asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the first class staff sergeants of the Irish Militia receive the same fuel and light allowance as the first class staff sergeants of English and Scotch Militia regiments; and, if not, if he would explain to the House why?

Sir, I have to state, in answer to the lion. Member, that I am not aware of there being any difference whatever between the first-class Staff sergeants of the Irish Militia and those of English and Scotch Militia; but if the hon. Member will give me any particular case in which such a difference exists, I will inquire into it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he intends to introduce the Bill for the amendment of "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875?"

, in reply, said, he was sorry that the Bill introduced on the previous day for the amendment of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875, had not been printed; but he hoped it would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few hours.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the number of Veterinary Surgeons disqualified as regards eligibility for promotion to the first-class grade by the operation of the Veterinary Warrant of 187e, and the reason why those Veterinary Surgeons who have completed the twelve years' qualifying service still remain unpromoted; and, whether certain Letters and Documents complaining of and urging a reconsideration of the Warrant, which were received at the War Office prior to the commencement of the present Session, have yet been referred to him; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision on the subject?

, in reply, said, he was not at present prepared to give the numbers referred to in the first part of the Question; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would repeat that part of the Question at a future date, he would endeavour to supply them. With regard to the reconsideration of the Warrant, there were certain calculations which would have to he made before he could give a decision on the matter, and owing to pressure of Business, the actuary had not been able to furnish him with the results of those calculations up to the present time.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, considering the distress that exists in Ireland, and the urgency of some of the applications for works under the Fishery Piers Acts, the Government will favourably consider and soon decide on the list of applications specially recommended by the Commissioners of Public Works for immediate execution, without waiting for the completion of Ardglass Harbour?

Sir, I quite admit the importance of the subject which the hon. Member has brought before me in the Question he has put. I am at present in communication with the Board of Works about one or two applications for grants for harbours; but my difficulty at present is that no provision has been made for these works in the Estimates. However, that is a difficulty I shall endeavour to overcome, if I find from the Correspondence with the Board of Works that I am able to carry out the object of its recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the inquiry that has been, or is now being, made into the cause or causes of the recent explosion at the Blantyre Collieries, near Hamilton, is to be of purely a private character, such as are common in Scotland; and, as such, to be seen only by Government officials; and, whether he will present to the House a summary of the result of the inquiry, when completed?

Sir, as the inquiry by the Procurator Fiscal is solely directed to the question whether criminal proceedings should be taken against any person or not, and does not necessarily touch any important question as to the administration of the pit, I have determined that it had better be conducted in private. After that inquiry, I will send down Mr. Dickinson to make a further investigation as to the administration of the colliery.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What truth there is in the following statement of the "Lancet," copied into the "Army and Navy Gazette" of the 26th ult. respecting the return march of the 10th Hussars beyond the Indus, viz.:—

"The 10th Hussars, who, it will he remembered, lost fifty men in crossing the Cabul River at night some four months ago, have again been unfortunate, and head the list of cholera casual- ties—at Fort Balley, the second march from Gundarnak, they reported fifteen deaths from cholera; fourteen more fatal cases occurred at Dakka, and six at Bosawul;"

Sir, I have very little information on this subject. The only official information I can trace is a letter from the officer commanding the 10th Hussars, in which he states that unusually large drafts were required, and that recruiting would have to be carried on vigorously; and, in connection with that, reference is made to the regiment having passed through a country where a good deal of cholera has prevailed. That is the only reference I can find. I have no means of knowing whether the facts stated in the Question are correct; and as to the latter part of the Question, whether an order for forced marches would have been approved by me, that is a matter on which I must suspend my judgment, as it would very much depend on the circumstances of the case.

asked, Whether the Secretary of State for War would grant a Return of the strength of all the regiments at the time of their advance on Ali Musjid, and at the time of their falling back to get beyond the Indus—a return which would of course include the casualties in the 10th Hussars; and, whether he would inquire of the Viceroy why the regiment was hurried on when suffering from cholera?

Sir, I believe the real reason why the regiment was hurried forward was, because it was attacked with cholera, and because it was desirable to move it as quickly as possible out of the district where cholera prevailed, and that it had no reference to the breaking down of the bridge, which could not have been anticipated.

Were there forced marches?

I am afraid I cannot answer that Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, seeing he has made a Parliamentary Paper of the North Eastern Railway Engineer's Report on the Westinghouse Brake, he will ask the Caledonian Railway Company to get a Report from their Engineer on the Steel-McInnes brake, and make that a Parliamentary Paper also?

Sir, a copy of the Report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which has been sent to us by Mr. Harrison, the Engineer of the North Eastern Railway Company, was presented to the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); but the President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly stated that we decline to give any opinion as to the relative merits of competing brakes. With regard to Papers on the subject of continuous brakes, my noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) has stated that as this controversy excites so much interest, in Parliament, he thinks it right to lay upon the Table any Papers of interest concerning the various brakes which are sent to the Board of Trade, which hon. Members may wish to have made public in this way; but we must entirely decline to ask particular railway companies for reports as to particular forms of brake.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a copy of a petition presented by natives of British Burmah to the Chief Commissioner of that Province, the prayer of which was that the sale of opium in Burmah might be entirely prohibited, and that an extra tax be put upon the land to make up the loss of revenue; whether he has received from the Chief Commissioner a Report of the results by an inquiry which the Chief Commissioner had instituted as to the effects of the sale of opium in Burmah; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House these and other documents relating to the sale of Government opium in British Burmah?

Sir, the only answer I can give to the Question of the hon. Member is that we have received no Petition on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it is proposed to abolish the office of Beer-taster at the India Office; and, if so, whether any compensation will be given to those who have filled the office during the last ten years, and have effected great economies?

Sir, the examiners of malt liquor have hitherto been appointed from year to year. It is now proposed to adopt a less costly; but it is thought equally efficient, system, of examination, and it will, therefore, not be necessary to renew these appointments. Upon the question of compensation I can express no opinion; but I have no doubt that any application would receive careful consideration from the Secretary of State in Council.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances under which the office of distributor of Stamps at Greenock is to be transferred to the Excise; whether those employed in that office are to be discharged without notice; whether interim appointments are not usually made in such cases in order to give those in the office time to find other employment; and, whether he will not be so good as to direct that there should be some delay in this case, seeing that some of those employed have served many years?

Sir, the transfer is taking place in consequence of the death of the late distributor, and is in accordance with the practice which has been followed for the last 10 or 12 years. The clerks employed by the late distributor were in his, not in the public, service, and their connection with the business of stamp distribution ceases because of his ceasing to be distributor. Interim appointments are sometimes made in these cases; but only when the interests of the service require such appointments, and not merely "to give those in the office time to find other employment." In the present case, the collector of Inland Revenue is ready to take over the business at once, and as considerable economy will result, I should not be justified in delaying the transfer.

Will the employés be discharged without any notice at all?

They are not employés of the Government. The employé of the Govern- ment up to this time has been the distributor. He is dead. Those persons are connected with the office as his servants, and on his death they ceased to be in connection in reality with the office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is in a position to make a communication to the House respecting the state of the relations between the settlers and the Maories in the northern island of New Zealand; and, if it is true that preparations are being made to "settle at once and for ever the native difficulty" in accordance with the ideas of these settlers?

Sir, I have heard nothing from Sir Hercules Robinson on this subject, and should, therefore, infer that the New Zealand Government do not consider there is anything very serious in the state of affairs; and as the latest news from New Zealand with regard to it which has appeared in the Press is six weeks old, I should hope that any fears of a disturbance which may have existed have by this time subsided.

asked, What would be the Business taken on Satur-and on Monday; and, when the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be proceeded with?

said, the Government were anxious to proceed with the Bill as soon as possible; but they were obliged to take the Public Works Loans Bill first. That would stand as the First Order on Saturday, and the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be taken as soon as conveniently might be.

said, he rose to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, to put himself in Order, he would conclude with a Motion if necessary. He wanted to call attention to the state of the Older Paper. There were no less than 36 Orders of the Day—Government Orders—downforthat night, and almost the whole of them were in reference to matters which were still contested. Certainly, it was a serious inconvenience to many lion. Members of that House, that they should be brought down there lest any of those Bills should be brought on, as to the passing of which there could be no longer the slightest chance in the present Session. He did think it was not too much to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear the Paper a little, in order that some of them might be able to leave earlier than they would be able to do otherwise. Of those 36 Bills, four of them had not even reached the second reading. They knew that, from time to time, the Government was bringing in new Bills, and Bills of considerable importance, which they hoped to be able to pass the present Session. For instance, there was an Amendment to the Artizans' Dwellings Bill, which was really very important, and which required consideration. Now, he did not say anything as to the Bills which were waiting in Committee; but he would say a word or two about one Bill which was awaiting its second reading, and that was the Public Works Loans Bill, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced he would take as the First Order on Saturday next. He begged to point out to the House that this was a Bill of the most important character. It affected something like 60 Acts of Parliament—materially affected them; for, in some cases, it amounted to a practical repeal of legislation. The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were hotly contested, and he asked if it was possible that a Bill of that kind could be passed at this late period of the Session? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a most unusual course. He had attached the contentious clauses of the Bill to an ordinary Money Bill, and to the latter part there was not the slightest objection whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he must get his money; but there was not the slightest objection to him getting his money, provided he removed the objectionable clauses. Now, he was quite sure that, even if it were possible that a Bill of this kind could be carried this Session, it was not right to the House that it should be passed. It was a subject of the greatest possible importance, which ought to have been brought on earlier in the Session, and if it had been brought on earlier in the Session, and the House were in favour of it, of course he should be prepared to accept the decision of the majority; but he was not prepared to accept the decision of a majority now, at the present period of the Session, upon a matter which affected, really to a great extent, the whole of our local government. The appeal he wanted to make was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might relieve the Order Paper of some of those 36 Orders, and particularly with regard to this Public Works Loans Bill, considering the lateness of the Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might abandon the clauses to which he had referred, leaving the whole matter for consideration, when it could be fully discussed in another Session. If the Bill were taken on Saturday, it appeared to him that opposition to the limits of obstruction would be perfectly justifiable. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, they had had the "massacre of the innocents" for the year, and what was asked for now was the massacre of the guilty—those Bills which had no chance of passing. There were eight or ton legal Bills on the Paper, some of which had not even reached the stage of a second reading. He called particular attention to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, which the Government had suddenly brought forward, and intended to renew for three years, in order to tide over the General Election before dealing with the question. He considered such a proposition simply monstrous. Any important measure passed now in a House of 60 Members, at the fag-end of the Session, would not command the respect of the country.

complained of the delay in the presentation of Papers on Egyptian affairs. This delay he attributed to the difficulties the Government thought they might be placed in by the questions that would be founded upon the documents he referred to. He appealed to the Government to give some opportunity for discussing Egyptian affairs, and the deposition of the Rhedive, observing that they would otherwise be considered to have deliberately shirked discussion because they could give no satisfactory explanation of their conduct. It was quite time that the constant interference of Her Majesty's Government in the affairs of small and weak countries should be put a stop to. If the question was not brought forward and properly discussed before the Session was closed, the Government would have disregarded the pledge which they themselves had previously given on the subject. The matter had been treated much too lightly by the Government. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He was glad to find that observation carried conviction even to the prejudiced minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He also pointed out that there were several Bills which might be conveniently removed from the Notice Paper.

said, that the Public Works Loans Bill could not possibly be passed in its entirety in the few remaining days of the Session. At the same time, it was absolutely necessary that the money part of the Bill should be passed this Session, to enable the Commissioners to fulfil the engagements into which they had entered. He advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to limit the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill to its two first clauses, which were really the only part of it that was asked for, and there would then be no objection to its passing on that side of the House.

urged the withdrawal of the Bankruptcy Bill, and trusted that the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would only be passed in its simplest form. This period of the Session was not the time to legislate in a crude and inconsiderate manner on such an important subject as Bankruptcy.

declared that if the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill were limited to the two first clauses, as suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey), it would not be sufficient to give the relief that was required, and would not, in fact, meet one-half of the case. The great majority of unlimited joint-stock banks were not in a position to avail themselves of any Act to limit their liability, by reason of the fact that too large a proportion of their capital was called up, and enough uncalled capital was not left to afford a sufficient security to their depositors. Consequently, some such clauses as those contained in the Government Bill, for providing reserved liability were absolutely indispensable. He earnestly hoped the Government would adhere to their proposals as far as those points were concerned.

thought it would be dangerous to pass, in regard to Bankruptcy Law, what he might describe as an explaining Bill this Session, with a promise of a consolidating Bill in next Session. Such an Act as he had referred to would be simply an unsettling, rather than an explaining Act. As the Bill now stood, there were no less than nine pages of Amendments to it, some of them of the most important character; and as the Long Vacation had commenced, it could not be expected that the legal Members would remain in the House to discuss it.

thought the House had not been fairly treated with regard to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill. That hon. Members took a very great interest in that measure was shown by the fact that there were four or five pages of Amendments on the Paper, and they were asked to shelve the question entirely for three years. He thought that was not a right course to take with the House. They had been promised that Bill over and over again, and now, at the end of the Session, Members were asked to give up their opposition to it. He himself was asked by the Government to take off his block, in order that this important Bill might be brought on at any hour, and rushed through the House, not in its present form, but as a Continuation Bill for three years, thus shelving the question of any amendment of the present law by the present Parliament. He thought that was going too far. The answer he gave was, that he would be very happy to take off the block if the Government would continue the Bill only for one year, and promise them a Bill again next year. He thought the House might be content with that arrangement, seeing that within a reasonable time it would have a chance of discussing this important matter.

said, that he was not at all surprised at the complaints made by hon. Members who had addressed the House of the state of Business which the Order Book represented. On the contrary, he was convinced that these complaints were well founded. By far the greater part of the Bills introduced at the commencement of the Session were about to be thrust out at the end of it; while a complete uncertainty reigned as to which of their measures Her Majesty's Government would now press upon an exhausted House at the end of a weary Session. He hoped that the House would allow him to represent, but with all possible respect for the House itself, that unless measures were adopted to secure time for the due consideration of important measures early in each Session, and. during the body of the Session, it was impossible that these measures should be considered by full Houses, while the energy of hon. Members were unexhausted. Experience had proved that there was no insurmountable difficulty in attaining that object, but much depended on the manner in which the House was led; and after what had occurred during the present and the two last Sessions, to which he would not further refer, it was manifest that, unless adequate measures were adopted for securing regularity and a reasonable expedition in the proceedings of the House, the House would always, at the close of each Session, when exhausted, find itself in the state of incumbrance and uncertainty which at present prevailed.

admitted that the block of Business this year was unusually great, and he was anxious, as far as possible, to diminish the pressure upon the time of the House. At the same time, he thought there was great force in the remark of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that if the time of the House in the early part of the Session was taken up in lengthened discussions, it was really impossible to get on with the Business as rapidly as they could wish; and when they were met by two practices which now prevailed—one of putting a block against every Bill, so as to prevent its being brought on at a late hour, and the other of asking for pledges that particular Bills should be brought on as a First Order on some day or other—it was impossible to avoid the difficulty in which they now found themselves. There were a great many Bills on the Paper which had marks against them, which, if persevered in, would render it impossible to proceed with them; but, as regarded some of them, he thought that hon. Members might be disposed to remove their objections, when they might pass—such, for instance, as the Chartered Banks (Colonial) Bill, as to which he did not feel at all sure, when it was understood there would be some strong objection to it; but, with regard to other measures, he thought the Government must come to a conclusion, especially as to the Bankruptcy Bill. They regretted exceedingly that that Bill, which was prepared with great care by the hon. and learned Attorney General, could not, owing to the pressure of other Business, be brought on at a time when it could be fully and satisfactorily discussed; but after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield, who took the subject up in a practical way, and who spoke in the interests of the mercantile community, he could not but acknowledge that it was desirable and necessary to lay the Bill aside. There might be one or two other Bills in the same connection which, perhaps, might also go, but he would rather not name them at present. With regard to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, it was, no doubt, promised last year that it should not be continued again, and that the annual continuance Bill should be brought forward this year, early in the Session, in a shape which would be more or less complete. This Bill had been brought forward, and it had been on the Notice Paper. There did not seem to be, certainly, the same reasons for pressing it forward as some hon. Gentlemen had suspected; but the Government was anxious that this should have been passed in the course of this Session. However, they found themselves so late in the Session that it was impossible to expect a full discussion of the important questions raised by the Bill. As the measure must be continued in some shape or other, he would propose to re-commit the Bill pro formâ, and cut it down, making it simply a continuance Bill. It would be proposed, however, to make it a continuance Bill for a single year, and it would be proposed to make a change in the law to this effect—that the trial of Election Petitions shall be before two Judges, instead of one. That change, he believed, might be made if they continued the Bill only for a single year. He thought there need be no delay in getting through the Bill as it would now be submitted to the House. As to other Bills, he should carefully go through the Order Book and see the Bills he could take off. He was very anxious to proceed with the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill, and he thought it was desired by the mercantile community. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) suggested that the Bill should be cut down to the first two clauses. When the Bill got into Committee, it would be seen whether that course was thought satisfactory or not; he considered, from what had reached him, there would be two opinions on that question. He believed that, when they got into Committee, it would be found that the difficulties were not nearly so great as was supposed. Then there was the Public Works Loans Bill; and with regard to what had been said on that subject, he must say he did not think the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was the Member of that House who had a special and particular right to make an appeal. The Bill was one of ver}' great importance. It dealt with a matter to which he had, more than a year ago, called attention in a Budget speech. A question of considerable financial importance was involved, and it was a question on which the House ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion. With regard to the fact that the Bill stood on the Paper so late in the Session, he must remind the House what had happened with regard to it. At the request of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he gave a promise, early in the Session, that the Bill should not be brought forward except as the first Order of the Day. A small technical error happened in the way the Bill was originally delivered. He never had the slightest hint that there was such an error as would impede the progress of the Bill, although that fact was perfectly well known to the hon. Member for Birmingham at an early period.

said, it was perfectly well known to him that there was an irregularity in the Bill; but it was not known to him that it was not also known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Then he was supposed to have allowed that Bill to remain on the Order Book for several months, knowing well that there was this irregularity in it, knowing, at the same time, that whenever the Bill came on, the hon. Member for Birmingham would be able to take advantage of it. The Bill was brought forward as the First Order of the Day on Wednesday fortnight, for the purpose of fair discussion, and the irregularity was immediately pleaded, and he was obliged to put the Bill off. In these circumstances, he felt bound, in point of honour, not to break the pledge given earlier in the Session—that a Bill of this importance, which really would not take a very long time to discuss, should be brought forward. He was now asked to drop it. All he could say was—"I won't." He was exceedingly sorry to take any course that would be inconvenient to the House; but this was a matter in which personal honour was concerned, and it would be absolutely necessary to take some steps by which the judgment of the House would be taken on this Bill. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), he hoped there would be an opportunity found for the discussion of Egyptian questions. The hon. Baronet was in error in supposing that the Papers had been deliberately kept back. They were now nearly ready; indeed, he was surprised they had not been delivered already; and he hoped there would be time for a discussion of a question which the Government were most anxious to have discussed.

thought that, considering all the difficulties of the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the House very fairly; but he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that this would be a lesson to them in future Sessions, to consider at the beginning how more effectively to carry on the Business. They had questions of this kind raised at the close of every Session; but he never knew an occasion when there was so much reason for them as now. He was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the Bankruptcy Bill could not be proceeded with and that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill would not pass without an important addition. The Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill, he quite agreed, they would have to consider; and as to the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill, he thought it was evident that would give rise to a good deal of discussion. As to the Public Works Loans Bill, on which, on Saturday next, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must expect some discussion, he wished to say he was not aware of the irregularity until the day it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham. He was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware of the irregularity.

said, he wished to explain. What happened was this. When the Bill was brought in, he accidentally gave a wrong copy into the office. It was not sent to the Treasury, as usual, to be revised before being distributed; but as soon as he was aware that it was a wrong copy, he sent one of the officers of the Treasury down to the House to know what was the right course, and the officers of the House sent word that if he gave another copy in that would do. He took that course, and he took for granted that this correct copy would take the place of the one delivered by mistake two days before. He never heard a word on the subject again until the hon. Member for Birmingham raised an objection.

said, no one thought of charging the Chancellor of the Exchequer with irregularity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had lightened the Order Book of two important measures, and the House could not expect him to do more on so short a notice. He appealed to him whether, between that day and to-morrow, he could inform the House what other Business he intended to take.

, referring to the Great Seal Bill, said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew perfectly well the terms on which he was ready to take off the Paper the Notice he had given, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would only communicate to him that he agreed to those terms, the only objection he had to the Bill would be removed. Some remarks had been made as to the difficulty the House had got into in consequence of the little progress made with Public Business this Session. He thought there was a great deal of exaggeration on that subject. People out-of-doors were in the habit of saying that the House had done very little this Session, when they had really done a good deal. The Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was equivalent to three or four considerable Government measures. He had some means of knowing something about that Bill before the commencement of this Session, and he always thought it would take a great deal of time. The number of days that Bill was in Committee did not exceed, or even equal, the number of days occupied in the consideration of the Ballot Bill, which probably had only a third as many clauses as the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. He did not wish an impression to go forth that the House of Commons was less capable, than at any former period, of performing the functions that devolved upon them.

was understood to express regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not acceded to the appeal of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) in regard to the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill. He also explained that his reason for putting down a Notice of opposition to the Chartered Banks (Colonial) Bill was that, not understanding fully the position of these banks, he could not assent to its principle. He disapproved the conduct of the Government with regard to it. It was only introduced on Saturday last, and it was read a second time on Tuesday morning, before the Bill was circulated. That was not a proper way to deal with a measure affecting important principles, of which the House had no cognizance. There was in the Bill nothing to show to the House what its principles were, and what the powers and privileges were which it proposed to grant and continue to the Colonial Chartered Banks. He deprecated such a mode of introducing an important Bill as disrespectful to the House, and calculated to make the public feel that the Public Business was not properly attended to. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to withdraw the Bill. He wished also to refer to the Scotch Poor Law Bill. This measure was introduced for the purpose of providing for Scotland an increased grant in aid of the cost of providing for the medical relief of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was not at all necessary that a Bill should pass through the House to effect the object desired. He offered the suggestion to the Government that the Board of Supervision should be given the sums deemed necessary to put Scotland on a footing with England and Ireland, subject to the condition that it must be distributed according to rules to be laid down by the Government.

said, with reference to the Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment Bill, that he had, in consideration for the convenience of hon. Members, made up his mind to withdraw the Bill before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real object of the Bill was to give redress to the poorer clergy who were wholly deprived of their incumbencies by the operation of the Church Act of 1869, though that Act did not contemplate such a result. Therefore, the Bill did not propose in any degree to challenge the principles of that Act. At this late period of the Session he was determined to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged; but he hoped that next Session the Government would aid him in passing the Bill at as early a period as possible.

said, that with respect to the Public Works Loans Bill, he might be permitted to say that he exceedingly regretted that the course he and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had pursued should have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer any annoyance. It was certainly not his, or his hon. Friend's wish that the right hon. Gentleman should have experienced any annoyance. He thought, however, it only right to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a year ago, when the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) brought forward his Hypothec Bill, and before the second reading substituted an amended Bill in precisely the same way as had been done in the present instance, objection was immediately taken to the second reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

said, he took objection upon the second reading.

said, that the Home Secretary acted regarding the Hypothec Bill just as he and his hon. Friend had done respecting the Public Works Loans Bill. They, however, did not wish to have any unpleasant feeling in the matter, and regretted very much to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should imagine that he had any ground of complaint against them. At the present time they would be quite willing to allow the right hon. Gentleman to take the second reading of the Bill as a matter of form, if they were to understand that in Committee those portions of the Bill which were of a contestable nature should not be pressed at this late period of the Session, because although it was perfectly true that the Bill was introduced early in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman had never had an opportunity of placing it on the Paper in a position in which it could fairly be discussed. Therefore, they were entitled to say that if, in the expiring moments of the Session, a Bill was introduced involving matter of that kind, they would be justified in using every endeavour in their power to prevent the Bill passing. In reference to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, distinct pledges were given last year by the Government to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Those pledges had not been redeemed; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that they should be allowed to continue the Bill for another year with slight alteration, the Government undertaking that next year they would deal with the question. He was in a position to say that the hon. Baronet agreed with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, providing that there would be a repetition so to speak of the pledge given last year. He gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was willing that that should be so; but in order that it might appear in the records of their proceedings, he would ask the Homo Secretary, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not, according to the rules of debate, speak again, to rise in his place and assure them that the Government would feel themselves under the obligation of dealing with the question early next Session.

felt convinced that if the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill were extended to England, it would add largely to the expense of the trials and would diminish the efficiency of the Courts. It would be very difficult to spare two Judges in England, but it would not be difficult to provide them in Ireland. He noticed that the Report on the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill was set down for the First Order to-morrow; but he thought it should not be so taken until after the Bill had been reprinted.

said, the recommendation of the Committee applied equally to England.

, said that there never had been any understanding that the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill should be taken as the First Order. Supply must be concluded before the Bill could be taken. If Supply were closed that evening, the Report of Supply would be taken tomorrow, and then the Bill in question would come on. With reference to the Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment Bill, the hon. Member (Mr. Plunket) had exercised a wise discretion in proposing to discharge the Order for the Second Reading. The subject was, no doubt, of great importance, but the Government did not feel bound to deal with it, as the Bill was intended to redress a grievance for which they were not responsible.

said, it would be impossible for the House to take the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill to-morrow, because it had not yet been reprinted.

hoped the reprinted Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in time to allow of its being taken at the Evening Sitting.

, in response to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already signified that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward the subject of corrupt practices early next Session, and he did not know that any further pledge could be given. Although he was aware that the discussion which had taken place was quite natural, he must admit having been astonished at the minute details which had been spoken of by hon. Members, and as almost every Bill in the Order Book had been discussed, he hoped the House would be allowed to proceed with the Business.

asked for a clear understanding with regard to the Public Works Loans Bill.

said, that after he had made his statement upon the subject of the Bill on Saturday, it was possible hon. Members would not see much difficulty in the way of its passing.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering that the Rolls and Records of England and Scotland have been to a large extent already calendered, and many of them printed, the Government will resume the work on the Irish Public Records, which has been suspended for over ten years?

, in reply, said, that no provision had been made in the Estimates of the current year to cover the expenditure which had been incurred by the work; he would, however, before the preparation of the next Estimates, consult his Colleagues of the Treasury on the subject.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the insufficiency of the supply of water to the poor, and especially to the occupiers of artizans' and labourers' dwellings in the East London "Water Company's district; and, if he will cause an inquiry to be instituted with respect thereto, and also to the powers vested in the East London Water Company, by which it declines to deliver water at a greater height than forty feet, with a view to remedial measures being adopted?

, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into the subject, and had been informed that it was not the fact that any general complaint had been made by or on behalf of the poor people at the East End of London, with regard to an insufficient supply of water. Complaints had been made from time to time; but there had been none recently, so far as he was aware. A complaint had recently been made by the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, that certain buildings which they had adapted for the poorer classes were not adequately supplied with water. The Water Company contended that the supply was actually in excess of the Parliamentary obligations under which they lay; and they also alleged that the Dwellings Company had declined to make arrangements suitable for the re- ception of the water. However that might be, certain it was that the East London Water Company were not bound to furnish water to a higher level than 40 feet.

rose to call attention to the case of Mr. John Croker, and to move—

"That the punishment inflicted on Mr. John Croker, late Sub-Inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary, by reduction in rank in 1867, and subsequent dismissal from that force for offences of which he declared himself to be innocent, without first affording him an opportunity of proving his innocenee before an independent tribunal, was not just, and in the opinion of this House such an opportunity ought now to be given."

did not think that the Chief Secretary had been rightly informed in the matter. The real question was, whether the fresh inquiry having miscarried, Mr. Croker was not now entitled to another, which would carry out the promise given by the Government to the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Bruen). The facts were that Mr. Croker was reduced from the first to the second class of inspectors without an inquiry, and that because he insisted upon inquiry, he was dismissed. Let them look at what took place when this subject last came before the House. It was then admitted that, in the first instance, the information on which the Government acted was inaccurate. If that were so, could the present Chief Secretary rely on the information which he now received from the Constabulary authorities? On the previous occasion, it was urged, as against the veracity of Mr. Croker, that no draft Report of Mr. Hamilton, as he alleged, really existed; but it was now admitted, as the result of the inquiry in Dublin, that there was evidence that such a draft Report did exist. But this was a by-issue, and what was asked was that it should be disregarded, and that there should be an inquiry into the real merits of the case. He begged to second the Motion.

said, he regretted that he could not consent to re-open this case. Let the House see its history. There were several reports made against Mr. Croker by successive Inspectors General, by Sir Duncan Macgregor and Sir H. Brownrigg, and as the result of an inquiry?which took place, it was proved that his financial position was, through his own fault, not what it ought to have been. It was also shown that he had violated the regulations of the Service in various respects. When, in 1868, Colonel Wood recommended his dismissal on the ground of a long series of offences, it was laid before the then Chief Secretary, who assented to his dismissal. On the faith of a document circulated by Mr. Croker, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) brought the matter before the House two years ago. The then Solicitor General promised that there should be a new inquiry. It was said that this promise had not been carried out; but that he denied, the duty of making the inquiry having been deputed to a Queen's Counsel. Mr. Croker appeared before him by counsel. In the course of the proceedings a document was produced which was said to be a Report by the late Mr. Hamilton, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; but it was impossible to believe that such a document as that was could, even as a rough draft, have proceeded from a gentleman of the long official experience and the education of the late Mr. Hamilton. The Commissioner reported that, looking to the internal evidence afforded by the document, he was not satisfied that it was a genuine document. That being the case, and having regard to the previous offences alleged against Mr. Croker, the Government were of opinion that there was no cause for further inquiry, and that it was impossible to reinstate Mr. Croker.

denied that there had been a full inquiry into the facts of the case before Mr. De Moleyns, for that gentleman was restricted from going into the merits until he had ascertained whether the alleged draft Report of Mr. Hamilton was a genuine document. That document Mr. Do Moleyns did not report to be a forgery. With respect to the merits of the case, the question as to Mr. Hamilton's Report was not brought before the House in 1876. Mr. Croker, after 30 years' service, was reduced from the rank of inspector to that of sub-inspector on one ground, and one ground only—namely, that he had broken one of the rules of the Constabulary Force in taking a house outside his district with a larger quantity of land about it than three acres. Upon that he was reduced. He had taken a house with seven acres attached to it. His reduction in rank was obtained, he would not say by fraud; but it was obtained indubitably and admittedly by suppression. In the Constabulary Force promotions were made and judgments formed on the conduct of officers with reference to the number of favourable or unfavourable records in each particular case. At the time that his superior asked to have Captain Croker's sentence of reduction approved by the Lord Lieutenant he had 14 favourable records, and only six of them were brought to the notice of the Lord Lieutenant. Captain Croker was, it appeared, transferred to the town of Carlow. There he could not get a suitable residence adjoining the police barracks; but there was a house near the barracks, though outside his district, but according to the rules of the force he could not take it. Besides, that house had seven acres attached to it, and that, again, was another objection. Accordingly, he went to Dublin to consult the Inspector General, and, calling at his office, he was told that the Inspector General was engaged, but that his Secretary would see him. The Secretary conducted the communications, and said there would not be much difficulty in getting permission for Captain Croker to take the house required. The Secretary, closing the interview, said Captain Croker had the Inspector General's permission to take the house with the seven acres of land. These were the admitted facts; and, accordingly, Captain Croker entered into possession of the house and the seven acres, and lived there for some time. Some informer, not knowing that Colonel Wood had given his permission, complained to the Inspector General, who, forgetting the permission he gave, reduced Captain Croker from the rank of inspector to that of sub-inspector. The Lord Lieutenant's sanction to the reduction was obtained upon an ex parte statement in which there was a suppression of favourable records. Captain Croker, feeling very indignant, wrote a hot letter to the Inspector General, which letter was declared insubordinate. The dismissal of Captain Croker was then decided upon; and the Lord Lieutenant, when applied to to confirm the dismissal, refused to do so until the Inspector General gave a positive undertaking that he would never oppose Captain Croker getting a retiring allowance or compensation. On this second occasion the Lord Lieutenant's assent was obtained by the Inspector General stating that he would not oppose the granting of a retiring allowance to Captain Croker. Thereupon, without the inquiry to which he was entitled, Captain Croker was dismissed the force. He was, no doubt, much dissatisfied by having the authorities against him, and protesting his innocence, was willing to take compensation. Captain Croker appealed to Lord Mayo, and he recommended the matter to the Treasury. The Treasury, when asked for the retiring allowance, pointed to the section of the Act requiring that the Inspector General should give a certificate of good conduct. Colonel Wood in this matter actually broke the promise he gave to the Lord Lieutenant, and said he would not give any certificate of the kind. When charged with this afterwards he tried to escape by a quibble, saying that he never promised to give a certificate; that he merely promised he would not oppose the granting of the retiring allowance. In consequence of the withholding of the certificate the compensation was not granted. Then Captain Croker made an appeal to the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who directed Mr. Hamilton to go and make an inquiry. Lord Mayo wished the retiring allowance to be granted. Mr. Hamilton made a draft Report, which he sent to Captain Croker for his approval, and surely he would never have done so if it had been against that gentleman. But the draft Report and other documents in the case had been lost at the Treasury. In 1816 the facts were brought before the House by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), who never referred to Mr. Hamilton's Report. Then the Solicitor General of the day stated that an inquiry would be instituted which would be satisfactory to all parties. Up to that moment no human being had spoken of an inquiry into Mr. Hamilton's Report, and it was idle to say that that was what was contemplated. What was asked for then, and what they asked for now, was a full inquiry into all the facts of the case.

asked permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

, who had given Notice of the following Motion:—

"That, considering the present financial condition of India, and the promises that have been made to reduce the expenditure of that country, this House is of opinion that the application which has been recently made to the Secretary of State for India in Council by Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, for an increase of the allowance which he annually receives from the revenues of India, ought not to be granted,"

had no reason to complain of the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney; but it was well for the House to understand the position in which the question stood. The Home Government had instituted an inquiry into the affairs of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, and had referred certain questions arising out of that inquiry to the consideration of the Government of India. Within the last few days they had received a despatch from India, giving the views of the Indian Government upon the position of the Maharajah; but the despatch had not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State in Council. Within a few weeks the subject would be fully gone into. The House had been often told by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that, by Act of Parliament, the control of the finances of India was, in the long run, vested in the Secretary of State for India in Council. That was a body who, having all the facts before them, were competent to form an opinion; but the Motion, as placed upon the Paper, would put the House in the place of the Secretary of State in Council. The hon. Member seemed to assume that there was an intention to give an increased allowance out of the Indian Revenues to the Maharajah; but he was at a loss to imagine what ground he had for that assumption. Until the Report received from India had been carefully gone into, there was no right to assume anything of the kind; and when the hon. Member alluded to influences brought to bear upon the India Office he (Mr. E. Stanhope) must say that there was no more independent body, able and anxious to do their duty, than that which had control of the finances of India. As to the advance of £13,000 without security, as the hon. Member said, it should be borne in mind that the Government had the best of all security in the fact that they were the paymasters. These advances were made pending the settlement of affairs, and there was ample security for repayment in the terms of settlement. It was true that the Secretary of State had thought it right to obtain a Report upon the Maharajah's estate. It should be remembered that they were not solely dealing with the Maharajah personally. There were obligations from India due to the Maharajah, and when he spoke of a final settlement he hoped to establish such a state of affairs as would prevent the necessity of any further applications from the Maharajah, and would place his children in that position which, looking to all the circumstances of the case, they ought to occupy. To do that it might be necessary to lay a Bill before Parliament. He could not say that that would be so; but, possibly, it might be necessary to introduce a Private Bill on the subject, but he could not speak with certainty until he knew the decision at which the Secretary of State in Council had arrived. The most careful consideration would be given to the whole question, and all that could be urged in India or England would have every attention, and he hoped now the House might be allowed to leave a difficult and delicate subject.

, in rising to call attention to the recent resolutions of Grand Juries in Ireland on the state of public security, contended that the only danger to peace and order in Ireland could be effectually prevented by a just recognition on the part of the classes from which Irish grand jurors were drawn that the tenant cultivators of the soil ought not to bear an unfair share of the consequences of agricultural loss and depression. Certain Grand Juries in Ireland, such as those of Mayo and Westmeath—especially the former—had passed resolutions implying that there was a dangerous and groundless agitation in Ireland on this subject, which threatened the peace and order of the country. But the agitation was very far from being "groundless." The present agricultural distress and crisis in Ireland was of a very severe description, and the people were suffering, in addition, from a pressure of high rents. The people all over Ireland, under the direction of their clergy, were passing resolutions, not in favour of the abolition of rent, but for the reduction of rent to a reasonable degree. At Dungarvan an immense meeting was held, at which resolutions were passed laying stress on the existing pressure, and calling for the reduction of rent. The tenants were ready to recognize kindness wherever it was shown, and one of the resolutions at the Dungarvan meeting thanked those landlords in the County Waterford who had reduced their rents to enable their tenants to tide over the present severe season. He asked them not to be frightened by the alarmist resolutions passed by a number of landlord Grand Juries; but would call their attention to a letter from Miss Agnes Eyre, Eyre Castle, County Galway, in which she spoke of the destitution as universal, remarking that whereas in most other rural districts there were various other industrial callings, over a very large area in Ireland there was no industry but the raising of a few crops. It was all very well for capitalist newspapers and the cultured and well-paid correspondents in Dublin of London papers to send over here the heated expressions of some poor peasants, which were then taken as the calm and settled view of the whole class. But he asked the Government to go behind Dublin correspondents and the declarations of landlord Grand Juries and look at the condition of the population of Ireland with eyes not of Liberals or Conservatives, but with the eyes of men, and men of the world. If they did that they would find reason to be very cautious and very gentle in their treatment of the poor peasantry of Ireland during the present distress. Some years ago, Mr. Charles Ormsby Blake wrote to the papers saying that his poor tenants had been dragged out of their beds and obliged by men whom they did not know to swear in the dark that they would pay no rent, and this, Mr. Blake stated, was the cause of dissatisfaction upon his estate. But a meeting of the tenants was held, and each asked who had been pulled out of his bed, and none was to be found who had been so treated. But there were, perhaps, causes of dissatisfaction on the estate. One man whose farm was valued at £12 paid a rack-rent of £18; another, the Government valuation of whose farm was £10, paid £l7 15s., and another paid a rack-rent of £22 10s. on a Government valuation of £15 5s., while he found £13 paid for a farm the Government valuation of which was £12 10s. These excessive rents the tenants said were imposed some few years ago. James Hessian, whose farm was valued for the Government at £12, paid £15; but now he paid £26 13s. 6d., and the majority of the tenants paid in the same proportion. He asked the Government, as humane men and fellow-men, to consider these facts. The tenantry of Ireland were not now able to pay the full rent they paid a few years ago, and that was their complaint now. If it were only to supply recruits to the British Army the Irish tenantry were useful; and he asked the Executive not to quarter military and police in poor districts, which would only make the present heavy burden severer still. The mass of the priests, the hereditary defenders of order and peace, and the mass of the tenants wore pleading for kindness and consideration, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give them cause to remember with gratitude his tenure of Office. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of saying what the Government were prepared to do.

seconded the Motion.

hoped the Government would do something before the utter hopelessness among the peasantry of Ireland would lead to its natural result of desperation. Since 1847 there never had been such widespread and general distress. This distress had been brought about by causes utterly beyond the control of the cultivators of the soil. When they looked around and saw no relief, and no attempt upon the part of the Government to bring about relief, they were naturally induced to despair of any Constitutional relief. Now, it must be remembered, when dealing with the declarations of the Grand Juries, that they were dealing with by no means representative bodies. Grand jurors were not representative; they were mere nominees; and it had been recognized by the Government that the Grand Juries of Ireland were not public bodies which deserved to be continued. These were under sentence of extinction. A Bill had been introduced to re-model them. Therefore, their opinion, at any time not worth much, must now be taken as quite worthless. They were bodies which would now be non-existent in their present shape but for the pressure of Business before the House. The Boards of Guardians were representative bodies throughout the country; and they had, in many instances, called public attention to the necessity of dealing with the present distress, and of considering the extravagant rents now charged the peasantry of Ireland. He had also to point out that the tenants of Ireland, in the present condition of affairs, were more defenceless by reason of the operation of the Land Act than they otherwise would have been. Whatever the intention of the Land Act, the scheme, which was most complicated, was not one suitable to the Irish people, and was not what they had asked for. They had asked for a simpler plan. They asked for fixity of tenure at fair rents, which they defined to be a rent varying with the varying value of produce. Such men as John Stuart Mill had agreed to regard rent as a share of the surplus profits of the soil; they considered the true economical theory to be that a rent should vary according to the value of what the soil produced. The Government, in framing the Land Act, did not take that view. They took the view that it would be sufficient to inflict a penalty for a wrong done, instead of prohibiting the wrong of eviction. It was evident the framer of the Act never contemplated the possibility of a large reduction in value of land consequent upon a reduction in the value of its produce. The tenant who, under the ordinary working of the laws of supply and demand, would have received from his landlord a reduction of rent proportionate to the reduction of prices—and every landlord would have admitted the propriety of such reduction—found new difficulty under the operation of the Land Act. Landlords where there were a large number of small holdings thought it better to lose one or two years' rent, and clear the land of the incumbrance of small tenants, who could not contract themselves out of their rights under the Land Act and consolidate their holdings into farms of £100 value. The tenants who held the larger farms could contract themselves out of these rights. This Act, passed for the benefit of the tenant, was really destructive of the class of small tenants—the class, indeed, for whose benefit it was devised. That was the reason why the tenantry of Ireland should be treated with exceptional consideration. The Irish tenantry were placed in their present position by a law not passed in compliance with their demands—they recognized its usefulness in protecting tenants' improvements, but did not think the other clauses worth much. The provisions of the Land Act were altogether the scheme of the Government of the day, and not the proposal of the tenants. In the condition of affairs which had arisen the small tenants would be destroyed as a class if the depreciation of the value of produce continued, and there was not the slightest sign that it would not continue. In that case there would be wholesale evictions in Ireland for non-payment of rent. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been asked a question as to the condition of Ireland, and he had answered it in a manner more curt than satisfactory, that if the reduction were pointed to the Government had no intention of dealing with the matter. If a like question had been put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire with reference to England, would he have received such an answer? He knew that not only had the answer of the right hon. Gentleman given the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland, but that it had induced a feeling that Government had not merely no consideration for the position in which the tenants were placed, but that they considered it a fit subject for jibe and jeer. That was not the way in which the Government should treat great questions of that kind. In a very short time, if things did not change, there would be in Ireland a repetition of the calamities of 1847 and 1848, when 1,000,000 of people were lost to the country through famine and diseases resulting from starvation. Did Parliament, in view of that, contemplate doing nothing? They were entitled to ask Government, at any rate, not to treat this state of things with a jeer which was unworthy of them. They asked the Government to realize their responsibility as statesmen, and to say something which would inspire some glimmer of hope in the hearts of thousands of people who were on the verge of starvation—something to encourage them to take Constitutional action, and not rush to un-Constitutional measures to redress the grievances they felt so keenly. The condition of affairs in Ireland was so grave as to call for the most earnest attention of the Government to the duty of devising some means for the relief of the starving tenantry. There had been an arrangement for a Commission to consider agricultural depression; but no satisfactory assurance that the condition of Ireland would be duly considered. It would not be much to ask that this Commission should sit in Ire- land, and in Ireland investigate the condition of affairs there. It had been acknowledged that the Commission sitting in England could not ascertain the facts with regard to Ireland. Surely there could be no difficulty in the Commission sitting in one or two centres in Ireland and taking evidence. He hoped the Government would give an intimation that this proposal would be favourably considered. If the Government were desirous to preserve the peace of the country, and to prevent the people taking action that would be regretted, some assurance should be given that this great subject would not be overlooked.

I shall avail myself of the opportunity irregularly afforded to me to say that the hon. Member for Tipperary seems to have misunderstood me in referring to some remarks that I made as a sneer at Irish distress and the difficulties of Irish tenants. I meant nothing of the kind. My remarks were in reply to a Question calling for certain legislative action. If I had answered in the hackneyed style that the matter was under consideration, or something of that kind, I would have been charged with giving some countenance to suggestions of a kind not entitled to countenance. I thought the House and the country ought to be informed that if there were such ideas abroad it was not for us to foster them by any vague hopes. As to the Commission on the depression of agriculture, Ireland will be fully represented 'upon it, and the fullest inquiry will be made into the circumstances of Irish agriculture.

hoped they were not to infer from the silence of the Chief Secretary on the point that the Government would act on the extravagant recommendations of Mr. Justice Harrison and the Grand Jury which he addressed. He twitted the right hon. Gentleman with having used the word "Communism" in reference to proposals as to Irish land, just as he would have used the word "Darwinism" if it had expressed something equally unpopular. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when he became better acquainted with the educated mind of Ireland, would be ashamed of the description he had given of the demands of the Irish tenants.

, in calling attention to the case of Major de Dolise, said, that when the German Legion was raised, in 1855, this gentleman received employment in it. He served in Asia Minor and in the Crimea; and when the war was over he was sent home with his regiment, a portion of which was sent to the Cape of Good Hope to form a regiment there. Major de Dolise was not sent out, but was kept at home in order to settle the accounts and pay off the men who remained behind. For that purpose he was intrusted with a large sum of money, which he disbursed, and he received the thanks of the authorities for performing that duty to their entire satisfaction. Having paid off his regiment, he expected immediate employment either at the Cape or elsewhere; but he was informed by Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War, that his services would be no longer required. Major de Dolise had repeatedly asked for employment, but in vain. Had he proceeded, in the first instance, to the Cape he might have obtained employment; but he was kept at home as the most trustworthy officer to whom this large sum of money could be intrusted. The sum which he received on his dis- charge was paid to all the officers as I was originally stipulated when they joined. It was submitted on all hands I that Major de Dolise was one of the best, if not the very best, officer in the German Legion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then read testimonials which had been given to Major de Dolise—from Sir Henry Storks and Major General Cameron among others—and concluded by expressing a hope that the House would agree with him that this officer was entitled to the consideration of the War Office. Twenty-three years had passed since Major de Dolise served this country, and no notice whatever had been taken of the grievance of which he complained.

said, that the House, as a rule, was not fond of what might be regarded as personal questions; but no one could take exception to this case being brought forward, still less to the clear and moderate manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated it. Though it would be his duty to show cause why the request made could not be complied with, he very much sympathized with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the case he had taken up. Major de Dolise was a captain in the Austrian Service; in 1855 he joined the Gorman Legion, and in 1856 that Legion was disbanded. Having discharged his duties with ability and zeal, Major de Dolise was retained for a short time to pay off the men and adjust the accounts of that branch of the Service. These duties he performed with an ability which was recognized at the time. Major de Dolise was very anxious for further employment; but the Act of Parliament under which the Legion was raised distinctly laid down that the officers should have no claim to half-pay, and provided the remuneration which could actually be received. The Correspondence with Major de Dolise was of a very voluminous character. Having looked personally through those Papers, he was bound to say that he saw no clause in their regulations which would enable them to deal with this case in any manner that would meet Major de Dolise's expectations. Some of Major de Dolise's brother officers owed their chance of getting back into the Service to the fact that shortly after the disbandment of the German Legion the Indian Mutiny broke out, and a large number of men at the Cape then volunteered for service in India and formed a considerable portion of the regiment in the East Indian Service now represented by the 109th Regiment of the Line. Some of those officers and men were, he believed, serving to this day; and it was due, perhaps, to the chapter of accidents that Major de Dolise did not get the same chance of service. He had, however, received the gratuity, and so forth, and was dealt with in the same manner as the other officers of the Legion; and the gravamen of his complaint really was, not that he had been badly treated, but that he did not receive the same consideration which, through accidental circumstances, fell to some of his comrades. Then, as to whether compensation should be given to Major de Dolise, the matter had been under the consideration of different authorities at the War Office for a long time. Major de Dolise had, first of all, applied to be recommended to the Turkish Government for employment; but there were difficulties in the way of that being done, and he afterwards tried to get into various other Services. Then he appealed in language which it would perhaps have been well not to have addressed to the authorities for other employment. General Peel took exception to this, and, being pressed, said he had no claim for employment, and declined any further correspondence. The succeeding Secretaries of State for War took the same view of the matter. Sir Henry Storks, on perusing the Papers while at the War Office, appeared also to have come to the same decision, although with regret, and was unable to recommend that the question should be re-opened. In conclusion, he trusted that he had not said anything to wound the feelings of an officer who thought, rightly or wrongly, that he had a just grievance against the Government; but the contract, if it might be so called, had been strictly performed on both sides in this case, and after careful consideration of the whole subject he was unable to hold out the hope that anything further could be done in regard to it.

inquired whether these plans were in the custody of the Government?

said, the plans were now in the Office of Works.

said, that a discussion with regard to the plans had been brought forward by him on a previous occasion. The plans of Mr. Barry for the National Gallery were selected, and approved; but there was no undertaking with him that he should immediately build the whole of the new Galleries. The arrangement was that the Galleries should be built as required according to the plans selected. Mr. Barry had built a considerable portion of the new building, and he had received a commission in respect of that portion. There was no obligation, however, that there should be any payment for any other portion until and unless that other portion was built in like manner. He thought that they ought to have some explanation why, many years after these transactions, they should be called upon to pay Mr. Barry £5,000 in respect of further plans which he had really prepared of his own accord, and without instructions.

remarked that, in 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed architect of the new National Gallery, and was directed to prepare plans for the building. Mr. Barry divided the work into four blocks. Block A was to cost £88,975; block B £103,625; block 0 £339,721; block D £105,975. In 1870, it was decided not to proceed with the building, but merely to enlarge and increase the galleries. The cost of block A was reduced to £83,000, which was then completed, the architect receiving a remuneration of £4,150, or 5 per cent on the revised estimate. In this was included £830, or 1 per cent, for sketch plan of block A. Mr. Barry, according to instructions, also furnished the Government with sketch plans for the whole of the proposed National Gallery; but as there seemed to be no prospect of its being completed for some years it was thought only fair and just to Mr. Barry that he should be paid for these sketch plans, and this was the reason for the proposed Supplementary Vote.

wished to know why the original estimate under this head had been largely exceeded?

observed, that there had not been an increase in this Vote; but that no Vote had yet been taken upon that account, and the present Vote was in respect of the whole expenses.

said, that a change had been made in the Vote, partly in consequence of the diminution of the protective inspection at the ports on this side of the Channel; although, in his opinion, the inspection could be much better done here than on the Irish side. The Government had given way in respect to allowing inspection to take place at the arriving ports; and the increase in the Vote was, therefore, in his opinion, justifiable, although an increased inspection had been made on the wrong side of the Channel.

said, it was perfectly obvious that the sum which had been sot apart on account of this Exhibition would not be sufficient. The expense had been estimated at £10,000, and it was made up of items such as £200 for travelling expenses. The members of the Commission who would go to Sydney and Melbourne would certainly not pay their own expenses, and that sum would not nearly cover the cost. If they took the items there, it appeared to him that they were under-estimated. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could give any explanation as to why the expenses had been under-estimated? Subsistence and lodging allowance was put down at £180. If they might judge from the Paris Exhibition, persons who went about for Government charged as much as they possibly could for subsist-once, and he did not think that the sum of £180 would cover that expense. Then, the telegraphing and passages would cost two or throe times as much as they estimated. He should like some explanation as to the reason Government had not looked the matter fairly in the face, and had not put down the full amount?

said, that the amount estimated for these expenses was £10,000; but they only proposed to allow in the figures for the current year £6,280. With regard to the item of telegrams, he might say that it did not include the amount which would be paid for telegraphic communication with the Colonies, for the Government did not think that that ought to be an Imperial charge, but that, as it affected the interests of the Colonies, it ought fairly to be paid by them. With regard to the travelling expenses, the amount at which it had been put down was that at which it had been estimated by the members of the Commission themselves. The whole Estimate had been prepared to meet what it was thought would be the probable expenses.

wished to know whether the Government would, under any circumstances, grant a larger sum than £10,000?

said, that sum represented the part of the full amount that they believed would be required.

did not think that that explanation was satisfactory. In his opinion, the expenses would more likely amount to the sum of £25,000. He did not think the House was fairly dealt with, when the amounts that should be required were so under-estimated.

said, it was quite impossible to adequately discuss the question raised by that Vote at that hour of the night. He did not, therefore, intend to enter upon the principle of submitting the Vote to the House; but, at the same time, he would venture to appeal to the Government as to whether it would not be better to postpone the Vote until the beginning of next Session? It could not really be necessary to establish a military police force at Cyprus. It was clear that it would be desirable that they should have some further information before saddling the House with so large a charge as £26,000, which, if once incurred, would be very difficult, subsequently, to get rid of. There were indications that the Government itself was not unanimous as to the desirability of the Vote. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, at an earlier period of the Session, when the Vote was proposed to be taken upon the Army Estimates, had considered that it would be illegal, and everyone who heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night would see that he had great doubt as to the desirability of the Vote. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had never spoken one word in its favour. The Vote had been the subject of a good deal of discussion, and there was by no means unanimity concerning it. He would suggest that, looking to the period of the Session, and the improbability of fairly discussing the matter at the present time, it would be alike fair to the House and the country to postpone taking the Vote on that occasion, and to leave it till next Session.

wished to have some information with regard to the military exemption tax in Cyprus. The military exemption tax was imposed by the Turks upon those persons who did not serve in the Army; but there was now no compulsory military service in the Army at all. He wanted to know whether the Christians now had to pay the tax, while the Mahommedans were exempt from military service? With respect to the police, the very large sum of £26,000 was asked for by the Vote. He might say that there was also in the Island of Cyprus a military police, and Captain Scott Stevens, late Adjutant of the 42nd Highlanders, was in command of that force. Thus, they had in Cyprus three distinct bodies of police. There was the Army police, which cost £23,000; and there was the police, for which they were now asked to vote £26,000—altogether, £50,000 was spent in Cyprus upon police, and of that sum Cyprus was to pay less than half. He did not think there was any adequate necessity for the police charged for in the Vote. In the Estimate for the revenue expenditure of Cyprus, a small sum was put down for interest upon money borrowed for Public Works, and a Schedule was given of the Public Works required to be executed. There was no doubt that the works which were intended to be constructed during the next financial year would be done by means of forced labour. That institution was entirely repugnant to this country, and the Vote would be opposed until the system was brought to an end.

supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the Government would withdraw the Vote until next Session. It was a Vote which required a great deal of consideration before it was passed, and at that hour of the night they could not adequately discuss the advisability of establishing a new police. It would be next to impossible to discuss the question on Report the next day. He did not think that there could be any immediate necessity for the Vote; it was one of very doubtful expediency, and there were very grave doubts whether the Government itself was satisfied as to the advisability of taking it. He would, therefore, urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press the Vote at that period of the Session.

ventured to make the same appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on different grounds. The Vote they were then asked to pass was a military Vote which had been placed upon the Civil Service Estimates, and he might say that it was not the only one. A new practice had grown up of placing Votes upon the Civil Service Estimates which had never' appeared upon them before. Several Votes for Military and Naval Services had that year been placed upon the Civil Service Estimates and not recharged as before to the Military and Naval Departments. The result was that the Civil Service Estimates were that year considerably swollen by the additions which had been placed upon them. He thought that was a departure from the usual practice which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last to defend or tolerate. On a former occasion he had asked why the practice that had always been followed had not been adhered to; but he had received no answer from the Treasury Bench. They contended that in the case of special Services they ought not to be placed on the Civil Service Estimates. The present was another case of a Vote for actual military purposes being placed upon the Civil Service Estimates. The practical effect was to deceive the country.

was sorry that he could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Reading and postpone the Vote. If the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss the Vote he was quite prepared to enter into any discussion that might be thought desirable. But he understood the hon. Member to prefer to raise the discussion upon Report the next day. That being so, he would place Report upon the Paper as the First Order at 9 o'clock. He did not think he could undertake to enter into the questions raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) on that occasion; but he thought a more convenient time might be found for discussing them.

was willing to postpone the main discussion on the Vote until Report; but there were one or two matters upon which he wished to have a distinct understanding. There wore two separate establishments of police at Cyprus—the British establishment and the Native establishment. Under the British establishment for 1878–9 there was an item for police of £11,000; under the head of Native establishments the pay of the zaptieths for six months was stated at 500 piastres, or about £12,000. As that was only the cost for six months, it followed that the charge for a year would be £24,000 for the Native zaptiehs, besides £11,000 for the British establishment. Therefore, there was a charge for the police force alone in Cyprus of about £35,000. That really required explanation; and they ought also to know why they were then called upon to pay £26,000 for a fresh police force. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would give some explanation on that subject.

could readily explain the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He was not correct in saying that there were two police forces in Cyprus, as there was, in fact, only one. The police force that existed in Cyprus was that commanded by the gentleman whoso name had been mentioned. Several times during the debates they had had upon the condition of Cyprus the hon. Member for Reading had mentioned that there were two kinds of police in Cyprus. That was not so; sometimes they were called zaptiehs, and sometimes police the explananation was that they were originally called zaptiehs, and, since being organized, they had been called police. There was only one force, therefore, not two forces. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Reading, he would explain that the first sum he had mentioned related to the re-organization of the police. A question had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the military exemption tax. On the British occupation that was found to be a tax existing in the Island. It was thought unfair to place the tax only upon the Christians; and, therefore, it had been placed also upon the Mahommedans. With respect to forced labour so much had been said with regard to the question that he would only say a word or two. They knew that there had been forced labour in past times; but that institution had only been put in force in one instance. What was called forced labour was not so, but was paid labour. In future there would be no forced labour in Cyprus.

said, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary with regard to the exemption tax was completely satisfactory; but in respect to the other matters his answer was not so satisfactory. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman made the statement as to there being only one kind of police in Cyprus in perfect good faith; but what he had said did not remove the impression that there were two kinds of police. There was the police commanded by Captain Scott Stevens, consisting partly of Europeans; but there was another force of police with entirely different head-quarters.

could not reconcile the statements which had been made. He believed that there wore two establishments—the British and the Native establishments—and £11,000 was the charge in respect of the British establishment. It would really appear from the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that since the re-organization of the police there had been two bodies, one on the British establishment, and one on the Native establishment. He hoped that further inquiries would be made and the matter thoroughly explained before the discussion on the next day.

thought it desirable that the Government should give some reasonable explanation for having placed the Vote for the Cyprus police on the Civil Service Estimates. He could suggest a reason for it, and that was that, in order to show a good balance-sheet for Cyprus, they had placed £26,000 upon the English Estimates. Therefore, they paid £26,000 for the enjoyment of having a good balance-sheet for Cyprus. At first, they knew that the Government did not intend to take it at all in its present form; and it was only because his hon. Friend the Member for Reading had found that the way in which they originally proposed to take it was absolutety illegal that they had changed their tactics. They admitted that he was right by withdrawing the original Estimate.

objected most strongly to the Bill being considered at that time. As he understood, the Bill was to be made to apply to England as well as to Scotland. It certainly was bad enough to have one law for Scotland and another for England; but he thought that before a law which was intended for Scotland should be applied to England they ought to consider whether it was a right or a proper law. He did not think that, at that time in the morning, such an important matter should be considered. The Bill deserved very serious consideration, and as his attention had only recently been called to it he strongly objected to its being taken.

observed, that the Bill had been discussed again and again in that House, and he was surprised to hear the lion, and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex state that his attention had never been called to it. The question as to poaching was discussed upon the Scotch Bill; and it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the provisions of the Bill should also be extended to England. The Bill contained reasonable and merciful provisions, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.

said, that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion it had been agreed that the law in Scotland and in England should be the same. The Bill proposed to give powers to a Judge who tried a case of night-poaching to inflict something less than imprisonment with hard labour in certain eases. The law with regard to poaching differed according as the offence was committed by night or by day, and the law with respect to night-poaching was very much more severe than in regard to day-poaching. When offences were committed between day and night, or between night and morning, it was very difficult for an ordinary man to know whether he was, in effect, offending against the law for night or day-poaching. It was provided by the Bill before the House that where a man was out alone, and not acting in concert with another poacher, and where he had no arms or net, then the Judge, in his discretion, might inflict a fine instead of sending the man to prison. In one case, which had been brought under the notice of the House by means of a Question, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had thought fit to discharge a man from prison, where he had been sent by a Judge, under the precise circumstances in which the Bill gave a Judge power to inflict a fine instead of imprisonment.

said, that a certain number of Amendments were to be inserted; but it was not certain how far they would go. He wished to ask the reason for the insertion of the Amendment-—"Having in his possession any net."

said, that the point raised by the hon. Member could not properly then be brought forward. The Question was that the Bill be now considered.

repeated his question with respect to the reason for inserting the words—" Or having in his possession any not."

said, the case that led to the introduction of the Bill was the case of a farmer, who was not charged or suspected of any complicity with poachers, but only went out and set a snare to catch rabbits on his own grounds. The words were introduced for the purpose of distinguishing between the case which the Bill was intended to meet and the case of men acting in concert as wholesale plunderers.

asked why England was included in the operation of the Bill?

observed, that when the Bill came before the Committee Clause 1 ran thus—"This Act shall only apply to Scotland." After a discussion, it was agreed that it should be applied to England also, and one of the very first Amendments inserted in Committee on the Bill was a provision extending the operation of the Bill to England as well as to Scotland. That was the only explanation he could give.

begged to move to leave out the word "England."

wished to say one word with regard to the matter. The only question really was whether the clause could be made agreeable to a Bill already passed. The present Bill was made to apply to England, and the Amendment was for the purpose of making Clause 2 agree with the rest of the Bill. The question raised by the Bill was whether certain powers should be given to magistrates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that the powers were limited to cases where a man was bonâ fide believed not to be a poacher. Nothing would induce him (Mr. Assheton Cross) to ask the House to modify the law with respect to the habitual poacher. The Bill, in effect, gave the magistrates power, in cases where a man had, by a short interval, brought himself within the offence of night-poaching, to try the case as if it had happened just within the day. The law with respect to night and day-poaching very much resembled that of burglary and house-breaking. Burglary was a superior offence to house-breaking, and the essential in burglary was that the act had to be done by night. A man was not bound to be charged with burglary; but he might be charged with house-breaking, whether the offence was committed by night or by day. But in the case of night-poaching the matter was regulated by a hard-and-fast line, and it was not in the lower of the magistrate to try the offence as of the lesser character; and this Bill was for the purpose of vesting such a discretion in the magistrate. He might add that nothing was further from his intention than to limit the punishment upon the habitual poacher.

remarked that it did not appear from the Schedule of the Bill that it was limited in the way which had been mentioned.

replied that the Amendments were made in Committee.

said, that there was no mention in the Bill as to going with nets to catch game.

remarked that it was rather refreshing to see hon. Members on the Government side of the House, who attacked obstruction, persistently obstructing the Public Business of the country at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members were opposing a measure brought forward by one of the Law Officers of the Government of which they were supporters. He thought that they should now allow the Business to go on.

wished to state that the Bill was amended in Committee, and the discretion of the magistrates was limited to the one case he had stated—namely, where the person accused had been alone, and not in concert with any other person, and not armed, and not possessed of or using any net.

said, that the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate was that the Bill had been considerably amended; but they had not the Amendments there before them. It was not only hard, but also most unusual, to ask the House to consider a Bill without having the Amendments before it.

thought it would be better to get rid of this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could not make any announcement with regard to the Bill, then, perhaps, he could do so the next day. He thought that the Bill was one which could be well sacrificed.

would be very sorry to see this Bill sacrificed. The Bill was to arrange the Offices now brought together in the Law Courts, and to provide for certain consolidations. It would effect considerable saving, and would arrange the Offices under a new system. If the Bill were not passed, he thought they must pass a Suspensory Act in order to preserve certain officers. If the hon. Baronet would look at the Act he would find that the Bill was quite necessary.

said, that very great interest was taken in this Bill on the part of a considerable number of the ratepayers of the City of London, who had presented Petitions on the subject, and who desired to draw the attention of the House to the way in which their interests were dealt with. There was one clause to which he wished to draw special attention, and which ran as follows:—

"The Board may from time to time during the year ending the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one expend … such money as they think fit. … The aggregate amount … shall not exceed one hundred thousand pounds."

could assure his hon. Friend that that clause had nothing to do with the expenses which it might possibly cover; the clause really enabled the Board to continue to make grants already sanctioned. The improvements upon which an expenditure was sanctioned must be within the Metropolitan area, and the expenditure to which his hon. Friend had alluded was for effecting works outside the area. The Metropolitan Board could not make an expenditure for effecting works practically outside their jurisdiction.

said, that, after so satisfactory a reply, he would withdraw his objection to the Bill being considered in Committee.

said, that he could not assent to the Amendment. The clause in no way sanctioned any payment in respect of those matters. Under these circum- stances, the insertion of the Amendment would only practically tie the hands of Parliament. He thought that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary.

did not see why the Amendment should not be accepted. Everything that the Government wanted they got by the Bill, and there seemed to him no reason for not inserting the Amendment. It was clear that expenses, which had been disallowed by the auditor, ought not to be paid, and he thought that the insertion of a Proviso to that effect was very proper.

said, that the present Bill had nothing to do with the other one.

said, that either the clause did not authorize the expenditure on the matters in question, in which case there could be no objection to the Proviso, or it did authorize the payment of those matters, and then there was still more reason for the Proviso being inserted.

was sorry to say that at that moment the Corporation of Sheffield had expended £11,000, which they were liable to pay out of their own pockets. That was in consequence of some selfish ratepayers going to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Corporation had really only done its duty to the ratepayers in protecting them against the acts of the Water Companies, and yet they had had to pay the expenses so incurred out of their own pockets. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had now permitted that to be done in the case of London which had not been allowed in the case of Sheffield.

thought that no more unfortunate instance could have been adduced with regard to this question than that of Sheffield. The hon. Member for Sheffield had held out what had taken place in that case as the selfish act on the part of the ratepayers. But the case had also been considered as a selfish disregard by the Corporation of the opinion of the ratepayers. It was the most unfortunate instance that could have been adduced on the present occasion. He did not think that, by quoting that instance, his Lon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had done anything to get rid of the incubus that weighed upon the hon. Member who objected to the insertion of the Amendment on that occasion.

hoped that the Bill might not be proceeded with, as it was a Bill containing many important provisions. It was a Bill granting money for various purposes to the Local Government Board—the Bill was money, money, money! There were some other things in the Bill which were very objectionable. The 7th clause gave power to alter the boundaries of parishes—parishes that had gone on as long as the British Constitution, and he thought might be allowed to go on one year longer. Clause 8 was a very mysterious clause, and he could not understand it; but he was assured by a great supporter of the Bill that it would enable the Guardians to take a large proportion of lunatics out of the hands of the Commissioners, and confine them in some workhouses or other large places. He was further told that that would very much diminish the cost of maintaining pauper lunatics. If that were really the object of the provision, and the Guardians would be enabled to make lunatic asylums of workhouses without being under the control of the Commissioners, he thought the power was indefensible. If money had to be spent in that way, there was great reason for not going on with the Bill without very much further consideration. In Clause 9 a power was given to the Local Government Board to alter Local Acts. He had not sufficient confidence in that Board to wish to give it power to alter Local Acts. Clause 10 was, again, taxation; power was taken to enable local taxation to be increased for certain purposes. In the next clause provision was made for borrowing money for purposes for which it could not now be borrowed. The following clause provided that the money so borrowed should be repaid in 30 years. Then, in Clause 13, the managers of local Poor Law districts were given many powers which they did not possess at present. Then, Clause 14 was, again, a provision for money.