asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the sufferings endured by many deserving persons through the constant failure of so-called benefit societies; and, whether, in the event of any private legislation being initiated with a view of insisting upon more stringent certificates in the case of all future benefit societies, and of restrictions in the case of intended public-house benefit societies, the Government would be inclined to give such assistance as might be practicable towards the furtherance of these objects?

Without more definite information as to the character of the proposed legislation I am afraid it is impossible to say whether the Government would be inclined to assist it. We have not yet had full experience of the results of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 with respect to Benefit Societies, and I think we should have clear proof of their necessity before we impose the suggested additional restrictions upon such Societies. So far as I am informed, the failures of Benefit Societies are not more constant than those of other classes of Companies; and it is very doubtful whether any move in the direction of greater stringency would not defeat its own object. As to putting restrictions upon intended public-house Benefit Societies, it must be remembered that in many places there is no other accommodation available for Benefit Societies, and a great number—I hope the large majority—of such societies, are perfectly respectable. It may be interesting to the hon. Member to know that the bulk of the Societies which have reached 100 years of age and upwards meet at public-houses, among thorn the oldest English Society, founded in 1687, and the third oldest, founded in 1708, with others ranging in age from 117 to 194 years.

gave Notice that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he should, on a future day, move for a Return from each Poor Law Union in England, stating the number of the inmates of the workhouses whose presence there was owing to the failure of any Benefit Societies to which they might have belonged.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, by one of their rules, Letter-carriers are "allowed to receive, and indeed respectfully to ask for, Christmas Boxes;" whether, in the Circular Memorandum of the 22nd of March, 1865, the Metropolitan Letter-carriers were reminded that—

"They received from the public in gratuities at Christmas a sum which, if divided and spread over the whole year, would produce on an average 5s. a week for each man;"

whether he is aware that these gratuities are, in a great number of cases, asked for and paid with equal reluctance; and, whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to abolish a system of private gratuities in part payment of public services, and to replace it by an equivalent addition to the weekly wages of the Letter-carriers?

It is the case, as stated in the Question of my hon. Friend, that a Circular was issued in 1865, in which it was estimated that letter-carriers received on an average 5s. a-week in Christmas-boxes. I think this estimate was formed on very insufficient data, and I really feel it is impossible for me to say whether the estimate was or was not correct. I believe that in the majority of cases these Christmas-boxes are not given reluctantly. I certainly think that, even if they were prohibited, the public would still continue to give them. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to advise their prohibition. However, I fully recognize that it would be most undesirable for any letter-carrier to solicit Christmas-boxes with importunity; and I, just before last Christmas, issued a Circular expressing this opinion to the letter-carriers throughout the country. I believe they acted upon it, because not a single complaint has reached the Post Office from any member of the public that they had been solicited with importunity.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state why a properly constituted Land Meeting proposed to be held on 18th January last, at Rockcorry, county Monaghan, was proclaimed by an order emanating from four magistrates; and, if the information on which the meeting was prohibited was founded on the sworn evidence of either of the four magistrates above referred to; and, if not, was it on the sworn evidence of any other person?

, in reply, said, that the meeting at Rockcorry was prohibited by proclamation signed by four magistrates resident in the district. The proclamation was issued on the informations sworn by eight other magistrates that a breach of the peace was likely to occur if the Land League demonstration and the counter demonstration were permitted to proceed. None of the magistrates who signed the proclamation swore informations on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following allegations are well founded:—That at the late sworn inquiry held into the management of the Belfast Workhouse, by Messrs. Bourke and Brodie, Local Government Board Inspectors, evidence was given by a witness named Porter, who had been employed by the guardians as a temporary clerk in the master's office, that the names of 75 persons were enrolled in the workhouse books, for whom dietary was charged, although said persons were not in the house at all; that the inspectors at said inquiry ascertain how long this practice had continued in order to know what loss, or probable loss, the ratepayers may have sustained; that the system of book keeping was so imperfect that the assistant master, with the view to regulating the books, periodically issued to the gate-porter mythical discharge dockets bearing the names of persons who were not in the institution, and their keep charged for; and who, consequently, could not pass through the gate; that the assistant master and the gate-porter referred to, admitted on oath to this system being practised; that neither censure nor rebuke was given to either of these two persons, and that the Local Government Board still continue to permit them to hold office; that at the last stock taking by the guardians deficiencies in stock amounting to about £700 were found to exist, and that although these discoveries have been made several months ago, and the Local Government Board repeatedly informed of the facts, no action has yet been taken; that the Local Government Board has permitted the Belfast Workhouse to remain without a master for a period of two months, although aware that the institution was overcrowded during all this time; that the Limitation Order of the Local Government Board sets forth that not more than 2,500 persons can be accommodated in the Belfast Workhouse, whilst they are in possession of the fact that at the present time and for several weeks past, as many as 3,180 persons, 1,400 or 1,600 of whom are sick and unsupplied with beds, are inmates of the institution; that the Local Government Board have knowingly permitted the school rooms of the Belfast Workhouse to be converted into hospitals; and, if the foregoing assumptions be correct, if he is prepared, on behalf of the Government, to take into immediate consideration the urgent necessity and importance of a re-modelling of the present constitution of the Local Government Board in Ireland?

The hon. Member has asked me 10 Questions in one, relative to the evidence taken at the recent inquiry into the management of the Belfast Workhouse. With respect to the first three or four of his Questions, I find that though no sworn evidence was given on the inquiry tending to show that frauds had been committed in reference to the dietary, still it did appear that the books had been kept in a manner so imperfect and irregular as to necessitate the resignation of the assistant master, and he had resigned accordingly. Deficiencies had been found in the stores, but I am unable to say to what extent. That is a matter which must be dealt with, not by the Local Government Board, but by the auditor of accounts. It is not the fact that the Local Government Board permitted the assistant master and the porter to retain their offices. The workhouse provides accommodation for 2,500 inmates, but new buildings are in course of construction; and, pending the construction, temporary accommodation has been provided for 150 additional inmates. It is not the fact that the schoolroom has been converted into an hospital. The inmates have been supplied with proper bed-clothing, and the house has been cleaned and is free from epidemic disease. The hon. Member's assumptions being incorrect, I am not prepared on behalf of the Government to take into immediate consideration re-modelling of the present constitution of the Local Government Board in Ireland.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the scheme for the improved remuneration of the Commissioned Clerks in the Office of Sasines in Edinburgh has yet been adjusted; what steps it is proposed to take with regard to the Engrossing Clerks; and, whether it will take effect from the beginning of the next financial year?

The Report of the Committee is now under the consideration of the Treasury and Home Office, and the Deputy Clerk Register is at present in attendance at the Treasury settling with the officers of the Departments the details of the proposed new arrangements. It is hoped that the Report, with the decision thereon, will be laid before Parliament, if not before the Recess, at all events, immediately afterwards; and the new rules will, if not published before the 1st of April, date back to that day. The question of the position of the engrossing clerks is under the consideration of the Treasury at the present time.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he proposes to make the Financial Statement?

I may be permitted, in answering this Question, to make the statement which the House expects me to make to-day as to the probable course of Business, and to state what we propose to do. I assume that to-night we shall dispose of the necessary Business in Supply, as well as, possibly, obtain several Votes which are not so pressing if it should be convenient to the House to consider them. That being so, it is generally understood that the Motion with regard to Candahar will come on on Thursday, and, as the debate is likely to be prolonged to a second night, it is desirable we should endeavour to continue the debate on Friday; that is the arrangement we should endeavour to promote. I will not say anything about particular days next week, excepting that we have the Mutiny Bill on hand, and should that require time for discussion, no doubt the proper time will be found. That carries us to the end of the month, and I should propose to make the Financial Statement on Monday, the 4th of April. I should then hope that on Thursday, the 7th of April, we may be able to introduce the Irish Land Bill. On Friday, the 8th of April, we shall propose to adjourn the House two or three days earlier than the usual time, involving the loss of one day or a day and a-half in business; but, after the very long Sittings of the House, I think that this is an arrangement which will meet with general approval. We shall propose to meet again on Monday, the 25th of April, which relatively is a little late, as the 17th would be the usual date for reassembling. As the Irish Land Bill will have been in the hands of Members and before the country for a considerable time, and as it is desirable not to lose time in the prosecution of it, we should propose—and I am anxious this should be understood in fixing the introduction for the 7th—to commence the debate on the second reading when the House re-assembles on the Monday.

said, he had a Motion relating to Local Taxation which stood for Friday, which it was proposed to appropriate for the adjourned debate on the Candahar Question. The matter was as important to the British farmer as hares and rabbits and malt liquors, and he had pledged himself to Ids constituents to bring it forward; therefore, before he could express his readiness to give way, he must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give the farmers another chance of having the subject discussed?

I hope the hon. Member will be so kind as not to press me for a positive answer until we see our way a little further. Undoubtedly, if hon. Members are asked to allow their Motions to be displaced, that in itself will give plausibility to claims for consideration; but I naturally refrain from giving a positive answer. The hon. Member will see that the Mutiny Act may be a matter of the extremest urgency.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the cases of wounds and sickness which have occurred amongst medical officers during recent campaigns, he will take into consideration the justice of extending to the Army Medical Department the privilege now enjoyed by all combatant officers of counting as full-pay service towards retirement any time on half-pay, not exceeding one year, when such half-pay has been necessitated by sickness incurred in and by the Service; also such half-pay as results from reduction of the Department, not exceeding two years, as laid down in Army Circulars, March 1st 1880?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I fear that I cannot undertake to lay down the broad proposition that non-combatant officers are to have all the advantages of combatant officers, unless the converse be also accepted—that is to say, that they are to have all the disadvantages. The regulations as to the retirement of medical officers have been so recently settled that I cannot undertake to re-open the question; but when I have more leisure I will look into it.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorial from Spalding, stating that before the last School Board Election there an agreement had been come to between all parties that the old Board should be returned; that the returning officer, without any notice, treated the chairman, vice chairman, and one other member of the old Board as disqualified, although they were duly nominated, and did this without hearing them in support of their claims, declaring three other candidates duly elected in their stead; and, whether the Department can investigate the matter under section 33 of the Act of 1870?

My attention has been directed to the Memorial from Spalding to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers; but I cannot undertake to make the investigation suggested. I agree with the opinion first expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and followed by my immediate Predecessors, that the Education Department does not possess the machinery necessary for satisfactorily trying Election Petitions; and that any person who complains of the action of the returning officer must adopt the ordinary remedy of an information in the nature of a quo warranto.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, since the late proprietors of the "Bill of Entry" had secured by their own exertions an advertising connection, any compensation has been made to them for surrendering this part of the property; and, if not, whether the Treasury will consider the expediency of paying to the Customs' Benevolent Fund such amount as upon inquiry may prove equitable?

No compensation was given to the Customs' Benevolent Fund at the close of their tenure of the "Bill of Entry," as all their rights in its publication ceased by lapse of time; and I may add that it is probable that advertisements in the "Bill of Entry" will be discontinued altogether after the expiration of the present tentative period of six months.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a Conference of Burgh School Boards held in Edinburgh on the 24th January last, at which sixteen School Boards were represented, including those of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Perth, Dundee, and almost all the large burghs, and at which resolutions were adopted in favour of further legislation to secure the education of destitute and neglected children in cities and populous districts; and, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to make better provision than now exists for the education of such children?

I have seen the Report of the proceedings of the Conference of School Boards in Edinburgh, and I find myself in general agreement with the resolutions arrived at. The whole of the questions referred to have been carefully considered by the Government, and I hope they will be shortly dealt with either in a general measure or by separate legislation for Scotland.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What number of guardians in each of the metropolitan unions the Board have power to nominate, and how many gentlemen are now serving as nominated guardians; and, why the Board does not now proceed to exercise the power they possess to the full extent to make such nominations?

The Local Government Board have power to nominate such a number in each Union as would bring the number, together with the ex officio Guardians, to one-third that of the entire Board. My right hon. Friend will therefore see that the number varies with the total number of Guardians and the number of ex officio Guardians in each Union. There are now 29 gentlemen serving as nominated Guardians. The reasons why the Local Government Board have not exercised to the full their power of nomination are—first, the difficulty in some cases of finding qualified persons willing to undertake to discharge the duties regularly; and, secondly, the fact that in other cases the number of Guardians is already quite sufficient, or more than sufficient, for the transaction of the business of the the Union. In the case of Unions where nominated Guardians are really required—and these are, for the most part, the poorer Unions—the Board are always ready to consider with favour recommendations for the nomination of desirable persons.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the assizes for the county of Limerick on the 14th instant, in the trial of a case before Mr. Justice Barry for taking forcible possession, the jury disagreed, and whether the following is a correct report of what then occurred:—

"His Lordship—You say that there is no chance of agreement, although the prisoner ad- mitted that he had been put forcibly in possesssion, and that he has retained possession up to this moment. Is that so?—Foreman—Yes, my Lord. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during this assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true—that trial by jury has become a farce and a mockery in the county of Limerick, and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation that the parties who come into the jury-box in Limerick are either perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not act upon them. It must he for those who have the guidance of the legislation of the Country to consider this state of things;"

and, whether, if correct, and in view of the repeated similar opinions expressed by other judges, Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce any measures to amend a system which fails to vindicate the supremacy of the Law?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the "Times" newspaper of the 18th instant:—

"At Tralee Assizes yesterday, in a prosecution for remaining in forcible possession of a farm, all the prisoners were acquitted. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald thereupon said to the jury,—'This is your unanimous verdict, delivered by your foreman. All I can say is that it is a verdict against the evidence and against your oaths, and if that sort of verdict continues to be given it will sweep away the present jury system;'"

and, whether he will take steps to bring about a better administration of the Law?

In answer to the hon. Member for Leitrim and the noble Lord, I have to say that I have not received copies of the Judges' Charges; but I have no reason to doubt that the learned Judges made the statements referred to. I think it a very serious fact that it should have been necessary for them to make such statements. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Government intend to take any steps in consequence of these statements, by which I suppose they mean when we intend to bring in a Bill affecting trial by jury in Ireland. In reply to those Questions I have to say that the Government was influenced by the existence of the state of things spoken of by the learned Judges when they prepared the Protection Bill and the Arms Bill, and the House, no doubt, was also in- fluenced by them in passing those Bills; but though the matter demands the most serious consideration, the Government has not come to any conclusion that would warrant any statement that they would bring forward any further measure on the subject this Session.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has read the report of the proceedings at the recent Limerick Assizes, and the observations of Judge Barry, as recorded in the "Limerick Chronicle" of the 15th instant, namely:—

"The jury in Denis Murphy's case came into court and said that they could not agree. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during those assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true, that trial by jury has become a farce and a mockery in the county Limerick; and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation, that the parties who came into the jury box in Limerick are either perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not to act upon them. It must be for those who have the guidance of the legislation of the Country to consider this state of things. The jury was now discharged. The jury in James Walsh's case having agreed to a verdict of not guilty, His Lordship said, 'Gentlemen, I regret very much that you were not here in Court at the time I was addressing some observations to the jury in the last case on the manner in which the juries of the county Limerick discharge their duties. You have put the climax on the discreditable conduct of the jurors. You are now discharged, and you can consider how you can reconcile your verdict with your oaths and your consciences;'"

and, whether, in the face of the repeated declarations of Irish Judges as to the impossibility in many cases of finding juries who are "willing to reconcile their verdicts with their oaths," he is prepared, by legislation, to remedy such a state of things?

I can only refer the noble Lord to the answer just given by the Chief Secretary.

asked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it was not the fact that on Saturday last the Judge, on the application of the Crown Counsel, was obliged to postpone the trial of the remaining prisoners at Tralee on the ground of the state of the jury panel?

I am not aware that all the cases were postponed; but I am aware that one case of a serious nature was postponed for the reason stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state why the line between Deal and Dover has not been opened, although for many months past its construction has been nearly complete; if he can state the latest date for the completion of the line; and, whether, in the event of its not being then opened, the penalties will be put in force?

I have not received any information which will enable me to say why the line has not been opened. The Companies have to send a month's notice of their intention to open the line, and a second notice of 10 days of the fact that it is ready for inspection. We received the first notice from the two Companies concerned in November; we have not yet received the second notice. The last day for the completion of the line is May 23. If the Companies fail to have it ready by that date they will jointly and severally incur a penalty of £50 for every day during which the line is not open; but it would be a matter for consideration at the time whether the penalties would be enforced.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lietenant of Ireland, Why the military authorities do not take steps to prevent the soldiers quartered at Castleisland, in Kerry, from night to night assembling in the streets, whirling their belts, and calling on the "Irish cowards to come out and fight;" and, why it is that the police remain passive spectators of proceedings highly calculated to provoke a breach of the peace?

In reply to this Question, I may just state that a very strong charge is made by the hon. Gentleman against the military and police, without giving the slightest authority for it. He does not even refer to a newspaper article as an authority. I can only that I have no information on the subject,

As the right hon. Gentleman insinuates—or, perhaps I may say, absolutely states—that I have no authority for putting the Question, I beg to say that I have it on the most undoubted authority that the occurrences stated in my Question have taken place, and also that the police are most grossly neglecting their duty in Castle-island.

said: In consequence of the answer of the Chief Secretary to my Question with reference to the misconduct of the soldiery at Castle-island, I beg to give Notice that I shall repeat the Question on Friday, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making inquiries on the subject, and so as not to give grounds for the supposition, which I am sure is not warranted, that he is anxious to screen the military and police.

I may say at once, and I think the House will agree with me, that it ought not to be made a custom to put Questions on the Paper containing serious charges against individuals, without the slightest appearance of an attempt in the Question to give any authority for them.

I put the Questions on information which satisfied me thoroughly, and which I have no doubt would satisfy the House. I shall renew the Question on Friday.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the public press, that a writ for rent was served on the 16th instant, in Kilmainham Prison, on Mr. Patrick Fury, a person detained in the prison in question by virtue of a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, issued under the authority of the Act for the better protection of Person and Property in Ireland; whether, if the fact be as stated, this proceeding took place with the knowledge and sanction of the prison authorities; and, whether it was a legal proceeding?

It is true that a writ for rent was served on the 16th instant, in Kilmainham Prison, on Mr. Patrick Fury, a prisoner under the Act for the Better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. This proceeding took place with the knowledge and sanction of the prison authorities, and is quite legal.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What arrangement has been made to secure to the tenants who have effected drainage or other works, the money advanced by the Board of Works, and, with reference to the lands of Islandaff, barony of Duhallow, county Cork, whether he can say how much of the money advanced for those lands has been paid to the tenant, John Daly, and how much has been retained by the landlord in payment of rent; if he will inform the House the rate per English perch allowed by Board of Works' inspector, and how much per Irish perch was allowed the tenant by the landlord; and, whether the landlord who has applied for and been granted advances to supply money to the tenants has the power to refuse from the fact that the tenant is a member of the Land League?

With respect to the first Question, I have no precise information; with respect to the second, the rate allowed per English perch is 1s. 10d.; with respect to the last Question, I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted the Relief of Distress Act.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to a Memorial addressed to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education by the mayor and inhabitants of Stratford on Avon, praying their Lordships to suspend the institution of a School Board for that town, until inquiry shall have been made into the grounds of the prayer contained in the Memorial?

A Memorial was drawn up by the Mayor and inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon; but it was received by the Department after the Order for a school board had been issued, and I believe the election will take place next Thursday. But even if the Memorial had been presented earlier, it would not have been possible to suspend the Order, as the whole circumstances of the case had been fully considered before the Order was issued.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering the importance of the debate on the subject of Candahar, which has been announced to take place on Thursday, Her Majesty's Government could, on their own responsibility, either make a statement or lay further Papers upon the Table of the House, so as to place the House in full possession of all the facts of the case?

I stated on Friday, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that I would to-day, after communication with the Viceroy of India, endeavour to make some statement on the subject of the position of affairs in Afghanistan; and, having made that communication, I may as well take this opportunity of making a very short statement to the House on the subject. Immediately after the decision had been arrived at not permanently to occupy Candahar, communications were opened by the Government of India with the Ameer Abdurrahman, informing him of the intention of the Government to reconsider the arrangements which had been made for the government of Southern Afghanistan, and expressing the desire of the Viceroy to act in the matter in consultation and concert with him. There was great delay in the transmission of this letter to the Ameer, and the answer of the Ameer was also delayed some time on the road. However, when it was received, we found that the Ameer expressed his gratitude to the Viceroy for the communication which had been made to him, and his strong desire for a personal interview in order to confer with him on the affairs of Afghanistan. That, however, on account of the illness of the Viceroy, and for other reasons, was deemed impracticable at that time. The Ameer, however, had subsequently sent an Envoy, General Ahmed Khan, to Calcutta, to confer principally on Cabal matters. He has had several satisfactory interviews with the Viceroy, and he has returned to Cabal. In the meantime, however, in the month Of January, the Viceroy intimated to Abdurrahman that the British Government would contemplate with satisfaction the restoration of Candahar to Afghanistan, and would agree to the extension of His Highness's authority over that Province, recognizing his Government when established, and generally assisting him, as they did at Cabal, by a limited material help. The Ameer has made the purport of the Viceroy's communication generally known at Cabal, and has accepted the offer. The Viceroy has since informed Abdurrahman that it was necessary that the Cabul troops, with a Governor authorized to receive charge from the British officers, should reach Candahar early in April. The Ameer replied that he was desirous to take charge of Candahar at once; that his troops were all ready, his carriage being the principal difficulty, and that he hoped his forces would reach Candahar about the time named. The latest information received from the Viceroy is to the effect that the Cabal troops have started, or will start shortly, for Candahar, and will reach Candahar early in April, and that all arrangements for our withdrawal are completed. At the same time, measures have been taken at Candahar in preparation for the withdrawal of the British troops; and several of the leading Sirdars at Candahar have written to the Ameer of Cabal tendering their allegiance. That, I think, is all the information which it is possible for me to give to the House at the present moment. The House will see that the position is a somewhat critical one, and that to enter into any further detail would not add very much to the information of the House, while it is possible that mischief might be caused in Afghanistan. I am sorry that it is not in my power to lay any Papers on the Table. The Correspondence is in an extremely incomplete state. That would be so under any circumstances; but it is more incomplete than it otherwise would have been in consequence of the circumstance that, owing to some extraordinary accident or oversight, many of the despatches in the Political Department which ought to have arrived by the last and previous mails have not yet been received. Amongst these are the Minutes by Members of the Council, which I expected to have received three weeks or, at the latest, a fortnight ago, and which I had hoped to be able to lay on the Table of the House. Although the Government of India telegraphed that they were sent, they have not yet reached me. Under these circumstances, I regret that it will not be in my power to lay any further Papers on the Table before the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).

The noble Lord will recollect that he promised to lay on the Table Mr. Lyall's Report on Candahar; and perhaps he will inform us whether that is amongst the despatches which have not yet been received. If it has been received, will the noble Lord lay it on the Table?

The noble Lord says there are certain Minutes of Members of the Council which have not yet arrived. Will he have any objection to telegraph to India asking what is the purport of those Minutes?

I would ask whether the whole of the British troops are to be withdrawn from Candahar as soon as the troops of the Ameer of Cabul arrive there?

I would ask whether there has been any communication with Ayoob Khan at Herat with regard to the retention of Candahar?

No communication whatever has been made to Ayoob Khan at Herat with regard to the retention of Candahar. It is not intended that any British troops should permanently occupy Candahar. What will be the precise arrangments for the withdrawal of the troops I am not able at present to say. I have no recollection of having made any reference to the Report of Mr. Lyall at Candahar, or having promised to lay it on the Table. I believe, however, that it has been received, and I will see whether it can be presented before Thursday. I do not think it possible to ask for the substance of the Minutes of Members of the Council by telegraph. Documents of that sort are not generally capable of being abbreviated without losing a great deal of their value.

I beg to ask whether arrangements have been made for the security and protection of those inhabitants of Candahar who have favoured British rule during the last year or two?

I am perfectly aware that that is one of the subjects which have been occupying the attention of the Viceroy and his Government. I am not, however, able to state what the exact arrangements are that have been made for the protection of those persons.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will allow, in future, that men enlisting into the Foot Guards and the Infantry of the Line may enlist for either long or short service as they prefer?

No, Sir; I am not prepared to say that the Infantry and Foot Guards shall be in future recruited either for long or short service at the option of each recruit.

asked the Secretary of State for India, To mention the amount of the War Expenditure to the latest date, and to what date; and, for a further series of Papers relating to the Military Expenditure of India, and to the issues from the Treasuries for Military purposes?

A further series of Papers relating to the war expenditure, and the issues from the Treasuries for military purposes, including the Viceroy's telegram, is now presented to the House. The latest estimate of the war expenditure is that contained in the Viceroy's telegram of the 8th of March, which gives the military expenditure proper as 1,930 lakhs of rupees, or, excluding gain from railways and telegraphs, 1,862 lakhs, to the 31st of May, 1881, besides 487 lakhs on the Frontier railways. Converted into sterling, at 1s. 8d. the rupee, these sums are £15,516,000 for military operations, and £4,058,000 for railways, making a total of £19,574,000.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the plans for the garrisoning and fortification of Candahar, which were prepared, under Gene- ral Roberts' orders, by the chief engineer officer of the Cabul-Candahar Army, Colonel Perkins, R.E.; whether, according to those plans, a garrison of the total strength of seven thousand eight hundred men, half to occupy the fortifications, and half to operate beyond the walls, was considered to be ample for the retention of the place; whether the annual cost, as well as the original outlay required under those plans, would not be very much less than the figure stated in estimates which appear to be based upon the maintenance of a garrison of twelve or twenty thousand men; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can lay the plans in question, or any other plans prepared under the orders of General Roberts, upon the Table of the House?

No, Sir; I have no knowledge of the plans to which the hon. Member refers; and I am also assured that there is no official information on the subject in the Indian Military Department.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any decision has been arrived at respecting the amended application for a licence on the part of Trinity College, London; and, if not, whether the existing licence of the College is in any way affected by the delay; and, whether the application has been referred to the Education Department, and with what result?

, in reply, said, he was not in a position to state officially whether there was an existing licence of Trinity College; but if there was, he did not see how it could be affected by the delay referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the statue of Earl Russell lately erected in the Central Hall is to remain permanently on its present site; whether the site has been approved by the Department of Works, and whether before approval the Department of Works has asked or obtained the opinion of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of any other competent architectural authority, whether such a statue could be placed in the Central Hall without detriment to architectural effect; and, whether the statue has been set up in the Central Hall at the public cost; and, if so, whether the sum necessary to defray this charge has been included in any Estimate which has been laid before Parliament?

The statue of Earl Russell was erected in the Central Hall in pursuance of the authority given in May, 1879, by the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, on the application of the then First Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Rutlandshire (Mr. Gerard Noel). Before that authority was given a model of the statue was erected on the proposed site, and received the approval of a Committee composed of a number of distinguished persons, including the then Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. The site was also approved by the late Mr. Edward Barry, the son of the architect of the building, and himself a distinguished architect, and who was generally consulted on matters affecting architectural changes in this building. No expense has fallen upon the Government in the erection of the statue. Under these circumstance, it is not my intention to make any suggestion for the removal of the statue of this distinguished statesman.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to communicate to the House any information with respect to the negotiations between Sir Evelyn Wood and the Boer leaders, or in regard to the position of affairs generally in South Africa?

I am sorry to say that since I last said a few words to the House on this subject, we have not received any information of any importance. We are given to understand that there are two causes for this. One is—I cannot say that we know this officially, we merely fall back on what we see stated as the cause—that the rains and floods have greatly impeded the movements of the persons concerned; and the other is that the illness of Mr. Kruger and another of the Boer leaders has prevented their arrival. I have no in- formation in the slightest degree enlarging the means of judgment possessed by the House; and, therefore, I am certain it would be very unsatisfactory that we should have glances and glimpses on subjects of this kind, where everything depends on full and definite knowledge. As the Vote which will be proposed by my right hon. Friend depends on the enlargement of our military means in South Africa, and is perfectly separable from the subject of our policy, although the two might be discussed together, I hope the House may be disposed to postpone altogether from to-night the discussion of policy, unless on any particular point any hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to state any matter that may occur to him as separable from the rest. I hope there will be a general disposition to postpone it. Of course, I adhere to the pledge I have given, that the information will be communicated to the House at the earliest possible moment at which it can be done without damage to the public interest, and also that we shall be ready, as, indeed, will be our plain duty, to make the best arrangements that may be practicable for the discussion of the subject, should it be desired by the House.

I wish to ask the right. hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates moving a Vote of Credit for 1881–2 in respect of the services in the Transval?

asked whether the telegraph service was still open with the Transvaal?

asked whether the whole of the expenses incurred in the present year were included in the Vote to be submitted that night, or whether there would be another Supplementary Vote?

With respect to the last Question, I think the proper time to put it will be when we are in Committee, and I shall then be able to give full information on the subject. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis), I received this morning a telegram of no importance, which I think was dated this morning, but I cannot say so with absolute certainty. As to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, if he refers to the Estimates for the coming year, he will find that they include between £500,000 and £600,000 on account of the Transvaal expenditure, and these items are shown distinctly as money proposed to be voted on that account.

asked, Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been called to a speech of the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), setting forth that, while it was his duty to sit and vote in the House of Commons as long as he remained Member for Northampton, he should prefer to resign his seat in order to again test the opinion of the constituency? Also, Whether he had seen it stated in the public prints that the hon. Member had applied for, and been refused, the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds?

No application has been made to me for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds by the hon. Member for Northampton.

asked the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, Whether in case the Votes in Supply were obtained that night, he intended to make his Motion to-morrow with respect to the alleged vacant seat for Northampton?

said, it had been his intention, as soon as he could do so without interfering with Supply, to take the sense of the House as to whether the judgment of one of the Divisions of the High Court of Justice was to be treated as a complete nullity; but he observed, from the usual channels of information, that an appeal on the subject was likely to be heard very shortly, and as there was some reason to hope that the decision of the higher Court would be treated with greater respect than had been that of the inferior Court, he did not think it his duty at present to proceed with his Motion,

said, as it was probable Friday next would be occupied with the Candahar debate, he should postpone the next stage of this Bill—he hoped for the last time—until the following Tuesday.

, in rising to call attention to the proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, on Tuesday March 8th, with regard to Order; and to move—

"That Mr. Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair;"

said, that he understood that an hon. Member in his absence had taken occasion to reflect upon the course he had taken in leaving the Motion of which he had given Notice standing so long upon the Notice Paper. He desired, in the first place, therefore, to explain that he had postponed his Motion from time to time purely out of respect for the convenience of the House; and that he should greatly regret if the fact of his having kept his Motion so long upon the Notice Paper were to be interpreted into an act of discourtesy to the Chairman of Committees. He also desired to say that in placing that Notice upon the Paper he had carefully avoided language which could, in any sense, be regarded as conveying an imputation upon the justice or the righteous intentions of the Chairman of Committees. Under the stimulus and spur of the exasperation which he had felt at the most unprovoked and undeserved indignity which was put upon him, he admitted that he did use towards the Chairman of Committees words implying that that right hon. Gentleman had made an unjust and unfair use of the power which was intrusted to him. He now wished that it should be clearly understood that he by no means persisted in that statement, and that he was convinced that the conduct of the Chairman of Committees was not actuated by a desire to act unfairly or unjustly, but that it arose entirely out of an erroneous impression as to the course he was about to take on the occasion. Having regard to the importance of the question, and to the necessity of having it answered fairly, he would state, in as few words as possible, the part he took in the proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday, the 8th of March. So far from taking any active part in the discussion of the 8th instant, he only spoke once during the whole evening, and that was for five minutes, in support of a suggestion of an hon. Member to make an Amendment in the clause before the Committee, and which was substantially accepted by the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill. Therefore, upon whatever ground his persistent action against the Coercion Bills might have led to the supposition that he was engaging in obstructive tactics, or disregarding the authority of the Chair, on this particular occasion, at all events, there was no ground for any such supposition. It was in support of the Amendment he had previously spoken to, and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—who had, he believed, been most constant in his attendance and most conciliatory in his demeanour to the Irish Members—it was in the temporary absence of the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) rose, and it was in connection with the speech of that hon. Member that he (Mr. O'Donnell) came in conflict with the Chair. Directly the hon. Member rose he was received with persistent cries of "Oh, oh!" "Divide!" and other clamorous expressions from hon. Members on the other side of the House. He did not intend in any way to justify the words then used by the hon. Member for Ennis, neither did he intend to contravene the ruling of the Chairman of Committees. He merely rose to a point of Order, nod he believed he would have been able to place some valuable evidence before the Chairman of Committees. He rose, according to the report in the Standard, to speak to a point of Order, and said that—

"Mr. O'Connell, in this House, applied to Members of the Tory Party (cries of Order). I am speaking to Order. Mr. Chairman said, 'I have already given my ruling that the hon. Member (Mr. Finigan) must withdraw the two words which he has used.'"

He (Mr. O'Donnell) instantly sat down, although he considered that he had important evidence to give upon the very language which was used by the hon. Member for Ennis, and evidence which would have prevented any serious misconception afterwards. He, however, sat down, and consequently there could be no blame resting on him with regard to his rising on a point of Order. He accepted the ruling of the Chair; but he was still under the impression that if he had been allowed by a cessation of clamour to state his point, the Chairman would have seen the appropriateness of his remarks. The hon. Member for Ennis then sought to offer some explanation of his conduct, and he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would gladly have listened to his explanation; because he believed that when an hon. Member was accused of making certain statements, the Chairman of Committees always pushed indulgence towards the accused to the extreme, and allowed him every opportunity of explaining his conduct. The Speaker would recollect that upon a recent occasion he (Mr. O'Donnell) rose to Order with regard to the words applied by the Solicitor General for Ireland to the Irish Members. That hon. and learned Gentlemen had said that some expressions used by Irish Gentlemen were insolent. The Speaker, however, declined to act upon his (Mr. O'Donnell's) statement that such words were used. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman when he had used the words. It was only on the admission of the Solicitor General that he ruled that the phrase "insolent" was out of Order, and must be withdrawn. In the same way, he was quite sure that the hon. Member for Ennis, if he had succeeded in causing his words to reach the Chair, would have had most courteous indulgence on that occasion. The hon. Member, however, was received, as he, (Mr. O'Donnell) was received a few moments before, by a continuous clamour from a body of hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. Since the adoption of the Urgency Rules, hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted a new phase in which to express disapproval of the observations of an hon. Member; whenever an hon. Member on the Irish Benches rose they now shouted, "Name him, name him, name him!" Now, that was not only most distracting and confusing to an hon. Member seeking to address the House, but it was most disrespectful and discourteous to the hon. Gentleman who was speaking and to the presiding authority; for it should be left to this authority alone to decide at which moment the penal powers placed in his hands by the judgment of the House should be exercised; and cries of "Name him, name him!" proceeding from every quarter of the House had the appearance of dictation to the Chair. He had, therefore, on that occasion sought to point out to the presiding authority that, however disrespectful and discourteous the language of the hon. Member for Ennis might have been, it had been provoked by the discourtesy and disrespect of hon. Members opposite; and it struck him (Mr. O'Donnell) that hon. Members sitting in their seats ought to be reminded of their duties to the House quite as fully and quite as clearly as any hon. Members who happened to be standing up to address the Chair. On this point, he desired to call the attention of the House to the very clear Rule on this subject, which was dated the 22nd of January, 1693, which was to this effect—

"To the end that all the debates in this House should be grave and orderly as becomes so great an assembly and that all interruptions should be prevented, be it ordered and declared that no member of this House do presume to make any noise or disturbance whilst any member shall be orderly debating, or whilst any Bill, order, or other matter shall be in reading or opening; and in case of such noise or disturbance that Mr. Speaker do call upon the member by name making such disturbance, and that every such person shall incur the displeasure and censure of the House."

He thought that those who made uproarious noises while Irish Members were orderly debating questions before the House ought to be reminded that they were themselves at least equally liable to their favourite punishment of being named. When the incident raised by the hon. Member for Ennis had been closed, he rose to call attention to the persistent interruptions as being most discourteous to the Chair and most obstructive to order in the House. In his very first words, on rising to a point of Order, he took care to say he was not in any way going to contest the authority of the Chair. On the contrary, he was going to appeal to the Chair, and was not going to discuss in any way the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Ennis. His very first words, according to the report in The Standard, were, "Now that that question is settled, I rise to Order." He could quote reports which were even more favourable to his point of view than The Standard report. For instance, The Standard report stated that the Chairman of Committees actually named him; whereas other reports, as well as the recollection of several hon. Members, bore out the statement that in the hurry of the moment the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair forgot the formality of absolutely naming him. However, he was by no means desirous of resting any portion of his case on technicalities. His complaint was that he was never allowed to state any portion of his point of Order. He could not even finish a quarter of a sentence before he was violently interrupted by a continuation of the outcries and uproar which had proceeded from the portion of the House he had before referred to. He was greeted with the loudest uproar, and ceaseless cries of "Name him, name him!" This disorderly shouting accompanied him from the very first moment he rose until he finished speaking. He had gone no further than to call attention to the words "beastly bellowing," admid loud cries of "Order!" when the Chairman said he had already decided as to those words. He (Mr. O'Donnell) then said—

"Precisely. ('Order.') I am not objecting to your ruling. (Loud cries of 'Order,' and great confusion.) I am speaking to a point of Order. (Uproar.) The Chairman.—The point of order is already settled."

But that, he contended, was said by the Chairman when it was impossible for him to have caught what was stated, though, of course, the point of Order as to the words "beastly bellowing," had been already settled as long ago as Mr. O'Connell's time. Then the report in The Times continued—

"Mr. O'Donnell.—I have a new point. (Irish cheers and cries of 'Name.') I am speaking to a new point of Order, and I will conclude in the fewest number of words. I shall be entirely guided by your ruling, but until I state my point no ruling can be given. As to the use of discourteous expressions, Mr. O'Connell in this House—The Chairmen.—That point has been already settled."

What he wished to do at the time was to call attention to the persistent and most disorderly and discourteous inter- ruptions to which he was subjected, and he, therefore, replied to the Chairman that he rose to a new point of Order—a statement that was followed, according to The Times and The Standard, by violent interruptions and cries of "Name!" From first to last he was hounded down at every syllable by shouts that were contrary, not only to the Order of the House, but to the common courtesy of less august Assemblies; and then, without a single word of warning, without telling him to sit down, and without giving the slightest hint that he was doing anything but what had been done by thousands of Members of the House during all the centuries of its existence, the Chairman said—" I now name the Member for Dungarvan as disobeying the ruling of the Chair." And yet there was no ruling of the Chair at the time, and there could be none, as he had not been allowed to complete his first sentence. If the time of the House had at all costs to be saved, it would have been better for the Chairman to have heard him, and then, if proper, to have decided against him; but, as things were, two divisions, one of the Committee and one of the House, were rendered necessary. The fact was that the Chairman misunderstood him, and he had no opportunity of explaining his point of Order, while hundreds of clamorous deputy chairmen named him unofficially. He had been treated with very great injustice; but he attributed no such intention to the Chairman, who, he was sure, found himself in a very difficult position. He was tempted by the fact that the Home Secretary had moved his suspension for the crime of not being able to finish a sentence to remind the House that that right hon. and learned Gentleman had on a former occasion expatiated on the danger of preventing a speaker from finishing at least one sentence. In the last Parliament, under the courteous leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition, a dispute arose in Committee in the course of the debates on flogging in the Army. It was on the memorable night when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) deposed from his leadership the noble Lord who then sat for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington), and who held unpopular views on the flogging question. On that occasion, while warmly advocating the abolition of the cat, he had spoken of the assembling of 500,000 men in Hyde Park; whereupon there were cries of "Order!" and a Motion was made to take down his words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, with all the chivalry that was always at their service until his Party came into Office, interposed, and by an anecdote of George III. illustrated the possibility of finishing sentences in a manner not expected. In the end the Motion was withdrawn, on the assurance that no un-Parliamentary language was intended. Now, however, it seemed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, being in Office, had forgotten his former prudence and wisdom. In repeating the complaint he had to make, and with respect to which he wished it to be clearly understood that he brought no personal charge against the Chairman of Committees, he had only to say that he had risen to a point of Order; that he had distinctly stated that he regarded the previous point of Order as settled; that he was rising to a new point of Order; and that he had professed himself ready to submit to the decision of the Chair. Instead of being allowed to state his point of Order, he was instantly interrupted by a storm of shouts of "Order!" and "Name!" which went on unceasingly until he was named. He thought he might fairly complain, as a Member of the House and as representing an Irish constituency, that in a debate on a Bill specially affecting Ireland, he had been turned out of the House with the most undeserved stigma of having disregarded the ruling of the Chair. If reference were made to his conduct on other occasions, he was sure it would not be in the spirit of the Kerry juryman, who procured a verdict of guilty against an obviously innocent man, who was being tried for murder, and justified his conduct on the ground that the prisoner, though innocent of murder, had stolen his horse at Christmas. He regretted no part of his conduct in opposing the Coercion Bills; he was only doing his duty to his constituents. He was not prepared to make any apology or to lie under the stigma imposed upon him. He had asked one of the most respected Members of the House whether the House would vote fairly, though it was only the Member for Dungarvan who appealed to it, and he was told that it would. In the confidence, then, that that House would act towards him exactly as it would in similar circumstances towards the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition or the Leader of Her Majesty's Government, he would leave his case in its hands.

I have no remark to make except approval for the hon. Member having delayed this Motion, on account of the urgency of Public Business, although it is obvious that a Motion of this character should not be allowed to weaken the authority of the Chair by remaining undetermined. The hon. Member has given to the House his impression of the proceedings on Tuesday, 8th March. This impression is, however, largely formed from the inner consciousness of his intention, and is not that which the Committee or the Chairman received by any audible expression of them. I ask now the House to go back and consider the actual facts of the proceedings, instead of the hypothetical representation derived from the inner consciousness of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. During the discussion an hon. Member used an expression which the Chair deemed to be discourteous to Members sitting opposite to him, and his attention was called to the fact, and to the necessity of using courteous language. The hon. Member did not act upon the advice of the Chair, but increased the strength of his expression, and said that the noise opposite to him resembled "beastly bellowing." That was not the first time those words had been used in the House. They had been applied by Mr. Daniel O'Connell on a well-known occasion, and had then been ruled out of Order. Acting upon that well-known ruling, the Chairman desired the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) to withdraw the expression. Upon that, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) intervened before the withdrawal of the words, and said—

"Mr. O'Donnell: There is a point of Order, and I wish to speak to it. (Cries of 'Order' and 'Name him.') Mr. O'Connell in this House, replying to Members of the Tory Party—(Cries of 'Order, order.') I am speaking to Order. (Cries of 'Name him') The Chairman: I have already given my ruling that the hon. Member must withdraw the two words which he used."

After a little resistance the hon. Member for Ennis did withdraw the words objected to, and he was then called upon by the Chair to continue his speech. The hon. Member for Ennis rose to resume the debate; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the second time intervened between him and the Chair, and spoke as follows:—

"Mr. O'Donnell: I rise to Order, now that question is settled. I rise to Order—(Cries of 'Order, order.') On the point of Order—(uproar.) I must remind the Committee that the words 'beastly bellowing'—(uproar.) The Chairman: I have already decided upon those words."

Again the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) was called upon by the Chair to resume the debate. Upon this the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened, and said—

"Mr. O'Donnell (amid cries of 'Name him'): Decidedly. I am not objecting to your ruling. I am speaking to a point of Order. (Cries of 'Order, order.') The Chairman: The point of Order on that subject is already settled."

Again the Chair called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to continue his speech, but the hon. Member for Dungarvan, spoke a third time—

"Mr. O'Donnell: A new point is raised. (Cries of 'Order.') I am speaking to a point of Order, and I will in the fewest possible words state the point. I will be guided entirely by your ruling; but until I have stated my point of Order there is no point for the Chairman to decide. With regard to the use of discourteous language, Mr. O'Connell in this House—(uproar.) The Chairman: That point of Order is already settled. Mr. O'Donnell: No, Sir. The Chairman: I now name the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Mr. O'Donnell, as having disregarded the authority of the Chair. Mr. O'Donnell remained on his feet, saying something which was inaudible in the Gallery owing to the din."

These are the facts of the case, and the report which I have quoted from the Scotsman is, I believe, verbally accurate. I would draw the attention of the House to this circumstance—first, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened between the Chairman's direction for the withdrawal of the objectionable words, and the hon. Member who was called upon to withdraw them. When these words were withdrawn, the debate ought to have been immediately resumed, and accordingly the Chairman twice called upon the hon. Member in possession of the debate to continue his speech; but each time that he did so the hon. Member for Dungarvan intervened between the direction of the Chairman for the resumption of the debate and the hon. Member for Ennis, who rose to continue it. On both these occasions he referred to the expression "beastly bellowing," which had been withdrawn, and was no longer under discussion. The hon. Member for Dungarvan says that he intended to have drawn the attention of the Chair to the unruly conduct on the other side of the House, which had exasperated the hon. Member speaking, and brought forth the expression "beastly bellowing." At an earlier stage of the debate this would have been quite in Order. When, in the first instance, the hon. Member for Ennis was disturbed by exclamations from the other side of the House, it would have been quite competent for him to direct attention to them, and ask the protection of the Chair. And at that time it would have been equally competent for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to direct the attention of the Chair to the alleged disorder, and ask whether it could not be subdued by the action of the Chair. But when the hon. Member for Ennis took the rebuke into his own hands by the use of un-Parliamentary expressions, the Case became entirely altered. When he was called upon to withdraw the words "beastly bellowing," the intervention of the hon. Member for Dungarvan between the Chair and the hon. Member for Ennis became irregular and out of Order, because it prevented that Member from at once conforming to the ruling of the Chair. It was also irregular and out of Order, when the Chair called upon the Member in possession of the House to resume the debate, for the hon. Member for Dungarvan twice to intervene between the Chair and the resumption of the debate, while on both these occasions he spoke with reference to the words "beastly bellowing," which had been withdrawn, and were no longer before the House. There is nothing of which the House is more properly jealous than when Members intervene between the Chairman and a Member who has called forth the censure of the Chair. Such interruptions almost invariably lead, as they did in the present case, to renewed disorder. On several occasions you, Mr. Speaker, have intimated that you would treat such interruptions as disorderly; and on the occasion under discussion, when the hon. Member for Dungarvan not only intervened between the ruling of the Chair for the ultimate withdrawal of the expression "beastly bellowing," but again twice after the Chairman had called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to resume the debate, he appeared both to the Committee and to the Chairman as having the deliberate intention of obstructing the course of the debate. The strong impression upon my own mind, as Chairman, was that the hon. Member for Dungarvan desired to prevent the resumption of the debate, in order that he might have an opportunity of discussing the words "beastly bellowing," to which he referred in all his three speeches. As these words had been declared to be out of Order, and were withdrawn, it would have been a direct defiance of the Chair to permit their further discussion. I had, therefore, with this conviction on my mind, no other course than to inform the Committee that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair. The protection of that authority then devolved upon the House. The House has not given to the Chair any power even to make a Motion for the suspension of a Member when a Member has been named to the Committee. It is for the House to determine whether it considers the case as one requiring the grave punishment of suspension; and it is only upon Motion made that the House is called upon to decide whether the Member named by the Chairman should be suspended or not. The Motion made for suspension in Committee was carried by 127 Ayes to 27 Noes. It was then confirmed by the House itself by 143 Ayes to 32 Noes. The Committee and the House which had heard the original un-Parliamentary language, and listened to the interruptions, thus confirmed the opinion of the Chairman that the authority of the Chair had been disregarded. I may remind the House that on the suspension in Committee beigh reported, the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) took exception to the suspension, not upon the ground now taken, that a new point of Order had not been listened to, but upon the mere technical point that he had not heard the Chairman call the hon. Member for Dungarvan by the name of Mr. O'Donnell. That was an altogether insignificant and unimportant issue, even if it had been true; but it is important to observe that the challenge of the action of the Chair was not that it had refused to listen to a complaint of the disorderly conduct of certain Members; but that the Chairman had failed in a mere point of technicality. In this the hon. Member for Cork City was entirely mistaken, for the words used by myself were—" I name the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Mr. O'Donnell, as disregarding the authority of the Chair." I now have stated the facts of the case as they appeared to myself, and to the great majority of the Committee and the House itself, on the 8th of March. After the statement made to-day by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, I am bound to believe that he intended to draw my attention to disorderly conduct on the other side of the House. He was unfortunate in his mode of doing so, and was out of Order all the three times which he selected for the purpose; and he was additionally unfortunate that he gave to the Committee no hint even of his intention, for in each of his three short speeches he put in the forefront an apparent intention of discussing the words "beastly bellowing," upon which a distinct ruling had been given, and final action had been taken. I have read carefully every report of the speeches which I could find, to see whether any other intention had been expressed that might have escaped my ear in the noise and confusion of the scene; but I have found no such indication. I contend, therefore, that with the evidence before him, the Chairman was bound to use the Rule of the House against the apparent obstruction to the resumption of the debate; and that the Committee, and subsequently the House, which had heard the whole proceedings, were justified in the vote which they gave upon the Motion for suspension.

, having been present on the occasion in question, must express his conviction that the whole case arose from a misunderstanding between the Member for Dungarvan and the Chairman of Ways and Means. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman showed distinctly that he was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan meant to refer to a subject which had been already under discussion, and upon which he had, from the Chair, already given his decision. If, however, his own impression of what occurred was correct, that was not the object of the hon. Gentleman, who rose to a fresh point of Order entirely apart from the subject which had been discussed; and if he understood anything of the Rules of that House, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in rising to Order. It seemed to him, with all due deference to the House, that the time of the House ought not to be employed in discussing a case which arose entirely through a misunderstanding. He would further express his opinion that, as a matter of justice to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the decision which was come to under a misapprehension ought to be rescinded.

, as one of those who voted against the suspension of the hon Member for Dungarvan, appealed to him whether, after the statement which he had been able to make, he would not consent to withdraw his Motion?

said, he was not disposed very much to blame the Chairman of Ways and Means, if at all, because he knew very well that very great coercion was brought to bear upon him by the Ministerialists to get him to give a decision different from what he probably would be inclined himself to give; but seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had, in point of fact, given up the whole case, he thought the House would do well to give its decision unanimously in favour of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan.

thought this was a very serious matter, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been a second time suspended, and the House well knew the severity of the penalty should the hon. Member at some future time commit another offence. Hon. Members ought to support the ruling of the Chairman on every occasion; but the right hon. Gentleman's observations that evening showed that he misunderstood the purport of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. There was very good reason why he should misunderstand them. The noise in the House was so dreadful at the time that he defied any Chairman of Ways and Means rightly to have understood what the hon. Member said unless, in the first place, he called the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to Order. Although it would be a strong point for them to vote against the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, yet, as a severe penalty attached to the vote they gave somewhat under a misapprehension the other night, he would appeal to the Prime Minister as to whether they had not better, in all the circumstances of the case, agree to rescind that vote? This would not be casting any stigma on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman who was in the Chair, for they all knew the difficult position he was placed in—a position at all times one of some difficulty, but which had become this Session still more difficult. He thought it would be desirable not to come to a vote on the present occasion. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), matters would be very much simplified.

I stand rather in a different position from the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. I was present on the occasion, and I think he was not. I wish to speak of this matter with good feeling, and in the temperate tone with which it has been treated on both sides. As the hon. Member for Dungarvan has correctly stated, when the circumstances to which he referred unfortunately arose, I was not in the House. When I reentered the House, which I had left very quiet, I found it had got into a rather lively condition. I understood that the words "beastly bellowing" gave rise to a great deal of strong feeling in the House. Thereupon, the Chairman of Committees called upon the Member who had used these words to withdraw them; and then, according to my recollection, the hon. Member for Dungarvan interposed. Now, as I understood the hon. Member, he most distinctly rose to point out to the Chairman of Committees that these words were not objectionable, and that he ought not to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw them. I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me; but I thought I stated clearly in my opening observations that I rose to offer evidence upon a point of Order, and sought by no means to in any way justify the use of the words "beastly bellowing."

What I conceive is, and I believe I am right in that view of the matter, that if a Member uses words which are objectionable, and the Chairman calls upon that Member to withdraw those words, it would be irregular for anybody to interpose between the Chair and the Member addressing the House, to discuss whether or not the Chairman was right in asking that the words should be withdrawn, and to raise a debate on that subject. The first irregularity I observed was the attempt on the part of the lion. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) to interpose between the Chair and the Member who had used those objectionable words. It was upon that first occasion, as I understood it, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan made his first reference to Mr. O'Connell. I had the impression, and I think every Member in the House had the impression, that the reference of the hon. Member for Dungarvan to Mr. O'Connell's case was to point out, and to lead the Chairman and the House to believe, that these words ought not to be objectionable and not withdrawn. That was the impression produced upon my mind at that time. What took place was this. After the Chairman, having called upon the hon. Member for Ennis to withdraw these words, they were, after all these interruptions, ultimately withdrawn, and there was again that question of Order. Now, mark, the hon. Member for Dungarvan says that he rose to a new question of Order; but there could be no new question of Order, because nothing had occurred. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Yes.] No doubt, the hon. Member for Dungarvan now thinks that there was a point of Order.

I rise to a point of Order. I must respectfully request the Home Secretary not to use the word "now" as implying any insinuation against me.

I beg the hon. Member for Dungarvan to observe that I made no insinuation at all in the words I used. I pointed out that the words used now are in opposition to what was acted upon by the Chairman of Committees, and that was what the hon. Member then said. What he then said was not an objection to anything taking place below the Gangway on this side of the House. After the Chairman had said "I have already decided on these words," the hon. Member then rose. Remember, nothing had occurred except what came from the other side of the House. If the hon. Member had said there was a clamour on the other side, and called upon the Chairman to put it down, that would have been very intelligible; but he proceeded to call the attention of the House to the use of discourteous language by Mr. O'Connell. Could any man in this House believe, could the Chairman of Committees believe, anything else than that that was a distinct reference to the previous words of "beastly bellowing" which had been used by Mr. O'Connell? What was the meaning of the reference to Mr. O'Connell? It was quite plain, therefore, to everybody, that the words Mr. O'Connell used, and which the hon. Member wished to call attention to, were a going back again upon the old story of "beastly bellowing," and that he wished to invite the consideration of the Committee to something which had been decided. That was the impression produced upon my mind and that of the Chairman of Committees; and I do not very well see how on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could have interpreted the use of discourteous language, and the reference to Mr. O'Connell, as having anything to do with a new point of Order. It is for the House, however, to determine what it will do under these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House will allow me to say a very few words, which will not, I think, tend to excite any acrimony, as I believe I was the only Member on this Bench on this occasion. I must say that my recollection agrees in every respect with what has fallen from the Chairman of Committees. There was certainly at the time a considerable amount of confusion in the House; and no one need impute any want of good faith to those con- cerned, for it was really difficult to catch anything at all. As to the point whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan was named, such was the noise in the House throughout that, although I distinctly heard the Chairman say "Mr. O'Donnell," hon. Members sitting just behind me did not catch those words. The impression produced on my mind at the time the hon. Member for Dungarvan was speaking was exactly that described by the Chairman of Committees as the impression produced on his mind; and I certainly did believe that the hon. Member was persisting in referring to the term "beastly bellowing," upon which the Chairman had already ruled. He has told us now that was not his intention; and as to that it is not for me to say a word; but at the time no other construction could be placed upon his words. I submit to the House it was impossible for the Chairman of Committees or myself to suppose that, instead of referring to that point, he was about to allude to an interesting Parliamentary incident 200 years old; and believing that the hon. Member was persisting in resisting the authority of the Chair, I, for one, thought it my duty to support the Chair; and if this Motion goes to a division, I shall still be prepared to support it. If I might be allowed to make a suggestion it is, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having addressed the House in a way which will commend itself to us all, and having given an explanation of what he intended to do—under all the circumstances, if the Leader of the House can make any proposal to settle this matter, it will be received with general satisfaction.

I feel indebted, not only to the right hon. Gentleman near me (Sir William Harcourt), but to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have kindly, and, I think, usefully and as impartially as I could wish, related to us who were not in the House at the time when the circumstances occurred, exactly their impressions and belief of what took place; and I think that their statements will carry, and justly carry, the greatest weight with the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) has asked me if I am able to offer any suggestion; and he is quite justified in making that appeal. Unfortunately, as I need hardly state, for myself, I was not in the House at the time when the circumstances occurred, and, therefore, I have been anxiously waiting to gather the most exact impression at which I could arrive as to the nature of these circumstances. I think we have got considerable light, if we can make use of it, in the case before us. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman has led to a speech from him, couched in the most becoming terms, which I do not hesitate to say must carry to all of your minds the full conviction that the hon. Gentleman had not the least intention of disregarding the authority of the Chair. I make that acknowledgment, not as a matter of favour; but that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to it there can be no doubt. But that is very far from disposing of the case now before us. We have now before us a Motion; and we must look at the position of that Motion, and the construction which the adoption of the Motion would naturally carry. I was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman who rose to make the suggestion in relief, if I may so say, of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, did not recommend the adoption of his Motion, but recommended its withdrawal. Now, I think that is the course which ought to be followed, and I will give my reason. If we are called upon, as I hope we shall not be called upon, to vote upon the Question before us, I feel no difficulty, because the Motion is that you do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply, and that the words shall stand part of the Question. Consequently, our first question will not be the pronunciation of any judgment at all upon the Motion made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I feel, therefore, that those who might be, perhaps, more prepared than I am to adopt that Motion, may very justly vote for the previous Motion, that the words "that you do leave the Chair," should stand part of the Question. I am bound to say that, with the feeling I have expressed in regard to the hon. Member for Dungarvan—and by no means precluding myself from considering hereafter whether there is any manner by which he can be relieved from the consequences of the position in which he has been placed—I cannot possibly vote for his Motion. I must ask myself what would be the effect of it. He invites us to vote that the Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair. If we rule that the Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression, no person can mistake the fact that we should be, although not in actual terms, pronouncing a condemnation upon the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. I am not prepared to pronounce that condemnation. I give my distinct opinion that the adoption of those words is in itself a condemnation of the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. I do not mean to say it is a severe condemnation; but it is an imputation that he acted erroneously. The Chairman of Committees did not, in my opinion, act erroneously, because he acted upon, I think, the just and necessary inference from the words which were again and again placed before him by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Will the hon. Member for Dungarvan allow me to say that the Chairman of Committees was misled by the hon. Member himself, and that, under those circumstances, it would not be fair or just to record these words? My right hon. Friend near me contends, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) has stated, that the Chairman of Committees pronounced the only judgment at the moment he could pronounce. If that is so, we ought most carefully to avoid any words which, by the remotest implication, would go to assert that, in the opinion of the House, the Chairman of Committees erred in judgment, when it was the hon. Gentleman himself who supplied him with sufficient evidence, on which he acted. ["No, no!"] That is my opinion, and it was evidence which warranted his action. What the hon. Gentleman now says with regard to his intention is a totally different matter. ["No, no!"] It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman used words again and again which left no option to the Chairman of Committees. I say that as frankly as I say that the hon. Gentleman has convinced me that he unfortunately used these words; and if he had had the opportunity, rightly withheld from him, he would have given an ultimate turn to the matter contrary to all natural and reasonable expectation, and would have showed that he had no intention of dis- regarding the authority of the Chair. It has been suggested that we should rescind the Motion affecting the hon. Member; but I shall be careful about giving an opinion on that subject at the present moment. It is not the proposal before us, and it is one which appears to me to involve difficult points of procedure. Whether it is a matter which can be considered or not—whether there are modes in which the hon. Member can have authentically asserted, what we all believe, that he did not intend to disregard the authority of the Chair—I do not now say; but it is a question to which I should be prepared to give dispassionate and favourable consideration hereafter. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in the terms of the Motion, which go to imply a censure on the Chairman of Committees, which was evidently not warranted.

I am, in one respect, in the same position as the Leader of the House. I was not present when this matter took place; but, speaking from what I have gathered in the course of this discussion, I may say that the impression left on my mind is the same as appears to have been left on that of the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, that the explanation which has been given in the course of this debate by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and which has been given in so excellent a tone, and with so much moderation, is fully sufficient to satisfy us that he had not in his mind the intention of disregarding the authority of the Chair. It is one reason why I should hope we may not have to come to any decision on this question that might seem to imply on the part of those who were not able to vote with the hon. Member that they were not satisfied with his explanation. I, for my part—and I believe I speak the general sense of the House—feel satisfied that the explanation he has given is the true explanation of his intentions, and that, so taken, it is undoubtedly one which acquits him of any intention to disregard the authority of the Chair. But, on the other hand, I feel strongly with the Prime Minister that if we were to pass a Resolution of this kind, it could not but be taken as so far as a reflection on the conduct of the Chairman of Committees as materially to weaken, if not, perhaps, even to destroy, his authority upon future occasions. In these matters, indirectly, we have had too much experience of what takes place. There is a great deal of confusion in the House, a great deal of heat, and a great deal of noise, so that it is extremely difficult for anyone to form an accurate judgment as to what may be in the mind of anyone who may wish to address the House. I am satisfied, however, that the Chairman of Committees on this occasion, as I have seen him do on so many other occasions, did his very best to preserve his authority with strict regard to the rights and feelings of Members. Nothing can be more difficult than the position of the Chairman on such occasions; and from my own experience I would say that it is the duty of the House to support, as far as possible, the authority of its Chairman as of the Speaker. I hope, as the result of this discussion, that hon. Members in all parts of the House will bear in mind that the kind of support they can best give to the Speaker and the Chairman is a quiet support, and a support afforded consistently with the feelings and rights of other Members. I think that occasionally there have been instances of impatience shown to hon. Members on this side of the House which has rendered the matter very difficult. I hope the hon. Member for Dungarvan and those who act with him will bear in mind that if he has been a little harshly treated on this occasion, there have been other occasions when he and his Friends have, perhaps, been more deserving. What I hope may be the upshot of the matter is that, even if the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be made a martyr for it, there will be a diminution of those scenes, and less frequent occasions for them. Meantime, I trust we may not be put to the pain of a division. To me it would be a very painful vote, because it would cast a reflection I have no intention of doing. Whether it may be possible, as has been suggested by the Prime Minister, to find some other way of relieving the hon. Member for Dungarvan from the painful position in which he feels himself to be, and set him at liberty to exercise greater freedom, I cannot say; but I do hope that the matter may close in the same spirit and the same good nature with which it has been conducted till now; that the hon. Member for Dungarvan will be satisfied with the favourable impression that has evidently been made by his speech; and that the Chairman of Committees will rest assured that he has the support of the House in the very difficult position he has to fill.

said, he was in the House at the time the incident in question occurred, and although there was a good deal of clamour on the Benches opposite, he was able to follow the whole course of the proceedings which then took place. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, he recollected, rose in his place several times, and each time began by saying that he did not do so to dispute the ruling of the Chairman, but to a new point of Order. He made also some reference to the words "beastly bellowing," but not, as he understood, to explain or justify the use of those words, but to point out that words of the kind were provoked by the noise and clamour which prevailed on the other side of the House. If his hon. Friend had been allowed to finish his sentence, he would have explained in a moment what the point of Order was which he desired to raise, and the whole thing would have been at an end. He did not blame the Chairman of Committees in the matter, for he could very well understand the difficulties with which he had to contend; but he was convinced his hon. Friend had no intention of challenging the authority of the Chair. His hon. Friend, however, had been suspended a second time from the Sittings of the House, and there ought to be some way out of the difficulty by which he would be relieved from a most unjust censure, while the authority of the House would be at the same time preserved.

said, that he quite accepted the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan as to what he intended to say; but the House had to consider, not what he intended to do, but what he actually did. Now, the hon. Member admitted that he persisted in referring more than once to the words already withdrawn in deference to the ruling of the Chair. Under these circumstances, while fully accepting the assurance given by the hon. Member, he did not think that the Chairman of Committees could have taken any other course than that which he actually adopted; and he could not, therefore, concur in any Resolution which in any way would seem to imply any censure of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that having been present on the occasion in question, he believed both the Chairman of Committees and the hon. Member for Dungarvan laboured under a mutual misunderstanding. The latter repeated more than once that he rose to a new point of Order; and the only doubt he himself had was whether the hon. Gentleman was about to refer by name—there having been a most unbecoming noise on the Radical Benches opposite—to the hon. Member for Exeter, or the hon. Baronet the Member for Lambeth (Sir James C. Lawrence). He trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion without receiving any fresh assurance from the Treasury Bench.

did not rise to prolong the debate. He did not think it would be profitable to inquire whether the Chairman of Committees was right or wrong in supposing that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was going to return to the old point of Order. If it were desirable to do so, he might express the opinion that it would have been better if his hon. Friend had been allowed to finish the sentence in which he proposed to introduce the new point of Order. To-day was the first opportunity the hon. Member had had of making his explanation to the House in reference to his intentions on the occasion in question. It would be unreasonable that the Prime Minister should be asked for an immediate declaration as to what steps, if any, he proposed to take. He would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and leave the question as to how he might be rehabilitated in his right to the consideration of the Prime Minister.

said, he had not asked the House to do anything for him on the ground of what he intended to say, as he might rest his whole case entirely on the fact that he had been misinterpreted. He felt that he had condescended too far in making that explanation. The point of his whole case was that he was interrupted through the misconception of the Chairman, owing to the clamour which prevailed in the House at the time, and was prevented from availing himself of his right and stating fully his new point of Order for the consideration of the Chair. He was happy, however, to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, leaving to the Government any discretion which they might choose to exercise on the subject. Although he thought a fuller acknowledgment of his position might be given, he wished to thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for the generous kindness and courtesy of their references to him.

Perhaps I ought to say that I will do my best—and no man can do more—in connection with the appeal made. This is a very novel and difficult case; and I am bound to state frankly that I certainly could do nothing in it which could disparage the proceedings of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees. Beyond that, I should be very glad to consult with those who are most competent to enter into the matter, and if we can tender any suggestion it shall be tendered.

I beg to move—

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £446,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for meeting Additional Expenditure beyond the amounts already granted for Supplies and Warlike Stores for the Army."

This Supplementary Estimate refers solely to the expenditure in connection with the war now going on in Natal and the Transvaal; and I think that I should best consult the convenience of the Committee if, after what passed an hour or more ago, I made no reference whatever to the policy of the war, but confined my remarks to the military expenditure included in the Estimate. I will state, therefore, in as few words as possible, that the whole of this £446,000 which I ask the House to vote is proposed in connection with the operations in the Transvaal; and under these circumstances:—When Her Majesty's Go- vernment took Office in the spring of last year I found that the Estimates of this current year had been prepared upon the basis of four regiments being employed in Natal and the Transvaal during the financial year which is now about to close. One Cavalry regiment was also to be employed during the first half of the year until October; and the land transport was to be on a peace footing. That Estimate had been so prepared by the late Government before there was any clear idea that a larger amount of force would be required to be kept up in the Transvaal during the year; and so it was only determined to provide for land transport upon a peace footing. If it became necessary to provide land transport on a war footing a Supplementary Estimate would have been required; but when we took Office we came to the conclusion, after carefully considering the recommendations of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and after conferring with Sir George Colley, who had been appointed by our Predecessors, and who went over to the Transvaal a few months afterwards—we determined not to revise the transport arrangements, but to leave them as they had been for some time; and to wait until Sir George Colley made his report to us after he had taken over the civil and military government of the Colonies in question. Sir George Colley was to report what he might consider desirable with respect to the maintenance of the Land Forces in the Transvaal. Sir George Colley did so report the cost of the arrangements that were then contemplated; and even if we had not been engaged in the present war which has, unfortunately, broken out within the last few months, the Estimates, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, would have been exceeded to a small extent. It is right I should state this, in order that there may be no misapprehension whatever as to the intentions of the late Government and the present Government in this matter. In the month of December the occurrences took place in the Transvaal which led to this unfortunate war; and the present Estimate is the Estimate of the expense which we consider it would be necessary to incur at the end of the present financial year, that is, to the end of the present month. A right hon. Gentleman opposite asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the time of Questions, whether it was intended to ask for any Supplementary Estimate for the expense of the Transvaal War during the present year? [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: During the year 1881–2.] I beg pardon, during the year 1881–2; and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own Estimates for the year, which show a considerable sum would have to be expended during 1881–2; and that the sum so estimated by him, up to the end of January last, is between £500,000 and £600,000, so that the Estimates at present before the Committee amount altogether to the expenditure of about £1,000,000 in connection with the Transvaal War, so far as the expenditure was determined to the end of January last. Of this sum £440,000 are due to the current financial year; and between £500,000 and £600,000 will be expended in connection with the next financial year. Of course, whether this sum is sufficient or not must depend on the result of the negotiations now going on. If the Transvaal War should be continued for a considerable time, it would be necessary, no doubt, in the spring of next year to ask for a further Vote; but it is only my duty, at the present moment, to state what we require in respect of the present financial year. Towards the end of January last we anticipated that the necessary expenditure would be about £440,000. But then, I may be asked, what has occurred since then? We are now some way on in the month of March; and it is necessary to know what the expenditure is likely to be for the current year. This, I need scarcely say, has been my own question to those who advised me in this matter for some weeks past. I have constantly pressed upon the officials, both military and financial, of the War Office to keep me very carefully informed, so that if in their judgment these Estimates are not sufficient, I might at once ask for a second Estimate. But after careful inquiry, such as can be made here, and by telegraph in South Africa, I am satisfied that it would not be proper to ask the Committee to vote a further sum. I do not at all say that it is impossible, when the Accounts are made up, that a further sum may not be necessary; but, as far as we can reasonably estimate, from the information in our possession, we consider that amount to be sufficient. There is one reason why it is not necessary to increase the charge which must be familiar to all who are conversant with Army and Navy expenditure. Since the Estimate was asked it is quite true we have sent out further troops to the extent of several regiments; but, so far from increasing the Army Charges, this fact diminishes the Army Charges, because when the troops are aboard ship they are, in respect of provisions for the men and forage for the horses, at the charge of the Navy, and not of the Army. Such is the financial arrangement between the two Departments; and, taking this fact into careful consideration, after consultation, and after going carefully through the Estimate, and after criticizing it in every possible way, in the judgment of my Military and Naval Advisers, the sum of £440,000 which we ask for now will be sufficient for the expenditure of the year. But there are elements of uncertainty in the matter—for instance, it is hard to know and difficult to guess what is going on in the beleaguered garrisons. The only thing we know is that, being beleaguered, they cannot easily get any money; and, therefore, if some expenditure may be taking place at Pretoria, it is taking place on credit, and the charge may not come into the present financial year. I may add that I have honestly done my best, and I cannot do more, in order to satisfy myself as to whether we ought to ask for more. If it had been necessary to do so, I should not have hesitated to make the demand; but, on the whole, I think the Estimate now submitted is a fair charge. I have one or two words to say on another matter. I wish particularly to answer a suggestion which was made the other day outside this House, in rather a pointed way, in reference to the manner in which the Department over which I have the honour to preside has conducted the war that is being carried on at this moment. It is, whether we have properly complied with the requirements of our commanders in the field, or have stinted and starved them in reference to what they wanted? I am in a position to say that that is not only not the case, but the reverse of the case; every requirement which has been addressed to us from the Cape, whether for food, material, or stores, by the Generals and officers in the Transvaal and Natal, has been complied with, and more than complied with. When the first telegram was received of the impending difficulties, we sent a regiment without waiting for a formal requisition, which, however, we did afterwards receive by telegraph. This was on the 19th December, and on the 24th or 25th Sir George Colley asked for a regiment and a battery. We sent him both, and ordered a further regiment of Cavalry, a regiment of Infantry, and three batteries of Artillery. Sir George Colley asked that if any troops were going home from India they might call at Durban for orders, as he was not quite certain whether he would want them or not. Afterwards he said that he did want them, and he had them. In the same way, on the 4th of January, we complied with a further requisition of the Governor; and on the 29th January, after the unfortunate occurrence at Laing's Nek, within a few hours of a request to that effect, two Cavalry regiments and a battery of Artillery were sent out. I do not wish to take any credit for that promptness on our part; but I think it right, without speaking of myself, that those who are responsible for military operations of this kind should receive the credit of having acted, even beyond the requirements that were made. I have just one word to say as to the manner in which these reinforcements have been sent out. I think it is my duty, having served some years at the Admiralty myself, and knowing something of the difficulties which surround a sudden demand for transport on that Department, to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the Transport Department has complied, and is complying still, with the requirements of the War Department. There is a standing Committee of officers from the different Departments who work out all the details as to the method of conveyance in all large operations of this kind; and everything was decided after a conference between the Admiralty, the Colonial, and the War Offices, presided over by Lord Northbrook, Lord Kimberley, and myself. We have consulted our different officers, and in this way we have been able to despatch, at three or four hours' notice, the large force which has been sent out to the Transvaal. I hope that I have not taken up too much of the time of the Committee in stating the nature of these Votes. I think that all that has been done up to this moment has been done with great success and promptitude; and I now beg to move the Vote which I have placed in your hands.

I am exceedingly glad to hear the full explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee as to the amount of this Vote. It certainly would appear, to an uninstructed person, that the Vote was much smaller than was necessary. The original Estimate of £446,000, which is now before the Committee, was for a much smaller force. Since the Estimate was prepared, certainly more than double the number of men and horses have been sent out, and yet it has not been deemed necessary to increase the Vote. The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given is, no doubt, a sufficient explanation of the economy with which the whole affair has been conducted; but I confess, for my own part, that I should hardly have thought that the saving in food and forage, during the period occupied in the voyage out to the Cape of Good Hope, would have been so very large as to balance the increased charge for warlike stores, which must be something very considerable, and also the very heavy charge for land transport from Durban up to the scene of operations. I have no doubt, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently informed on these points; but I notice with satisfaction that he has reserved to himself the possibility of having to make a further demand for these particular Services. I am exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to pay a just tribute to the exertions of the Transport Department of the Admiralty. The course which the right hon. Gentleman has described was pursued by the Admiralty during the three or four years I had the honour to serve there, and I wish to bear the strongest possible testimony to the zeal of the officers of the Transport Department of the Ad- miralty, and to the readiness with which they met the officials the War Office deputed to arrange with them for the despatch of the troops, and the complete and energetic manner in which they sought to carry out the work, and to the efficiency as well as the economy of all their arrangements.

was sure the Committee would be very much comforted by the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He had certainly experienced the same feeling as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), and had been somewhat puzzled to know how it was that the original Estimate for South Africa had not been exceeded. At the same time, he was quite sure there would be no disposition on that side of the House to question the accuracy and care with which the Secretary of State for War had framed his Estimates; and, therefore, they were justified in feeling much comforted. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he reminded the Committee that Estimates in regard to war expenses on previous occasions had been fallacious, and that the House was very apt to be sensitive on the subject. The only points on which he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee further information were these—The right hon. Gentleman had said that, if necessary, transport would be imported from abroad; and he (Sir George Campbell) had read, in a Scotch paper, that large purchases of horses and mules were being made in Buenos Ayres for despatch to Natal. He wished to know if that was so, and if the cost was paid in the shape of ready money out of this grant, and whether the enormous expenditure for carriage which must, undoubtedly, be going on in South Africa at the present moment was supplied from money sent from this country to the Military Chest? Was the practice followed now that was followed formerly in South Africa, by which the local military authorities were able to raise money in the Colonies by drawing long bills on this country? It had been sometimes found that by that means a much larger amount of money was expended in the current year than Parliament was asked to pay in the same year, or than they were aware of, Those were the only points upon which he asked for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether the Government were paying ready money for transport and other expenses now being incurred in and for South Africa, or whether bills of which, as yet, we knew nothing were being drawn upon this country and were being allowed to accumulate, which, unhappily, we should be called upon to pay upon some future occasion? He knew that it would be impossible to give any assurance with regard to the expenses for the ensuing year; but, in reference to the current year, it was desirable the Committee should know whether we were spending ready money or running up bills on credit.

confessed that he was unable to participate in the comfort felt by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in regard to this Vote. His hon. Friend seemed to derive some comfort from the fact that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that an expenditure of £500,000 would carry us through these unfortunate transactions up to the end of the present financial year. But Her Majesty's Government at the same time told them that in the Estimates for next year it would also be necessary to provide a large sum, amounting to another £500,000. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, while deriving comfort himself, took care to give very little comfort to anybody else, because he went on to show that, under the late Government, there were large charges in connection with transactions in South Africa that were paid out of the Military Chest, but which did not come to the knowledge of Parliament until some time after they were expended. His hon. Friend wanted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, here in England, to be able to assure Parliament that expenditure was not going on in South Africa to increase the cost of the war before the 31st of March. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt that the Government would take every means in their power to keep down this dreadful expenditure; but with all the anxiety they might show, and with every attempt they might make, if the war went on they might expect to be called upon to provide a very large sum in the future—much larger than any of them were able to calculate at present. He had simply risen to say that, while he could not, under the circumstances, refuse to vote the sum of money now asked for, he should vote with the greatest possible reluctance, and only on the full assurance that an ample opportunity would be afforded hereafter for discussing every matter connected with this expenditure. He was quite alive to the reasonableness of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, that they should avoid any such discussion now; but, at the same time, in voting as they were about to do, he thought they ought not to deceive themselves by supposing that sum would necessarily cover all the expenditure that might go on up to the 31st of March. What the Government assured them was that this amount, in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, would be sufficient, in their judgment, to place the accounts of the year in a fair position in regard to this war expenditure. He could not say that he was fully prepared to believe that it would cover everything; for he knew that military and naval expenditure in a state of war was like the letting out of water, and that it was almost impossible to control it. He must say, therefore, that he should not rely with perfect confidence on the present Estimate.

said, he was not going to raise any question as to the policy of the Transvaal War. The right hon. Gentleman had put the case very clearly. He asked the Committee not to go into the policy of the war, and deliberately promised that they should have a full opportunity of discussing the question in all its details and in all its varied aspects. But he was bound to say, and he did it with some regret, that they were placed there in a very awkward position; they were not enabled to know what was going on. They had not, however, on that side of the House pressed Her Majesty's Government in the difficult position in which they were placed. Nor was he going to press the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War one inch further than he had already gone. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must remember that the late Government were not treated with the same courtesy and consideration; and, although the Government were asking a great deal from hon. Gen- tlemen who sat on that side of the House, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he, for one, at any rate, would not attempt by one hair's breadth to interfere with anything that might now be going on. He would only venture to hope that at the earliest opportunity, not only the House, but the country, might have an opportunity of knowing all the circumstances, which they had certainly not yet had placed before them. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose a moment in placing the House in full possession of the facts in regard to the Transvaal.

said, he noticed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) shake his head when his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) remarked that the courtesy and consideration now asked for by the Government was not extended to the late Government. He (Lord Elcho) had a strong recollection of something like strong demands—he might even call them denunciations—having been addressed to the Government for not having, at a time when delicate and intricate negotiations were going on, taken the House of Commons into their confidence. He had a perfect recollection that that was the tone taken at the time. He was quite prepared, if the question had been raised now, to discuss it, and he thought it would have been well if the Government had placed the House in the possession of a little further information; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War thought it would be contrary to the interests of the country that such a debate should arise, or that any such information should be given. Without desiring to dispute the policy of the course suggested by the Government, he wished simply to point out that the Government, on the question of negotiations in reference to peace, appeared to have two voices in reference to South Africa, because, when negotiations were pending between the Basutos and the Cape Colony, a telegram was read which certainly expressed the views of the Government on the subject. He would not pursue the matter further now than to say that he trusted that in whatever was done by Her Majesty's Government they would maintain the honour of this country and add to the security of our South African possessions. There were only two points on which he would ask for information. He understood that a Commission was to be appointed to settle the terms of peace. He thought the Committee ought to know who the Commissioners would be; and he would express the hope that, at any rate, they would be gentlemen who had not hitherto, in dealing with the matter, been committed to either side of the question. The other point was that the Government ought to state whether Sir Hercules Robinson had been consulted with regard to the terms that were offered to the Boers. These were mere matters of fact, which did not involve any question of policy, and there would be no difficulty in giving an answer upon them.

In regard to the last question of my noble Friend, I have no hesitation whatever in stating that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been in communication with Sir Hercules Robinson in all the negotiations arising out of the painful circumstances under consideration, and I have no difficulty also in stating that Sir Hercules Robinson will be one of the Commissioners. I am unable to give the Committee the names of all the Commissioners this evening; but I hope to be able to do so in the course of a day or two. In regard to that mysterious shake of the head referred to by my noble Friend, I wish to say that I should not have shaken my head at all, or given any sign on this occasion, had the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) been content with stating that, in his opinion, the late Government had not been treated with the wisdom and the forbearance which have been shown on the present occasion. If that had been all I should not have shaken my head at all. The hon. and gallant Baronet is entitled to entertain that opinion; but what made me feel under a moral obligation to shake my head was that the hon. and gallant Baronet said that I should recollect that it was so. That would involve a most awkward admission, which I have no idea of making. I am very thankful to the House for the consideration it has shown. I can only assure hon. Members that it would have been a great comfort and a great relief to us if we could have ventured in some degree to divide the responsibility which has been cast upon us. But from day to day we have considered the question, and from day to day we have found that we could not, without seriously prejudicing the great interests involved, make partial disclosures to the House. That being the case, I have only to mention that since I last addressed the House a telegram has been received, in which we are informed that Conferences were proceeding yesterday. There is nothing to anticipate the result, nor is there anything in the telegram which at all tends to abate any hopes previously entertained.

said, the estimate of the Secretary of State for War for the expenditure occasioned by the Transvaal War included two items—one of £440,000 this year, and one of £500,000 for next year, or about £1,000,000 in all. He confessed that he had fully expected a much larger sum—probably £2,000,000. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether it was likely that any recourse would be had to the old method of accounting for military operations in South Africa? His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was quite right in saying that under the system which formerly existed the money expended in the Transvaal would not be brought to account in the current year. Certainly a different state of circumstances had arisen, since a Committee had been sent out last year to investigate the matter. He believed that useful results would be obtained from their inquiry; and he wished to know from the Secretary of State for War if we were not now more likely to receive more promptly all the vouchers for the expenditure during the year than we ever were before? He would also express a hope that the Secretary of State for War would lay on the Table a Return of the expenditure for military operations in South Africa in the last 40 years. He (Sir George Balfour) believed it would be found that a sum of between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 had been expended during that period. He was satisfied that if the country had clearly laid before it all the facts and the cost incurred in acquiring territory in South Africa, it would be most reluctant indeed in attempting the further extension of our territory in that part of the world.

would not go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour). He did not think they required Returns for so many years back as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to desire; but he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would, as his Department had hitherto done, use every effort to obtain the necessary vouchers for every kind of expenditure incurred in South Africa. They knew from the Public Accounts Committee that their great difficulty had been to secure that there should be a thorough examination of the expenditure. He was satisfied the right hon. Gentleman would continue the efforts hitherto made by the Department. He felt bound to express his hearty concurrence in the course which had been adopted of not debating the very serious questions that might arise in respect of the Transvaal and the Transvaal War at the present time, especially as there would be, as the Prime Minister had pronounced, a full opportunity of discussing the whole question hereafter. Everyone must feel, whatever his sympathies might be in the matter, that it would be extremely disadvantageous to enter into a long discussion at the present moment.

said, he would not detain the Committee at any length, because, after the course properly taken by the Prime Minister, it was not necessary that they should enter into the general question. He would, however, venture to express an earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government, when the negotiations were going on, would bear in mind the necessity of protecting the Native races.

said, he had been asked various questions which it was desirable he should reply to. He had been asked what course was being taken in regard to the purchase of animals for the Transport Service, and whether the cost would come into the present Account? He might say, with respect to that matter, that the animals would only be paid for when they were delivered at Durban, and that they would not come into the Account before they were delivered. He thought that was a very good arrangement, and that it would work well. We had only had a small experience of it at present; but there was every reason to believe that it would work better than the arrangement which had been previously adopted. He was asked, further, whether they were going to postpone any of the payments, and to adopt the late method of having recourse to the Military Chest. The year before last his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), who was then at the head of the War Office, sent out a Committee to investigate that subject on the spot, and he quite concurred in the Report which that Committee had presented. As an earnest of what they were doing, he might say that before the present war assumed large proportions they had sent out a gentleman from the Accountant General's Office to test on the spot the arrangements that were made two years before. They were doing their best to get the vouchers in, and they desired to make the payments as they were made in this country; but in respect to the garrisons there were no means at present of communicating with them, and, as they had no money, he presumed that they must be receiving some credit. The general instructions were to make prompt payments, and he hoped that they would be carried into effect.

thought that, after the understanding which had been come to not to discuss the policy of the war on the present occasion, the hon. Member would hardly wish to press his Amendment. He did not know what the effect on the Government might be if £300,000, which had been spent in perfect good faith on that war, were now to be refused.

said, it would also be inconvenient to the Committee if a division were taken. He thought, if the Committee were called upon at that moment to enter into the question of the war in the Transvaal, the discussion could hardly be conducted with advantage, especially in the absence of much desirable information. Therefore, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, which course would be contrary to the understanding arrived at.

desired to protest against the voting of large sums of money without due consideration. If protests under circumstances similar to the present were more frequent, England would, in his opinion, be involved in fewer small wars. The sword of this country was continually red with the blood of peoples and tribes adjacent to our possessions. He would have no part in voting the money, and would press his Motion to a division, as a protest against a war which he regarded as most nefarious and oppressive in its character.

, bearing in mind the expenditure in the case of the Abyssinian War and similar wars, desired to know whether any efficient arrangements had been made in the case of the war then going on in South Africa with regard to the institution known as the Military Chest. It had been found on former occasions, that while Parliament voted comparatively small sums of money for Military Chest purposes, that very large sums came from that source, the money being borrowed, and that the advances made to meet the obligations incurred in consequence had never been repaid to that day, and there was very little hope that they ever would be repaid. He asked, Were the payments from the Military Chest now existing in South Africa confined to the expenditure of the sums placed to the credit of that Chest by Her Majesty's Government, or had any military or other authorities power to draw upon Colonial resources?

agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his objections to the manner in which the expenditure from the Military Chest had, on former occasions, been conducted. That sink, however, he hoped, had been effectually stopped by the arrangements made by his Colleagues. The official who had been sent out to South Africa for the purpose of supervising the Accounts had instructions to bring charges incurred at once to account, and to see that the instructions given by the House were strictly carried out.

said, that to limit the expenditure from the Military Chest was, no doubt, the true course. It was the only way in which they could put a check upon an expenditure which might reach an enormous amount. It was, no doubt, frequently the case that many amounts to be devoted to the Public Service had to be met on the spur of the moment, and even with the telegraph it was not always possible to send home for authority. On the other hand, if there were to be authority in the hands of every Governor of a Colony to draw for what he thought necessary for the Service at the moment, there was great risk of drafts being made, not improperly, but extravagantly, and the country involved in Accounts that might turn out to be extremely inconvenient. A Governor of a Colony found it necessary for him to make preparations on a sudden for the defence of his Government; he had no money in hand; he might have reasons for not going to the Colonial Bank. In that situation he applied to the officer in charge of the Military Chest, who advanced the money, and it then often became a question whether it was ever repaid. Therefore, he should be glad if a limit could be placed to the power which Governors had to draw from the Military Chest.

pointed out that Her Majesty's Government were now able to communicate by telegraph with the Governor of the Colony, and that stringent instructions had been issued that he was not to draw for the Colonial Military Service without permission, in order to prevent a repetition of what had occurred with regard to the expenditure in previous campaigns.

thought it was only fair to mention that telegraph communication had been established since the campaigns referred to took place.

said, he was one of the small minority of Members who, in the last Parliament, had protested against the annexation of the Transvaal, and also against the Act for the Confederation of the South African Colonies. Those two measures were intimately connected and bound up together, and he believed but for them we should not have had any South African War. For, had there been no determination to annex the Transvaal there would have been no Confederation Bill; and had there been no Confederation Bill there would have been no annexation of the Transvaal. Therefore, there would have been no South African War but for these two measures. In 1877, a minority of some 18 or 20 Members opposed themselves to the measures which were supported by hon. Gentlemen of the day and by the Opposition. They were supported by a vast majority of the Members of the House—probably of 10 or 12 or 20 to 1, and yet the result of what had happened since then had most conclusively shown that the very small majority of Members who used all the Forms of the House against the annexation of the Transvaal were in the right, and that the great majority of both political Parties, who used every exertion in favour of those measures, were in the wrong. He believed there was no one in that House who did not now regret the annexation of the Transvaal, and who did not look upon the proposal for South African Confederation as one of those ideas that could never be realized, and which, in the attempt to carry out, had effected a vast deal of evil. It was not, he thought, desirable at that moment to go into the question of the war, which he hoped had been permanently interrupted. As an Irishman, he wished to express his strong sympathy with the gallant people who were struggling for their independence, and who had so truly shown by their courage and devotion that they deserved their independence. He trusted that the result of the negotiations which were then proceeding would be to prove to the world that the present Ministry was not afraid to do what was right, even if they had for a while done what was wrong. He thought it right to take a division against the Vote, as a protest against the application of the present money to the annexation of the Transvaal.

said, although on that occasion he was not about to oppose the Vote, the money having been spent, he did not wish it to be understood that in voting the money he was expressing any sanction of what he considered to be the most unwise, unstatesmanlike, and disastrous proceedings in connection with the annexation of the Transvaal.

said, at a future time he should be ready to defend the policy of the late Government with respect to the Transvaal; but as he did not think the present a fitting occasion for so doing, he merely rose for the purpose of saying that he entirely disagreed with the opinions which had been expressed by the two hon. Members who had last addressed the Committee.