so far as I can judge, he gave no reason why we should vote this extra money to the Argentine Republic.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: What I said was that British trade and interests were greater in the Argentine Republic than in any other South American State except Brazil. The expense of living at Buenos Ayres, owing to its rapid development, has largely increased of late years. There is no reason at all for the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has given reasons for this heavy expenditure, but they are not good reasons. The cost of living in the Argentine Republic is not greater than in Peru or Monte Video, and the Minister is not called upon to entertain to any considerable extent.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 101.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have an Amendment to reduce theVoteby£3,000, but I propose only to move a reduction of £500, and in doing so I have to discuss two points, the first being the salary paid to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna. There is nowadays a great tendency to appoint Ambassadors where Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary have been before. An Ambassador has a higher salary and a higher retiring pension, in return for which the country gets no practical advantage, the only difference between the two positions being that an Ambassador can demand a private audience of the
  1538
  Monarch of the country to which he is accredited, because he is supposed to be the direct representative of the Sovereign who accredits him; whereas a Minister Plenipotentiary and an Envoy Extraordinary has not that right. It seems to me that this is a small and impracticable advantage. I have taken the case of Austria because it is first on the list, but the same observations apply to other countries. In Spain and Italy, for instance, Envoys Extraordinary have been converted into Ambassadors. It may be said that where foreign countries send Ambassadors here we should send an Ambassador to those foreign countries; but that is not true as a general rule. In some cases we send Ambassadors to foreign countries which only send Envoys Extraordinary here. That is my first point. My next is that the Ambassador at Vienna is paid £500 a year more than the Ambassadors at Berlin and St. Petersburg, and I want to know the reason for that difference. It is said that the Ambassador is given this high salary at Vienna because the expense of living is very high. I should have thought it was as expensive at Berlin, but there is no question of this—that the expense of living at St. Petersburg is at least one-third higher than in Austria, although we pay less to our Representative in St. Petersburg than we do to the Ambassador in Vienna. I, therefore, ask the Committee to agree with me in making this reduction as a protest, in the first place, against the whole system of these Ambassadors abroad; and, in the second, against paying our Ambassador in Vienna so much more per annum than those in Berlin and St. Petersburg. There is another small point I wish to deal with. There is £300 put down for a chaplain. There is no such thing as a chaplain to an Embassy, but in places where there is a Consul a chaplain can be paid double the sum subscribed by the residents for his support. Here the chaplain is put down as chaplain to the Ambassador. I find that there is a Consul General at Vienna. He is a very ornamental sort of gentleman, because he receives no fees, and the total fees he collects during the entire year are £35. The existence of this gentleman entails upon us a cost of £300 for a chaplain, and, I think, most improperly. I beg to move the reduc-

  1539
  tion of the salary of the Ambassador in Austria by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Austria."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am glad the ton. Gentleman has not referred to the Vienna Embassy because he objects to it particularly, but only on the general ground that Ambassadors are not necessary, and that the work may as well be done by representatives of lower rank. Well, Sir, it has become the practice of late years for the Great Powers to be represented at each other's Courts by officials of the highest rank. It is a matter of International courtesy, and certainly English interests abroad are not less now than in times past. The hon. Gentleman has remarked on the recent raising of the rank of the Representative at Madrid to that of Ambassador, but he has fallen into the mistake of imagining that the Spanish Representative in our Court is not an Ambassador. It was because he was raised to the rank of Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government raised the rank of our Representative at Madrid. The proposal came from the Spanish Government, and it was not thought desirable to refuse such a mark of respect to a country which I am glad to say has, of late, been making remarkable advances. The change made there has been made without any additional cost to the public. That has been avoided by a rearrangement of salaries and allowances in other places. As to the chaplain, it has long been the custom to maintain a chaplain at such places, and it is a very comfortable thing for British subjects when they go to a foreign country to find their own church is represented there.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman has thrown a most extraordinary light on the mode in which money is obtained and spent on this Vote. We have hitherto managed with a Plenipotentiary in Spain and were perfectly satisfied. Suddenly Spain in a swagger sort of way—being a little Power that wants to be a great Power—sends an Ambassador to London, and as a consequence we have to send an Ambassador to Madrid. How is the money got? By the transfer of salaries
  1540
  from other offices. Then the right hon. Gentleman admits either that the Government have been most cruel to other public servants, or year after year they have been paying salaries which are unnecessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Spanish Ambassador receives the same salary as our Ambassador in Madrid? I should say that most undoubtedly he does not. So that Spain has made an uncommonly good bargain, because she gets a much larger amount of British money spent in Madrid than she sends to England. How far is this to go? If the Republic of Honduras should send an Ambassador here, would Her Majesty's Government return the compliment? There is one country which shows common sense in this matter. The United States never appoints or receives Ambassadors. An Envoy is good enough for that great country. Then the Under Secretary says it is a pleasant thing to find a church abroad. That may be so, but it is not a pleasant thing for me to have to pay for the chaplain of a church which is not necessarily my church. There are many sects in this country, and for my part I regard them as pretty equal. There is a sect called the Church of England, and there is one called the Presbyterian. The right hon. Gentleman, being a Scotchman, may be a Presbyterian. Does it not shock his sense of justice when he goes to Vienna and finds that, as a member of the fine old sect of Presbyterians, he has to pay for the Church of England chaplain, and cannot find any Presbyterian church? The shameful thing is that this is done by trickery and dodgery. The Ambassador has no right to a chaplain. By rights, I ought to divide twice over—that is to say, in regard both to the Ambassador and the chaplain—but I think I shall have done my duty if I divide the Committee over the Ambassador.
  MR. WADDY: I have been struck with the argument used by the hon. Gentleman in regard to these chaplains. I find we have such chaplains in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Spain, and Turkey. But what becomes of the wretched and unfortunate Englishman who at this time of the year is wandering in Belgium? There is no chaplain there. What becomes of the English traveller in France? There is

  1541
  no chaplain there. In Russia and Italy we are chaplainless, and why on earth do we not have a chaplain in Persia? We have as our Representative there a very eminent former Member of this House, and one would have thought that his spiritual affairs would have been looked after more carefully. The fact is, it is simple nonsense, and the excuse is simply an excuse. There is no reason that could be given in regard to any one of these cases that would not apply just as much to the other. As to the question of Ambassadors and Envoys. I should like to know why one is paid more than the other, seeing that they do exactly the same work and have exactly the same responsibility. Why should you pay a man more because you give him a nicer name? I shall certainly feel it my duty to vote with my hon. Friend, unless some explanation is given of the change in the rates we are paying for an article which is admittedly the same.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 314.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I see no Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench, and I do not see the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of whom I am anxious to ask a few questions respecting our position with regard to Italy. I experience a difficulty in asking him those questions when he is not here.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. LABOUCHEREproceeded: Some time ago I asked several questions in regard to our relations towards Italy, and particularly in regard to the Triple Alliance. I did not receive any great information upon the matter. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that since then official journals, both of Germany and Italy, have stated that England has actively interfered with the object of inducing the Italian Government to join the Triple Alliance. I wish to know whether this country has any relations with Italy; and, if so, what are they? At the present time Europe is practically divided into two camps. There are Austria, Germany, and Italy on one side entering into what they are pleased to call an alliance for
  1542
  the purpose of peace, but which appears to be practically an alliance of a defensive kind against either Russia or France singly, or Russia and France combined. Now, I am one of those who think that the less we meddle in affairs on the Continent the better it will be for us. This country is an Island, and it seems to me that we ought to take up the same position towards the Continent as the United States adopts towards Europe. If the Continental Powers go to war certainly we ought to regret it, but we ought not to put ourselves between the hammer and the anvil. We ought, perhaps, to give good advice, which probably would not be listened to; but we ought not, directly or indirectly, to enter into any engagement or liability which might drag us into a Continental war. The Emperor of Germany has lately been in this country. I asked a question sometime ago as to whether there was any truth in the statement that conversations had taken place between the Emperor of Germany or Count Bismarck and Lord Salisbury defining our position in regard to the Triple Alliance? An allegation has since been made in the Opinione, the official journal, that when Prince Bismarck was anxious for Italy to join the Triple Alliance he found Italy somewhat reluctant to do so. The Italian Minister perceived that if a war broke out between Germany, Austria, and France, and Italy were to become the ally of Germany and Austria, although she might, with the aid of Germany and Austria, hold her own on land yet her sea-coast was open to attack on the part of France, owing to the stronger Navy of the latter Power. In those circumstances, it is alleged that Prince Bismarck asked Sir E. Malet to use his good offices with Her Majesty's Government to say or do something that would lead the Italian Government to join the Triple Alliance. Whether a despatch was written or a private letter, or whether personal assurances were given to Italy, does not appear; but, undoubtedly, it is generally believed that at that time Lord Salisbury did make certain communications to Italy which indicated that she could with safety join the Triple Alliance—that we would be on the side of the Triple Alliance, and do our best to prevent Italy suffering loss of territory in consequence of her joining

  1543
  that alliance. These statements are again renewed in the Opinione and another foreign journal; and I should like to have a clear and distinct assurance from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that neither directly or indirectly have we given any species of assurance, either to Germany, Austria, or Italy, that might lead them to suppose that in the event of war between those Powers and France and Russia we should in any sort of way side with the members of the Triple Alliance.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: This is not the first time the hon. Member has asked me a question of this kind. At the beginning of the Session last year the hon. Member asked a question on the same subject, then as now prefacing it by quoting some rumours which he said had prevailed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him on one point? Only two or three weeks ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether certain statements in the Opinione, which is regarded generally in Italy as an inspired organ of the Government, were correct or not.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is so; but still I am quite correct in saying that the hon. Member asked a question last year which he prefaced by quoting rumours similar in their character to those now brought forward. The hon. Gentleman asked me a fortnight ago whether certain statements in the Opinione, alleging that Her Majesty's Government had in some way committed themselves to join the Triple Alliance or give material assistance to Italy in certain contingencies, were correct. At that time I gave a distinct reply, and said that there were no such engagements, and that Her Majesty's Government preserved entire freedom of action in future in case of any eventuality. I happen to know that immediately after I made that statement another Italian newspaper, the Italia, which is supposed to be as well informed as the Opinione, said that from their point of view, and having the greatest regard for the friendship of England, they thought the statement I had made was perfectly satisfactory and consistent with the facts. The hon. Member asks, à propos of some rumours which he has again quoted, of a character which I should have thought were manifestly unauthen-
  1544
  tic, whether I am still able to say that Her Majesty's Government have not committed themselves to a possible junction with the Triple Alliance. The statement I made to the House in answer to the hon. Member in February of last year was still literally correct. I said on that occasion that Her Majesty's Government were under no engagements to employ the Military or Naval Forces of this country except such as were known to the House, and that their attitude was entirely within and consistent with the Treaties known to the House. I cannot imagine any declaration that can be more precise and authentic than that, and I do not know that the hon. Member has any ground whatever for doubting the repeated statements that have been made, not only in this House, but on behalf of the Government in another place, and which are entirely consistent with that declaration. No country in Europe has more at stake, or is more interested in the maintenance of peace, than Great Britain; and the fact that she is strong makes her moral influence, which must always be on the side of peace, of greater importance. We entirely desire that peace should be preserved, and I believe that other nations appreciate the freedom of action which this country has always maintained. As our interests are worldwide—so world-wide that a disturbance in any part of the world must gravely affect us—it is the more necessary that while our endeavours must always be on the side of peace, the Government of this country shall be free in any eventuality to take that course which the interests of this country, in view of the circumstances, may require.
  MR. PICTON: The right hon. Baronet referred in a tone of stricture to my hon. Friend's remarks concerning certain rumours. It is impossible for unofficial Members of this House to be altogether indifferent to this matter. We ask for definite assurances from the official Members of the House. The right hon. Baronet says that this country has preserved its entire freedom of action. That may be very true, but it is quite consistent with the idea that this country may have given an intimation to Italy that, in certain circumstances, this country will probably be inclined to take a particular line of action. The

  1545
  right hon. Baronet says that the Government have not committed themselves to any possible junction with the Triple Alliance, and I do not wish to misinterpret the right hon. Gentleman, but these words seem to me to be of a rather sweeping character.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should not like to be misunderstood. In order to be quite precise I quoted what I stated before, to which I entirely adhere. I said, "Her Majesty's Government were under no engagements to employ the Military or Naval Forces of this country except such as were known to the House."
  MR. PICTON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for completing my information, "except such as were known to the House." Unfortunately we private Members are not able to keep ourselves exactly informed as to the precise terms which occur in the various public documents, and we would be extremely grateful if on occasions of this kind Members of the Government would tell us precisely to what we are committed. We want to know, for instance, whether the pressure put upon the House by the Government to increase the powers of the Navy this year was occasioned by the consciousness that we were committed to warlike contingencies. So far as hon. Members are aware there is no engagement except that relating to Belgium; we do not know of any Treaty binding us to maintain the unity of Italy. The pressure exerted by the Government in the matter of naval defence did occasion much uneasiness to some Members who may be regarded as specially lovers of peace—peace consistent, of course, with honour; and I do not think that the information we have received as yet can be deemed satisfactory. We on these Benches are quite as much concerned in the honour as well as in the safety of our native land as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite; but we contend that our honour is not concerned in the defence of institutions which ought to be maintained by the inhabitants of the country that loves those institutions. Anxiety is quickened when we hear of rumours which are not completely contradicted that we are committed to the maintenance of the Triple Alliance.
  MR. WADDY: Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House accept implicitly any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, either as a private gentleman, or as a public official; but that is not the difficulty. The difficulty lies beyond that. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us in definite language that there have been no assurances whatever given by this country, and that there would be no interference whatever by this country to secure the objects of the Triple Alliance. Instead of telling us what it is to which he pledges himself, he resorted to the quotation of words which related to another period; and he used a phrase calculated from past association to arouse suspicion. He spoke of a rumour not being authentic. That word "authentic" has a very unpleasant history.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If the hon. Member likes, I will say it is perfectly absurd.
  MR. WADDY: That the statement of the Opinione is perfectly absurd?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No.
  MR. WADDY: Ah!
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, the statement which the hon. Member made. I gave a categorical answer at the time as regards the quotation from the Opinione showing that it was incorrect. I said the rumours to which the hon. Member for Northampton referred are quite unauthentic, and I will go so far as to say they are absurd.
  MR. WADDY: I do not understand the distinction drawn between things that are unauthentic and things that are absurd. I said that the word "authentic" has an unpleasant history. We all remember that a very eminent authority, when he was asked in another place questions with regard to a treaty, said, "the rumours in question are altogether unauthentic, and not deserving of the confidence of noble Lords." At the very time that was said the Treaty had been written, and the "unauthentic" statement was perfectly true. What we desire the right hon. Gentleman to tell us is whether we have entered into any undertaking to support Italy by military or naval force. We do not want to hear about what is included or excluded by any particular Treaty. Will he say that there is no

  1547
  truth whatever in the statement that this country is a party to any assurance or inducement to any member of the Triple Alliance?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us he repeats the words he used in a previous Session, and those words, as I gather them, are that he can assure the House that no engagement has been entered into with Italy to employ the Forces of Her Majesty in the defence of Italy.
  SIR. FERGUSSON: I said, "Her Majesty's Government were under no engagement to employ the military or naval forces of this country, except such as were known to the House."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But without being under any engagement to employ the Military or Naval Forces of the country in defence of Italy, you may yet convey to Italy in an indirect fashion that so far as the Members of Her Majesty's Government are concerned they approve of the Triple Alliance, and that should any harm come to Italy through her forming the Triple Alliance they will, if they are in office, use their best offices to protect Italy against any loss of territory. I do not suppose that Lord Salisbury, who stands in fear of public opinion, will give any assurances to Italy that will not leave the right hon. Gentleman free to make and repeat the declaration he has quoted. But I will submit to the right hon. Gentleman a form of words that will give satisfaction:—
  "That no communication has been made to Italy by Her Majesty's Government, since the accession to office of Lord Salisbury, either orally or in writing, which may lead that country to suppose that Her Majesty's Government would, in any eventuality, protect Italy from the possible consequences in the Mediterranean of her finding herself the ally of Germany, or that Her Majesty's Government approves of the alliance entered into between Austria, Germany, and Italy."
  These are broad words; they cover everything; they express what I mean. I have written them down to make it perfectly clear what I mean. I am a simple-minded person, and do not understand all the refinements of the right hon. Baronet or of his chief. I remember the rumours in the Press and the statement of Lord Salisbury with respect to an agreement made with Turkey. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any clear and specific declaration
  1548
  that nothing in the nature suggested by my question has been done, or if, on the other hand, he will give us a declaration which we shall be able fully to understand and be prepared to accept, and which, if given, will prevent our urging at any future time that any secret arrangement has been arrived at in this matter, we shall know or infer what is the true state of affairs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will answer my question. I am ready to accept the statement of those gentlemen, either jointly or separately. I hope we shall have some sort of assurance from one of them. [Laughter from the Treasury Bench.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs. He perfectly well knows that he cannot give any such assurance. He knows that when Lord Salisbury disappears from the Foreign Office traces of this business will be left behind, and the noble Lord will be discovered as he was once before when he made certain statements which were not put forward in that direct, right, or proper manner in which such statements ought to have been made and understood, in order to suit the exigencies of his European policy. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative of Lord Salisbury, whether he can give a satisfactory reply to the question I have written out? As I have said, this question covers everything; but if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give such an assurance as I have asked for and falls back on the sort of vague, ambiguous, and evasive statement he made last year—of course I mean no offence to the right hon. Baronet in saying this—I, and many others in this House will continue to believe that there is some secret alliance between the Prime Minister of England, Lord Salisbury, and the members of the Triple Alliance, and that that alliance is levelled, to a considerable extent, against France and Russia. I think it is more likely to be levelled against France than Russia, because although Lord Salisbury has a perfect mania with regard to the ambitious projects of Russia, he has, nevertheless, a special hatred against France, and has shown this hatred and grossly insulted that couu-

  1549
  try by declining to take any part whatever in the Exhibition.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH),: In answer to the very extraordinary observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I would say that there is not one atom of foundation for any of the fears or vaticinations in which the hon. Member has indulged, nor is there one atom of foundation for the views which he has attributed to Lord Salisbury or Her Majesty's Government with regard to France. The Government of this country are on terms of the most perfect friendship with the Republic of France, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made by hon. Members in this House and by other persons in the country to disturb those amicable relations. I have every reason to believe that the Government of France regard England as a Power on whom they may rely for the most friendly relations, and we have not the slightest apprehension that anything will arise to disturb these relations.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: I have heard the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and I may say it is all very well for him to comment on the language of my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton in reference to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government towards the French Republic. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the perfect amity which exists between the two countries; but Her Majesty's Government have so extraordinary a way of showing this that I am reminded of the couplet—
  "It's all very well to dissemble your love,
  But why did you kick me down stairs?"
  I do not see why all the dispatches which have passed on this subject between England and Germany and England and Italy should not be produced. This House and the country have had a great deal too much of the old-fashioned system of Foreign Office diplomacy, which is still being conducted in the hugger-mugger method that has characterised it for so many years past. It is next to impossible for this House to form a reasonable judgment on any subject connected with
  1550
  foreign affairs, because every time any information is called for which might be of the least use to the House it is withheld until the country is irrevocably committed to engagements from which it cannot recede, and the judgment of the people, who, after all, are the masters of the Ministry, is reduced to a perfect farce, and the House of Commons to a perfect nullity. I consider that in this particular matter of the Triple Alliance the House of Commons has been kept without information with which it ought to have been furnished. The country has been kept in the dark as to the communications that have passed between Italy and England and France and England, and until the right hon. Gentleman can state that every possible information has been made public and can be judged in the light of day by this House and by the country generally we on this side of the House will always feel it our duty to resist these votes for the Foreign Office. I therefore beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500 from the salary of the Ambassador to Italy, and I have to add that I shall take a Division on the question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Italy."—(Mr. William M'Arthur.)
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think that one, at least, of the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Austell is justified. I do not believe that for some years past there has been a year during which, communications on the subject of our relations with foreign Powers have been, so scarce as has been the case during the past year. Indeed, I do not think there has been a single volume of Foreign Office correspondence put before the House with the exception of the one which relates to Samoa. I would remind the House that when we had a discussion on foreign affairs arising on the Queen's Speech the First Lord of the Treasury promised Papers on the subject of our relations with Germany in regard to East Africa, but when we pressed for them we were told that they could not be produced. And now, upon this most important subject of the re-

  1551
  lations between Great Britain and the Great Powers of Europe we are absolutely denied any information whatever, the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs having told us nothing except that, in order that the Government might not commit themselves, he read to us a statement repeating the words he had used in February last. Since then there have undoubtedly been a great number of communications between our Government and the Governments of France, Italy, and Germany. Things have not stood still in regard to the relations between Italy and Germany, and, as is well known, there is a considerable feeling of uneasiness as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Triple Alliance. There is a feeling that we may have been committed to engagements on this subject without being made aware of the extent of our responsibility. I venture to think that it would be much wiser if Her Majesty's Government were to pursue a more open line of policy in foreign affairs towards the people of this country. They should recognise the fact that this House and the electorate of this country ought to be made aware of our relations with foreign Powers, and what engagements they are committed to. The English people are not at all averse to undertaking obligations such as it may be deemed necessary to undertake; but they view with apprehension the possibility that they may be committed to engagements, the extent of which they do not know, and which they may be called on at a very awkward moment to fulfil. I would most earnestly urge the Government to give us, if possible, some fuller information as to what are the actual relations of this country towards the Triple Alliance.
  MR. LEA: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said there never has been a time when foreign affairs received so little attention in this House. That proves clearly that this House has perfect confidence in Her Majesty's Government with regard to the foreign relations of this country, and that confidence is reflected outside this House.
  MR. MOLLOY: Looking at the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury, I understand him to have said
  1552
  that there is no treaty and that we are not committed to any particular policy with regard to Italy or the Triple Alliance, and that, in point of fact, England is in no sense committed to any of the Powers of Europe. I do not think we could ask for more than this, and we certainly ought to feel bound to accept that statement; because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have used the plain language he did if he had believed the words conveyed a meaning that could not be comprehended by the Committee. I think that that statement was very fairly made, and as I am quite prepared to accept it, I have to say that under these circumstances, anxious as I always am to vote with my hon. Friend below me, I do not think I can vote with him on this occasion.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 315.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CHANNING: I have to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, being part of the salary of the Ambassador to Turkey. I make this Motion in order to draw attention to recent events in Armenia, and to the policy of the Embassy at Constantinople as a vehicle of information in regard to the condition of the Christian population of Asia Minor, and as an instrument of English influence on the policy of the Porte in reference to these matters. The result of the previous Debate on this subject was that we were left in a Cimmerian darkness by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. All that was then made manifest was that our policy at Constantinople was merely a policy of shutting our eyes and ears, and not even venturing to state our opinion with regard to what was going on in Turkey and Asia Minor, for fear that if we expose these outrages we shall be weakening the authority of the Turkish Government. The information we have obtained through the pressure brought to bear by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, as given in the Blue Book which has been laid on the Table, shows that the policy of the Government is faithfully carried out by Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople—the policy of shutting the eyes to what is going on in those Eastern regions. The statements in the Blue Book confirm almost every

  1553
  detail that was previously laid before the House. We have in the statements of Her Majesty's Consuls, which are now laid before Parliament, an accurate confirmation of the worst of these reports; and I would draw the attention of the Committee to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir J. Fergusson) in the previous Debate, where he said that the Government was served in Asia Minor by officers well able to distinguish truth from falsehood. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the Reports of the various Consuls he will find that the Representatives of Her Majesty who are on the spot in these remote districts have spoken out most distinctly as to these outrages, and have made it clear that there is a fresh recrudescence of that spirit of Oriental barbarity which is too well known, while at Constantinople, on the contrary, where the surroundings of the Turkish capital are brought to bear on Her Majesty's Representative, and those attached to the Embassy, he will find on their part that policy with which we are too familiar, of shutting the eyes and closing the ears to things that are unpleasant and may be troublesome. There is a despatch in the Blue Book to which I should like to draw attention as typifying the action of Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople in this matter. On page 55 of the Blue Book we find Sir W. White writing to the Prime Minister as follows:—
  "Your Lordship is aware, from previous Reports of mine, that my action with His Imperial Majesty on Armenian subjects is greatly paralysed by the interpretation which evil-disposed persons are constantly giving to the interest or sympathy which Her Majesty's Government or this Embassy may happen to show at any time in the condition of that race."
  The tone of that despatch, I contend, reflects the timid and time-serving spirit that has been too prevalent at Constantinople. It is true Her Majesty is served by good men in Asia Minor, but these good men, so far as we can judge from these Reports, are working under great difficulties in the outlying districts, and are not those under the influence of the Constantinople régime. In this Blue Book there are important passages which are calculated to rouse great indignation as to the treatment of the
  1554
  Nestorian Christians in the remote parts of Armenia. These people, who have retained a primitive Christianity, have been harried and subjected to the worst tyranny and exactions by the Turkish officials, many of whom are of Kurdish extraction, who have had command in the various districts in that neighbourhood, and they have recently gone through a period of suffering to which I am compelled to draw attention. Some 30 years ago, when the notorious Beder Khan was leader of the Kurdish tribes in that neighbourhood, these people suffered from one of the most atrocious massacres known to Turkish history, and on that occasion Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who at that time exercised a real influence in Asiatic Turkey, interfered and got some sort of protection and peace for these poor people. But last year what happened? Why, the Kurdish tribes who surround these Nestorian Christians, who live in the pent-up valleys of this mountainous region, collected and threatened them with annihilation, and the beginning of the campaign which they set on foot was signalised by some of the most atrocious barbarities which, I venture to say, have ever been described in any Report ever laid on the Table of the House. Frightful outrages were committed upon numbers of women tending their flocks on the hill sides, and were followed by the massacre of many of the women, as we find it detailed in the Blue Book. Now, how was the general massacre of the Nestorian Christians, which was foreshadowed by this first attack of the Kurds, averted? Mr. Browne, an English clergyman who had been sent on this mission by the Archbishop of Canterbury, managed to send a messenger across the mountains to Consul General Abbott at Tabreez, and it was owing to the vigorous action taken by Consul Abbott, and to the promptitude also of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at Teheran, that help was sent in time to prevent the complete annihilation of the Nestorians by the Kurds of that district. I think we must feel a deep sense of gratitude to the head of the English Church for the part he has taken in this matter. We have the action of Her

  1555
  Majesty's Representatives supplemented in a singularly vigorous manner by that of the head of the English Church. We have the evidence of Mr. Browne, substantiated by independent witnesses like Mr. Athelstan Riley and Dr. Cholmondeley, who have several times visited these Nestorians as to these outrages. How have we been met on the opposite side by the Turks in the matter? Why, the Turkish view was put forward by the Turkish Ambassador, and is given on page 35 of the Blue Book. The Turkish Ambassador represents the attitude adopted at Constantinople, which was, apparently, too easily acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Representative in that city. The Turkish Ambassador wholly denied the facts thus established by independent evidence which would convince any Court of Justice in this country, and actually went so far as to say that Mr. Browne was the plague of the neighbourhood, and should be removed, and that no one desired his absence more than, the Patriarch of the Nestorian Church—Mar Shimoon. This view was enforced on Her Majesty's Government through the Turkish Ambassador; but what I have to complain of, further, is that we have in this instance, as we have in a great many others in connection with these matters, the familiar kind of memoranda got up by English officials who are under the Constantinople influence, and who seem, as I have said, to have eyes and ears open only to statements which tell in favour of the Turkish Government—I refer to the memoranda of Colonel Trotter and Colonel Bell. These memoranda show the willingness of Her Majesty's Representatives in Turkey to accept whatever representation the Turkish Government puts within their view, and which may serve to cast doubt or throw cold water on the evidence of people on the spot, who tell us of atrocities such as those perpetrated on the Nestorians. I denounce this policy on the part of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople as reflecting no credit upon the good sense of those who carry it out, or upon the honour of this country. I have referred in detail to this matter because of a passage in one of the despatches of Sir W. White. Speak-
  1556
  ing of these atrocities on the Nestorian Christians, he says they may break out again during the present year; and I would like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any later information as to the position of these Nestorian Christians than that of which the House is in possession? And now I would refer to the horrible atrocities with which we have been familiarised during the last two months, which have occurred in Armenia proper, chiefly in the District of Van, and which are connected, mainly, with the notorious Kurdish Chief Moussa Bey. What has been the action of Her Majesty's Representatives and the Turkish Authorities in this matter? The subject was touched on in this House and another place by the representatives of the Foreign Office with much hesitation and uncertainty of tone. The alleged atrocities with which Moussa Bey is specially connected were indignantly denied by the Turkish Ambassador, and there has been far too much disposition to accept or not to challenge those denials. What has been the policy of Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople? That policy is-shown clearly by a typical passage in the Blue Book, in a despatch of Lord Salisbury to Sir W. White, on page 57, in which the statement of the Turkish Ambassador is quoted to the effect that—
  "There were occasionally Kurdish raids, but they were repressed, and large bodies of police were employed to maintain order. The Porte selected the best officers at its disposal for the Armenian Provinces, and his Excellency maintained that the improvement there, as well as in the other Provinces of the Empire, was very remarkable.'
  And I wish to draw special attention to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, which is also given in the despatch:—
  "Sir James Fergusson observed, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had, as his Excellency knows, abstained from pressing the Porte on the subject in spite of the reports which had reached them, that the Armenians were suffering from considerable hardships, for they knew the difficulties with which the Porte had to contend."
  That is my complaint, that Her Majesty's Government will not use such powers as they have for fear of embarrassing the Porte, though they well know from the Reports of their Consuls that these atrocities are taking place. Then in the Blue Book there is a state-

  1557
  ment by the Sultan to Sir W. White, in which he says that these atrocities are carried out by nomad Kurds from the Persian Frontier, who raid into Armenia and then escape from Turkish jurisdiction, so that nothing can he done. And he adds, characteristically, that the atrocities which were attributed to Moussa Bey were so repugnant to the customs and habits of Mahommedans that he refused to credit them. That statement, which was transmitted to us by Sir W. White, was echoed without comment by the Prime Minister in another place, when he spoke about the atrocities being carried out by Kurds who come across the frontier into Armenia. This statement was absolutely denied by the Persian Ambassador, Maleom Khan, and is wholly disproved by the Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls on the spot. The scene of these outrages was the district between Bitlis and Moush, at a distance, I am told, of not less than 250 kilometres from the Persian Frontier. The whole history of this ruffian, Moussa Bey, is given by Mr. Devey, Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van, of whom Colonel Chermside speaks in the highest terms—who has been four years in the neighbourhood of Erzeroum, who has made himself thoroughly acquainted with the neighbourhood, and, whose Reports give with an exactness—almost photographic—the details of these atrocities. He establishes absolutely the whole of the worst facts alleged against Moussa Bey—his long career of violence and crime which has led to the present state of things. The Committee must bear in mind that these Kurdish Chiefs are living in the centre of Turkish Armenia, and form part of the local powers of the district. Mr. Devey shows that Moussa Bey was not a nomad at all, but was the ruler over five villages in the district of Khuit, in the plain of Moush, near Bitlis, and had an armed force of nearly 1,000 men at his disposal. This man has been able to make atrocious attacks on missionaries, to perpetrate outrages on women, to burn villages, and to murder men and women for years past; in fact, it is clear that he has been the scourge of this fruitful plain. And there has been no redress. The Turkish Authorities have been petitioned to intefere, but Moussa Bey is hand and glove
  1558
  with all the Powers of Bitlis, and they have constantly laughed at the orders to arrest him. Repeated complaints have been made to Constantinople, but these complaints are not infrequently disastrous to those who make them. One of the Christians who took an active part in these petitions, Ohannes, the head man of a village in the plain of Moush, was waylaid and put to death by Moussa Bey's men under circumstances of the most revolting barbarity. Anyone who reads the evidence given in the Blue Book will see that the descriptions of the way this man was burnt to death are only varied in matters of detail in a manner quite natural, seeing that they come from various sources. We see how this man is regarded in Turkey. Instead of being brought to justice, he was nominally arrested by the Local Authorities. He at once escaped, and actually threatened the Local Authorities that he should come down on them and exact the restitution of the bribes he had given them for ignoring the atrocities. He is received with honour in his own neighbourhood, and escorted by his friends to Constantinople, where he is received by Bahri Pasha, who holds high office at Constantinople and is a relative of Moussa. He has every guarantee that the Sultan absolutely disbelieves beforehand in any of the crimes charged against him. Finally, we have in the Turkish Pro-Memoria, forwarded by Sir William White to Her Majesty's Government, the very climax of outrageous and transparent mis-statement, amounting to a simple drawing of the pen through notorious facts, and stating that the Bey is an angel who is very much injured and wishes to have the charges inquired into. Consul Devey says in his Memorandum, on page 73, that the Porte has to rely only on the Reports sent to him by his own employés, and he especially comments on the invariably unsatisfactory nature of those Reports. He also draws attention to another phase of the question. It is not merely a question of these outrages, but one of deliberate political persecution which is being carried on by the Turkish Authorities in Armenia. He refers to the persecution, the arrest, and the banishment of many people for suspicions which they incurred many

  1559
  years back, and says that even persons who have combined to provide funds for the sick and children left orphans after the war between Turkey and Russia, have been arrested and sent into exile. The Armenians are treated as rebels and disorderly people, and the charges made against them are bolstered with such absurd reports as that of the Armenian brigands referred to the other night by the hon. Member for St. Pancras. Those young Armenians were undoubtedly patriots, and the papers on them showed their patriotic instincts. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that they were brigands and plunderers. The present Vali of Van, Halil Pasha, is described by Consul Devey as a suspicious tyrant who is carrying out the most effective policy for producing disorder in Armenia. Consul Devey says that in the neighbourhood of Bitlis, which he knows most familiarly, there is really no disaffection on the part of the Armenian population. He states that the Kurdish persecution is as bad as ever, that the sufferings of the people are really pitiable, and that if they are not looked on with suspicion by the Government, the utter contempt with which they are treated must be severely felt. He adds that the "Kurdish Sheiks ever hold that the Vilaget is under exception, and that the laws in force elsewhere do not apply." The Armenians have great reason to complain also of the land laws, under which they have been deprived of their land, owing to defects in their title, and have had it sold to Circassians and Kurds. They have also to complain of judicial and fiscal corruption and tyranny and of the practical enslavement of many of them, especially young Armenian women, who are captured and carried off by Kurdish Chiefs. Now, what I wish to know is whether we cannot make some use of our Representatives in Asia Minor and in Turkey to mitigate and bring to an end this state of things? In the first place, can we not have an end of this policy of accepting and palliating these false statements; can we not have a franker and a fairer denunciation of crime when it is clearly brought before the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives? I should like also to ask whether we cannot use our influence to induce the Turkish Government to send into Armenia, as
  1560
  Consul Devey suggests, stronger and more just and wiser men. As it is now, the Turks, instead of sending good men into Armenia, send the worst, as a disgrace. The other day it was stated that some of these evils were to be mitigated, because a new Pasha was to be sent to Bitlis. I hold in my hand a passage from a French paper, Le Temps, in which it is said—
  "Raouf Pasha, who has only been three months Vali of Beyrout, has, owing to frequent complaints of the foreign Consuls against his proceedings, and probably also because of the frequent murders of Christians and Mussulmen which he has been unable to control, has been transferred to Bitlis, which is equivalent to disgrace."
  But we have a further line to take up. I venture to declare that there is a distinct obligation on the part of this country under existing treaties to exercise such form of protection as lies within our reach over these miserable Christian populations. That is a point which, I think, has been unfairly dealt with by the Prime Minister in another place. His argument has been that England would have to do this alone, and to do it with force at our back, a course which he knows the English people are not willing to sanction. The Treaty of Berlin contemplates not a warlike intervention in the affairs of Turkey, but a peaceful supervision of the Signatory Powers over the carrying out of the reforms in the Turkish dominions. I venture to say we have a right, on behalf of the suffering people of Asia Minor, to press upon her Majesty's Government the real meaning of the Treaty of Berlin. Are we to goon shutting our eyes to the outrages and miseries these unhappy people suffer, shutting our eyes to the fact that these things are attributable to the policy of the Power whose influence we wish to maintain? This is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of policy. In Armenia you have a people not altogether in sympathy with Russia. Russia has behaved unwisely and unjustly in her dealings with the people of Armenia and in relation to their religious institutions, and it is perfectly possible by the joint action of the Powers, under the influence of England, to create such a state of things that you would have in Armenia a buffer and a bulwark against Russian advance

  1561
  in the direction of Van and Erzeroum. We should insist that the Governors of these two Provinces should be Armenians and Christians, for there the Christians are in a large majority in the population. I do not wish to detain the Committee at further length. I will only add that if a Conference of the Powers would press this reform, and the institution of an armed Constabulary Force in Armenia, with English or other European officers, these two reforms alone would, if carried out, do immense good in Armenia. I must apologise for the time of the Committee I have occupied. I have endeavoured to put the question forward to the best of my ability, and I trust this discussion may result not in bringing about, as some misguided people have said, conflict between Christian and Moslem inhabitants in Armenia, but in making it clear that English opinion is alive to the necessity of a just policy in Armenia and of strengthening English influence in Constantinople, bringing back the days when Lord Stratford de Redcliffe really did produce some good by the representations he made to the Porte.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Turkey."—(Mr. Channing.)
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend and to express my entire concurrence in the views he has so clearly put before the Committee. I think the attention of the House should be specially called to the Correspondence on the affairs of Asiatic Turkey which has been laid on the Table within the last few days—this account of what I may call the Armenian atrocities. Not since the days of the Bulgarian atrocities have we been presented with accounts of more horrible misgovernment and cruelty, and if Members had had the time to read through this Correspondence, I am sure that the feelings of indignation aroused would have found vent in a very warm discussion indeed. But such has been the preoccupation of the minds of Members with other matters in the last few days that few
  1562
  have had time to master this Correspondence. Never, I say, since the time of the Bulgarian atrocities have I read accounts of more shocking misgovernment and greater cruelty perpetrated upon a helpless Christian population. We could have nothing more fitted to arouse the feelings of the country, and I believe if the people at large come fully to understand the conditions under which the Armenians live and the dreadful cruelties to which they are exposed at the hands of the Mussulmans, we shall see such a feeling excited that it will be necessary for the Government to take up a stronger attitude on this matter than they have hitherto done. Now, the point especially brought out in these Papers is not only the fact that the Christian population have suffered abominable treatment, but that this treatment has been connived at by the Turkish Governors. This cannot be denied or ignored, the evidence of independent travellers fully confirms the very worst accounts we have in these papers. No person who reads through these papers can doubt that had it not been for the presence of an English clergymen, the Rev. W. H. Browne, there would have been a massacre of Christians greater than any that took place during the Bulgarian atrocities period. The evidence is undoubted that there was a conspiracy among the Kurdish Tribes, the most turbulent of the Turkish subjects to extirpate the whole Christian population of Tiari, consisting of many thousand persons. But for the fact of the Rev. Mr. Browne living in the district, and being able at personal risk to bring pressure to bear at Constantinople, and from Constantinople on the Kurds, we in this country should have heard some fine morning that 10,000 or 20,000 Armenians had been massacred in cold blood. This statement rests on undoubted testimony. My hon. Friend has referred to two English travellers who were passing through the district, and who have supplied authoritative accounts of what was taking place. I will ask the Committee to listen while I give one or two quotations from a report sent by one of these gentlemen, Mr. A. Riley, to the Prime Minister. Writing his memorandum in London on December 1st, he in the course of it says:—

  1563
  "This summer the sheep of Astritha, the largest village of Tiari, were being fed in a 'zoma,' or mountain pasture outside Tiari, in charge of between 200 and 300 women and girls and two men."
  MR. Riley explains that the Ashirets or tribal Assyrians have such a small area of land available for cultivation in their valleys that they are obliged to pasture their flocks outside the valleys—
  "On July 31st the encampment was suddenly surrounded by a large body of Kurds, the two men were killed, all the women and girls violated, five were killed, one pregnant woman being ripped open, the child protruded, and one slowly put to death by 25 dagger wounds (I saw the husband of this woman, Rais Yakhanis), four others wounded, and the rest stripped entirely naked, and left in that state to make their way back to Ashitha. So terrible an outrage has not occurred since the massacres of Bedr Khan Beg in 1843. The object of the outrage was clearly to draw on the Tiari Tribe to attack the Kurds, and this happened; the men of Tiari prepared to avenge the honour of their women."
  MR. Riley goes on to describe how the Kurds assembled in overwhelming numbers, evidently prepared for a massacre Of the whole Christian population, and the Turkish Authorities did not interfere until the energetic efforts of Mr. Browne induced them to send troops, and the Kurds dispersed. I might quote a number of statements of the atrocious outrages perpetrated on these Armenian Christians. Mr. Browne, since he took up his residence at Kochannes as the guest of the Armenian Patriarch, has been subjected to every species of annoyance by the Turkish Authorities in the hope of driving him out of the country, and but for his presence there is little doubt the Kurds would have extirpated the Armenian people in that part of Asia Minor. In consequence of his representations the Turkish Government were unwillingly forced to send troops into the district, but I am sorry to state that there is the clearest evidence in the despatches to show that the outrages are again reviving against the Christians, of women being carried off, of the burning alive of old men, the destruction of villages, and the stealing of sheep, and, in fact, the Armenian Christians are subjected to treatment under which life is hardly worth living. A person who has largely figured in connection with these proceedings is Moussa Bey, who appears
  1564
  to me to be a kind of Chefket Pasha of Bulgarian atrocity fame. The correspondence is full of accounts of the abominations committed by this man; and yet after many years of this kind of work he visited Constantinople and was treated with honour by the Authorities, notwithstanding that Her Majesty's Government had sent to the Turkish Government full proof of the complicity of Moussa Bey in the atrocities. I complain that the Government have not taken a sufficiently earnest stand in this matter. I do not say that they lack sympathy, no British Government could fail to sympathise with an oppressed people like these Armenians. I freely admit they have done something, indeed they have done a good deal to help these poor people, but I do complain of a want of firmness in their representations to the Turkish Government; they are a great deal too feeble; they are too considerate to the feelings of those scoundrels in Constantinople who connive at these outrages. They have not used language that will make an impression on the Porte, not the language that gave Lord Stratford de Redcliffe such an influence in Turkish affairs. Everybody knows that the Turkish Government are only amenable to the strongest representations, amounting almost to threats. Let me read to the Committee a line or two from Lord Salisbury's despatch to Rustem Pasha, written, be it remembered, after the receipt of Mr. Riley's Report on the attrocious outrages committed by the Kurds on the Nestorians, to which I have alluded, and I ask, is it language sufficiently strong to make any impression upon the Porte. The concluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury's Despatch was thus:—"Under these circumstances I cannot help thinking that your Government has been misinformed"—remember Rustem Pasha, the Turkish Ambassador, had been instructed to deny the ill-treatment and the danger, undoubted facts corroborated by undoubted witnesses—
  "I shall be happy—continues Lord Salisbury—to obtain a further Report from our Consular Officers in the neighbourhood of the spot, but I do not feel that I should be justified, in the present state of my information, in further pressing upon the Archbishop of Canterbury the wish of the Porte, that Mr. Browne should withdraw from Kochannes."

  1565
  Well, I hardly think Lord Salisbury could press the withdrawal of the man whose presence alone prevented the consummation of an atrocious massacre, that I think is the least Lord Salisbury could do. But surely this is feeble to a degree and not the sort of language to make any impression upon the Porte; something much more decided is required to secure the fulfilment of the duties the Turkish Government undertook towards their Christian subjects? This country, above all others, has undertaken engagements towards the Christian population of Turkey. It is in the recollection of the Committee that not many years ago this country gave a guarantee to Turkey for her Asiatic possessions against all foreign Powers on condition that she should carry out her engagements to protect her Christian subjects; most of us thought it was a wild obligation to undertake, but we did guarantee the Turkish possessions in Asia Minor on condition that certain specified reforms were carried out. Has Turkey carried out one of those promised reforms? Has she even begun to do so? He would be a bold man who would assert that she has, or that the Government of Asiatic Turkey is better now than it always has been—that is to say, the most abominable Government there can well be. One of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin was that the rights of these unfortunate people should be duly guarded. But the Powers of Europe have taken no pains whatever to enforce the observance of that portion of the Treaty. Surely it is the part of this country to take the lead. Turkey has been saved from extinction by this country; and we ought to call upon the Powers to undertake these solemn obligations. I hope the House will insist upon laying the case of this oppressed nationality before the Signatory Powers. We have to deal with a Government amendable to no moral influence or advice, nothing but threats, nothing but bringing home to them the sense of indignation aroused in this country will induce the Turkish Government to adopt a policy for carrying out the fulfilment of the solemn obligations they undertook towards their Christian subjects. Whatever view Her Majesty's Government take, nothing but good can come of the declaration in the face of the world
  1566
  that the British people cannot regard with indifference these atrocities recorded in this correspondence. Long has this House been the Court of Appeal for all oppressed nationalities, and when this House speaks in a decided tone its influence is felt all over the world. I trust we shall not be lukewarm in fulfilling the obligations we incurred in the Treaty of Berlin, and that we shall make our voice heard on behalf of these downtrodden Christiana of Asiatic Turkey. Their sufferings appeal to the feelings of every humane man; they are fellow Christians, they belong to one of the oldest Christian Churches that has stood firm through persecution and trial for seventeen centuries, and surely it is our duty as a powerful Christian people to use our influence on behalf of fellow Christians suffering terrible grinding oppression. I hope the Government will give assurances that stronger action shall be taken than has been taken hitherto.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I hope that the eloquent speeches to which we have just listened will produce a good effect throughout the world. At the same time, let me point out that the proposition before the House is of a very unsatisfactory character. What good can be done by making a small reduction in the salary of our able and experienced Ambassador, Sir William White? It ought to be remembered that our position at Constantinople is not what it was in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. In the earlier part of that distinguished man's tenure of office it was known that England was prepared to go to war on behalf of Turkey; and, in fact, we spared neither blood nor treasure in the Crimean War. Are we prepared to do that now? I have no right to speak for hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I very much doubt if any of them would advocate going to war if the Turkish Empire were threatened. The Turks have a feeling that we should do nothing of the sort. It is, therefore, impossible that the illustrious man who now represents this country at Constantinople should assume the rôle of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. I fully sympathise with the reprobation expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite at the horrors which are being perpetrated against the Christian sub-

  1567
  jects of Turkey. But what can be done? Fault has been found with. Lord Salisbury's despatch. For my part I think that despatch is a strong one; and it must not be forgotten that a despatch is widely different from a speech in Parliament by a private Member, or even by a Member of the Government. A Secretary of State in Downing Street must in writing a despatch to a friendly Power adopt measured language, and it seems to me there is no want of decision in this despatch couched as it is in a diplomatic tone. I wish to express my full sympathy with the views put forward by the hon. Members opposite. We must all join in reprobation of the horrors committed, and regret that these occurrences are not regarded at Constantinople as we view them. But what we have to ask ourselves is this—If this country is not prepared to go to war on behalf of Turkey, which seems to be the id ea of the Turks, how can we hope to have such an influence at Constantinople as we had 40 years ago? As regards Sir William White, he is an eminent servant of the Queen and the country, and we must all feel it is of great advantage to have such a man in his position. Though I have sympathy with the principles enunciated by the two hon. Members opposite, I am unable to express it by voting for a reduction of the salary of this most distinguished man. Still, I hope that the burning words in which those hon. Members have expressed their sentiments as to these atrocities will have a good effect. The proceedings in this House are reported through the papers in different parts of Europe, and I hope this Debate will teach those who are responsible for the Government of Armenia that the feeling of the people of this country is strongly opposed to the barbarities which we have heard described.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: As I am one of the very few in the House who have read through the Blue Book, I feel I must say a word or two as to the remarks which have fallen from the two hon. Members opposite. They have depicted the quarrel between the Nestorians and the Kurds as if it were entirely the fault of the Kurdish population, and the Nestorians were not in any way to blame. Of
  1568
  course, our fullest sympathy must be extended to the Nestorians in the troubles they have suffered, but after reading the Blue Book very carefully, the impression left on my mind is that the country is a very wild one, that the whole state of civilisation in that part of the world is very backward, and that there seems to be a sort of vendetta existing between the Nestorians and the Kurds. The Nestorians, far from being the lambs the two hon. Gentlemen opposite have depicted them, seem to be rather a turbulent race. They refuse to pay any taxes, constantly engage in tribal warfare, and appear to be often plotting against the Government of Turkey. This view cannot but present itself to anybody who has studied the Blue Book carefully, including the report of Colonel Chermside. On page 71, Colonel Chermside says there is no doubt there has been a considerable amount of revolutionary work going on, and that there is a tendency to form secret societies. It is plain that the Nestorian population are constantly plotting against the Turkish Government—at all events, that is the idea the Turkish Government have derived from some of the proceedings which have become public, and I must say that the Turkish Government seem to have treated the Armenians with very much less severity than would have been meted out to them by the Russian Government. I must protest against one sentence used by the hon. Member for Flintshire, in which he said that these proceedings in Armenia were connived at by the Turkish Government. I do not find in the Blue Book one syllable to support that contention. I would guard myself by saying that I deplore the terrible sufferings which these people have gone through; but it is only fair to point out that they themselves are not altogether blameless.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not quite able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire. I have no doubt that a great many atrocitios are committed—I dare say there are atrocities committed on both sides, and that the Armenians get the worst of it. I will even assume, for the purpose of argument, that the atrocities are committed by the Turks upon the Armenians, and that the Ar-

  1569
  menians are the best and purest of human beings; still I cannot but ask myself, "What earthly business is it of ours?" I protest against the doctrine that we are to roam all over the world redressing grievances and establishing good government. I am constantly reading about riots being put down in the most atrocious fashion in China, and yet I never hear it proposed that we should go to China and interfere in the matter. Mr. Courtney, surely you will agree with me that there are atrocities requiring remedy far nearer home than Armenia. There are Pashas called Resident Magistrates, and an unfortunate race, composed of fellow-citizens, whose position may not unreasonably be compared with that of the Armenians. How can we call upon the Turk to take the beam out of his eye when we leave the mote in our own? But I have a special reason why we should not interfere in this case. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire says the English people are in favour of a just policy being carried out in Armenia. Well, I am in favour of a just policy everywhere; but I am not willing that a farthing of English money should be spent, or a drop of English blood shed, for the purpose of establishing the best of governments for the Armenians.
  MR. CHANNING: My suggestion was that this country should carry out the principle of the Treaty of Berlin—namely, induce the Powers of Europe jointly to insist upon the carrying out of reforms in the Turkish Provinces.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I generally find that when the Powers of Europe combine to interfere in the internal affairs of a particular country, they end by falling out and fighting with each other, and the last state of the unfortunate people in whom they have interested themselves is worse than the first. With regard to the Treaty of Berlin, it must be borne in mind that we entered into a special agreement when we took Cyprus. We took Cyprus, and obtained an assurance that there would be good government in Asia Minor, and, as a quid pro quo, we guaranteed to the Turks the possession of Asia Minor. It is nonsense to hope for good government in Asia Minor, whilst we maintain the Turkish supremacy in that part of the world. You might just as
  1570
  well look for good government in Ireland under the Resident Magistrates. We have spent hundreds of millions in maintaining the power of the Sultan; and now we are asked to interfere in Armenia, because of the right we have acquired through our guarantee to Turkey. I regret that these unfortunate Armenians are ill-treated, but I think they are likely to continue to be so long as they are under the dominion of Turkey. My panacea for all this would be to leave the Turks absolutely alone, and make it clear to them that if there is a revolution Great Britain will hope for its success; and that if any nation—Russia, or anyone else—less barbarous than the Turks interferes on behalf of the Christians the sympathy of this country will be with it. I object to our putting our hands into our pockets on behalf of these races, and to our meddling and muddling in that part of the world in the future as we have done in the past.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not surprised that the Papers which have been presented to Parliament, and which have been in the hands of Members two or three days, have moved those who take an interest in the Christian populations of the East to comment on the sad history which those Papers contain. In this country there has always been, as has been said to-night, great sympathy for suffering populations. There are records in the Papers lately placed before Parliament of such a character as to evoke deep commiseration with some of the people in Armenia, who are placed in circumstances so different to our own or to those of any people over whom we exercise protection—whose families are subjected to danger and outrage, and whose existences are so embittered by persecution that it may be said that life, under the circumstances, is not worth having. These are feelings which must be widely shared. But when hon. Members, after contemplating the sad condition of some of the Turkish Provinces, come to the remedies which they would have this country attempt, their conclusions are somewhat hastily drawn, and the course on which they would impel the Government is very rash. Perhaps it is not worth while to question the verbal accuracy of some of the statements made

  1571
  by the hon. Members for Flintshire and Northamptonshire; but I would point out that in the reference made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire to a speech of the Prime Minister, the hon. Member reported Lord Salisbury to have given absolute denials to certain statements concerning the ill-treatment of Armenians, whereas Lord Salisbury distinctly quoted the Turkish Ambassador as his authority, and in no way gave the denials on his own responsibility. Again, even in the despatch which the hon. Member for Flintshire quoted, and in which, as he said, the Prime Minister used words very inadequate to the occasion, Lord Salisbury declined, as then informed, to accept absolutely the disclaimers of the Turkish Ambassador as to some of the painful events alleged to have occurred. As has been said, diplomatic language is necessarily somewhat more guarded than that which hon. Members think themselves justified in using in the House; and it is manifest that if the language of those who are not charged with the affairs of the country were employed in diplomacy the influence of Great Britain with Foreign Powers and Ministers would be greatly diminished. Undoubtedly, as the Member for the City has said, the influence of Great Britain at Constantinople is not such as it was in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. It is not to be wondered at that when this country has stood by without helping Turkey in the time of her greatest need, in 1877 and 1878, her influence should be somewhat weaker in Constantinople than it was immediately after the Crimean War. In making this remark I do not, of course, intend to comment unfavourably on the Government of 1878; but it cannot surprise any one that we do not possess that commanding influence in Turkey which we possessed in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. But, nevertheless, I utterly deny that Her Majesty's Government and its Representatives at Constantinople have not done all they could to bring to the notice of the Turkish Authorities the occurrences which have given so much pain to humane people all over the world; and that they have not used the language which is best calculated to give effect to this country's
  1572
  influence. Of course, those who take an extreme view of the matter think that British influence ought to be used in a very strong and startling manner, and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire has declared that the whole Armenian population in one district would have been massacred but for the resolute attitude of a British clergyman. All honour to him.
  MR. CHANNING: No; I spoke of Consul Abbott.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I thought it was the Reverend Mr. Browne. I am glad the Consul's conduct has the approbation of the hon. Member; but I think it is perhaps too much to say that the efforts of any Englishman, however firm and resolute he may have been, can have preserved a whole district from massacre. The fact is that hon. Members are apt to make two great mistakes in considering this subject. They are apt to view these Eastern countries, peopled by different races, holding different religions, and bearing hereditary hostilities and hatreds, in the same light as they do their own country, or those Eastern countries which Great Britain has long administered. And, again, they think that Great Britain has only to express her wishes to have them obeyed. These are two extreme errors. Any one acquainted with the conditions obtaining in Eastern countries which are not under a thoroughly civilised Government must know that there is a great absence of that settled law and order which enables persons of different religions and races to live together in peace and harmony. Hon. Members forget that the majority is apt to oppress the minority in these countries. When the Government of a country is irresolute, factions break out and occurrences take place which are deplored by all who compassionate the sufferings of others. In Armenia the Mussulmans are the stronger, but in Crete it is the other way, and the late disturbances certainly commenced by the Christians quarrelling among themselves and then turning their attentions to the

  1573
  Mussulmans. The feebleness of the Government of Turkey is not altogether her fault. She has had jealous neighbours, and she has been placed by external differences in a position little calculated to enable her to exercise control over her troublesome subjects. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire has said that I have stated that the Porte was sending more vigorous and capable officers to administer her Provinces. Raoul Pasha, the late Vali of Jerusalem, has, I believe, been sent to Bitlis, and he is an officer known to be honest, firm, and capable. And that, like the appointment in Crete, justifies the statement I made to the House that the Government of Turkey are endeavouring to send capable officers to establish greater confidence and to put down the disgraceful scenes that have occurred—which have occurred as much from the weakness of the central Power as from the hereditary hatreds of some portion of the population. I do not believe that the Government of the Sultan looks on these occurrences with indifference, and when it is said that the person who is regarded as most guilty—namely, Moussa Bey—has been received with every honour at Constantinople, hon. Members must not take for granted all they see in the newspapers. Moussa Bey went voluntarily to Constantinople, and will submit his conduct to a competent tribunal, and all persons who have complaints to make against him will have every opportunity of stating their grievances. Moussa Bey lives in a very different region from ours, and his actions must be regarded in the light of his surroundings. At the same time, if he is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused, we hope he will be brought to condign punishment. The Ottoman Government has declared that all persons who have complaints to make against him shall be safely passed to and from Constantinople. I hope the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, as well as the observations I have been able to make in the few minutes at my disposal, have shown the Committee that the Government has not been supine, but that, on the contrary, they have done that which, according to their judgment and responsibility, is most likely to afford relief to a suffering population and to protect them from cruelty. I trust the
  1574
  Committee will not agree to a reduction of the Vote.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move to report Progress, with a view to getting from the Government some idea of what they intend to do to-morrow (Saturday). Are we to take this Vote again to-morrow, or is it to be postponed for 10 days till after the Irish and the other Estimates? It seems to me a good method of wasting time to jump about from one set of Estimates to another. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should take the Votes in their order on the Paper, instead of taking them in this higgledy-piggledy fashion. The right hon. Gentleman should not give way to every hon. Member who urges him to postpone business, but should go on with the business as it is set down on the Paper. I hope we shall be able to finish this Vote tomorrow. I should prefer that we should go on with Class V.; but the right hon. Gentleman was pressed at 5 o'clock this evening not to do that, and he consented to postpone the Class, so that, now, goodness knows when it will come on.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the hon. Member will not move to report Progress. He is as well aware as other hon. Gentlemen that I am under an engagement with the House not to take Class V. to-morrow. I would venture to suggest that the present Vote might be taken after the three hours' discussion we have had. I trust the hon. Gentleman will allow the Vote to be taken. Any question that hon. Members may desire to raise in connection with it can be taken on Report.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: There are some most important questions still to be raised on the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is a Motion before the Committee, which must be withdrawn, before discussion can take place upon other questions.
  MR. CHANNING: I withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope the Government will consent to report Progress now. I move it. The Government is pledged not to go on with Class V.; but it seems to me it would lead to much greater difficulty to take Classes for which hon. Members are not prepared.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Before the Motion is put I desire to appeal to the Committee as to whether it is not better to take the Vote and then to discuss any question that may arise on Report?
  DR. CLARKagain rose to speak.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [15th August] reported.
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS IV.
  First four Resolutions (see pages 1362, 1382, and 1385), agreed to.
  Fifth Resolution (see page 1400) read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. SEXTON: A discussion arose upon this Vote in Committee, and it was arranged that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Stokes), who is a Trustee of the Museum, and others should make inquiry upon certain points raised, and that information should be given to the House at this stage. The House is aware that the files of certain newspapers, the property of the British Museum, were transferred from the Museum to the Royal Courts of Justice, and remained there for a considerable part of the year in the custody of the solicitor for the Times under circumstances inconvenient, and, we think, unfair to the other parties in the case. We have asked to whom the subpœna
  1576
  was addressed, and upon whom was it served, and what documents were specified in the subpœna to be produced in Court. Another important question raised in Committee concerned the conditions of employment of certain gentlemen in the office of the British Museum. We understand that Mr. Birch was one of the gentlemen who accepted employment from the Times; we are informed there was another, and we desire to know his name. We want to know whether these gentlemen are bound to devote their time to the service of the British Museum, or whether they are at liberty to accept engagements from other persons, engagements for which they receive considerable remuneration, engagements which involve large demands upon their time; are they at liberty to accept such engagements, and receive such remuneration without any deduction from their salaries? It must be obvious that in this case these gentlemen, having pledged themselves to a certain view of certain letters, and having undertaken to give evidence, were bound to appear in Court, and to submit themselves to considerable examination, and to very prolonged cross-examination. This would have involved their absence during office hours. We should like the hon. Baronet's view upon such a set of circumstances. There is one other observation I wish to make. The Solicitor General for England stated last night that these gentlemen acted in no partisan spirit; but since yesterday I have had an opportunity of conferring with my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), who informs me that before Mr. Birch received any retainer from the Times' application was made to him on behalf of the hon. Member for Cork, but he declined the proposed engagement, and subsequently accepted that of the Times. That does not look like acting with impartiality. I am obliged to say, and I say it with some regret, that we Irish Members have, in this keen ordeal, this bitter and unmerited trial, which has been forced upon us by our political enemies, experienced from these officials the same spirit of partisanship, hostile to ourselves and our country, which we have had to encounter all through, because of the social forces of the great

  1577
  conspiracy against us; that spirit of partisanship has been experienced from quarters where, at least, a decent show of impartiality might have been expected.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer some of the questions about which I undertook, when the Vote was before the Committee last night, to get some information. I will not go into the matters which the hon. Member has now raised, because I am not prepared with the information that will be necessary to give an answer. I understand the hon. Member to say that an application was made to the British Museum officials for their services on behalf of the hon. Member for Cork. I thought that the hon. Gentleman objected to this work being done at all by the officials of the British Museum. However, I will endeavour to answer the questions which were put to me last night. Perhaps I ought to say in the first place that there has been some misapprehension and unnecessary alarm as to what has taken place with reference to the files of newspapers used at the Commission. This morning a very full and careful inquiry has been made, and from information which has been supplied to me I think I shall be able to show that there has not only not been anything irregular, but that every step which has been taken has been taken on the direct order of the Commission, and I understand it is the duty of everybody to obey such an order. I understand that in the earlier stages of the proceedings subpœnas were served for particular files of newspapers. [Mr. SEXTON: On whom?] On the librarian. [Mr. SEXTON: What is his name?] I will give the name if the hon. Gentleman will let me tell my story. These particular files were taken down, but some inconvenience was felt because sometimes all the information required was not contained in the particular paper which was sent for. Therefore, an order of the Court was made, dated the
  1578
  6th of November, 1888, and it was in these terms:—
  "Whereas the Trustees of the British Museum are in possession of certain files of the newspapers called United Ireland, the Freeman's Journal, and such other papers as may be required from time to time, and whereas certain of the said files are now in the Royal Courts of Justice, we, the Commissioners appointed under the above-named Act, do order that the said files be delivered over to the custody of our secretary and his receipt taken for the same, the said files to be returned as soon as we have finished using them."
  This order was signed by the Commissioners and was addressed to the Trustees of the British Museum, and it bore the signature of the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Cunynghame. The subpoena was made out in the name of Mr. Graves, the officer charged with the custody of the papers. I was asked whether I would state the name of the second gentleman engaged in connection with the letters. The name of Mr. Birch has already been given, and I understand that the other gentleman was Mr. Ellis. The question was asked whether the photographic apparatus of the Museum has been used. I am told that there is no photographic apparatus in the Museum, therefore, it was not used. I ought to have stated that the order of the Commissioners, dated the 6th of November, was reported to the Trustees by Mr. Bullen on the 8th; and, on the 10th November, the Trustees held a meeting of the standing committee, at which they passed a minute to the effect that they agreed to the delivery of the files. The House will thus see that every step taken was taken simply in obedience to the order of the Commissioners. I understand that when the papers were taken to the Law Courts the intention was to place them in a room—the only room apparently available—at the top of the building; that the papers were never out of the custody of the officer of the Museum; that it was found that the room in question was exceedingly inconvenient for those who wished to consult the papers; that in accordance with an arrangement made Mr. Soames placed at the disposal of the Court a room in which certain people were seen, and that every night when the files were left there the room was not only locked, but also sealed. This arrangement continued up to the

  1579
  time the files were taken back to the Museum. I am told that the papers were perfectly available for everybody who asked to see them, and that there was not the slightest intention to favour one side or the other.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what amount was paid to the officials for their services?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir, I cannot; I am not able to do so, because these two gentlemen have taken up a position which I am bound to say they are justified in taking up. They state that the work performed by them was done apart altogether from their official duties; that no part of the work was done during the time which it was their duty to give to the Museum.
  MR. SEXTON: What did Mr. Graves get?
  MR. JACKSON: I thought the hon. Gentleman referred to the payment by the Times. Mr. Graves received a guinea a day, and each of his two assistants received 5s. a day. I think I have now given hon. Members the information they desire to have.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No doubt the statement of the hon. Gentleman is satisfactory so far as it affects the official action of the clerks; and I am quite willing to believe it was solely due to Mr. Soames and his friends that we were shut out from the papers. But there is one matter on which the statement of the hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. Last night the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge implied that whatever work these officials did was done after official hours. It now appears that there is no photographic apparatus belonging to the British Museum. The almanack shows that on the 1st of October the sun set at half-past five o'clock, and on the 31st of October at half-past four o'clock. It is said these gentlemen did this work after official hours. Now we all know that for photography something like a decent light is required [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: Electric light.] Photographing Pigott's signature by electric light! I should have thought the intelligence of
  1580
  the hon. Gentleman was proof against that. But it is not long since objection was taken to introducing the electric light into the Museum, and the electric light is not there.
  MR. JACKSON: I omitted to state that these two gentlemen did the work during the leave they were entitled to take.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then we have got rid of the official hours argument; I am glad of that. But then comes in the question of the four seasons. I presume these gentlemen usually take their holidays in the summer and not in October and November. The whole thing seems absurd. When men do wrong why do they not own to it? The only leave that Mr. Birch and Mr. Ellis seem to have taken is leave of their senses. It certainly is perfectly gratuitous to suggest that there is no photographic apparatus in the Museum. There ought to be one, and I would advise the addition of a few shillings to the Estimate to be spent in providing one. I was greatly impressed by the statement of the Attorney General that all the tests had been applied to the letters. These disclosures show the entire recklessness with which the whole business has been gone into. I renew my protest against the way in which things have been done. After the famous interview behind the Speaker's chair between the First Lord, Mr. Leycester, our old friend Walter and Mr. Houston, are we to be told that the Times people came to their conclusions unaided by science and aided only by the suggestions of Houston and Pigott? These gentlemen decline to say what fees they had, and I can understand their modesty, but we are brought to this position; we have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork that he went first to Mr. Birch—
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that is not so. The application of the hon. Member for Cork to Mr. Birch was subsequent to that of Mr. Soames.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then it was a case of first come first served; their word

  1581
  was previously pledged to Mr. Soames. Possibly so. Let us argue it from that basis. I will follow the stream whichever way it flows. We are told that the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork to the scientists was subsequent to that of Mr. Soames. Very well. They had already declared their willingness to perjure themselves to Mr. Soames for a consideration. ["No."] They had pledged their willingness to declare on the four Evangelists that Pigott was a virtuous person. I will take it any way you like. Then we come to the point when they are approached by the accused, and I have always considered, in British jurisprudence, that the person entitled to consideration is the accused; but these gentlemen, having pocketed the money of the Times, declined to consider the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. It does seem to me a very extraordinary thing that these gentlemen, having bound themselves to Mr. Soames, should declare their unwillingness to a Member of this House to hear what he had to say. As scientists, having no view as between parties, they might have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. But no, they shut their minds to that. They said, "We will not hear you; we will not see you or your signature. We have from Mr. Soames a series of documents and are prepared to swear they bear the signature of C. S. Parnell." These gentlemen might have said, "We have a retainer from Mr. Soames, but we are not in the position of advocates." I can appreciate the position of the Attorney General, and should have nothing to say against it if he were not Attorney General paid by the taxpayers. It is the business of an advocate, speaking generally, to urge what can be said on behalf of the client for whom he is retained, and to put his view of the law, an uncertain science, before the Court. But these gentlemen are not advocates; they are gentlemen who are paid by the country as scientists. Yet when they were approached by the hon. Member for Cork, they said, "We have already taken up the side of the opposition." Now, it does seem to me an invidious thing for people in this position to declare
  1582
  themselves on one side or the other My hon. Friend had recourse to them in his desperation; not unnaturally he wished to have the best guidance. Driven from post to pillar he made every effort to defend himself against unjust accusations. These scientific gentlemen recklessly took the side of his accusers, and knowing what we now know the very name of expert has become odious.
  MR. SEXTON: I desire a word in. the nature of a personal explanation. The Secretary to the Treasury interposed in the speech of my hon. Friend with the remark that the offer on the part of the hon. Member for Cork to Mr. Birch came after the offer of engagement from the Times. I am informed by my hon. Friend that when the offer was made Mr. Birch made no such representation, and that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the engagement came after and not before his offer.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Looking at this from the taxpayers' point of view it seems to me we ought to hesitate before granting any salaries to these officials. It appears that they are always having leave; they have an exceptional amount of leave; and it appears that they are also very stupid. Before the sittings of the Commission there was the O'Donnell trial, and I presume these experts were consulted in reference to that trial, for the Attorney General declared that he had the best information that could be got in respect to the letters. So I suppose they then did their work on leave. In winter it is almost impossible for the officials of the Museum to examine documents except in office hours, for it is absolutely necessary to do the work by daylight. The Solicitor General has told us that these gentlemen are frequently employed in litigious cases. That being so I am inclined to ask, "When are they not on leave?" It does not seem that they devote much time to the business of the Museum, but in any case they ought not to be paid,

  1583
  because they are so thoroughly stupid as to be utterly unreliable. They did not examine these letters with the microscope as any sensible expert would. I did, and if these experts had taken the trouble they would have seen a white line down the middle of the writing indicating where the ink did not flow over the pencil tracing. It did not require much acuteness to detect these signs of clumsy forgery, but these experts who are paid large sums of money could not see this. The photographs, we are told, were not taken at the Museum, and it is a somewhat surprising fact that an establishment which has to use photography largely does not possess photographic apparatus, but when photographs are required by the Museum somebody outside has to be employed. These photographs were taken by the person usually employed by the Museum authorities, and under the supervision of Mr. Birch and Mr. Ellis. Now, I do not suppose these men were absolute rogues; I do not say that for a moment, but I can only justify them from that imputation by considering them utter fools. When the copies of the photographs supplied to the defendants came to be examined, they were found to be secondary, not primary photographs. It might fairly be supposed that all the photographs would be supplied from the one negative, but that was not so. Photographs were taken from the first photographs and given to the defendants. Hon. Members will see how this increased the difficulty of discovering traces of forgery, because, of course, the secondary photographs reproduced all the imperfections on the paper of the primary photograph, and when they came to be magnified under the limelight it was exceedingly difficult to establish the forgery. Apart from these evidences of folly, it was a great abuse of the position of these officials that they should have gone over to the side of the Times; they should have reserved themselves for an order from the Court. Of course the Times must have gone to them first, for the Times had the letters and the hon. Member for Cork had not, and when the hon. Member did get them he found that the Times had engaged every expert they could put their hands on. It was an obvious injustice. Messrs. Birch and Ellis should have had a true
  1584
  sense of their position as public officials; they should have refused to serve the Times, knowing how their opinion might bias the public mind; they should have reserved their skill, such as it was, for the order of the Court. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. Friends have made out a good case, and I move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already put the proposal that the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  The House divided:—Ayes 107 Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 316.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS]. (No. 371.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (CONTRACT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated the 15th day of July, 1889, for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails, troops, and stores between Halifax or Quebec and Hong Kong, and for the hire and purchase of vessels as cruisers or transports, printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 263, of Session 1889, be approved."—(Mr. Jackson).
  MR. PROVAND&c): I regret that the House should be called upon at this time of the night, and at this period of the Session, to consider this important contract. The House itself is thin, and Members are exhausted. Of course Government can at such a time invariably command a majority, consequently a contract of this nature never receives adequate consideration. It is brought up in accordance with the Standing Order which requires that the approval of this House should be given to these contracts. I am not making complaint particularly against this Government, because ever since this Standing Order was passed, all Governments have acted in precisely the same way. Now this contract is for a fortnightly service between Canada, China, and Japan,

  1585
  and it is to cost us £60,000 a year. Perhaps, taking it altogether, there is more to be said in its favour and less against it than could have been said of any other contract which has been before the House in recent years. Two years ago there was a contract approved by this House which gave the P. & O. Company a sum of £265,000 a year, for ten years, for carrying the mails to India and China—the service to be a weekly one to India and a fortnightly one to China. Now, dividing this subsidy in proportion to mileage, this would give a cost of £129,000 for the Indian Service, and of £136,000 for the China Service. I pointed out at that time that £136,000 was an excessive sum to pay for carrying the mails to Hong Kong, because a much better and cheaper service could be had by way of Calcutta. I also drew the attention of the House to the fact that this very mail service, the contract for which is now before us, could be conducted much more rapidly for correspondence to China and Japan than by the P. and O. route. The House may remember that the P. & O. Company are only paid to carry the mails to Hong Kong, nevertheless a large quantity of correspondence has to go through to Shanghai and the Northern parts of China, as well as to Japan. Now, I should like to refer to some information which the Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a question last night gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy in reference to the time occupied by these various routes. He said that the mails to Hong Kong, if sent by the P. & O. Company, over what is called the Eastern route, occupied a period in the sending, ranging from 32½ days to 37½ days, or an average of 35 days, while by the Western route the fastest time would be 34 days and the longest 36 days, which also gives an average of 35 days. But to Shanghai, the Eastern route occupies 37½ days at the shortest, and 42½ at the longest; whereas by the Western route the shortest time was 30½ days and the longest 32½ days, thereby giving a saving of from seven to ten days by this route as compared with the P. & O. Company's route. In reference to Yokohama, the saving was even greater, for it amounted to from 15 to 18 days in favour of the Western route. The
  1586
  P. & O. Company are only paid for carrying correspondence to Hong Kong, but of course a large correspondence is carried which goes on to Shanghai and Yokohama, and for which the Post Office is paid, notwithstanding which there is a heavy loss to our Post Office in connection with this service, because the amount received for postage is nothing like the sum which the Post Office has to pay for the service. When this proposed new contract comes into force, the loss will be very much increased, because a great deal of the correspondence which now goes by the Eastern route will be transferred to the Pacific route. This will be especially the case with correspondence to Shanghai and to Japan. Indeed, a great deal of the work, which the Peninsular and Oriental Company are now receiving $136,000 a year to perform, will be transferred to the new route, for which we are to pay a sum of £45,000 per annum. I have felt it my duty to draw the attention of the House to this matter. I have made no statement of facts about which there can be no dispute. I have merely quoted the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury given last night to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy. I know that in these days there is a tendency to meet statements of this kind by mere contradictions; because as these contracts are not considered in Committee, there is no opportunity for after restatement and proof; but I venture to say that it is impossible for the Government to contradict the statements which I have made. I do not intend to divide the House on this question, and will content myself by giving notice that I intend next Session to place a Motion on the Paper with reference to contracts of this kind, with a view of having them referred to a Select Committee before they are finally accepted by the Treasury, and thus we may relieve the House of the responsibility which now falls upon it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I entirely disapprove of this contract. I think it is most extravagant and unnecessary. You have already a perfectly good service, and I do not think we want any fresh arrangement. It seems to me that this contract is the

  1587
  result of pressure which has been brought to bear upon the Government with the view of securing additional traffic for this Canadian Pacific route. I think my hon. Friend was in error when he spoke of it as a fortnightly service. I find on reference to the contract that the sum of £60,000 is to be paid for a monthly mail service to China and Japan, and therefore I am induced to assert that it is the most extravagant contract which the Post Office has ever yet made. Regarding the time which will be occupied by the alternative routes, I think the Secretary to the Treasury must have considerably stretched the matter in favour of the Western route. If he will look at the date at which the Peninsular and Oriental Company have bound themselves to deliver the mail at Hong Kong and Shanghai, I think he will find that I am correct in this suggestion. I fancy, also, that he has only allowed five and a half days for the carriage of the mails across the Atlantic, and he has not taken into consideration the stoppages which are likely to occur there. In fact, to my mind, if this contract is to be carried out in the time he has suggested, it will involve the establishment of a regular service across the Atlantic in connection with it. No doubt the quicker service to Japan will be a considerable advantage, but, after all, it is a comparatively small service, and certainly not worth while our paying £45,000 a year for it. As regards China you have an alternative route for mails, and I do not think you will get them carried a bit quicker than you do now by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. I know we have been told that this new route will be of advantage to us for naval and military purposes, but I ask where does this advantage come in, unless, indeed, we propose to invade Japan, which I hope we shall never attempt? A suggestion has also been made that it affords an alternative route to India. I deny that there would be any advantage in that respect. I think that so long as we retain command of the seas we shall find that the route we possess around the Cape of Good Hope will perfectly well meet all our requirements, and it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to suppose that we should ever require to send
  1588
  our troops by this new Western route. I think the manner in which this contract has been pressed upon the acceptance of the Government constitutes a great abuse of the Forms of the House, and I think it is also an equal abuse that at this late hour of the night, when we have a rule which stops ordinary business at 12 o'clock, we should be enabled to vote away the money of the nation. We know it is quite impossible to fully discuss these matters at this period of the night, and I desire to enter my very strong protest against the course which has been taken by the Government. I hold this route to be totally unnecessary. We know it is not required for postal purposes; and for naval and military purposes I contend it would be utterly useless, unless we ever intend to invade China and Japan, and that I hope we never shall do.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved—
  "That the Contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated the 15th day of July 1889, for the conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails, Troops, and Stores between Halif- or Quebec and Hong Kong, and for the hire and purchase of Vessels as Cruisers or Transports, printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 263, of Session 1889, be approved."—(Mr. Jackton.)

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Treasury Minute, dated the 10th day of August 1889, upon the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 330.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REDEMPTION OF ANNUITIES.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the repayment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for Naval Services, and, if so far as those moneys are insufficient, of charging on the Consolidated Fund any sums advanced by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the Admiralty for the redemption of annuities to certain Railway Companies under any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans, and for other purposes relating to local loans (Queen's Recommendation signified), tomorrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.

SUCK DRAINAGE BILL (PRIVATE BILL).
On the Motion by the Chairman of Committees, Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and 143A be dispensed with in order to enable the Bill to be read the third time.
LORD DENMANbriefly protested against the growing practice of suspending Standing Orders in order that Bills might be forced into law. He pointed out that if he pressed his opposition to the Motion to a Division, and secured a Teller, the House would be compelled to meet on a subsequent occasion, because the Standing Orders provided for the attendance of 30 Peers in order to make a Division effective, and at that moment there were not 10 noble Lords in the House. He did not propose to take that extreme course; but he thought it right formally to protest against this hurried legislation, which, he would mention, was always deprecated by the late Chairman of Committees, Lord Redesdale.
The Motion was agreed to, and the Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. (No. 71.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT SCOTLAND (ACT 1862.) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 228.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
POOR LAW BILL. (No. 195.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. (No. 112.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended, (No. 232.)
PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL. (No. 208.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 104.)
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
FEES OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table (pursuant to order of yesterday) a table of the fees of this House relating to Appeals, Claims of Peerage, and Claims to Vote for Representative Peers; the same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be printed, and circulated with the Standing Order of this House relating to Appeals, &c. (No. 231.)
ARBITRATION BILL. (No. 97.)
Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 233.)
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.