asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Walshe, who is imprisoned on a charge of having violated the condition of his pardon from the fulfilment of the sentence of fifteen years penal servitude, passed upon him at the Special Commission held in Limerick in 1867, for complicity in the Fenian insurrection, by having returned from America to this country in December last; and, if it is true that medical evidence has been given to the effect that Walshe's life would be endangered by residence in America or continued imprisonment; and, if so, whether the Executive has considered the advisability of ordering his release from custody?

In 1867 Patrick Walshe was sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude for treason-felony, having led an armed attack upon a police barrack. In 1871 he was pardoned on condition of remaining out of Ireland for the remainder of his sentence, which will expire in 1883. He recently returned to Ireland, in open violation of the condition of his pardon, and took up his residence near his old house. in the very part of the country where he had committed the offence for which he was sentenced to penal servi- tude. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced the other day at the Limerick Assizes. I have no official report of this last trial; but from a newspaper report it appears that medical evidence was then given that his health would be endangered if sent back to penal servitude or if he returned to America. I have received a telegram to-day to the effect that a memorial on his behalf has this morning reached Dublin Castle. It will, of course, be considered by the Executive, with every regard to the special circumstances of the alleged ill health; but I should say that the condition of his pardon was not that he should live in America, but that he should live out of Ireland, and if his health prevented him from continuing in America he might have changed his residence without returning to Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Hour" of the 13th, purporting to have been written by Father O'Keeffe to the Under Secretary, Dublin Castle, describing himself as a prisoner in his own house under the protection of six policeman, the mob holding forcible possession of his entrance gates, and admitting no friend or parishioner to visit him; and, whether such a letter has really been received, and what action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, about it?

had also given Notice to ask, with reference to the state of affairs in Callan, Whether it is true that, in Reply to Mr. O'Keeffe, the Lords Justices have informed him that it is open to him to take proceedings by way of information against the persons who have taken possession of his chapel; whether it is true that two justices of the Peace have refused to take such information; whether the taking of such an information is not a purely ministerial act; and, whether, if such a refusal has been given, he can satisfactorily explain or justify the conduct of the magistrates?

Sir, I believe a letter similar to one which has appeared in the public Press has been addressed by Father O'Keeffe to the Governrnent, and has been re- ceived by the Under Secretary for Ireland. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity of answering the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) on the same subject. There has been, I think, considerable exaggeration in the statements made by Father O'Keeffe. The House is aware of the unfortunate circumstances of the case and of the differences which have arisen among the inhabitants of Callan respecting Father O'Keeffe's position. There has recently been a demonstration against Father O'Keeffe on the part of those who have taken the opposite view to his own, and that demonstration culminated in a riot, for which some prisoners were indicted at the Kilkenny Assizes. The Constabulary have had instructions to do their utmost to preserve the peace and protect Father O'Keeffe from any violence on the part of his opponents. That is all the Government can do in the matter. The question really at issue is a question of disputed title, which must be tried in the ordinary Courts of Law. It is not the fact, as I am informed, that Justices of the Peace have refused to take any information laid by Father O'Keeffe; and I need hardly say that if any magistrates had failed in any degree in their duty their conduct might be brought in the ordinary way before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When arrangements will be made to allow the Patent Office Museum to occupy the South Block of the International Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington?

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can state to the House the arrangements which the Government propose to make to increase the insufficient accommodation at present enjoyed by the National Portrait Gallery in the south block of the International Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington?

I am happy to say I have been authorized by Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, with a view to acquire part of the buildings belonging to them at South Kensington. I fear I cannot, at this time, gratify my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University by giving him in detail the manner in which the space so obtained will be allotted. But I may say generally that my first object will be to provide suitable accommodation for the Patent Museum; and after that is arranged, I am not without hope that I may be able to offer to my hon. Friend suitable accommodation for that national collection of pictures of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished trustee.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has had an opportunity of inquiring into the charges recently brought against Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of Works in his Department?

The House, I am sure, will feel that it is never my wish in answering the not unfrequent Questions put to me that my replies should be of undue length. But I hope the House will bear with me—seeing that there are personal charges affecting the character of a public servant—if for obvious reasons I enter into details with respect to those charges made a fortnight ago by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) against the Surveyor of Works. The first of those charges was that Mr. Hunt had, in his capacity of Surveyor of Works, recommended me to buy at Liverpool a site for a County Court; that the space required was 2,000 square yards, but that he had recommended me to buy a site of 3,600 square yards, in order that I might be enabled to sell it again; so that the Surveyor of Works would first of all receive his fee for the purchase of this land, and secondly, his fee for selling it. It is strange, seeing how well informed the hon. Member was as to the quantity of land required at Liverpool, that nothing could be more erroneous than his conclusions. The reasons which influenced me in the purchase of the ground were these:—In the first place, seeing it was doubtful how much land would be required until we had the Report of the Judicature Commission, and having been informed that an available site could be obtained, I decided on buying the whole of it. I did so likewise because in case there was more space than requisite I thought it advisable the Government should have a control over any buildings which might ultimately be built so near Government offices. And, lastly, because the land in that part of Liverpool was rising in price, so that the Government would be insured against any ultimate loss. The House will see at once that there is a wide difference between buying land in order to sell it at a profit, and buying land for public objects with the conviction that if you wish to part with it you will be able to do so without loss. Nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea more fortunate in the selection of the second part of his attack. He said that, on the purchase of the ground near Westminster Bridge—now rendered of historical importance by its having been built on by the body known as St. Stephen's Club—the transaction was one between the Office of Works and the Metropolitan District Railway, and that Mr. Hunt, who was in the employment of both, disappeared from the transaction, and thus the Government lost the great advantage of his services. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that he is entirely in error. This transaction occurred in 1866, and at that time it was no part of the Surveyor of Works' duty to give any opinion upon questions of compensation for property taken as this was, under Act of Parliament. That duty rested with the late Sir James Pennethorne, who did give his advice on the subject. The hon. Gentleman said that the result was to give great dissatisfaction to both parties; but it was quite the contrary, and the money was paid without any evidence being taken or any arbitration. The third charge was with regard to the Mint site. Some years ago, according to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Hunt recommended the purchase of a site on the Embankment, and he did so because it belonged partly to the Government and partly to the Metropolitan District Railway, so that he would receive fees from both. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, here also he was mistaken. Mr. Hunt thought it his duty to give his services to the senior client of the two. On this particular occasion the Bill was thrown out; but it was re-introduced in the following year. By that time the land passed from the District Railway into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The House will see that on neither occasion could Mr. Hunt receive the double fees alluded to by the hon. Member for Swansea. Mr. Hunt has sent a letter to the Board of Works requesting that an inquiry might be made into these various charges; but I think the House will agree with me when I say that I shall refuse to listen to such a proposal, having satisfied myself in every case that the charges are of the most flimsy character.

wished to explain, in justice to himself, that he had not imputed motives to Mr. Hunt, in any case, but merely stated the facts which had come to his knowledge, and he still believed they were substantially correct.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have lately passed between Her Majesty's Government and His Highness the Sultan of Zanzibar, with respect to the suppression of the Slave Trade within his dominions; and, if so, whether he has any objection to communicate the substance of them to the House?

, in reply, said, that communications had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Seyyid of Zanzibar since he had been in this country. The House was aware that, under the Treaty of 1873, certain doubts had arisen which the Law Officers of both Her Majesty's present and late Government considered would impair the efficiency of the Treaty. Another Treaty had been signed by the Sultan since he had been in this country; and he (Mr. Bourke) trusted that the result of that would be that the object of the Treaty of 1873 would now be carried out in its full force. There would be no objection to lay the Treaty before the House in a few days as soon as necessary formalities had been gone through.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take any steps to secure a proper flow of promotion in those regiments of cavalry and battalions of infantry which are commanded by officers appointed prior to November, 1871, and not subject to the five years rule; and, whether such oases will come under the consideration of the Royal Commission now sitting upon Army Promotion?

, in reply, said, that the whole question of promotion and retirement in the Army had been referred to the Commission now sitting on the subject; and he thought it would be disrespectful to them if he interfered in the matter before they had made their Report.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House the grounds which have induced him to dispense for the first time with the services of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Force at the summer drills held in substitution of the autumn manœuvres during the present year in the neighbourhood of Aldershot, from the 24th of June to the 24th of July; and, whether such exclusion had been dictated solely by regard for the public purse, or by any considerations touching the efficiency as military bodies of these different branches of the Auxiliary Forces?

, in reply, said, the reason why the Militia had not gone to Aldershot on the present occasion was that a great number of the Commanding Officers had reported that encamping at Aldershot was very unpopular with Militia Regiments, and would lead to desertion. With respect to the Volunteers and Yeomanry it was thought better that they should be attached to brigades at Aldershot when the summer drills were not taking place.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that any part of the expenses of the personal entertainment of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on the occasion of his proposed visit to India, should he charged on the revenues of India,"

Sir, I rise to second the Motion, and I do so because I think this is a fitting opportunity for us to join in expressing opinions in consonance with those which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Hackney. We ought on all occasions to avoid being parties in any way to easing ourselves of any expenditure by throwing it unnecessarily upon the revenues of India. The question proposed to us by the Prime Minister a few days ago was, that this House should consider the expenditure for the visit of the Prince of Wales as one of an abnormal character, and one which required interference on the part of this House. What was the proposal which was made to us? The Prime Minister, as far as I understood, gave us a sort of estimate of the possible expenditure which might be required, and I think he said that, after making provision for the cost of sending out his Royal Highness and his suite to India and bringing them back, there would still be an outlay required of something like £90,000. To meet that he said he should propose a grant of £60,000, and that the remainder would be left to be found in India. Now, I think that the speech of the Prime Minister the other night certainly did show good grounds for the interference of this House on such an occasion, and that we, as Representatives of the taxpayers of England, were fully justified in supporting the Government in their proposal to make this special grant. But, if the expenditure of £90,000 is necessary, why should an application be made for only £60,000? I contend there was no ground given to us for making that distinction in regard to any portion of the expenditure. The hon. Member for Hackney has alluded to other very great expenses which undoubtedly must be incurred, and knowing that perfectly well, I hesitated at acceding to his re- quest to second his proposal. It will be impossible for us to measure in a money Vote the expenses which must be incurred. But this particular expenditure of £90,000 was one to which no objection, as far as I could understand, was taken by the House, except by some hon. Members who objected to pay a shilling, and thought it unwise that any expense should be incurred. We all know that the Secretary of State for India is responsible for the political affairs and the policy of this country towards India; but we heard a great deal at the time of the passing the India Councils Bill, that the purse-strings would be controlled by the Council of India. I very much regret that the Members of that Council are prohibited from being Members of this House, because we have no opportunity of hearing their opinions on this subject. If they are the controllers of the purse-strings, they have not properly looked after their trust. The hon. Member for Hackney has alluded to the expenditure for the entertainment of the Sultan, and thinking that was a discredit at the time, I asked the House to refuse to pay it, but I had no support. Another charge has been alluded to, and that is the payment of £1,555 to an officer on the staff of the Duke of Edinburgh for bringing home the presents made to the Duke of Edinburgh in India. Now, I do not think that was fair, and I should be surprised if any hon. Member was to get up and defend it. If the Duke of Edinburgh was able to pay the money, he ought to have paid it for himself; and if it was a national charge, it ought to have been borne by the revenues of this country. Then there was a distinguished officer—Sir Herbert Edwards—who died in this country from injuries received in the Indian Mutiny. We all remember how proud the country was of that distinguished offcer's services, and a monument was placed to his memory in Westminster Abbey. I find that a fee of £400 was paid to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for allowing the monument to be put up, and that was charged to the revenue of India. That sum, in my opinion, ought to have been borne by this country. Sir Herbert Edwards was a very distinguished officer, and the country was proud of him, and the cost of the monument in Westminster Abbey ought to have been borne by this country, and not by India. Care ought always to be taken not to saddle India with more than was absolutely necessary. As regards the Prince of Wales, I think the House will admit that a more popular Prince has never been born, and he has been popular from his earliest youth, because he has taken up every pursuit which the people of this country are fond of, and he is consequently much beloved and esteemed. Therefore, what I should like would be to see the Prince of Wales equally popular in India; but it would not add to his popularity in that country if any charge in connection with the visit which could fairly be borne by England was put upon the revenues of India. If the Prime Minister, instead of asking for £60,000, had asked for £100,000, there would not have been a single dissentient voice, except from those who object to any grant at all. I am extremely sorry there should be any division of opinion with regard to the Motion, and I think it will be the wiser course to leave the matter in the hands of the Government for their consideration.

Mr. Speaker, there are two modes in which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales may visit India. He may go as the proclaimed Representative of the Sovereign; his journey then would be a Royal progress; he would be attended with a military array, and with a retinue of Princes and Chieftains; he would hold Durbars; he might if he chose, and probably would be expected to, institute an Order of Chivalry; he would pay regal visits to those who possess regal power; he would not only experience, but he would exercise, a magnificent hospitality; he would not only be present at feasts, but he would preside at festivals; he would exchange the presents of Europe for those of Ormus and Ind; and I have no doubt that, on the whole, a display would be made and an excitement created which had not been equalled in India since the days of the great Mogul Sovereigns. It must be obvious to the House that such an undertaking could not but be costly. Its amount might probably be calculated even by millions, and it would be met probably in this manner. The Imperial Treasury of India would contribute, no doubt, a considerable sum. The Native Princes, who will not for a moment rank inferior to any human beings in magnificence, and who would have made extraordinary efforts on this occasion, would levy fresh taxes on their subjects. I am bound to admit that in the present state of the English revenues my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly come forward to ask for £1,000,000 or £500,000 even—the sum most modestly suggested by those who seem in favour of this system—without at the same time indicating to the House the ways and means by which that money was to be raised. There is another way in which His Royal Highness might visit India. He might go there as the guest of Her Majesty's Viceroy. Under his Excellency's guidance and influence he might have an admirable opportunity of largely, if not completely, visiting that great peninsula; becoming acquainted with its splendid scenery, with its ancient and teeming cities, and the vast variety of its nations and its races. He would visit some of the principal Chieftains of the land; enjoy their hospitality; share in their exciting pastimes; and have an opportunity of displaying that liberality which I and you all know is natural to his amiable and generous disposition. After that he would return to this country unquestionably with an enlarged and matured experience, and, let us hope and believe, not only with a sustained, but a renovated health. Now, I will not stop here to offer any preference between these two systems. All I wish to state, and most distinctly to state, and which I wish to impress upon the House, is this—that when the visit to India of His Royal Highness was submitted to Her Majesty's Ministers the programme was the second programme which I have described; and it was with reference to that programme that Her Majesty's Government arrived at the conclusions which they have submitted to the House, and made their calculations and esti- mates accordingly. Now, we are told that the view which I gave to the House was one which would not be the right one to adopt. I offered to the House an accurate estimate of what the expenses would be for carrying His Royal Highness and suite to the land of India. I offered no estimate of what the expenses in India would be of his entertainment by the Viceroy. It was not in my power to do so, and it would have been presumptuous and impertinent for us to have offered an estimate on such a subject. But I mentioned incidentally a sum which casually had reached my ear, and which was founded upon documentary evidence—now, I believe, in our library—in the possession, of course, of every hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who has introduced this Motion to-night, has spoken of it as if there was an abstract reason why India should not in any way contribute to the expenses of a Royal visit from England. But I must say that on abstract grounds I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think there is any principle on which he can establish his conclusion. It, in fact, rests only upon a basis of sentiment; but a basis of sentiment, in my opinion, not at all advantageous to India, and by no means calculated' to increase its self-respect. I know no reason whatever why India should not contribute on an occasion like the present to the expense which may be incurred. Why, the Dominion of Canada—a country the difference of which, as compared with India, both as to wealth and population, need hardly be dwelt upon—Canada largely contributed to the expense of His Royal Highness when he visited that Dominion. I believe a sum of not less than £40,000 was cheerfully contributed by the people of Canada on that occasion, and they were proud of that contribution. I do not know any reason why India should not contribute towards the fulfilment of this event. The Prince is the Prince of India as well as of England, and why should we draw this distinction—and one I think not agreeable to the inhabitants of India themselves—whenever occasions like the present occur. I really think—although I am not on this occasion anxious to bring forward the wrongs of the British taxpayer—I really think the time has come when we should, on an occasion like the present, get rid of this unfounded sentimentalism, and not lay it down as a principle that the British taxpayers should alone be the persons who should contribute to public duties, which I believe, on the whole, are always cheerfully fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Hankey) seemed to think this was an attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to diminish the expenditure of the Empire, and that, in fact, the Indian Council had never been consulted on the subject. And he seemed to think that it was only owing to the Parliamentary decisions which prevents the Members of that Council being in this House that we have not an indignant protest against this conclusion. I think the hon. Gentleman will be surprised when I tell him that at a meeting of the Council of India, held on Tuesday the 16th of March, 1875—the Marquess of Salisbury presiding—the noble Marquess informed the Council of the intention of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to visit India, and it was resolved—

"That the charges in connection with the proposed visit of His Royal Highness be borne by the revenue of India."

"That the Resolution above referred to is not to be understood as pledging the Council to any expenditure on this account, beyond that which may be incurred on the soil of India."

"Your Committee cannot lay down too strongly the position that the English Estimates ought not to be relieved at the expense of the Indian revenue, but that the Secretary of Sate for India in Council has the constitutional right of refusing to pay for objects in which he considered that India has no interest. At the same time India, as a component part of the Empire, must be prepared to share in the cost of a system the expense of which may be enhanced for Imperial purposes."

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government, in opposing the Motion which has been made and seconded by my hon. Friends, are espousing a cause which may, perhaps, be considered unpopular. Undoubtedly my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney founds himself upon sentiment, which is respectable in itself, respectable for the character of those who have recommended to us this Motion, and respectable for its association with some of our recollections of of the history of India that, perhaps, are not so entirely honourable to this country as we could wish; and a vague idea that something should be done to make up for the wrongs of past times has probably, without their being conscious of it, formed in the minds of my hon. Friends, and is at the root of the feeling that India ought to make no contribution to the expenses of the visit of the Prince of Wales. Now, Sir, believing that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are manly and judicious, I am willing and desirous of taking my own share—whatever it may be, and small as it may be—in any unpopularity attaching to his proposal. I am convinced the right hon. Gentleman would have fallen distinctly into error on the question now before us if he had taken any other course. With respect to this Vote in general, I am bound to say that I accept it on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government as to its amount. It is Her Majesty's Government alone, in my opinion, that have had adequate means of judging of what would be the necessary expense. It belongs to Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament for a sum which they think adequate. If we thought the demand extravagant, it might have been our duty on that account to object to it; but no one is disposed, I think, to found any objection to the Vote on such a ground as that, viewing all the circumstances of the case. But as respects the question now before us, which involves a matter of policy, my hon. Friends are entirely in the right in stating their opinion—if they entertain that opinion—that the finances of India should be subjected to no charge whatever with respect to the approaching visit of the Prince. But will that opinion bear examination? The right hon. Gentleman has stated the case of Canda. Canada has a large and popular representation. [Cheers.] It appears to be thought, from that cheer, that because India has not a large and popular representation, therefore India ought not to be placed in the case in which Canada was placed. Is that the meaning of the cheer? [Cheers.] Well, then, Sir, I must beg to tell those hon. Gentlemen who cheer that if that is the principle and ground on which they cheer, they must be prepared to give effect to that cheer in a very different mode and on a very different scale, and on much graver occasions than the present. For if India ought not to be charged because she has not popular representation in matters where Canada charges herself, I think the millions of which the right hon. Gentleman has significantly spoken will hardly enable those generous legislators adequately to fix the balance between the two countries unless, indeed, they are consistently prepared to apply the sentiments they seem to entertain. But India has representation—the best representation we can give her; not representation in a formal or strict sense; but, at all events, India has in this country a body of gentlemen appointed for the special purpose of defending Indian interests, and particularly for the purpose of protecting Indian financial interests. That is the special purpose for which the Indian Council exists, and the right hon. Gentleman has to-night given us the interesting information that the Council of India—which all who had had any practical experience of Indian affairs know to be the vigilant guardians of Indian interests—has considered the subject, dealt with it, and expressed its opinion that, with respect to the expenses on the Government of India, some charge should be properly made on the finances of that country. But is it the amount or proportion of the charge that is thought unreasonable? As far as the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, he has told us that two sums, amounting together to £112,000, are proposed to be borne by the people of this country, and he has told us that about £30,000 is the probable amount of the charge to be imposed upon the finances of India. It will be agreed, I think, that, if any charge is to be imposed, the proportion is not excessive. Now, I venture to add something to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman on the proportion observed in the case of Canada. I was myself, I believe, Chancellor of the Exchequer at the period, and, unless I am much mistaken, the amount borne by this country in respect of the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada was £16,000, while the amount borne by Canada in the first year was £40,000 to which is to be added a sum, voted in the following year, of £12,000 or £13,000, making £53,000 voted by Canada as compared with £16,000 provided by England. Now, viewing the relation in the case of Canada, established by the free-will of the people of Canada, and considering that we perforce have to act on the part of the people of India, can it be said that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has been ungenerous so far as regards the financial interests of India? I must also point out that considerable difficulty might arise, not merely on the matter of amount, but on a matter of principle—namely, whether the House of Commons is prepared to vote the money of the people of England and to hand it over to persons holding office in India or to the Indian Council, to be expended with no responsibility to us and with responsibility to the Indian authorities alone. I only, however, glance at that in passing. But now I ask what really lies at the root of this objection? It comes to this—Have the people of India an interest in this visit or not; and will it tend to promote the interest of India? [Mr. BIGGAR: No.] The hon. Gentleman says "No," and no doubt he is prepared with adequate copiousness to support that opinion. But this I say—that unless our presence in India is beneficial to the people of India we have no business there at all. If our presence in India is beneficial to the people of India, then an arrangement like this, which we think to be advantageous to both countries, is one in which the people of India have a real, legitimate, and general interest; and if they have such an interest in the visit of the Prince of Wales there can be no ground, when we examine the matter in the light of reason, for saying that they ought not to be called upon to bear any part of the expenses. I wish with regard to this Vote to say that we have now had from the right hon. Gentleman, even more specifically than on the former occasions, a frank assumption of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. It belongs to the Government to make this proposal, and to exercise every legitimate control in regard to the expedition. It belongs to the Government to see that the arrangements of the expedition are such, and that all the measures to be taken for giving it effect are such, as shall be most conducive to the attainment of the purposes it has in view, and most for the credit and honour of the connection between this country and India. But, leaving upon the Government the responsibility, I readily accede to the proposal that they make with respect to the question now before us. I am sure we should commit a serious error, and should, in fact, be hardly aware of the dangerous nature of the principles we were adopting, perhaps in disguise, if, because we think that India ought to be generously treated, we were to push a sentiment, laudable in itself, beyond the bounds of reason and justice, and to adopt as a doctrine the somewhat vague idea that India should not be called upon to pay any share of expenditure for purposes evidently very beneficial to herself, and for purposes which in other and analogous cases have been acknowledged by the free voice of popular Legislatures as perfectly fit and proper to be borne, even in a much larger measure, by the people of those countries whom the Heir Apparent to the British Throne may have been advised or may have thought proper to visit.

said, he was glad that, before going into Committee, a discussion had been raised on the general policy of the proposal made by the Government. This visit of the Prince of Wales to India had now been made a State affair. The House was not called upon at the present moment to say whether that was a wise thing or not; but as it was decided that Parliament should pay the expenses of the visit, any ex- pression of a difference of opinion on the subject would be an unfortunate occurrence, and if that expression took the form of a series of divisions it would be unseemly. At the same time, he must express his opinion that the Government had not, by their proposal, done justice to the loyal feelings either of the House of Commons or of the country. By loyal feelings he meant not loyalty to this or that accidental Member of the Royal Family, but loyalty to the Monarchy, which was maintained not for the advantage of the reigning Family, but which in its dignity was supported by the nation for the nation—that was to say, for the national welfare, for its well-being, its peace, and its prosperity, which were bound up with our form of Government. In his opinion, the Government had laid themselves open to the charge of undue parsimony. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Prince did not go to India as the Representative of the Sovereign; but who or what he would represent there did not depend on the opinion of any Minister. Representation when the Prince was once in India would become a matter of feeling, of opinion, and even of imagination. The hundreds of thousands who would swarm to see the Prince would not feel interested in him except as the Representative of a long line of Monarchs historically associated with the power and greatness of England. It was impossible at this moment to say how far the visit might be of public advantage. He was willing to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and he was certain it was impossible for the Prince of Wales to pay that visit without deriving an advantage which must ultimately benefit us. At the same time, he could not help expressing his own opinion that a larger grant would be more acceptable to the great majority of the House and the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot quite agree with the eloquent speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, for with all his eloquence I do not think he persuaded the House that there was much resemblance between the Indian Council and the Canadian Parliament—and although he said very truly that this Vote came before us on the respon- sibility of the Government, and on no other person's responsibility, yet I cannot agree with him in considering that Government was so implicitly worthy of our support. One thing that I complain of is that important Votes of this nature are not brought on earlier in the Session, and that we have not more time to consider them. It must have been known at an early period that this visit was in prospect, because the Prime Minister alludes to Correspondence with the Viceroy on the subject; but, knowing that, he comes down at the end of the Session, and gives a week's Notice for the country to consider his proposals. I do not altogether believe that the Motion which the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) has adopted to meet this question is the best that could have been devised; but still, as he has thought right, being well acquainted with India, to deal with it in that way, there can be no harm in another independent Member attempting, in the phrase of the day, "to improve the occasion." Neither do I agree with the course taken last week by the hon. Members for Leicester, Morpeth, and Stafford (Messrs. P. A. Taylor, Burt, and Macdonald), who said the working men took a very great interest in this question. Sir, I think we have reduced ourselves in this House to the condition that few people out-of-doors take much interest in what we do. Moreover, I am not sure that they estimate rightly the opinion of the outside public in this matter. I think that with the outside public expeditions are very popular. Let only an expedition be vague, mysterious, and incomprehensible, and it is sure to be very popular. Immediately newspaper writers go into ecstasies and everybody is delighted. So it was with the North Pole expedition. No one ever knew what it was to do, and everybody took delight in it. So it is with this expedition, which I have no doubt will be popular and fill the newspapers during the Recess; and if the Government will go on inventing expeditions—there has been one this year to the North, now there is this one to the East; let there be one next Session to the South, and the following Session one to the West—then by the and of these popular expeditions they will be able to go on until the Conservative re-action has expended itself. I object to people getting up in this House and assuming to speak as special representatives of the working man. I am quite ready to believe that if it can be proved that the expenditure of this money is for the honour and interest and welfare of England, the working men will be quite as ready to support it as anyone else. But that is the point we want to know. When any Vote is brought before this House we, as Representatives of the nation, must inquire whether it is for the good of the nation. That is the only question we have to consider; and surely my right hon. Friend who spoke just now (Mr. Horsman) must have been mistaken in characterizing divisions on this question as unseemly. What do we sit in this House for. The power of criticizing Votes is the vital power of this House. I should be sorry if we were in any way to abandon the right of scrutiny. This matter might have been put before the House in a manner that few could object to. The Prime Minister might have come down and said the Prince of Wales desired to make an expedition for his own proper amusement to the Indian frontier. We should not have made much objection to that. I am one of those who admire and commiserate Princes. They are people who deserve our sympathy in the position they hold in this country. We know they are debarred from entering into political life. It would be looked upon as a matter of jealousy if they did so. If they go into the Army everyone says they are promoted simply because they are Princes, and disregard the real merits they possess. What hard lives they lead—bound day after day to provide vapid amusement for stupid people! They cannot go out-of-doors without being surrounded by "snobs" rushing and crushing upon them; and next day the "penny-a-liners" devote columns describing how those unfortunate individuals looked, spoke, and acted. They do all this at our bidding, and the duties are very ably and properly fulfilled. I, for one, am truly and sincerely grateful to them for what they do, and I do not wonder at all at a Prince of the Blood getting very tired of the daily monotony of laying foundation stones, opening institutions, uncovering statues, and eating charity dinners. If the Prime Minister had come down and put it on the ground that the Prince wanted relaxation and wanted to go and share the pastimes of the Kings he had met here, I should have felt some difficulty in opposing the Motion. But that is not the ground on which we are called upon to vote this money. On Thursday last the Prime Minister brought the matter forward as a kind of Supplementary Education Vote. He said travel educated Princes, that the Prince was to be sent out to be educated, and that was not only the opinion of the Prime Minister. An hon. Friend of mine on the front Opposition benches, who is connected with India, said he should vote for the grant, as it was desirable that our future Ruler should become acquainted with his subjects. But I dispute the policy altogether, because the principle of the Constitution of this country is that the King reigns but does not govern, and the Prince will have nothing to do with the government of India, so far as I can see. If this is to be an educational mission, to teach people how to govern India, send out the Prime Minister. I am quite sure that he wants rest after the enormous amount of legislation which he has initiated, and I am also quite sure that if it would benefit his health both sides of this House would be rejoiced. There is a great deal in his character which would charm the Indians. The imagination, brilliancy, and Oriental splendour of his eloquence would attract them as much as it has the nations of Western Europe. If he would not go—and I do not see why he should, for he knows quite enough—you might send out some of the other Members of his Administration who would benefit—say the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley). He might also be accompanied by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck). At all events, they would on the voyage become acquainted with shipping. That was not the only ground this Vote was put upon; the other ground was what I may call the State pageant theory. Well, if we are to go on the grand scale and pageant theory the sum we are asked to vote is perfectly ridiculous. The Prime Minister said the Prince ought to be placed throughout his travels in a position that would impress the mind of India with the dignity and influence of the station which he occupied. I do not care who says it—I do not believe that for £142,000 you can do anything of the kind. Why, these Great Moguls and people we have been hearing about to-night would beat him hollow. He cannot equal them in magnificence and pomp with this paltry £142,000; and if they outdo us in magnificence and pomp we shall be doing more harm than good to our position in that country. Sir, we toot India—got possession of it by a mixture of force and fraud—we hold it now by force; but we can only continue to hold it by fair and honest dealing, and not by indulging in costly shams. Who asks for this visit? Some allusion has been made to a Vote for a Royal dowry. But whenever that has come before the House we have had a Message from the Queen brought down to us on the subject. Somebody has said that the Indian Council approve of the visit. Well, they approve of making India pay for it, but they did not suggest it. Is there any feeling in India for it? Has any Indian newspaper said the visit would be a great benefit to the country? We are asked to vote this money on the statement of the Prime Minister that the Viceroy has sent confidential letters to the Secretary of State. Not a shadow or a scrap more of evidence is given us; we do not know when these letters were written, why he wrote them, what he said in them, nor even whom he recommended should accompany the Prince. The House of Commons was never in my experience asked to vote a considerable sum of money on such paltry, meagre, and insufficient grounds. How do we know that this visit is to be of any benefit to India? What proof is there? I doubt whether it will not be a damage to her people rather than a benefit; for with all these shows and processions going on, these Chiefs must make some show, and they will get the money by oppressing and grinding their subjects. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) that taxation and representation ought to go together. That, at any rate, is the opinion of this side of the House. Last week we were in "a great taking" because a million or so of our fellow-subjects were taxed who were not represented—the agricultural labourers. We went like one man into the Lobby in favour of the principle—except our Leaders, of course. Surely, then, we ought to be careful how we deal with the money of these 200,000,000 of people, who are not represented either here or elsewhere. We know what that people is. We have the experience of that old Indian bill mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, which I have been told on good authority still leaves a rankling sore in the minds of the Indian people. Although that was but a small sum, they still look upon it as a great injustice. One word more, Sir. Is it wise to bring these Votes before the House? I thoroughly believe that the immense majority of the people of this country are, rightly and properly, warmly attached to the Monarchy. I think it will be a long time before we shall see a statesman sitting down to write a pamphlet not Is the Church worth preserving? but Is the Monarchy worth preserving? But if you can cast a shadow of a shade of dissatisfaction on the Monarchy it is by such Votes as this. ["No, no!"] Well, I hope not. I will not detain hon. Members, for I know they have made up their minds how to vote. [" Divide! "] Those who oppose this expenditure are a very small minority, and it is a pity that their opinions should be shouted down. We have heard the other side patiently, and yet the only persons who had risen to oppose the Vote were not listened to. I do not wish to find fault with the Government for bringing forward this Motion; they were compelled to bring it forward; but let the House act in a straightforward manner, and whether it is likely to benefit India or anybody else, let some vote to save the expenditure of money which, at any rate, it had not been proved would benefit India, and which I am very much afraid will make England ridiculous.

said, the question whether India should bear any portion of this expenditure was a large question of policy; but it had been argued on narrow grounds, as though it were rather a question of special pleading between the two countries. If India were independent, prosperous, and rich, and were represented by an Assembly like the House of Commons, it might then fairly be asked to bear some share of the expense. But India was poor, while England was rich; India was weak, while we were powerful; and India had no representation. Were we not, then, letting slip an opportunity for a great stroke of policy, in asking India for any contribution? He entirely denied the statement of the hon. Baronet that we maintained our hold on India by force and fraud.

I said that our Empire in India was "acquired "—not "maintained"—by force and fraud.

Possibly I fail quite to see the distinction—acquired by force and maintained by fraud.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not say "maintained by fraud."

said, he had not the slightest wish to misrepresent the hon. Baronet. He had merely heard the words "force and fraud." He maintained that our Indian Empire was acquired and maintained mainly by the prestige of English character, and the recollection of such men as the Elphinstones, the Dalhousies, the Lawrences, and the Outrams. We had impressed the Natives of India with a sense of our moral superiority in all respects. But now—by doing an action which could be plausibly misrepresented by those opposed to English rule in that country, as shabby, illiberal, and unworthy of a great nation—we should do far more harm than could be repaired by 100 times the amount spent upon our Army. It was on that account he thought we were making a mistake, for the sake of a paltry £30,000, and throwing away an opportunity for repairing past omissions—or rather commissions—in this respect, and for giving grace to a Royal visit which otherwise was so well calculated to produce the most favourable impression on the public mind of India. He was convinced it would be a much more wise and politic measure if, as an act of grace, the Government had come forward, and said—"This is a spontaneous visit, which will probably tend to draw closer together the bonds between the two countries; it shall be done graciously, and no charge shall be thrown on the Revenues of India."

said, he differed very much from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It would have been most unfortunate, and a great mistake, if the Government had been advised to allow the Prince of Wales to make this visit to India, and to have proclaimed throughout the world that India had really no interest in the matter, and ought not to be called upon to bear any portion of the expense. India was well able to bear the charge, and no nation on the face of the earth understood better the duties of hospitality than the people of Hindostan. He felt sure that if they had an opportunity of expressing their minds on the subject, they would have said that it was their wish that they should bear the expense, and that they would gladly bear the expense—of welcoming the Prince of Wales, with all the honour to which his high station entitled him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had done good service when he said that India was bound in these Imperial questions to take its share of duty and responsibility, and it would be mischievous both in the present, and in the future, if any other principle were to prevail. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to whom the House had listened with so much pleasure—[" No, no! "]—well, to whom ordinarily the House listened with so much pleasure—had not struck the right chord on this occasion. He had greatly undervalued the advantage of His Royal Highness's visit, simply because it could not be reduced to an arithmetical sum. For his own part, he believed the benefits resulting from it would be felt long after the visit itself had passed away, and that nothing could tend more to diminish those benefits than to insist that India should not be allowed to bear her portion of the expense. With respect to the feeling of the working classes in the matter, he believed that the only regret which would be expressed in this country would be that Her Majesty's Ministers did not, on reflection, think it within their duty to propose a somewhat more liberal grant for the expenditure of His Royal Highness. It would be vain now to argue the point; it would be impolitic to do so; the responsibility must rest with Her Majesty's Ministers. He would, therefore, oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and support the proposal of Her Majesty's Government.

said, when the Prime Minister had first laid his proposition connected with the Prince's projected visit to India before the House, he (Mr. Macdonald) had felt it to be his duty to protest against the proposed Vote. He now felt it be his duty not only to protest against it, but to ask the Committee to go to a division upon the subject. He should follow that course, because he felt that no real ground had been shown to the Committee for the Vote. It was true that they had been told by the Prime Minister and others that the proposed visit might add to the dignity and glory of our Empire; but he and many others who held a similar belief were of opinion that the visit was not calculated to promote either the honour or the lustre of our Empire. They had been told that it would not be an official visit, but that the Prince of Wales—the Heir Apparent to the Throne—would travel, as it were, in the simple character of a citizen. Now, he ventured to assert, looking at the history of India, at the condition of India, and at what had transpired there a few years ago, that this visit would not be calculated to promote the honour or the dignity of this country. They had been told by the Prime Minister that the Prince of Wales would attend the pastimes and sports of the Chiefs in India. He was not aware what these pastimes and sports were; he presumed they referred to Royal tiger-hunting. If that was so, attendance at each pastimes and sports would not add to the honour or grandeur of the Empire, nor would it promote the object which it was said the visit was intended to bring about. He was as loyal as any Member of that House, but he objected to the Vote most strenuously. During the last debate, and again that evening, he had been told that he did not speak the feelings of a large proportion of the community. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite called out "Hear, hear!" but those hon. Gentle- men would permit him to call their attention to what had taken place during the brief period of one week, and with that he would leave the Committee to say whether he expressed the feelings of a great body of the people outside that House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that he had no right to speak of the working classes, and he admitted that it was not on this occasion right to speak in their name, because the working classes alone did not protest against this Vote, for they had been joined by a great body of the middle class. He was at a meeting at Leeds last night which was called for the purpose of protesting against the Vote, and an Alderman of the borough was in the chair. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh when he said that an Alderman filled the chair; but an Alderman was as high a dignity as an esquire, and Aldermen were elected by the voice of the people. ["No, no!"] He was wrong in this; but, at all events, the town councils were elected by the people, and Aldermen were elected by the town councils. Then, again, at Northampton, a similar meeting had taken place, and at the borough which he with his hon. Colleague opposite (Mr. Salt) represented (Stafford), a large meeting took place last night to protest against this Vote. He held in his hand not only those resolutions, but some from Sheffield, Liverpool, and many other places both in London and in the country, and if another week had been granted before the Vote was asked for there would have been expressed, not only by the working classes, but by a great body of the people, feelings very different from those which had been expressed in that House that evening. The hon. Member for South wark (Colonel Beresford) had said, when the question was last before the House, that he (Mr. Macdonald) did not represent the feelings of the working people; but he had yet to learn that that hon. Member knew much of the feelings of the people generally. Again, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had said that he would like to visit with him (Mr. Macdonald) the borough which he, with his hon. Colleague opposite, represented (Stafford), to try the issue with him whether he represented the feelings of the people or not; but the issue which the hon Member referred to had nothing to do with this Vote. The hon. Member was in the unfortunate condition of having an idiosyncrasy on a certain subject—

rose to Order, and said he did not make any such proposal or suggestion; but he would repeat what he did say, and that was that he would meet the hon. Member before any body of the working classes and show him that he did not represent their feelings, and that challenge had not been accepted.

said, that he accepted the explanation of the hon. Member, though he must say that he thought his ears heard what he had referred to. However, the hon. Member might have gone to the meeting at Stafford last night, and have used that eloquence which he so often resorted to in that House with so little result. Then the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Beckett-Denison) had told the House that he (Mr. Macdonald) did not represent the feelings of the people; but that hon. Member could not know what was passing daily in the districts which he represented. However that might be, as the Prime Minister had given no tangible reason, no sufficient ground whereby the Committee could judge whether this visit to India would be beneficial to this Empire or not, he should call upon those of the Committee who agreed with Mm to follow him into the Lobby, and show to the country that this Vote ought not to be sanctioned.

said, he knew from his own personal experience that the influence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) with the working classes was not very great. A short time ago the hon. Member went down to "Warwickshire and favoured the working classes there with his views on a strike which was then going on. ["Order, order!"]

I must point out that the Question before the Committee is the Vote for £60,000.

said, he wished merely to show the House of what value the hon. Member for Stafford was as representing the working classes. What he said to the Warwickshire labourers was—"Continue your strike though you make Warwickshire a desert for 20 years." Now, any person who used such language did not represent the working classes.

said, the hon. Member for Stafford objected to the Vote, and he claimed to speak out against it on behalf of the working classes. Now, it was impossible to deny that there was as much difference of opinion respecting this Vote among the working classes as there was upon any other question. He himself mainly owed his position in the House to the support of the working classes. He, along with his Colleague, represented the largest borough having only two Members in the Kingdom outside London. Owing thus so much to the working classes, he had always endeavoured loyally to defend their cause. But he had never found that the working classes were mean, narrow, or parsimonious. He had always found them to be as just as broad in their views, as generous in their conduct, and just as capable of cherishing lofty desires and aspirations as any other class of the community. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) objected to the Vote on the ground of the Monarchy. Well, he (Mr. Mundella) contended, in opposition to that, that if they were to have a Monarchy at all it should not be a cotton velvet or a tinfoil one of which they would have reason to be ashamed. The Monarchy ought to represent the greatness and wealth of the Empire. He did not believe in a cheap and shabby Brummagen Monarchy. He gave his opinion on the question of the dowries, and he had not heard that he acted wrongly, and though there was no constituency more ready to communicate their views to their Members than his was, yet up to that moment he had not heard one word from Sheffield, or seen anything in the Sheffield newspapers, upon the question or against this Vote, and therefore he believed that the men of Sheffield would do in this case as in others—act on a broad and generous view. At the General Election not one word was said to him about his vote on the dowry question. He did not think that hon. Members who represented large industrial constituencies should come down to the view of the fewest and the narrowest of their constituents. They should have the courage to take broad, straightforward, and manly views of these questions, and support their own views before the working classes; and when they did they would find that the working classes were just as much open to reason and common sense, and just as much interested in the honour and greatness and dignity of the Empire, as any other portion of the community. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) no doubt represented a large constituency; but his own was three times as great. The Prince of Wales was going to Sheffield next month, and he undertook to say that the people of that town would spend about as much in his reception as the House of Commons was disputing whether it should spend upon the Prince's visit to India. Believing that he represented the opinion of the majority of the working classes, he should best do his duty to his constituents by supporting this Motion.

said, he should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks if it had not been that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), with that unctuous delivery with which he frequently favoured the House, had put himself forward as the mouthpiece of the working classes. As the Representative of a constituency which probably numbered 30 times as many inhabitants as that of the hon. Member, and which comprised among its members a very large proportion of the working classes, he (Mr. Ritchie) felt bound to enter his protest against the manner in which the hon. Member for Stafford had professed to speak on behalf of the working classes in reference to this question. At the time of the General Election he had addressed immense masses of the working classes, and in only one case was he asked a single question with reference to matters such as that now before the Committee; and upon that single occasion, when he answered in the same way as the majority of hon. Members would have done the question of whether he was in favour of the grants to the Royal Princes, his answer was received with applause. He claimed to represent a large proportion of the working classes of a great metropolitan constituency. He had presented a Petition from the Tower Hamlets against this Vote, and after carefully going through the signatures he found that out of a constituency, with a population of 350,000, the Petition was signed by only 57 individuals, 15 of whom did not reside in the borough. Another Petition which he was unable to pre- sent, because it was out of form, was signed by 160 persons. The fact of these two paltry Petitions having been sent in bore ample testimony to the real feeling of the working classes.

said, when this matter was discussed a few days ago he ventured to express some doubts as to whether the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India was founded on sound public policy; the discussion which had just taken place had convinced him that those doubts were well founded, for no single hon. Member or right hon. Member who had addressed the Committee had gone farther than making some general statements with respect to the good which this visit was likely to produce. He walked out of the House when the question submitted by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) was put to the vote, because he objected to either the people of England or the people of India paying the expenses of this visit until some statement was produced which would convince both countries that it was likely to lead to public advantage. The Committee had received no such statement. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson) had asked for a Copy of the Correspondence which had passed between the Home Government and the Viceroy of India. The Prime Minister did not think it his duty to furnish the House with that information, and in the speech which he had delivered he failed to bring forward any substantial reasons why this visit should be undertaken at all. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkaldy (Sir George Campbell) had proffered his support to the Government; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was rather suspicious of "office men" in questions of this kind. He looked upon this question not as a question of parsimony or of the amount to be expended. It was rather a question of whether, considering the present state of India, the time was appropriate for any Royal visit to be paid to it at all? The Committee could not lose sight of the fact, prominently brought forward in the excellent speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, that during the progress of the visit His Royal Highness would have occasionally to make stoppages at certain places. Native Princes of India would make an effort not to be outdone by any munificence which he might display. No hon. Mem- ber would get up and propose that the people of the United Kingdom should pay for the expenses incurred by the Native Princes; but the Native Princes would take care to recoup themselves by putting intolerable burdens upon their already oppressed subjects. He could not forget that this visit was to be made at a time following very closely after an appalling scarcity of food in India, and at a time, too, when the deposition of the Guikwar of Baroda had caused great disaffection in that country—and looking at all these things, and having no evidence on the other side to show that any practical good was to be accomplished by the visit, he felt bound in the interests of his constituents and of the country at large, to record an emphatic negative against the Motion of the Prime Minister. No doubt some gentlemen holding office in India were big with the importance of this visit. It would augment their own self-importance to be enabled to rub skirts with Royalty; but it would simply be an insult and a mockery to the people of India. It had not come home to them as calculated to atone for their grievances or for our past misgovernment. It would tend to develop flunkeyism, and the Indian people would regard it as an insult adding to the injuries we had already inflicted upon them. Whatever decision the Committee might come to it was, at all events, desirable that it should be in possession of the real facts with regard to the feeling entertained out-of-doors. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was in frequent communication with his constituents; but some occurrences had taken place in his borough which did not appear to have come to his notice. He would read a letter from the Trades' Council of that borough, representing, to a very great extent, the opinions of the working classes. The letter was as follows:—

"My dear Sir,—I am requested to forward you the following resolution, passed at the Sheffield Trades Council in general meeting assembled:—' That the best thanks of the Council be given to A. Macdonald, Esq., M.P., for protesting against the expenditure of a sum of public money for the Prince of Wales's proposed visit to India, believing that the proposed visit would not have any beneficial political effect, and that the expenditure is unnecessary and uncalled for by the country.'

, who spoke amid cries of "Divide," was understood to say that a feeling of deep disappointment was widely shared in by the Committee, that Her Majesty's Ministers had not thought fit, in spite of the feeling which had been very openly manifested, to propose a larger Vote. Necessity for a considerable increase in the sum to be provided had been clearly shown by a remarkable letter in The Times of that morning, the statements of which no hon. Member had attempted to refute. Whether they were alarmed at the hostile expressions of opinion from some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, or whether they were really averse to the expenditure altogether, it was difficult to say; but this he would state—that the very timidity of their proposals had encouraged the hostile expression of opinion, and he ventured respectfully to point out that they were going the way to render the expenditure undignified on the part of the country and of the Prince who undertook it. Even allowing, for the sake of argument, that the expediency of the expedition could be doubted, the project had gone too far for such a question to be raised, and it ought to be supported with an unsparing, if not a lavish, hand.

Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the Vote, but simply to ask why the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) has singled out the borough of Southwark as an example of the opposition which exists to this Vote among the working classes. My hon. Friend and Colleague (Colonel Beresford), who sits on the other side of the House, and with whom on many questions I do not agree because we belong to different political Parties, disputed the right of the hon. Member for Stafford to speak in this House on behalf of the working classes. In that I quite concurred; and, so far as Southwark is concerned, the statement has been amply borne out. I can assure the hon. Member for Stafford that, out of the 20,000 constituents I have the honour to represent, I have not received a single letter of remonstrance or opposition on this subject. I receive a great many letters from my constituents on all kinds of subjects; some of them I would rather not see, others I am always glad to receive; but, in this case, I am bound to state that I have not received one single letter of any description whatever opposing this visit and the consequent Vote.

Sir, I cannot but think that the Committee has been led off to the discussion of a great many matters that really do not much bear upon the question. There seems to me to be two questions before the Committee. The one is whether the Committee is to give any sanction to or to put any obstacle in the way of this proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India. That is the question before us, because we are asked, if we decide that the visit may be paid, or shall be paid—we are asked to provide the means; and surely, as we hold the purse, we hold the determination whether the journey shall take place or whether it shall not. Now, I have no objection to admit that if I had been in the place of the Secretary of State for India, or—which is a still bolder figure of speech—if I had been in the place of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), when this proposition was first submitted to me, I should have received it and considered it with some hesitation and with some anxiety. It must be obvious to every person who considers the subject that the visit of the Heir Apparent of the Throne of these Kingdoms to India is a matter of considerable importance to that country, and, it may be, of considerable importance to this. There are questions of accidents to his life and health, and there are many other circumstances which make it very important for us to consider and determine; and although it is quite likely that I might have come to the conclusion that it was not right to object to it, still I should have come to the conclusion with a great deal of anxiety. But I presume, with regard to this special proposition, that it has already received the consent of the Queen; and we know from long experience, which I hope may be much longer, how intelligent and how prudent is the conduct of Her Majesty in all public matters. We know, of course, from what has been said to-night and the other night, that the proposition has been submitted to the Cabinet, and that it has received their consideration and approval. I think we may conclude that it has the approval also of what there is of Indian Government in this country; and I think the right hon. Gentleman told us the other night, that the Governor General of India (Lord Northbrook) had expressed an unhesitating approbation of the proposed visit of the Prince. If that be so, I should be very presumptuous to put my opinion, even if I had still any doubt, against the proposition now before us. I give up any hesitation I had. I believe my opinion is not at all to be put in opposition to, or in comparison with, the opinions of those to whom I have referred. Therefore I am willing to believe, and do believe—at least I do most strongly hope—that the visit is a wise one, and will tend, in the main, to useful purposes both for England and India. Then, if the visit is agreed upon, what sort of a visit shall it be? The right hon. Gentleman described two kinds of visits—one a great regal or Imperial progress through the different Provinces of India; and the other a more moderate journey, an arrangement to which the Government have consented, and which they proposed. But there is another mode which, for aught I know, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) might like to see adopted. For surely you could not say that under no circumstances should the Prince leave this country, or that, if he left it, under no circumstances should he go to India. Now, unless he goes to India with a single portmanteau and carpet bag, as many Gentlemen in this House might go, it is obvious to my mind that between the various modes of journeying that which the Government has approved and offered to the House is the one which really meets the common sense and propriety of the occasion. If it was any other of the sons of the Queen it would be somewhat different. But the Prince of Wales is the Heir Ap- parent to the Throne of these Kingdoms, and you cannot, in his travels through India, divest him of that character and that position. A man being Heir to the Throne of this Empire, how much in his position greater than that of almost any other man of whom we know anything? This Empire is greater than all the historic Empires of which we read from the the time of Alexander the Great down to the time of the conquering Corsican. We know that there has been nothing greater than the Empire over which the Prince of Wales at some distant day may be called upon to rule, with the population, wealth, intelligence, and power of these United Kingdoms, with Canada, with the growing Empires and nations of Australia, with the Indian Continent with its 200,000,000 of people, and countless islands, of which none of us could give the exact number. I say that a Prince who is Heir to the Throne on which he is to sit and to govern an Empire like this ought, if he visits India, to go in such State as should commend itself to the ideas, the sympathies, and wishes of the population he is about to see. I am not one of those who believe that the journeying of Princes through subject States is likely to have a great effect on the people. ["Hear, hear!"] I see that is cheered by one or two Irish Members. I think the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said last year, or at all events not long ago, that the Irish insisted upon being a subject race; but the people of India are really a subject race, and I do not expect that the visit of the Prince of Wales among them would make them forget that great fact, which must be constantly to many of them the subject of dissatisfaction and of sorrow. But there are influences which he may employ, there are circumstances which may arise, which may have a beneficial effect upon the public mind in that country. I have not had so much opportunity of knowing the Prince by personal intercourse as many Members of this House have had; but all persons will admit this—that he is of a kindly nature, that he is generous on all occasions, and that he is courteous in a remarkable degree. Now, one of the things which to my mind is always most distressing with reference to our rule in India is that Englishmen there are not kind, and are not courteous, in the main, to the popu- lation of the country. I recollect in the year 1858, when a Bill introduced by the present Lord Derby for the change in the Government of India was before the House, I took the opportunity of addressing it upon that Bill and upon that change of Government. I addressed myself particularly to this point, and I argued that it was the solemn duty of the Governor General of India to insist that every man, from himself down to the lowest officer—down to the soldier of the rank and file, and the lowest civil officer—that amongst them all there should be kindness and justice in their dealings with the Native population. I believe that the absence of that conduct is one of the greatest dangers to which English rule in India is subject. Now, as the Prince travels through that country he will see, of course, all the great men of the Indian races. But he will come necessarily in contact with many who are not great men, and his behaviour will be observed, and much, I doubt not, in this particular will be admired. The Indians say that the Englishman in India is rude, coarse, and dominant, but that when the Indian comes to England he says that the English are the kindest and most courteous people he ever met. They will find when the Prince travels through India that his kindness, his generosity, and his courtesy will be always distinguishable and always marked, and I shall be glad if it is said hereafter—as it may be said if the Prince keeps before his eyes the great object of his journey—that since the Prince of Wales was in India there has been a following of his example, and that there has been a marked improvement in the conduct of all Englishmen who are trustees or servants of their country in the government of the vast population of India. I rose for the purpose of saying that although I had some doubts, and although it is impossible to say and believe that the journey of the Prince of Wales will turn the current of feeling on great political questions in the minds of the Natives of India, yet I think that in all probability, by his conduct—his personal conduct—his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, and his sympathy with that great people over whom it may at no distant period be his tremendous responsibility to rule, he may leave behind him memories that may be of exceeding value and equal in influence to the greatest measures of State policy which any Government could propound.

wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member for Stafford had expressed considerable pride and satisfaction concerning certain meetings which had lately been held; but it appeared to him that the account of a meeting held last evening in Trafalgar Square on the same subject might be accepted as a tolerably truthful criterion of the character of the rest. In the report of that meeting it was stated that it was but thinly attended, and that after some extremely scandalous remarks had been made upon the Prince of Wales, the company rapidly dispersed.

, who rose amid cries of "Divide!" said, he did not intend to take any public part in the discussion but for the extraordinary sentiment which he heard laid down by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the working classes were not interested in the result of that great question. ["No, no!"] He begged most distinctly to differ from that statement, and he would give the House some good reasons for doing so.

I must rise to Order. I beg to say I said the very reverse of that attributed to me by the hon. Member.

said, he understood the hon. Member to say that the working classes took no interest in the question—[" No, no!"]—and it was not for him to object to the interpretation which he put upon his own words. When the question was first before the House he (Dr. Kenealy) was not present, and since then he had received from almost every part of Great Britain at least a thousand letters from persons whom he considered to be representatives of the working classes, all expressing their wonder and regret that he was not in the House to oppose it. Therefore, it was a perfect mistake on the part of the hon. Member for Sheffield to suppose that the working classes were indifferent to the matter. ["No, no!"] He had listened with very great regret, and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) would pardon him the allusion to the introduction of the Queen's name into his powerful speech, because he had always understood it to be the law and custom of the House that, under no circumstances, should Her Majesty's name be introduced, or should any attempt be made to influence the debates by any allusion to the conduct of the Sovereign. He yielded to no man in his loyalty, and therefore he hoped it would not be considered any want of respect for the Queen that he objected to her name being introduced. While he shared in a great deal with what the right hon. Gentleman had said of the Prince of Wales, he did not think it was a question really before the House. If His Royal Highness were going to India in any representative capacity it would be a different thing; but as he understood His Royal Highness was going simply in his own private and personal capacity, he strongly objected to the people of this country being taxed one shilling towards the expenses. He believed that in the present state of feeling in India consequent on the iniquitous and wicked trial of the Guikwar of Baroda, the whole Mahommedan population were incensed, and he thought they would be more and more incensed, having no representative in the House, if they were called upon to pay a sum of £30,000 for the expenses of the Prince of Wales's visit. So far from the visit inducing those friendly feelings which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious should exist between England and India, he thought the worst possible time had been chosen to send His Royal Highness there. He did not intend to address the House any longer; but he could not give a silent vote and allow the matter to pass without a protest against what he understood to be the meaning of the hon. Member for Sheffield.

rose, and was received with loud and continued cries of "Divide!" which lasted for several minutes. At last,

said: If this interruption is to continue, I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report Progress.

I beg to point out to the hon. Members that if silence be not obtained, I shall feel it necessary to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the Bar.

then proceeded to say that he only desired to offer a few words in fulfilment of what he deemed his duty. As an ex-Member of the Indian Council, and concerned for many years in the administration of the affairs of India, he had given his ap- proval of the arrangements made by Government. As Member for a British constituency he would support this Vote. He did not exaggerate the importance of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India, and if Her Majesty's Government had proposed a much larger sum he should have opposed it. What they had proposed he believed to be reasonable and therefore he should vote for it. What, however, he rose to say was that, having long laboured in the administration of our Empire in India, he thought he was entitled to assert that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had done some injustice to his countrymen in India when he said their behaviour there was habitually unkind and uncourteous. The right hon. Gentleman had in that respect spoken in too unqualified a way; for, as a rule, those who were employed in India as the representatives of this country, whether they were high or low, were courteous and kind to the Natives in the highest degree.

, who was received with loud cries of "Divide!" said, he was sorry the Committee was so very hungry. He did not wish to be forced to move Progress in order that this important subject might be fully discussed, and he promised to detain the House only a moment. He represented a constituency which did not like Royal Votes, and his previous opposition to them had been approved by a very large majority of his constituents; but he wished to say why it was that he did not intend on this occasion to give a vote in the same direction. It was because he did not think this was a personal Vote—a Vote to any Member of the Royal Family. If the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to India were merely a matter of form; if he simply wished to exchange the shooting of the forests of Abergeldie for the sports of pig-sticking and tiger-hunting in India, he should not, perhaps, support the Vote; but he intended to support it, because he saw in the visit a possibility of securing those advantages which had been so well pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. The Prince of Wales was acknowledged by all who were acquainted with him to be exceedingly gracious and courteous in his manner, above almost all other men, and being, perhaps, tired of those pleasures to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and ambitious to do all the good in his power, his visit to India might be productive of great benefit. Entertaining these views, he should vote in favour of the proposal of the Government.

Having had the opportunity of witnessing the manner in which the Prince of Wales was received by the operatives of Birmingham and Warwickshare last autumn, I do not believe any feelings but those of respectful cordiality towards His Royal Highness exist among the great majority of them. There may have existed among the operative classes some doubt as to the intended visit of His Royal Highness to India; but this doubtfulness, I am convinced, arose from a recollection of the severe illness from which the Prince of Wales once suffered, which suggested a homely feeling of economy for his health; but it is clear that the objections raised by hon. Members opposite to the intended journey of His Royal Highness come too late. After the highest personage in this Realm, who stands nearest to His Royal Highness, has consented to his journey; after the invitation he has received from the Government of India; after the Cabinet have recommended this expedition; after the great majority of this House that has just voted in favour of this mission of peace which His Royal Highness has undertaken, and I believe it will prove to be a mission of peace; after such a bidding, it would be inconsistent with the respect which he who will hereafter hold the principal share in the guidance of the destinies of this Empire now to hesitate in accomplishing the mission he has undertaken. I repeat that the objections raised by hon. Members opposite come too late fairly to represent the feelings which are, I am convinced, entertained towards His Royal Highness, and upon the subject now before the House. By these objections to the mere expense of the journey His Royal Highness is about to undertake, the hon. Members opposite misrepresent, I am confident, the feelings and opinions of the great majority of the operative classes of this country.

said, he had not heard any valid reason given for that Vote, except the one assigned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham—namely, that the Prince was a man of kindly manners, and would treat the Natives of India in a different way from that in which Europeans were in the habit of treating them. In Ireland they had had two or three Royal visits, and great things had been expected from them by some people; but the agitation for the Repeal of the Union, for Catholic Emancipation, and against tithes, still continued as strong after George IV.'s visit as it was before. Her present Majesty, when she visited Ireland, was right well received; but the people were still dissatisfied, because they were misgoverned, and they still agitated for Repeal, for Home Rule, for the improvement of the Land Laws, and the Fenian agitation had supervened. For these reasons he thought they had no right to expect that the visit of the Prince of Wales would have any effect on the loyalty of the people of India to English rule. The Prince would be put in a false position by being allowed to go to India. Let them not live in a fool's paradise, or think they could throw dust in the eyes of the people. What they ought to do was to govern India well, and to act fairly and honestly in their dealings with Native Potentates.

said, he thought that the question had been treated too much as a class question, and he regretted that so much had been said about the opinions of the working classes. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) did not arrogate to himself the exclusive right to speak on behalf of those classes, but other people had attributed that to him. The working classes were very much like other folk—they differed in their opinions on that subject. Some of them, he dared say, were in favour of that Vote. A very large number of them had a very strong objection to it; but the great mass, he believed, were indifferent about it. He would go into the Lobby against the grant, not because the opinions of the working classes were against it, but because he honestly believed that it was an improper Vote. With every respect for the views stated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, he could not admit that because the Government thought that it was a proper grant to propose, they ought to bow to their decision in silence and not take a division on the question.

said, he would vote with the Government on that occasion, and he only regretted that the amount they asked for was not much larger. He should be unworthy of his position as the representative of the working classes of Southampton, if he did not emphatically deny the serious charge made against their class by the hon. Member for Stafford. It was a libel on their character to be continually imputing to them disloyalty. The working men were thoroughly loyal, and they would never grudge a Vote of money when the dignity of the country was concerned.

repudiated entirely the statement that he had uttered a word that would indicate that to his knowledge the working classes were disloyal, and he believed there was no people in the world more loyal to the Constitution than were the working classes of this country. He also repudiated the insinuation that he desired that the Prince of Wales should travel through India with a carpet bag. The reason that he had objected to this Vote was that he believed the visit would not be beneficial, but would be prejudicial to the best interests of that country.

said: Without any remark, I beg to move that this Vote be not agreed to.