asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Government to apply the five years retirement rule to Officers in command of the twelve new Line Regiments, those officers having been appointed since the 31st of October, 1871; and, if not, whether the Government is prepared to take any steps in order to relieve the extraordinary stagnation felt in the junior ranks of these Regiments, all the subalterns of which are Royal Officers?

Sir, I may inform the hon. Member that negotiations are going on between the War Office and the Treasury with a view to remedy the grievances to which he alludes; but we have not yet arrived at any definite conclusion on the subject.

Sir, I wish merely to say one word in explanation of this Question. What I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was whether some historical facts could not be produced to the House to explain the Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano? but, under the circumstances, I cannot press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer. I will ask the Question, and, of course, he can answer it or not as he thinks fit. The Question is—Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any documents explaining the allusion contained in Article VII. of the Treaty of San Stefano to the "precedents established in 1830 after the Peace of Adrianople; "and, if so, whether such documents can be communicated to the House?

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should much prefer to wait a little before answering this Question; and, in the meantime, I will make inquiry as to the existence of these documents, and if they do exist, whether they are of such a nature that they can be communicated to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his replies of last Session, on the 26th March and 14th August, 1877, that the grievances of officers of the Commissariat Department should "receive immediate consideration," Whether there is any prospect of those grievances being dealt with at an early date?

, in reply, said, a scheme had been submitted to the Treasury for the redress of the grievances of officers referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the principle of that scheme had received the approval of the Treasury. There were certain details not yet settled; but he hoped that in a short time the scheme would be in a condition to be laid before the House—and, in fact, to come into operation—so that the House might become cognizant of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any information as to the latest colliery disaster at Apedale, North Stafford, and if it was caused by the firing of a shot in a mine giving off large quantities of gas; whether, considering that Mr. Wynne, the Inspector of the district, used the following words in his Report of 1875:—

"I have year by year pointed out the farce of using locked lamps where the most dangerous of all lights—blasting—is allowed; and therefore, the awful responsibility, sanctioning a course that leads to such losses of life, rests on other heads and not on mine;"

and that in another Report on the subject of blasting the same year, he says—

"I do not concur in the opinion it should be left to the miners and the mine owner until another terrible calamity befall us, and the public tell us we think more of the convenience of trade than of the safety of the workmen employed in the mine,"

he will bring in a Bill to amend the law on the subject of blasting in the mine, or whether he will support a Bill brought in by a private Member on the subject?

Sir, I have seen the Inspector this morning. I am sorry to say that this accident resulted in the death, I think, of 22 men; but it is impossible, owing to the mine having taken fire, to recover the bodies for a considerable space of time. One consolation I have from the Report of the Inspector is this—that the owners of the mine have done everything they could to secure proper ventilation and discipline in the mine, and no expense has been spared by them in making all the mines with which they are connected as safe as it was in their power to make them. I have no doubt, from the conversation I had with the Inspector, that the accident will turn out to have been caused by the use of gunpowder in a mine of a fiery character; and I am bound, in justice to Mr. Wynne, to say that he has for many years upheld the opinion that the use of gunpowder in fiery mines is dangerous, and ought to be discontinued. There is a great difference of opinion amongst Inspectors on that point; but many of them are gradually coming round to Mr. Wynne's view. I cannot help thinking that the people are apt to forget that, as we get deeper in mining, we get into mines of a more fiery character, and that the dangers which are now to be encountered in the working of mines did not exist when, the mines were not of such a fiery character. I think it is a point worthy of most serious consideration whether or not measures should be taken to prevent, in fiery mines, the use of gunpowder for blasting. I am bound, however, to say that there is great difference of opinion on the subject, not only amongst Inspectors but owners of mines; and the miners themselves—so far as I can form an opinion—are very much opposed to legislation of this kind. All I can say at the present moment is that the subject is worthy of very serious consideration. In the case of an accident that happened not very long ago, I sent down Mr. Maule, a gentleman of great experience, to attend the inquiry, and he made a report strongly commenting on the use of powder in these mines. I propose to send him to attend the inquest in the present instance, in order to see whether his opinion is confirmed, or whether he sees any reason to change it. I should be very glad indeed if any discussion could take place on the Motion in order that it may be fully inquired into, so that persons connected with mines and others might have the fullest opportunity of offering their views on the subject; but I cannot say that I will support any particular Private Bill until I have had an opportunity of seeing what that Bill is. If, however, any hon. Member thinks right to introduce a measure, or to propose a Motion on the subject, I shall only be too ready to give it my consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposed to bring in a Bill during this Session in relation to Police Superannuation, or to take any other step in the matter?

, in reply, said, the question was one well worthy of consideration, and was certainly not being lost sight of. He had been in communication with the Treasury upon the matter; but he did not know, looking at the state of Public Business, whether he should be able to legislate on the subject this Session; but he would take the earliest opportunity of introducing a Bill on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been drawn to the Memorial signed by more than fifty pilots of Cardiff, which states that the Cefn-y-wrach shoal at the entrance of the port of Cardiff constitutes a danger to ships of large burden leaving or entering the port, many vessels having grounded since the channel originally cut through the shoal has become useless, in consequence of its having silted up in at least three places; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will comply with the prayer of the Memorial, praying that he would send down a surveyor to examine and report upon the state of the shoal?

Sir, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received, both from some Cardiff pilots and also from certain shipowners and shipbrokers at Cardiff, a request to send a competent surveyor to examine the Cefn-y-wrach shoal at the mouth of the Taff. It appears that the Bute Trustees, who originally cut the channel through the shoal, have given orders that the obstructions which have grown up in it should be forthwith removed by their engineer; and, therefore, until the result of the proposed operations of the Trustees is known, my right hon. Friend proposes to defer further consideration of the representations of the pilots and ship-owners.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give us any information as to the Papers relating to the Congress which he stated would be laid on the Table and would be in the hands of Members this morning? Those Papers, I believe, are not yet in the hands of hon. Members, and I understand they have not yet been delivered to the House. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to state when we may expect to have them in our possession? I shall also be glad if he can give us any information as to the probable Business of the House for next week, especially with reference to the Message we understood yesterday we have reason to expect from the Crown—when it is probable that Message will be received by the House, and when it is probable the House will have an opportunity of considering any communication which is to be made to it?

Sir, with reference to the first Question of the noble Lord, as to the Papers, I am afraid I misinformed the House if I said last night they had been laid on the Table. I was under the impression they had been, or immediately would be—my hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) tells me they were laid on the Table—and what has caused the delay in their being distributed is this—It is the usual and proper practice, before publishing any Correspondence with foreign Powers, to obtain the assent of the Powers with whom the Correspondence has passed, to its publication. This has not yet, I think, in all cases, been obtained; but I understand it will be, and it may be expected very shortly. I hear the Papers will be delivered this evening, and will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. I may say that the whole pith and kernel of the Correspondence—the important part—consists of those extracts which I read to the House yesterday. Then the noble Lord asks as to the course of Business? Well, it is within the knowledge of the House, that my noble Friend at the head of the Government stated it last night, in order that there might be no undue misapprehension or exaggeration as to what might be the intentions of the Government, that it was proposed shortly to take measures for calling out the Army Reserve and the Militia Reserve, and it was necessary, in order to take that step, that a communication should first be made to both Houses of Parliament. I apprehend it will be the most proper course that that communication should be made formally, and probably we shall be in a position to advise Her Majesty that that communication should be made to the House formally on Monday next. I presume the House would not do more upon the reception of the Message than appoint a day for considering the subject which may be brought before them. I should propose, when that communication has been made, to name a day when we will call the attention of the House to the subject of that communication; probably it will be convenient that it should be on the Monday following—Thursday next being fixed for the Budget—and there being no reason why it should be an earlier date than that. I think that would be the most convenient course. As this is the first time the step has been taken of making such a communication, it will be desirable we should ascertain what would be the most correct and convenient mode of proceeding.

asked, with reference to the statement on the previous day that the Government was willing to allow Mr. Rivers Wilson to take part in the inquiry by the Khedive into the finances of Egypt, Whether it is the intention of the Government to send Mr. Wilson to Egypt; and, whether the Government will lay on the Table any Correspondence which may have occurred between the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government on this subject?

, in reply, said, it was the belief of the Government that the Khedive of Egypt was anxious that Mr. Rivers Wilson should go out to that country as soon as possible. The Government were not sending him out; he was to be allowed to go, which was quite a different thing. He did not think there would be any delay in the departure of Mr. Wilson, but he could not state the day on which he would leave. It would not be convenient to the public service that that which had taken place should be published at the present time; but after the Papers had been considered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, they would be laid before the House.

observed, that now that these additional warlike preparations were announced, it was very desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had placed in the Library a Map showing the boundaries which the Russian Government proposed to establish in Eastern Europe, would also place in the Library a Map showing how Her Majesty's Ministers proposed to correct the boundaries which Russia sought to establish.

I beg to point out to the hon. Member that the House is now engaged in the consideration of Questions. The observations of the hon. Member are out of Order, not being in the form of a Question.

wished to ask, with reference to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, Whether some arrangement could not be made whereby this important subject might be brought before the House on an earlier day than Monday week?

said, he would venture to suggest, in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), seeing the great anxiety which was now felt as to the safety of Her Majesty's ships in the East, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have placed in the Library a Map marked so as to show the positions at present occupied by Her Majesty's ships. [Cries of "Oh!"]

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the third reading of the Bill; but, as one of those Members who have acted in accordance with the wishes of the Government by refraining from taking part in the discussion or from proposing Amendments in Committee, I wish to be allowed to say that I think it is not creditable to the Government or to the House that we are called upon to pass a measure which is admitted on all hands to be full of imperfections. I have seen it stated that—

"It bears about it on almost every page the marks of the rude, and, in all matters of discipline and punishment, the semi-savage age in which it first saw the light."

[Mr. GATHORNE HARDY dissented.] I see the right hon. Gentleman considers this description of the Bill too sweeping; but, at all events, it is based upon a considerable substratum of truth. During the last 100 years, or longer, this Bill has been passed from year to year in almost the exact form, and without any attempt to amend its provisions. It is confessedly a bad Bill, and nine years ago the entire subject of military punishment was referred to the consideration of a Royal Commission composed of distinguished Members of this House, and other gentlemen of great authority. That Royal Commission presented a Report, recommending important changes in the Mutiny Bill and Articles of War, to which no attention has been paid. The Secretary for War said, in the discussion of certain clauses of the Bill in Committee, that "these clauses might be very badly drawn, but they were very well understood by the Courts which had to deal with them." If such was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman respecting the clauses generally, I can only say that that opinion is entirely at variance with the evidence given before the Royal Commission. The illustrious Duke at the head of the Army attributed errors into which courts martial fell, mainly to the difficulty experienced by them in ascertaining the meaning of the wording of the Mutiny Act and Articles of War. A right hon. Gentleman formerly well-known in this House—Mr. Headlam—who had filled the office of Judge Advocate General, described the code as very confused, unduly long, and containing provisions that were unsuitable, unnecessary, and obsolete. Another ex-Judge Advocate General, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Mowbray), was of opinion that military law was in a very confused, uncertain, and conflicting state—"perplexing to lawyers, and, he feared, unintelligible to soldiers." These views were confirmed by other witnesses, and accepted by the Royal Commissioners, who were of opinion that the simplification of the Military Code ought to have the immediate attention of the Government. That was nine years ago, and yet nothing effectually has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners; and it was only last year, when the discussions upon the Bill were raised by hon. Members from Ireland, that the attention of the Government and the House was aroused to the importance of the subject. I may claim, on behalf of many English Members near me, that we are quite as anxious to see Amendments made in the Bill as the Irish Members can be. I think it a serious circumstance that, under the Mutiny Act, the Crown is enabled to make a criminal code of its own under the name of Articles of War—or, in other words, that it rested with the Prerogative of the Crown to determine what in the eye of the law shall be a crime if the offender be a soldier, and to determine, in most cases, what punishment shall be awarded for the offence. This power of making laws and fixing punishment without the sanction and control, or even the notice, of the Legislature belongs to a past age, and it is quite time that some change should be made in the system. There is an impression abroad that a soldier sometimes suffered for a mere thoughtless act, or possibly some intemperate expression, an amount of punishment which, in civilian life, would be applied only to parties guilty of brutal or dishonest crimes. It is a serious matter if the Articles of War are so drawn as to enable commanding officers to inflict severe punishment for comparatively trifling offences. In Returns laid before Parliament, I find there is a great disparity in the number of soldiers punished in different regiments; and it is worth the consideration of the Secretary for War whether some check should not be put upon the undue infliction of punishment by commanding officers. The country has the greatest interest in making the soldier satisfied with his condition. We have to enlist our recruits in the open market, and it is of great importance that men should feel confident of a just treatment and of a proper recognition of their personal rights when they joined the Army. The remedy for the present state of things is that the Articles of War should be sanctioned by Parliament, and that the offences and punishments of soldiers should be strictly laid down by the Legislature. I feel indebted to the Secretary for War for having promised to submit the provisions of the Mutiny Bill to the careful scrutiny of a Select Committee of this House. There has been some question as to the propriety of entrusting the subject to a Select Committee, but I entirely approve the course taken by the Government. We have had too many cases lately in which important matters have been referred to Departmental Committees, and have in that manner been taken out of the view of Parliament; which is, I think, open to serious objection. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) told the House that he should submit to the Select Committee the draft of an efficient and practical measure thoroughly sifted by the legal and military authorities. That will, no doubt, be a great assistance, and will render it unnecessary for the Committee to be composed mainly of military and naval men; and I trust that there will be a considerable proportion of civilian Members placed upon it. I hope the result of the labours of the Committee will be to remove what must be admitted a scandal—namely, the introduction of a Bill year after year in the form in which it had been drawn 100 years ago, and the provisions of which had become obsolete.

hoped the Report of the Select Committee on the Mutiny Acts would, together with next year's Bill, be brought before the House for consideration at the very commencement of next Session. The Articles of War should also be brought before the House in the form of a Bill. The desire to improve the Mutiny Acts was not confined to hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House.

concurred in the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley. They had abstained from taking part in the discussion which had been held out of consideration for the position in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was placed. Seeing that the opinions entertained by his hon. Friends on that side of the House were shared in by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, he trusted that the Government would seriously consider the matter with a view to the removal of the anomalies and obsolete enactments which, were at present embodied in the Bill, and that the subject would not be burked by being sent to a Select Committee.

observed, that taking part in a debate on the third reading of a Bill was like flogging a dead horse. He wished, therefore, that the hon. Member for Burnley had devoted his energy to an endeavour to have the Bill amended in Committee. Notwithstanding the strictures which had been passed on the conduct of the Irish Members for criticizing the provisions of the Mutiny Bill, and endeavouring to modify their severity, he believed that considerable benefit would ultimately result from their action.

said, he had nothing to complain of as to the observations just made by hon. Members. He was perfectly sincere in saying at the beginning that he intended the provisions of the Bill to be fully and fairly considered. As he had no desire to go again through the experience of the last few nights, he hoped the Bill would come before the House from the Select Committee in the shape in which it would receive general approval. He would not quarrel with hon. Members opposite for the credit they had taken to themselves in this matter; but would simply express a hope that when they again ventured to furnish here and there a grain of wheat, they would not encumber the contribution with so many bushels of chaff.

, in rising to call attention to the mode of appointment to Postmasterships in cases where the salary is under £100 a-year, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the responsibility of appointing to Postmasterships, whatever the salary attached to the appointment, should rest solely with the Postal authorities, and that the present system of making such appointments in certain cases conditional upon a nomination by Members of Parliament endorsed by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury is anomalous, and calculated to interfere with the efficiency of the Postal and Telegraph Service;"

said, at present these appointments were made by the Secretary to the Treasury on the nomination of a Member of Parliament of the political Party who happened to be in power, and he did not think that it was desirable that such a state of things should continue. The present system often gave rise to very discreditable political jobbery; and, as an illustration, drew attention to what happened last year at Winslow, in Buckinghamshire. A clerk in the post office of a small town in that county, who had been five years in the service, who was well qualified, and whose application was backed by a numerous and respectably-signed recommendation, applied to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Fremantle) for a nomination to that post office which had become vacant. The hon. Member wrote back to say that another person who had supported the Government at the last Election was also an applicant, and that he was bound to give that person the preference. Could there have been a greater display of naïveté? The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) put a Question on the subject of that appointment to the Postmaster General last year, when the latter had replied that the appointment was made in the usual manner. Since that time a Circular had been issued stating that the nominations would be submitted to the Postmaster General, who would regulate them according to character and the interests of the public service; but there was not one word which would prevent the recurrence of such discreditable pieces of jobbery as had sometimes taken place. In many places there were no Conservative Members, and the nominations were made by Members for adjoining districts, who knew nothing of the local circumstances. In America a general movement was being made to do away with the system of making Civil Service appointments by political agents, in order to remedy abuses strongly satirized in the Bigelow Papers—

"You get me into the White House,

Your head with oil I will anoint;

I will got you into the lighthouse,

Down by Gallen Point."

The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

As my name has been connected by the hon. Member for Glasgow with what he termed a discreditable piece of jobbery, I must ask leave to explain the circumstances of the case. In the autumn of 1876, a person named Francis, the assistant postmaster at Winslow, came to me, and said that he wished to succeed the postmaster, who was ready to resign, if I was ready to recommend him to the appointment. I said it was impossible for me to do that; I must wait until the vacancy actually occurred. He wrote to me afterwards to the effect that he thought I had misunderstood his application, and concluded by saying—"If you will do this, I will promise to vote for you at future Elections." I replied that I was obliged by his letter; but that I could make no such arrangement, as when the vacancy really occurred others who might be recommended by friends of my own might apply, and I could not do less than consider their claims as well as his. When the vacancy actually took place, six months afterwards, Francis, who naturally had early knowledge, went round and obtained a large number of signatures in support of his application. It was true that Francis had a knowledge of telegraphy, and that he was fit for the appointment; but, on the other hand, it happened that there had been great reason to complain of the manner in which business had been conducted at this post office. I consulted an hon. Friend of mine, a Member of this House, whose letters pass through the same post office, and he concurred with me in thinking that, on the whole, it was safer to have "new blood." Francis himself had admitted to me that the management had been very bad, and promised amendment. There was but one other candidate, a grocer named Wilford, who was a householder and shopkeeper in the Market Square, a man of good character, fit in every way to be a postmaster, and whose premises were well adapted for a post office. On the other hand, Francis had no house, and would have to obtain one if appointed; and he had actually attempted to influence me by offering to give me his vote. Under those circumstances I nominated Wilford, and I think I was justified in preferring him, although, it is true, he had voted for me. Since he has held the appointment the post office has been well managed, and there have been no complaints. I think, too, I might be excused, if ever such a thing were excusable, in writing to Francis, for having adverted to the fact that the other man was a supporter of the Government, as a kind of argumentum ad hominem. On the general question, all I have to say is that, I believe, all hon. Members of this House would be very glad if this troublesome patronage were taken away from them and placed in the hands of Post Office officials.

explained, that he had not used the words "discreditable piece of jobbery" in reference to any conduct of the hon. Member. If they could, by any construction, be supposed to apply to the conduct of the hon. Member, he begged most unreservedly to withdraw them.

said, that in the matter of these appointments in Ireland, especially in the rural districts, the motto of "the spoils to the victors" was generally acted upon.

observed, that the course usually adopted when a postmastership became vacant was for the Government of the day to write to the Member for the locality to nominate a person to fill it, and there was usually a great difficulty in his doing so. Instead of the Member exercising a right of patronage, he had to discharge what was a most responsible and troublesome duty. Ireland land, of course, was different from any other country in the world, and he did not say the same thing happened there. The present system, however, worked well as far as the public service was concerned, and he did not see how the Postmaster General, who could have no local knowledge, could make better appointments than were now made.

said, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had satisfactorily explained his share in this transaction, he merely having nominated an honest Tory who had actually voted for him, in place of a humbug who had only promised to vote for him if he got the appointment. The present system, however, was open to the charge of political jobbery, and should be changed. The Postmaster General ought to be able to do his own business without the assistance of hon. Members.

suggested that it would be better if hon. Members left these appointments to be filled up at the discretion of the Postmaster General. He recommended the Government to make their own appointments without consulting anybody.

said, that although hon. Members often had considerable difficulty in finding persons fit to fill these posts, his opinion was that the present system had worked well, and to the satisfaction of the districts concerned. It had very little to do with politics, and the persons nominated were those generally known to be fit and proper persons for the posts. It would be rather sudden to make a change from the old system to that now proposed, and therefore he should oppose the Motion.

said, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had acted justly and wisely in refusing to nominate a man who had promised to vote for him. The hon. Member for Glasgow, who had brought this matter forward, appeared to think that a horrible state of corruption and immorality existed with respect to these appointments; but the facts did not warrant that assumption. Nothing could be more childlike in its simplicity than the correspondence that ensued whenever one of these posts became vacant. He wrote to hon. Members, asking them to nominate a suitable person for the office—married women, minors, and inn-keepers, being ineligible. The usual reply was that they had great difficulty in finding a fit person to fill the post, and in many cases they had to apply to the clergyman of the parish to recommend a candidate for it. The subject had been carefully considered by the authorities of the Post Office last year, and the permanent officials were of opinion that the present system of consulting Members of Parliament in reference to these appointments was a good one as far as the public service was concerned. He did not believe that the closest investigation would disclose any instance of these appointments being used for political purposes. The name of the office he had the honour to fill was a misnomer. He was called the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury; but the only patronage he had the misfortune to possess was the making of these small appointments, which had been to him a sore burden and distress.

said, he would be glad to be relieved from the troublesome and annoying duty of nominating persons for these posts. He thought that if the Government placed the responsibility of these appointments in the hands of the Post Office authorities, they would be entitled to the thanks of the country.

(who was absent elsewhere upon public business when this discussion was raised) fully concurred in all that had been said as to the troubles and annoyance of appointing to these offices. The object of the hon. Member for Glasgow, who had brought forward this Motion, appeared to be to transfer that troublesome duty from his hon. Friend on his left (Sir William Hart Dyke) to himself, for which he was scarcely disposed to be grateful. If it were, however, clearly shown that by that transfer a public benefit would result, so great was his public spirit that he would cheerfully consent to be sacrificed, and to undertake this additional trouble. But after the question was raised last year by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), the matter was carefully inquired into, and the conclusion that had been arrived at was that it would be better not to interfere with the existing system, which worked well, in the opinion of the practical officers of the Department, so far as the country offices were concerned. It was obviously most difficult to find suitable persons for these positions; and the only officers on whom the Post Office could rely were the district surveyors, of whom there were only nine for England, and they could not have a sufficient knowledge of the local qualifications requisite. To ask them to undertake the discovery of fit and proper persons in every small village would be to impose upon them an intolerable labour. All they could do would be to accept the recommendations of others, and in that way we should again be referred to the persons of the greatest local influence, who would give tolerably sound advice. But the opinion of the officers of the Department was that through the agency of local members the Post Office got the best recommendations it was likely to get; and, with few exceptions, the system had been found to work smoothly and well for 100 years, at least as regarded the rural districts. With respect to receiverships in towns, further inquiry might well be made. In London the appointment was vested in the Postmaster General, who, of course, acted on the recommendations of the district postmasters; and he believed the system worked satisfactorily. It might be a fair subject of inquiry whether, in the large towns, the filling up of the receiverships might not be left to the postmasters. In other respects the present system worked well, and he was not disposed to recommend the House to sanction the alterations suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow. Therefore, he hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing.

, in rising to call attention to the delay in producing the Correspondence relating to Crete, said, the House would recollect that when some days ago Questions had been put on this subject, the Government said the production of Papers might add to the existing excitement. Since then, Papers with reference to Greece had been laid upon the Table, and the House was surprised to find that, although they contained full reports with reference to the condition of Thessaly and Epirus, no information was given with regard to Crete. The whole Island, except three or four towns, was now in the hands of the insurgents, so that it was impossible to see how the excitement could be increased. He, therefore, wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House any Reports respecting the disturbances in Crete?

said, he was at a loss to understand why the Foreign Office showed so much reluctance in producing the Consular Reports with respect to Crete. He could only suggest one reason—namely, that the Government were not aware of the serious state of the insurrection which had broken out through the length of the Island. When, on the 4th of February, the Under Secretary was asked by him if he had received information of a serious insurrection in Crete, he replied that since he had answered a similar Question put to him by the hon. Member for Reading on the 29th of January no despatch had been received. It now appeared that a telegraphic despatch from M. Delyanni, the Foreign Minister at Athens, had been communicated to Lord Derby by M. Gennadius, the Greek Chargé d' Affaires on the 3rd of February stating—"That the Cretans were in revolt, and the Christians of the other Provinces were following their example." He could not, therefore, account for the answer of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that the Island was not in a state of insurrection, except on the ground that the hon. Member himself was ignorant of the fact. There could be no doubt that the Cretans would strive to the last extremity to throw off the Turkish yoke, and it was time that any Reports on the subject should be communicated to the House. It might be that the Government were unwilling to produce the Ambassadorial Reports about Crete. In 1868, when he brought forward a Motion on behalf of the Christian population of Crete, Mr. Layard was the only man who rose in that House and expressed no sympathy with the Christians of that Island, while he contended that Turkey had conceded all necessary reforms to the Christian population of Candia. He (Mr. Layard) said—

"The Constitution, which. Turkey was prepared to grant to Crete appeared to be almost everything that the Christian part of the Cretan population could desire."

It might have been so on paper, but the experience of the last 10 years had shown that it had not been so in practice. He should be glad to know what Mr. Layard said now. Perhaps Mr. Layard still believed it was possible for Turkey to retain its dominion over Candia; but if he did, he differed from Lord Palmerston, who said he was satisfied that the Cretans would not remain patient under a yoke which their brethren had shaken off.

said, the House would not be surprised at the anxiety shown by the hon. Members for Reading and Gloucester (Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Mr. Monk) from time to time to obtain information with respect to the affairs of Crete, because it was not only well known that they took much interest in the question; but because, for many years, the country had taken a very deep interest in the people of that Island. As to the suggestion about imperfect information, if his answers were referred to, it would be found, taking into consideration the order of their dates, that they were correct upon those dates, giving, as they did, the exact state of our information at the time. They all knew that the condition of affairs in the Island of Crete had altered very much within the last few months. He stated on the first occasion, when the hon. Member for Reading used the word "rebellion," that the Government had received no information that would justify them in saying there was a general insurrection in Crete. That was strictly true at the time. At a later period they learned that the entire of the Island, with the exception of some towns on the sea coast, was in the hands of the insurgents. On the subject of producing the Papers, he had taken the opinion of Lord Derby, who gave the subject full consideration, but thought that in the interest of the population, both Christian and Mussulman, it would be undesirable to produce them, because they might add to the excitement in the Island. One reason which had not been mentioned was that, owing to the exertions of the British Consuls, an armistice had been brought about between the insurgents and the Turkish officials, and Lord Derby did not wish to do anything to jeopardize the result he was anticipating—than which nothing could be more in accordance with the wishes of the Government, It was quite a delusion to suppose that any objection to the production of the Correspondence had been offered by our Ambassador, Mr. Layard, whose opinions on the subject it would be found were in accordance with the feelings of the Government, and, he believed, of the House. That had nothing whatever to do with the non-production of the Papers; the only reason was consideration for the interests of the population of the Island. With respect to the introduction of these Papers, he had said that their position was altered; and he thought it would be undesirable, standing there as the Representative of the Foreign Office pending the appointment of Lord Derby's Successor, for him to give a promise on the subject. Therefore, he hoped the House would be satisfied with what he had said now, and if the hon. Member would repeat his Question after he had had the advantage of consulting the new Foreign Secretary, he would be happy to answer it.

, in rising to call attention to the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the Protocol of the Treaty of London of 1871, said, the Motion of which he had given Notice was to this effect—

"That while, according to the Law of Nations and the right interpretation of the said Protocol, no Power can arbitrarily renounce obligations once accepted by Treaty, it is equally true, according to the Law of Nations and the said Protocol, that no Power can arbitrarily insist upon maintaining obligations once created by Treaty."

He was fully aware of the inconvenience of discussing special matters relating to the present crisis; but he thought advantage might arise from an explanation given by the Government in answer to his Motion, which was of a general application. Now, his contention was that, while no Power could arbitrarily renounce obligations contracted under Treaty, it was equally true that no Power could arbitrarily insist upon keeping up obligations once made. The word "arbitrarily" was the key-word of his proposition. If half-a-dozen Powers assented together to a Treaty, that Treaty was liable to be affected by circumstances which might exist from time to time. If no change whatever had happened in the circumstances in reference to which the Treaty was contracted, it would be a purely arbitrary act on the part of any Power to declare that its obligations should cease because it wished its position under the Treaty to be altered. Again, circumstances might have altogether changed, so that the Treaty would be dissolved as a matter of fact, and five out of the six Powers might agree that the circumstances had changed so that their obligations were dissolved. It, then, would not be proper for the sixth Power to say—"Your obligations are not dissolved because I refuse my assent to a declaration that they are dissolved." That would be as arbitrary as the conduct of the former Power in declaring its obligations had ceased though the circumstances had not altered. Take the example of the Treaty of Vienna, which assigned the Belgian Provinces to the King of Holland. Those Provinces—the scene of the great campaigns of the last century and of the earlier years of this century, the "cockpit of Europe"—were annexed to Holland as the best safeguard of Germany against the restless ambition of France. Within 16 years, however, the Belgians renounced the authority of the King of Holland, and it became necessary for the signatory Powers of the Treaty of Vienna to re-consider the position of Belgium. If Prussia had refused to recognize the King of the Belgians, that conduct on the part of Prussia would have been an arbitrary and indefensible act according to the Law of Nations. It was quite plain what was the application of all this. They had heard of a Treaty agreed upon by two Powers—a Treaty which altered, to a considerable degree, the Treaty of Paris. Just as it was true that no party to that Treaty could arbitrarily set it aside, the circumstances not having altered, so now, those circumstances having completely changed, its obligations were to a great extent, if not altogether, dissolved, and no Power could arbitrarily insist upon setting up that Treaty as an invincible obstacle against the recognition of the new change. It could not be said the Treaty of Paris could not be altered without the concurrence of all the Powers concerned in making it. Without the concurrence of "all" meant without the concurrence of "each," though the language might be put in such a way as, apparently, to shelter those making it behind the consensus of nations. He was quite sure the Government would not take up this arbitrary course. They would probably say, that if they went to the Conference, they would not attempt to set up any clause of the Treaty of Paris simply because they thought it should be set up. They would set up what reason and right required, and their action would be directed towards the settlement of the peace of Europe. But he would point out to the Government that if they insisted that it should be a condition of entering into Conference that any Power should be obliged to submit all the regulations of the Treaty of San Stefano to the consideration and sanction of the Conference, it would then be in the power of any Government to assume a position of arbitrary self-will. If every new Article required the sanction of every Power, it would be competent for any such Power to refuse its sanction at its pleasure, and no one could reasonably ask Russia to subject itself beforehand to such a contingency. The reason why he had brought this before the House at this crisis was that it had been a remarkable, and to his mind a very painful, fact that during the last two or three weeks this critical question had been discussed with the utmost freedom upon knowledge often defective—very often erroneous—in the public Press in a way to inflame the public mind in England. A few words, simply illustrative of the conditions which were legitimate and which were illegitimate, might at all events be of some public use, without embarrassing Her Majesty's Government. In the Correspondence just published, Lord Derby had stipulated that every Article of the Treaty should be placed before the Congress, not necessarily for acceptance, but that it might be considered what Article required acceptance. But they all knew well enough that a majority of voices would not rule, and if each Member of the Congress were to say that such and such an Article required acceptance, it would simply put Russia at the feet of every other Power. In her reply, Russia claimed the same liberty for herself that was acceded to the other Powers; so that, on the part of Russia, there was an apprehension that by complying with Lord Derby's condition, she would be committing herself to a tribunal instead of a consultative body. And that appeared to be quite plain from the last sentence of Count Schouvaloff's despatch, which left to the other Powers the liberty of raising such questions in the Conference as they thought fit to discuss, but reserved for Russia the liberty of accepting or not accepting the discussion. Now, he submitted the language of Count Schouvaloff's despatch was perfectly justifiable in International Law; but it had been misinterpreted in some public prints. One, for example, said—"Russia puts a veto on the Conference;" another, that Russia denied to the Powers assembled at the Conference cognizance of the Treaty of San Stefano. She did not do so. What she did say was, in effect, that she was not bound to submit the Treaty to the concurrence of all the Powers; but was ready to consider the Congress as a consultative body, and not a tribunal. This subject had been so freely discussed in the Press, that what he had submitted to the House could not be productive of mischief to Her Majesty's Government or to the interests of the country.

I do not complain for a moment of the tone or general tenour of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. There is much in what he has said with which I should be quite prepared to agree. Upon some points, I think, when the hon. Gentleman has time to consider the Correspondence which will be laid before the House, he will see that he has not entirely appreciated the position and views of Her Majesty's Government. But I rise at this moment, not for the purpose of going into the question, but to express my earnest hope, if I may do so, that we may be allowed not to pursue this discussion at the present moment, but to go into Committee of Supply, for the purpose of taking a Vote which is essential. I take this course upon several grounds. With respect to the particular question now raised, it would be more convenient to discuss it, as the hon. Gentleman himself would admit, when we have before us the Papers which we must have in a very short time. With respect to the general position of our Business, I must remind the House that this is the second Morning Sitting arranged this week at great inconvenience to many hon. Members, and it has been specially arranged for to-day in order to discuss an important question arising upon a Vote in Supply which, it was hoped, we might get through to-day. This would enable us to redeem the engagements for Monday next, which it would be most convenient we should then be able to redeem. I do not wish to interfere with the course of discussion, but I do trust the hon. Gentleman will now allow us to go into Supply.

I do not rise for the purpose of entering upon the question introduced by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), but simply to direct attention to a matter which has already been referred to this afternoon. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, replying to my Question as to whether it was intended to send Mr. Rivers Wilson out to Egypt with the view of assisting the Khedive in the management of his financial affairs, said it was not the Government who were sending him out, but that he was allowed to go. No doubt, there is a distinction, but what I want to point out is this. In 1876, in consequence of Her Majesty's Government interfering in the management of the Egyptian finances, a large amonnt of financial mischief was done in this country, and the opportunity given for a large amount of financial jobbing. If the Government allows a gentleman occupying a public position here to go to Egypt to act in conjunction with Egyptian officials, it must give the world an impression that Her Majesty's Government intend to assist the Khedive in his financial operations. On the last occasion, when Mr. Rivers Wilson went to Egypt, a most unfortunate amount of stock jobbery arose out of his mission, and in consequence of the Report presented by the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) in 1876; and when I alluded to these circumstances at the time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think I was making a charge against the Government; but I had not the slightest idea of doing so—and I am quite sure that Mr. Rivers Wilson, either before or since his engagement, would not assist any transaction such as I have alluded to. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have heard that a considerable amount of jobbing was committed in the Eyptian funds by persons in London and in Paris, who, no doubt, acted on information received from Egypt. If Mr. Rivers Wilson was a non-official person, there would not attach to his work the authority of the Government. There is a distinction between sending him and allowing him to go, yet the fact will remain that Mr. Rivers Wilson is Controller General in the National Debt Office, one of the most important services of the Crown, and he is allowed to go to Egypt to rearrange the financial affairs of the Khedive. Certain of his opinions, or his proposals, or his reports will ooze out to the public, probably through some official of the Egyptian Government, and this information may be used by those persons interested in Egyptian funds. But this is not all. In consequence of the intervention of the Government in 1876 a number of people lost large sums of money through having been induced by the action of the Government to invest in Egyptian funds. I hold in my hand the Civil Service Estimates for the year, and among those sums, of which we shall be called upon to vote a portion to-day, is £1,500 for the salary of the Controller General of the National Debt. The salaries paid among the officials of this Office amount to £16,000 annually; and is it reasonable, when we pay these officials high salaries, that we should, at the same time, allow the chief official to go to Egypt in order that he may in some way arrange the financial business of the Khedive? Either Mr. Rivers Wilson should not be allowed to go, or else he should resign before becoming the financial agent of the Khedive. When he last went to Egypt he was away some months, and it was a question whether he should resign, for he expected a permanent appointment from the Khedive. He was away from his duty for a considerable period, and now you are going to send him away again. The question may be very fairly asked, is it necessary to pay an officer £1,500 a-year, and send him out to the Khedive? I do hope the Government will re-consider their determination, and appoint some gentleman, who, from his position, will not seem to impair the influence of the Government by mixing up its authority in the kind of transactions to which I have alluded.

said, he was disappointed yesterday by the answer given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in reference to this subject; for Mr. Rivers Wilson ought to be asked to make choice between the service of Her Majesty and that of the Khedive, as the Government decided last year. He objected to the appointment because he apprehended that the selection of a public official for such a mission might be the first step in interference which might lead to another step and another till one might come to something like the sequestration and occupation of Egypt. Much might be said in favour of such a step in respect to the benefit it would confer on Egypt; but it would involve this country in great political difficulties, and increase her responsibilities to so great an extent that he thought we must consider it out of the question.

I have no right to address the House a second time; but, as this question has been brought forward without any Notice, I may be allowed to make a few remarks in explanation of the real position of the matter. As hon. Gentlemen are aware, some little time ago an arrangement was come to between the Khedive and certain gentlemen who were the representatives of the bondholders who had claims upon Egypt. With that arrangement Her Majesty's Government had, of course, nothing whatever to do. Under the terms of that arrangement, as I was given to understand, it was agreed between the Khedive and his creditors that a certain portion of the revenues of Egypt should be left to meet the expenses of his Government, and that the residue should be applied to the payment of his debts. That went on for a short time, until this state of things arose. The Khedive represented that the money which had been left over for the expenses of his general Government was not sufficient for that purpose, and that consequently he was not able to pay his creditors. The creditors, therefore, were not paid. The result was that they went before the judicial tribunals, and these tribunals gave their decision in favour of the creditors. The Khedive, on the other hand, was not willing to accept the decision of the judicial tribunals. Now, that was a very inconvenient state of things; because, as hon. Gentlemen know, those tribunals are not like the ordinary judicial tribunals of any country, because they have been established by an European arrangement to which Her Majesty's Government and other Governments were parties, and if the authority of these tribunals were set at nought there might arise very serious complications, and difficulties of a grave political character might ensue. That was, therefore, one of the complications which we viewed with some anxiety. Another matter which caused us concern was that the Khedive is responsible for remitting to this country a certain portion of the Tribute he pays to the Porte for the purpose of its being applied to the payment of the Turkish Debt for which this country, as a co-guarantor with France, is responsible; and Her Majesty's Government found that that money was not forthcoming, the payments being in arrear, and there appeared to be some danger that default would be made under that head. Of course, there is another payment which the Khedive makes directly to this country in respect of the Annuity for the purchase money of the Suez Canal Shares. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to look with absolute indifference on what was passing in Egypt. We were informed that an arrangement had been again proposed for a better and fuller inquiry into the real condition of the finance of Egypt, with a view—if it should turn out that the calculations on which this arrangement had been founded were incorrect—to the creditors of the Khedive making some other arrangement among themselves. That appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be a wise resolution on the part of the Khedive, and we were glad to hear that such an inquiry was about to take place. It then became a matter of importance that the inquiry should be of such a character as to command confidence, and to impress upon the Khedive and upon the creditors the fact that a real bonâ fide inquiry had been made. It was suggested to Her Majesty's Government that it would be a very great advantage if the inquiry could take place with the presence of a gentleman of such position and so well acquainted with Egyptian matters as Mr. Rivers Wilson, who would meet a gentleman appointed from France, nominated, I believe, by the French Government—at all events, a gentleman connected with the French Administration. Those two gentlemen, together with M. Lesseps, who has been selected by the Khedive, with a Native official, and four members of the body that has the control of the Khedive's receipts, are, I understand, to undertake that inquiry. Under the circumstances, looking at the extremely critical position of affairs in that part of the world, and considering how undesirable it was that additional political complications should be raised, it seemed to Her Majesty's Government to be the simplest, best, and safest way of avoiding those political complications that, acting in harmony with the French Government, who were ready to proceed in the same way, we should allow Mr. Rivers Wilson to go out and take part in this inquiry. That is, in short, an explanation of what has occurred. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) will see that this step was taken with no desire to interfere merely for the sake of obtaining justice for the Khedive's creditors or anyone else, which would be a very inconvenient course to follow; but, in order to avoid the inconvenience of setting aside the authority of the judicial tribunals, which might give rise to claims on the part of other countries besides England, and to an interference with the affairs of Egypt. This step was taken also in order that we might look after our own peculiar interests, and I hope the House will not think it necessary to pursue discussion in the matter any further.

begged to move to reduce the Vote by £2,100, which was down on the list towards the maintenance of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He made the proposition for many reasons. He believed that if he advanced no other arguments, the well-known unpopularity of the Queen's College system in Ireland, the well-known fact that that system was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Irish people—and, practically, was unanimously rejected by that portion of the Irish people that consisted of Roman Catholics, for whose benefit it was especially intended—he should say that that argument alone ought to obtain the support of the House, and induce the House to express its opinion that the cost of the maintenance of these Colleges was one that should disappear from among public burdens. His opposition to the Queen's Colleges was based upon very many grounds. In the first place, the Queen's Colleges were a numerical failure; in the second place, they were an educational failure; in the third place, they were based upon principles radically hostile to revealed religion—and, for these three reasons, their continued maintenance ought not to be forced upon the Irish people. They were a numerical failure, for, year after year, the number of students in Arts attending the Queen's Colleges, with the solitary exception of Queen's College, Belfast, only about corresponded to the number of prizes and emoluments attached to these Colleges. In Belfast, the Queen's College was an exception to a certain extent—that was to say, that there were some 50 or 60 prizes; and, on an average, from 100 to 120, 130, or 140 students in Arts. In Queen's College, Galway, on the other hand, the number of Art students rarely exceeded by more than five or six or a dozen the number of scholarships and exhibitions, and other prizes. But the Queen's College, Belfast, had been practically adopted and practically recognized by the Presbyterian Assembly as in all respects essentially fitted for the secular education of the students for the Presbyterian Ministry. They had the evidence of the Moderator of the Assembly taken before the Commissioners who inquired into the Queen's Colleges, the evidence of the Professors, and the evidence of statistics, to show that Queen's College, Belfast, as regarded its Arts students, was still dependent upon the countenance of the Presbyterian Assembly, and that the bulk of the students in the Arts Faculty consisted of Presbyterian Divinity students; that the Professors in the Arts Faculty were gentlemen whose qualifications for their office had been recognized as deserving of the confidence of the Presbyterian Assembly; that no Catholic Professor had been intruded into the Arts Faculty to the class which the Presbyterian students were required to attend; and that in the entirety of the Arts Faculty, about 120, or, to speak correctly, 119 students, there was not a single Catholic. No one would pretend that a single Catholic student amongst 119 students in Queen's College, Belfast, represented the part which the Catholic population of Ulster ought to occupy and possess in the general education of Ulster. It must be admitted by the most fanatical admirer of these institutions, that in Ulster the comparative success of the Queen's University system was solely due to the fact that Queen's College, Belfast, suited the special requirements of the Presbyterian section of the Ulster population; and that, from the first day of its origin down to the present, the College had never obtained, and never deserved, and never sought to deserve, the certificate of approval from the Catholic religious authorities; but it had obtained a certificate of approval from the Presbyterian religious authorities. In Queen's College, Cork, there were simply as many students from year to year as there were educational emoluments to be disposed of. Altogether, they might take the annual average as about 60 students in each College, except Belfast, where there were about 120; and that was the sum total of the studenthood of Queen's Colleges who were in any particular within the influence of a liberal education. But, besides these Arts students, there was a body of Professional students, and they bore no relation to the Queen's College system in Ireland except that of being technically educated in the neighbourhood of an Arts Faculty. The class-rooms, and training-rooms, and dissecting-rooms of the medical students were simply to a greater or less extent under the same roof with the class-rooms of the Arts students; but beyond that fact, there was practically no other connection with the Queen's College system in Ireland. Now, he would ask the House to remember that when the Queen's Colleges were first established, this question of providing for the Professional education of Irish students by no means occupied the attention of the House; that the House was desirous of establishing a system of general and liberal education for the youth of Ireland, and that they did not consider then, just as on reflection they could not consider now, that establishments for merely Professional training could meet the liberal educational wants of the youth of Ireland. With the permission of the House, he would quote a few extracts from the evidence of Sir Robert Kane, the late President of Queen's College, Cork, before the Queen's Colleges Commission, and it was very important that the House should take note of this fact—that the Queen's Colleges were not established to promote mere Professional training; that they were established to promote a liberal education; and that it was only since their failure to answer the end for which they were established that the number of Professional students had been quoted as an instance of their success, or, rather, for the purpose of palliating, and to a certain extent disguising, their failure. Sir Robert Kane was asked—

"But the studies, as originally framed, provided for the three Faculties of Arts, Law, and Physic?"

He replied—

"I think not. The idea was, in the first instance, to develop the Faculty of Arts on a large scale. Subsequently to this it was proposed that the Faculties of Medicine and Law should be constituted, and I fully concurred in the subsequent arrangements made for those Faculties. The plan for the constitution of these Colleges had been brought up and approved by the Government on the supposition of there being but one Faculty—namely, that of Arts, with Schools of Engineering and Medicine."

Of course, when they recollected that the Faculty of Arts was the only proper University Faculty, the only Faculty which gave that general education which ought to be possessed by the Professional student before embarking on his Professional studies, the only education which converted an uncultured man into a cultured man, it was quite apparent that, looking to the want of general culture in Ireland, the House, at the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, could not imagine, and could not have imagined, that the want of general culture could be satisfied by providing the mere training schools of Professional knowledge. Engineering was a highly useful science. Their bridges, their railways, and their public works were necessarily indebted to it. Medicine was a highly useful and noble science; but the doctor, fully accomplished in medical knowledge, skilled in surgery, acquainted with the nature and the treatment of all possible diseases, was not a man who could be described as a man of education, unless, besides his Professional studies, he had made himself acquainted with polite letters, with liberal learning, with history, literature, the science of society, with the experience to be derived from the study of man in the past and in the present, with some fair knowledge of those literatures which were cherished as the best means of cultivating the taste and purifying the judgment—unless, in a word, the medical man was also an educated man, they recognized that, however valuable his services might be to the cause of humanity in his Profession, he could not be quoted as adding to the general sum of public culture. Well, in the Queen's Colleges, differing from so many other Universities, differing from all others worthy of the name—in the Queen's Colleges, from the first day the Professional student entered to the day he left possessed of his medical degree, he was not required to go through any Arts course whatever. He passed the Matriculation examination, he acquired during his first session some smattering of French—enough to enable him to smash out the meaning of those common Latinized words that were in both the English and the French languages, so as to enable him to get at the meaning of medical works written in the French language; but no history, no social science, no Latin or Greek letters, no modern letters, nothing of a general liberal education was ever demanded from, or was ever impressed upon, the Medical student of the Queen's University. In the University of Dublin, up to a late date, and, he believed, up to the present time, although the demoralizing influence of the example of the Queen's University had already gone a great way towards lowering the standard of education in the old University of Trinity College—up to a recent date, at any rate, no student of Trinity College could obtain a degree in the University of Dublin as Bachelor in Medicine without having previously gone through his course in the Faculty of Arts, and, as he was informed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), that was still the rule. On the contrary, the Doctor in Medicine of the Queen's Colleges could take his degree, and need not produce any other degree whatsoever, either from the Queen's University, or any other University, in attestation of his having passed through an Arts course. The House would at once perceive the vast difference. The medical men of the University of Dublin could be quoted to the credit of the University; because, as a fact, they had passed through the Arts course. The medical men of the Queen's Colleges could not be quoted to the credit of the Queen's University in Ireland, for the very simple reason that they had not passed through any Arts course. Notwithstanding that, year after year, in the elaborate speeches that were delivered at annual vacations at the Colleges, and too often by official Gentlemen in the House, the number of students attending the Queen's Colleges—without any distinction being made between the Arts students and those mere nominal students in the Medical Schools—were all lumped together, and quoted as being glowing evidence of the progress of the Queen's Colleges in the affections of the people of Ireland. It was deplorable that the Queen's University should have been driven to those shifts; it was deplorable that the Queen's University, instead of impressing upon its Professional graduates the obligation of literary culture, should actually have quoted those mere Professional students as instances of the success of the University system of which they were only nominal members. But what was more deplorable still was the persistent manner in which officials in the House allowed their eyes to be blinded to the facts of the case, and quoted year after year these sham instances of University education for the purpose of turning aside and avoiding the just complaints of the people of Ireland. During the 30 years of its existence the Queen's University had only produced 1,000 graduates, which was an average of little more than 30 per annum. Now, were even the Arts graduates really what they ought to be? The Arts course at the Queen's University was of only three years' duration, beginning with the Matriculation examination and ending with the Degree examination; and the character of the education given might be judged of from the nature of the examination imposed upon students entering, and students graduating. Before the Queen's College Commission, one of the witnesses admitted that half the boys at Harrow knew a great deal more than the students who entered the Arts Faculty of the Queen's College, Cork. The Professor of History and English Literature in the Queen's College, Belfast, stated that he could hardly insist upon students being rejected at the English Matriculation examination, however great their deficiency in English might be; and when his attention was called to the fact that a student who proceeded to Medicine would not have his knowledge of English tested in any subsequent year, the witness admitted that a man might go through the whole course of the College and obtain a degree in Medicine without having any competent knowledge of the English language. He added, however, that of course he would not pass a student who came utterly ignorant of the English language—a saving clause, which spoke volumes for the knowledge of the English language and literature which students entering the Queen's University were expected to possess. The Professors of Greek, Latin, Mathematics, and French all made the same confession. The President of the Queen's College, Belfast, roundly stated that students came with nothing that could be called classical knowledge, French knowledge, mathematical knowledge, or any kind of knowledge whatever. Professor Thomson, the Greek Professor at the Queen's College, Galway—previously a schoolmaster at Edinburgh—recently admitted that in becoming a Professor his duties had not altered in the slightest degree, the work of the College so far as Greek was concerned being, in fact, the rudimentary work of schools. Of course, students admitted with that amount of ignorance could not be turned out real graduates, with a three years curriculum. The problem, then, which presented itself to the governing mind of the Queen's University was how to turn these extraordinary students into apparent graduates, and the course upon which they had hit was, in the first instance, to establish 17 varieties of honour degrees, by which students of the most limited capacity were enabled to pass. These students only required, so to speak, one-seventeenth of the general mass of knowledge which it was desirable they should possess. Then, those who chose to pass without honours—and they were the great majority—were allowed to select from some 13 subjects variously marked, of the value of one or two each, so as to reach a total of four. Thus "English Language and Literature" was marked two, Mathematical Science, two; Latin, one; Greek, one; Political Economy, one; and so on. Provided the students selected subjects which totted up to the value of four, he might vary his course to any extent. The Committee would perceive, therefore, what little guarantee for a general uniform system of education was given by these University Colleges. The innumerable permutations and combinations to which he had referred would be largely diminished if there was a high standard for the Matriculation examination—some security that the students entering possessed a certain amount of culture. Leaving out of sight the fact that they could pass for the Degree examination with a sort of piecemeal knowledge, it was plain that, entering the University as they did with the rudiments of Greek and Latin still to learn, and with a mere superficial knowledge of Mathematics, French, English, and so on, they were only sham students, and at the end of three years could only be sham graduates. That a number of distinguished men were to be found amongst the 1,000 graduates which the Queen's University had turned out did not affect the question. It was only to be expected that amongst that number there should be some ambitious spirits who would not be bound down to the strict requirements of their University education. Amongst the graduates of the Queen's University he could quote distinguished members of the Dublin Bar, of the Indian Civil Service, &c.; but it was not by such exceptional instances that the good or evil influence of the University could be tested. It was by the nature of its Matriculation examination and of its Graduate examination—for it was this alone which set the general standard of culture throughout the country. He would now ask the Committee to consider whether the system of intermediate education in Ireland could be real when it had to compete with a University of this kind, which constantly drew off schoolboys and transformed them into collegians, when in reality they were only schoolboys. It was impossible for schoolmasters to keep their schoolboys at school long enough for them to master the elements of education, in presence of the attraction of University scholarships and of a University reputation. To return to the University, he would point out that not only was the examination for the pass degree so unfortunately varied, but the standard in each branch was extremely low. According to the Regulations of 1868, the examination in Greek for the degree of Bachelor of Arts extended to two books of Xenophon, and to the 9th Book of the Iliad of Homer, with prose composition in Greek; the examination in Latin comprised Sallust and the Satires and Epistles of Horace; and the examination in History only extended over English History from the year 1603 to the year 1702. Notwithstanding that its educational requirements were so low, the Queen's University was a failure, numerically speaking, and on that ground, also, he opposed the granting of money for its support out of the public funds. Neither he nor anyone in that House, to his knowledge, was anxious to deprive the Secularists of the benefits of a University education in Ireland; but his indulgence did not extend to the providing of the Secularists with a sham secular education. He claimed for the people of Ireland that the present sham system should not be continually quoted against them as a reason for denying them the benefits of a system of education in conformity with their religious convictions and their educational requirements; and that they should not be called upon to support a system of education that was no less hostile to secular knowledge than to Catholic faith, and even to revealed religion. These Colleges, in a word, were hostile to the communication of sound and thorough learning in any respect whatsoever.

also opposed the Item, not merely from a desire to establish religious equality, but also from a conviction that under the present system of education in all its branches—University, intermediate, and primary—the Irish people of every class were left without the means of enlightenment and capacity for progress which they were entitled to enjoy. He believed there was scarcely a single short-coming in the national character which could not be traced to the defective system of education prevailing. Not merely in polite letters, and in their knowledge of Latin and Greek, but in general education, the Irish middle-class of the present day did not stand on a par with the generation that was passing away. Now, he attributed this to some extent to the Queen's Colleges; which not only were ineffective in their own spheres, but had caused the disappearance of good intermediate schools. Finding themselves unpopular, they had done everything in their power to draw away boys from the intermediate schools, and their allurements had been too successful. They had, in fact, killed the intermediate schools. In the town of Galway, a few years ago, there was an excellent intermediate school which sent up good students to Dublin University; but since the establishment of the Queen's College in that town, it had declined and died away. A new and excellent intermediate school did exist under the control of the Jesuits; but it was only by resisting the Queen's College on religious and other grounds that this school maintained its footing. Although the Queen's Colleges were unacceptable to the mass of the people, still, if they performed their duty with dignity and imparted something like an adequate Arts education, they might have done some good—they might have given a tone to the intermediate schools from which their matriculated students came, and established something like competition amongst them. The London University, which maintained a high standard of Matriculation examination, had affiliated to it, he believed, two Roman Catholic Colleges in Ireland, and even in that limited way had done a great deal for intermediate education in Ireland. No doubt there were men sent forth by the Queen's Colleges who ranked very high at the Irish Bar for general culture as well as Professional skill; but in Ireland the general study of literature, &c., seemed always to be associated with the study of the law, and he rather thought it was the Bar which had made these men what they were. Of course the means of obtaining a good University education existed. The Irish people did not complain that it was not possible to get a good education at the Queen's University. What they did complain of, so far as the education there furnished was concerned, was that students could obtain the degree of M.A., ranking in appearance with the degrees of Oxford or Dublin, without being really entitled to it, and that medical men could pass their examination without the knowledge which they ought to possess. The Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that the University question in Ireland ought to be dealt with, and that the demands of the people of Ireland for a system of education consonant with their religious feelings ought to be considered. Now, if he saw any reason to believe that this admission on the part of the Chief Secretary would be followed up by legislation, he should hesitate to offer opposition of the present kind. But what was the fact? The Chief Secretary had been twice asked this Session when the measure he indicated was to be brought forward, and on each occasion his reply was that that depended upon whether the Grand Jury Bill was proceeded with this Session. Now, did the Government mean to say that if hon. Members from Ireland, in their discretion, chose to object to a certain measure of reform in one direction in Ireland, they were not to be allowed to have a measure of reform in another direction—namely, one dealing with the subject of intermediate education? Such a principle, if they persisted in it, could only be regarded as a principle of punishment and retaliation, and would call for the most active opposition which the Irish Members could bring to bear on other measures in that House. He felt so convinced of the necessity of legislating on this subject in all its branches, that he should avail himself of every Form of the House for the purpose of promoting it; and in that course, he believed, he should be backed up by the Representatives of every popular constituency in Ireland.

regretted that it should be necessary to attack an institution which, with all its faults, had certainly done a great deal of good in Ireland, and which he, for one, looked back upon with gratitude and pleasure. But the action of this and of preceding Governments left hon. Members from Ireland no choice. It was rare that that House had even partially attempted to grapple with the difficulties of education in Ireland, and year after year the people of Ireland had to submit to its incompetence or disinclination to deal with a system which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had described, in introducing his University Bill, as "intolerably bad." Thus, the Irish Representatives were forced to oppose Votes and Estimates which they could not but regret opposing, in order to obtain the consideration of their case. He would not enter into the various questions raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). There was much in what the hon. Member had said as to the defects of the education given at the Queen's Colleges; but many of those defects were due to the Government having placed the Queen's Colleges in a most anomalous position—as secular institutions in an intensely religious country. If the Queen's Colleges, therefore, had had to resort to questionable means to obtain students, it was the Government and not the Colleges who were to blame. The whole system of education in Ireland—primary, intermediate, and University education—required revision. In England and Scotland the Universities were independent of the State, but in Ireland every department of education was under the Governmental yoke. The Irish people objected to this system almost as much for its official as for its secular character. They did not object to secular education in itself; but they complained that the Roman Catholics, for their part, should have no State recognition, no aid from the public purse, whilst forced to pay for a system they objected to. The Government exercised in Ireland a spirit of intolerance which they dared not show in England or Scotland; and, as long as they persisted in that spirit of intolerance, they must expect opposition on the part of the Irish Representatives in that House. The merits of the various Colleges were beside the question. What he and others insisted upon, and must insist upon continuously until they obtained it, was a system of education for Ireland which should be untrammelled by the Government, and which should allow the Irish people to educate their children in accordance with their religious convictions.

regarded it as proved that the Queen's Colleges did not supply the amount of University education of which the people of Ireland stood in need, and that, notwithstanding the efficient instruction given in certain branches, their degrees were far from being what they ought to be. The education that these Colleges supplied, in fact, was of the most imperfect and rudimentary character, and entirely unworthy of the name of University education. It was thought that doses of public money would cure Irish grievances; but this money the Irish people did not want. Part of it was Irish, no doubt; but it was raised for the purpose of providing University education, properly so-called, and this was not supplied. It was not sufficient that the Queen's Colleges should supply good intermediate or primary education. That was a different branch of the subject which the Irish people were entitled to have considered also. These Colleges did not supply the education required of them, and until they did so they ought not to obtain grants out of the public funds.

said, he would freely admit that much might be said in favour of the Colleges as Professional training schools, and he would not rest his opinion on the grounds of their deficiency in the Arts degrees, although they were no doubt defective in that respect. He would have protested against the existence of these Colleges even if they had been model Schools of Arts; because they had been formed in defiance of the wishes of the people of Ireland. The name given to them in Ireland spoke whole volumes against them—they were called the "Godless Colleges." The Irish people had taken, very strongly to heart the fact that rather than acknowledge their religion—rather than treat it with the respect to which it was entitled as an ancient Christian faith—the Government had preferred to construct a system of Colleges in which, according to the popular sentiment, which he was not prepared to repudiate or modify, the influence of religion and the existence of the Deity, so far as education was concerned, were ignored. For himself, he based his objection to the Queen's Colleges on the broad ground that they were made suitable for a Pagan and not a Christian people. The primary aim of the Government, in his opinion, ought to have been to satisfy the religious aspirations of the people. This, however, was not done. He did not charge those who had formed the Colleges with any desire to injure Ireland, but he maintained that the boon which they had professed to give had proved to be an evil. That morning he had received a communication from Dublin informing him that a great meeting was shortly to be held under the auspices of very high personages, for the purpose of considering the whole subject. Owing to the form in which it came up, the subject, unfortunately, could not be more than incidentally discussed by hon. Members on the present occasion. He would, therefore, suggest that for the present the Item for the Queen's Colleges should be withdrawn. He did not know what difficulties there might be in the way; he only suggested this course as one which would be peculiarly gratifying to the people of Ireland, as indicating a desire on the part of the Government to consider the subject of these Colleges.

said, he was sorry the Irish Members were compelled to make this resolute stand; but their constituents really felt they laboured under what was no less than a civil disability in regard to education. While the Protestants had Colleges and Endowments, the Catholics had none, although they contributed their share of the Imperial taxation. This Parliament had existed for four years, yet the Government had made no attempt to supply this want, simply because no agreement could be come to as to the bases upon which this education should be employed. They never could be content with anything but a purely denominational education. Granted that they were wrong in this demand, was it wise, just, prudent, or generous, even then, to so retard the progress of a country because they could not agree as to the way in which education was to be given. These Queen's Colleges were nothing but a standing insult to Ireland. Irishmen asked for education based on religious principles; and the very Conservative gentlemen, who educated their sons on these very denominational principles, refused to them the very things they themselves maintained. They asked for education based on religious principles, and they offered to the most religious people in the world pure secularism. This compelled him, and those who agreed with him, to take up a very strong position. Many of them did not wish to be associated with Obstruction, or with wilfully delaying the Business of the House; but their position in this matter was a purely defensive one. They had rights to maintain, and they must maintain them, or they would not be true to their constituents, or no longer worthy of their confidence.

said, when the full discussion came on he should be prepared to show that the very thing objected to—the large Professional element in Queen's Colleges—was absolutely necessary for a poor country like Ireland. In Scotland they had found that by associating University culture with Professional training they secured the conditions of education required for a poor country, even although it was richer in mineral resources than Ireland. The Universities originally arose from the wants of Professional classes. Their training therefore should be encouraged, for it was a lamentable mistake to measure the success of the Queen's Colleges by their Faculties of Arts. It would be a better standard to ask how many doctors, engineers, and lawyers, they produced. Hon. Members complained that the Matriculation examination was not sufficiently severe. No Universities in the world had exclusive examinations barring the portals of entrance except Ireland. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had none, though some of their Colleges had. The Scotch Universities had none. It was true that London University had, for it was not a teaching body, but a mere examining University. Their Matriculation was actually the first step to the degree, like "moderations" in Oxford, or the "previous examination" in Cambridge. The Universities should be freely open to all, for their function was to teach the ignorant, not to shut their portals upon them because they were ignorant. He was sure Irish Members would not desire to destroy Colleges which were ministering to the material prosperity of Ireland.

said, he and many hon. Members who were anxious to take part in the debate and to defend the Queen's Colleges from the charges brought against them, did not intend to speak on this occasion, because the Government declared it was most important that they should get a Vote in Supply that night; and, therefore, they would defer their observations till some other of those numerous occasions which they had been assured should be afforded them for debating this question.

hoped, that, whenever the Government brought on this Vote, they would give full and ample Notice of it, in order that the Irish Members might have full Notice of the debate, and be able to come over for it. He did not believe in the power of convincing the House of Commons on this question. They might have all the argument on their side; but, on this question, they would get very little justice. But a large and determined Irish vote must make an impression both on the House and on the country. As to the two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), they had nothing whatsoever to do with this question. He believed it was very largely true that Universities in poor countries must be chiefly Professional; but the objection of the Irish Members to this Vote was entirely a religious one. He had no doubt they would get a very large Irish majority against these Votes, although the Government could count on two Irish official votes—those of the Attorney General and Solicitor General—and could be sure of a certain amount of support from the men who had the best chance of office. No doubt, also, a very large majority of the Irish people were opposed to their money being spent in this way. The system of Queen's Colleges was opposed to the genius and spirit of the people, and the Irish Members were now resolved to make a determined stand against it.

said, that Irish Members were determined to have religious equality in educational rights, whether of levelling up or of levelling down; and the time had come for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make up their minds which it was to be. They must frankly understand that the hour had come to terminate the anomalous state of things which had hitherto existed in Ireland. He would ask English Gentlemen whether Oxford and Cambridge were of value in their country? What would England be if those Universities were closed for 25 years? Let them endeavour to realize the educational starvation the growing generation would have to suffer if their Universities were swept away, and Universities were put in their place as little in sympathy with the English character and feeling as the Queen's Colleges in Ireland were with the Irish. England had put upon them this educational famine. After for centuries proscribing all education, when a great debt was due to the Irish people, which it would take 100 years not merely of religious equality, but of generosity, to compensate for the moral malformation among the people, what had been the course of the English Government? It had been that described by Sidney Smith, when he talked of setting up butchers' shops along high-roads whore the population did not eat meat. They were offered a system which it was known was repugnant to their religious convictions, and were told that they must starve or feed on the dish provided for them. The Irish people loved education, and they were sorry that they were obliged to do violence to their educational desires in order to maintain their religious convictions. He would ask the Statesmen in that House to contemplate the condition of a people who were governed after the fashion of refusing them everything they desired, and of having something else offered them in its place. While England clung tenaciously to the system of religious education, she offered to the Irish—a most religious people—what a Conservative Member of the House had called the Godless system of Queen's Colleges. They were asked by some English journals whether there was a religious multiplication table or rule of three? That was all very puerile. Of course, the exact sciences could be taught by any body, whether he was a heathen or a Christian; but how would that principle act in teaching moral philosophy and history, for example? The study of history was being absolutely shunted in these Colleges in order to keep up the miserable tight-rope balance of being neither a Catholic nor Protestant. How, for instance, could Professors deal with the Inquisition? As a Catholic, he abhorred it; and, if he were a Professor, would tell his students that Catholicism had been disfigured and nearly destroyed by acts done by the State in the name of the Catholic religion. But no Professor in the Queen's Colleges dared teach history like that in a frank and independent manner. He wished the House to admit that enough time had been spent upon an experiment which, he admitted at one time, commended itself to many wise and good men, who were ignorant of the hardships they were imposing on the Irish people. But this was over and done with; for they had determined that the educational future of the Irish people should not be sacrificed to a theory and an experiment which had utterly broken down.

said, he recognized the very moderate and reasonable spirit in which this subject had been introduced. He could not follow hon. Members on that occasion into their detailed criticisms of these Colleges; but, whatever the merits or demerits of the system, the responsibility for it had been fully assumed by preceding Parliaments, and that decision had been acquiesced in by hon. Members for Ireland. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had said that he (Mr. Lowther) had made use of what amounted to a threat in reference to intermediate education and the Grand Jury Bill. Nothing was further from his intention. He merely said that the time at the disposal of the Government was limited, that they felt themselves bound to bring on the Irish Grand Jury Bill, and that, as a general principle, it was unwise to introduce Bills until there was a reasonable prospect of proceeding with them. He never said that, unless the House passed the Grand Jury Bill, the Bill for Intermediate Education would not be introduced. He hoped the House would consider that the effect of the refusal of this money would be to stop these Colleges. Were they prepared for that? The hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way (Major Nolan) said he was, but he doubted whether the Irish people would follow him in that. He did not at all object to these comments on the Vote of Account, for he could assure the Committee that he was very strongly opposed to the system of taking Votes on Account at all. It was only absolute necessity which compelled the Government to take them. The Ministry were not altogether masters of the time; but he would endeavour to give reasonable Notice of the time when the debate would be resumed.

said, he should vote for the Amendment as a protest against the way in which the Government had dealt with this question of University education in Ireland. Government after Government and Statesman after Statesman had admitted that Irish education required amendment and alteration; but the Representatives of the present Government did not hold out the most distant hope that this Government would attempt to deal with this matter. So long as the educational wants of those who conscientiously objected to a mixed system were, not provided for on equal terms with those who had not such objections—so long there remained civil disabilities imposed on religious and conscientious convictions; and it was unjust to vote money for one and not for the other, thus unfairly handicapping them in the race for educational rewards.

Mr. Speaker—Sir, I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I venture to interpose between the Motion which has been made and hon. Members who have Amendments upon the Paper. I do this in order to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish to accompany that Question with a few observations in explanation. I wish to call the attention of the House for a moment or two to the Papers which were laid upon the Table of the House last night, although, I believe, they are not yet in our hands. It has, however, been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the portions of those Papers which he read last evening contained the most essential parts of the Correspondence on which my Question is based; and it will, therefore, I think, perhaps be not irregular if I venture to say a word or two in regard to them. The House will have observed that the Correspondence to which the right hon. Gentleman referred began with a despatch of Her Majesty's Government to the Austrian Government, and that, as far as we were informed, was the only despatch contained in the Correspondence which had passed between any of the Governments other than those of Her Majesty and of Russia. Now, I venture to think that the Correspondence which has been so described must be quite inadequate for the purpose of giving to the House all that full information which ought to be in its possession, if not at the present, at an early period. The Correspondence, as far as we know, contains the terms of the conditions which were raised by Her Majesty's Government as a preliminary to our entrance into the Congress, and it also contains the objections raised by Russia to the conditions desired by the Government of Her Majesty. But we know perfectly well that—to say nothing of the Governments of other nations—the Governments of Austria and Germany were deeply interested in the assembling of the Congress. We even know that the original invitation proceeded from Austria, and that the Governments of both Germany and Austria have taken and have shown in various ways a very warm and strong interest in the assembling of the proposed Congress. In fact, the questions which the Congress was to assemble to discuss were European questions, and were not in any sense questions which were alone confined to the consideration of this country and of Russia. Well, it is asserted—I do not know with what truth—but it has been asserted frequently, and it has not been contradicted, that the Government of this country stands alone in insisting upon the conditions which they raised as a preliminary to their entrance into the Congress, and that their refusal to join the Congress on the terms formulated by Russia has not been shared by any other European Governments. Now, under these circumstances, I think it must be quite clear to the House that communications must have passed between the Government of this country and the other European Governments in addition to those which have been laid upon the Table. It is impossible that in the state of things which I have described the Government should not have sought to obtain, and should not have obtained, information as to the views which were taken on this subject by the Governments of Austria and Germany, not to speak, as I said before, of the views entertained by the other Powers; and it seems to me that this House ought to be placed in possession of that Correspondence and of those communications—or, at all events, of such parts of them as it may be in the power of the Government to lay upon the Table. We have a right to information which will enable us to judge not only of the actual attitude taken by those Governments, but of the view which they take of the general position and of the position of this country as opposed to the view taken by the Government of Russia. I think, that under any circumstances, there would be the strongest reason for asking the Government to lay upon the Table the Correspondence to which I am referring. I think that in circumstances of such gravity as those which now exist—the probable failure of the assembling of the proposed Congress—a Congress which it was hoped would be the means of restoring peace to Europe—and of restoring tranquillity and good government to those Provinces in the East of Europe which have lately been the scene of a terrible war—it would, in any case, I think, under circumstances such as these, be desirable that the House should be placed in possession of the information, for which I am now asking. But I think the necessity for these Papers is greatly increased, and rendered much more imperative by the nature of the announcements which were made in the two Houses of Parliament yesterday. In "another place," it was stated that, in consequence of the abandonment of the hope that the Congress was about to meet, Her Majesty's Government had found it necessary to take the measure of making the necessary preparations for calling out the Reserve Forces. I need not dwell upon the gravity of that announcement; I need not ask Her Majesty's Government to anticipate the information which will be conveyed to Parliament by them in Her Majesty's Message on Monday next; nor need I ask them to anticipate the statement which the House will have a right to expect from Her Majesty's Ministers in support of the Message; nor need I say anything of my own to press further upon the House the gravity of the announcement that has been made. But I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind the House that, by a simple reference to the Acts of Parliament, to which allusion was made in this House yesterday, it will be seen that the Message which we are to receive on Monday from Her Majesty, by the advice of Her Ministers, must contain an announcement that we are at present in circumstances of either imminent national danger or of grave emergency. The gravity of a situation which can be—and we know must be—described in those terms, needs no comment from me, and is incapable of exaggeration. In these circumstances, it was my intention to have abstained—and I hope the House will think that it will be right to abstain—from any comment on the measure which has been taken—or which has been announced to betaken—by Her Majesty's Government. I think it is due to the Government, and also to Parliament, that we should wait, before making any comment on that measure, for the statement which will be contained in Her Majesty's Message, and for the further statement which may be made by Her Majesty's Ministers. But if it is the intention of the Government—as I infer from what has been said that it is—that the House is in the course of the next week or the week after to be called upon to express an opinion on the measure which has been taken, it is absolutely essential, I think, that the House should be in possession of the greatest possible amount of information. Now, Sir, we cannot be expected to express any intelligent opinion on that measure, unless we know the events which have preceded, and which have formed the necessity for it. And I venture to think that the Correspondence for which I am asking, containing the statement of the attitude which has been taken by the other Powers of Europe, and the statement of our attitude in regard not only to Russia, but to the other Powers, is an essential element in the consideration of this measure. I think that the House ought to know whether, in this grave national crisis, we stand or not in a position of isolation. It has been our misfortune—I do not say now owing to what causes—but it has been our misfortune, more than once in the progress of these events, to stand in a position of complete isolation among the European Powers. I think it is due to the House that we should know, before we enter on the discussion of the measure which the Government is about to propose to us, whether we stand again in that position of isolation; and, if so, in consequence of what causes and for what reason do we find ourselves in that unfortunate position? Sir, it is for these reasons that I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay on the Table further Correspondence respecting the communications that have passed between them and the other Powers with regard to the meeting of the Congress?

Sir, I cannot for a moment complain, either of the Question which the noble Lord has put to me, or of the observations with which he has prefaced it. At the same time, I must ask the House to consider fairly the peculiar position of the Government at the present moment. The circumstances—I wish to speak as gravely and as frankly as possible—the circumstances in which we stand are simply these. The answer which was received from the Government of Russia to a very important communication which had been made by Her Majesty's Government was received and laid before the Cabinet only on Wednesday. The result of that communication was that a resolution was arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, which was to the effect that it would be desirable and proper that Her Majesty should be advised to exercise the power which is vested in Her by certain Statutes, of calling out the Reserve of the Army and of the Militia Forces. As soon as that resolution had been taken, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Derby) dissented from it, and felt himself obliged to tender his resignation. Yesterday, my noble Friend announced that fact in the House of Lords; and it appeared necessary to the Prime Minister—and such was the feeling of all his Colleagues—that, in order to prevent any exaggerated opinion as to what might possibly have been the cause of that important step on the part of my noble Friend, it was right and proper that he should state what the particular ground was upon which that step had been taken. And, therefore, it was that the decision of the Cabinet to recommend Her Majesty that She should exercise that power was communicated to Parliament yesterday. I am sorry that it should have been necessary—although it certainly was necessary—that that decision should be communicated to Parliament before the Papers which were prepared, or were being prepared, were laid on the Table. It would have been more convenient, both for the House and for the Government, that simultaneously the Papers should have been laid on the Table, and that Parliament should have been put in possession of and be able to discuss them at the time when the decision I have referred to was announced. But the House will, I think, understand that it was with the object of preventing misapprehension, which might have been serious and inconvenient, that that statement was made before the Papers were ready. Well, the Papers will be produced as speedily as possible; and I may say now, I believe, with confidence—and in this my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State bears me out—that they will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. But, as the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those who have served in Cabinets, well know—and, in fact, it will suggest itself to every Member of the House—it is impossible that we can produce Papers containing Correspondence with foreign Governments on the spur of the moment, without in the first place ascertaining that the publication which has to be made of those despatches will be made with the consent of the Government with which we have been in communication. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a short delay, in order to ascertain that what is to be published is published with proper authority. I understand that that authority has been obtained, and that these Papers are now in a state in which they can be properly laid on the Table. And when they are in the hands of the House, the noble Lord will see that they contain, not only communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia, but also communication with other Powers. I have no desire in any way to restrain the liberty of the House to discuss this question as fully as they think necessary; but I would venture to put it to the noble Lord, and to hon. Gentlemen generally, whether it will not be more convenient to wait a day or two before entering into a discussion into which we cannot now enter with any advantage? I hope and believe—in fact, I am sure—that the Papers which we present will be in the hands of the House to-morrow morning. The course we propose to adopt is that we should on Monday bring down the Message which Her Majesty will be advised to send to this House, announcing that She has thought it right to take steps towards exercising Her statutory authority to call out a certain portion of our Reserve Forces. That communication will be made on Monday; and I should propose, if it is the pleasure of the House, that the communication from Her Majesty should be taken into consideration on Thursday. Of course, I mentioned earlier in the day the Monday following, my reason being that Thursday next is the day which was set apart for the Financial Statement. It is not very convenient to alter the day for the Financial Statement; but I shall be perfectly prepared to put that down for Monday week. There will be no great inconvenience in that postponement for two or three days, with the understanding that if the discussion which will begin on Thursday should occupy more than the Thursday and the Friday—if that day should be available—it will not be resumed until the Tuesday following, so that the Financial Statement, if it is not made on Thursday, may be made on the Monday following. It would be inconvenient in many ways that it should be postponed any longer. I hope that this will be an arrangement which will be satisfactory to the House. It is not at all the desire of Her Majesty's Government to avoid in any way a full discussion of the position in which we stand; but I would venture to repeat that we have taken this step in consequence of the communications which have been passing between ourselves and the various Powers which are interested in this settlement, and that we feel that the time has come when it is necessary that we should take a decided step in this matter. I may say, generally, that what I understand to be the position of Europe at the present crisis is this. For a number of years—more than it is necessary now to recall—for a considerable number of years, the settlement of the Turkish Empire and of the Provinces lying in the South-East of Europe has been regarded as a matter of European concern, and has interested most, if not all, of the nations of Europe. For the last 20 years, at all events, it has been governed by Treaties which were solemnly entered into by a number of the principal Powers of Europe. Circumstances have occurred which have undoubtedly destroyed or materially altered the basis of the settlement which was arrived at 20 years ago, and there can be no question whatever that it is important that a full and candid examination of the situation should be made, and that those Powers which have been interested in maintaining the status of Turkey for so many years should now be consulted as to the position in which it stands, and as to the position in which it is desirable that that part of Europe should stand for the future. Well, we do not for a moment attempt to close our eyes to facts which are perfectly patent, and which it would be foolish to attempt to lay aside. We cannot for a moment close our eyes to the very great changes which the past year has wrought; and we cannot deny that the issue of the war, which has now been brought to a close between Russia and Turkey, has been so to affect the situation as that it is perfectly right and proper that a fresh examination of the situation should ensue. And, the point of departure being the old settlement under which Europe has so long existed, it is not inconvenient that we should take, as the basis for discussion, the new arrangements entered into in the preliminary Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey. But it would be impossible, of course, that any fair consideration could be given to that Treaty and to those arrangements, and to the whole question, unless the whole question is to be fairly open for discussion, and unless it is to be understood that each and all of the arrangements which affect the various Powers of Europe should be made a fair subject of discussion in any Conference which it may be intended to hold for the settlement of the questions we have attempted to consider. Well, that is all England has asked. We have not attempted to stand on any punctilio, or any question of form. We should have considered it most unjustifiable to do so. We have not desired to throw any impediment in the way of a fair settlement of this question on its merits. We have desired that there should be free and fair consultation and discussion of the various Articles of the Treaty, if that is what is to be placed before the Conference. We think in what we have proposed we have only asked that which is reasonable. We are sorry, and we do not understand why a difficulty should have been raised on the part of any Power to what we have demanded; and we are sorry that, owing to difficulties which we own we are not very well able to understand, there should be an appearance of a difficulty in the settlement at which we have desired to arrive. We have done what we could, and we regret that it is not more satisfactory; but, that being the case, we have to consider what the position of this country is, and what our interests demand. We have to consider the position of this country as one of the Great Powers of Europe, and as having an interest in common with the other Powers in a European settlement, and we have further to consider such interests as may be in any way more peculiar to this nation; and, therefore, it is necessary that this country should, either in Conference or in any other manner, maintain these interests, and maintain the position which we occupy. But I hope that, having explained the view which I take of our position, I may be excused from entering now into any details as to the course which it may be our duty to adopt. Parliament, no doubt, has a perfect right to demand a full and perfect explanation of our policy, and to put any question, and to demand to have the information on any points that it requires. But I would venture to point out—I do not now go into matters of detail—but I would venture to point out this, with regard to the particular step which we are now taking in advising Her Majesty to call out these men of the Reserves. More than a month ago we invited the House to grant us a Vote of Credit for a certain sum of money. It was remarked at the time that we did not ask for any additional men. We replied, that there was no object in asking for any additional force of men, because there were men available if Parliament chose to give Her Majesty power to call them out. These are the Forces to which reference has been made; and the effect of this step, if it should now be taken, will be that the men will be called into the Forces, and that the British Army will be augmented by the amount of the men of the Reserve to which the communication will point.

Sir, I am not at all surprised at the caution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited at the beginning of his speech, or at the request which he made to the House that we should abstain from discussing this question on its merits—that we should wait for the information which is to be laid on the Table—and that we should keep our minds unbiassed and unprejudiced until that information had appeared. A more fair demand could not be made. It was entirely conformable both in spirit and in letter to that which has fallen from my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington); but I confess I was surprised when the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not set the first example of that which he had himself laid down, but that—although he did not enter into details—he should set forth in very intelligible terms the bases of the justification which the Government intend to present to this House for the course which they have taken. Now, I shall endeavour to observe the rules laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer more accurately than he observed them himself. I will not venture upon any counter-statement of the general presumptions which appear to me to lie against the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, until those proceedings shall be further and more sufficiently explained. This, however, I am obliged to do—I am compelled to enter my protest against the attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after he had laid down the principle that there was to be no discussion, to prepossess the minds of the House in favour of the general intentions of the Government, when, according to his own notion, it was totally impossible for the House to appreciate those proceedings. Against such a thing as that I should enter my protest, by whomsoever it might be done, and particularly do I do so when it is done by the Leader of this House. I am bound to say that my knowledge of the question is too limited for me to pronounce any final judgment. My knowledge is confined to what was read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday; but I am also bound to say, after what has fallen from my right hon. Friend, that so far as his statement goes, and the statements of history carry me, I am not prepared to admit—I am prepared to contest—the accuracy of the account which he has given. I go no further than that. I proceed upon information which I know is partial, and I hope that a very different impression will be produced upon my mind when I know the whole case, and that I may come to understand why it is that we are solely responsible for the failure of the Congress, without the co-operation of any of the other Powers. Upon the whole of that portion of the subject I carefully reserve my judgment, and I even venture to repeat that very reasonable demand which my right hon. Friend so properly made and which he so unquestionably departed from, that this discussion may not be entered upon on the present occasion, and that the whole matter may be reserved for the impartial consideration of the House on another occasion.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the effect of the Proclamation would take date? Would it date from the time when it was laid before the House on Monday first, or from the time when the House should have the opportunity of discussing it? It seemed to him that it was incumbent on Her Majesty to afford the House an opportunity for discussion before She made the Proclamation. It must also be matter for regret to many that the right hon. Gentleman should postpone the discussion of the Budget until after this Proclamation. He thought it desirable that the Budget should be known before entering on a discussion which might involve this country in the expenditure of unknown millions, and embark it in unknown difficulties.

said, he would be the last to force on the House a discussion on Papers they had not had the opportunity of seeing, nor would he say a single word on the policy of calling out the Reserve Forces. Whatever his opinions might be on the subject, it was due to the Government and due to the House carefully to refrain from expressing those opinions until an opportunity had been afforded for hearing from the Government a defence of what they had done. But it appeared to him that there was one Question put by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carefully abstained from answering, and that was a Question to which they had the right to demand an explicit answer, which could not be misunderstood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was pleased to say that the position of the Government at that moment was peculiar. Yes, it was peculiar; but there was something far more serious than the peculiar position of the Government, and that was the peculiar position of this country in the eyes of Europe and in the eyes of the civilized world. What was the information received within the last few days? What was the question raised by the noble Lord at the head of the Government? It was that England had insisted on certain conditions with respect to the Conference, and that no other Power of Europe had thought it worth its while to insist on these same conditions. Therefore, it seemed to him that the House and the country had a right to require from the Government an answer to the question—Did England stand alone, or did she not stand alone in her demand that the Treaty should be placed before the Conference, and would that demand being pressed prevent the Conference meeting? It seemed to him this was a subject upon which the Government ought to give some information, for, from every hour they delayed in giving Parliament information, this country suffered. Let them all know what had taken place that day. During the last hour he had been tempted to enter into a speculation as to the depreciation of the value of the securities of this country. ["No, no!"] Yes, if it was necessary that the property and securities of this country should be depreciated, there was no loss that would not be borne if the people were told it was to defend the honour and interests of the country. But they could not conceal from themselves this fact—that the English people, from the depreciation of their property, were some £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 poorer than they were 48 hours since. They knew what a disturbance of trade would be caused by this suspense. There was beginning to be some rift in that depression, but that would be closed up. Therefore, the Question he wished to put to the Government was this—he had carefully refrained from expressing an opinion as to the policy of calling out the Reserve Forces, he had carefully abstained from expressing an opinion as to Papers the House had not had an opportunity of considering; but he wished to ask the Government this plain question—Did England stand alone in pressing the demand on Russia that the Treaty should be submitted to the Conference, or, in this, was she joined by other Powers whose interests were as vitally at stake? It seemed to him, without any anticipation of the discussion next week, that the Government could give-some information on this point; because he ventured to say that there would be great relief to the English people tomorrow morning if the Government could tell them that in this demand England was joined by the other European Powers. There was a common belief that she was pressing demands in which she was not supported by Germany, Austria, Italy, or by any other of the European Powers.

Sir, I do not wish to prolong this discussion for a moment; but I must say I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the proper course in merely anticipating what I am sure would be the entire desire of the House—namely, that we should not only not express any opinion on this stage, but that we should abstain even from discussing the subject until we have full information before us. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone)—though I do not wish to question his right to say so—was not correct when he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone further than he ought to in explaining what the views of the Government were—I say I have no doubt the House will agree with me that my right hon. Friend only desired that there should be no reserve in this matter, and that he was anxious to give to the House and to the country, within the limits which he himself had laid down, every information which could be imparted in the circumstances. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which has been fairly put, I think the only reply which it is possible for me to give is this—he must really wait to see the Papers which will be laid before the House. All of them which it is in our power to communicate will be laid upon the Table. I see the hon. Member smiles; but he will see in a moment the force of what I say. When Correspondence does take place, not only between individuals but between nations, it would not be right,—and might very reasonably be complained of by hon. Members opposite—if, not having the Papers before them, we were to put what they thought a forced construction upon them. It would be very much better, therefore, that the documents should speak for themselves, and then every Member can draw his own conclusion. That, I think, is a fair answer to the hon. Member for Hackney. I hope, therefore, the House will be satisfied with the ventilation of the question which has been given at this stage, and with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government have no wish to delay for a moment the full discussion of this subject. Although the most important of all questions at this time usually is the Financial Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing that it should be postponed until this subject is brought forward in the first place, though, if the discussion be very prolonged, he cannot wait until if be concluded.

reminded the Government that no answer had been given to the Question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).

in answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, said: What I understood to be the undoubted fact, so far as the Statute is concerned, is that, when Parliament is sitting, the Queen, before She can call up what are called by a misnomer the Reserve Forces, but what should be properly designated Her Reserve Force, is bound to communicate to Parliament a Message stating that it is Her intention to do so. If Parliament is not sitting, Her Majesty is bound to give notice to the country by Proclamation—by an Order in Council—that such is Her intention.

asked from what date legal effect would be given to the Proclamation? Would it date from Monday?

Sir, there is no Proclamation in this case; but there will be a communication made to Parliament by Her Majesty, on the responsibility of the Government, to call out the Reserve Force at any moment She may choose. If the Government have been wrong in giving that advice, the House will know how to deal with it in due time.

Sir, I desire to say just one word in explanation. I feel that I would hardly have been justified in taking the course I have done in raising the present discussion—and for which I am responsible—if I had clearly understood what I now understand to be the nature of the Papers which are to be laid upon the Table of the House. My excuse is, that I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say this afternoon that he had read yesterday all the essential portions of the Correspondence. It will be in the recollection of the House when I say that the extracts so read by the right hon. Gentleman had no bearing what-ever upon the views which were taken on this point by other Powers. I now understand, from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, that Correspondence has taken place with other Powers besides Russia, and that we are to wait to see what is contained in it. I think the House will thus see that I was justified, from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, in assuming that the Correspondence to be laid on the Table had no reference whatever to anything except what had passed between our Government and that of Russia.

said, that he did not intend to offer any factious opposition to the Bill passing, and he must repeat the observations he had previously made—namely, that the Bill unduly interfered with the hours during which adults might work. That kind of legislative interference with adult labour deserved the most anxious consideration of the House. He was not one of those who took a gloomy view of the commercial position of this country; but no one who had devoted the smallest attention to the subject could deny this fact—that English trade had to carry on a much keener and much closer competition now than it had to carry on with foreign countries 30 years since; and it seemed to him, to say the least, a perilous position for the House, in the face of this keen and close competition, to say what should be the length of the hours to be worked by any particular industry, not leaving that question to be decided by those who were the most interested and those who were the most concerned—namely, the employers and employed. Five years ago, there was a Bill before the House which was called a Nine Hours' Bill. That Bill was made a Nine and a-half Hours' Bill; but what security had they that some day they might not have an Eight and a-half Hours', an Eight Hours', or even a Seven Hours' Bill? If they once sanctioned the principle of saying that the House should decide what should be the length of a day's work in our great branches of industry, they could feel no security that they would stop at nine and a-half hours. It might come to nine hours, or it might come to eight hours. Again, there was another aspect which this country ought to remember when dealing with such a question. He denied altogether the right of the House to place any impediment whatever in the way of the women of England earning their own livelihood. It was all very well to consider an ideal state of society, in which every woman, when she came to a certain age, should be married and be in a comfortable condition of life, the husband working for her and she at home looking after her domestic duties and attending to her children. That, no doubt, was an ideal which they would all like to see realized. But in politics they had not to do with ideals. They had to face hard facts, and what were the facts with regard to the social condition of this country. There was no fact which was truer, there was none which was more apparent than that hundreds of thousands, he might almost say millions, of women were not thus provided for by husbands, and they had to earn their own livelihood in the best way they could. If they closed to them the avenue of honest employment, depend upon it, at the same time, they opened wide the portals which led to vice, misery, and ruin. He knew it was constantly said that the women of this country had not complained of this legislation. He believed that statement was not altogether correct, because he had received frequent complaints from different parts of the country of the injustice which was inflicted upon women by this legislation. But it was impossible for the Home Secretary or the House to measure the mischief which might be done to those women who had to earn their living by employment at those industries, by legislative interference such as that which was contained in that Bill. If they said to the employers of this country—"You can employ men without any legislative restrictions, but if you employ women we shall impose upon you all kinds of restrictions; you must only leave your workshops or your factories open at certain times; you must have fixed times when your workpeople shall take their meals." What would be the result of all that? Why, no one could doubt that it placed impediments in the way of employing women; it rendered their employment less advantageous than it would otherwise be, and by rendering it less advantageous there was nothing more certain than that they diminished the value of that labour, and by diminishing its value decreased its remuneration. Therefore, from whatever point of view the subject was looked at—whether from the point of view of the general industry of the country, or whether from the point of view of the effect it had upon the social condition of the women of the country who had to earn their own livelihood, he maintained that the House was going beyond its legitimate functions in attempting to intervene with regard to regulating the hours of labour and conditions under which adults should be permitted to be employed. But nothing was further from his intention than to offer any factious opposition to the passing of this Bill. He was aware that the great majority of that House was against him; he was also aware that the great majority of the country at the present time was against him. He believed, however, that public opinion was advancing in the direction of industrial freedom, and the sole reason he had had in making these remarks was that another day, when public opinion might possibly have changed, it should not be said, if then he attempted to raise the question again—"You sanctioned this principle in 1878 without protest; you then allowed the re-enactment of this legislation without objection." He hoped the Home Secretary would think that he had not unduly opposed his Bill. He had not gone further than the limits of Parliamentary opposition, nor would he ask the House to express its opinion upon the third reading of the Bill. He knew the issue would be an erroneous one, because some portions of the Bill all approved. Certainly, he approved of the regulations which secured the education of children, and was intended to prevent their excessive employment. Therefore, a division on the third reading would be a division against portions of the Bill with which they all agreed, as well as those to which he objected. He had, however, ventured to trouble the House with these few remarks in order to place upon record, as he had done in the past, that he objected to the House attempting to interfere with regard to adult labour.

said, no one could possibly appreciate more than he did the action of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). He had a strong objection to some parts of the Bill, but he had not trespassed upon the House in the slightest way unduly, and he (Mr. Cross) was much obliged to him for the course he had taken that night. At the same time, he honestly differed from the hon. Member for Hackney to a great extent, and he thought it but right to give expression to his views, as the hon. Member had done; and, being a native of the county of Lancashire, where a great many manufactories existed, all he could say was, after having read everything he could lay hands upon which related to the subject—and he thought hon. Members would agree with him—that the state of the manufacturing populations since the introduction of the Factory Acts had considerably changed; whereas, if the Factory Acts had not been passed, the populations in these counties would have considerably deteriorated. In fact, they were actually deteriorating when the Acts were passed; and, that being so, he hoped it would be a long time before the House interfered with their working. He desired to make one remark as to the time when the Bill came on for consideration. To everyone who asked him about the Bill, he said it was impossible that it should be brought on that night. But it did come on, and he would remind the House that, with the exception of two, every Amendment on the Paper was accepted by him that night and introduced into the Bill; and although hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper were not all present, he announced to the House all the Amendments he had accepted. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) he did not introduce into the Bill, and for this reason—that his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council was introducing a Bill into the House of Lords that evening, in which a clause relating to the casual employment of children, and to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow referred, was introduced. Therefore, he thought it was much better to come down in that way. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) would acknowledge that the most important of his Amendments were accepted; and as to one he did not accept, he thought he should have been able to show, had the hon. Member been present, the great difficulties in the way of adopting his views, and to which he was sure the hon. Member would have assented. He thanked both sides of the House for the way in which they had assisted the Government in passing the Bill through Committee in all its stages, and he hoped that might be considered for a long time a settlement of the question. It would, at all events, be a great boon to all those who were in the habit of seeing the Factory Acts carried out, for they would be able to see in a Bill of about 100 clauses exactly what the law was, and not have to look from Act to Act for information—so that, he believed, hardly an Inspector, having to deal with the Acts, could thoroughly give an honest opinion as to what really was the state of the law. He thought the fact that they had gained that was something. It was not the theory of the Factory Acts that Parliament wished to interfere in the least with the hours of labour of any person who, in the opinion of Parliament, was able to think for himself and judge what number of hours he could work without detriment to his health. Therefore, men had always been excluded from the Bill as far as hours were concerned; and as far as safety was concerned, that was another matter. As far as the labour of women was concerned, he quite agreed that wherever adult women could be left alone they should be. The hon. Member for Hackney had made a mistake when he said the Bill would interfere with the labour of ordinary women who were working for their own livelihood. It did nothing of the kind—with such women it had nothing whatever to do. In fact, anyone who went through the Bill would see that the tendency had been to relieve, to a great extent, many cases of restriction upon adult women from the provisions of the old law. He again thanked the Committee and the House for the attention they had given to the Bill, which, he hoped, would now be read a third time.

said, as one who had Amendments on the Paper to the Bill, he felt it his duty to corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He had given up all intention of moving his Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman having informed him that they had been adopted as clauses in an Education Bill now passing in the other House.

said, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had said that the Bill was a reflection on the great body of people who had been entrusted with political power. He disputed that statement entirely. The Bill was not intended to protect those who were already protected by their friends, but to protect those who were open to and liable to have injustice done them. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had brought in and carried that Bill—a fact which would redound to his honour and credit as a statesman. He was confident that the people of this country would never return to the condition of things relating to the employment in factories which existed 30 years ago; and if the hon. Member hoped to live to see a return to those times, he (Mr. Macdonald) believed he would arrive at an age which no one had ever yet been known to attain.

agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), that the least possible restrictions should be put on female adult labour; but he must add that, instead of increasing those restrictions, that Bill lessened them. He congratulated the Home Secretary on having achieved what was a most useful result—the consolidation of an enormous mass of matter. They knew the difficulty which had arisen from the former state of things, and he hoped the assistance which the right hon. Gentleman had had from the House in passing that Bill would induce the Government to turn their attention to the many other subjects which required similar treatment. If the Home Secretary, when the day came for him to retire from office, left behind him many as useful Consolidation Bills as the one they then had under consideration, ho would certainly have earned the thanks of the whole country.

observed, that in his absence the other evening the Home Secretary had accepted two Amendments of his, to which he attached real importance. A good deal of feeling had been excited in Ireland in reference to the subject to which he was going to call attention; and the Amendments he was going to move, as they now stood in the Bill, would give perfect satisfaction and remove all difficulties. He thanked the Home Secretary for having accepted his Amendments.