asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the African Mail Steamers are constantly conveying natives enlisted from Sierra Leone and other British Ports on the African Coast, for labour, to St. Thomas and other Portuguese settlements; whether he has any information as to the chartering for the purpose of the traffic of the steamer "Sir Arthur Kennedy" by a Portuguese firm, and of its detention at Sierra Leone by the Governor; and whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Correspondence which may have passed on this subject between the Governor of Sierra Leone, the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, and the Portuguese Government authorities?

No representation or complaint, Sir, has been made to the Colonial Office that the African mail steamers are constantly conveying natives enlisted for labour to any of the Portuguese settlements. There is, of course, no legal impediment to Natives of the West Coast taking passages in the mail steamers for places beyond British territory. With regard to the Sir Arthur Kennedy, there has been a Correspondence relating to that vessel, arising out of the fact that a special permit was applied for to protect her from seizure. The object of the application was that her fittings-up resembled those that were used in slavers, and it was thought by the proprietors that a special permit would prevent any unnecessary seizure. The Portuguese Consul, however, had no information of the intended voyage, and the Lieutenant Governor refused the permit, in which course he has been supported by the Secretary of State. A Correspondence is now in progress respecting another vessel which shipped from Quitta, on the Gold Coast, a larger number of passengers than her tonnage warranted, and as this Correspondence is not yet concluded, it, of course, cannot be given. When it is concluded, I shall be happy to see how far it may be practicable to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman with regard to its presentation.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention had been called to the mismanagement which entailed much suffering and privation on the Longford Rifles during the late Mobilization; to the fact, for instance, that they had to march for eight miles to be reviewed by the Commander in Chief without having any water before starting; that on the review ground the supply of water was so small that many of the men got none all day, and both officers and men suffered severely in consequence on their return to camp; and, if he will cause inquiry to be made as to who was responsible for this mismanagement?

I am sorry, Sir, that hon. Members from Ireland have had their attention called to the misfortunes of the Militia from that country. I have had no complaints in reference to English or Scotch regiments. In consequence of the hon. Member's Question I have made inquiry into the matter, and I find that there does not appear to have been any mismanagement connected with the Longford Rifles during the late mobilization, and no reports have been received of suffering and privation said to have been endured by the regiment. In common with others in the same brigade, they marched four miles to the ground and four miles back to be inspected by his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief. The Brigade General has already reported that the brigade halted for three-quarters of an hour at Yarn-borough, had water, and the water-carts were re-filled and accompanied the regiment to the review. No doubt, some inconvenience was experienced owing to the intense heat of the weather, but so far as I know from the Reports there was no such mismanagement as stated by the hon. Gentleman.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Government intend to proceed next Session with the Bill brought in but dropped in the last Session for completing the harbour and works at Dover; and, if not, whether they will give such timely notice in the Recess as will enable the local authorities to take such action as they may be advised to take in the matter?

I am not, Sir, in a position definitively to state the intentions of the Government. They entirely recognize the justice of the latter part of the Question, and they will undertake that timely notice shall be given to the harbour authorities as to the course which the Government will pursue.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, in which Mr. Deane recommends that the list of national monuments should be increased, so as to include many round towers and churches worthy of preservation, and which could be saved for centuries by a trifling outlay; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities to carry out the suggestion of Mr. Deane the superintending architect?

Sir, the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works is addressed to the Treasury, of which that Board is a sub-department, and my attention had not been called to it until I saw the Notice of the hon. Member's Question. Nor have I any control over the Church Temporalities Commissioners; but they have informed me that, considering the large sums of money (£22,554) which they have already handed over to the Board of Works for the maintenance of ecclesiastical ruins as national monuments, they would not feel themselves justified in making further grants for similar purposes unless very cogent reasons are given to them for doing so. They are, however, still ready to give full consideration to any cases that may be brought under their notice. Special allusion is made in Dr. Deane's Report to the ruins of Clonmacnoise; but these ruins have been vested in the Representative Church Body under the 25th section of the Irish Church Act, and that body will, no doubt, take proper steps to preserve the ruins from further decay.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken to fill up the office of Chief Commissioner of Works vacated by the resignation of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester?

Yes, Sir;I have taken steps to fill up that office.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can name the day on which the Consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken?

We must conclude, Sir, this evening, after the Report of Supply, with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill and take the second reading of the Vivisection Bill, and we can then proceed with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to give compensation to those Surgeons of Militia who under the New Warrant will be deprived of a considerable portion of their present incomes, by transferring to the medical officers of the brigade depôts the duties for which the Militia Surgeons have hitherto received pay?

Sir, the new Warrant gives medical officers of Militia an increase of rank and increase of pay, subject to certain conditions. On the other hand, it takes from them, in cases where brigade depôts are formed, the duty of inspecting the recruits, who are inspected by Army surgeons without charge. This is advisable on public grounds, irrespective of money. It has been frequently a subject of complaint that these Militia medical officers lost by having to neglect their private practice in order to inspect the recruits. This appears, speaking generally, to be the only part of the Warrant by which they lose. The attendance upon the permanent Staff has generally been complained of as a source of loss. From this they will now be relieved when brigade depôts are formed, but they will continue to be employed on this duty when no Army medical officer is available. Until the 31st of December next it will not be known how many Militia medical officers accept the new terms, and until then I cannot undertake to enter upon a full consideration of the facts, nor can I give any pledge as to my action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a Petition from Hanley Potteries, signed by clergymen and ministers of all religious denominations, and the inhabitants generally, praying for the remission of a sentence passed on three boys named Lewis, Platt, and Lancaster, two of them being nine years old and the other ten, by which they are to be detained in an industrial school until they are sixteen years old; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps in the matter so as to alter or amend the sentence?

in reply, said, that inquiry had been made into the matter, and he found that the magistrates of Hanley Potteries had sent three boys, named Lewis, Platt, and Lancaster, to an industrial school—not a reformatory—until they were 16 years of age, as an act of kindness. An application had been made to him to remit the sentence, and from the information he had received it was hoped that the home of one of the boys was sufficiently respectable to permit of his returning to it, instead of working out his sentence. With regard to the others, their homes were such that it would be no act of kindness to compel them to return to them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, from his statement on the 28th ultimo respecting the Furlough and Retiring Regulations of 1796, it is to be presumed that the India Office Return, 13th June last, is incorrect?

The India Office Return, Sir, dated June 13, 1876, is correct, not will there be found to be any discrepancy between that Return and the terms of the statement made by the Under Secretary for India on the 28th of July last.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he could lay on the Table of the House a good descriptive List of all the Harbours, Ports, Piers, Creeks, Rivers, Docks, and Quays resorted to or used by vessels and boats for commerce, fishings, and refuge, distinguishing the owners of the several kinds; and, whether there is any descriptive Memoir of those Harbours, &c. when transferred to the Board of Trade, and their present state, with explanations as to the changes therein and outlays thereon since the transfer?

Sir, it would be impossible for me to undertake to lay before the House such a descriptive list as is asked for in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member. A Return was made to this House in 1874 (Parliamentary Paper, 213) of the names, &c., of the port and harbour authorities in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, as furnished by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs to the Board of Trade, but that Return does not contain the particulars now asked for. As regards the second portion of the Question, the only harbours which have been transferred to the Board of Trade are Ramsgate (which was transferred from the Harbour Trustees by the Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c., Act, 1861), Holy head and Port Patrick (which were transferred from the Admiralty by the Harbours Transfer Act, 1862), Dover, St. Catherine's (Jersey), and Alderney (which were transferred from the Admiralty in pursuance of the Harbours Transfer Act, 1865). A Return was made to this House (Parliamentary Paper, 151) in 1869 containing Reports upon the works at Holyhead, Dover, Alderney, Spurn Point, Portpatrick, and St. Catherine's (Jersey). Reports, which have been printed, were made the same year by the officers of this Board upon Ramsgate and Holyhead Harbours. A Memorandum as to Ramsgate has since been presented to Parliament (Parliamentary Paper 154 of 1873), and a final Report by the Superintending Engineer upon Holyhead Harbour has also been presented (Parliamentary Paper 296 of 1873). Alderney Harbour has since been retransferred to the Admiralty by the Alderney Harbour (Transfer) Act, 1874; the works at Portpatrick have been abandoned, and the Board of Trade relieved from all liability in respect thereof by an Act passed in 1873; and the works at St. Catherine's (Jersey) have, with the sanction of the Treasury, been handed over to the Insular Authority.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the suggestions of Dr. Henry Vandyke Carter, embodied in his Report "relative to Leprosy and Leper Asylums in Norway, with reference to India," presented to the Secretary of State for India in Council in 1873; or, if not, will the Indian Government take any and what action in the matter?

in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to give effect to the suggestions referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. They had directed further inquiry to be made in India with a view to ascertain the correctness of the conclusions at which Dr. Carter had arrived as to the propagation of leprosy.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as he stated some weeks since that the Law Officers of the Crown were considering the legality of an in closure near Stony Cross in the manor of Minestead, in the New Forest, he will inform the House of their opinion on the subject; and whether, if they consider the said inclosure to be illegal, the Government intends to take any action in the matter, with a view of protecting the rights of the Crown in the New Forest?

in reply, said, that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown relative to the In closure near Stony Cross, in the manor of Minestead, in the New Forest, had not yet been received; but the case, which necessarily contained a history of the manor and references to various Acts of Parliament, was now before the Law Officers, and their opinions would be obtained as soon as possible.

:moved—

"That upon Tuesdays Orders of the Day have precedence over Notices of Motions, Government Orders having priority, and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesdays."

in rising to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesdays," said, that he did not intend to oppose the first part of the Motion—that relating to Tuesdays; but he protested against the latter part, by which Government would take Wednesdays also. Wednesdays had al- ways been appropriated to what were erroneously called "private Members." There were really no private Members. They were all as much public Members as the Members of the Government in that House; but it had been found convenient for the transaction of Public Business that certain arrangements should be made, which it was now proposed should be set aside. Up to 1871 there had been only two attempts to take Wednesday from the private Members, and what had occurred since 1871 showed the danger of establishing that precedent. In 1853 the then Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, proposed to take a Wednesday and made a Motion to that effect, the object of which was to defeat a Bill of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The Motion, which was resisted, was nevertheless carried, but it only referred to one particular Wednesday, and could not be fairly quoted as a precedent in support of a proposal to take all the Wednesdays. In 1857 the Government asked the House to allow them to put down Supply as an Order of the Day on Wednesdays and take their chance with the other Orders, but the House declined to do so, so that 19 years ago the same question was debated. In recent years encroachments had been made over and over again upon the opportunities and privileges of private Members, and he thought the House ought to regard with very great jealousy any such proposal as the one then before it. It would not do for private Members to give up their right of discussing subjects in the House; and although it might be thought that great waste of time was caused by the discussion of Bills introduced by unofficial Members, yet that was not really the case. So far from being useless, the discussion of such Bills often led to important legislation. The House was becoming more and more a Chamber for the registering of Government proposals, and in this respect it was giving up to a great extent its own proper functions, and losing in no small degree the power they held over public opinion of the country. He had a Bill on the Paper for Wednesday next in reference to University education in Ireland. The measure was one to which considerable importance was attached, and, as matter of fact, several Representatives of Irish constituencies were at that moment on their way to England, in order to take part in the discussion. He did not expect any material advantage to result from the discussion on that day, as he could not say he should persevere with the second reading; but the consideration of the Bill would not take very long, and the subject was one that ought, if possible, to be decided without loss of time. On all these grounds he would submit to the House his Amendment.

said, there was no desire or intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to invade the rights of independent Members of the House with regard to Wednesdays. On the contrary, they had always upheld such rights. It was intimated a short time back by himself that if the House would accord to the Government the privilege of taking precedence on Wednesdays, they would be grateful for the gift, as it would materially assist the progress of Public Business; but the proposal was not pressed when hesitation was expressed on the part of some hon. Members. It certainly seemed unreasonable, therefore, at the end of the Session for a private Member to ask for the solitary Wednesday that remained. He could understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick was deeply interested in the Bill which stood in his name on the Order Book for Wednesday next, and he had a very good opportunity for proceeding with it on Wednesday last, when it stood first in the Orders of the Day, but he postponed the stage, and could not therefore blame any one for the fact that it stood over. As he had said, the Government had no desire to invade the privileges of private Members; but they had arrived at a period of the Session when, in ordinary circumstances, a single day was of moment, and, as business at present stood, it would be of inestimable value, for there were one or two Bills that had yet to go to the other House of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion, for he had already explained his Bill to the House, and could hardly expect to obtain a satisfactory settlement of the question this Session, even if Wednesday next were at his disposal.

said, it appeared to him to be perfectly correct, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), that the unofficial Members of the House were gradually being placed in a very disadvantageous position. Their privileges were being curtailed by degrees, and it would be well for them to seek a remedy for a growing evil. In his opinion, much would be gained if a slight alteration were made in the mode of introducing Bills by unofficial Members. He hoped that as early as possible steps would be taken by means of which unofficial Members would be enabled to give such Notice of their intention to introduce Bills as should inform the House beforehand of the general nature and provisions of the measures in question. The House would then be in a position to judge whether it was one likely to promote any practical purpose; and, if not, it could be rejected at once, instead of being allowed to cumber the Order Book at future stages, merely to serve as a peg on which to hang a discussion. He ventured to make that suggestion to the House in the interest of Government as well as of non-official Business.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that something should be done to prevent such a glut of measures as appeared on the Order Book as the Session drew to a close. At the same time, he thought the Government request to take next Wednesday was only reasonable, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) would not press his Amendment. He had heard with satisfaction the promise of the Prime Minister that the interests of private Members should not be thrust aside unnecessarily; but he could not avoid complaining that private Members were not treated as they ought to be, and he specially objected to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in refusing to give the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) a night to discuss a Motion of No Confidence, merely because it had not received the approbation of the front Opposition Bench. He thought it was only right that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should know this.

said, he did not rise to continue the debate upon the Motion, although the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was well within his right in claiming, if he thought fit to do so, Wednesdays for the discussion of Business introduced by non-official Members of the House. The question, however, at that period of the Session was one that should he determined upon grounds of general convenience. The hon. and learned Gentleman had already announced that he did not expect any immediate result to follow the discussion of his measure next Wednesday, and therefore it would be for him to determine whether it would be expedient to enforce his right in the matter; seeing the state the House would be in by the middle of this week, it would be impossible to rely upon having full discussion on other than Government measures. What he desired, however, to ask before the Motion was passed was whether any Member of Her Majesty's Government could state what was to be the order of Public Business during the present week. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had already stated that the Order of Business for that evening would be that after the Report of Supply had been agreed to, the Appellate Jurisdiction and the Cruelty to Animals Bill would be taken. He had no opposition to offer to the last-named measure, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was a Bill of considerable importance, and after what had been said with regard to it out-of-doors he trusted that it would not be passed without an opportunity being given for a tolerably full discussion upon it. He wished, therefore, to ask whether there was any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with that measure at an hour that would preclude discussion being had upon it, or would prevent such discussion from being recorded, or whether it was intended to make arrangements for a discussion being taken upon it on a subsequent day. A promise had been made at an earlier period of the Session that an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the Suez Canal Shares Bill, and although from the state of Public Business it would be impossible that any full discussion could be had upon that measure, still some hon. Members were anxious to raise certain questions with reference to it. In these circumstances, it would be convenient if the Government could state on what day that Bill would be taken.

wished to know when the Merchant Shipping Bill would be taken, seeing that the Lords' Amendments effected several important alterations in the measure, one reversing a decision of that House arrived at by division, and another reversing a decision of that House arrived at by agreement with the Government. He trusted, therefore, that full and ample opportunity would be given for considering those Amendments.

said, that the Government were most anxious that ample time should be given for discussing both the Cruelty to Animals Bill, the Suez Canal Shares Bill, and the Lords' Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Bill; but, of course, it was obvious to the House that the possibility of doing that depended upon facilities being given, such as the Government were now asking for. The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill ought to be proceeded with as quickly as possible, in order that the necessary Orders in Council carrying it into effect might be prepared. It was impossible to say how long the Report of Supply was likely to take that evening, because there were several Notices upon the Paper that would precede it, and questions might be raised upon the details of the Report itself. It was hoped, however, that the House would not occupy any great length of time in discussing those matters, and that real progress would be made with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which he trusted would pass through Committee that evening. The Cruelty to Animals Bill and the Suez Canal Shares Bill also required further discussion, and he trusted that an ample opportunity would be found for its being had—not only upon those Bills but also upon the Lords' Amendments to the Merchant Shipping Bill. It was, however, no use in attempting to fix days for them at present. Before he sat down he wished to refer to an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who had spoken as though his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that he was disposed to take no notice of a Vote of Censure moved by unofficial Members. Nothing that his right hon. Friend had said would bear that construction. The matter to which the hon. Member was referring was of a different character from what he attributed to it. What his right hon. Friend had then said was, that it was impossible to give up Government days to enable Notices bearing the character of Votes of Censure to be brought forward, unless those Notices were in the nature of important Party Motions, and supported by the Leaders of the Opposition. The days which had been given up in the course of the Session to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and other hon. Gentlemen had helped to place the Government in such a position at the end of the Session that they were obliged to ask for days which belonged to private Members. But there was no intention on the part of his right hon. Friend to imply any indisposition to attend to the Motions brought forward by unofficial Members.

Are we to understand that the Suez Canal Shares Bill and the Cruelty to Animals Bill will be taken this evening?

Not after 11 o'clock.

Surely 11 o'clock would be too late for the Cruelty to Animals Bill?

I think I may say that that Bill will not be taken this evening.

said, that while everybody was no doubt anxious to facilitate the progress of Business, there was still a great deal to do, and amongst other important questions was the Indian Budget, of which nothing had yet been said. Already sufficient Notices had been given to occupy every Wednesday during next Session. Other Notices would, no doubt, be given. He hoped to secure a day for a Motion of which he had not yet given Notice—for the establishment of Free Libraries and Museums. He should be glad if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick could conveniently put off the discussion of his Bill to another Session; but, at the same time, he should feel it his duty in the interests of private Members, on whose rights continual en- croachments were being made, to support his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. If hon. Members yielded to the demands of the Government now without some show of resistance the Government would become more reckless with its time. Not having economized its own time, the Government must now draw on the time of private Members. If the Government had been more careful of its time during the last fortnight it would not now have had to occupy a single half-hour of that which should be devoted to private Members.

said, with reference to an obsertion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the Indian Budget would be taken on Thursday.

thought it very important that a discussion should be held, even at this late period of the Session, on the Universities (Ireland) Bill. Although it was known that the Oxford and Cambridge University Bills could not pass this Session, the Government considered it necessary that they should be discussed, and it was even more important for Ireland that the next stage of his hon. and learned Friend's Bill should be taken than it was for England to discuss the two University Bills.

begged to state, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that not a single Irish Bill had been introduced into that House which it had not been intended to proceed with, and which had not been carefully considered by a Committee or Cabinet of the majority of the Irish Members.

:asked whether the Indian Budget, which he understood was to be taken on Thursday, would be the First Order on that day?

replied that it would be the principal business for Thursday, but as to whether any small business might not be taken before it he could not say.

said, he should, not feel justified in not taking the decision of the House on his Amendment.

:rose, in pursuance of a Notice which had stood a long time on the Paper,

"To call attention to the circumstances of the death of John Chiddy, a plate layer on the Bristol and Exeter Railway, in the endeavour to avert a Railway accident."

It seemed that John Chiddy was superintending the removal of blocks of stone from a waggon at a station near Bristol when one of the blocks fell on to the line when the express train "Flying Dutchman" was only a few hundred yards off. In his desire to avert danger to the coming train he jumped down and removed the stone, but, unfortunately for his widow and children, was struck by the engine and killed. It was an act of great courage and self-sacrifice; for the man lost his life in the endeavour to prevent a catastrophe, and there was no knowing how many lives he had saved. There was a coroner's inquest on the body, and the jury, who returned a verdict of "Accidental death," expressed their sense of the bravery of the act which had cost John Chiddy his life, and out of sympathy for the widow gave up their own small fees to her. He was a quarry foreman nearly 50 years of age, and he had left a family unprovided for. He (Lord Elcho) did not know what the railway company had done for them, or whether it had done anything; but corporations generally had no consciences, and such an act of bravery, reflecting as it did, however, on the State, ought to receive public recognition, by distinction if a man survived, and compensation to his family if he lost his life. It might be said this was a case for public subscription, and the answer was that a gentleman who saw the act endeavoured to get up a public subscription on behalf of the widow and children, but the result was only a sum of £3 17s. It was to be regretted that there was no provision in this country to reward such courageous and humane conduct as that of John Chiddy. Had he been a soldier or a sailor, and risked his life gallantly to save the lives of others, his bravery would have been recognized, and in the one case he would have received the Victoria Cross, and in the other the Albert Medal. But there was not in this country any provision for the widows and children of civilians who, like John Chiddy, risked and lost their lives in their daring and noble efforts to save the lives of others. It was not so in other countries. In Germany, for instance, there was a sum of £50,000 voted to meet cases wherein civilians had lost their lives in trying to avert great calamities, and so to assist the widows and children who had lost their only means of support. He (Lord Elcho) thought that the Albert Medal might be given to those civilians who imperilled their own lives to save the lives of others; and he trusted that, in relation to the great and heroic act of John Chiddy, which might well be supposed to have saved numbers from death and others from serious injury, it would be considered in a just spirit, and lead to some public recognition in behalf of his widow and children. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the case of John Chiddy's widow and children into consideration. By testifying to their appreciation of such gallant deeds they encouraged others to do likewise, with the full assurance that if they perished in their noble efforts to preserve the lives of others, at any rate their families would not be dependent upon charity.

said, he was pleased that the attention of the House had been drawn to the subject, which there could be no doubt, as recorded in the newspapers, was an act of great gallantry; but hitherto it had not formally been brought under the notice of the Government. He did not think it would be advisable for the Government without some formal representation to take any steps in the matter; but if any representation was made, no doubt it would be considered. There were no funds available for the Government to give rewards in cases of this sort, but still there had been instances in which small sums or medals had been given to mark the sense of the Government of acts of considerable gallantly. He thought, however, his noble Friend rather set aside the position of the railway company in this matter. This man Chiddy was in the service of the railway company, and lost his life in performing an act which was of the greatest service to the company, saving not only their train from destruction, but also saving them the payment of considerable compensation for injuries to and loss of life. Therefore he thought that it was to them that, in the first instance, representations should have been addressed as to the making of an allowance to the man's family. He had no particular knowledge on the subject, but the House would feel that, without being cold and indifferent in the matter, it was the duty of the Government to wait until the matter came more formally and more regularly before them.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an important admission, because he had stated that the railway company should make provision for this man's family, inasmuch as he had lost his life in their service. There was at present in the Lobby of that House a large subscription list being raised on behalf of the sufferers by the accident on the Thunderer and their families. He wished to put it to the Government whether, the men having as justly perished in the service of the country as if they had been in action, it was not for the Government to come forward and relieve them with a vote for their families, and not leave it to private charity.

in rising "to call attention to the condition of the British Church at Stockholm," said, that in the year 1855, under the Consular Chaplains Act of George IV., a British Consular Chaplain was appointed at Stockholm. In 1858 steps were taken to build a Consular Church, which was finished and consecrated in 1866. It was built at an expense of £3,928, and Divine worship had since been carried on, partly by means of Government grants and partly by the subscriptions of British subjects, at an expense of £6,931. From 1855 to the present year that British Church had been kept up by grants from the British Government and British subjects to the amount of £10,600. A certain class of non-British subjects had contributed towards it the sum of £227. A change was made by the late Government in the status of the Consular Chaplains, to which the present Government had, to an extent which he could not justify, conformed, and among the sufferers were the British community at Stockholm. Up to 1867 the affairs of the church were managed by a committee, of which the British Consul was the chairman. Unfortunately, no proper legal constitution of the church was agreed to, according to the laws either of England or Sweden, although there were some memoranda on the subject, while every one understood whom it was for, and what worship was to be celebrated—namely, that the persons using the church were British subjects, worshipping according to the forms of the Church of England. The fact of its being a Consular chaplaincy was considered a sufficient guarantee, and the church was not in strict legal form vested in any one. But upon the withdrawal of the Government grant, and the consequent termination of the Consular chaplaincy, the protection of the Government determined, and the committee were thrown on their resources. In their distress they obtained the services of a gentleman as clergyman who had previously been a schoolmaster, who at a late period went abroad, and who was never able to get a licence from the Bishop of London. Between July and December, 1875, he made the place "too hot" for him, and tendered his resignation, which the committee too hastily, perhaps, accepted. With equal rapidity he withdrew it, and called a meeting of the English-speaking inhabitants of Stockholm, and this mixed multitude and chance-medley of the English-speaking population, who followed the Tabernacle, and who had given the £227 as against the £10,600, voted themselves the general committee and voted out the real committee. They assumed the custody of the chapel, and appointed the Chaplain as chairman. He recognized this committee as the sole acting committee for all purposes except one—he held the original com- mittee responsible for the payment of his salary. He (Mr. Beresford Hope), in appealing to Parliament, did not wish to snatch a legal opinion, but dealt with this matter as one to be governed by rules of honour, and of substantial, as opposed to mere technical, justice. If this clergyman had got the Bishop of London's licence there would have been no difficulty; but the right rev. Prelate did not feel himself justified in issuing a licence. The original committee would not give up the church, so this minister of peace first brought a civil suit against them, and afterwards a criminal suit, because they, pro formâ, locked the door of the church, which was then broken open by the Swedish municipal authorities. The civil suit was decided in favour of the original committee; and they might have thought that the matter would have ended there; but after the civil suit had been decided in favour of the original committee, in the criminal suit a decision was given for the other party, and on account of the merely ceremonious locking of the door of the church they were fined 2,000 dollars a-piece and costs. Though the decision had been appealed against, the money had to be paid into Court, while the gentlemen so cruelly amerced were persons of limited means, and the tyrannical act of the Criminal Court might bring great inconvenience upon these excellent persons. If the Foreign Office could see its way to reinstate the Consular chaplain at the very smallest amount of stipend all its old rights in the Church would revive. Failing that, if they would even make a strong and dignified representation to the Swedish Government, he thought it would tend to settle this question. They would thus relieve very excellent people from a great and grievous difficulty, and provide religious services for the 2,000 British sailors and large number of British travellers who passed through Stockholm annually.

hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Hope) would not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) wanting in respect in not replying at once, as there was another question to which his attention would be called, and he would not have the right of speaking twice. His hon. Friend would have to address the House in reply to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) and he would take that later opportunity of replying to the hon. Member.

said, he felt that he owed some explanation to the House for bringing forward at such very short Notice what appeared to him to be an extremely important subject, but the fact was that there was no other course open to him. It was only that day and the day before that documents had come to hand, and that Papers had been published which appeared to render it highly desirable that the House of Commons should have another opportunity of expressing its opinion upon these atrocities; and every hon. Member knew well that at that period of the Session there was no possible way of calling attention to the subject except on the Report of Supply. He could have wished that attention had been called to the matter by a more influential Mem- ber than he, for he felt that the news which they had heard lately upon this subject really called for the expression of a very strong opinion indeed on the part of the House of Commons. It would be in the recollection of the House that on the 10th of July last they had a short debate on the subject of the Bulgarian atrocities, and they on that (the Liberal) side of the House, and certainly a very great many people out of it, were extremely dissatisfied with the tone adopted by the Prime Minister in his reply on that occasion. They considered that the right hon. Gentleman was treating a very important subject with great levity. They considered that he was rather palliating and justifying and denying the truth of things which appeared to them to be only too well founded to have been treated in that way. All that they had heard since had proved that the opinion which they entertained in regard to that matter was correct. He had himself received papers and letters from Constantinople announcing the receipt of the papers with reports of that debate in them, and the feeling amongst the European population at Constantinople was one of great disgust with the way in which Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Minister out there had treated the matter. With the permission of the House, he would take the liberty of reading an extract from a newspaper—The Stamboul—published in Constantinople—

"Apropos of the excesses committed by the irregular troops, we must notice a fact that might be of importance—that is to say, the debates which have taken place in the English Parliament on the subject. The public of our city, both Mussulmans and Christians, have imbibed a painful impression from reading the despatch announcing that the English Ministry, by the avowal of Mr. Disraeli, has been kept in ignorance of these facts, and that having asked for information from their Ambassador, he has charged as exaggerations the horrors narrated by the correspondent of The Daily News, and had even taken up the defence of the Circassians and the Bashi Bazouks, by alleging that they had done no more than make reprisals. We wait the more official account of the Chamber to confirm or otherwise this version, so as not to commit ourselves to the word 'defence,' for we do not believe, with the knowledge which we have of the country, that there exists one single Mussulman capable of being willing to take the defence of the Circassians. By an unfortunate coincidence, the same day that this discussion took place in the House of Commons, the Turkish Government sent one of its Ministers into Bulgaria to make an inquiry. We have learned since that the Commission appointed by the Minister has hanged on the field five of these plunderers, and everybody has read the proclamation of the Grand Vizier, which is an indirect avowal of all the misdeeds committed. Sir Henry Elliot, when he applies in such a case the word 'reprisals,' seems ignorant that many months before the breaking out of the insurrection the newspapers were filled with mournful details of plunder and disorders committed by the Circassians and Bashi Bazouks, and that the Government was warned that it must expect an insurrection if it did not take measures to repress these abuses. On which side, then, were the reprisals. But even if there was no truth in the facts quoted by the newspapers such rumours deserved to have the attention of the Ambassador, and he ought always to have informed his Government. Now it results, in the language of Mr. Disraeli, that the English Government had not even suspected the existence of such facts, although it was so much its interest to know them."

He would next read a short extract from a private letter—

"Christians of all denominations here were very much shocked at the attempted palliation by the British Government and Sir Henry Elliot of the atrocities committed upon Christians by Mussulmans in the interior. These atrocities were notorious here many months before the so-called Bulgarian insurrection."

Now, it would be observed that it was stated that these atrocities were being committed many months before the so-called insurrection. It was stated that this so-called insurrection was to have taken place on the 1st May, but that it had been anticipated by a few days, and he would now show by extracts from Constantinople newspapers that in November and December, 1875, these atrocities were going on. One account said—

"On the night of the 4th October the Mussulmans of Sulmeschli district of Eski Zagra, set fire to the dwellings of the Bulgarians and fired guns. The Bulgarians fled from their houses and the village, but were surrounded by Mussulmans, who fired on them, killing some and wounding a great many. Those who were caught had atrocious tortures to suffer, putting fire in the hair of some, thrusting red-hot irons into the tongues of others, and making others dance barefooted on a heap of thorns. When at last gendarmes came to their assistance, six men were found dead, fifteen wounded, and many women and children half dead."

Another account said—

"The inquiry opened by the authorities discovers every day some new abuse. For instance, Sadik Bey, in company with some of his companions in iniquity, recently went through these villages, violating the young Bulgarian girls, Among the girls thus dishonoured may be mentioned the little daughters of Diado Stoyan, of the village of Chahmali. The village of Sulmeschli has a population of Bulgarians and Mussulmans. The latter, armed with implements of labour and other weapons, in the middle of the night, attacked the Bulgarian part of the village, have killed 12 men and have wounded 8, and violated 10 young girls and 3 young women. They then retired, having taken away the grain and other provisions, and the furniture of the houses. Kasanka, near Eski Zagra, is also inhabited by Bulgarians and Mussulmans. The forest guard, with some other Mussulmans, having at their head two gendarmes, attacked the Bulgarian houses in the middle of the night, and having seized 15 of the richest, imprisoned them in a hut, and, with knives at their throats, demanded money, and in this way extorted 46 livres. This process was repeated by the same individuals at the villages of Baloukli and Ada Tépé. The peasants complain in vain because Hadji Tahir Aga, one of the notables of Eski Zagra, protects the culprits for his own ends. That Hadji Tahir Aga and his colleague Emine Bey are the misfortunes of the country. They are one of the causes of the many violations committed on young Bulgarian girls. They also commit an infinity of abuse in forcing the peasants to reap, to labour, and carry wood for them without payment, and then they are despoiled of their fields and dare not complain, for these men hold the offices of caimacan and cadi in town and country.

A certain Kourtschi Osman, at the head of some Mussulmans, has gone through the villages of the district Kezanlik, taking ransom from the richest inhabitants. He says to them—Pay me 8 livres Turkish or I will denounce you to the authorities as taking part in the revolutionary committee. The peasants pay the sum demanded to escape torture or perhaps death, and Kourtschi Osman, with his companions, has taken in this way 560 livres Turkish. These acts took place during the first days of October last."

These extracts showed that in Constantinople it was perfectly notorious that these outrages were going on, and still we had Sir Henry Elliot pretending to know nothing about them, and keeping the Government at home in ignorance of facts which it was his business to know. The statements as to these atrocities might be in some degree exaggerated, but they were in the main authenticated by the names and dates which were given. But what said the Turkish defence which had been published. He would read portions of the summary of it that had appeared in The Scotsman—

"The Turkish Embassy in London has issued the report of Edib Effendi, the Commissioner appointed by the Turkish Government to inquire into the alleged Bulgarian atrocities. He says the insurrection was extensively organized, and was to have broken out on May 1, but the date was anticipated by a few days. The towns of Philippopolis, Bazardjik, Adrianople, and Sofia were to be set on fire and plundered. The villages, which were the centre of the insurrection, were fortified. Wooden cannon were prepared, and the inhabitants had secreted all their valuable property. The Mussulman population who refused submission were to be put to death, as well as their wives and children. In consequence of measures to suppress the insurrection it did not spread, but 28 villages were burnt, of which 18 were Christian and 4 were Mussulman. The stories of Christian children beingsold into slavery arose simply from abandoned children having been collected and cared for in the Mussulman villages, most of whom have been restored to their homes. The cases in which women were killed by the troops were due solely to the obstinate resistance of the rebels. The leaders of the insurrection, it is affirmed, were everywhere schoolmasters and village popes. This manfinished up his report by the pious expression—There is nothing left but to pray for Divine assistance in the work of restoring order."

He thought a more contemptible thing in the form of a defence never was laid before a civilized community. In the charges against the Turkish Government there were names given. In this defence there was no case in which a name or date was mentioned. The defence confined itself entirely to the 1st of May, or about that time, and said not a word about the old atrocities. It said the insurrection was extensively organized, and quoted a document found on some man who was killed. It did not give the name of the man, nor the signatures appended to the document. Nothing was stated that would permit the truth of the statement to be tested. So far as he was concerned he had no hesitation in saying that this was a trumped-up story, that there hardly was an insurrection planned, that atrocities were going on, until the people in a state of despair at a constant denial of justice, and a constant suffering which humanity could no longer endure, made up their minds at last to some idea of insurrection, and then the flame was fanned in order that these atrocious Turks might have an opportunity of coming down upon the people, and punishing them most severely. He might dismiss that defence without further comment. But the atrocities were going on now. There was on Saturday in The Daily News a statement of atrocities now taking place in Bosnia. What was called an insurrection in Bulgaria having been put down by such atrocious means, it was now being tried whether the same means would have a similar effect in Bosnia; and after the information we had received, and were receiving daily, and after the statements in The Daily News, it would not do to throw discredit upon them in the way that the Prime Minister so improperly did before. He would read some extracts from The Daily News—

"A telegram from Vienna to the Courrier de France says that massacres have been committed by the Turks in Bosnia. In the villages of Pervan and Timar 300 Christians were drowned after being tortured. At Pavics 12 women were cut to pieces and thrown to the dogs. At Ratklovo 60 children were stoned by the Turks, led by one Fechim Effendi, to avenge a relation of Major Stocsvic Bey, killed at Bellina. At Sokelovo 180 young girls taken from the neighbouring villages were penned in a field, and after the prettiest had been picked out for the harems of Fechim and Stocsvic, the others were abandoned to the soldiery, and violated and murdered. At Maidan the Christian population assembled at market were massacred by a fanatical mob led by Hadji Omer Effendi, and another functionary named Ibrahim Kurusovics Aga. The victims in this case numbered 3,000. On July 21st there was another massacre at Pryedor under similar circumstances. All sorts of excesses by Bashi-Bazouks are reported from Brod. On the 12th and 13th a band of Bashi-Bazouks, numbering 600, pillaged and burned the village of Gens Mahalli on the railway between Adrianopole and Philippopolis. In the neighbourhood of Ismid Nicomeden there were similar atrocities."

Even allowing for exaggeration—as he was quite willing to do—the particularity of these statements, the names, and the dates given in them, showed that there must be much truth in them. But he came now to the statements in that day's Daily News, which spoke of atrocities exceeding any previously heard of. In this case, he did not see how it was possible to throw doubt on the statements, because they were sent by a correspondent accompanying the American Commissioner, M. Schuyler. He would repeat a few of these statements, which he was sure must have sent a thrill of horror through the heart of every one who had read them—

"Mr. Baring will report 60 villages burnt. He is accompanied by a Turkish Guard, which frightens the people."

This was a serious difficulty in Mr. Baring's way, besides his ignorance of the Bulgarian language. Nobody doubted that he would do his best to get at the truth, but the doubt was as to whether he was in a position to get at the truth, whether he could inspire the peasantry with such confidence that they would come and tell him what was the real state of matters—

"The peasantry afterwards told M. Schuyler that they were afraid to come and testify."

That was most important—

"Proof has been obtained of atrocities corresponding in the majority of cases with the details of The Daily News. A schoolmistress, a beautiful girl, was arrested for embroidering a flag, and brutally maltreated."

Then they came to the town of Batok, where, on approaching the town on a hill, they saw a number of dogs who ran away, and they

"Found on the spot a number of skulls gathered about, and one ghastly heap of skeletons, with clothing. I counted from the saddle 100 skulls, picked and licked clean, all of women and children. We entered the town. On every side were skulls and skeletons, charred among the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing. There were skeletons of girls and women with long brown hair hanging to the skulls. We approached the church; there these remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally covered with skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in clothing. Between the church and the school there were heaps. The stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard; the sight was more dreadful. The whole churchyard for 3 feet deep was festering with dead bodies partly covered—hands, legs, arms, and heads projected in ghastly confusion. I saw many little hands, heads, and feet of children of three years of age, and girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies, quite uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. There were 3,000 bodies in the churchyard and church….In the school, a fine building, 200 women and children had been burnt alive. All over the town were the same scenes….The man who did all this, Achmed Aga, has been promoted, and is still governor of the district. The newspaper accounts were not exaggerated. They could not be. No crime invented by Turkish ferocity was left uncommitted."

Hon. Members would know what that meant.

"The statement that the Bulgarians committed atrocities is utterly unfounded and shamefully false. M. Schuyler thinks that less than 200 Turks were killed, nearly all in open combat. There is no proof yet that a single Turkish woman or child was killed or violated."

He would not proceed further than to express his own horror at what he had read to the House. He was sure every hon. Member would feel upon the subject as strongly as he did. They would remember the cry of horror, he might say the cry of vengeance, that ran through the land at the tale of Cawnpore. Here was a tale far more bloody than that of Cawnpore. Cawnpore was exaggerated 10 or 20 times over in one town alone, and we might expect daily similar accounts from other towns of that unhappy country. Amid all this we stood by, and did nothing. There were only mild protestations from Sir Henry Elliot, who kept concealed from our Government at home his belief in, or knowledge of, these atrocities. There appeared to be a conspiracy of silence out there among officials and Ministers. They did not tell the Government exactly how matters stood, and we were giving our moral support to a nation that did such things as had been described. We sent our Fleet to Besika Bay without making any explanation why it was sent; and all the world had been left to believe that it was sent to give moral support to this vile nation of Turkey. All this must come to an end. He did not believe the people of this country would consent any longer to be on any terms with Turkey either of friendship or alliance. Her Majesty's Government would be required to take some stronger step than they had yet taken, and to make stronger representations than they had yet made, if possible in combination with other civilized nations in Europe, to put a complete stop to such horrible procedure. Hethought nothing else would content the country, and he hoped the House would have that night some expressions from the Prime Minister of a very different kind from those he gave them on the last occasion when this subject was before the House.

said, that as the result of a few words of protest he had uttered on a former occasion against the atrocities revealed in The Daily News, he had received letters of confirmation whose authenticity the Prime Minister, if he saw them, would not dispute. Had he known that the subject would have come before the House he would have had them with him. One was from Dr. Washbourne, the head of the American Missionaries' College in Constantinople, and one from Dr. Sandwith, enclosing letters from Bulgaria, from men for whose honour and truthfulness he could vouch. Some of these correspondents begged that nothing should be stated publicly that would at all enable the Turkish Government to identify them, because such identification would be utter destruction to them. He (Mr. Mundella) had intended to give a Notice on this subject for Thursday, but he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had anticipated him. He would not claim a monopoly of humanity for his side of the House. He believed every Englishman who read the accounts which had been quoted would feel, as he and his hon. Friend did in this matter—that it was horrible that such crimes should be perpetrated in Europe by a Government with whom we were in alliance, and that believed it was supported by the power and strength of England. The Prime Minister, when questioned on these Eastern events, had always said that his official information did not warrant these newspaper statements, or that they were exaggerated. Crimes of murder, arson, and outrage, gave rise to panic, and would always be somewhat exaggerated; but where there was such a mass of indisputable evidence as there was in this case, it was really shocking that an English Minister should speak of these crimes as "inevitable." That was an expression which, he confessed, caused him great pain. We were now hearing more of these atrocities from the newspapers, because they were better informed than Her Majesty's Government. Their correspondents, our own countrymen, were on the spot, and many of them men of great reputation known to all of them. They all knew what The Daily News correspondence was in the Franco-German War, and how it gave the earliest information, and gave it long before the Government gave any. The enterprize of the Press outstripped the processes of Ministers, who believed in red tape, and who made these common-place statements about exaggerations. That was simply the stereotyped language of diplomacy. The mystery-mongering of the Foreign Office never brought out the truth unless the Press had brought it straight to them long before. Hence the doubt thrown by the Prime Minister on these statements. But they had been borne out by the testimony of M. Schuyler and the concurrent testimony of The Times, for what did The Times' correspondent say? That gentleman described in glowing language the magnificence of the country on the frontier of Servia, and remarked—

"The Turk has blighted all. Such an exodus! never since the flight of the Israelites had the like of it been witnessed. I cannot command words which will enable your readers to realize it."

Again, the same correspondent said—

"I believe that, could all Europe have seen it as I did yesterday, all Europe would rise in indignation. Thousands of Christians, the inhabitants of the villages along this frontier of Servia, were flying for their lives and for the honour of their wives and daughters from the cruel and remorseless Turk."

This was from a foreign correspondent of great ability, and writer of great reputation, and who had been relied upon for the best news over and over again, yet our Government sat still. He (Mr. Mundella) was not an advocate of war, but he said it was unworthy of England, if she had any power, or if she had any influence in the counsels of Europe, not to say to this "thing," which now was said to govern Turkey—whose Predecessor had died of the scissors, who was himself in the way of something worse, and whose probable successor was a fanatic—"Bring these things to an end, or we will point our guns at your palaces. "England was once governed by a man named Cromwell, who in a case like this uttered words which brought massacres to an end. He prayed the Prime Minister to shake off the lethargy which had been too marked in this case, and to let them have some plain English speaking on the subject. It was too atrocious to be met with silence. We could not maintain these monsters any longer in Europe. It must not seem that we were maintaining them by our Fleet, as it apparently did to the ferocious ruffians who had actually appeared at the British Consulates demanding the wages of their guilt, in the belief that the English Consuls were to pay for what they had done. He spoke strongly, as he felt. It was time somebody spoke out, and that England awoke to a sense of her responsibility as a great Christian Power, and in the name of humanity did something to bring these things to an end.

said, it was much to be regretted that these inflammatory speeches should be made in that House. The speeches just delivered were exactly in the same style as a speech recently delivered at Willis's Rooms, in which the strongest opinions were expressed. Every one, and no one more than the Prime Minister himself, must mourn over the miseries attending civil war; but nobody could have read the Blue Book carefully without coming to the conclusion that these atrocities had been greatly magnified, and that they were not confined to one side. The responsibility for these events did not lie with our Ministry, but with those who instigated that war, and it was rather for them to try to mitigate these atrocities than for the Government of this country to interfere. He thought these speeches did the greatest harm. They were Party speeches against the Turkish Government, and the hon. Members opposite who delivered them should look at both sides of the question, and judge fairly and impartially between the two parties.

urged the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to throw off official reticence on this subject, and say what had been done. From communications which he (Mr. Hayter) had received, he was assured that there had been no exaggeration whatever as to the number of these murders, and there really had been 12,000 persons murdered in Bulgaria. No doubt it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to control the irregular troops of the Porte, but Her Majesty's Government would agree that the Porte was responsible for whatever irregular troops the Porte took into its employ. On this point he might cite the answer of General Liprandi to Lord Raglan. During the Crimean War Lord Raglan begged General Liprandi not to allow the Cossacks to murder and plunder English officers who were wounded and lying on the ground; and General Liprandi replied—"I can keep in order the disciplined troops of Russia, but I cannot control the Cossacks, who are obliged to be used by the Russian Government in their extremity, and who are obliged to make up by plunder for the want of pay. "Now, the Bashi-Bazouks probably received no pay, and there was in the printed Papers a letter from the Pasha in some of the disturbed districts in Bosnia, stating that he would not be responsible for the irregular troops unless the Turkish Government sent out some pay for them. He himself had seen irregular Turkish troops in a state of mutiny, and officers going down on their knees begging the men to obey orders. As to the Bulgarians, he had travelled in that country, and was prepared to say that the peasantry were among the most inoffensive people in the world. A large settlement of Circassians had been set down by the side of them, and probably to these Circassians part of the atrocities were due. But they were aided by the troops of a European Power, and it was this fact of which Her Majesty's Government ought to take account. It would be very easy for the right hon. Gentleman to rise at the close of this debate and say—"What do you want me to do?" Well, he, for one, intended to insist that Her Majesty's Government ought to use all their diplomatic power to insist on the withdrawal of the Bashi-Bazouks from these Provinces, to insist that the families of these murdered men were compensated, and that the Turkish Government should give an assurance that these irregular troops should not be employed to put down insurrection. When they had done that Her Majesty's Government would have done something to put down these disgraceful outrages.

believed thatin the House and out of the House the people were indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) for again directing the attention of Parliament to atrocities which he (Mr. Taylor) would not say were never equalled in the history of the world, but which neither in modern, nor ancient times were ever surpassed. His only regret was that the Forms of the House did not enable him to frame the observations he had made in a distinctive Motion, because it was essential before separating for the Recess that representation should be made in that House of the feelings of shame and indignation which rushed through every heart in this Realm. The House of Commons and the country were disappointed that in the references to these atrocities, from the Government bench the Prime Minister did all he could to throw a slur on the correctness of the reports given by correspondents, and to show that these were the ordinary consequences of civil war. The right hon. Gentleman would be glad of the opportunity given him that night to set himself right with the country. The House of Commons and the country knew very well that the excuses of the Turkish Government were not valid in the slightest degree, but rested on absolute falsehood. Atrocities had been going on, and were going on at the present moment, of an almost unparalleled character. Red Indians in the American wilds scalped their victims, but never did what these fiends in Eastern Europe were doing. The right hon. Gentleman on a late occasion had referred to Jamaica. He (Mr. Taylor) had never been disposed to say less of the atrocities in Jamaica than they deserved, for he, with others, did his best to bring Governor Eyre to justice for the murders done there; but it was a libel on Governor Eyre to compare what was done in Jamaica with the savage and obscene atrocities of the Turks in Europe. In answer to the question—"What is to be done?" he thought the first thing was to recognize the crime. It might be said what could we do? There was a gallant old gentleman in this country (Lord Russell)—he (Mr. Taylor) wished he were at the head of the Government now—who might not, as had been said, take command of the Fleet at an hour's notice, but who would assuredly not have allowed the name of England to be dragged into the atrocities now going on. He trusted some Member of the Government would clear this country of the shame that attached to it in connection with these occurrences.

held that a very strong case had been made out against the Turkish Government in respect to the horrible atrocities committed in Bulgaria, and that much blame was due to Her Majesty's Government, who, either from ignorance or apathy, had seemed rather to palliate than to endeavour to check these crimes. It had been said that there was much exaggeration, but he thought it was almost impossible there could have been much exaggeration. The correspondents of our leading daily newspapers who made the facts public wrote with the full knowledge that everything that appeared in the Press would be subject to severe criticism, and if untrue would be denied. It was impossible that gentlemen of their position and experience could send these accounts unless they were aware of the facts. The language of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had been strong, but in his opinion was not too strong for a case such as this. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) referred to the presence of a British Fleet in Besika Bay. He did not know for what purpose the Fleet was sent there, and what it was expected to do, but as it was there, he believed it would gladden the hearts of the English people to learn that it could lend some influence to the representations of our Government in favour of the cause of humanity in Europe. If we had never interfered in Turkish affairs the position would not be quite the same, but we always had been interfering in the affairs of Turkey, and indeed half the nations of Europe were deliberating upon the affairs of that country and claiming the right to interfere. That being the case, it was a scandal to Europe that such atrocities should take place within her borders. He hoped that one result of the discussion which had been raised would be to quicken the conscience of Her Majesty's Government, and if they had not yet made vigorous efforts to stop these terrible scenes, that in future at least the country would not have cause to complain of their remissness.

said, the House was still uninformed of the purpose of the Fleet being at Besika Bay. Before the debate closed he hoped they would be informed. It was said to be there to protect the Christians and prevent disturbances, but if that were so, what had been the result? He feared it was there in a bad cause, for the Christians were unprotected, and the disturbances were still going on. He hoped the Government would not allow the debate to close without intimating that every power that England possessed would be exercised to cause a cessation of these terrible calamities and cruelties.

said, that when the statement of these atrocities was first made known in this country he communicated with correspondents in Constantinople, and within the last few days had been assured that not only were the reports accurate, but were understated. A general impression prevailed among the English residents in Constantinople that our Ambassador there displayed unnecessary Turkish leanings, and, further, that, with the best intentions and unquestionable capacity, his health was such that he was not in a position to afford the Government at home accurate and detailed information.

said, before dealing with the very serious matter which they had just been discussing, he wished to refer to the present condition of the Stockholm church, as brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). There seemed to be a misapprehension as to some of the facts. For instance, the church did not belong, exclusively to British subjects, but to the English-speaking community, and as there was a Protestant community, the Government did not think it necessary to maintain a Consular chaplain. When he was withdrawn, a committee of the congregation elected a chaplain of their own, but after a time he resigned. He then wished to withdraw his resignation, but was not allowed to do so. All official connection on the part of the Government with the church having ceased, the committee succeeded in getting another chaplain, and the original chaplain protested against these proceedings, and called a meeting, which was attended by others than British subjects. Another committee was appointed, representing the whole congregation, and a dispute commenced between it and the old committee, representing British subjects alone. The Law Officers of the Crown had advised Her Majesty's Government that they ought not to interfere, and it was thought better to leave the settlement of the matter to the parties interested. He did not think they could recede from the position which the Government had taken up; and as to the Swedish Government breaking open the church in process of law, nothing offensive was intended. He hoped—and he could not do more than this—that the termination of this unhappy quarrel would be reached at as early a date as possible. He came now to the subject which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and he was sure that it would be admitted that, whatever were the reasons for bringing the case before the House on the present occasion, that course was attended with some amount of inconvenience. He had only received two hours' notice of the matter, and therefore he was not in a position to refer to the documents which were in the Blue Book bearing on this subject, with a view to their explanation. Still, although inconvenient, he could not in the least be surprised, after what had occurred, at any hon. Member bringing the subject forward. He regretted in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member to hear at the very outset of his speech a statement which was totally unfounded. The hon. Member said that in the discussion of this question, when before the House, the Prime Minister treated it with a degree of levity. He knew just the reverse was the case, because he had been ordered by the Prime Minister to be in daily communication with him on the subject; and he (Mr. Bourke) stated this, upon his honour, that there was no subject connected with foreign affairs that had given his right hon. Friend such cause for anxious consideration as the question now before the House. The gravity of the subject made it advisable and absolutely necessary that a man who occupied the position of his right hon. Friend in Europe should talk of these atrocities with the greatest possible circumspection, because if one word of exaggeration was used by him, it might be made an excuse in answer to any representations made by him to the Turkish Government. It, therefore, was incumbent on his right hon. Friend, in dealing with these horrible atrocities, in the first place to find out the exact truth; and he was perfectly certain there was no man in the world, if these atrocities turned out to be true, that would more sternly vindicate the cause of humanity than his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow had also made an attack on the Minister at Constantinople, and a more unjust attack never was made. If he (Mr. Bourke) had before him the Papers which were discussed last week, he could have shown that long before the subject was mentioned in the daily papers Sir Henry Elliot brought this subject to the notice of the Turkish Government, and went at once to the bottom of the matter. He at once said that so long as the Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks were employed, he was afraid irregularities would occur; and Sir Henry Elliot spoke in this spirit before a single outrage was heard of. In a letter contained in the Blue Book Sir Henry Elliot wrote to Lord Derby (in a private letter, I think)—

"For once that I have made these reports to your Lordship, I have spoken a dozen times to the Turkish Government."

There could not be the slightest doubt, therefore, that a word could not be said justly against Sir Henry Elliot for any breach of duty or want of energy in this matter. He was not going to say one word as to whether everything that had appeared in The Daily News was true or not; but that was exactly the position which was assumed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. [An hon. Member: Exaggerated.] His right hon. Friend read accounts from Adrianople, and he said that in certain cases they were very much exaggerated. He (Mr. Bourke) did not wish to join issue with anybody on the subject whether they were exaggerated or not; he did not think, so far as the effect on the minds of the English people was concerned, it mattered whether 100 persons had been killed or 50; if these atrocities had been committed in anything like the numbers stated, Her Majesty's Government, of course, were bound to do everything they possibly could to prevent their recurrence, and to punish the guilty. When they, however, talked of the Fleet in Besika Bay, and remembered that these atrocities were committed in Bulgaria, he must remind hon. Members that the two matters had little in common. Why, the Fleet could not reach Bulgaria—[Mr. Mundella: It could reach Constantinople.] There was no necessity for that in order to make representations to the Turkish Government. They could exercise moral compulsion without the intervention of the Fleet. With regard to what the hon. Member had said respecting newspaper correspondents, he admitted that newspaper correspondents were persons of the greatest possible consideration, but he also knew that in some cases correspondents were easily satisfied with a very small amount of evidence, and they took a great deal at second-hand; and they knew that taking statements at second-hand was a very dangerous mode of ascertaining the truth. As for the letters which had been read by hon. Members, they were of no greater authority than the declarations of any other hon. Gentleman sitting in that House—that was to say, the statements in them were not the declarations of persons who had seen the thing themselves, and they all knew that when one man went and told another that some horrible thing had taken place, particularly where numbers were concerned, that the exaggeration was very great. However, he did not wish to weigh the statements of one correspondent against another. All he would say was that Her Majesty's Government had not shown the least apathy with regard to the subject, and from the first they had done the very best they could. Now, what had been done? [Ironical cheers.] The very first time they heard of these outrages they telegraphed for information to Sir Henry Elliot, and afterwards they instructed him to have inquiries made on the spot. Some of the official Reports received had been already presented to Parliament; others had come to hand within the last three or four days, and the other day he had mentioned to the House that Mr. Baring and another gentleman had been sent from Constantinople to make inquiries. Mr. Baring had lost not one moment in making these inquiries, and he had before him a Paper which would be presented to the House in the course of a very few days. With regard to others that might arrive in connection with the subject, he believed he might say, although he had no authority to do so, that his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office would take means to have Reports published during the Recess, if he thought they would be interesting to the public. It was impossible to read all the Papers on the subject, but he hoped they would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. All he would read was one letter from Mr. Baring. He would do so in order to show that the Government had done whatever they could in the matter, and the House might form their own opinion upon it. But before doing so he would refer to the article in that day's Daily News, because he observed that some disparagement was thrown upon Mr. Baring therein, and also upon the interpreter who accompanied him. The remark to which he alluded was that Mr. Baring was honestly desirous of obtaining the truth, but that he was always accompanied by a Turkish escort which frightened the peasantry. But what other escort than a Turkish escort could Mr. Baring have? It was absolutely necessary for him to have a Turkish escort. The article went on to say that Mr. Guacchiomo, the interpreter, was unfairly prejudiced in favour of the Turks and that he browbeat the Bulgarians. He was sorry to say that that at once stamped the whole thing with a partizan character, and, to his mind, took away from the value of the report, because he could never imagine that Mr. Baring would allow his interpreter either to browbeat or to bully the Bulgarians, or to show the slightest preference for Turks over Bulgarians. The letter from Mr. Baring was—

"Philippopolis, July 22, 1876.

"Sir,—I have the honour to report to your Excellency that, during the last two days I have been endeavouring to obtain information in this town respecting the occurrences which have of late excited so much attention in England and elsewhere. The masses of conflicting statements I have heard from all parties render my mission one of extreme difficulty, and I fear I cannot as yet forward to your Excellency any full report of what has taken place. The sale of women and children in the streets of Philippopolis and Tartar Bazardjik is, I have no doubt, a pure invention; the most independent testimony leads me to the belief that no such traffic has been carried on here. What has happened is this—families have been scattered, and the children have often been taken into the houses of persons of all religions out of pure charity. Of course, under the circumstances, it is not easy for the parents to trace them, and consequently the rumour goes abroad that they are sold into slavery. As regards the young girls, I am told that it is very probable that after the sack of the villages a certain number of their number were taken to the houses of their captors, but I do not believe that anything like open sale took place. There is not, I believe, one word of truth in the wild fable about the cartloads of heads being paraded in the streets by Albanian Bashi-Bazouks, of whom, by the way, there are extremely few, most of the Irregulars who committed the atrocities in these Provinces being Circassians, Gipsies, and Pomaks. As regards the number of killed, till I visited the villages I hardly dare speak, but my present opinion, which I trust hereafter to be able to modify, is that about 12,000 Bulgarians have perished. The number of Turks killed is equally difficult to ascertain; the authorities put the figure at above 1,000, but my information leads me to believe this to be a gross exaggeration; about half that number would probably be correct; but there is no doubt that the deaths of many of them were attended with circumstances of great cruelty. Some 60 villages have been wholly or partially burnt, by far the greater portion of them by the Bashi-Bazouks, though a few, perhaps about ten, have been destroyed by the Insurgents. Some great horrors have come to my ears respecting the circumstances which attended the entry into Philippopolis of 400 prisoners coming from Tartar Bazardjik. They were heavily chained by fours, and, as after their journey they were sinking with fatigue, they were driven like cattle by the zaptiehs, who used the butt ends of their guns without mercy, while the Circassians flogged them with whips. I visited the prisons yesterday and found them extremely crowded. The captives are confined in the common prison and in two large Khans, the notables of Philippopolis being kept separate, and being subjected, as far as I could see, to no great discomfort. Those that I interrogated said that they had no particular cause of complaint as regards food and treatment, though, perhaps, fear may have made them declare their case to be better than it really is. The prison is now about as full as it can hold, and about half the prisoners have been released or sentenced, so that there can be no doubt that at the commencement the overcrowding must have been something fearful. I hear that it is currently reported in the town that the authorities knowing I was going to the prison had it cleaned out, and that the sleeping mats I saw were laid down shortly before I entered. Of course, I cannot say whether this is true or not, but as I purposely gave the authorities as little notice as possible of my intentions, I cannot but think it is invention of the malicious. A Bashi-Bazouk was hung this morning for having taken part in the Hasskeni affair, respecting which I believe Mr. Dupuis has fully reported to your Excellency. The depredations of these Irregulars still continue, and they are taking what little was left by those who suppressed the insurrection. Two have now been hung here, but till a much severer example is made they will still go on with their misdeeds.—Moreover, it is indispensable that they should have officers of the Regular Army put over them who could control their acts, and that when they arrive at the principal stations they should be received by some Regular troops. One-thing is perfectly clear, viz., that the Province is ruined, as the Government will discover to its cost when the tithe is collected. It is stated that the loss to the Treasury will amount to £100,000 Turkish—a sum which can now be ill spared. It seems to me that there is but one course open to the Government if it wishes to bring them back in any way to their normal condition, viz., to give some slight aid to the inhabitants of the villages which have been destroyed. Large numbers of horses, oxen, sheep and cows have been driven off by Pomaks and others, and it is the duty of the Government to oblige the latter to return them to their owners; a little help could also be given in providing materials for rebuilding houses, and seed for the fields, should also be given. It is true that at the present moment the Imperial Treasury could ill afford the smallest strain, but still less can it afford to lose the sums which formerly flowed into it from these districts, and which, if the autumn and winter be allowed to pass without anything being done, may be considered as lost for ever. I was present to-day at the first examinations of some of the prisoners, and to all appearances the proceedings were properly conducted, and Salim Effendi, Alibey, and the Chief Mollah of Adrianople have the reputation of being just men; the same, however, is not said of all the members of the Commission chosen among the natives of Philippopolis, one of whom has been especially mentioned to me as corrupt, fanatical, and cruel. A priest, a schoolmaster, a 'Tchorbaji,'and another Bulgarian were brought up while I was in Court; their declarations were read over to them, and they were asked whether the contents were true; and, though all contained evidence which would send a man to the gallows before any Tribunal, they invariably replied that everything was correct. Their defence was generally the same; they had acted as they had done either from coercion, fear, or sheer stupidity, and they ended by begging for mercy with tears and lamentations. To-day two Bulgarians were hung, four sentenced to death, and seven to different terms of imprisonment. Both Kiani Pasha and Salim Effendi have assured me that in a few days by releasing a large number of prisoners they hoped to reduce the cases to be tried to about 500, and the President added that in about 25 days he trusted all would be disposed of. The Bulgarian Bishop's representative complained to me that the prisoners sentenced to death were not permitted to confer in private, that no notice was sent to them when a man was to be hung, and that when priests were executed their beards and hair were cut off, and they were not unfrocked; also that he was not asked to attend the sittings of the Commission. Salim Effendi, to whom I spoke on the subject, positively denied the truth of all these statements, and said that to-day he had, by verbal message, invited the Bishop's representative to attend the sitting at which I was present, but that he had not come. On other occasions also he was invited, but he only attended once and stayed five minutes. I told Salim Effendi that the next time he had better send the invitation in writing, as there could then be no mistake about it. Salim Effendi told me that he had sent copies of the depositions to Constantinople, which he said contained startling evidence given by prisoners themselves respecting the great cruelties committed on Mussulmans at the outbreak of the insurrection, and if what he says is correct, it appears to me that the Porte would do well to publish these documents, in order to prove to the world that if the Mussulmans committed atrocities and depredations, the Christians were also guilty of many foul deeds.—I have, &c., H. Baring."—[Turkey, No. 5 (1876), No, 27.]

He thought, after that, that the House would be satisfied that Mr. Baring was doing his duty well and efficiently, for he did not think that anybody could read that letter without seeing that Mr. Baring did not wish to keep back anything, and that he was doing his duty in no spirit of partizanship one way or the other. He could not imagine how the spirit of partizanship had crept into the discussion; but, after all, that was not the matter they had to consider. He was quite certain that there was not a man in the House who did not feel the gravity of the subject of these atrocities, and no man felt it more than the Prime Minister. He therefore thought the House would be willing to leave the matter now in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, feeling perfectly certain that measures would be taken to bring those atrocities to an end and their perpetrators to justice. He wished to read the following passage from these papers with reference to the proclamation issued by the GrandVizier:—

"The Grand Vizier has addressed the following telegraphic order to the Governors General of the Provinces of Adrianople, the Danube, Bosnia, and Monastir, and to Abdul-Kerim Pasha, the Generalissimo of the Turkish forces, at Head-Quarters at Nish. The telegram is dated the 25th inst. (Tuesday last):—'I have just learnt that there are, among the volunteers of the Army Corps at Widdin, men who have sold as slaves children of both sexes, of which they obtained possession during their expedition into Servia. This is an act which I formally reprove, and its authors must not escape the punishment it entails. Henceforth, all persons who shall sell or buy children of either sex, whether coming from Servia or any other place, shall be immediately punished with the penalty of death. Those who may have bought children of this kind are summoned to give them up to the local authorities within a given period, and all contraveners of these orders will be condemned to death. Those who are found to be going to the war for the purpose of committing acts of outrage and pillage will be at once sent back to their homes. You are requested to give publicity to these decisions by printed proclamation, and to use every possible vigilance in carrying them into execution."

Her Majesty's Government, after the Reports they had received, would, of course, take the matter into their serious consideration; but it would involve a considerable amount of thought how the influence of that House, of the people of England, and, he might say, of all the friends of humanity, should be brought to bear on the scenes where those acts had occurred, and he thought the House would agree with him that if the Government were to attempt anything like force, it would at once lead to complications in Europe which might be the cause of greater barbarities than any which had hitherto taken place. We must take care that these atrocious acts were not taken advantage of to carry out a policy hostile to England as well as to Turkey. The hon. Member for Glasgow had spoken of there having been no Bulgarian insurrection at all; but they would find that the insurrection not only had not suddenly sprung up, but that for months and months it had been extending; and, dreadful as those atrocities had been, there was no doubt that the Bulgarians would not have been disturbed in the prosperity they were enjoying only 10 months ago if it had not been for the machinations of those persons who were the first to produce the insurrection. He would not say who those persons were, but would leave hon. Members to judge for themselves when they saw the Papers.

The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has complained that there has been a disposition in this and other questions to give them a partizan character; but I am sure there is no disposition in the House to make this in any degree a Party question; and if it has in any degree assumed a Party aspect, I cannot think it has been the fault of, or that it is felt to be so, by hon. Members who sit on this side. It was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to disclaim for the Government, and for the head of the Government, any possible sympathy with the perpetrators of those outrages. No such idea ever entered the mind of any hon. Gentleman. But what was felt when the first Questions were asked on this subject was, that Her Majesty's Government seemed to be rather unwilling to believe the charges brought against a friendly Power, and too ready to lend credence to the representations of that Power, and did not take sufficiently prompt and energetic measures to ascertain what was the real state of the case, and then to remonstrate with the Government that was responsible for it. From the statement which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) has been able make this evening, and from the contents of the Papers which are to be laid on the Table, I am afraid it is becoming apparent that after all there has been very little exaggeration of these atrocities; and the House must recollect that the despatch which my hon. Friend has read, full as that despatch was of horrible accounts of what had taken place, was not of nearly so late a date as the despatches of The Daily News upon this subject. The despatch the hon. Member read was dated July 22nd, and the accounts which have been sent to The Daily News are dated July 31st and August 3rd. We are most of us tolerably well aware of the responsible character of the gentlemen who are employed by the London newspapers upon missions such as that upon which the correspondent of The Daily News is employed, and if it were necessary I have no doubt there are many hon. Gentleman in this Honse who could say they are personally acquainted with the gentleman who represents The Daily News in Turkey, and who would testify to the general trustworthiness of the statements he may make. It is hardly credible that, while apparently personally accompanying Mr. Baring, this newspaper correspondent should misrepresent the things that he had himself seen. It is quite possible that a newspaper correspondent may be misled by reports that are brought to him; it is quite possible also that he may give an exaggerated colour to those reports; but it is hardly conceivable that a gentleman representing an important and influential English paper would be guilty of any mis-statement, which could be very shortly contradicted, of those things that he had seen with his own eyes. Therefore, Sir, I fear that in the accounts that have been given by the correspondent of The Daily News there is very little, if any, exaggeration whatever, and there is very little reason to hope that there was any reason for exaggerating them. But what can we have more frightful than the statement in the despatch just read to us that Mr. Baring has very little doubt but that 12,000 Bulgarians have perished? We have heard nothing of any severe fighting in Bulgaria. Sir Henry Elliot has not made Her Majesty's Government acquainted with any severe fighting there. If, therefore, Mr. Baring has come to the conclusion that something like 12,000 Bulgarians have perished in the insurrection, is there not reason to fear that the greater part of that number have been massacred in cold blood? There is every excuse for Her Majesty's Government having desired to receive favourably the representations made by a friendly Power, but I think the House has some right to ask for explanations from them as to the reason why they have not hitherto been better informed on this subject. It seems to me, I must say, a remarkable thing, when there has been slaughter of this description—I do not say whether in cold blood or not—in one of the Provinces of Turkey, that no intelligence of these atrocities should have reached Sir Henry Elliot. Reference has been made to despatches which were laid on the Table a short time ago, and I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to one or two of those despatches. On July 6, writing to Lord Derby, Sir Henry Elliot says that with reference to the excesses committed in the suppression of the insurrection, there had undoubtedly been great excesses, as was inevitable from the nature of the Force which the Porte was obliged to employ, but that it was equally certain that the details which were given, coming as they did almost exclusively from Russian and Bulgarian sources, were so monstrously exaggerated as to deprive them of credit. Now, I can hardly think if Sir Henry Elliot had been in possession of anything like accurate information, such as that contained in Mr. Baring's Report, that these are the terms in which he would have written of those atrocities. On the 14th of July Sir Henry Elliot reported that he had an interview with a Bulgarian, on whom he could rely, who assured him that the accounts published were grossly exaggerated. It does appear to me that Sir Henry Elliot does not possess the means which he ought to possess of being made aware of what is going on in the Provinces of Turkey. If Sir Henry Elliot had had at his disposal more full and trustworthy sources of information, I cannot help thinking a knowledge of these proceedings would sooner have reached his ears, and through him the English Government; and I cannot help thinking that had the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government been in possession of the evidence which ought to have reached him he would not have treated the first Question on this subject in the manner he did. I trust my hon. Friend will endeavour to have these Papers laid on the Table with as little delay as possible, so that it may be in the power of the House, if necessary, to have one more opportunity before it separates of expressing its opinion upon these matters. My hon. Friend said it would be a matter of grave consideration how the influence of the House, the Government, and the people of this country can be brought to bear upon the Turkish Government. It may be a matter for the Government to consider how the influence of the Government and of Parliament is to be brought to bear, but there can be no doubt whatever that the influence of this people has been brought to bear, and will from day to day be brought to bear more strongly upon the Turkish Government. In this way the Turkish Government will know it, and the sooner our Government represent to them the better, that unless some complete defence against these terrible atrocities can be put forward, the Turkish Government will lose as it has lost, and is rapidly daily losing, all traces of the sympathy previously shown it. I do trust that the influence of the Government will be exerted to make known those facts to the Turkish Government. I do not think that even the Turkish Government can consider a fact of this nature an unimportant matter. To be deprived of the sympathy of a country like England, which has always to the best of its ability befriended Turkey, cannot be matter of indifference to the Turkish Government. I do not think it is possible for the Government to speak in too strong terms of the conduct of the Turkish Government, and of the course which it is too clear has been taken during the continuance and in the suppression of this insurrection.

wished to know why no sum had been taken in the Estimates, as had been proposed some time since, for the erection of a new War Office, the present building being wholly unfit for habitation? He hoped that next year some steps would be taken either to improve the old office, or to erect a new one. It by no means followed that a new building would necessarily be a healthy one, for he understood that there were three inches of sewage flowing in the basement of the new Foreign and India Offices.

took that opportunity of asking some explanation with reference to the Vote of £40,000 in aid of the revenues of Fiji, and said, that last year the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated it had been proposed to advance £ 100,000 to the colony; but when the Papers came in he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could only find that they had voted £40,000. It seemed that the noble Earl, the Colonial Secretary, had engaged to make a distinct advance of £100,000, rather than grant a loan of the same amount, but he promised only £40,000 for last year and the balance £60,000, this year. What he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) complained of was, that when the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies moved the Vote of £40,000 last year, he did not say a word about the further Vote of £60,000 which was to be asked for this year. No doubt the omission was unintentional; but it was one that should not have occurred. In conclusion, he wished to say that he had read with regret the refusal of the colony of New South Wales to contribute to the expense of the Fiji colony after the promise of the previous Governor that it should bear one-half.

in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Huddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), said, that arrangements would be made to place the War Office in a perfect sanitary condition. The erection of a new office was a matter of such importance as to require the most serious consideration of the Government, and the noble Lord had given sufficient reasons to justify their hesitation in embarking on so great an enterprize, for it did not appear to be a matter of certainty that a new building would be superior to an old one in matters of sanitary arrangement. With respect to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, it appeared from Hansard that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies made no reference to the Vote of £60,000 for Fiji this year, when moving a Vote of £40,000 for it last year. The original proposal was made to guarantee a loan of £100,000;but the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be better to come to Parliament for the sum that might be necessary, and he hoped that so large a sum as £100,000 would not be required. That was the limit of liability, and he had good reason to hope that the revenues of the colony would afterwards be sufficient to meet its requirements, and ultimately the money advanced would be repaid.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 33, to omit all the words after "shall" down to "longer" in the following line, the ef- fect of the Amendment being that a Lord of Appeal should still be summoned and sit and vote in the House of Lords after he had ceased to be a Lord of Appeal. The hon. and learned Member said, he had an insurmountable objection to the sort of Peerages that were to be created by the Bill, contending that they were inconsistent with the dignity of the Peerage. There would be Peerages for life, Peerages during pleasure, and Peerages during good behaviour. He thought it would be unwise to introduce this novel kind of Peerage. There was nothing analogous to them. They were not like the Scotch and Irish Peerages. These were represented in the House of Lords, and there was no analogy between them and the Bishops who were Lords of Parliament, not Peers, and sat as one of the three Estates of the Realm, representing the Church which was always represented by her Prelates, notwithstanding the death or retirement of any one of them. But these new Lords of Parliament, as some called them, or Peers as they were spoken of elsewhere by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, and Lord Hatherley, represented nothing, and in the event of their ceasing to be Lords of Appeal would be themselves unrepresented, for being Lords of Parliament, it would be, he took it, unconstitutional for them to vote at the election of Members of the House of Commons. In this aspect, they would be worse off than a retired Bishop, he ceased thereby to be a Lord of Parliament, and might comfort himself on his retirement with the electoral franchise. In fact, these new Peers or Lords of Parliament would form a new caste, and might be called the outcasts of the State. No man of first-rate ability or position at the Bar, such as they had been accustomed to see holding the Great Seal or otherwise raised to the Peerage, would be tempted to accept these new places. Men of this stamp, of those who had hitherto been the Law Lords, would refuse to fill the secondary rank in the Peerage proposed by this clause, and to act the part of Puisne Judges in the House of Lords. These appointments, he thought, would lower the judicial character of the House of Lords, and would lead to political subserviency on the part of those who held them. The weak man would cling to office in order that he might retain his dignity as a sitting Member of the House of Lords, or he might court Government favour by political subserviency in order that he might be made a hereditary Peer; while the man of high spirit and independence, whose talents might be made available to the country, even though he had ceased to be a Lord of Appeal, would be relegated to private life and obscurity, because he had failed to court or to conciliate Party favour. On all these grounds, and on many others which the lateness of the hour prevented him going into, he had the most decided objection to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he hoped that the Committee would agree to his Amendment.

expressed a hope that the Government would not allow the clause to be altered, as it was in strict accordance with the ancient Constitution of the country, the House of Lords having enjoyed its judicial character long anterior to the time when it became a legislative Body. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) argued that these Judges were to be made Peers, but the fact was they would only be Lords of Parliament; they would only have to aid the House of Lords in determining appeals. It was true they were to sit and vote, but they would not be Peers; their position would resemble that of the Bishops, who also were Lords of Parliament, not Peers. The hereditary character of the House of Lords was the real essence of the Peerage, and where there was not a hereditary right there was no Peerage. To show that the Bishops were not Peers, he would just state that if a Bishop were charged with felony, he would not, as a Peer would be under similar circumstances, be tried by the Court of the High Steward in the House of Lords, but by an ordinary jury, like any other commoner. These would not be "Peers made by statute," for the Act would simply empower the Queen to make a Lord of Parliament, and if he resigned his office he would, like a Bishop who resigned, be no longer a Member of the House of Lords, and would no longer be summoned to sit there. There were Constitutional objections to the creation of life Peerages, as it would tend to degrade the House of Lords to the level of those miserable Senates which existed in Continental countries, and this was probably the reason why the Bill did not propose to make life Peers.

supported the Amendment. He thought it would be a degradation of men of high legal training, having made them Barons with the right of taking part in all the discussions in the House of Lords, whether judicial or legislative, to turn round upon them when they had given their best services to the country, and tell them they should no longer enjoy those privileges. There would, he believed, be a difficulty in finding men to take the office under such conditions. It would, too, when men had grown old, prevent them from resigning, and thus they might have a number of effete Judges exercising the function of Judges of Appeal.

said, that the House of Lords had already determined that there should be no judicial Peers for life, and appealed to the House whether, in these circumstances, it was worth while to discuss the question. Hitherto the elevation of a man to a Judgeship placed him beyond political partizanship; but this Bill placed four Judges in a political arena, and the Amendment would give the Government an unlimited power of increasing the number of political partizans in the other House by appointing Judges who might resign soon after their appointment. As to the statement that the condition attached to the acceptance of these high offices would be considered by eminent men as an insult, he would ask whether a clergyman considered it an insult to be asked to become a Bishop upon a precisely similar footing with regard to the House of Lords. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

maintained that the decision of the House of Lords against Peerages for life ought not to be any difficulty in the way of the House of Commons doing what was right in the matter. In the passage of the Bill through their Lordships' House Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne, and Lord Hatherley had never treated these Lords of Appeal as other Peers. He (Mr. Torrens) had found by reference to the records that 20 years ago a Bill was sent down from the House of Lords proposing to create Peers for life, and Lord Palmerston moved its second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Gladstone, Lord Russell, and Sir James Graham, because one of its clauses provided that Lords of Appeal in ordinary should be chosen from the Judges, without being Peers, as well as Peers for life. Independent Members were induced to oppose the Bill, and it was lost because it was not solely for the creation of Peerages for life. The House of Lords had taken back their jurisdiction, and it was for Parliament to see that that jurisdiction was a reality. He would remind the House that this was not the first time the House of Commons had had the power of revising the indiscretion of the House of Lords in regard to its own constitution. There was a strong feeling in favour of modifying the present clause, and he hoped the Government would not be deterred from undertaking the task by any false delicacy towards the House of Lords.

said, he felt satisfaction in approaching the discussion of that Amendment, because he felt that after they had dealt with it they would get on rapidly with the Bill. The matter raised by the Amendment, no doubt, was important, but the question was not whether they should create life Peerages or not, but simply whether the eminent persons who were to be created Lords of Appeal, Assistants in Administering the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, were, after they ceased to be Lords of Appeal, to sit in that House and vote or not. The question was one of interest to those who might be created Lords of Appeal; and it was of serious importance to the House of Lords, because it might trench on the constitution of that House. Far be it from him to contend that the House of Commons should succumb to, or become subservient to, the other House of Parliament; but in dealing with the question they should bear in mind they were dealing with the privileges and the constitution of the House of Lords. If they rejected the Amendment, they should be doing no injustice to the eminent persons who were to be appointed, because they would accept the appointment with the full knowledge that they would cease to have the right of sitting and voting in the House of Lords when they ceased to hold office. On the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted, a more tempting bait would be offered, and they would secure a more perfect and complete tribunal. But then they would be trenching on the privileges of the House of Lords, for there could be no doubt that the House of Lords entertained a strong repugnance to the creation of life Peerages, and if they passed the Amendment they would compel that House to accept life Peers against their own wish and desire. In 1856 and in 1869 the question of life Peerages was discussed in the House of Lords, and if the conclusion arrived at was not that life Peerages were illegal, it certainly was that they were undesirable and inexpedient. No doubt, if Parliament chose to clothe Her Majesty with the authority to do so, she could institute life Peerages; but the sole question for them was whether it was expedient that that should be done. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) said that when these Assistant Lords of Appeal ceased to hold office they would occupy an anomalous position; but no doubt they would retain their office as long as they were capable of discharging the duties of their office. It would be very dangerous to place in the hands of a Prime Minister the power of creating at any particular juncture of politics a number of life Peers under the disguise of appointing Assistant Lords of Appeal. What the Government wanted to do was to strengthen the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords by providing them with able and dignified Assistants who would be well paid for their services; and also to strengthen and improve the Intermediate Court of Appeal. If the hon. and learned Member's Amendment were adopted, the House of Lords would be certain to reject it, and the result would be that a great and beneficial measure would be lost, at all events, for the present Session.

said, his objection was a purely practical one. He believed that if they adopted the pro- posal of the Government they would not be able to obtain men of the highest ability, such as had held the Great Seal, for these offices, and they would fail to improve the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords. He should therefore press his Amendment to a division.

:in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 36, after "heirs," to add—

"Provided always, That when under the provisions of this Act, or at any time hereafter, a Judge of the High Court of Justice shall, while he is such Judge, be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, he shall not receive a less salary than he was entitled to receive while Judge of the High Court of Justice,"

urged that in constituting a Supreme Court of Appeal it was most desirable that the highest judicial talent and the most matured judicial learning and experience should be imported into it. True it was that at the present time the House of Lords was exceedingly rich in legal ability, as they had there not only the Lord Chancellor, but other legal functionaries no longer in office, among whom might be recorded the very eminent names of Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, Lord Penzance, and Lord O'Hagan. Those distinguished men were admissible into the proposed Court of Appeal under the 2nd section of the Bill; but the time might come when the House of Lords would not be so gifted with judicial ability and authority, and in such a case it would be very desirable that the doors of the new Court should be open to the Chief Justices and Lord Chief Baron, whose presence would greatly enhance its dignity and weight. It was for that reason he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) proposed his present Amendment. With the salary of £6,000, as at present proposed, it could not be expected that the Chiefs would accept appointments, their acceptance of which would entail upon them a loss of salary, without corresponding other advantages. The question of the Judicial Peerage had already been discussed under the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), and he should be out of Order in again adverting to it then. But his Amendment as to salaries had been objected to as offering promotion to Judges. He would remind the Committee of several eminent names, where Judges holding highly honourable but inferior posts, had been transferred to more exalted offices, with great advantage to the country, and without the slightest impeachment or sacrifice of their moral independence. Campbell, Cranworth, Truro, Hatherley, were all Judges before they became Lords Chancellors, and no one found fault with their elevation because they had previously sat on the Judicial Bench. Say what men might, the hope of promotion in every station of life, the highest as well as the lowest, was a most powerful stimulus and incentive to increased exertion in the path of duty. Under the present provisions of the Bill, the two new Lords of Appeal would actually take social precedence of the Lord Chief Justice of England, and would continue to do so, in every case where he did not happen to be a Peer of the Realm. Even their eldest sons, as the Committee were at present advised, would take precedence of the Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chief Baron, if Commoners. Influenced by these reasons, he appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who was then present and had introduced the Bill, to accept his Amendment. The Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature were eligible under the 2nd section after two years' holding of the judicial office, and the principle of promotion was directly sanctioned and recognized in their case, and why should a hard-and-fast rule be laid down directly opposite in principle, by which they would lose the advantage and opportunity of inviting such men as Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, to add strength and lustre to the highest legal tribunal in the Kingdom?

opposed the Amendment, because he thought it would be undesirable to take away either of the Chief Justices or Chief Baron from the High Court of Justice, and because he thought it would be unwise to make such a difference of salary as that proposed.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 4, after "Privy Council," to add—

"Nothing in the Order of Council of the twentieth day of February, one thousand six hundred and twenty-seven, or in any other Order in Council, rule, or practice of the Privy Council, or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, shall, for the future, be construed to prevent any member or members of the said Judicial Committee, when sitting at the hearing of any appeal or petition, from delivering his or their separate opinion or judgment as to the report which should be made to Her Majesty upon the said appeal or petition."

In the unfortunate absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) it had devolved upon him to move an Amendment, in which, however, he thoroughly agreed, providing that the Members of the Judicial Committee should deliver their judgments separately, instead of, as at present, settling a report in private, in which of course the majority prevailed, however narrow it might be. He assumed that the general object of the Acts for the reform of the judicial system, of which the present Bill was the concluding one, was to produce uniformity of procedure, if so, his Amendment came with the strongest recommendation, for the Judicial Committee was peculiar and unique in its present practice. This had nothing to recommend it in itself, for it was the sole creation of certain Orders of February 20, 1627. It was, in fact, the survival of the procedure of that bye-word for tyranny—the Star Chamber, a fact not likely to recommend it now for continuance. These Orders laid down, among other matters, that—

"The Lords are, by questions or otherwise, to inform themselves of the truth of the matter of fact, but not to discover any opinions till all be fully heard;"

and he put it to the Committee, if the Judicial Committee did not, in its several members contravene this order every time it sat. The practical result of this way of deciding, by a report in which the minority had to bend to the majority, was that the real minds of the jurists making up the Court was never reached. He appealed to the Committee, if the great value of a Court of Appeal, as of a Court sitting in Banco, was not this very circumstance of the various lights thrown upon a question by the acute but dissimilar adjudicating intellects. This in the Judicial Committee was replaced by a washed out compromise, an essay from which the spirit had evaporated, but which, from the form in which it was cast, had the false air of a sort of edict or institute of law when it was, after all, only a body of reasons for the real judgment which ambuscaded behind it. He begged to move the Amendment.

believed that the present mode of delivering judgment was one of the best characteristics of the Court, which, it should be remembered, was one of Final Appeal. It mattered not therefore whether one Judge was dissentient or not, where there were four sitting, and could be of no avail to the suitor. He thought it undesirable that the Judges should give their opinions seriatim, as it was better that the Court should appear to be unanimous in giving a decision. He therefore opposed the Amendment.

said, that, properly speaking, no judgment at all was given in the Privy Council, but advice was given to Her Majesty. Besides, the procedure of the Privy Council was not a matter that was germane to the Bill. If any alteration were needed, it had better be made by means of an Order in Council.

thought that the first was a reason against any judgment at all being given, but he admitted that the Amendment was not germane to the subject of the Bill.

said, his experience was that the judgments given in the Privy Council were most satisfactory; and he feared that if individual judgments were given on Indian appeals the Natives would not be satisfied whenever any difference of opinion amongst the Judges was apparent.

:proposed to amend the clause by inserting a Proviso—

"That the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of this Act shall in no way affect or alter the duty of such Peers of Parliament as have held any of the high judicial offices aforesaid to attend at the hearing and determination of appeals in the House of Lords."

opposed the Amendment, which he described as a statutory scarecrow.

said, that an Amendment would be necessary in order to enable Lords of Appeal who might be appointed after the Prorogation and before the next Sitting of Parliament to be able to take their seats and be sworn in. He therefore proposed after the word "therewith," in page 3, line 25, to insert "and for the purpose of Lords of Appeal taking their seats and the oaths."

accepted the Amendment.

saw no necessity for the Amendment.

observed that the clause was intended to enable appeals to be heard and determined during the dissolution of Parliament; but the wording of the clause seemed to him to create a new Court, and he thought it would be better for the House of Lords to hear and determine the appeals. He would, therefore, move the substitution of the words "House of Lords" for Lords of Appeal.

said, he would consider the matter before the Report was taken; but it was his opinion that the wording of the clause was correct.

explained that he was only anxious that the House of Lords should hear the appeals, and not an entirely new Court.

remarked that the words "a continuation of the House of Lords" were somewhat strange, and he hoped they would be struck out.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 21, to leave out all after "given to Her Majesty." This was another Amendment, of which he had taken charge, for the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate), and in which also he cordially agreed. It was to omit words in Clause 12, permitting the presence under certain regulations, to be hereafter named of Episcopal assessors at the sittings of the Judicial Committee when engaged upon ecclesiastical appeals. In moving this Amendment, he was only calling upon the Committee to confirm what the House had already concluded with a more complete and vehement unanimity than he had ever seen it employ on any question. The words which he called upon them to omit were in form to relieve the Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal from Episcopal assessors. It was, in substance, to declare that, being a Court of Law to define the legal meaning of certain documents, it ought to be composed of lawyers whose business it was to interpret such documents, and not partly of lawyers and partly of theologians, whose knowledge, coloured as it must be by conscientious convictions, was of course, of a partizan character. The name and pretence of their being only "assessors" would deceive no one. They were meant to be Judges, and only more influential Judges because not having countable votes they would exercise illicit influence. They would be to the real Court what a masterful wife was to her husband. But why did he appeal to the former unanimity of the House? When the original Bill for the reform of our Judicature was before Parliament in 1873, it came down to this House with provisions for a Supreme Court of Appeal from which ecclesiastical causes were excluded, for fear of overloading it as the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) owned. For these appeals, then, the Judicial Committee was retained. However, his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War moved the omission of this restriction—and why?—simply and solely because the Judicial Committee was a Court of a mixed legal and ecclesiastical composition. The debate took place on July 4, 1873; and among the arguments of the Secretary for War was found the remarkable statement that—

"The Judicial Committee gave an impression that it was rather a Court of Heresy than a Court of Law, where there were ecclesiastical persons sitting upon the tribunal, and that cases were decided rather by a theological bias than by a strict interpretation of the documents before it."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1788.]

He also took the opportunity of pointing out that the Lower House of Convocation had expressed the desire that the Court of Final Appeal should deal with ecclesiastical questions. His right hon. Friend was followed by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who very strongly supported the same view. So did that very acute lawyer, Dr. Ball, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). The hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire, now Home Secretary, followed, and he said it was—

"The birthright of every layman in this country, that the doctrines of the Church were laid down in certain documents which were binding upon the clergy, and the clergy were entitled to have these documents construed according to the strict rules of law."—[Ibid., 1791.]

His own right hon. Colleague (Mr. Walpole), still speaking in the same sense, laid down that—

"It was a matter of very great importance in reference to the welfare of the country, and of the Church itself—first, that the tribunal to decide on Appeal should be simply a judicial tribunal, and secondly, that the people of the country should know and feel that it was so."—[Ibid., 1792.]

He passed over his own remarks, and need only point out that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) also approved of the Motion. Finally, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), in assenting to the Motion, and after remarking on the extraordinary unanimity with which it had been received, observed—

"He thought that they should commit a great error if they were to attempt to secure even a shadow of religious conformity on the part of the Members of the Court, or to attempt anything in the nature of a test which would throw upon those Judges a character other than that of Judges."—[Ibid., 1795.]

There was, of course, no division upon a Motion thus supported. When the Bill went back to "another place" that Assembly, on July 24, in accepting the excision of the Judicial Committee, and, therefore, the abolition of Bishop-Judges, hampered the Court of Appeal with Assessor Bishops. He need not dwell on the influences which had brought this about. It was too late in the Session to risk a conflict between the two Houses. But it was generally felt in this House that the Bill had been returned by them to the Lords in a much better shape than that in which it had for the second time come down for the consideration of the Commons. The House of Commons had, without distinction of Party, and by the voices of Leaders on both sides, emphatically declared against the principle of clerical Judges sitting upon appeals affecting matters which were really questions of law, and they had—though not quite completely—succeeded in stamping their conclusions on the Act of 1873. He now called upon the Committee to respect those conclusions, and by rejecting the words of which he moved the omission, to take care that the obnoxious principle did not again make for itself a clandestine lodgment within our judicial system.

opposed the Amendment. He said that the Archbishops and Bishops were part of the Judicial Committee, they were among the Judges, and what was proposed was to repeal that provision of the Clergy Discipline Act and substitute for it another which would give power to the Queen in Council to appoint the Archbishops and Bishops assessors. Even if it were approved of by the Commons, it would be certainly rescinded by the Lords.

said, it was most important that the decisions should be purely legal, and therefore he was strongly of opinion that there should be no Episcopal assessors.

said, that the clause with regard to assessors was not germane to the main purpose of the Bill.

moved its omission on account of a doubt as to its probable effect in the colonies.

supported the Amendment as likely to remove a difficulty in the case.

considered the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Privy Council as at present constituted.

said, there must be some statutory provision on the question, because if there were not, when one of the Judges died, no appointment of a successor could be made. By an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper power was provided to appoint an assessor in the case of the death or resignation of a Judge.

said, the assessor was the man who understood the Mahomedan law, and the Judges were ignorant of it. The assessor should therefore turn the Judges out.