asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to call upon Mr. Brady, the Inspector of Irish Fisheries, To explain how it is for the benefit of the public, and in the interests of the Salmon Fisheries of the Sligo River, that thirty miles of salmon fishing in Lough Gill and the Bonet River, county Leitrim, should have been completely destroyed; 1stly, by the enactment of bye laws altering the close season from the 1st February to the 15th January; and, 2ndly, by the publication, with Mr. Brady's authority, of a public notice, dated 14th January 1871, whereby all the rights and privileges of a several fishery in the Sligo River were granted to Mr. Martin, the public being thrown off their guard by the aforesaid public notice, came into court unprepared to dispute Mr. Martin's legal title to a several fishery; and, further, to explain why Mr. Brady is the only Inspector of Irish Fisheries who permits a poaching implement termed a fixed draft net, to be erected in the tideway of a river, these nets not being sanctioned by Act of Parliament?

I have made inquiries respecting the matter referred to in the Question, and I hope shortly to receive a reply. However, I think it right to say that it is not the case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been led to believe, that Mr. Brady had no authority to issue a notice to carry out such works as those referred to. Any such notice must receive the sanction of three Inspectors. I understand, in all the cases referred to, the requisite authority was given.

Mr. Brady is responsible for all the decisions in his own district, and it was by his authority this notice was issued in the district.

What I understand is, that although, no doubt, the Inspector of the district carries out the usual duties of his office, he cannot take the issuing of notice on himself without the sanction of two of his colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What was the strength of the military force in Cyprus, and if it was intended to reduce it?

in reply, said, there were at present from 350 to 400 men in Cyprus, and it was not intended to reduce that force any lower.

said, he wished to draw attention to the considerations which had induced the Government to submit a fresh contract for the approval of the House. The existing contract would come to an end in 1880. That contract was originally to last 12 years, and was for £450,000. In 1874 it was renewed at a reduction of £20,000. In the early part of 1878 a new contract was proposed by the Postmaster General, who suggested the omission of the services from Southampton to Suez and from Point de Galle to Calcutta. After consultation with the India and Colonial Offices, authority was given, on June 20, to invite tenders according to the rate of speed, to be sent in by July 25, these tenders being for five, six, and seven years. In reply, tenders were sent in from the Sun Shipping Company, for a fortnightly service between Suez and Bombay; by Messrs. Smith and Co., Glasgow, for a weekly service between Brindisi and Bombay; and several tenders from the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and from Mr. Alfred Holt, of Liverpool. The tenders of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, at the highest rates of speed, were £410,000, and of Mr. Holt at £458,000; but the Post Office advised the acceptance of the offer of Mr. Holt's tender for £336,500 for 11 knots between Brindisi and Bombay, and Shanghai and Bombay at 10 knots, against that of the Peninsular and Oriental Company for speed of 10½ knots for the complete service to Ceylon and China, the India Office was opposed to Mr. Holt's contract; and the Colonial Office preferred the service of the Peninsular and Oriental, which avoided the sending of the Colonial mails viâ Bombay, especially as the Australian Colonies, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania, had entered into a separate contract for the conveyance of the Australian mails between Melbourne and Point de Gallo. The matter was referred to a Committee representing the various Departments, which pointed out, on the whole, that the tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was the most efficient, and, on the whole, more economical, as well as effecting a great saving in time. The Treasury, therefore, decided to accept the Company's tender for a service once a week between Brindisi and Alexandria and Suez and Bombay, and vice venâ, at a rate of speed of 11 knots an hour, and for service once a fortnight between Suez and Shanghai, and vice versâ, at a speed of 10½ knots, for a subsidy of £370,000 a-year. The penalties to be absolute, and the Australian mails between these points to be carried free of cost. It had been objected that a contract for an express service ought to have been entered into; but the tender for an express service would have been £50,000 more than the contract which had been accepted, and the Government were not of opinion that they would have been justified in paying so large an amount to secure a gain of 16 hours between Brindisi and Bombay, of 30 hours between Brindisi and Ceylon, and of 48 hours between Brindisi and Singapore. As to the complaint that a short time had been allowed for the tenders, he explained the delay, which arose through consulting the India Office, and he pointed out that the Government had been urged by the different firms to issue the tenders. The Government called attention to the difficulty of asking for tenders at such a short notice. The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, in a letter dated May 31, 1878, addressed to the Postmaster General, said—

"The Association think it very desirable that tenders should be invited in such time as will enable the House of Commons to confirm any postal contract before the Recess."

A letter from Mr. Alfred Holt to the Treasury, dated May 9, 1878, stated—

"If there is to be 'substantial competition,' it is obvious that a sufficient time must be allowed, after the acceptance of a tender, to make the preparations necessary for so extensive a service. In the present case, such confirmation (i.e. by the House of Commons), if not made before the end of this Session, must necessarily be postponed until the spring of 1879, thus allowing less than a year between the confirmation of the contract and the commencement of the service. In so short a time as this, I am enabled by my practical knowledge to say decidedly that it will be impossible to make the necessary preparations. The present contractors have their plant of steamers ready, and they may safely tender for the service, assured that even if the House of Commons refuse to confirm the acceptance of the Post Office their position is in no way altered.…On the other hand, the outside shipowner is in a totally different position. He has to build a large fleet of powerful steamers, and, obviously, he dare not venture to sign a contract, with the risk of having his arrangements upset by a vote of the House of Commons. Unless, therefore, the confirmation can be given before the House rises in the autumn, I venture to assert that any chance of competition that may be given will be little better than apparent."

There was another point strongly objected to, and that was the length of the tender about to be submitted to the House. It was objected that to issue a tender for eight years practically crippled other shipowners, and gave far too great a power to this particular Company. He had before him the French contract for the Indian service; that contract was for £340,000, and it was made for 12 years. Another matter to be considered was that if the contract were made for a shorter period the tender would be increased. The difference in the Peninsular and Oriental charge for five and eight years would be £20,000. The Viceroy's Council declared that—

"The duration of the contract is a matter of importance, and, on the whole, we are disposed to think that it might advantageously be left as a subject for tender. We do not think that a contract for eight or ten years would be excessive, especially if the speed required be such as to involve the construction of a class of vessels specially adapted to the service."

The Bengal Chamber of Commerce stated that—

"The duration of contract should be made matter of tender; as contractors would doubtless accept a long contract on more favourable terms to the public than a short one."

In these circumstances, it was obvious that only by a permanent tenure of a contract of this kind could the Company recoup itself the expense of performing the service as it ought to do properly. He believed it was well known that the Company, which was now offered this contract on the part of the Government, were making arrangements for the building of vessels at a cost of over £700,000; and surely such an expenditure as that would not be justified by a short contract. He did not, therefore, think that eight years was an unreasonable term. They were told that 9s. 6d. was an excessive mileage; but he did not think that that could be maintained, looking at the fact that for a similar contract the French paid a mileage of 10s. 4d., while Mr. Holt's rate of mileage was 10s. 3d., which was in excess of the accepted contract. There was another point, and that was the question whether or not we should have no contract at all, but allow an open system by which anybody might carry the mails. Not very long ago, a Memorial from merchants and bankers engaged in the trade with India and China, and signed by most of the merchants in the City, was presented to the Postmaster General. They protested as strongly as they could against any division of the Eastern mail services into several branches instead of retaining the homogeneous system under which these mails had been satisfactorily carried for so many years. They pointed out that any such division of the mail service would be fraught not only with inconvenience but injury to the important mercantile interests which they represented. They submitted that most of the merchants engaged in trade with India were also more or less interested in that of China, and vice versâ; while the banking and exchange operations carried on with those countries were so completely mixed up together that they could not be carried on successfully unless the postal advices were deliverable at the same time. The Government felt, and he was sure the House would feel, upon considering all the circumstances, that in recommending a renewal of the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for a term of eight years upon what was practically a reduction—and a considerable reduction—in the amount of the subsidy, they were taking the stop best calculated to secure, not only the cheapest, but the most efficient service.

complained that this contract was not brought before the House till within a week of the probable end of the Session. Happily, there was considerable rivalry in relation to these contracts. He thought it was the duty of the House and the Government to utilize those rivalries; but the Government, he thought, had not utilized them. The Postmaster General of 1866 maintained that even six months was too short a period to allow for the making of tenders for such an important undertaking as this. Nevertheless, the Government had only placed this contract before the public for 29 days—a period which he held to be altogether inade- quate, especially as the Government had had repeated reminders during the past two years that the existing contract expired in 1880. The speed of the new contract was very little in advance of that of the old, being only 17 days and 15 hours, as compared with 19 days and 22 hours; but even this improvement was by no means satisfactory to the Bombay people. There was no reason why the people of Bombay should not have their views carried out and have their letters delivered in 16 days. It had been said that the sea between Brindisi and Bombay was not a good sea. The same had been said as regarded the sea between here and the Cape; but on investigation it was found that from the Cape to Madeira it was the best sea that vessels traversed. He could not understand why the later experiments with the Atlantic mails were considered to have ended in failure. From the day the subsidy ceased there was immediate competition with resulting improvement; the White Star Line and the Inman Line made quicker voyages than had been attempted by the subsidized Cunard Line. It was stated in the Report of the Postmaster General that the second and higher rate of postage, to cover the extra cost of stopping at Queenstown, worked very well indeed. The opinion of the Postmaster General, as drawn from the Report for 1878, was to the effect that the new arrangements had the advantage of securing the most efficient vessels employed in the Transatlantic trade, and had not failed to give general satisfaction, and, in order to admit of better terms being secured in the future, should circumstances become more favourable, the arrangement was to be made for one year only, and was to be terminable on six months' notice. He wished that we had as good a service on the Eastern seas as we had on the Atlantic; and it was the duty of the House to take care that, as far as possible, an equally good service was secured. In 1877, we sold to the East goods worth £62,750,000, and the United States £19,000,000 worth. Financially, the new arrangements involved a great increase of loss to England and India. The entire expenditure in relation to the contract which expired in 1867 was £396,000, reduced by £236,000 received for postage to £160,000, which was divided between England and India; under the contract about to cease the loss to be so divided was £284,500, but under the proposed contract the loss would be £330,000; and in eight years the loss would be to England £2,000,000, and to India £629,000. It was admitted that, under former contracts, we were to pay 9s. 6d. per mile, while we had formerly paid respectively at the rate 6s. 9d., 7s., and 4s. 2d. Instead of comparing this with the French service, which cost 10s. 4d., as had just been done, we ought to compare it with some of our own services—say, that between Victoria and Gallo, which had steadily diminished until it had fallen to 6s. 8d., while the cost of this service had been gradually increasing. He held that the true route to China was across India. They were told that the great point was to maintain harmony in the service; but if that were to be done by keeping it in the same hands, that looked like monopoly. We could have a better, quicker, more certain, and cheaper service if we were to divide it into sections. It was admittedly necessary to have communication of the most speedy kind between this country and Bombay; but he believed that that object could be secured without having recourse to subsidies. From the Correspondence in the hands of hon. Members, it was clear that the Indian postal authorities were of opinion that the mails between India, China, and Japan could be managed better from Calcutta than they could be from London. Then as to Australia, he understood that the mail contract had been entered into in reference to the India and China services alone, and without any reference to Australia. He complained that the Orient Company had not had an opportunity of offering their services either to this country or to Australia, and argued that the Government of Australia would probably reap an advantage of £20,000 a-year to the detriment of the taxpayers of this country through the provisions in the contract, in accordance with which the Government would hand the postages over to the Victorian Government. Contending that if the contract were agreed to for three years only, the Government would have ample time to send out fresh tenders, he begged to move that the period of time in connection with the contract be reduced from eight years to three.

in seconding the Amendment, said: As different Members of the Government are fully aware, I have been most anxious not to approach the subject from any Party point of view, and to avoid having to make any charge against the Government with respect to this question. I have done my best to name beforehand where I thought mistakes might be committed, and show how they might be avoided; and I wish it to be distinctly understood that I believe both the Postmaster General and the Secretary to the Treasury have approached this subject with the sincere desire to do what is best for the Public Service. But, unfortunately, from the changes in the Parliamentary Heads of Departments, so frequent in our system of government, only the permanent officials can remember and place before their Chiefs the practical details of departmental work. But it is clear that a mistake has been committed, and the Government will be very much to blame if, when the whole case is put clearly before them, they should persist in a course which will entail great loss upon the country, and throw great difficulties in the way of the development of our shipping trade. It was perfectly understood between the House of Commons and the Government that two years' clear notice should be given in order to allow time for the necessary negotiations and preparations for a now service, so that the Government might not be bound hand-and-foot to the present contractors. It is most important that the Government and the House should understand the principal ground on which we maintain that this contract ought not to be confirmed for a period of eight years. It is this. Owing to the necessary time not having been given either for sending in tenders or for the arrangements consequent on any tenders being accepted, there was, and there could be, no real competition for the service, and that, feeling this, the Peninsular and Oriental Company was in a position to dictate terms most disadvantageous to the public. We contend, therefore, that the House of Commons is bound to exercise the right which it reserves to itself, and which it exercised most advantageously under similar circumstances on a quite recent occasion, and refuse to confirm this contract, at any rate, for so long a period. Both by enactment and by practice the House has given full and fair notice that it does not consider that it is bound as a mere matter of course to ratify such a contract. I will detain the House only a few minutes in pointing out what really has been done. Full notice was given to the Department of what was necessary by a Question put in my behalf by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) on July 31, 1877. In reply to that Question, the Postmaster General said ample time would be afforded to all parties, not only for sending in tenders, but for their consideration by the Government when they were sent in, and I am sure that there was every intention that this should be carried out. But I will show presently how, from their mistakes, this Department found themselves unable to carry out this pledge, and, practically, it was not carried out. It was, of course, the duty of the Department, before issuing the notice, to possess themselves of all the knowledge necessary to enable them to ask for tenders, so that they might be in a position to act promptly when the time came for giving the two years' notice. Instead of this, they appear to have delayed getting this necessary information until the notice was actually given; and it was not until the 26th June, or nearly 12 months after the Question to which I have referred had been asked, and six months after the notice to terminate the contract was given, that the Post Office were in the possession of the information, which they might have had just as well, and were bound to have had, six months previously. The object was, in giving the notice, to enable them to carry out their pledge. The result might have been foreseen. Only 30 days were given to the Steamboat Companies to make their arrangements and estimates and send in their tenders, and the contracts could not be confirmed during that Session; and the consequence of that was that all those who had to tender, except the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who, having a fleet ready, ran no risk, were obliged to ask an unduly large amount in order to guard against the possibility of the tender, though accepted by the Government, not being confirmed by Parliament; thus materially raising the offers they made, and preventing the saving which might otherwise have ac- crued to the public. It is evident that all but the Peninsular and Oriental Company were obliged to ask a very much increased price to cover the risk of having to commence their preparations before the contract was confirmed or the greatly increased cost and difficulty of making in 10 months the preparations which it was desirable, and intended that they should have two years for completing. It must be evident, also, to any practical man that the time allowed was too short to allow of those arrangements between different Companies, engaged in different branches of the trade, which might have produced the least costly and most efficient service for the public. Practically, there has been no competition. The Peninsular and Oriental Company alone among the competitors had a suitable fleet ready to perform the service, and were able to dictate their own terms, and the result is that the subsidy proposed to be granted to them is far in excess of the sum which would have been asked had there been an effective competition. Again, the Department issued tenders with the evident intention of having a very quick service; and, of course, under these circumstances, all the tenders, except the Peninsular and Oriental Company, were obliged to provide for the shortest possible delay at the different ports, and in every respect for a despatch service. The competitors with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, knowing the great stress that had been laid upon quickening the service, were obliged to calculate on only such delays being allowed as were necessary for the mail service. Had the trade generally understood that they would have been allowed delays sufficient to admit of their going in for a general trading service the saving would have been immense; and it seems probable that if due time had been given, so that the tenderers could have felt confident of having sufficient time to make their preparations after the contract had been confirmed; and if it had also been understood that facilities would be given, as they have been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, to compete for the general cargo trade, a great part—some believe the whole—of the loss of the country on this subsidy might have been saved. In thus not obtaining in due time the information necessary to enable them to negotiate and act, and in thus reducing from two years to 10 months—or, more correctly speaking, to six months, for the contract is not yet confirmed, and the new service is to commence in February—the time intended to be given to shipowners to make the necessary preparations, and add other omissions and commissions which have been enumerated, it must be evident to the House that a great mistake has been committed, and that the Government and the House should seek to remedy this mistake by only confirming the contract for three years. But I have no wish to dwell upon these mistakes; because my object is to show how they may, to some extent, be remedied, and how a very large sum may be saved to the taxpayers, and a most unfair injury to the shipping trade of the country averted. Those who are opposed to the confirmation of this contract maintain that the service ought ultimately to be performed with an equitable share of a reasonable postage; and they contend that would be done naturally and well by the boats running in the trade, if they were not interfered with by the unfair competition of a subsidized line. The subsidized line itself would probably undertake the service on such terms if it did not feel that it could ask more, and that the game is in its own hands by the mistakes of the Post Office officials. The question that now suggests itself is—How are we to escape from this future position? Well, probably the easiest way, and the one which would give some compensation to a Company which, on the whole, have done their work well, would be to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms). But suppose the Peninsular and Oriental Company should be so unwise as to refuse such an arrangement, then the Company whose tender was first recommended for acceptance is prepared to undertake the conveyance of the mails on terms which would enable the service to be given up at the end of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years, at rates diminishing according to the competence of the Company for the service. The Postmaster General, in recommending the acceptance of the tender of the Company, says of Mr. Alfred Holt, its managing owner—

"From the high character of Mr. Holt, a shipowner, I do not doubt he will discharge faithfully and efficiently the important duty he undertakes."

The acceptance of this offer would provide the most economical and advantageous way of putting an end, at the earliest moment possible, to this system of high subsidies at the cost of the British taxpayer. It would place in the hands of the Government the power at any moment, after two years, of accepting an offer to undertake the postal service for the remuneration which the postage gives to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, or any other Company or combination of Companies; while if in the proposed contract with the Peninsular and Oriental the arrangement continues for eight years, the terms of this offer would save £560,000 with absolute penalties, or £592,000 if the penalties were not absolute. Under it the mail boats would abstain from any competition for the carriage of goods or passengers; but, if the Government so wished, would carry on their account, profit and risk, any specie that might be going for the three years to which the hon. Member for Hackney by his Motion proposes to limit the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company. Mr. Holt would undertake the service at £30,000 a-year less than the Peninsular and Oriental Company charge with an eight years' contract, and this offer is not mixed up with any conditions as to the conveyance of passengers or cargo. Let me recapitulate shortly the advantages which such an offer has over the contract we are now asked to confirm. In the first place, if this offer were accepted, the mail boats would, if necessary, carry neither passengers nor cargo, and the development of our steam traffic would no longer be impeded by a subsidized Company using its excessive subsidies as a means of driving away competition. In the second place, if such a contract be cancelled at the end of any year after the second year, the Government would then be placed in a position to accept a proposal to carry the mails for the postage earned. If this offer, having been accepted, were cancelled at the end of the third year—the time for which it is proposed that the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company should be confirmed—the country would save £60,000. If put an end to at the end of the fourth year, there would have been saved £160,000. If at the end of the fifth I year, it would have saved £265,000. If at the end of the sixth year, they would have saved £360,000. If at the end of the seventh year, they would have saved £462,000. And if at the end of the eighth year, they would have saved £560,000. And, in addition to this, there would be the profit on the carriage of specie, if Government chose to undertake that business. He did not wish to underrate the consideration undoubtedly due to a Company which had carried on the service for a long time satisfactorily. They were entitled to a preference, but nothing more; certainly not to £560,000 out of the money of the taxpayers of this country more than the sum for which the packet service can be equally well and as rapidly performed by other steamship owners. That is really what the present contract, owing to mistakes committed, proposes to do. But the real object of the offer is to get rid of this system of expensive subsidies, which burdens the English taxpayer, injures the trade of the country, and retards, instead of promoting, the improvement of steam navigation. The proposers of this are quite willing that the offer should be made to the Peninsular and Oriental Company to take the contract for the eight years, if they like, for the simple postage; for that is really what it ought ultimately to be done for. We believe that it would pay the Peninsular and Oriental Company to undertake the service for the postage rather than give up the contract; and, if not, if the Government were in a position to accept a proposal to carry the mails for the postage, the steam shipping trade to the East, relieved from the unfair oppression of an excessively subsidized Company, would soon be in a position to undertake the service. If it was asked why the offer was not made previously, I would ask anyone to read the invitations to the tender issued by the Government. It was assumed that no steamboat owner could suppose that a tender on such a footing was intended to be covered by such an invitation; while the short time given to send in tenders, and the impossibility that any such contract could be confirmed in that Session, practically, gave no time to negotiation or inquiry. But if the Government are not prepared for such a complete reform as this, then they had better fall back upon the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney, to confirm the proposed contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for three years, appointing at the commencement of next Session a Select Committee upon postal matters. There would be no difficulty in convincing any business-like Committee in a very few days that the present system is most unduly and most extravagantly expensive to the taxpayers; and that, so far from benefiting the shipping trade, it actually discourages that competition of private effort to which alone we can look for such development of our shipping trade as will enable us to maintain the lead we now have in the commerce of the world. Look at the expansion and improvement that has taken place in the Atlantic trade since the system of subsidies has broken down. The Government now have ample time, after possessing themselves of all the information which such a Committee would give them, to invite tenders on the most advantageous footing for the public. Time would be given for the desirable negotiations and arrangements, while the shipping trade, knowing that they would have ample time to prepare for the new contract, would be able to make their tenders with confidence. They could be confirmed before Parliament rises, and would be able to complete their arrangements in the most economical and efficient manner. I am assured by those upon whose assurance I can rely that had fair time been given for sending the tenders and negotiating calculations, and for building the necessary steamers after the contract had been confirmed, the India postal service, and that for the Straits and China by making Calcutta the port of arrival and departure, would have been tendered for at the speed of the proposed contract, for about a half of the subsidy now under consideration, the vessels in this case being of a size that could carry both goods and passengers; and if the Amendment is accepted, and the necessary time given, I am informed this would still be open to the Government. I am not here to advocate the interests of any individual shipowners. Our contention is, that none of the tenders made in the present instance were likely to be such as it would have been advantageous to the country to accept. Our sole object is to get rid of a system expensive to the country and paralyzing to the private enterprize of its steamship owners—a system, moreover, which gives to other nations the extremely false impression that the way to create a shipping trade is to subsidize it. Now, I have seen it urged that the Government, having accepted this contract, it would not be fair to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, at this stage of the matter, to re-consider the question. But, as I have pointed out, both by enactment and practice, Parliament has given full notice that these contracts are to be re-considered previous to their being confirmed; and though the Peninsular and Oriental Company may naturally be disquieted at not getting this exorbitant subsidy for a period of eight years, they have been in no way prejudiced by the action of the Government so far. On the contrary, by our proposals to allow them to have the contract for three years, at as high a rate of payment, they will be large gainers by the action of the Department, as they will have three years more of the large subsidy they would not have had had the Department given ample time to obtain offers from other competitors, which I have shown would have been open to the Government, had the Department given sufficient time to insure a bonâ fide competition. I repeat, even if they accept the offer of this contract for three years only, the Peninsular and Oriental Company will be large gainers by the mistake that has been committed; and one need, therefore, have no scruple whatever in limiting to three years this exorbitant subsidy. I would, therefore, urge most strongly upon the Government and the House of Commons to limit to three years' duration this contract, which is most onerous to this country and India, and most unfavourable to the development of our steam trade with the East and our Australian Colonies.

pointed out that it was in the interests of the commercial world and of the general public that mails should be conveyed with rapidity, and by a great Company with a thoroughly efficient fleet, and that such a Company could not undertake such a contract for so short a term as three years except at a greatly enhanced cost. Hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the Amendment appeared to have entirely ignored the fact that similar arguments were brought forward a few years ago in reference to the United States mail. Under the influence of those arguments the Government yielded, and adopted what was called the postal system; but there were such complaints with respect to the carrying of the mails, and the system worked so badly, that it was impossible to resist the arguments that were advanced in favour of reverting to the old system. Since then there had been no complaints, and the commercial world had benefited to a very considerable degree.

thought nobody could deny that the work had been well done by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. On the other hand, their return for it had been small. Their dividends had never exceeded 6 per cent, while they had sometimes fallen below 5 per cent. In considering the question of breaking up the contract, one had to bear in mind the amount of depreciation which their enormous plant—estimated by themselves at £4,000,000, although some disputed that estimate with reference to the present time—must suffer if their vessels ceased to be used as mail steamers, and which would more than represent the dividends they had paid during the whole time the contracts had run. Also the 16,000 seamen the Company employed, and who were now available in time of war, might, and probably would, be dispersed. The Peninsular and Oriental Company had, he maintained, established a fair claim to the contract in question. He held that there had been sufficient time given to other Companies for preparing tenders, and there had been four competitors for the service. The contract of the Peninsular and Oriental Company ought to be confirmed, because their tender was the lowest. He denied that there was any loss on this subsidy. There was no Department that yielded a greater profit to the Revenue than the Post Office, and the profit thus obtained must be looked at as a whole, and it was unallowable to refer to any one special service as failing to contribute to that profitable result by reference to letters carried and money paid, as the subsidy stimulated and succoured trade and commerce far beyond the mileage distance that the steamers worked over. It was not correct to say that the contract could not be divided, and that, therefore, many shipowners were prevented from tendering. The fact was, it was sub-divided into four different parts—namely, between Suez and Shanghai, Brindisi and Alexandria, Suez and Alexandria, and Suez and Bombay; so that it did not necessarily follow that the competitors were required to tender for the whole service or none, as several times stated in the course of this debate. By means of the subsidies, which for a number of years had been given to Companies for the mail services, many of our steamships had reached their present point of perfection. If the contract had been given to persons who had not already the ships requisite for the postal service, as the Peninsular and Oriental Company had, the present unsound state of our shipping trade would have been aggravated by bringing many more ships into the trade, and increasing the number of vessels competing for existence, when it was well known there were already more in existence than could be worked except at a loss. If it were still possible to accept the alternative offer made by the Peninsular and Oriental Company to contract for five years, at an increased subsidy of £20,000, he should be glad to see a compromise effected in that way; but if that could not be done he was prepared to support the view of the Government.

thought the careful and detailed manner in which the Secretary to the Treasury had revealed the whole state of the case ought to have satisfied anybody of the bona fides of this contract. In his opinion, the Government had made the best arrangement that was possible on a review of all the circumstances. He ridiculed the idea that there had been no real competition, because the time for sending in tenders was limited to 29 days. It was well known the then existing contract was expiring, and no Company which intended to compete required anything like six months' notice, for they would naturally make their preparations from a knowledge of the date of the expiration, and would be ready to compete the moment the time came for sending in tenders.

admitted the difficulty which existed in deciding on the respective merits of competing tenders, and thought there had been no lack of competition in the present case. Indeed, there had been a keen competition, and a considerable number of competitors whose capacity could be relied upon. But it was open to considerable doubt whether the Government had accepted the best offer, because Mr. Holt's alternative tenders were either lower in amount or offered advantages in the saving of time. The difficulty appeared to have arisen with the Colonial Office, which objected to the mails from China being conveyed viâ Bombay. In all the circumstances, the strongest objection to the proposal made was that the contract was to be binding for eight years. He thought it had been practically settled some years ago that contracts of this kind should not be entered into for a longer period than five years; and in this case, where there was some doubt as to which was the best tender, eight years seemed an unreasonably long period for which to confirm the contract. He would support the proposal to confirm it for three years only; and he concurred in the view of those who said that, in the meantime, a Committee of the House should consider the whole subject.

said, he had been flooded with pamphlets and articles which came from disappointed competitors, who used rather strong language when they talked about the supineness and incompetence of the Post Office authorities. The time allowed for sending in tenders was amply sufficient; but from 12 to 18 months was required for the building of ships, when new ones were necessary for the maintenance of a certain rate of speed. The Peninsular and Oriental Company were, in his opinion, justified in asking for a small increase in their mileage rate, owing to the great expense they must necessarily incur to secure an increased rate of speed.

said, the real question before them was whether the House would refuse to sanction a contract which had been recommended to it after the most careful consideration, not by the Post Office or the Treasury, but by the whole Government of the country, and which no one alleged would not be amply carried out by the contractors. Would the House refuse to sanction that, in order to substitute—what? He asked, emphatically, what it was the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment would propose in substitution for the contract which the House was now asked to sanction? The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) sought to defeat the contract—as his Amendment, if adopted, virtually would—by limiting the duration of the contract for three years in place of eight, without suggesting any substitute. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), on the other hand, took a letter out of his pocket, and intimated that the writer, a friend of his, was ready to undertake the work if the contract were defeated. Long as he had sat in the House he had never heard—he hoped the hon. Member for Liverpool would excuse him for saying so—so audacious a proposal. If such were to be the practice of hon. Members of repute in the House of Commons, honourable competition for contracts would be stopped, because no one would tender who could get a Friend to make a proposal at the last moment in the House of Commons. If this contract were now cancelled—and, as he had said, the change from eight years to three would virtually cancel it—what contractor in the future could rely on the faith of Governments? If the House acted in the vain hope that men connected with the shipping interest were so patriotic as to carry letters to the end of the earth for nothing, he certainly was not prepared to take the responsibility. Two years ago he attempted to establish the free system in the Atlantic service between Liverpool and New York; but at the end of 11 months the system collapsed. He had been charged with having abandoned it; but the fact was, it deserted him. Let not the House suppose that the substitution of five for eight years would be economical. Mr. Holt would not tender for any term under eight years. The Peninsular and Oriental Company asked £20,000 a-year more for five than for eight years; while Messrs. Smith, who tendered for the Bombay Service, asked £60,000 a-year more for five than for eight years. If they reduced the term, the country would have to pay for it through the nose, and it was only by lengthening the term that they could get a satisfactory and economical working. The Government had taken every precaution to arrive at a sound and just conclusion in the matter. On all these grounds, he hoped the House would support the Government, and ratify the contract which they had made.

could not approve the extension of the contract to eight years. It was unnecessary and prejudicial to the Public Service If improvement kept pace during the next eight years with the last, the speed of this contract would be below the average of steamers travelling to the East by one or two knots an hour. He hoped the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) would be accepted.

remarked, that representing, as he did, the port of Southampton—the birth-place of the Peninsular and Oriental Company—he had, throughout a life-time, watched with pride and satisfaction the wonderful progress of that Company since 1836. For 42 years its splendid ships had carried Her Majesty's mails between England and the Orient efficiently and well. Taking all things into consideration, the service had been maintained as faithfully and as regularly as the carrying of the mails between Queenstown and Holyhead, and this had been rendered possible by a maritime organization unsurpassed in magnitude and completeness by any similar Company in the world. The great strength and splendid efficiency of the Peninsular and Oriental Company were matters of which Englishmen might well be proud. Its noble fleet comprised 64 fine vessels, with an aggregate registered tonnage of 125,000 tons, and its operations were sustained by a capital of nearly £5,000,000. Her Majesty's Government could, therefore, with safety, intrust such a contract to its keeping, knowing what had been done in the past, and having in this the best assurance as to what would be done in the future. As the Company's ships had left the port of Southampton, he (Sir Frederick Perkins) had no interest in them beyond that of old association. He knew that a mistake had been made in leaving that port, which the best friends of the Peninsular and Oriental had never ceased to regret; and he felt that the removal from the new contract of the condition which required the mail steamers to call at Southampton would be a loss to the nation, as well as a disadvantage to the interests of the Company, since passengers would much prefer embarking and disembarking there than brave the dangers and delays of the English Channel. Southampton was the Blackwall of the southern coast, and was, indeed, unrivalled for its clock accommodation, for the convenience it afforded of going on board steamers direct from the railway carriages, and for the advantage which those steamers had of leaving or entering at any hour, and at any state of the tide. It was ridiculous for those who had been unsuccessful elsewhere thus to bring their grievances into the House of Commons. Having been fairly worsted, they should have taken their defeat like men, and not have come there as they had done to expose the weakness of their case. The Peninsular and Oriental Company owed the new mail contract to no consideration shown for the Company's past services, nor to its unique position as the only Company possessing a fleet absolutely ready to carry out the work; but they owed it simply to the fact that the tender made by the directors for the services required by the Government was the cheapest tender in point of price, while it was also superior in the quality of the service it offered to those sent in by other shipowners. Hence, as the Company had won the contract by the lowness of their price and the increase of their speed, it was only just and fair they should have it. He would conclude by reminding the Government that they should endeavour to secure the confirmation of the contract, as, by so doing, they would cut the ground from beneath the Opposition, and show that in this respect, at least, the Session of 1879 had not been altogether the fruitless and barren one it was alleged to have been.

said, he had listened to the noble Lord the Postmaster General, who had very ingeniously and wisely passed over the charges against the Government, and treated it as a contract which was already completed, and could not be set aside. In making the charges he did against the Government he firmly believed neither the noble Lord nor the Secretary to the Treasury had any hand in any under-handed work; but they were very much in the hands of the permanent officials of the Department, and the result to the public was nearly as if they had been concerned in it. He had, month after month, put down Questions on the Paper, asking when the tenders would be out; and, no doubt, the officials had managed to keep the tenders so late that there would be no time for competition. When, at last, the tenders came out, he took the trouble to go to the City to ascertain whether it was possible, at that late time, for tenders to be sent in, and, without exception, they all said it could not possibly be done; that they had to build their ships, and that the tenders should have been out a year sooner in order to give the public the opportunity of reaping the advantages of free competition. It had been said that the complaints only came from disappointed competitors; but he was not a disappointed competitor. He had nothing to do with any public Company whatever; but what he did was simply in the interests of the public.

sincerely hoped that every Irishman in the House would back up the Government in this Vote; because, when an attempt was made by Irishmen to establish a trade between Galway and Now York, those Liverpool gentlemen were the persons who paid the pilots to sink the ships in the middle of the bay.

who had given Notice of his intention on the Report of Supply being brought up to move the following Resolution:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty graciously to withhold Her approval of the plan for the erection of a monument to the late Prince Louis Napoleon in the Royal Chapel of King Henry Seventh in Westminster Abbey"—

having risen,

said: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, whether such a Motion as this could properly be brought forward upon the Report of Supply?

I have already informed the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that the Amendment could not be moved on the Report of Supply; but, at the same time, the House is aware that general observations are allowed on the Report.

The Motion, I presume, cannot be put?

No.

explained that he had, 10 days ago, placed his Motion on the Paper in the form of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply; but, inasmuch as Supply was finished yesterday, he had had no alternative except to put it on the Paper as an Amendment on bringing up the Report of Supply. Although he could not take a Division on the Motion, he hoped to elicit from the House an opinion on the subject which he was about to bring under their notice which would accomplish his object as effectually as if the matter went to a Division. The reason why he gave Notice of a Motion was that he could not otherwise legitimately bring the matter forward; and he was induced to do so by reading a letter from the Dean of Westminster, which had appeared in the public journals, in which that rev. gentleman had said that when he had received the application for erecting the proposed monument in the Chapel Royal he had at once consented, subject to the approval of Her Majesty, in whose Chapel Royal it was intended that the statue should be placed. He had naturally inferred, from the terms of the letter, that the approval of Her Majesty was necessary before the proposed step could be taken; but he had since been informed that the matter was entirely within the control of the Dean of Westminster. He might be wrong, and, if so, there were hon. Members who would, no doubt, set him right. The Dean was, he believed, what was called "his own peculiar" in ecclesiastical matters, which enabled him to deal with such a subject as he pleased. That, however, did not interfere with the only object he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had in view, which was to obtain an expression of the opinion of that House as to the desirability of this monument; for such an expression of opinion would, he was sure, carry great weight with those who had the decision of the matter in their hands. The place in which it was proposed to erect the monument—namely, right over the tomb of Oliver Cromwell—was, he thought, most inappropriate. They had been told that this was a trifling matter; but "trifles," someone had said, "make the sum of human things," and the House was proud to attend to the smallest, as well as the greatest, matters. This was a "trifle," moreover, in which the public took much interest. He yielded to no one in respectful sympathy he, in common with the whole country, felt for the Empress of the French in her great bereavement. No manly or generous heart would do anything to aggravate her grief. But the manner in which this question had been brought forward made it necessary for them to speak upon it. The question was as to the place where the monument was to be erected. No one would, of course, find fault with the proposal to erect a monument to the Prince at Woolwich, or any other part of the Dominions of the Queen, so that all those who knew and loved him should subscribe their money for the purpose. It was only because the proposal was to put up the monument in a national building, thereby giving it a national character, that he had a locus standi in calling the attention of the House to the subject. Of course, some hon. Gentlemen might say that the Abbey was a place where we ought to erect memorials to any persons who excited much interest in the country. If hon. Gentlemen held it to be a kind of exhibition, they must, of course, oppose him. But he totally differed from that view. Westminster Abbey had been for generations looked upon as the home of our mighty dead—a place where we ought to honour those who had served the country well. And, in his opinion, this monument was not to be erected to one who had done any service to England. He had nothing whatever to say against the' Prince who lately lost his life, whose character, from all we could learn, was a pleasing and amiable one, and to whom The Morning Post had alluded as being a sensible, liberal-minded young man, and a model of modesty and good sense. He had no doubt that that was true. He had seen the Prince's own words quoted in a pamphlet the other day, which described an interview with him, and which somewhat flattered him. His words, in reply to some remarks which were made 'to him, were—"I do not merit your praises; I am only a young man who has as yet done nothing." That was spoken manfully, modestly, and with good feeling, and certainly did not suggest that he had rendered such service as entitled him to a monument in such a place. Ridiculous language had been made use of in the Press. One morning paper had, for instance, said—

"His life and death recall to English minds the beautiful existence of a Philip Sidney or a Falkland."

This was great exaggeration. If the monument was to be erected in a political sense it was still more objectionable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, the other day, that there was nothing political about the matter. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman thought so. But we could not prevent its being looked upon as political. Abroad it would, and must be, so regarded. The Bonapartist Committee in Prance, only the other day, had said—

"A great neighbouring people has shown itself jealous of its duties towards our beloved Prince, and we cannot compete in the matter of homage with England, which gives him a place in Westminster Abbey, by the side of the illustrious dead who are her pride and her glory."

It was not desirable that we should do that sort of honour to one who, after all, was only a pretender. We owed no homage to the Napoleon family. What was its history? The First Napoleon was the scourge of the world. The second we knew little of, because, fortunately for him, he died before he was able to commit the crimes of others of his race. And the Third Napoleon, what was he? Only the other day he road, in The Life of the Prince Consort, a letter in which the Prince said of him, "He was born and bred a conspirator." Then they came to this young Prince. Had he clone anything in a public sense which called for such a national tribute as this must be? They must speak the truth, and say that he had not. He said himself very honestly that he simply went out to Africa with our troops to advertise himself, and to make a name, in order that he might employ the influence he there obtained to overthrow the settled Government of our neighbours in France. To put up a monument in Westminster Abbey to one engaged in a work of that kind was something like an outrage to this country. The Abbey had been beautifully described as "the great temple of silence and reconciliation." A monument in it, therefore, needed to be endorsed by the nation itself, and the feeling of a large majority against it would destroy its charm and merit. He believed there were great multitudes of people in this country who would look upon this memorial as one that would degrade our great national temple. And this being the case, he thought it would be wise to concede to the feeling of what might be a minority, but was certainly a large minority—it would be wise for that House to express an opinion on this matter, so that those who had the ultimate decision in their hands might be guided to act wisely.

I cannot but think that it is a fortunate circumstance that the hon. Baronet has been prevented by the Rules of the House from submitting to the House as a Motion that which he had placed upon the Paper. I must say I could have wished that, being precluded from offering it as a Motion, he had taken the wiser course of abstaining from any remarks upon the subject. ["No!"] I have no wish to analyze the motives of hon. Members, of course; but I do think that it is much to be regretted that such a subject as this should have been introduced to the House of Commons in such a speech as that to which we have just listened. I will say but a very few words indeed on this occasion. I repeat what I said a little time ago, that the admission of monuments into Westminster Abbey is a matter which rests entirely with the Dean. It is perfectly true that, in a letter which the Dean some time ago addressed to the public newspapers, he mentioned that, in proposing to admit a monument to Prince Louis Napoleon into the Royal Chapel of Henry VII., he did so subject to the approval of Her Majesty, whose family interest in the chapel we, of course, are aware of. I presume that, in so acting, the Dean was taking a course of proper respect towards Her Majesty; but, at the same time, was in no way calling in question his own right to admit the monument. The proposal that was made originated, as I understand, with the Dean himself, or, at all events, with some of the private friends of the Dean, and in no way, I am authorized to say, did it originate with Her Majesty herself. The proposal was made with, no political significance, but simply with the view of expressing sympathy with the fate of a gallant young man who was known to many of us in England, and whose death, whatever else may be said about it, was certainly of a character to awaken sympathy both for himself and his widowed mother. I really think that Englishmen might, in such circumstances, abstain from attempting to give a political complexion to what can only be, at all events, an expression of national sympathy, and which many of us would have preferred rather to respect in silence and sorrow. I wish entirely to enter my protest against the view which the hon. Baronet has adopted, that Westminster Abbey is to be regarded as a national building into which no monuments and no funerals are to be admitted except at the desire of the nation, and in order to mark the sense of the nation of some services rendered to England, and that in admitting or questioning the admission of any particular monument into that church we are to go into the political character and antecedents of the person or the family concerned. I say this is an entirely false view of the case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I did not say that it was only political services that were to be considered in this matter; I said some services to the nation.

Well, "services to the nation." I apprehend that a great many persons have been buried in the Abbey of whom no one can say they have done service to the nation. They were admitted for private reasons, and at the discretion of those who had the charge of the church. If you are to make the admission of a monument at the discretion of the Dean the subject of contest and discussion in Parliament, and if you make an analysis of the services which the person so admitted is supposed to have rendered to the nation, you are altering altogether the proper relations of the Church and State in regard to Westminster Abbey, and of the Houses of Parliament in regard to it. If you carry it much further, you would make it a question of discussion whether you do or do not agree or sympathize with the political Party with which the individual was, or was supposed to be, connected, and you introduce questions which we ought to keep clear of. I have to express my extreme regret that the hon. Baronet should have thought it right or in good taste to have made the observations he has made, and to have introduced to the notice of the House of Commons questions as to the dynasty of the Napoleons or the character of any of the ancestors of this gallant young man. It is not because he was a Frenchman, with these or the other views or connections, or because of political sympathy or political antipathy, or anything of the kind, that this proposal was made; but because the Prince had fallen in the service of this country under circumstances which awakened the sympathy of our countrymen, and because there was residing among us one with whom the country felt a very real and sincere sympathy. It was on that account the proposal was made by the Dean on his own responsibility; and I do think this House would be committing a serious and grave error if it were to attempt to pass a Resolution on this subject. I congratulate the House on the fact that the hon. Baronet is, by the Forms of the House, unable to present this Address, because I think the House would feel considerable difficulty in even attempting to pronounce an opinion on the question. It would seem as if we were dividing upon political questions which ought not to be introduced here.

said, he would avoid, in the few words he had to say, uttering a single word which could be any way regarded as intended to wound the feelings of anyone who was concerned in this matter; but, at the same time, he did protest most strongly against the tone that had been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to his hon. Friend and his Motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said, in effect, that this was a mere private church, over which a certain Dean had the control, and if he chose to put A, B, or C in the church it was nobody's business, and it certainly was not a matter in which they ought to ask the House of Commons to express an opinion. They might think it was a church in which they might bury the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy), with military honours, without anyone being able to say a single word about it.

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is in accordance with Parliamentary Rules for an hon. Member to refer in such disrespectful terms—disrespectful so unquestionably and indefensibly—to the hon. Member for Stoke?

The hon. Member-rises to Order; but I must say nothing reached my ears that appeared to me un-Parliamentary.

continuing, said, it appeared to him that the country would not think it discreet in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have answered the hon. Baronet as he had done. There was a great deal that might be said in favour of the adoption of the proposal that a monument should be erected to the young Prince in Westminster Abbey. All the conditions under which he died, the circumstance of his residence among us, the fact that he had lived here a generous and manly and gallant life, and the fact that in all his associations those who had met him had learned to admire his spirit, and to admire, as well, the culture of his mind. All these things, together with his relations with the Royal Family, no doubt, did afford reasons that might be taken by many people as ample and sufficient, and justify the Dean in having granted to him the privilege of a monument in the Abbey. But that was not all. Unhappily, we could not separate this young man from his circumstances and from his family. The fact that the Prince had an asylum in England, known as it was in France, which was now under a Republican Government, continually challenged the existence of the Government of France. Then, before he left this country upon that expedition which turned out so fatal, he issued, in a letter to a friend, that which was practically a manifesto. He (Mr. E. Jenkins) was in Paris when that manifesto was issued, and was in communication with some of those who, one would have thought, would have felt the effects of that letter. They felt this—that the Prince was taking advantage of his position in England for the purpose of issuing a manifesto aimed distinctly at a friendly Government. There was much to be said in regard to that. They knew the object with which the Prince left for the Capo. They knew that he had confessed that in going to South Africa he wished to show that he could use a sword, and to give proof of a manly spirit; but with what object? Why, that he should carry out the infamous ambition of the Bonapartes. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, the most infamous ambition which ever degraded this earth was that ambition—an ambition which would wade through blood to a Throne, and would not hesitate to trample on the corpses of free citizens in order to reinstate a dynasty that had originally established itself in blood and had maintained itself in cruelty. They might say these statements were such as were calculated to give pain to some persons; but, after all, this young Prince, as they knew, was preparing himself diligently, under the care of St. James, to gratify his ambitious designs on France—Prance, in which Liberty seemed at last to have set her foot. Yes, France, where at last they saw some hopes of a prosperous and a free people. The question which the House had to consider was simply this—What was the appropriateness of the building, and what were its surroundings? It had been argued that other Princes had found an asylum there; but had they been pretenders? He did not use the word in its offensive sense. They had not been pretenders to the Throne of a friendly Power. If it were otherwise, let anyone give him an instance where any pretender to the Throne of a friendly Power had been granted a place in Westminster Abbey. Look at the circumstances. Was there any appropriateness in the person? Had he done anything which entitled him to the gratitude of the English people? The House could not but remember the feeling aroused in the country when the first meeting took place between the Sovereign of England and the new Emperor. They knew how many in England had their feelings wrought up by the fact that this usurper should be waited upon by one who represented the dignity of this country. Was it likely that the people of this country would be satisfied with the fact that such a person as this should be selected for the honour of a tomb in Westminster Abbey? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Dean allowed all sorts of people to be buried there. That statement was misleading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it rested entirely with the Dean, and that he might grant a place for a monument to any person. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though made, undoubtedly, in good faith, was misleading. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: Is it not true?] It was not in the power of the Dean, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to say, to bury any person he pleased in Westminster Abbey, nor was it really in his power to grant a place for the tomb of any person he pleased in Westminster Abbey. Only a few weeks ago it was thought to be a proper thing to bring the funeral of Lord Lawrence under the attention of the House of Lords, and in reply to a Question which had been put to him by Lord Granville, the Prime Minister stated that the Government had offered the family the honour of a tomb in Westminster Abbey for the deceased Peer. (Cries of "A funeral."] Well, even if that were so, the body of Lord Lawrence would, he supposed, be buried in the Abbey. At all events, here they saw what was offered by the Government, and he wished to point out, in effect, that-that hit the influence of the Dean. There could be no doubt that while the Dean of Westminster had a technical right to place any monument he pleased in the Abbey, yet that, practically, there was brought to bear upon him a certain amount of influence in the erection of monuments. What did public opinion say of this? Why, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that from all sources there were protests against this proposal. Those protests were perfectly just, and reflected accurately the public opinion. ["No, no!"] Public opinion expressed itself thus—that although elsewhere monuments might be erected to this young Prince, neither the person, nor the place, nor the circumstances wore appropriate that there should be a monument in Westminster Abbey—the place which was dedicated to the virtue, to the nobility, to the highest character, and to the majesty of the English people, and which was never meant to be open to one who had neither by his deeds, nor by his condition, nor by his circumstances, won that right to an entrance into the great Valhalla of the British people.

wanted to explain why it was he had risen to Order in the early part of the evening. It was because he felt that such a Motion as that of the hon. Baronet opposite ought never to have figured on the Order Book of the House of Commons, and that it was most undesirable the House should be called upon to come to a vote on the subject. He did not propose in any way to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), because the wisest course, in his opinion, for the House to adopt was not to enter into a discussion on the internal politics of foreign countries. He might observe, with reference to the monument which it was proposed to erect to the late Prince Louis Napoleon, that the father of that young Prince had manifested great friendship for this country, that he himself had been brought up here, and had met with an untimely death while associating himself with our Army. He could not help thinking that the wish of some private friends in England, under those circumstances, to show respect for his memory was a matter which ought not to be introduced within the territory of politics or Party discussion.

said, he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in the view that the occasion was one in which it was not desirable to enter into the discussion of questions of foreign politics. But as allusions had been made by some hon. Members to the First Napoleon as the modern Attila, he would venture to ask those hon. Members who might be presumed to know something of the world's history whether they were aware of what the state of Europe was towards the end of the last century, when the Holy Alliance was paramount, and when a bloody revolution became necessary in order to change the aspect of things? If they were he was surprised that they, as Radicals, should have spoken as they had done of the founder of the Napoleon dynasty, and of the effect which he had produced in causing matters to settle down on a basis which at the time was thought would be permanent. Speaking as an Irishman, he would say that there was not a peasant in the South or West of Ireland who did not reverence the name of the First Napoleon, whose career had contributed so much to bring about those changed circumstances which made the Irish people now, he trusted, loyal supporters of the British Crown. The members of the Bonaparte family were spoken of as pretenders; but he would not trouble the House by entering into questions of that kind, or allude to the Orleanists as being pretenders in France, further than to say that during the late American War they had seen the Due de Chartres and other French Princes bear arms in the cause of the South; and, again, in the Franco-German War, under Chanzy; yet they never heard of the members of the Legislatures of France and America rising to taunt those Princes with having had Philippe Egalité for an ancestor. He regretted that now, because the Bonapartist family were down, they should be taunted as they had been, instead of having spmpathy extended to them in their distress.

said, he should be glad if what he could not help regarding as a most painful discussion should at once be brought to a close. The question had been raised in the public Press in becoming, decent, and respectful language, and he hoped it would not be dropped there. But the most likely way of getting it dropped and rendering it impossible to have a cool and moderate discussion among reflective men was to make speeches such as they had heard that night. Speaker after speaker had used language which they would be ashamed to read in the morning'—if, unhappily, it was reported. No one, from the stern Republican who represented Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), to the fervid Bonapartist who represented King's County—[Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN: I am not.]—to the eminent Citizen whore-presented King's County, could fairly say that Englishmen, if they wished, had not morally and politically a right to erect a monument to the memory of an amiable and gallant Prince. There might be objections to its being erected in Westminster Abbey on other grounds; and there was a case which had occurred during the present Session, in referring to which his hon. Friend opposite, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), would bear him out, for he as well as himself and other Members of the House were promoters of a project for the erection of a monument to an eminent patriot—he meant the late Earl Russell. The idea, however, of erecting the monument in Westminster Abbey had been abandoned, and it was to be erected in the Central Hall of the building in which they were then assembled, so that there could be nothing disrespectful to the memory of the late Prince Napoleon in the fact that the idea of erecting a monument to his memory in the Abbey had been entertained and afterwards abandoned, and an appropriate site—Woolwich, for instance—chosen instead. Westminster Abbey was the home of English history; there reposed the remains of those fellow-countrymen who had been most distinguished in the service of the State, in the Church, in literature, in science, and art. He offered these reflections for the consideration of the House; but he could not sit down without pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in his love of law and order, he had created a despot to be alarmed at in the Dean of Westminster, who, he said, could raise a monument to whom he pleased, and as he pleased, like the former Duke of Newcastle, who averred that he had "a right to do what he liked with his own."

wished to bring back the House to the real question before them. They were asked to adopt the "Report of Supply," and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle wished, instead, to censure the Dean of Westminster, because he proposed to erect a monument in Westminster Abbey, where he was supreme, to a gallant Prince who died in the service of this country'. The House was told that the French nation would take umbrage at this monument; not because it would have any offensive inscription, but simply because the Prince Imperial was a Pretender to the Throne of Prance. He would' remind the House that in St. Peter's at Rome there was a monument to the last British Pretender, which on the face of it bore the inscription that he was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland by the grace of God, and not by the will of man, erected to him in spite of the fact that he was a pensioner on our own Sovereign's bounty; and he defied any Englishman who had been at Rome to say that he had ever taken offence at that monument. Was there one Member of that House who doubted for a moment the liberality and charity of the Dean of Westminster, or would accuse him of mixing up political and religious partizanship with any act for which he was responsible in connection with the Abbey? Why, only a year or two ago he allowed to be put up in Westminster Abbey a monument to the two Wesleys. What would have been said if some Churchman had moved a Vote of Censure on the Dean for having erected a monument to one who, if not a Nonconformist himself, was the founder of the most powerful Nonconformist Body in England? If the House interfered with the act of the Dean of Westminster in this case, they would have to consider the case of every monument put up in the Abbey, which might be unpleasing to some religious Party. He thought nothing could be more objectionable. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend, after the discussion which had occurred, would leave the matter alone and allow the House to go to Business.

said, he was very reluctant to interpose in the debate; but he should like to say a few words before the matter dropped. He could not think that it devolved upon them to discuss the personal character and qualities of the late Prince Louis Napoleon. He was willing to believe that he was as amiable, as accomplished, and as gallant as any of his friends claimed that he was; but the only question before them was whether he should have a monument erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey was the last resting place of Kings and heroes. There lay greater men than many of their Kings had been—men who had won fame in the senate or the battle-field, in art, in science, and in literature. It could not be contended, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued to that effect, that it was quite an ordinary honour to erect a monument to a man in Westminster Abbey. He (Mr. Burt) wished to know why such an honour should be claimed for the late Prince Louis Napoleon? He did not inquire into his motives in going out to Africa; but he believed the Prince himself stated that he went there to got himself talked about; that he went to win a name and a reputation, in order to strengthen his position as a claimant to the Throne of a neighbouring and friendly nation. He saw nothing in the Prince going out to Africa to fight in a war of which Englishmen generally, would be proud. They were not proud of the war we were waging there. Prince Napoleon was not a Garibaldi going to fight for the independence of a people, or to emancipate an oppressed, nationality. He entered upon a war with which he had nothing to do. He took the side of the strong against the weak—he had almost said of the oppressor against the oppressed. He could see nothing to be admired in that. It was very difficult, if not impossible, to dissociate Prince Louis Napoleon's name from politics. Whether they did or not, they knew that in a neighbouring country, and also in this country, his career would be associated with political questions. He was quite ready to believe that the promoters of the memo- rial had not been influenced by political considerations, and that they viewed—as the great mass of the people of the country certainly viewed—with satisfaction the stable Government which was now established in France; but, undoubtedly, in France this attention to Prince Napoleon had had a considerable amount of political significance attached to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the monument was to be erected to the Prince, because he was a young man who had fallen in fighting our battles. He, however, denied the statement, and would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether no other men fell fighting our battles by the side of the Prince? Did they propose to raise a monument to them? His objection to this monument was not at all on account of the personal qualities of the Prince, but because he thought they were drawing distinctions between one man and another which ought not to be recognized. If they erected monuments to men in Westminster Abbey, it ought to be, not because of their rank or lineage alone, but because of their moral qualifications, and the great national achievements they had performed.

said, there was a curious misconception as to the purpose of this discussion. He would be sorry it should be thought that anyone in that House had any idea of passing a Vote of Censure on the Dean of Westminster. Like most other Members of the House, he had the honour of a personal acquaintance with the Dean of Westminster, and had received kindness from him; and certainly it would have never entered into his mind, or the minds of any of his hon. Friends, to think of being so absurd as to suggest a Vote of Censure upon him. But the Dean of Westminster must have known, when he came to so grave a resolve as the erection of a monument to Prince Louis Napoleon in Westminster Abbey, that something of public discussion must have followed on that resolution. The Dean was the last man who would have thought Parliament had no right to express any opinion on what he proposed to do, or to contend that he was merely the custodian of a private and insignificant building into which he might introduce a monument of anyone he pleased. The right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had made somewhat of a mistake in thinking he had discovered an analogy between this case and the case of a Stuart Prince buried in St. Peter's at Rome. St. Peter's claimed to be what he might call the parish church of all the Catholic world; and it was almost a matter of course that a great Catholic Prince dying within the shadow of the dome of St. Peter's should find a tomb or monument in its vaults. In this particular instance the case was different. It was not the custom in this country to bury foreign Princes in Westminster Abbey; nor did Westminster Abbey hold, in the history of the country, at all the same position which St. Peter's held in the history of Rome. Most distinctly, Westminster Abbey was, and always had been, intended to hold the tombs and monuments of the great men of English history. The hon. Member for the King's County ventured to assume that everyone in that House was an historian. He did not know that a House full of historians would be a very lively Assembly; but he would be glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go through a slight course of study of that kind, when he remembered the description the right hon. Gentleman had given of Westminster Abbey as a place where the Dean might bury, and raise a monument to, anyone he pleased. Not one of the foreign Princes that had died in this country had ever, as far as he knew, been buried in Westminster Abbey. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that if the Prince had been a man of no birth and no name, who fell fighting for us, no one would suggest the possibility of a monument to him in Westminster Abbey. It was because he bore the Napoleon name that this almost unprecedented honour was about to be accorded to his memory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lectured hon. Gentlemen very sharply on their want of taste and of historical education; but it seemed to him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) that there was something distinctly like a want of national good taste in raising this conspicuous monument to a Prince who no longer belonged to a reigning family, and who, disguise it as gracefully as they would, represented claims which the French nation no longer acknowledged. Prince Louis Napoleon, in joining the British Army in South Africa, had been inspired by a natural desire to gain distinction for himself, and there was not the slightest objection to his comrades and his admirers raising a memorial to him; but he did think that, on the ground he had stated, it would be an entire mistake to place his monument in Westminster Abbey.

said, that since this monument began to be talked about he had often spoken to working men on the subject; and, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), he believed if this agitation had not been got up by a small section of the community every working man in this country would have approved what was proposed. We had educated the Prince, we admired him, he went out to Zululand to fight on our side; and when, in such circumstances, he met that most untimely death, it was most becoming in this country to recognize what he had clone for us. Therefore, though, he was not there to praise or to blame the Dean of Westminster, he was there to approve the monument; and he believed, if the country were polled, a vast majority would be found to support the proposal.

said, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had stated that there was no precedent for erecting a monument to a foreign Prince in Westminster Abbey. He believed the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, because there was a monument to a Duke de Montpensier in Westminster Abbey. And if a Dean of Westminster in those days had been allowed to set up such a monument quietly, why should not the Dean of Westminster now be allowed to exercise his discretion with reference to a monument to Prince Napoleon? If hon. Gentlemen objected to the proposed monument on the ground that the late Prince represented the Napoleon family only, and not a reigning House, he, on the other hand, might say that the Duke de Montpensier to whom he referred was son of Philippe Egalité, and an exile. No considerations of that kind ought to enter into this question. The Dean of Westminster was within his right in starting this idea, and, with the generosity which always characterized him, he said he would cause a monument to be erected to the Prince, if it should not be displeasing to Her Majesty. They might, therefore, leave the matter where they found it.

said, he thought it was time to ask the House why they should meddle with this matter? He did not see why they should enter into what their political feelings were; and he would ask hon. Members whether they were not incurring serious danger by giving a political aspect to a question which had no political character? So far as he was acquainted with the traditions of Westminster Abbey, it had received within its walls many illustrious persons and monuments of persons who were not illustrious. The Houses of Parliament had not laid down any rules as to who should be admitted within the walls of the Abbey. The result of the discussion only went to show that they would run the risk of getting into great complications if they added to the already overloaded Business of Parliament the task of settling what monuments should be added to Westminster Abbey and their historic Cathedrals. They had much better leave that to those charged with the supervision of such places. Parliament was in no way responsible for who went into them, either dead or in marble, and it would be advisable that the House should decline to interfere.

said, he would not detain the House at any great length. ["Divide, divide!"] Hon. Members were crying "Divide!" but that would not prevent him continuing his remarks. They should show a little reason and forbearance. [A Voice: Pepper away like one o'clock.] He would ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade whether the erection of this monument had or had not a political meaning? That country, which had now the honour of being a Republic, would certainly not appreciate what was about to be done—[Interruption.)

I rise to Order. I think if anything can throw discredit upon this House the present course of action of some hon. Members will—[" Oh, oh!"]

I also rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Briggs) wishes to address the House upon a point of Order.

That is my object, I merely wish to say that I could not catch what the hon. Member was saying, in consequence of the interruption of the proceedings from the other side of the House. In fact, there was one phrase which I caught distinctly from the other side, which I hardly think was Parliamentary. It was, "Pepper away like one o'clock."

I understood the hon. Member to rise to a point of Order; but I am unable to understand what the point of Order is. I call on the hon. Member for Ennis to proceed.

said, the Government and their supporters must not hope to get out of an awkward difficulty by refusing to hear what Members had to say. [Murmurs.] He was not to be put down by shouts, but must claim his right to be heard. Prince Louis Napoleon had for a length of time only an individual character in this country, and by attempting to commemorate his memory in a national institution they were offering an implied insult to the French Republic. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might cry "No," and attempt to gloss the matter over, but history would record that England, whom the French might well term la perfide Albion, had clone an injury to a friendly neighbour. As the House appeared to be in a facetious humour, he would only say that if they felt condemned to turn Westminster Abbey into a second Madame Tussaud's they were welcome to do so.

in moving that the House should disagree with the Resolution of the Committee, said, he wished to explain why he took such a course. The House had now been occupied for some time in discharging the duties of a vestry; and he, therefore, thought they might now devote a little time to the consideration of the question of education in Ireland. Last evening, when these Votes came before the Committee, the Irish Members allowed them to pass without challenge, and they did so advisedly. The Irish Members had no wish to delay the Sittings of the House; but they desired, upon the present occasion, to express their opinion upon those Institutions for which this Vote was proposed. They did not wish the House or the country to understand for one moment that, in allowing the Vote to pass, they approved of those Institutions. But the Government having initiated a policy with respect to University Education, they were desirous of giving them time, in order to see whether the people of Ireland would fall in with that policy. He hoped that the result of that policy which the Government had initiated would be that the Irish Members would be able to see their way to let those discussions which had taken place upon this Vote from year to year drop. The institution of the Queen's Colleges was commenced at a very unfortunate period—namely, when the celebrated Maynooth Grant was brought forward in the House of Commons. That was a period of great excitement; and such a no-Popery spirit prevailed that it was quite impossible for the then Government, who entertained wise and liberal ideas on the subject, to carry those ideas out. It was' well known that those Colleges did not meet the wants of the people in the South and West of Ireland. He knew that his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would say—" Why did not the Catholics of the South and West of Ireland embrace the advantages of those Colleges?" but it appeared to him (Mr. Shaw) that when the Government instituted those Colleges they took very good care that the College at Belfast should be made acceptable to the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, for the President was a Presbyterian, and the greater part of the Professors were Presbyterians. But the same care was not taken to make the Colleges in the South and West acceptable to the people. In Cork, the first President of the College was certainly a Catholic; but his duties compelled him to live elsewhere, and the acting President of the College for many years was a Protestant, and the great majority of the Professors were also Protestants. For many years the pervading feeling of the Colleges of Cork and Galway had been Protestant; and it was quite impossible to expect Catholics with their feelings, and perhaps prejudices, to make use of them. Now, he did not make an indiscriminate attack on the Queen's Colleges, which, he believed, had to some extent been useful; but they had failed lamentably to carry out higher education among the Roman Catholics of the South and West of Ireland. He knew 100 Catholic families in Cork and its suburbs whose sons naturally would have gone to the Queen's Colleges but for their religious feelings and principles. Those Colleges, which had been kept up for 35 years and largely endowed, had not met the wants of the people in the South and West of Ireland; and he asked whether it was not time to change that position, and bring those Institutions more in harmony with the wants of the people? He hoped that the Government would not stop with the Bill that they had brought in; but would see what could be done with regard to Catholic education. He did not want, at that time of night, to do more than raise this question, in order to express to the House and to the country the determination of the Irish Members that if these Colleges were not changed, and materially changed, they would raise these discussions year after year on the Estimates, until they brought the opinion of the House and the country in harmony with their views on this subject. The College of Galway was not used by people in the vicinity; and, in consequence, the students, to a great extent, came from the North of Ireland. He believed, when these Colleges were instituted, the Catholics made some demand that the Bishops should be members of the Governing Body; and he could not understand why so reasonable a request was not assented to. He most sincerely hoped that the Government, now that they had touched the question of Irish University Education, and had brought it, to some extent, to a successful issue, would complete their good work by making those Colleges what they ought to be—namely, educational Institutions for the South and West of Ireland.

regretted that the hon. Member for the County Cork had not expressed his opinion on this subject earlier in the Session, because he now admitted that these Queen's Colleges had been a success in an educational point of view, and might have been made, by slight alteration, acceptable to the Irish Catholics. It was evident, however, that an attack was intended to be made on these Colleges another Session; and, therefore, the Government must feel that they had made a very heavy sacrifice with regard to Irish University Education in order to secure a year's peace.

could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard to pass without notice. He (the O'Conor Don) thought that, if anything, the Queen's Colleges Vote this year had passed without sufficient comment. The reason why there had been no discussion upon it was because there had been such full discussions upon University Education, both upon the Government Bill and the measure he had had the honour of introducing. Irish Members had abstained from commenting on the course of education carried on in the Queen's Colleges, because they believed they would have ample opportunity of entering into that subject when the Vote for those Institutions was proposed; but that Vote had been put off until the last week in the Session, after the University Bill had passed through Committee, and there was a general desire on the part of the Irish Members not to raise another discussion upon Irish education. The Queen's Colleges Vote, therefore, escaped the criticism which it would otherwise have received. He could not quite agree with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) that these Institutions could ever be made acceptable to the Catholics, because he believed their principle was radically wrong, and, educationally, they had been failures. He believed that the education carried on at Galway was an educational sham, and did not deserve the support of the country or a Vote of public money.

thought that the hon. Member for Roscommon had misunderstood the meaning of the hon. Member for Cork, who had said that when proper provision was made for the University Education of Irish Catholics the chief ground of the hostility of the latter to the Queen's Colleges would be removed. Their objection to the Queen's Colleges was based on the ground that, whilst they were ostensibly created for Irish Catholics, they were so conducted that the Catholics could not make use of them.

thought that this discussion was due to the very successful way in which the hon. Member for Liskeard always contrived to misunderstand the Queen's Colleges question. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said with reference to the education carried on at Galway College being an educational sham, and thought that Cork College was quite as bad.

did not consider he should he doing his duty to his constituents if he gave a silent vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork. It was well the House should understand that the hostility of the great majority of the Irish people continued unabated to the continuance of this grant. To those to whom the State ought to give educational aid the Queen's Colleges were of no benefit. The conspicuous failure of these Institutions, notwithstanding the lavish expenditure on them each year, ought to convince Parliament that this system of education sought to be forced on the Irish people was opposed to their feelings and judgment, and would never be successful. The great preponderance of educational opinion in Ireland, even amongst Protestants, had pronounced against those Institutions. He would say, as had been said by the late Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, that he would tell any Prime Minister that it would be as easy to take St. Paul's in his hands as to attempt to change the settled religious convictions of the Irish people on this question of education.

said, it was originally intended by the Irish Members to offer a stout opposition to these Estimates, but, fortunately for the Estimates, the Government's University Bill was introduced, and it was then decided that opposition had better be deferred, at all events, until next Session. He wished, however, to point out that after the passing of the measure he had referred to the Queen's Colleges would occupy such an exceptional and unique position that it would be more than ever necessary to oppose these Estimates in future years. If the Government University Bill passed, all the old objections to these Institutions would remain, while new ones would arise. These Colleges would still remain, and they would be unused to an extent even greater than at present, since Catholics would be able to obtain a University degree without resorting to them. Therefore, they would have these Colleges in future years with a gradually diminishing attendance—they would, in fact, gradually expire. Under these circumstances, it must not be expected that in future years these Votes would be treated by the Irish Members with the leniency they had displayed on the present occasion, when it was thought desirable to do nothing to interfere with the progress of the Government measure.

defended the Vote, maintaining that the contracts were effected on the best terms that could be obtained.

in moving the omission of the sum of £3,800, the amount to be voted for the construction of the new hospital for two regiments at Regent's Park Barracks, said: I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while I call attention, on this Vote, to a subject of great interest to the regiments of Household Cavalry, with one of which I have the honour to be connected; and I therefore beg to move, as a matter of form, the Amendment which stands in my name. Its terms are precisely the same as those of an Amendment which long stood on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) prior to this Vote being taken in Committee. I regret that my hon. Friend was not in his place last night when the Vote passed without discussion, somewhat unexpectedly; and I regret more his absence this evening, because, not only would the case be in better hands with him, but he would be in a position to speak for a considerable portion of the non-military public. Now, with reference to Motions of this sort, it always appears to me unfortunate that, in consequence of the Forms of the House, they cannot in their terms explain their own meaning. And, in this instance, it seems specially absurd that I should wish to reduce a Vote for a hospital which, is already built, and half of which is occupied by patients from my own regiment. There is thus all the more reason for explanation on my part of what is here intended. The objects of my hon. Friend are identical with mine, while our pleas are somewhat different; for we both desire the Government to acquire that ground and those houses between the east end of the new Hyde Park Barracks and the Duke of Wellington's Riding School, on either side what is know as "Tattersall's Passage." My hon. Friend, had he been present, would have urged a promise made to him by the late Secretary of State for War (Lord Cranbrook) that, if opposition to the site of the new barracks was withdrawn, these houses would be pulled down. The opposition was accordingly withdrawn; but the houses still remain. It is, however, no intention of mine to take up that argument. I am sure, if there be a promise of this sort noted at the War Office, my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) will give effect to it. But I rest my case entirely on military grounds, considering that the removal of these houses will remedy sundry defects in the new barracks at Knightsbridge the existence of which must seriously interfere with their efficiency—defects which arise simply from want of space. The greatest of these defects is the want of a hospital in the barracks. There is a consensus of opinon among all military men that a Cavalry barrack, at all events, is not complete without its hospital. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will, no doubt, admit this himself, if it be possible to place one among the buildings. I need not dilate on this point, more particularly as it was well spoken of last year by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), when he brought this very question forward. Unfortunately, that was on the 6th of August, and at 2 o'clock in the morning, when little support could be expected; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdrew his Motion, pending an interview with the Secretary of State for War, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman invited him and me, in order, if possible, to come to some compromise in the matter. Originally, in the plan for the barracks, was a temporary ward containing three beds; but the Secretary of State for War then proposed that the accommodation should be doubled. However, this was a compromise which could not be accepted; because, still, a double hospital Staff, and a double dispensary, would be requisite for Knightsbridge temporary ward, and Regent's Park hospital, as well as the daily ambulance. But I must now pass to the hospital in Regent's Park, and will not dwell on its excellencies and defects, except to make this remark, that there is only one infectious ward to contain all infectious diseases from both regiments. It will, naturally, be brought up against me that as the hospital is there it would be ridiculous now to build another at Hyde Park. No doubt, this argument, in a monetary point of view, is worth something, unless it can be shown, as I shall now show, that if the Knightsbridge proposal be agreed to the second hospital at Regent's Park can be otherwise utilized. At Regent's Park, certain Staff officers' quarters are by no means what they should be—entering by doors and staircases, &c., common to married non-commissioned officers. Moreover, at Regent's Park, we have a very considerable proportion of noncommissioned officers and men married with leave, who have to lodge out of barracks. At present, there are 10 non-commissioned officers and 23 privates who receive in lieu of lodging the niggardly allowance of 4d. a-day, while they have, probably, to pay some 5s. or 6s. a-week for their lodgings. My proposal, then, is to turn the second hospital into Staff officers' quarters—an alteration which canvas I am advised by the Engineer officers, easily be carried out—and to bring in as many of the non-commissioned officers as possible for the vacated Staff quarters. If this be done, a great boon will be conferred on a deserving body of men, and the Lodging Vote will be decreased in proportion. To return to Knightsbridge Barracks, I spoke of other defects there, one being the excessively inconvenient situation of the forage stores, in cellars approached by a steep curving stone stair. I may mention the entire absence of what in Scotland we call a "midden"—that is, an arrangement for the stowage of manure, and particularly the separation of the sections of the veterinary department, the sick horses being at one end of the barracks, the forge at the other, a quarter of a mile off. All these drawbacks can be done away with if the proposal to pull down the old houses be adopted, and the ground, west of the passage, taken in. Hon. Members have only to visit the barracks, and they will see for themselves that these houses must come down some day. It may be said—why has not this been already represented? It has been repeatedly represented by the commanding officers of the three regiments; but, what between those in authority, favourable to the unification scheme, and others who go in for economy at all costs, no heed was paid to the regimental officers. They ultimately came to Parliament last year, when their claims were advocated fully and clearly by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton. I have already alluded to the result of that; and now that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sees how impossible it is for the compromise he suggested last year to be accepted I trust he will further consider the matter. And if he indicate his consent to adopt the proposal made, I am convinced he will receive the support of the tax-paying public and their Representatives here; for, by so doing, he will be the means of rendering the two Household Cavalry barracks as nearly perfect in efficiency as can be, and of carrying out a much-called-for Metropolitan improvement.

in seconding the Motion, said, he wished it to be understood that he had had no communication from his brother, who commanded one of the Household Regiments of Cavalry; but his attention having been drawn to the question by the Notice on the Paper, he had made a personal inspection of the buildings at Regent's Park, and after listening to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had, as an old Lifeguardsman, much pleasure in supporting him. Apart from the general question as to the necessity for a regimental hospital in a Cavalry barrack, he cordially approved the proposal to supply better quarters to the staff officers, and to give additional accommodation to married non-commissioned officers.

thought that the hon. and gallant Member was flogging a dead horse in bringing forward this subject, which had been repeatedly inquired into. The course taken had given perfect satisfaction to the three regiments concerned, and if any real grievance existed it would be remedied if it were possible to do so.

asked for explanations with regard to various matters connected with military education, and concluded by moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, being part of the salary of the Governor at Sandhurst. The aggregate salary of that gentleman—namely, £3,000 a-year, was most extravagant, and ought to be reduced. He contended that this Vote required the serious consideration of the Secretary of State for War.

hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) would not be inclined personally to blame him, when he said that he had never heard of criticism of this character being applied at so late a stage of the Army Estimates. He would have been glad if his hon. and gallant Friend had communicated with him in reference to the subjects mentioned, because, in the absence of Notice of any kind, he had not at hand the particulars or details which, otherwise, he should have had. The subject, however, was, fortunately, not a difficult one; and he would, first of all, speak as to the supposed increase in the Vote. This was apparent only—not real. Owing to the larger number of cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich, the annual expenses had, of course, materially increased; but, on the other hand, owing to the recommendation of a Committee over which he had presided, the cadets now contributed a portion of this charge in the way of their own expenses. This item, of course, appeared upon the other side of the balance-sheet, although it did not show upon the surface of the Vote. With regard to the salary of the Governor of Sandhurst, he must ask his hon. and gallant Friend to look at the manner in which it was made up. It was fixed some years ago, by a Royal Commission, at its present amount. Colonel Napier, it was quite true, received £1,000 a-year as colonel of his regiment long before he went to Sandhurst; and this, of course, could not, by any right, be taken away from him. With regard to the house and grounds, it had always been held that the Commandants at Sandhurst and Woolwich should occupy free quarters, which were given to them by the country. Whether the house now occupied by Colonel Napier at Sandhurst would be re-built at the present time for that establishment was nothing to the point. A good deal of the outlying land attached had been let off, and that portion of it only which was in close proximity to the house was occupied. His hon. and gallant Friend having asked him for information upon the question of physical qualification of candidates for the Army, he was in a position to repeat what he had said last year, that if they could get the same amount of brains, plus better physical qualities, they would get better officers for the service of the country, and they were, therefore, bound to take them. He was, however, not by any means willing to agree that physical qualities should stand in the place of brains. He had not changed the views which he had expressed last year; but was willing to say that if fair means could be devised the College should be open to every class of candidates to be tested in both physical and mental capacity. He thought those qualities should be properly considered and some test established; but, at present, the Government did not see their way to take the step, and he would, therefore, not go into the matter any further. With regard to the officers of the Militia nominated directly to the Line, he explained that upon the last occasion there were 45 or 46 vacancies, which was in excess of the number of candidates; under these circumstances, therefore, competition would have been absurd. So far as he was concerned, there was no intention of departing from the system under which Militia officers, properly qualified by age, should compete inter se for the vacancies that might occur in the Army.

said, that after the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said, in rising to object to this Vote, he should confine himself entirely to the subject-matter of it, and would not enter into any question of policy affecting the Island of Cyprus. The question was one of administration, and was, in point of fact, whether it was expedient that the country should be called upon to pay this sum of £26,000 a-year for this force? When the Vote was first submitted it had assumed the appearance of a purely military force; and it appeared to him, and many other hon. Members, that it was clearly and entirely illegal. He had given Notice of a Motion, by which, no doubt, the attention of the Government was directed to the subject; and it would also appear that they consulted with the Law Officers of the Crown, who gave it as their opinion that the force as originally proposed was illegal, inasmuch as a force of aliens could not be enlisted in the Service of the Crown without an Act of Parliament, because, also, the Vote should have been in the Army Estimates, and because the force should have been subject to the Mutiny Act. The consequence of that decision was that the Vote was withdrawn, and another substituted for it in the shape in which it then appeared. When that substitution took place it seemed to him only natural to assume that there had been some substantial change in the force itself. The Papers showed already that there was in the Island a force far beyond its requirements. He had not been able to find out what the extent or expenditure of that force was; but from the Papers which had recently been laid upon the Table it appeared that the number of the police at that moment was 1,100. That he had pointed out the other night to be three times as large, proportionately, as the police force in any other country in the world; and, at the same time, he had shown that any increase was altogether beyond the requirements of the Island, and that the force might, to a great extent, be dispensed with. He had objected to the Vote that it was, moreover, not desirable to proceed further until they received from the authorities at Cyprus opinions as to the expediency of such a great augmentation of the police of the Island. The result, however, of the discussion a few nights ago had been such as to leave no doubt in his mind that the force in question was substantially a military force, and not a police force at all. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour), who appeared to be well informed as to the real intentions of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had described the uses of this force. It was employed in guarding stores, escorting treasure, defending the Island, if necessary, and throwing up defences. And, finally, he said it would save two battalions of British troops. How it was to do that he did not undertake to explain, nor could he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) understand. The conclusion was, therefore, left upon his mind that it was a military force. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had attempted to tone down the expressions of the hon. Member for Hertford by saying that the greater number of men would be employed in transporting treasure from one part of the Island to the other. The sum of money now asked for appeared to be a very large one for such a purpose. The result of these explanations was to leave it beyond all doubt that the force in question was a military force disguised as a police force. It had been admitted that, if a military force, it was illegal; and he need not trouble the House by pointing out that it was not by simply changing its name and calling it a police force that its character as a military force could be changed, or that it could be made legal. He contended that it was a military force, and, as such, it remained clearly illegal and unconstitutional. It remained to be considered whether it was necessary. He had already shown that augmentation of the police of the Island was unnecessary. Was it, then, necessary to add to the military establishment there? The Secretary of State for War had stated that evening that the military force at Cyprus had been reduced to 400 men, and he also said that it was not the intention of the Government to reduce that small force any further. This, at all events, showed that the Island of Cyprus could get on with 400 soldiers, and he could not understand why the House should vote 800 more in the guise of police. It seemed to him that the 400 soldiers now in the Island, supplemented by the 1,100 police already in existence, would be amply sufficient for all possible purposes for which they could be required there. He ventured to point to the parallel case of the Island of Mauritius, which was about the same size as Cyprus, with double the population, but where there were only half a British regiment and 500 police. The force, therefore, so far as the Island of Cyprus was concerned, appeared to him to be wholly unnecessary. If once this sum of £26,000 was voted, this expenditure would remain for many years a permanent charge. When once Votes of this kind were taken in the Estimates, vested interests and other circumstances would arise which would render it extremely difficult here after to get rid of them. He asked the House whether, in the present state of the finances of the country, it was wise or right to undertake this large expenditure on account of the Island, when, as he had already shown, no reason had been given to justify it? He ventured to remind the House that the Vote had not received the unanimous approval of Her Majesty's Government, and that it had, according to report, been the subject of vehement controversy amongst the Members of the Government. The Secretary of State for War had told the House that he would have nothing to do with the Vote, because it was illegal; he would not, for that reason, take it into the Army Estimates. Again, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night had conveyed to his mind that he was by no means in favour of the Vote. It would, therefore, appear to have been forced upon the Government by the will of the Foreign Secretary, and he could only suppose that it had not the general approval of the Treasury or of a considerable number of Her Majesty's Government. He believed, if the House would take the matter into its own hands, and vote according to their views, they would give satisfaction to some of Her Majesty's Ministers, and, at the same time, relieve the country of an expenditure at once illegal and unconstitutional.

I have not hitherto taken part in the discussions upon this Vote; and I daresay the Government may think it somewhat unusual, after the discussions which have taken place, and after the Division of last night, that we should again challenge a Division with the view of reversing the decision at which the Committee arrived. But I think we are amply justified in taking this unusual course by the extraordinary character of the Vote itself. Of course, my experience is much shorter than that of many hon. Members; but I have had the honour of a seat for some years, and I have never known a ease in which a Vote open to such serious objections has been submitted to the House in so ambiguous a manner. We are forced either to consider the Vote itself as a trick and a subterfuge, or else we are bound to believe that in this Vote Her Majesty's Government are certainly disappointing the expectations their own assurances have raised—that there would be no public expenditure on account of the civil government of Cyprus. If it is to be regarded as a military Vote, then it is placed on the Estimates under the flimsy cover of a civil Vote, and it is a subterfuge and a trick. If it is really a civil Vote, then we are asked to vote a considerable sum for civil purposes; and, clearly, the Government are falsifying the expectation they raised that there would be no expenditure on account of the civil government of the Island. The Government must accept one of these alternatives; and, in either case, we are in an unfortunate position. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the matter was before us the other day, said that he would not admit that the British administration of the Island would increase the expenses imposed upon the British taxpayers. Well, if that is the case, what is the meaning of this Vote? It appears to me that the Government are bound to show that, in asking for this Vote, they are not departing from their own undertaking. I myself look with the greatest possible suspicion on the balance-sheet we have laid before us; of course, it is very easy for a Government to prepare a Paper of the income and Expenditure of Cyprus; but I believe they will find the income is subject to many drawbacks, and I am sure the expenditure will not keep within the limits laid down in the Estimate. I have not much faith in the favourable balance shown in this Paper. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) says, and I think truly, that it is not necessary we should go into the general question of the administration of Cyprus, a question so well brought under the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Still, it is impossible for us to overlook the fact that the only excuse under which the Government ask for this Vote was given by the Under Secretary the other night when he said Her Majesty's Government had taken possession of Cyprus on high grounds of policy. Now, the hon. Gentleman made this statement with gravity of demeanour; and I must compliment him that, from his connection with the Foreign Office, he has attained considerable diplomatic experience, for he not unfrequently shows his appreciation of that diplomatic axiom that speech should be used to conceal our thoughts. It cannot be imagined that he believes in the high policy now talked about, or that there could be any high grounds of policy in taking this wretched place. It did impose on the public mind a few months ago I know; but that is passed and gone. I recollect, when the announcement was made that it was to be a "place of arms," we had visions of considerable bodies of British soldiers stationed at Cyprus; we had ideas of barracks, fortifications, and a magnificent harbour, in which should ride a squadron of British ships; and that arrangements would be made in order to make Cyprus a basis of operations to overawe Asia Minor, and enable Eng- land to issue forth in the event of Russia attacking the Northern districts of Asia Minor. But this is all gone; it was the phantom of a poetical mind; and I think no one who read the speech of the Prime Minister made a year ago at the Mansion House, will, with our subsequent experience of the pestilential Island in which we have only 300 men, entertain the idea of a harbour for British men-of-war. We have given up that idea. I do not suppose any Member of the Government will now say with a grave face that they think the possession of Cyprus will be used in the event of Russia attacking the Asiatic Dominion of Turkey, and to carry out a high policy. I suppose we are called upon to vote the money simply because Government imagine that something must be done with Cyprus; unfortunately, the place will lead to a great deal of expense to this country. When the Government did not know what to do with the 7,000 Indian troops they brought to Europe they sent them to Cyprus; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, gravely, it was necessary to be prepared to keep down any possible rebellion that might arise on the first occupation of the Island by Great Britain; but, of course, to everybody the idea of a rebellion was altogether absurd; the troops were taken away, then British troops were sent, and then they again came home at considerable expense for transport and serious detriment to the health of the men. We get involved in one expense after another; we are, therefore, bound, when we have the opportunity, by every means in our power to protest by our votes against what we believe is a foolish policy on the part of the Government; and I shall be glad, under all the circumstances, seeing the great objections there are to the Vote, the great doubt as to the wisdom of establishing this new force in the Island, and the serious question of the legality of the proceeding, I shall be glad if the Government, at this late period of the Session, see fit to withdraw the Vote, and leave it for another Session to determine our position with respect to this Island.

was not surprised that the Government had felt glad to withdraw their troops from Cyprus, and to make use of the Cypriotes instead. With regard to the illegality of the force, it seemed to be admitted that it was a force for military purposes, but that it had been discovered to be illegal to maintain it under that name. The illegality with which the Government were contending arose under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act which had just been passed, and their difficulty was due to the somewhat hurried and insufficient way in which that measure had been discussed. The Bill which Her Majesty's Government had brought before the House consisted of a string of Acts of Parliament undigested, and not put into the proper shape. However, the clause under which this difficulty arose was that which related to the enlistment in the Army of foreign soldiers, and which made it illegal to enlist more than one foreign soldier to 50 British soldiers. It appeared to him that there had been illegality in this affair; but, at the same time, he admitted that Cyprus, being an unhealthy place, it was expedient to make use of the Cypriotes instead of Her Majesty's troops, and hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the House.

thought that it was quite plain that hon. Gentlemen opposite were becoming seriously alarmed lest Cyprus should become a success. It was equally clear that the charges which they had brought with respect to the Island had broken down. What seemed most extraordinary was that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should have been gulled by a Greek Prelate (the Bishop of Citium), whose statements were afterwards disproved by his own mouth. The case of the Opposition had, no doubt, broken down on many points; and they had that evening brought forward another matter and endeavoured to cast ridicule upon the police force in Cyprus. He did not think it mattered much whether the force employed was civil or military as long as discipline was maintained; nor did he consider, looking at the character of the undertaking upon which we had entered, that the sum of money asked for was large. This, no doubt, would be recouped hereafter; in the meantime, the House would not expect that everything necessary with regard to Cyprus could be done in the course of a year.

said, he had been sitting quietly and somewhat sleepily in his place, and should not have taken any part in the debate but for the fact that the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had made an elaborated attack upon him. He regretted to say that the hon. Member could not have listened to the two speeches which he had addressed to the House upon this subject; because, in his first speech, he had expressly dissociated himself from the views of the Greek priests, and had supported the Government in bringing both prelates and priests within the general law. He had afterwards raised the case, as did also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), of the two priests who had been badly treated; but that case was one in which the Government admitted that a gross injustice had been done. But the hon. Member for Buteshire had said that all the charges made against the Government of Cyprus had been disproved. That was certainly not correct. On the first occasion, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had mentioned 21 matters which he thought to be deserving of attention, and 18 of these charges had been proved by the Blue Book itself. In the case of one or two, where the Blue Book contradicted him, he had sent the depositions of some 20 people to the Secretary of State; and these, he believed, were now in Cyprus for the purpose of further inquiry. Everybody knew that there was forced labour in Cyprus, and the House had actually before it the Ordinance by which it was established. He had pointed out, as a matter of fact, that it had been enforced, certainly in two, probably in more, districts of the Island; although he could not but believe that in the course of a year it would have to be repealed. He assured the hon. Member that he would have many opportunities of reviving this question if he so desired, for it was certain that answers would be returned from Cyprus to the depositions which had been sent out. With regard to the subject immediately under consideration, the contention put forward had nothing to do with the general question concerning Cyprus. They contended that the Vote was unnecessary, and should not have been pressed upon the House in the last days of the Session. As to the use of the force in escorting treasure, he believed the only treasure they would have in Cyprus would be the £26,000 they were going to send there. The hon. Member opposite had told him that this was a quasi-military force; but he took the opportunity of laying before the House the fact that, for any practical purposes, it would be useless as a military force. The very first condition of a military force was that it should be able to be moved about freely from one place to another; but there was no power to deal with this force outside Cyprus. On the other hand, if it was a police force, then the Civil Expenditure of the Island was being thrown upon this country. But it had been shown that there was already a large police force in the Island; and, therefore, they were now called upon to vote a sum of £26,000 a-year towards the Civil Expenditure of the Island in the form of expenditure upon an unnecessary police force.

said, the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was very indignant because this Vote did not appear in exactly the same form as it did originally; but he had himself given very good reasons why this change was necessary. It was perfectly true that when Her Majesty's Government came to consider this question they thought it would be objectionable to put the Vote for the Cyprus Pioneer Force into the Estimates then before the House. He need not enter into the objections raised to the Vote in that form, because that was not the point before the House. He had little to add to the observations which he made a few days before upon this subject. But the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had taken him to task for not speaking the mind of the Secretary of State with regard to this matter, and had gone so far as to say that he was not in the habit of speaking the mind of the Secretary of State, but that he only spoke from a brief. Now, he did not know what right the hon. Member had to lecture him upon that or any other subject. He could only say that where matters of accuracy were involved he should not follow the manner of statement which had been used by the hon. Member in the present case, because a more inaccurate statement than that had probably never been made. The hon. Member said the only justification which he (Mr. Bourke) had given the other evening for the existence of the force in question was that it would be employed in the escort of treasure from one part of the Island to another. This statement was certainly inaccurate. What he did say was, that the escort of treasure might be one of the duties deputed to the force; but he had, at the same time, mentioned that it would be employed in garrisoning small places in the Island, as well as in other duties. It was, therefore, perfectly inaccurate to say that the only reason given by him for the maintenance of that force was, that it would be wanted for the escort of treasure. But the hon. Member had gone farther than this, and assumed that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) did speak the mind of the Secretary of State. He would like to know what right the hon. Member had for saying that? The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, he thought, be very much surprised to read to-morrow morning that the hon. Member for Reading was the person who came forward, to measure what was in the mind of the noble Lord, and to sum up as to who it was in that House who spoke the mind of the noble Lord. He did not much care whether the hon. Member for Reading spoke the mind of the Secretary of State or not; but he did his best to answer accurately the observations addressed to him, and he had no reason to think that the hon. Member had ever been misled by anything stated by him in that House. The hon. Member also said that the Government were not unanimous upon this subject; so that he not only spoke the mind of the Secretary of State, but also assumed to speak the mind of the Cabinet. He (Mr. Bourke) had no reason to think, and he had great reason to doubt, that the Government were at all divided upon this question; on the other hand, he believed them to be perfectly unanimous, because he looked upon this as an economical Vote, and one which could be justified in every way and upon every ground. Then it was said that the taxpayers of this country would be burdened with this expenditure; but he held that when once they had decided upon the occupation of Cyprus upon grounds of high policy, this Vote was about the most economical expenditure that could be made in carrying out that intention. He would not argue upon the expediency of occupying Cyprus. It was never intended or contemplated for one moment to leave the Island of Cyprus with only 300 or 400 British troops to guard it, without any other force. The Secretary of State for War had stated that it was desirable, in the interest of the Public Service, to reduce the garrison at Cyprus as much as possible, and it then became the duty of the Government to consider whether it would not be much more economical to establish a local force there; but after the objection taken to the Cyprus Pioneer Force the Government had determined to augment the police force. He would like hon. Members to recollect the cost of a British regiment, which would be, at least, £70,000, while the present arrangement would cost the Government only £35,000 a-year; and that was what he meant by stating the other day that the British taxpayers would not suffer. It was perfectly impossible to overcome the prejudice of hon. Members against this Island of Cyprus; and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) in thinking that hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly beside themselves because of the success which had attended its occupation. The hon. Member for Reading had said that the police force in the Island was 1,100 in number; but that statement, he would point out to the hon. Member, was entirely inaccurate, as there was not more than half that number of men. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had alleged that they would not be able to take the new police force out of the Island. But they did not wish, nor intend to do so. The new force was to take the place of the defensive forces for the Island, and was to do civil duties in addition. In ordinary circumstances, a military force would have been called upon to perform civil duties, such as making roads; and the force in question would perform all the civil duties which would be required of it. In conclusion, he might say that the Government believed that the Vote was an economical one, and that it was free from illegality. They believed it would enable the civil and military administration of Cyprus to be carried out in an economical and efficient manner; and they considered that those objects could be effected in the manner proposed without making calls upon the Military Forces of the United Kingdom.

did not wish to dwell upon the alleged differences of opinion amongst the Members of the Government on this question. He desired only to say a word or two upon the purely financial bearing of the Vote, for he thought that that aspect of the question had not been sufficiently dealt with by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Vote was asked for simply and solely because the Civil Revenue of Cyprus was inadequate to meet the Expenditure. The Vote had, therefore, been proposed for reasons which he could perfectly understand. Until the day previously they had had no Papers on the subject; and when the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) brought forward his Motion they had no information as to the financial prospects of the Island, although they were promised again and again that the Papers which had now been presented should be laid before them. From the accounts which had now been laid before them, they were able to see the exact state of the finances of Cyprus. In the second of the two Papers delivered on Thursday, they had the original estimate of the Revenue and Expenditure of Cyprus, upon which had been founded the very plausible declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Black Country during last autumn, that Cyprus would be able to bear all her civil expenditure. They could now see that those statements were made from Sir George Kellner's Paper. He wished to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the statements of Sir George Kellner. In the first place, he estimated the Revenue of Cyprus at £170,000. Sir George Kellner, on pages 8 and 9 of the Paper, No. 7, detailed the Estimates of the Civil Expenditure of Cyprus, and if hon. Members would look there they would see that the cost of the British establishment in Cyprus was put down at £35,000; but, in addition to that item, there was certain expenditure in connection with Native establishments, and there was an item for the zaptieh police for one year. The total Revenue, as he had said, was put down at £170,000, and the expenditure in connection with British and Native establishments was estimated at £52,000, leaving a surplus of £118,000, out of which the tribute to the Sultan would have to be met, and something would remain for roads and public improvements. Sir George Kellner, in almost the last words of his Report, used the expression—

"The current Revenue will not only cover the annual payments and expenses on account of administration, but will also provide a fair outlay for roads and sanitary matters."

He was bound to say that upon that Report his right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in the statement he made with regard to the Revenue of Cyprus. But, in addition to Sir George Kellner's Report of last year, they had now before them the actual estimate of the Revenue for 1879–80. The estimate presented a very different view of the matter to that which was given by Sir George Kellner; and he wanted to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary difference between the formal estimate now presented by the Government and the first estimate, which deceived the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and led him to make a statement entirely contrary to what the circumstances had since shown to be the case. They found that Sir George Kellner estimated the British establishments at £52,000, whereas it now appeared that the cost of those establishments would be £75,000; and whereas Sir George Kellner stated that there would be a considerable surplus to provide a fair outlay for roads and sanitary matters, yet not one single farthing was now to be applied to those purposes. Would the House believe that the whole expenditure in connection with buildings down to common repairs—that the whole expenditure in connection with roads—every shilling was to be borrowed? That expenditure was given, in the Estimate from which he was now quoting, at £34,000, or one-fifth of the total amount of the Revenue of Cyprus. To understand what that meant, he would put the case with regard to England. Suppose their Revenue was£80,000,000, and the Government had said that the Expenditure would fall within the Revenue, but when the Estimates were presented it was discovered that the total Expenditure would be £96,000,000, and that the sum which was to be spent on public works was to be borrowed. That was simply the fact with regard to Cyprus. The original statement was that the Revenue of Cyprus would cover the whole Expenditure, and including a "fair outlay" on public works. That was the Report upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement. But now it seemed that all the expenditure for public works would have to be borrowed. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long that state of things was to continue? They were told that one-fifth of the Expenditure of Cyprus would have to be borrowed; but he would ask, from whom would they borrow it? It might be said that the Cyprus Government would easily borrow the sum from some bank, but was it certain that that could be done? But he would recall the attention of the House to the present Vote. If the Report of Sir George Kellner, which was the foundation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, was looked into, it would be found that he divided the police expenditure into two parts—one part he described as the zaptieh police, with an expenditure of 500,000 piastres, or £8,000 a-year; and the other the military police. Therefore, according to Sir George Kellner, the Revenue of Cyprus was intended to cover the expenses of the zaptieh police and that of the entire military police force. There was not a single word in Sir George Kellner's Paper giving the Government, or Parliament through the Government, notice that any further expenditure of the kind would be required. Sir George Kellner stated, indeed, positively that the cost of the establishments would be reduced, and his words were—"It will be possible in the future to reduce the present charges for British and Native establishments." They now, however, found that the Revenues of Cyprus were insufficient to provide for the Civil Expenditure to the extent of £26,000 for police, the present y0te, and £34,000 for works, the subject of a loan. Thus, in the very first year of their rule, Cyprus did not meet her Civil charges by no less sum than £60,000. It must be admitted that that was a very serious sum. The excess in expenditure for salaries of the central administration turned out to be £5,800 more than Sir George Kellner estimated it, for he put it at £12,000, and it now seemed that it would amount to £18,200. The expenses of the district establishments were put down by Sir George Kellner at £13,500; but in the later statement those items figured at £20.000. Then, in another item for salaries of officials, whereas the amount was put down at £16,500 by Sir George Kellner, it now turned out to be £23,200. Upon those three items, therefore, the Expenditure of Cyprus was more than £20,000 in excess of the estimate given by Sir George Kellner. He could not but think that these differences showed great looseness of estimate, and that no reliance could be placed on Sir George Kellner's finance. But the main question was, that altogether the deficit on the Civil Revenue of Cyprus was £60,000; or nearly half the net Revenue, if the amount due to the Sultan were first deducted. Again, as to the loans for public works, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should toll them how long the expenditure upon public works was to go on. A great deal had been said by Members of the Government about harbours, and especially Famagousta; and a very detailed paper, with plans, had been presented to Parliament; but, curiously enough, it did not contain the smallest reference to what the work would cost. The Revenue did not provide a single shilling for the harbours, or for any one of the works which must betaken in hand. If, during the first year, there was a deficiency of £60,000, on a local expenditure of little over £120,000, he did not think that the Island was altogether in so satisfactory a condition as the Government had described it.

would not attempt to go into details upon that question; but he should say in a very few words what he thought was the real difference between the Government and hon. Members on the other side of the House. In the first place, with regard to the statements he had previously made with respect to the Revenues of Cyprus, his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had spoken with perfect accuracy. The statement he made was based upon the estimate of Sir George Kellner, and the reason he referred to those statements was in consequence of the extravagant remarks that were floating about at the time that Cyprus was going to cost this country an enormous sum of money. On a former occasion, he ventured to say that according to the accounts they had received, and the other estimates that had been placed before them, they had reason to Believe that Cyprus would pay the whole of its expenditure. But he also said that in the first year he would not pledge himself that that would be the case. In saying that, he had in his mind the extreme improbability that when they were going to work a new system in an old country, and to introduce improvements such as were necessary for the purposes of British administration, it would turn out, when they had introduced them, that in the first year, at all events, the estimates would be exact. What he had then feared had turned out to be the case, and the Expenditure for the first year had exceeded the Revenue. He wished to remind the House what the difficulties in connection with Cyprus really were. They had an old estimate under which certain salaries were paid, and certain establishments were maintained, and those appeared on the face of them to be cheap. They were cheap to the Treasury out of which they were paid; but they were not cheap to the unfortunate people who had their taxes extracted from them. The taxes were collected in a way which brought little to the Treasury compared with the amount that was taken from the people. In the same way, in the administration of justice a great deal was taken by those who administered justice, in addition to the nominal salaries which they received. Under British rule those abuses had to be put an end to. The first effect was necessarily to increase the expenditure from the Treasury without at first producing a corresponding elasticity on the part of the Revenue. What he had thought very likely to happen had happened. For the first year there had been some deficiency in the Revenue. In the statements laid before them by Sir George Kellner's Paper (No. 7, page 9) it would be observed that there was a distinction drawn between the cost of administration during a portion of the year under the Turkish authorities and the cost during the remainder of the year under British administration. For four months of the year the Island was under Turkish rule; but during the remaining eight months it had been under British administration. That made a difference in the first year, because the administration under the one system was more costly than under the other. The same was the case with regard to the question of the police force. A great deal had been said about the zaptiehs—the Turkish police—and the military police. He thought he was accurate in saying that the Turkish zaptiehs were the police force during the first four months of the year, and that a military police force had occupied their place during the eight months of British rule. Without going too minutely into those points, the House would see that they had undertaken a new enterprize, and one which necessarily involved, in the first instance, some outlay of money. To some extent, the experiment they had undertaken must be costly; there was a great deal of work to be done, and improvements to be made which it was quite impossible to provide for out of revenue. With regard to the question of borrowing money for capital expenditure for the improvement of the country, he did not see any reason to suppose that the cost of those improvements would not be borne and covered by the improvements themselves under a better system. He did not think there was any reason why the Expenditure of tin; country should have been criticized in the manner in which it had been by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. With regard to the particular force now under consideration, he might say that the calculations made by Sir George Kellner were drawn up under the impression that there would be a considerable force of British troops maintained in the Island. It was afterwards thought better that there should be but a small military force; and, accordingly, the bulk of the troops had been removed, and considerable saving had been effected by the reduction of the amount for the maintenance of troops. But the withdrawal of the troops rendered it necessary that their place should be supplied by some other force, and accordingly the force had been instituted for which the Vote was taken. It could not be called a military force, for it performed duties other than belonged to the military. It would be a constabulary—something in the nature of a quasi-military force. If hon. Members would be patient enough to allow a novel experiment to be worked out, he thought they would find that the expenditure which had been incurred in the government of Cyprus was neither uneconomical nor injudicious.

said, that according to the Estimate of the Revenue of Cyprus for the year 1879–80 the total amount was put at £174,000. Out of that sum they had to pay to the Sultan £96,000, leaving £78,000 of revenue to meet the expenditure. It was now proposed to make a grant from our Estimates of £26,000, thus making the total Revenue for the benefit of Cyprus £104,000. He wished to point out that of the £104,000; the total Revenue to be expended for the benefit of Cyprus, nearly one-half, or £49,000, was to be expended upon the maintenance of a police force. There was one question with regard to the police force to which he should like an answer. He should like to know what those Cypriot Sepoys consisted of? Were they Turks, or were they Greeks; or did they consist of "Linobambakis," Christians professing the Mahommedan religion to secure the privileges attaching to Mahommedans? He desired to have an answer to those questions, because a good deal depended upon the character of that force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had called attention to the fact that not one farthing of the Revenue of Cyprus was to be applied for improvements in the Island, but that every shilling to be spent for those purposes would have to be borrowed. It was said that the sum of £34,000 was to be borrowed in Cyprus; and when he looked at the Estimates he found that the rate of interest to be paid on that sum was calculated at 3¾ per cent. He should like to know whether the money was to be borrowed in Cyprus at 3¾ per cent by the Government of Cyprus, or whether the British Government was to advance the money? Was there to be any British guarantee for the loan? If there was not to be any guarantee, he should like it to be explained how it was that money could be obtained in Cyprus at 3¾ per cent, for that was a most unusual rate of interest for any part of the Levant? If Her Majesty's Government had already effected such reforms in Cyprus as to be able to borrow at 3¾ per cent upon the credit of the Island alone, then Cyprus would, indeed, be a model to the rest of Asia Minor, and they would quicken the reforming zeal of the Turks if they could show them how to borrow at this rate. He observed that the improvements which were to be carried out that year consisted only of roads, and repairs to roads, and some buildings, or repairs to buildings. Nothing whatever was taken for water supply, or for works of irrigation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out good hopes that the time was not far distant when Cyprus would stand in no need for any Vote from the Civil Service Estimates for a military or quasi-military police, but would be able to pay its own way, and he also hoped that something might be obtained out of the Revenue to pay for improvements. Knowing something of the resources of Cyprus, he (Mr. Dodson) would entertain some hopes that if the country was well irrigated and managed those desirable results might be obtained; but he would, wish to point out that one of the first necessities of the country—not second even to roads—was to provide means of irrigation. The means of storing and saving water, and obtaining water by boring in the soil, were improvements that were urgently required. If the fertility of the Island was to be developed, those things must be attended to; but there was no provision in the present Estimates for works of that kind. He hoped that in another year the resources of the Island might be such as might be available to be applied to that purpose, for until works of that character could be undertaken and carried out there would be little hope of Cyprus being able to pay its expenditure under British administration; for, however superior British might be to Turkish rule, it would necessarily be more costly. It was certain that they now had to pay an enormous proportion of the Revenue of the Island to the Sultan. They entered into a rash bargain, when it was agreed to pay the Sultan whatever the surplus of the Island might have been for the five years preceding the Anglo-Turkish Convention. The Turkish idea of the surplus Revenue to be derived from the Island was to take everything it produced and leave nothing behind. The result was the position in which they now found themselves; they had to pay away to the Sultan the best part of the Revenue that could be obtained, and all that was left, instead of affording a margin for works and improvements, was not even sufficient to maintain a civil administration of the Island under British rule.

said, that if the House desired it he could enter into the questions upon the Vote at some length. He did not, however, think that that was a favourable occasion for doing so; and he would confine himself to answering the questions which had been addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson). First, with regard to the constitution of the police force, he might say that it was to consist of exactly the same class of persons who now formed the military police. Some were Greeks, and some were Turks, and the selection of the members of the force would be left entirely to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner. With respect to the sum taken for interest upon money borrowed, it must be remembered that the money had not yet been borrowed. The Estimate was one which had been prepared in Cyprus, and he thought that they at least knew there what interest would be required to be paid for money borrowed. The right hon. Gentleman very truly said that the money which was to be borrowed was not to be spent upon irrigation. The right hon. Gentleman was also perfectly right in dwelling upon the pressing necessity of irrigation but it had been thought best to postpone irrigation until the roads had been put in a satisfactory condition. Whether irrigation or the improvement of the roads ought to be the first matter taken in hand he did not know, and he could only say that it had been thought right to begin with the roads.

wished to make some explanation as to what he had said with regard to the number of the police. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that he had not given the right number of the police. He wished to explain that he had no means of knowing the exact number of the police; but, finding what the number was in one district, he multiplied that by six, and so arrived at the number of 1,100. That number, he found, was to be maintained for the sum of £23,000.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow this Bill to be passed during the present Session. A Bill was brought in in 1874, and the promise had been repeated on various occasions since, that the grievances with which the Bill dealt should be removed. A promise was given in the beginning of the present year on behalf of the Government that the Bill should be brought in; but, nevertheless, it had only been recently introduced. Irish Members were unanimous as to the propriety of the measure; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix the Bill for such a time that it might be passed before the end of the Session.

said, that he was very anxious to proceed with the Bill, and he trusted they might have an opportunity of considering it.

said, that the object of this Bill was to allow money to be raised for purposes of the Indian Government. He had been startled to find that the money to be raised under this Bill was to be made into a per- manent loan upon the Consolidated Fund. He hoped, that the Government would give them some assurance that the loan was not to be made a permanent charge upon England. The great object was that money should not be raised in such a manner that the obligation was to rest upon England rather than upon India. Lord Lytton would not concern himself very much to see to the repayment of the money. Hewouldsay—"We need not trouble ourselves about it, and when it becomes due we will appeal to the Government in respect of it." Lord Lytton would, year after year, allege that circumstances were unfavourable, and beg the Government not to press for the repayment of the money. He wanted to know what would be the effect of that Bill placing the money on the Consolidated Fund? Would the effect be that if the Indian Government did not pay it would not be necessary to bring the matter before the House, and that the money would remain a charge upon the Consolidated Fund?

wished to ask a question before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of Exchequer rose to reply. He entirely assented to the necessity of permitting £2,000,000 to be raised by an addition to the permanent Debt; but how was it to be raised? The Commissioners of the National Debt were buying and cancelling stock almost weekly; and if they now raised this sum in the open market, they would create debt with one hand, while redeeming it with the other.

said, that it was assumed that India would pay what she contracted to pay, and that they looked for certain sums to be paid off every year. It was proposed by the Bill that the repayments should be made, in every case, to a sinking fund. If in any year India did not make the proper payment, then the fact would be brought before the notice of the House. As to the mode of raising the sum, he would make inquiries; but he believed the National Debt Commissioners would advance it out of monies in their hands, without going to the money market.

said, that' no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-member that when that Bill was before the House on a former occasion he had promised that a fair opportunity should be given for discussing it. He certainly did not think that the Bill ought to be proceeded with at that late hour; but, of course, he was in the hands of the Government in the matter. He might say that it would be totally impossible at that time to discuss objections to the measure. If the Bill was proceeded with, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give some more explanation with regard to it than had yet been done. The Bill was originally introduced with the explanation that its object was to meet certain difficulties with regard to exchanges. That had now passed over, and, in all probability, the object of the Government in proceeding with the measure had no reference to that subject. He could perfectly understand that it might be the object of the Government to retain a certain margin of money in their own hands; but the sum which was to be taken under the present Bill was too largo, he feared that the possession of the funds which the Bill sanctioned would put the Indian Government in a position to carry on another Afghan War without any additional resources. Her Majesty's Government were not likely to do anything unreasonable or contrary to precedent; but they must remember that they had in India a Governor General who had done some things contrary to what had been done before, and they should not put it in his power to enter upon a war without coming to the House for funds to do so. He hoped that they would have some explanation from the Government with regard to the Bill.

observed, that he had given Notice of a Resolution to the effect that the time had arrived when the Natives of India ought to have some share in the representation of the country. At that time in the morning it was impossible to raise a debate upon such an important question; and he should, therefore, not move the Resolution of which he had given Notice until early next Session, or in the next Parliament.

thanked both hon. Gentlemen for permitting the Bill to proceed on that occasion. The questions in which the hon. Gentlemen were respectively interested were questions of very great interest, and deserved time for their full discussion. At the time the Bill was introduced the principle upon which the Government promoted it was explained; and it was only necessary for him to remark that the object was to give power to the Secretary of State for India to raise money in that country, if necessary, for the purpose of meeting the demands of the Indian Government.

begged to move an Amendment that stood in his name to the effect that the amount of money which the Bill authorized to be raised should be reduced to £2,000,000. His object in moving that Amendment was that it might be made clearer for what object it was proposed to take power to raise so large a sum as £5,000,000. For all purposes in connection with exchange, the sum of £2,000,000 would be quite sufficient. He would seriously repeat his opinion, that the effect of permitting so large a sum as £5,000,000 to be raised would be to enable the Indian Government to use it for another war, or for other military purposes, without previously coming to the House for authority.

remarked, that when the Bill was first introduced the amount which it was proposed to take power to raise was £10,000,000, and that had been reduced to half that sum; and he thought it might well be reduced to a still smaller sum.

said, that he had already explained to the House the reason for reducing the sum which the Bill authorized to be borrowed to £5,000,000. It was only desired to obtain power to raise that money, if absolutely necessary, in order to meet the necessities of the exchanges between India and England. He was sure the House would like to receive an announcement that nothing had been borrowed under the Bill, and, if it were possible, nothing would be borrowed. But, after full consideration of all the facts of the case, and after consultation with the financial authorities, they had felt that it was not consistent with the provision that they ought to make if they took power to borrow a less sum than £5,000,000. During the next week Parliament would rise, and there would be an interval of something like six months before it sat again. During that time they had to provide for the Indian Government about £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 per month. It was absolutely impossible to say but that they might at any time be compelled to suspend their drawings, and they would then be left without any resources, unless they had the powers given by the Bill. Without the authority given by the Bill they would only be able to borrow temporarily, and at a great loss. He could assure the Committee that he had gone over the matter very carefully in consultation, with those best informed on the subject; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he did not think he should be justified in agreeing to taking power by the Bill to borrow any less sum than £5.000,000.

said, that it was impossible at that time to discuss the important questions raised by that Bill. The Bill had been three months upon the Paper, and during that time the circumstances under which it was first required to obtain the money had very much changed, and there was not the same necessity at the present time for so large a sum as when the Bill was first brought in. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was on even a stronger ground than that. Besides the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary now told them that it was the intention of the Government to apply the money obtained under the Bill for the purpose of affecting the exchange, not a single word had been said as to the money borrowed not being applied to purposes totally unconnected with the exchange. Supposing another war was to break out, the money borrowed under the Bill might be used to carry on that war without obtaining the authority and sanction of Parliament. He did not say that it was the intention of the Government to use the money obtained in that manner; but there was nothing to prevent its being done. He did object to placing so large a sum of money in the hands of the Government for the purpose of speculation. The Bill would enable the Government to speculate in silver—that was to say, it would enable them to speculate in the exchange, which was the same thing. If, for instance, in October they required £1,500,000, the financial authorities at the India Office might think that it would be easier to go into the market in November and accordingly borrow money under the Bill. It seemed to him that it was an exceedingly perilous power to place in the hands of the Government for it to raise so large a sum of money as was authorized by the Bill. According to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, it was clear that the money was to be used for speculating in exchange. The Bill did not tie the hands of the Government in any way either as to the amount to be borrowed or as to the purpose to which the money was to be applied. In respect to the amount, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had told them that the financial authorities did not consider that any less sum than £5,000,000 would be sufficient; but he would remind them that the same financial authorities at first considered that £10.000,000 was necessary.

was sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney should have remarked that the Government would use the money borrowed under the Bill for speculating in finances. In his opinion, the object of the Government was only to save money, and in no way to speculate upon the exchange.

observed that his hon. Friend, no doubt, did not intentionally misrepresent him, and he would explain that he did not use the word "speculate" in any invidious sense. He had only pointed out that if the exchange was exceptionally bad in October the Government might borrow instead of selling bills to remit to India; whereas, in November, the exchange might be still more unfavourable, and the Government would thus have made an exceedingly bad bargain.

accepted the explanation of the hon. Member for Hackney, as, without some explanation, the term might have an ugly sound in India; but he had also remarked that the money might be used for war purposes. If it were so used, the hon. Member would have an opportunity of coming to the House and moving that the money should not be used for the purposes of war. He did, however, think that the sum, the borrowing of which was authorized by the Bill, was very large. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had assured them that the financial authorities of the India Office were of opinion that they could not do with any less sum than £5,000,000. As they had the positive and distinct authority of the Government that it was necessary to borrow £5,000,000, he did not think that the Committee should reduce the sum. If, after mature deliberation on the part of the India Office, who must be quite as alive to the state of the Indian finances as any Member of that House, that sum had been fixed upon, he did not think that it ought to be reduced by an adverse vote. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend would not go to a Division.

observed, that it was only proposed to use the powers of the Bill where it was impossible for them to sell their bills, from the price being such that, looking at what would be a practice in ordinary business life, it would be more expedient for them to borrow. Under any other circumstances, they did not intend to borrow. For any purposes of speculation, it was certainly not their intention to borrow.

was not quite satisfied with the explanation of Her Majesty's Government that they did not intend, and that they never proposed, to deal with exchanges in the way of speculation. It seemed to him that £2,000,000 would be quite sufficient for the purpose for which they said they required it. He would further point out to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that he had not given any answer to the point he had raised—namely, as to whether the £5,000,000 might not be spent for any other purpose not specially sanctioned or contemplated by Parliament? He would like to know whether it was the case that if the Indian Government became involved in any fresh war they could not spend that £5,000,000 for the purposes of such war without the sanction of Parliament? It seemed to him that the proper limit for the money to be borrowed under the Act was the sum which would be necessary solely to meet the purpose the Government now stated. With respect to fresh troubles in Afghanistan, it should be remembered that by law the Government of India were not authorized to spend the Indian Revenues in carrying on any war beyond the Frontiers of India. If any such necessity arose, it was necessary, first, for thorn to come to Parliament to obtain the sanction to the expenditure. But the Frontiers of India had now been carried beyond the Indus, and a question might arise as to where the Frontiers of India were now situate. They had established a political Resident at Cabul, and it might be a question whether the Frontiers of India had been extended not only in that direction, but in others. He should like some specific assurance that the passing of the Bill would not enable the Government to carry on another war in India without coming to Parliament.

said, that if the hon. Member was serious in the question which he had put, he could only say that it was humanly possible for the money raised under the Bill to be applied to the purposes he had stated. Upon the extreme improbability of that course being taken he need not, however, remark. Although it was perfectly true that things were better at that time than they were when the Bill was introduced, yet, as regarded the exchange, he could not see that they had much improved, and it was absolutely necessary to obtain power to raise the money.

was sure that the Government would not make a war if they could help it; but he did not understand the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to say that if it should be determined to make a war the £5,000,000 could not be used for that purpose without first coming to Parliament for further authority. If that were so, he would leave it in the hands of the House to determine whether it was right or prudent to leave such a power in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

remarked, that the Government would have to come to Parliament for a Vote in the case of any expedition beyond the Frontiers of India.

said, that the Bill would place £5,000,000 in the hands of the Government, to use for any purpose to which they chose to apply it. He could not help thinking that it would be quite sufficient for the purpose of meeting the difficulties of the exchange that the Government should take a sum equivalent to two months' drawing.

observed, that there was a question how far the Vote of Credit was to extend. He did not see any reason for putting the Vote of Credit in the hands of the Government for a period exceeding 10 years.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had accepted all his Amendments. He would only remark, therefore, that they simply provided for the mode in which the money was to be borrowed.

wished to point out that the Bill had only just been printed, and had not yet been placed in the hands of hon. Members. It was, therefore, somewhat inconvenient that it should be taken on that occasion. There was one point in the Bill upon which he should like some information. It was proposed to raise a sum or sums not exceeding, in the whole, £4,200,000, by the issue of Exchequer Bonds. The Bill stated the Exchequer Bonds issued in pursuance of that power should be repaid within a period not exceeding three years and less than 12 months from the date of such Bonds. It seemed to him that the result of the Bill was to be the postponement for an indefinite period of the sum of money which it was proposed to raise—practically, to make up for the deficiency of the last three years. Although the Bonds were, as he had said, for throe years, yet there was a power to renew them for a considerably longer period.

remarked that, he was about to call attention to the same point. They had already given the Government power to raise £2,000,000, and they were then asked to give power to raise a further sum of £4,200,000. It was desirable to have some assurance from the Government as to whether or not it was intended that the sum should be made an addition to the permanent Debt.

said, that the Exchequer Bonds which were to be issued, were, in a great measure, to renew other bills which became due in the course of a few days. The present Bill was drawn in the same form as similar Bills were always drawn, and named three years as the period of currency for the Bonds. It was only contemplated to pursue the usual course in respect of the Bonds in question.

in moving, in page 2, line 14, after "thereto," to insert "when the same have been duly audited and taxed," said: I think, perhaps, that if my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) intends to move the Schedule to the Bill of which he has given Notice, we ought also to add the words "referred to in the Schedule annexed to the Bill."

I shall move it when we come to it.

That will be unnecessary now, in consequence of the adoption of one of my Amendments.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board agrees to the omission of this clause, it is unnecessary for me to move the Amendments which stand in my name.

Perhaps the Committee will be kind enough to adopt the Amendment in this form—"in good faith, but beyond the powers conferred upon them by Parliament." I think that would meet the case, and would be more agreeable to my Colleagues on the Board.

I do not know whether the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time now; but I appeal to the House to allow that to be done.

I suppose it may be done to-day, Sir; but I think it should be reported first, and thon, if there is no objection, my hon. and gallant Friend might take the third reading, perhaps, after the Report. But I think it would be a very unusual proceeding indeed to read the Bill a third time before the Amendments have been examined and considered upon Report.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he permitted Bills of private Members to be placed on the Paper for the Saturday Sitting when they were opposed Bills? It was contrary to all precedent to permit the Bills of private Members, when they were hotly opposed, to be placed on the Paper for the Saturday Sitting.

said, that he had given a Notice of opposition to that Bill. The hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill wrote to him some weeks ago, and requested him to withdraw his Notice of opposition. In reply, he intimated to the hon. Member that if he would accept his Amendments he should be most happy to withdraw from all opposition. A considerable time having elapsed, and having received no reply from the hon. Member, he asked him whether he acceded to his request, and the only answer given by the hon. and learned Member was that he had not taken the trouble to look at his Amendments. If the hon. and learned Member would not take the trouble to look at his Amendments, of course he had no other choice than to continue his opposition to the Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was from no fault of his that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken advantage of opportunities of bringing his Bill before the House. Iii his (Mr. Monk's) opinion, it would be perfectly useless for him to bring it forward on Saturday, and he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not the slightest desire to carry the Bill. His only object seemed to be that the Bill should appear day after day in his name upon the Orders of the House.

said, that there must certainly be some misapprehension upon his mind, or upon that of the hon. Member for Gloucester, with reference to the Bill. To the best of his belief he had never refused to consider the Amendments which either he or anyone else had proposed to the Bill. If any circumstance, or any words or act of his had created the impression on the mind of the hon. Member that he would not consider those Amendments, then he regretted the circumstances very much. Bat the hon. Member for Gloucester had gone out of his way to tell him that he did not want to pass the Bill, and that he had no wish or desire to do go. He could only say that he had tried to pass that Bill for 10 years. He had tried to pass it against the opposition of five or six hon. Members of that House, and no more. Every single stage as to which opposition could be brought to bear had been made use of by those five or six hon. Gentlemen. It must be as well known as anything in the world could be that, so far from wishing to have the Bill upon the Paper, and not to pass it into law, he had over and over again sat in that House night after night, not only for months in that Session, but for months in previous Sessions, in order that those poor children might by some accident get a better chance of obtaining education than they now had. It was hard—very hard—that motives of that kind should be imputed to him, knowing as he did how earnestly he had tried to pass that Bill. He hoped that such a statement would never go forth again with respect to that or any other Bill to which he had put his name.

thought that no one who had watched the conduct of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds in that House, especially in reference to that Bill, could doubt his sincerity or the spirit that always animated him with regard to that Bill. His own impression—and he had observed his hon. and learned Friend frequently—was that he had brought the Bill forward from a heartfelt desire to accomplish what was a most excellent and desirable object. With respect to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, he fully acknowledged their force, and that they were placed in some little difficulty. There could be no doubt that, with regard to Saturday's Sitting, it ought to be confined to Government Business. But they were in a peculiar position with regard to the Sitting for that day. By some means, a Private Bill had been fixed for consideration that morning. Then there was the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works with respect to water expenses, also fixed for Saturday's Sitting. Under those circumstances, he felt it would be rather hard to set up a strict rule against his hon. and learned Friend, for it might seem invidious to prevent his Bill being fixed for the Saturday's Sitting, when two other Bills of private Members had been allowed to be put down for that day. He would, however, leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House.

remarked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not recollect what took place. He entirely accepted that explanation, for, no doubt, the matter had escaped his memory. He must repeat, however, that he had told the hon. and learned Member that he should be happy to meet him at any time in order that the Amendments might be considered.

rose for the purpose of saying that a Division was not challenged on the question, in consequence of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood from him that he accepted the principle for which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea contended. They believed that the practice of restricting a Saturday's Sitting to Government Business was a most convenient and a most important one; but they considered that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that two other Private Bills had been allowed to be put down for Saturday, it was unnecessary to go to a Division upon the matter. He rose for the purpose of expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would adhere to the principle in the future, and not allow the Bills of private Members, when they were opposed, to be placed on the Paper for a Saturday's Sitting.

entirely accepted the proposition.