asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, to prevent the recurrence of such cases as that of Elizabeth Burley at Dover, the Police employed under the Contagious Diseases Acts will be instructed and cautioned that no authority is given to them by those Laws to stop, or question, or molest any woman, but only to proceed against those suspected of prostitution under a summons or order of justices of the peace?

Sir, I understand that the matter occurred in the sense of the hon. and learned Member's Question. It is altogether contrary to the duty of the police to molest any woman for the purpose of carrying out these Acts, or to do otherwise than obtain an order of the Justices, except, of course, in the case of voluntary submission. Directions to that effect have been given to the police, and will be enforced.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as it is desirable to encourage the freight of salt to India, he would urge upon the Government of India that English salt should not be placed at a disadvantage in India, by a higher rate of duty of £1 per ton than that levied on Sambhur Lake salt, and that the salt made in India should not be sold under the cost of production, plus the duty charged on English salt; and, whether he can lay upon the Table any correspondence on the subject?

Sir, I have been in correspondence with the Government of India on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, in consequence of a Memorial from the Salt Chamber of Commerce, and have ascertained that salt made in India is not sold under the cost of production. It is necessary, for financial reasons, to fix the Salt Tax in Bengal about £1 a-ton higher than in Upper India, and hence the English salt consumed in Bengal pays a higher rate of tax than the Sambhur salt of Upper India. But the Indian salt made in or imported into Bengal and the English salt imported into Bengal pay the same rate of tax. Under those circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to lay the Correspondence which has been communicated to the Salt Chamber of Commerce on the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the small number of criminal cases tried at the autumn assizes 1879 and winter assizes 1880, as shown in the Return presented to the House on the 24th day of March, he intends to bring forward any measure to reduce the number of assizes, and thus save a great waste of judicial power, and relieve all classes of jurors and others from unnecessary expense, trouble, and loss of time?

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, my Predecessor in Office, for reasons which I entirely approve, established, I think with great advantage, quarterly gaol deliveries, in order that no man who might be innocent should be left untried in prison for more than three months. That is a principle from which I have no disposition to depart. I am, however, quite aware of the inconvenience which is caused in some cases both to the Judges and to others who have to attend those Assizes, and I have been in communication with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General on the subject, and I hope that some more convenient system may be devised by which all prisoners may be brought to trial speedily and our gaol system consolidated.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information from Her Majesty's Minister in Peru, concerning the massacres of Chinese, referred to in a letter published in the "Times" on April 27th; and, whether any steps are being taken to protect the lives of subjects of Her Majesty in the present disturbed state of that Country?

Sir, Mr. St. John has reported to Her Majesty's Government that the Chinese shopkeepers of Lima were attacked by a cowardly Peruvian mob the night before the entry of the Chilian Forces, and that 70 or 80 of them were killed. Seven hundred persons were compelled to seek refuge in the British Legation, where the British Admiral and his Staff and five blue-jackets also were. At daylight the Foreign Representatives called out the Foreign Urban Guard, and the riots were quelled by them. Her Majesty's Government are informed that Chinese have been killed up the country; but Her Majesty's officers will, of course, continue to do all in their power to prevent these massacres and protect the lives of British subjects.

asked the Postmaster General, If the Post Office authorities in Dublin have as yet been able to come to any decision as to whether the alteration in the route of the letter carrier from Drumsna to Bonnybeg, county Leitrim, as suggested in a Question in the Orders of the Day of the 4th April 1881, can be carried out without any disadvantage to the public service?

, in reply, said, that he had inquired into the matter referred to in the Question; but he found that the alteration suggested by the hon. and gallant Member could not be made, as it would operate unfairly towards a larger number of people in the district than those whom it would benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the unprecedented proportion of killed to wounded amongst, Her Majesty's troops during the Transvaal campaign was caused by the use of explosive bullets by the Boers, or by the slaughter of the wounded, or whether there are any other causes to account for it; and, when he will be able to inform the House of the losses among the troops from sickness since the commencement of the campaign?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the number of deaths by sickness in the recent campaign in the Transvaal is reported to be 25. We have not as yet any reports of the cases of sickness which have not proved fatal; and no accurate information can be expected until the medical monthly Returns have been received. None have reached us for any month of the year 1881. As to the first part of the Question, there is no evidence to show that the proportion of killed to wounded is due either to the use of explosive bullets or to the slaughter of the wounded. In one case it was reported that a bullet was heard to explode after it had passed through the body of an officer who was wounded; but I can find no other reference to any suspicion that these bullets were used. As to any slaughter of the wounded, the reports, on the contrary., describe their treatment as considerate and humane. The high proportion of deaths may be simply due to the very accurate shooting of expert riflemen at short distances.

said, it was reported that a bullet had passed through the leg of a wounded officer and exploded in the air; but he doubted very much whether the rumour was well founded.

asked the Lord Advocate, If any further in- quiry in the Glenluce murder case is contemplated by the Government, in order, if possible, that the guilty person or persons may be brought to justice, or, at least, that the person or persons against whom local suspicion attaches may, if possible, be exonerated?

Sir, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Glenluce murder case has within the last few weeks occupied much of the time and attention of the local authorities and of the Crown counsel in Edinburgh under my direction, and a very full and careful inquiry has been instituted with reference to the persons to whom suspicion is directed. As regards the girl Anderson, who was suspected, she has been examined in Edinburgh, in presence of the Crown agent and two of the Crown counsel, who have separately written to me that they are perfectly satisfied as to her candour and innocence. As to the other parties referred to in the Question, after reading the depositions, I see no ground for a criminal prosecution against any of them. I must now express the hope that, after the very careful inquiry made, the people of Wigtownshire will let this matter rest, with the assurance that everything will be done that is possible on the part of the Prosecution Department to discover the guilty party and bring him to justice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the statements that the mine was carried on without a certified manager, and was on fire for a considerable time, made before the coroner's jury on 5th instant, in respect to the management of the Lilly Dale Colliery, Bucknall, North Stafford, where at least seven persons have lost their lives, a report of which appeared in the "Staffordshire Daily Sentinel" on the 6th instant; whether it be correct that the owner was mulcted in fines and costs to the extent of £30 some little time ago; and, further, will he direct some one to attend the inquest, which opens again on 24th instant, to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Home Office, to see that a searching investiga- tion is made into the whole circumstances in connection with the explosion, and the management of the colliery without a certified manager?

, in reply, said, it was a fact that this mine was carried on without a certified manager. Only 12 men were usually employed, and in those circumstances the mining engineer was allowed to manage the mine himself. It was true that the owner was fined £30 for negligence. The Inspector's Report was so clear that he did not think it would be necessary for anybody to attend the inquest on behalf of the Home Office, except an experienced Inspector.

asked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the meetings of telegraph clerks held on Saturday last in various towns in the United Kingdom, and that at these meetings Resolutions were passed expressing surprise at the delay which has taken place in the settlement of the questions in dispute; and, whether he can fix a time when he will be able to make a statement with regard to the position of the telegraph clerks?

Sir, I have observed the reports of the meetings to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to the latter part of his Question, I can only repeat that the fullest possible attention has been and is being given to the subject to which it refers, and that immediately a decision is arrived at I will take the earliest opportunity of making it known.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to M. St. Hilaire's Circular in the French Yellow Book, which has just been published, in which he mentions the Enfida case as one of the motives of the Expedition by the French Army and Navy to Tunis; whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to prevent the claims of a British subject being endangered by the French occupation of Tunisian territory, and to insure the question being impartially tried by the local courts, in accordance with the decision arrived at by the Law Officers of the Crown; and, when Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the Papers referring to this case, as promised before Easter; and if it will include the Law Officers' Report?

Sir, the Circular of M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire has been received in the French Yellow Book on Tunisian affairs, and contains a reference to the Enfida case. With regard to the second portion of my hon. Friend's Question, I think that I shall do best in asking him to await the publication of the Papers which will be laid on the Table next week, and which will clearly show the attitude of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Enfida question. My hon. Friend must be aware that the Reports of the Law Officers are confidential documents which are never made public.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty' Government did not recognize the Firman of 1871, in which the relations between the Porte and Tunis as "an integral part of the Ottoman Empire" were fully set forth; and, if he will lay upon the Table the Despatch congratulating the Bey of Tunis on the conclusion of the Convention between Khriedine Pasha and the Porte?

Sir, the Firman of 1871 was virtually recognized by Her Majesty's Government, who considered Tunis to be under the suzerainty of the Porte. The French Government, as my hon. Friend is aware, and as I have already stated in this House, have since 1838 held a contrary view. No despatch of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend exists.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government is prepared to carry out the further extension of the buildings of the National Gallery, for which plans were prepared some years since by Mr. Barry, so as to provide sufficient space not only for those paintings already in the possession of the Nation, but also for such additions as may be made from time to time by gift or bequest?

Sir, by the request of my right hon. Friend I will answer the Question. No application has been received from the Trustees of the National Gallery for a further space. There is, therefore, no present intention on the part of the Government to propose a further extension of the buildings of the National Gallery.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the fact that, under the 34th section of the Inland Revenue Bill, the five District Registrars for Kilkenny, Tuam, Ballina, Cavan, and Mullingar, would be deprived of a large proportion of the fees by which they are at present paid; and, whether it is the intention of the Government, in case the Clause shall pass in its present form, to place those officers on fixed salaries equivalent to their present official incomes; and, is it not the fact that, with the exception of those five officers, all other District Registrars, both in Ireland and England, are now paid by salaries in lieu of fees?

Sir, our attention has already been called to the fact brought forward by the hon. and learned Member, and I have to state there is no intention that the interests of any individual officer should be prejudiced by the operation of the clause in question. The best way of meeting the case of these five gentlemen is now receiving the consideration of the Treasury. The hon. and learned Member is correct in saying that all other district registrars in Ireland and England are now paid by salary.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether a line constructed entirely in British territory from the harbour of Kurwar to Hubli, the centre of the Dhurwar cotton districts, which a Committee appointed by the Government of Bombay recommended after long investigation, would not better secure the interests of the southern Mahratta Country than a line running to the same point, partly through foreign dominions from the Portuguese part of Mumozou?

Sir, this is almost a repetition of the Question recently put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and I can only return a similar answer to that which I then gave—namely, that under all the circumstances of the case it was considered desirable to enter into the arrangement by which a line is to be taken from Marmagoa through Portuguese territory to Hubli, and that there is no reason to suppose that the interests of the Southern Mahratta Country would be better secured by the alternative line from Karwar to Hubli.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Resolutions passed by the Dean and Clergy of Listowel, in conference assembled, on Wednesday the 4th instant:—

"Resolved (1). That this conference expresses its unqualified condemnation of the practice resorted to on several estates within the deanery of issuing writs from the superior courts for the recovery of rents which are notoriously excessive and exorbitant, thus involving the unfortunate tenants in heavy and to many of them ruinous costs:

"Resolved (2). That the evictions which have lately taken place in the district call for the reprobation of every humane and right minded man; that one of the evictions on the property of Mr. Gunn Mahony, an absentee, was invested with all those characteristics which entitle it to be described as an act of barbarous inhumanity, the father of a large family having been flung on the roadside in un apparently dying state, without a home, and without any shelter whatever;

"Resolved (3). That profound tranquillity, perfect order, and peace have up to this prevailed over and represent the normal condition of North Kerry; but that this conference cannot contemplate without horror what may be the result should the extermination of a law-abiding and industrious people continue and the execution of the writs referred to with their revolting concomitants be persevered in;

and, whether, if on inquiry he ascertains the statements above mentioned to be correct, and that what is true of the district referred to is equally true of many other districts in Ireland, he will feel it his duty to advise Her Majesty's Government to immediately pass a Bill for the temporary suspension of evictions pend- ing the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill through the Houses of Parliament?

Sir, I cannot answer this Question to-day. I hoped to get information of this particular case, but I have not yet received it, though it may be received in a few days. But I may say that I could not answer the last part of the Question. I do not think that any Member of the Government ought to be asked what is the course he will take in consultation with his Colleagues on public matters. Of course, the hon. Member may ask a Member in charge of a Bill what course he intends to take; but it is not a usual thing to ask a Member of the Government what advice he will give.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as stated in the "Standard" newspaper of the 11th instant, that James Lalor, of Raheen, in the Queen's County, has been arrested under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act (Ireland); and, if so, on what reasonable suspicion; and, if he is aware that James Lalor and his family had been evicted from his holding only a few days previously, after he had sown his land under crops?

Before, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question I beg to ask him whether it is not a fact that James Lalor owed two and a-half years' rent, and was always an unsatisfactory tenant; and whether the following statement relating to the holding of James Lalor is correct, as stated in The Leinster Express of May 7, that James Lalor

"Held 16 Irish acres at £18 15s. a-year, and sublet 7½ of them—5 to one party and 2½ to another—for which he obtained a rent of £22 10s.?"

By this means this rack-rented tenant obtained £3 15s. a-year more for 7½acres than he was asked to pay by Dr. Jacob for 16 acres. And, further, whether, excellent landlord that he is, Mr. Lalor, in sub-letting the farm, required two years' rent in advance, or a sum of £44?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he was aware that the land for which that man had received the money at conacre was manured land?

Sir, it is true that James Lalor has been arrested under the provisions of the Protection Act. The ground is reasonable suspicion of arson. It is also true that he was evicted from his holding a short time before, and I am told that his land was sown under crops. As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the only information I have is that he was not considered an industrious tenant. I have seen the statement with regard to the sub-letting, and I have no reason to suppose that it is not true. With respect to the Question of manuring, I really cannot answer it. It is true that a year and a-half's rent was owing.

wished to call the attentention of the House to that matter. ["Order!"] He would conclude with a Motion.

The hon. Member has put his Question and has received an answer. If he desires to put any further Question arising out of the answer he is in Order in so doing.

begged to say that he intended to conclude with a Motion. ["Oh!"] He lived within about half a mile of where that poor man had been evicted, and he understood the whole case. During the last 12 months he had four different ejectments served upon him. Two of these, he believed, were from the Superior Courts in Dublin, while the case could have been tried in the County Court or district where he resided. There had, no doubt, been a burning in the neighbourhood where that man had been evicted; but it was generally understood in the neighbourhood that it had occurred through the carelessness and insobriety of the owners of the place themselves, and there was not the slightest suspicion that it had been caused by Lalor. There was damage done by the fire to the extent of some £70 or £80; but the owner of the place claimed compensation to the extent of £300. He would remind the Chief Secretary that the person who got Lalor arrested and the county proclaimed was the person who had a direct interest in keeping the man in prison. Lalor had his crop sown, and there was an abundant crop in the ground to enable him to pay at the next harvest if he had been allowed to reside on the farm; but the fact of his being kept in prison would disable him from doing so, and there was reason to believe that that was the motive for putting him in gaol. It was most objectionable that the Queen's County should have been proclaimed, as it was one of the most peaceful districts in the Kingdom. It was believed that this had been done, not to put down outrages, but to enable the landlords to eject their tenantry and collect their rents. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that James Lalor had the misfortune to be the tenant of a man who, besides being a landlord, was a magistrate of well-known proclivities. It was a matter of perfect notoriety that that landlord would crush and ruin that man if he possibly could. He understood that this magistrate had on four successive occasions taken proceedings against tenants, and having lost his case he entertained vindictive feelings towards them. Queen's County was conspicuous in Ireland for its freedom from everything like crime and outrage; and it was a matter of common report that that particular landlord had been peculiarly instrumental in causing that county to be proclaimed. They had a right, therefore, to ask the Government for some declaration of the grounds on which Queen's County had been proclaimed. He challenged the Chief Secretary to deny that during a large portion of last year the police were not required at all in Queen's County. In the month of April he believed that in that county there was only one offence of a serious agrarian kind, and another of a very mild description. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Sir, I would only state that James Lalor was not arrested, nor was Queen's County proclaimed, on account of the representation of the landlord to whom hon. Members had alluded. Having had no reason to expect that the question of the proclamation of Queen's County would come up this evening, I can only now say that I have a very different opinion on the subject from that of the hon. Member; but if the Question is repeated on Monday or Tuesday I will give an answer as to the grounds on which the county was proclaimed.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had a very good memory for some things and a very bad one on others, as suited his convenience. He could tell that Lalor had sub-let part of his lands for mere rent than he paid the head landlord for the whole holding; but he could not tell whether it had been so sub-let as conacre and as manured land. In those cases between landlord and tenant the right hon. Gentleman was always inclined to take the side of the strong party against the weak, and no reply that he gave to those Questions was entitled to much consideration from the Irish Members. There had been only one or two slight outrages in the Queen's County recently, and these did not at all justify the proclamation.

said, he was glad his hon. Friend had moved the adjournment of the House, and he thought the Irish Party ought to come down and move the adjournment of the House on every occasion of this kind. He thought the Irish Party were to blame for not having acted with sufficient firmness in this direction. He thought the adjournment of the House ought to be moved on Government nights as well as on other nights to raise the question of these proclamations and arrests. It was only by action in the House of Commons that they could retaliate on the Government. They had been told that Dr. Jacob had not moved in the matter of the proclamation of the Queen's County; but if Dr. Jacob had any dirty work to do he would get someone else to do it. It would be easy for him or his agents to prime the Government with information which they might use as a means of getting the county proclaimed; and he ventured to say that what information they possessed came from such statements. Owing to the state of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland, when a man's house or haystack was burned accidentally, he had the temptation to plead that it was malicious; and then, with the present cry about agrarian outrages, if he presented for £200 or £300, the Grand Jurors, who were landlords, were only too happy to mulet the district where the act was committed. He had known cases of this kind where, in place of punishing the really guilty parties—namely, the landlords, the unfortunate tenants were punished.

stated that very few of the tenant farmers of Ireland insured their stocks. If, unfortunately, a burning took place, and if there was no evidence as to how it occurred, the first thing that a farmer did was to rush off to the police barracks and give the requisite notices in order to apply for compensation. There was the strongest possible temptation for a farmer who had not insured to prove that the burning was malicious, because that was the only way of securing compensation. Now, he understood that a burning had recently taken place where this man had been arrested; and he thought they had a right to know on what grounds the man was arrested, and whether the burning for which he was arrested was the one in connection with which there was a claim before the Presentment Sessions for compensation.

wished to enter his protest against the calumnies which had been heaped upon the farmers of Ireland by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member had stated in his place in the House of Commons that it was a usual thing for Irish farmers, whenever a fire occurred on their premises, to go off to the police and make false oaths and statements. ["Oh!"]

denied that he had made any such charge. [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is in possession of the House, and he is entitled to proceed to the end of his address; if at the end of it the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) desires to make any explanation, no doubt the House will afford him an opportunity.

said, he must protest against the statement of the hon. Member, for it was one of the greatest calumnies ever uttered. He knew as a fact that the farmers of Ireland were not guilty of this conduct; and he never would be a party to branding poor people as perjurers and perpetrators of crime, even when the accusation came from that side of the House, which assumed to be guardians and champions of the tenant farmers.

said, he had not attempted to brand the farmers of Ireland as perjurers; or in any way to reflect upon their characters. What he did say was, that an Irish farmer did not, as a rule, insure his stock, and that, when any of his stock was burned, there was the strongest temptation, in cases where there was no evidence as to how the fire occurred, to endeavour to prove that it was malicious, as it was the only way in which he could get compensation in the present state of the law.

said, the perception of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), in mistaking the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy), must not be very keen. The Irish farmers would be well able to judge between the two hon. Members, and decide who was most likely to brand the Irish character. His hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) had merely stated what the history of Ireland had proved to be a fact. The temptation was so strong in these matters that the wonder was that there were not many more compelled to make claims for compensation; and what his hon. Friend. contended was that that temptation ought to be removed out of their way by an alteration of the law. He was not uttering a calumny against his fellow-countrymen, but rather wishing to deprive them of this temptation.

said, he rose to make an appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); and, in doing so, with a view to expedite Business which was set down for that evening, he should be under the necessity of following the example of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lalor), and would conclude with a Motion. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had given Notice of a Resolution which he now saw on the Paper. When the Speaker was asked whether that Notice would have precedence over all others as a question of Privilege, he stated that this question could not be put in its present form, but that, in order to have precedence, it would be necessary that the hon. Baronet should specifically move a Resolution rescinding one on the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh which was passed some time ago by the House. The view held on that side of the House was that the Resolution was illegal in the sense that it was contrary to the statutory law and the statutory rights of Mr. Bradlaugh. Into that he did not wish to enter. As a matter of fact, his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle would not be able to put this Resolution in its present form before the House; he would be obliged to move a Resolution rescinding the previous Resolution; and he confessed that he did not for himself think that the bringing of such a Resolution before the House would in any way tend towards Mr. Bradlaugh taking his seat there. Since the Resolution of last month had been carried the Government had asked leave to bring in a Bill to enable Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm instead of taking the Oath. [Ironical cheeps.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it very funny when he mentioned Mr. Bradlaugh; but they knew very well that, although the Bill was a general one, it was specifically stated that it was brought in in order to meet a particular difficulty. [Renewed cheers.] He was astonished hon. Members should cheer that statement. It was well known that that was the reason why it was brought forward at the present moment. Objection was taken, when leave was asked to bring in the Bill, to a Morning Sitting being taken; and hon. Gentlemen stated that they were prepared to sit up all night in order to prevent it. ["No!"] It was within the recollection of the House that hon. Members declared that they would contest the matter during the whole night. ["No, no!"] They thought it more simple to pass the night objecting to a Morning Sitting than to sit the next morning for three or four hours. However, it appeared very evident that the Morning Sitting would be of very little use, because they would then have been favoured with very valuable observations from several Gentlemen, and at 7 o'clock have been very much in the same position, so far as that Bill was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen opposite bore him out that they intended to use the Forms of the House to prevent that Bill being brought in. Under these circumstances, he would ask the Prime Minister what he intended to do with regard to the Parliamentary Oaths Act. He need not say in consequence of Mr. Bradlaugh only, because it concerned the constituency which he (Mr. Labouchere) had the honour to represent. That constituency was naturally anxious that it should have full representation in that House. Mr. Bradlaugh himself was naturally anxious that he should not sit at the further side of that door for ever like a Peri at the gates of Paradise.

I must point out that I understood the hon. Member to rise to make an appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but no question has been put to the hon. Baronet. No doubt the hon. Member is entitled to make any remarks necessary to make his question plain to the House, but he is going beyond that concession.

said, of course he should follow that direction. He was arriving at his Question to his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, and was trying to clear the ground, and to explain to him what the position was before the Question was put. As he had said, the constituency of Northampton felt deeply grateful to the First Lord of the Treasury and to his Colleagues for what they had done, for the efforts they had made to secure to that constituency their Constitutional rights. At the same time, that constituency, he was happy to say, was a thoroughly Radical constituency, and did not wish to impede the progress of the Land Bill. He would, therefore, venture, in order to clear the matter for the hon. Member for Carlisle, to ask the Prime Minister to be good enough to tell the, House, if possible, what course the Government intended to pursue. His constituents were quite willing to wait patiently. But he would venture to ask the Government when the Oaths Bill would be brought in. He would venture to suggest that it should not be brought in until the Land Bill passed. He presumed that after the second reading they would soon be in Committee. He hoped the Bill would be passed in a reasonable time. The Parliamentary Oaths Bill was a Government Bill, and he hoped that the influence of the hon. Member for Carlisle with the Prime Minister would give some expectation that the Bill would soon be submitted to the House, when the House might decide whether to accept or reject it. If he might be allowed to make a suggestion to hon. Members opposite—["No, no!"] —he would ask to be allowed to say this. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not actuated by any personal feeling against Mr. Bradlaugh—

The hon. Gentleman may make suggestions to the House; but he may not address any particular Members of the House.

I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, at the commencement of his remarks, stated that he would conclude with a Motion. If he does so, I presume he will be in Order? I wish to ask if that is not the case?

said, he did not wish to detain the House; but he appealed to the hon. Member for Carlisle and to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they were actuated by any personal or malevolent feelings towards Mr. Bradlaugh. ["No, no!"] He asked them not to say "No, no!" in a hurry, but to think over the matter; and it was possible that if he was to bring in an Indemnity Bill for Mr. Bradlaugh, and considering that Mr. Bradlaugh was a poor man, as everybody knew—[Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]—and had incurred considerable expense—[Renewed cries of "Order!"]—

The hon. Gentleman is quite out of Order.

Then he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle to withdraw his Motion, and formally begged to move the adjournment of the House.

said, he begged to second that Motion, as that was the most orderly course to pursue, and would enable him to state the position in which he and the House stood with regard to the Motion. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement adverse to the Bill of the hon. Member for Northampton. With that he had nothing to do. He merely wished to explain why he gave Notice of what he intended to do. The Speaker had read a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, when there was hardly anybody in the House. He asked the Speaker whether the question of Privilege might be brought forward at half-past 4 o'clock, and the Speaker had said that it might. But he thought it better not to do so at once, but to give one or two days' Notice. He waited all that afternoon and found that nobody else took the matter up, and then on the Wednesday he gave Notice of the Motion which stood in his name in the Order Book. Now, that letter of Mr. Bradlaugh was a very important one. There was an important statement in it that the House had done something in absolute defiance of the statute—had, by actual physical force, prevented him from doing the duty imposed upon him by the express words of the statute. Mr. Bradlaugh had requested that the letter should be communicated to the House, and the Speaker had done so. When such a letter came from a Gentleman representing a large constituency, it ought to be dealt with in the House in some way or other. It was a grave charge, a serious charge, and he hoped the House would discuss it in a spirit totally free from bias. There was a real and grave Constitutional question—

I must point out to the hon. Baronet that it is not regular on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House to discuss a Motion which is on the Paper.

said, that the last thing he wished to do was to run counter to the Rules of the House; but he understood that this was a question of Privilege.

It is not.

said, that being the case, he would simply state what he intended to do. He had intended to move a Resolution declaring the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) illegal, because he believed it was illegal; but the Speaker had stated that the most regular course would be to move the rescission of that Resolution. He should have been very glad to have done that that evening; but he thought it would not be quite courteous either to friends or foes to bring that Motion on without due Notice; and it would be very like taking the House by surprise. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Go on!"] Some Members said "No, no!" but that was his humble opinion. But he would tell the House what he would do. He proposed, on some day of which he would give due Notice, to move his Resolution as a matter of Privilege. ["No, no!"] Mr. Speaker had told him that he was in Order. ["No, no!"] Very well, if that was not so, the Speaker could correct him. But he should not move his Resolution if hon. Members opposite would allow the Bill of the Attorney General to come on for discussion without having recourse to obstructive tactics.

said, he thought that the House must have been greatly edified by those proceedings. The House, perhaps, without knowing it, had been a witness of a most carefully conceived and well got-up burlesque. The House must bear in mind that Mr. Bradlaugh and his Colleague in all these affairs acted under the inspiration of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] And the course of events—[Continued cries of "Withdraw!"]—had been extremely—["Oh, oh"]—well arranged with Mr. Bradlaugh after his expulsion from the House. [Renewed cries of "Withdraw!"]

said, he rose to Order. He did not know whether he really heard the noble Lord correctly in imputing to the Prime Minister that he had inspired an hon. Member in a disorderly course which had resulted in his expulsion. He would ask whether it was in Order to impute to a Member of that House that he had inspired conduct which had brought down the censure of the House?

I venture, Sir, to enlarge the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Meath. I having stated in my place within no great number of days that I had no communication whatever with Mr. Bradlaugh, I beg to put it to you, Sir, respectfully, but very directly, whether the noble Lord is in Order in stating, in direct contradiction to my assertion, that Mr. Bradlaugh has taken all his steps in this matter under the direct inspiration of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues?

I am bound to say that, owing to the noise which prevailed at the time the noble Lord was speaking, the words spoken by him did not reach my ear. If the words imputed to him by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) were correctly imputed to him, they were quite out of Order.

said, that after the statement of the Prime Minister he begged to withdraw unreservedly the statement he made. When he made it, he was bound to say he was perfectly in ignorance of the declaration the Prime Minister made the other day. He did not recollect it at all. But certainly he never intended to insinuate for a moment that the Prime Minister had any relation with Mr. Bradlaugh in his disorderly proceedings. All he ventured to say was this—that the whole course pursued by Mr. Bradlaugh had been of a nature always to gain the assent of the Government. That was a Parliamentary statement. What had occurred? Mr. Bradlaugh had written a letter to the Speaker after his removal from the House, and the Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, communicated that letter to the House. He was bound to say there did not appear to him to be anything in that letter which necessitated so formal a communication. It only contained, in a more elaborate and enlarged form, what Mr. Bradlaugh stated at that Table. No doubt, Mr. Bradlaugh took that course after consultation with his friends, who were friends of great skill and experience, and with the view of raising a discussion. What took place? The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) immediately said he would call the attention of the House to that letter, and he gave Notice on the same day of a Motion declaring that the Resolution of April 26 was illegal. He would explain to the Prime Minister why he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought this step was not taken without consultation with some Member of the Government, if not with the Prime Minister. When the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) asked the Prime Minister yesterday what course he proposed to adopt with regard to the Oaths Bill, the Prime Minister said it would be impossible to state that until the House decided upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, showing perfectly clearly what it was open to anyone to infer. [Cries of "No, no!"]

begged the noble Lord's pardon. What the Prime Minister did say in answer to his Question was that he could not reply to the Question because he did not know what would be done with the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle.

said, it was the celebrated difference be-between tweedledum and tweedledee. There was not the smallest difference whatever. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire put the Question, what course the Government was going to take with the Oaths Bill, and the Prime Minister replied that he could not state until the House had decided upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle. It was perfectly open to the House to infer that the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle was brought forward with the assent of the Government and would receive the Government's support. ["Oh!"] That was the opinion largely shared by hon. Members on this side of the House—that, until the House decided upon that Motion, the Government would not proceed with the Oaths Bill. What had taken place since? It had been ascertained by sources of information open to the Government that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle brought forward that Motion, it would be rejected by a large majority, who would not declare their former action to have been arbitrary and illegal; upon which the hon. Member for Northampton—and he asked the House particularly to mark this—got up, and, though doubly interested in getting Mr. Bradlaugh into this House, he appealed to the hon. Member for Carlisle not to bring forward that Resolution, because the Government would not support it, and the Government would not support it because the House was going to reject it. And he wished to point out to the House further, to show how completely the hon. Member for Northampton was in accord with the Government, that he asked the House to postpone legislation in regard to the Oath until the Irish Land Bill should have passed the House—somewhere about July 30 or August 15. The whole transaction, as he had said, was a carefully got-up burlesque. A fly was thrown over the House to ascertain whether, by hook or by crook, Mr. Bradlaugh could be brought into the House. The hon. Member for Carlisle had only for the moment withdrawn his Motion, and now arose the question of procedure. The hon. Member for Carlisle said he would hold his Resolution in terrorem over the House, so that if the House would not agree to any measure initiated or devised by him, he Would bring forward his Motion on any day he thought expedient. Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday that the Motion was of a privileged character. In his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) part of the House they did not understand that ruling, for when the Prime Minister last year brought forward a Resolution of an identical character, asking the House to rescind a Resolution of precisely the same kind as this one, Mr. Speaker ruled that it did not partake of a privileged character. They were unable to see the difference between the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle and the Motion of the Prime Minister last Session. There could be no doubt whatever that the essence of Privilege was the immediate character of the Question or Motion. The reason of the Privilege was that the nature of the subject was so urgent that it could not wait, and that all other Business must give way before it. The Speaker would, he hoped, rule that if this Motion was not proceeded with at once, it entirely and utterly lost its privilege. That was a point on which he particularly desired a ruling, so that this Motion might not be held over them in terrorem by the hon. Member for Carlisle. He also hoped the Prime Minister would answer the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Northampton, and state the course he proposed to take with the Oaths Bill—whether he intended to put it off till the Greek Kalends, or to take it immediately. There was no use keeping the House in the dark on a subject which, as the hon. Member for Northampton said, involved a great Constitutional question. The hon. Member also asked what would be the fate of any Bill of Indemnity he might bring in? Speaking only for himself, he would be glad to see him introduce the Bill, and would be ready to support him, for there was no doubt the action Mr. Bradlaugh took was entirely owing to the remarkably imprudent advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown; and, Mr. Bradlaugh having acted upon it, the Government must pass a Bill of Indemnity, or put down a Vote for him on the Estimates. No one on the Opposition side of the House would object to such a Bill. Turning to another point, he wished to draw attention to the Resolution under which Mr. Bradlaugh was allowed by the House to affirm. At the instigation of the First Lord of the Treasury, that Resolution had been placed among the Standing Orders of the House. Now, the Courts of Law had declared that Affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh was illegal; and therefore he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would move a Resolution proposing that the Motion permitting Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm be expunged from the Records of the House? A Standing Order which invited Members to take action which had been declared illegal, and which subjected them to the heaviest penalties, was a disgrace and discredit to the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury, having compelled the House to place the Standing Order on its Books, was the proper person to move that it be removed.

Sir, I shall begin by answering the Question which the noble Lord last put to me, because in his speech he has raised so many points, especially respecting the engagements of the Government, that I am unwilling to delay answering them while they are in my recollection, as otherwise I might forget them. He asks me whether I will move to rescind a very discreditable Resolution, which he says I induced the House to pass. I am not aware of any discreditable Resolution taken by the House at my instigation last year, and I am not aware that it is in my power to compel the House to remove a Resolution from its Records. As regards the Resolution, I have not made any examination of it lately, and therefore if I give a reply now it is subject to correction; but according to my recollection the Resolution simply disclaims a dictum which this House does not possess. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The Resolution allows anyone to affirm.] It disclaims any jurisdiction as to whether certain persons are entitled to affirm or not. If you deem that to be a very discreditable Resolution, I am not at present advised, but, subject to consideration and further examination of it, I have no intention of the kind referred to by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, after he had withdrawn one disorderly affirmation under the authority of the Chair, proceeded to other affirmations very much in his own manner. It seems to me that the noble Lord hazards affirmations upon speculation. Sometimes they refer to what he supposes has been done by individual Members of the Government outside the House; sometimes to what he supposes has been done inside the House itself; and he makes them upon the chance of getting contradicted or not, as the case may be. Well, the noble Lord went stumbling on until he made three assertions about the Government, for not one of which is there the slightest foundation. He says, in the first place, that the Government assented to the proceedings of Mr. Bradlaugh. The Government has assented to no proceedings of Mr. Bradlaugh. ["Oh"] It is not to assent to the proceedings of any man when you affirm that, in your opinion, the cognizance of that proceeding is beyond your competence and jurisdiction. Our doctrine has been all along that it belongs to others to assent to or dissent from, to authorize or condemn, the proceedings of Mr. Bradlaugh. I hold that that is not a distinction between tweedledum and tweedledee. It is a very broad distinction palpable to the common sense of anyone. But the noble Lord went on to say that we were now acting in concert with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). That, again, is totally inaccurate. The Order of the Day which was under our charge was postponed before my hon. Friend had made public intimation on the subject of his intention to proceed with a Resolution in this House, and the two matters were totally disconnected. Then the noble Lord says that I stated that it was totally impossible for me to say anything upon the subject of the proposed Oaths Bill until the House should have disposed of the Motion of the hon. Baronet. I said nothing about it being totally impossible. What I said was that, as the Order of the Day stood for next Tuesday, and the Motion of the hon. Baronet for to-day, it appeared to me that it would be convenient that I should watch the fate of that Motion before making any declaration of intentions. The noble Lord also said that we are in concert with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in regard to the course which he has taken to-day; but that happens, also, to be totally inaccurate and unfounded. The hon. Member for Northampton courteously made a communication last night to my noble Friend near me (Lord Richard Grosvenor), which was communicated to me a few hours ago. That communication did not at all invite my noble Friend to enter into negotiations with the hon. Member, but announced that the hon. Member intended to-day to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Carlisle. Therefore, Sir, we have no more to do with the proceedings of the hon. Member for Northampton than with the proceedings of the hon. Member for Carlisle. I am bound to say that the Notice of the hon. Member for Northampton did not make any reference and did not include any matter in which I am concerned. It was a Notice that he would make an appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but instead of, or rather in addition to, that, the hon. Member made an appeal to myself. Well, I am about to answer that appeal, which I consider a perfectly legitimate appeal. In order to explain that which I am about to say as to what we propose to do I had better, I think, refer in very few words to that which we have done. When the great difficulty arose, and those scenes, painful to us all, occurred in connection with Mr. Bradlaugh, a question was raised whether that difficulty might not be got rid of on the principle, which has been repeatedly pointed out as the only true basis of dealing with the question—namely, a general measure which would dispose, not only of this particular case, but of all cases that could ever come within a similar category as to the option between taking the Oath and making a Declaration. However, in the state of the Business of the House, and with the sense which I have entertained all along, and which, if possible, increases from day to day, of the paramount importance of the Irish Land Bill, I was not disposed to charge myself or the Government with any new engagement of a serious character—I mean of a character likely to make any sensible demands upon our time. But on communication in various quarters we did certainly receive the impression that a proposal of the nature which has since been indicated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was a proposal likely to be opposed by a section of Members of the House, some of whom I see opposite, and who very frankly gave Notice of their intention to that effect; but that, notwithstanding, the proposal was likely to receive a very large and general assent. [Mr. WARTON: No!] We had that impression, and thought it was correct. I had no doubt that those Members to whom I have referred would have stated their objections in a manly and outspoken way, and that when they found they were not largely supported they would have given way to the general sense and opinion of the House. It was with that expectation that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General made known to the House his intention to submit a proposal for legislating on the subject; but I am bound to say that we learnt by degrees that our impression did not correspond with the facts. In the first place, we found that hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to resist almost en bloc the granting of a Morning Sitting for the purpose of ascertaining the judgment of the House; but I am bound to say—and it would not be candid or ingenuous if we did not admit it—that when we tried that case on a second occasion we were made aware that, while Gentlemen opposite were disposed to assume a large and active share in resistance to a Morning Sitting—which we understood to be resistance to the principle of the Bill—there were many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who showed their reluctance, by their absence from the division, to take any part in the matter. That being so, it became clear to me that the subject would require further consideration; and consequently I have arrived at the conclusion that it is our duty to adjourn the further consideration of our course in this matter until we have absolutely, or in substance, disposed of the Irish Land Bill. As far, therefore, as we are concerned, that Order practically will be no more heard of until we have reached that point in our Parliamentary progress.

begged to apologize to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for having interrupted him while speaking; but he had felt it due to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and the House itself, to correct the erroneous impression entertained by the noble Lord as to the nature of the reply to the Question which he (Mr. Newdegate) had ad- dressed to the right hon. Gentleman. He now wished to call attention to this—that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) seemed to think that he was entitled to keep the question of Privilege as long as he liked in his pocket. This appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) to be quite contrary to the clear understanding upon which questions of Privilege were raised in the House. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Baronet that if he meant to raise the question of Privilege, it would not be respectful to the House if he did not, within the next two or three days, move in the matter. Every question of Privilege took precedence of all other Orders, all other Business in that House; and the House had a right to know when its regular Business was to be thus interfered with and to be superseded. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would understand that promptitude in Motions of Privilege was essential. He (Mr. Newdegate) had, during his long experience, known many questions of Privilege raised in the House, and had never known them allowed to stand over more than a day or two. He was afraid that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had given too accurate a description of the manner in which the question of the alteration of the Oath taken by Members was to be dealt with by the Government. The question was not a small one. A question which affected the constitution of the House was of far greater importance than any Irish question. It was a matter of Imperial importance; and he thought the House had a right to complain of the statement made by the Prime Minister when he told them that he would virtually act upon the advice of his substitute, the hon. Member for Northampton—and who seemed to expect to be his successor—that he should press the Irish Land Bill forward, and, when the House became thin and weak at the end of the Session, then proceed with the Oaths Bill, as the hon. Member for Northampton had informed them, de die in diem. This suggestion—that Her Majesty's Ministers should take advantage of the House—would not, he hoped, be accepted by the Government. Throughout the country this question as to the Paliamentary Oath was regarded as one of the greatest importance. He received letters on the question day by day; some of them expressing a hope that he would vote in favour of a measure to admit the elected Member for Northampton to a seat in the House, some accompanied by threats. But the vast majority of the communications he received deprecated, in terms which did high honour to the writers, the proposal to introduce a Bill for the admission to a seat in that House of a person who was not allowed to take an oath in a Court of Law, and whom the Courts of Law had decided to be unfit to pronounce the solemn affirmation which, by law, was in some cases substituted for the oath. The feeling of the country was opposed to any such proceeding; and, while he hoped the House would insist that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle should not continue to trifle with the question of Privilege, he desired to say, on behalf of the great majority of those from whom he had received communications on the subject, that they would regard it as a grave departure from his duty by the Prime Minister if he attempted, by deferring the question and taking advantage of the weakness of the House late in the Session, to pass a measure which they firmly believed would powerfully affect and would essentially damage the constitution of the House of Commons.

said, that yesterday the Speaker had intimated his opinion that the word "illegal" had better be expunged from the Resolution, because the word might be misconstrued to mean a want of respect to the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had not, however, withdrawn the word, and it had even been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. If the former Resolution of the House were illegal, there must be a remedy, and if there were no remedy there could be no illegality. It was not only disrespectful to the House to use such a term as "illegal," but it was an absolute absurdity to put such a Resolution as that of the hon. Member for Carlisle on the Order Book of the House.

said, he had heard with no satisfaction that the hon. Member for Carlisle did not intend to proceed with his Motion, for the discussion of which he had come prepared. The sitting Member for Northampton asserted that that borough was at present inadequately represented; but he did himself injustice in that assertion, for no borough could be more efficiently represented, according to the views of the majority, than that which he represented. It was now evident that the Government Bill was to be introduced, not to deal with the subject of the Parliamentary Oath generally, but specially with the object of relieving and with introducing into that House the unqualified Member for Northampton. He denied that there was any foundation for the insinuation which had been brought against the Members of the Opposition, that they were actuated in this matter by feelings of malevolence towards Mr. Bradlaugh. What they were actuated by was a desire to prevent the House being implicated in a great insult offered to Almighty God. Judging from what he had heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General would, if they attempted to force this Bill through the House and went to a division, be very much surprised to see the defections in the ranks of their supporters. This question was of a very much larger character than those who sat upon the Treasury Bench appeared to think, and he was perfectly satisfied that if time were given for the object of the measure to be fully understood throughout the country, such a feeling would be excited against it that the Prime Minister would be only too glad to wash his hands of it altogether, and to go on with the Public Business of the House.

said, he would not have taken part in this discussion had it not been for au observation which had just fallen from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was in such a hurry the other day to introduce this Bill, that he was desirous of putting the House to very considerable inconvenience to carry out that object, and it was only in consequence of the feeling manifested on the part of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that he withdrew his demand for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday for the purpose of bringing in this Bill for the relief of the junior Member for Northampton. But although the right hon. Gentleman had been in such a hurry to bring in this Bill at that time, he now appeared to be desirous of putting off its introduction to the Greek Kalends. The right hon. Gentleman, not, perhaps, exactly by design, but at all events by the result of his action, now left the House at the mercy of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who said in substance that he would not bring on his Motion then, but would flutter with it over the House during the whole of the Session, ready to swoop down on some private Members' night, and to bring it forward as a question of Privilege in the hope of snatching a division on it. In these circumstances, he desired to put a Question of Order to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. Last year, when the Prime Minister brought forward his rescinding Motion, the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that it could not be brought forward as a question of Privilege. Mr. Bradlaugh having written a letter a few days since to the Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle in reference to it was one of Privilege, which would take precedence of other Business. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had some good reason for this apparent divergence in his ruling. It was laid down in the work which he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) made his principal study, Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, that a question of Privilege was treated as urgent because it was necessary that it should be decided at once. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman's ruling yesterday, because Mr. Bradlaugh's interests, which were paramount with the Government, required that the matter should be treated as one of urgency. But in that case surely the question should have been brought forward and decided at once. He could not understand, however, a question of Privilege being allowed to hang over the House week after week, like the sword of Damocles, to be brought on at any unguarded moment. He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to give a decision on the point, because although it might be very convenient to the Government to postpone the introduction of this Bill to some indefinite date, and to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to have his little flutter, such a course would not tend either to the convenience or the dignity of the House.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, who spoke last, has referred to the valuable work of Sir Erskine May in connection with this matter, and I cannot do better than read the paragraph bearing on this question. It is as follows:—

"In order to enable a question of Privilege to be discussed it must refer to some matter that has recently arisen which directly concerns the Privileges of the House, and calls for its present interposition."

When I communicated to the House on Wednesday last that I had received a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle asked me whether a Motion founded on that letter would take precedence as a matter of Privilege. Founding myself on the passage I have just read, I had no hesitation in telling the hon. Baronet that such a Motion properly framed and founded on that letter would have precedence. The question then arose whether the matter could be treated as a question of Privilege on a future day, and I stated that it appeared to me if it were put off for the convenience of the House the hon. Baronet would not forfeit his claim by so doing. The hon. Member for Portsmouth draws my attention to what occurred last year. I then stated from the Chair, in reference to the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, that it was not a case of Privilege and could not have precedence. That case and the case now under the consideration of the House are very different. In the first place, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman referred to other Members as well as to the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. That case had been before two Select Committees, and also in various forms before the House for some months, and it could not be said to be a Motion of that character which required the instant interposition of the House, or that it was of such a kind that it was entitled to have precedence as a question of Privilege.

Sir, I interpose reluctantly in this debate; but it is really important that we should know what we have to expect. The proceedings of the House with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh are perfectly well known to everybody, and they have taken this form—the House has refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath, and he having refused to accept the decision of the House as legally binding and having resisted the authority of yourself, Sir, the House has come to a Resolution by which Mr. Bradlaugh is excluded from its precincts until he shall engage not to disturb the order of the House. So far, therefore, we stand upon a footing which enables us to carry on our Business properly. I say nothing with regard to the proposal which the Government have made to introduce a Bill to deal with the question of the Parliamentary Oath further than this, that I entirely protest against the doctrine laid down very boldly, distinctly, and repeatedly by the hon. Member for Northampton that the Bill is one for the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh personally. That was a very distinct statement made by the hon. Member. If that is the light in which the Bill is to be viewed, I venture to say that the objections to it will become infinitely more serious than those which would, in any circumstances, be taken to it as a proposal to alter the Oath. That, however, is a question which we now understand the Government are not prepared to press forward at the present time, although they give us notice that they will take it up by-and-bye, when they shall have got through certain other Business. We desire to know what in the meantime is to be our modus vivendi with regard to the interruption of our Business, not by Mr. Bradlaugh himself, but by his Colleague and his Friends, who may from time to time bring forward Motions on which the Resolution of the 26th of April may be discussed over and over again? We must clearly have some understanding on this subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle stated that his course with respect to his Motion must depend upon the course which the Government might take with regard to the Parliamentary Oath.

What I meant to say was that my bringing forward of the rescinding Resolution would depend on the amount of obstruction given to the Attorney General's Bill.

I am more puzzled than ever. The Irish Land Bill is nothing to it. Are we or are we not to be subject to continual Motions as to the illegality, or the supposed illegality, of the Resolution of the House; and is the power of making Motions on the subject to be a continuous power? Is it a power that will continue for an indefinite series of weeks or months? If there is an immediate necessity of dealing with the question, no doubt we ought to proceed to consider it. I can quite understand that it might be so held—that the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh raised a question which seemed to touch the Privileges of the House, and it might be a very proper and necessary thing to take notice of it. But if it is a matter for weeks, possibly even for a longer time, I think that seems to have disposed of any claim of precedence which could possibly be made by the hon. Gentleman. This is a question which, whatever we may say of the views taken on one side or the other, deeply interests us, and deeply interests the country. It would be scandalous if a sudden decision were taken on a question of this sort without a full and proper opportunity for considering it. I cannot for a moment believe that the hon. Baronet would wish to obtain a decision in that way; but what we want to know is whether the hon. Baronet will give a distinct assurance that, under the circumstances as they stand, it is not his intention—or if it is his intention we should be glad to know whether it would be with your sanction, Sir, that such a step should be taken—to bring forward his Motion and to claim precedence?

said, that Mr. Speaker had ruled that it was perfectly competent for the hon. Baronet, or for any other hon. Member, to have brought this question forward upon the reading of Mr. Bradlaugh's letter as a question of Privilege, and that he did not forfeit that right by postponing it for a reasonable time and for the convenience of the House; but he submitted that it would be a straining of that power beyond what was right and proper for the hon. Baronet to say he would bring forward his Motion at some indefinite and distant day when it might suit his convenience. The hon. Baronet further weakened his case by attempting to couple with it a sort of condition that his bringing it forward would depend very much upon the conduct of the Opposition. He (Mr. Whitbread) was of opinion that the hon. Baronet had, by the course he had taken, really forfeited his right to bring his Motion forward on some future day.

said, he understood from what had passed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that it would be a very abnormal course if he followed out what he suggested in his former speech. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished to take that course, because he thought it better that full Notice should be given of the rescinding of a Resolution. He believed he did not withdraw the Motion. Therefore, in that case, it dropped, and he should not be able to take that course. But, as Notice was given that night that he should call attention to Mr. Bradlaugh's letter, he should like to ask whether, after what had taken place, he should be allowed then that evening—[Cries of "No, no!" and "Yes!"]—whether he should then be allowed to move on the letter these words—

"That the Resolution of April 26, 1881, for-bidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, be reminded as subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors?"

The course proposed to be taken by the hon. Baronet must be subject to the usual Rules in regard to alterations of Notices of Motion that have been placed before the House. Now, it appears to me that there is one expression which I caught from the hon. Baronet which certainly imports into the Resolution new matter. Thus he speaks of the proceedings of this House as subversive—perhaps the hon. Baronet will read it again.

said, the Motion he read was an exact copy of a Motion passed in 1781, with the exception of the word "subversive," which he substituted for the word "expunged." It was as follows:—

"That the Resolution of April 26, 1881, forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, be rescinded as subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors."

The point I have to consider is this, whether the Resolution in its altered form imports new matter not contained in the original Resolution; and in the original Resolution there was no expression whatever with regard to the rights of electors. I think if the hon. Baronet was to—if he will allow me to say so—terminate the Resolution at the word "rescinded," he would be quite in Order.

said, he should like to call attention to the position which the House was then in. ["Order!"]

I must point out to the House that the Motion now before it is one for adjournment.

said, he had supposed that this Motion for rescinding the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, arising, as it did, upon the letter which had been received from Mr. Bradlaugh, would be considered a question of Privilege, and that he should have the opportunity of proceeding with it after the Motion for the adjournment of the House had been disposed of.

I am of opinion that if the hon. Baronet put his Motion in a regular form, he will be entitled to bring it on as a question of Privilege.

said, he wished to draw attention to the serious position in which they were now involved by the most extraordinary proceedings of that evening. After the speech of the Prime Minister, quite 50 Members disappeared from the Conservative Benches in consequence of the statement, most distinctly made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, that it was not his intention to proceed with his Motion that night. Under these circumstances, he hoped a mine would not be sprung on absent Members. It would be foreign to the spirit of the House, and opposed to all gentlemanly feeling, to discuss the Motion then; although to do so might possibly be only of a piece with the whole of that wretched affair. On Wednesday afternoon, after a long debate, the hon. Member for Northampton, who was sitting on the opposite side of the House, got up and said distinctly that he understood it to be the general feeling of the House that some measure should be introduced for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulty. Other Members got up and repudiated that suggestion. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) distinctly declined to promise on his own part, or on the part of those who sat near him, support to any such measure. He (Mr. Lewis) ventured to get up, and, amid cheers, declined to have anything to do with that Bill, but claimed to be at liberty to oppose it at every stage. On the present occasion they were told that, after all, this question was to be introduced as a question of Privilege. He trusted the hon. Member for Carlisle would at once see the impropriety of proceeding in the way he had suggested. He desired to draw the Speaker's attention to a matter which appeared to have escaped his recollection, although it had been referred to by one or two Members. It was, whether, if the hon. Baronet did not proceed with his Motion for a week, a fortnight, or three weeks hence, it would still be competent for him to claim Privilege for it?

I thought I had made it plain that the hon. Baronet could not postpone indefinitely a Motion founded on the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh, and still claim precedence for it as a matter of Privilege.

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, in answer to an appeal from the hon. Member for Northampton, had disdinctly intimated to the House that he would withdraw his Motion. He, therefore, wished to ask the Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. Baronet first to give Notice of withdrawing a Motion, and then capriciously to declare his intention of bringing that Motion on at a later hour of the night, especially when a number of Members had left the House in consequence of his intimation that it would be withdrawn?

said, he was anxious to put a stop to that controversy. He withdrew his Motion at the beginning of the evening on the understanding, as he then thought, that he should be able to bring it on in a few days' or a week's time. In the course of the discussion it appeared that he could not do so, and then it occurred to him that he might not get another chance, and that it would be better that he should that night make the Motion, the terms of which he had read to the House. But it was stated that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had gone away not expecting the Motion to come on; and, therefore, although Members on his side might be ready to discuss the question, he did not think it would be fair to proceed with it that night, as that course might be held to be a surprise. Whether he should be able to bring the question on another night was another matter.

said, the Bill of the Government had been described as a Bill for the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh—[Cries of "Order!"]—but it was not specially for that Gentleman's relief. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] He asked leave to withdraw the Motion for adjournment.

said, that before the discussion closed he wanted to say that the wasting of time on a question of this sort came with a very bad grace from the Government. They had arrested his friend John Dillon at a period when a subject in which he was deeply interested was being discussed in this House, and they had thus partially disfranchised Tipperary. There was nothing of remarkable interest for the borough of Northampton coming on, so far as they knew, during the present Session; and he would therefore suggest that the question of the disfranchisement of that constituency should be allowed to stand over until next Session.

remarked, that many Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side did not view the Bill of the Government as a Bill for the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh, but as a Bill for the relief of the House of Commons from the difficulty in which it had placed itself. He believed that Mr. Bradlaugh was legally entitled to take his seat, and that the House had placed an illegal impediment in the way of his doing so. The House of Commons had before then committed itself in an unguarded moment, and been afterwards obliged to eat its words. He believed that the same thing was likely to happen again, and that, unless some means were found for getting out of the difficulty, the House would appear in a humiliating position before the country.

reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church, of Saint Peter, Westminster,to the Memory of the late Right Honble. Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G., with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of Commons of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and assuring Me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

And I shall give directions in accordance with your Address.

, in rising, pursuant to Notice, to move—

"That it is desirable that the functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Agriculture and Commerce should, as far as possible, be administered by a distinct department, and be presided over by a responsible Minister of the Crown,"

said, that he could claim no novelty for the subject-matter of the Resolution which he was about to submit to the consideration of the House. The subject had been frequently discussed before both in that House and also outside its walls. The two Chambers which represented respectively the interests of Agriculture and of Commerce had urged upon successive Governments the necessity of appointing a Minister with a distinct Department, whose special business it would be to watch over the combined interests of Agriculture and Commerce. Joint deputations from those Institutions had repeatedly gone to the Government and endorsed and advocated that policy; and during the last Parliament a Resolution very similar to the one which he had now the honour to submit to the House was proposed by Mr. Sampson Lloyd, the late Member for Plymouth, in a most able and exhaustive speech. That Motion was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and carried by a considerable majority. But the matter had dropped, and nothing further had been done. On that occasion, there was no difference of opinion with reference to the main issue—namely, the appointment of a special Minister; but some exception was taken with regard to the latter part of the Resolution, which made it imperatively necessary that the Minister who presided over the combined interests of Agriculture and Commerce should be a Cabinet Minister. He (Sir Massey Lopes) did not intend to attach that condition to the present Resolution, not because he did not think it necessary that a Minister presiding over the combined interests of Agriculture and Commerce should be a Minister of the first rank, but because he felt that if those combined interests were to be represented by a Minister with a separate Department, the position of that Minister must necessarily be paramount. That would follow as a necessary and natural consequence, as a simple and certain corollary. It was quite right that a Prime Minister should be able to exercise some discretion in the selection of his Cabinet; but no Prime Minister, be he ever so popular or powerful, would be able to resist public opinion; and though it might be invidious to particularize, all must admit that the combined interests of Agriculture and Commerce would have far higher claims to be represented in a Cabinet than many of those Offices which had hitherto enjoyed, or even now enjoyed, that distinction. This was no Party Question. It was a question of policy rather than of Party, and one in which both sides and all sections of the House took an interest. The days were, happily, past when the interests of Agriculture and Commerce were supposed to be antagonistic. Their interests were so interwoven and dependent one upon another, that they both considered that there would be a mutual advantage in one Department representing their interests. There was no feeling of jealousy or rivalry between Agriculture and Commerce, and the same Minister could supervise both interests. In pressing this Motion, it was hardly necessary to dwell upon the magnitude of the interests of Agriculture and Commerce, or to attempt to show that these combined interests were of sufficient importance to justify this special consideration. These two industries were the bases of our power as a nation; they were the source and foundation of all our national wealth; the welfare and prosperity of all classes were dependent upon them, and there was scarcely a person in the Kingdom who was not directly or indirectly maintained and supported by them. If they were to leave out of consideration the bare naked land, and to estimate the amount of capital invested in agriculture, they would have some idea of the magnitude of the interests involved. It was calculated that the amount of capital which had been invested in agriculture by the owners was £400,000,000. This might be called the fixed capital. Then there was the occupiers' capital, which was the movable capital, and that had been put at £380,000,000; so that they had the total of £780,000,000 invested by owners and occupiers, not taking into consideration the value of the bare naked land. On the authority of Mr. Caird, the average annual value of agricultural produce was £300,000,000. He need hardly say the last four or five years would hardly come up to the average. These Islands produced more produce for their extent and area of their cultivated land than any other country on the globe. England was admitted to be the greatest commercial country in the world. With reference to its commerce, it was easy to calculate the amount of capital, because they had the figures of the Board of Trade. The amount of the exports and imports for the last year amounted to £686,000,000. This total was made up of imports, £410,000,000; exports of British and Irish produce, £223,000,000; and the remaining £53,000,000 represented goods, Colonial and Foreign, imported into this country and exported again from it. These figures would give some idea of the magnitude of the interests involved. He would endeavour to advance a few reasons why they should have a distinct Department for Commerce and Agriculture, presided over by a responsible Minister in this country. There was a strong feeling abroad that the existing machinery of the Executive Government for these objects was incomplete, inadequate, and inefficient. There was a general impression that many functions which the State ought to exercise with regard to Agriculture and Commerce were either inefficiently performed or altogether neglected; that these interests were too important to be dealt with by subordinate Departments; that they suffered from inadequate representation; that there was no special or individual responsibility; that as com- mercial and agricultural interests had, by means of Chambers, for years past organized themselves and adopted representative institutions, that there should also be a separate Department of the Government to which they might communicate their wants and wishes, and that, by this means, a more ready intercourse and interchange of opinion might be effected, which would be conducive to the interests of all concerned; that if such a Department had existed, it would have been able to have given valuable assistance to the Royal Commission now sitting, by collecting and forwarding evidence and giving its opinion respecting the causes of the present depression. Why was England the only important country that had not a responsible Minister and a distinct Department to supervize these two important interests? Other countries had adopted the system which he advocated; it had been found satisfactory and successful; and he was at a loss to know why they should be the only country in the world to neglect taking this prudent step. France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Holland, almost every civilized State, and even Japan, had a Minister whose duty it was to attend to these great Departments; and the United States, our chief competitor in all agricultural produce, had a separate Department for Agriculture. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) had asked a Question with regard to certain interesting documents relating to Agriculture in the United States; and some of those Papers were now in the Library, and they were most interesting. This Department in the United States superintended everything connected with Agriculture; it diffused the most useful information respecting seeds, plants, and manures; it reported annually to Congress, not only with reference to its own agriculture, but of that of all other foreign countries. Surely we, who are suffering so severely from this competition, needed equal facilities and opportunities. There was plenty of information to be got; but in this country it was no one's business to procure it. The Reports sent home by our Consuls were seldom tabulated or utilized. Had responsibility attached to one Department, greater attention would have been paid to our foreign Tariffs; our Commercial Treaties would have been more carefully considered; our Colonies would not have established hostile Tariffs against the Mother Country; we should have made more favourable terms for our manufactures when we repealed the Sugar Duties in 1864. But these would not have been all the advantages. We would not have had the Bankruptcy Laws, which were a scandal to this country, so long unsettled. Because no one Department was individually responsible for these matters our national interests had severely suffered; nay, more, they had been seriously imperilled. He wished to say something as to the anomalies of the present system. Those anomalies were palpable and patent to all. The various duties of the different Departments connected with Agriculture and Commerce were absurdly incongruous. Their affairs were distributed over so many Departments of the Government—which had no relation with one another—that it was impossible to get information without great inconvenience and loss of time. For instance, if one wanted to get any information about the Diseases of Cattle, he was referred to the Minister who looked after Art and Science, Education, and Religion; if one wished to hear something about Agricultural Statistics or Corn Returns, he was referred to the Minister whose main duty it was to look after Railways and Ships; while the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), to whom they looked for information with regard to Public Highways, Roads, and Bridges, had for his main duty to look after Paupers. The result was that they never knew from what Member of the Government agricultural legislation was to come. The Agricultural Holdings Act was introduced in the last Government by his late lamented Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt). But the greatest anomaly of all was the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade was a mythical body. It contained no Department of Trade at all. It was no Board. It never met as a Board. He believed the Lord Chancellor was a member of the Board, and also the Speaker; but he would not venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he ever attended the Board. He contended that the designation was obsolete, and that it ought to be abolished. The Board of Trade, as it at present existed, had neither the necessary organization, nor did it possess the requisite power, to carry out its important functions. In the Board of Trade they had no Commercial Department to look after the Indian or Colonial Trade, or Commercial Treaties, or their Tariffs at home or abroad. If any illustrious foreigner were to ask any Member of the House the simple question, What Department of the Government in this country directed our commercial policy; or what provision was made with respect to our agricultural interests? he thought there would be considerable difficulty in giving any satisfactory response. The answer might be, "No one;" or "the Executive;" or "the Government generally," or, perhaps, "the Cabinet." If the latter were the correct answer, it might be thought to be another illustration of the truth of the old adage, that what was "everybody's business was nobody's." If the responsibility was distributed among the 12 or 14 Gentlemen who generally composed a Cabinet, each of whom had specific duties in his own Department, and more than sufficient to monopolize his entire time and attention, it would only be natural that they would postpone and neglect the consideration of those duties for which they were not individually responsible, and that, at all events, they would be inefficiently discharged. But he might be told that it was easy to criticize. What remedy did he suggest? It was not his duty to propose a remedy for an acknowledged grievance. His only object was to persuade the Government that the difficulty of arranging those matters was not insuperable; and if he ventured to suggest what duties might be transferred to a new Department, it must be understood that he was not attempting to lay down any hard-and-fast line, or desiring to dictate to those in authority. To carry out his object, he did not consider it would be necessary to re-organize all the other Departments, or to re-adjust their duties. It would not even be necessary to create a new Department; but it would be absolutely necessary that all the functions relating to Agriculture and Commerce, which at present were so irregularly and unsystematically administered, should be concentrated in one and the same Department. It was not necessary to create new work, but only to redistribute existing work. They wanted one Minister with two separate or dis- tinct Departments, each Department possessing separate and permanent official Staffs; one Department dealing exclusively with agricultural subjects, the other with commercial matters; and under the Minister he would like to see a Parliamentary Secretary attached to each Department. The Agricultural Department might include—(1.) Supervision of traffic, transit, and diseases of Stock, now under the Privy Council Office; (2.) the duties now discharged by the Copyhold Tithe and Inclosure Commissioners, and also agricultural legislation, now under the Home Office; (3.) the classification and circulation of all information received from Consular Agents, as well as the collection, tabulation, and publication of Agricultural Statistics and Corn Returns, now under the Board of Trade; and (4.) the administration of roads, highways, and bridges, now under the Local Government Board, might properly be transferred to this Department. All these Departments were at present heavily weighted; and their duties would be somewhat diminished, with benefit to themselves and with great advantage to the public. His hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would be more competent, as President of the Chambers of Commerce, to define the duties which should be transferred to the Commercial Department; but all would agree that they should include Tariff regulations at home and abroad, Treaties of Commerce, factory labour, &c. These new Departments should not be overburdened at first; they should grow gradually, and work should be transferred to them tentatively and by degrees. It had been said that at present the different Commercial and Agricultural Societies furnished more information of statistical and other kinds to the Board of Trade than the latter did to them. The Royal Agricultural Society had been of great use in that respect. Questions were often submitted by the Board of Trade to Agricultural Societies. He thought in those matters reciprocity should be established. There was only one industry in the country which was to any considerable extent supported by the Government, and that was mining. We wanted, in short, all matters connected with these two interests concentrated into one Department, where all legislative and administrative questions connected with them would be dealt with. We wanted one recognized authority, who would institute inquiries and initiate measures calculated to promote their welfare. We wanted to fix and concentrate responsibility. If the functions of the Executive Government were collected into one group, instead of being scattered over so many Departments, they could be more easily and efficiently managed. At present, there was no system or symmetry. There was a total absence of homogeneous classification. The affairs of Agriculture and Commerce were divided between the Home Office, Foreign Office, Board of Trade, Privy Council Office, and Local Government Board. We had separate Departments for Foreign, Colonial, and Indian affairs, for our Army and Navy; why should not the same care and distinction be given to these two important industries? It might, no doubt, be said that our Agriculture and Commerce had prospered without the interference of Government agency; but never, in recent times, had there been so great an agricultural depression as existed now. He did not think that the mere recurrence of bad seasons was a sufficient explanation of that depression. Foreign competition, which every year was becoming more keen and severe, and of which they could scarcely predicate the extent or result, was, no doubt, the chief cause of our suffering. All classes interested in the land were looking forward to the future with intense anxiety, and with no very sanguine expectations. Few farmers had made any profits the last four or five years; too many had been living on their capital, which was well nigh exhausted; and, to the great majority, another bad season would bring absolute ruin. In every county they heard of farms untenanted, but, what was worse, uncultivated, of insolvent tenants, and reduced landlords, and on many estates reduced rents barely paid the interests of mortgages and of charges settled upon them. Nor were the accounts received of the state of trade at all more encouraging. The Board of Trade Returns for the month of April showed a deficit of £1,500,000 of exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures, compared with the corresponding period of last year; and the Returns for the last four months were equally discouraging, showing a deficit of £500,000. It was found that our exports steadily diminished, and our imports increased. He did not feel so sanguine as some did with reference to any general revival of trade. He would ask what manufacturing industry was at present prospering? Was it the woollen trade of Bradford, where thousands of work-people were weekly leaving these shores to seek their fortunes elsewhere? Was it the sugar, or the silk trade? Was it the cotton trade? If the production had not diminished, one thing was certain, that the profits were considerably less. Formerly, English Commerce had a monopoly; it was without a rival. Now, owing to Free Trade, and facilities of intercourse by sea and by land, foreign competition was pressing hard on home producers in their home markets. He did not wish to substitute State protection for private energy and enterprize; but he was of opinion that every reasonable facility and opportunity must be given, every impediment must be removed, if they were to hold their own in the unequal race in which Agriculture and Commerce were now embarked. He hoped that he should not receive from the Government the usual stereotyped answer, or a mere vague assurance that the question should be carefully considered. It had been taken up by the majority of the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, and "carefully considered" by successive Governments for the last 20 years; and in 1879 a majority of that House declared in favour of the principles which he attempted to advocate; and outside those walls this proposal had the sanction of public opinion. In 1869, the then President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Bright) said that he would strongly recommend a consideration of the question now before the House by the separate Departments, and he promised some reforms. Nothing, however, had been done, though 12 years had elapsed. In the absence, therefore, of a very clear and sufficient statement from the First Lord of the Treasury, he should consider it his duty to divide the House at the conclusion of the debate. It was no good to attempt to patch up the present system. That had been tried in 1864, and had failed. They could not afford to wait any longer. Foreign politics had necessarily of late years monopolized their time and attention. It was now time to look at home, and after their own interests. Those important industries, Agriculture, Trade, and Commerce—the source of all our national greatness—were unanimously of opinion that by such means only as he had attempted to indicate could a satisfactory consideration of their interests be secured, and they asked the Government, the Executive of the British House of Commons and of the country, to grant them a boon which they confidently believe would not only tend to further their interests, but also tend to promote the welfare and prosperity of all classes in the United Kingdom. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the Resolution. He should, however, have preferred a Resolution stating the expediency of giving Cabinet rank to a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. His hon. Friend (Sir Massy Lopes) had referred to the sanction given by the late House of Commons to a similar proposal in 1879, which was brought forward by Mr. Sampson Lloyd, and adopted after a long discussion. It had become his (Mr. Monk's) duty in February last to transmit to the Prime Minister a Memorial from the Association of Chambers of Commerce in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. At the same time, he pointed out to the Prime Minister that the Resolution of 1879 had remained for nearly two years unchallenged in the Journals of the House, and reminded him that it had been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), by the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mundella), and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), while no single Member of the present Government voted against it. The hon. Member for South Devon had made out an excellent case in favour of entrusting agricultural interests to a separate Department of the State. He pointed out the strong objections that existed to the interests of Agriculture being confided to three or four separate Departments. If that were so with regard to Agriculture, how much more was it the case with regard to the commercial interests of the country? The Board of Trade, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and, he believed, the Lord Chancellor, with the Law Officers of the Crown, shared the cares and responsibilities of watching over the interests of Trade and Commerce in this country. The services of so many Departments being called in, the results were not likely to be satisfactory. His hon. Friend had shown that this was not the case in other countries. In France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Belgium, the interests of Commerce and Agriculture were considered of sufficient importance to be confided to a special Department of the State. Some years ago—in 1864—the relations between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office with reference to Commercial Treaties were considered by a Committee presided over by his (Mr. Monk's) right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster); and in consequence of their Report a Commercial Department was established in the Foreign Office. To some extent that had proved an improvement. No one, he was sure, whose duties had brought him into contact with the Under Secretary of State (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could fail to give him credit for zeal, courtesy, and singular ability. The same might be said of Mr. Kennedy, at the Foreign Office. But, in spite of all that, the arrangement had not proved quite successful. If he (Mr. Monk) were asked why, he should say there was too much mystery about the Foreign Office. A diplomatic atmosphere pervaded it which commercial men found absolutely chilling. They had an instinctive dread of the Foreign Office, and preferred resorting for counsel to the Board of Trade; but the duties of that Department had been so largely increased by recent legislation in reference to Merchant Shipping, Railways, and other matters, that it would be impossible to convert it into a Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture. There was ample room for a new Department. If he might be allowed to throw out a hint, he would venture to suggest that the noble Lord, so long and honourably connected with the Board of Trade, who had recently received the appointment of Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford), must feel a thirst for work, and feel humiliated by occupying a sinecure Office, or, at all events, at the prospect of doing the work of odd man in the Cabinet. In conclusion, he would remind the Prime Minister that legislation was hanging fire, that the Bankruptcy Bill had made no progress, that the Law of Partnership required consolidation and amendment, that the Patent Laws required revision, while Bills of Sale were a scandal and a disgrace under the present law; and last—not least—the question of a new Anglo-French Commercial Treaty must be decided within a very few weeks. Under these circumstances, he expressed a hope that the Prime Minister would give his sanction to a Motion which had received the support of a Member of the Cabinet and of other Members of the Government.

Sir, when I heard the proposal of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) described to me at the outset in general terms, I was afraid it was of a character similar to that of 1879, which undoubtedly it would have been my duty to resist. I could not, in any circumstances, consent to any Parliamentary Resolution going to determine by a vote of this House who should be, under all circumstances, constituent Members of the Cabinet. I shall not trouble the House with my reasons; but they are grave and serious. However, I am perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the hon. Member opposite has framed the Resolution and stated his case. What the hon. Member states is—"I am satisfied that there will be such a development of these functions, if you will only allow it, that the importance of the Minister will bring about a state of public opinion which will involve a sure corollary that the man who has such functions to discharge must be a Member of the Cabinet." Upon that footing I am perfectly ready to leave the matter. I am not so sanguine as the hon. Member may be as to the very rapid and early accumulation of those functions; but it is a perfectly fair statement. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman has very judiciously said that this is to be a union, "as far as possible," of the functions relating to Commerce and to Agriculture by a distinct Department under a responsible Minister of the Crown. I think that we have advanced a little further in this direction—a little further than the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, aware of. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in the general proposition that those functions of Trade and Commerce should be associated together in the same Department. To that general proposition, qualified as it is by the practical consideration involved in the words "as far as possible," we are ready to assent. Let me, in passing, express regret that the hon. Gentleman should, as is not unnatural for him to do, have imported into this discussion references to the present state of Agriculture, which I agree with him in deploring. I am only sorry for it on this ground, that I fear lest it should lead to expectations in connection with his Motion, which expectations, if they presume that any great and rapid improvement will be brought about by any administrative change we could make, would be soon turned to bitter disappointment. I do not know whether the hon. Member is quite accurate in all his references to foreign countries. I am informed, for example, that there is nothing in the United States like a Minister of Agriculture, and that the Agricultural Bureau is simply statistical. I am also informed that they have no legislation whatever in the United States, even upon such important subjects as the contagious diseases of animals. Passing from that subject, I cannot quite admit that there has been a want of attention to the subject of foreign Tariffs owing to the want of a formal recognition of a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. It was my fate to be Vice President, and afterwards President, of the Board of Trade during a period when this country was endeavouring to enter into foreign Tariff Treaties, and I say without hesitation that the machinery of the Government was perfectly adequate for the purpose. The failure of our attempts was undoubtedly on account of the difficulties inherent in the case, and was by no means due to any unfortunate dualism between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. We did after that conclude a great Commercial Treaty, which for the last 20 years has produced enormous benefits. But that was not done either by the Foreign Department or by the Board of Trade. It was done entirely as a matter of revenue by communications between the Treasury and Mr. Cobden, who was residing and practically representing this country in Paris. As at present advised, I am not aware whether any advantage with regard to the negotiation of Commercial Treaties would be gained by a change of arrangement, seeing that additional expenses have been incurred in the Foreign Office, and an additional establishment has been created in deference to the wishes of the commercial classes of this country. Quite apart from the subject of Tariff Treaties in this country, we have had in existence for nearly 60 years Reciprocity Treaties on the basis of equal dues and equal facilities, and Treaties on very sound principles thus have been made without any sort of conflict between the Foreign Department and the Board of Trade. I will explain to the hon. Member what I mean by acceding to this Motion. I understand myself to accede to this proposition—that a Department of State shall be created to take up and meet any demand which may arise in connection with Commerce or Agriculture; and of course we must look, in the first instance, to those demands which are proximate and within reach, and which mainly have been mentioned by the hon. Member. The office is hardly, at the present moment, to be made a question of title. The hon. Member has animadverted on the constitution of the Board of Trade as it now stands; but he has failed to do full justice to it, for he omitted to name one most distinguished and eminent member of the Board. He omitted to inform us that the first name upon the list of members of the Board is the name of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I myself have a double interest in the Board, for I am not only one member of it, but two—as First Lord of the Treasury and as Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a Board before, and it was Mr. Burke who abolished it, it is supposed, about the year 1780, because, as he described it, there were eight Members receiving £1,000 a-year for doing very little, in order that they might, when superannuated, receive £2,000 a-year for doing less. I do not wish to commit myself to the question of Board or no Board; but I am bound to admit that, with due consideration, the question may fairly be raised whether a change may not be made in the title of the Board now so well filled by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), because they are—

"Lords of the Committee of Privy Council appointed by Her Majesty for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations."

Now, in the word "Plantations" there is a smack of agriculture; but it is "Foreign Plantations." The title, I admit, is very incongruous, and there may be a fair and reasonable question whether there may not be a change in the title. I am not prepared to announce what the title should be; but I think there should be a change of title, with the view of making it what I have now described—namely, that there should be a responsible Department, of which it should be the duty to take up all functions connected with this subject as far as possible. At the same time, it is not always easy to say to what particular Departments certain subjects should belong; and, in order to see how far that is possible, let us take some of the questions that have been raised. There are many subjects and classes of subjects that have relation to more than one Department. For instance, it has been suggested that factory labour ought to go to the Board of Trade. I remember having a discussion on that subject with the late Sir James Graham, the very first Administrator of his day—a man having one of the most active, rapid, and comprehensive judgments on any administrative question it has ever been my good fortune to know; and it was after full consideration and advice that factory labour was attached to the Home Office. I am not prepared to say that ought to be reversed. Then, with regard to Copy-holds, the superintendence of the Home Office over Copyholds is a superintentendence involving minute interference—whether it ought to be treated as a matter of Commerce and Agriculture I may decline to give an opinion. With regard to highways little difficulty will arise. I do not know whether the hon. Member himself has considered the question. If he has, I admit much weight is due to his opinion; but its connection with Local Taxation and Government I cannot put out of consideration; and on the question of transferring it there may be a good deal of doubt. Then the hon. Member said, with a good deal of force, that all agricultural statistics and all returns as to the sale of corn, which are records of actual transactions and the point on which certain local operations turn, are proper questions for the Board of Trade. But they are already under the Board of Trade, and no doubt they support the hon. Gentleman in the principle of his Motion that the functions may be united. Several other subjects were mentioned by the hon. Member—I do not wish to make any invidious comments where all are united. We have put the President of the Board of Trade in the Cabinet; and not only so, but we have made some practical progress towards the object of the hon. Gentleman—namely, bringing comprehensively into his hands the management of all the great subjects in which the commercial class are interested. There are three of these to which we can point during the short time we have been in Office. There is the Patent Law, the Law of Partnership, and the Law of Bankruptcy—a good earnest, I submit, of the disposition in which we are desirous of approaching this question. There remains only one important question mentioned by the hon. Member on which I ought to say one word, and that is the contagious diseases of animals. That was a very fair case for him to raise, for I think some consideration should be given to the anomalous method in which those diseases are at present dealt with. He objected very much to the answer he might receive from the Treasury Bench; but it is one thing to give a promise of careful consideration as a method of getting rid of a Motion, and the consideration required as to the best method of applying it; and I am bound to say that something may be said for the way in which this subject is now administered, when you have at the head of the Council Office almost always a Nobleman or country gentleman, not only of capacity, but of influence, conversant with subjects of agriculture. I might mention such men as Earl Spencer, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Ripon, and the Duke of Marlborough. There must be great advantage in an arrangement of that kind; but, notwithstanding, I could not give into the opinion that the present arrangement should be maintained. It is hardly right to expect that a Gentleman widely acquainted with agricultural life should be Vice President of the Council, and have charge of educational matters. Therefore, I think there is very much to be said, and, indeed, a general leaning in the minds of those Members of the Government who have considered the subject is, that the administration of the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act should be attached to the Department which is specially charged with the affairs of Agriculture and Commerce. I think I have now gone through the main points connected with the case. There is nothing against which the Government and the House ought to be so much on their guard as the re-organization of a Department; and nothing, I am sure, could be more unwise, as connected with our responsibilities with the public funds, than to set out with purposely instituting an extensive series of offices, each with salaries attached; but we undertake to fulfil the pledge that means shall not be wanting for assuming, and adequately discharging, such functions as have been described when they come into view. The Board of Trade has been re-organized over and over again; but what does it mean? It means the superannuation of a great number of public officers, and the institution of a great number of new public officers, who are probably again, after the lapse of a decorous number of years, to be again superannuated. We ought to adapt our machinery to the work to be done, and not set up a new machine, before we know that it will have work to do or not. That is the spirit in which we are prepared to accept this Motion; and if we do not act upon it to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, he will, no doubt, be prepared to call us by-and-bye to account, and if we cannot tell a reasonable story, we shall, no doubt, receive an adequate measure of animadversion.

said, he had heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. There were some points, however, on which he wished to receive further in- formation. The first related to agricultural statistics; and in reference to it the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade was one to which great attention should be paid. To be of any real, practical value, the information should be fresh, for stale statistics, like stale fish, were of no use whatever. The American Commissioner of Agriculture produced annually the most valuable Reports—nay, produced Reports month by month. He (Mr. R. H. Paget) had been the means of procuring, through the courtesy of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), those annual and monthly Reports for the Library of the House. In America they were not satisfied with leaving industry entirely unaided, nor ashamed to go out of their way to procure information about crops, cultivation, machinery, manures, and other things connected with agriculture, and place that information at the service of agriculturists. The Commissioner of Agriculture stated that, by obtaining all the necessary information, he hoped to enable even new industries to be successfully prosecuted, and he pointed to the action of England in the cultivation of tea in Assam, which, he said, in spite of repeated difficulties and disappointments, had proved a success, and that the success was largely due to the expenditure of State funds. The American Agricultural Department had large funds at their disposal, and employed them in procuring useful statistics, which they put forth for the public benefit. He wanted to ask, would there be placed at the disposal of the new Department a sum of money to do what was so ably done in the United States? If he desired to obtain agricultural statistics now, he had to go up and down, through half-a-dozen Departments. He was sorry the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not in his place, that he might thank him for having so courteously placed at his disposal most useful information from the United States. The great point was that everything connected with agriculture should be focussed and brought together into one Department. At present agricultural information was scattered in Reports from India and in the Statistical Abstracts of the Foreign Office, and of the Board of Trade. But they wanted something more than to have this information all in one place; it ought to be digested and printed at the expense of the State, so as to be easily available for those outside. In America, the state of agriculture was carefully watched by the authorities, who were at the utmost pains to circulate information among the farmers. For instance, certain failures in the grass lands having been reported, the Department issued for the benefit of the farmers an illustrated series of specimens of different grasses, explaining their relative value and determining the best kind to grow and the best way of growing it. That was what he hoped might be done in England by an Agricultural Department. It ought, however, to be something more than a Department; to use the Prime Minister's words, "to meet any demands which may arise in regard to agriculture," it ought to have the power of obtaining information, and of spending money in circulating it. He urged that when the Department was created the two interests of Agriculture and Commerce should be kept separate, presided over, perhaps, by a single Minister, but with an Under Secretary of State responsible for each separate branch. He thought the demand was not unreasonable, considering the great importance of Agriculture, and the fact that, with a dwindling trade, its importance was gradually increasing.

said, in rising to say a few words, he must express his satisfaction at the prospect that the commercial community were to obtain more attention in future; for it had often struck him as being surprising that, considering the vast importance of our commercial relations, so little attention had been paid by the Legislature to the question now raised. It had been the opinion of a large portion of the community for many years that a separate Department should be instituted for commercial affairs, and that the Minister should have a seat in the Cabinet. He must say, however, that he felt the difficulty of establishing a new Department. With reference to that question, our commercial information was now collected from a large number of Government Departments which had little connection with each other and very little sympathy, and in many instances were at variance with each other. It was therefore impossible that these numerous Departments could work together harmoniously as they were constituted at present. Looking at the number of Offices with which the commercial interests were at present placed, he found that the India Office controlled the trading relations of that country, the Colonial Office undertook to supervise the commercial affairs of the Colonies, the Board of Trade undertook an endless variety of commercial functions, and the Privy Council was charged with many peculiar duties connected with the trade of the country, besides that of Education, while the Foreign Office undertook matters connected with the negotiation of Treaties. Some time ago the formation of a Commercial Department at the Foreign Office led them to hope that better attention would be given to these affairs. But he was very sorry to say that though it was directed by gentlemen of high ability, it was still very far short of that efficiency which they had a right to expect. His (Mr. Slagg's) idea was that before they established a separate Bureau, they should try to develop the existing Offices by making them so strong in the discharge of their duties that in course of time, when they could walk alone, the information they supplied might be concentrated. But before that was done there must be a very great increase in their efficiency. The misfortune was that in Government Offices commerce was looked upon as a somewhat ignoble career for gentlemen who wished for promotion; and the reason of that was that, to some extent, commercial affairs were not regarded as comparable in importance with such matters as the Eastern Question, and no encouragement was given for the pursuit of matters connected with commerce. Any plan that would produce such an encouragement would, he considered, be of much value to the country. He hoped in filling up the important office it would not be conferred upon a mere official of the Government. He hoped he would at least be thoroughly conversant with commercial affairs. He was sure it would not benefit the agricultural or commercial community to have a Minister appointed simply on Party grounds. The Prime Minister had told them that he thought one Minister would be competent to attend both to Agriculture and Commerce; but what a new Minister could do for Agriculture except in the matter of statistics he was somewhat at a loss to see. It was true that such statistics were of great interest and value; but it had been suggested that the duty of a Minister of Agriculture was to do something for the protection of agricultural produce. If that was to be his duty, he (Mr. Slagg) was quite unable to assent to it. If a new Minister for Agriculture and Commerce were appointed, he trusted he would be a man conversant with business, and not a mere official. He was heartily pleased that so much attention had been given to the subject to-night. It was certain that the interests of Trade and Commerce had suffered seriously from official neglect; and, after what had fallen from the Treasury Bench, he looked forward to the introduction by the Government of some practical scheme for placing those interests as regarded our relations with foreign countries on a more satisfactory footing in relation to their administration than they occupied at the present time.

said, that, in connection with the subject, he deeply regretted the absence from the House of Mr. Sampson Lloyd, who in times past had so ably advocated the establishment of a Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce; but they had reason, he thought, to congratulate themselves on the great progress which their ideas had made of recent years. The agricultural and commercial depression from which the country had suffered had disabused people of the notion that they could do everything for themselves, in the same way as our recent military reverses had taught us that an Englishman was no longer a match for three foreigners. It was felt that this country was engaged in a competition so severe with other countries that they could not afford to lose a single point of advantage. So far as regarded the agriculturists, they had a right to ask the Government that they should have the best and fullest information upon the agriculture of foreign countries laid before them, such as that referred to as furnished by the American Bureau. He considered that the way in which the debate had been carried on, and the tone in which the Prime Minister had met the Motion, were matters of great encouragement; and he contended that the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce would be of great benefit to both Departments. At the same time, he did not anticipate that the establishment of the proposed new Department would induce people engaged in business pursuits to lean too much upon the Government, or that it would discourage the spirit of self-reliance which of necessity would always be the main-spring of our agricultural and commercial industry.

said, nothing delighted him more than the evident anxiety of hon. Gentlemen who directly represented the agricultural interest that the agricultural concerns of this country, and particularly questions dealing with the import of cattle, should be placed under the power of a Minister who was intimately connected with the trade of the country. Though those functions could not, perhaps, be in better hands than they were at present, still there would be obvious advantage in matters connected with the food supply of the country being in the hands of a Minister who was better acquainted than it was possible probably for any Lord President of the Council to be acquainted with the demands of the great commercial population in regard to the food supply. Greatly as he sympathized with the object of the Resolution, and agreeing with much of the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes), he failed, to some extent, to concur with him, because of the precise terms in which the Resolution was expressed. He sympathized very much with the remarks of the Prime Minister, who, in the fulness of an unrivalled experience, showed them some of the difficulties connected with this very important subject. The hon. Baronet opposite spoke of the different arrangements that obtained in the Governments of Continental Europe. The difference of those arrangements was due to the fact that their Foreign Offices were still less concerned than our own with the commercial interests of the country, and that was, in his opinion, a disadvantage. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), who spoke with an experience which few Members of the House could claim, had expressed satisfaction with the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. He hoped most heartily that the Department would be rendered both more practical and more important. Mr. Cobden once remarked that an Ambassador should be a commercial traveller of his country. It would be a disastrous day for this country when those who were concerned in the foreign relations of the country should cease to have intimate and important connection with the commercial concerns of the community. The difficulty of the subject enlarged as one looked upon it more closely, and when the Prime Minister alluded to the fanciful title of the Board of Trade and Plantations, he pointed to a reform which must occur to the minds of practical men. The Board of Trade had the title of dealing with foreign plantations which had become long since independent of the Government of this country. In order to give our Government a more practical character, he hoped the Board of Trade would take a new appellation. But the Board of Trade had begun a new career under the presidency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and had under its administration the Patent Laws to which the Premier had alluded, and Bankruptcy, which were heretofore in the hands of the Attorney General of the day. It was a new departure; but he (Mr. Arnold) regarded it as a very wholesome improvement. He had a strong expectation that there would be an increasing desire for some help from the Government with reference to the present depressed condition of agriculture. So long as hon. Gentlemen confined their demands to matters so harmless as the title or re-arrangement of a Government Department, he, for one, should not complain; but he looked with serious apprehension upon the character of the speeches made from the other side of the House that night. If hon. Members opposite really and sincerely wished to improve the condition of agriculture, they must not cry out merely for a new President of a new Department; but they must set their hands to work to reform the Land Laws of this country, which were at present the bane of agriculture and injurious to the country.

said, there was one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to which he desired to refer shortly. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would see that there was some Department charged with looking after all the special interests of agriculture and commerce, and that, as it was, they had not been overlooked or neglected hitherto. Their contention was that they had been neglected, and that was why they wanted a Minister and a Department. They were thankful for the introduction of a Bankruptcy Bill that Session, which the trading classes greatly required; but how about the Patent Laws? Why were not the prohibitive fees done away with that drove the English inventors to America and elsewhere? It might rather astonish the House to be told that many of their so-called American patents, though coming from America, were the invention of Englishmen who were driven abroad to get their patents, owing to the suicidal and prohibitive fees levied in this country. Why, in the interests of Commerce and Agriculture, had those things been neglected so long? Then there was another most important subject to which they had hitherto been unable to get attention given; that was, the railway rates, which were not only in favour of the foreigner as against the English producer, but were actually in contravention of the Statute defining maximum rates. Why were not these things seen to by the Board of Trade? He passed over such questions as prohibitive Tariffs that were crippling their manufactures, Agricultural Education, Corn Returns, and the large subject of Local Taxation, which was over-weighting them in the race with the foreign producer; but the subject of railway freights was essentially within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, and should not have been neglected. And one word more. If they were to have some rearrangement of the Public Departments to get these things seen to he trusted there was to be no delay. They could not afford to wait, and they had already waited too long.

said, that, while entirely prepared to accept the Resolution, he was not one of those who were sanguine that a Minister of Agriculture could do much for the country in present circumstances. Statistics were, no doubt, valuable, and of interest both to Agriculture and Commerce; but it ought not to be supposed that foreign countries were in a much better condition than ourselves in that respect. So far as the statistics of this country were concerned they were equal to those of any other country. He recently applied for statistics respecting the agriculture of the United States; but he was informed at the United States Legation that for the last two years Congress had not voted funds for the printing of them. He thought that, considering the duties in connection with trade and agriculture now performed by the Government, and some others that might be added, it would be of general service that some special Department were organized in connection with some of the existing Departments. It would have to deal with statistics, and it would also be important that it should supply information with regard to Trade and Commerce from abroad. That information might be collected from our Consuls abroad, digested by the Government officials, and the results published in an available form for all those who were interested. One matter on which information was specially needed was the state of cattle diseases in foreign countries. One of the greatest difficulties of the Government in dealing with disease was that there was no reliable information of the state of cattle disease abroad; and he urged two years ago that the Government should take measures to obtain trustworthy information regarding disease amongst cattle in the United States. Another important matter, which would be of great service, was that the new Minister of Agriculture should endeavour to diffuse scientific education in agricultural subjects throughout the country. No doubt there was a great amount of apathy amongst farmers about scientific education on agricultural subjects. Unfortunately, farmers were not sufficiently aware of the great advantages which would accrue to them from a certain amount of knowledge in some of the sciences bearing closely on Agriculture, and a small sum of money might be well spent in drawing the attention of farmers to the subject. Another point which was of immense importance was that the Government should institute and endow, to a moderate extent, scientific investigation in agricultural questions. It had done a great deal for trades and manufactures; but as yet the Government had done nothing in the way of aid of Agriculture, beyond what was done by the Science and Art Department. In the case of Agriculture there were special reasons why the Government should make some attempt at encouraging scientific research and discovery. Great good might follow such a course, as in our manufactures invention and discovery might be stimulated, and the knowledge of agricultural chemistry, in particular, might be more widely diffused. In trade and manufactures, if any private individual made a discovery or any invention he could obtain a patent for it, and if of great utility he was amply rewarded. But this was not applicable to invention or discoveries in Agriculture. What for a farmer was a large sum of money and considerable knowledge were required to make agricultural experiments, and a farmer might make discoveries of importance; but, from the nature of such discoveries and the character of the subject, it was impossible for him to get a patent, and he derived no special advantage except what arose in the course of his own business, which was not sufficient to remunerate him for his trouble and expense. He thought, therefore, that a new Department, such as was indicated in the Resolution, was absolutely necessary. But to be of service a Minister of Agriculture must be acquainted with the subjects with which he had to deal; and there would be great difficulty in finding such a Minister; and unless he were possessed of practical knowledge of the subjects with which he had to deal, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could not see that much advantage would arise from this special Department which it was proposed to create. Another matter that he would like to refer to was the supervision of railway rates by the Board of Trade. They had been told that the United States had a Department of Commerce and Agriculture; but 19 separate States had also Departments which were specially constituted to deal with railway rates and charges, and they did their work to the great advantage of the public. A Department of Commerce should have similar powers to deal with Railway Companies in this country. The public had an idea that the Department looked after their interests in the case of private Railway Bills. But—and in saying what he was about to say he hoped the House would except his right hon. Friend the present head of the Department—the Board, practically, did nothing of the kind, and they had in a scandalous manner betrayed the interests of the public in regard to those Bills. The Board was re- quired to report on all Railway Bills coming before the House; but from time to time it had allowed unopposed Bills to pass which gave the Railway Companies power to charge largely increased rates. In some instances that he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) knew of Companies had got power to charge more than double previous rates, and that without any notice being called to the matter by the Board of Trade. That, he thought, should warn them not to trust to any Department of State more than was necessary. Instead of looking so much after the affairs of foreign nations, it would be well if the House of Commons would devote itself more to affairs at home. He hoped, now that he had called attention to it, the subject would be looked after by the Board of Trade.

said, if there was one thing which our American friends thoroughly understood, it was their own interests, and they were ever ready to take advantage of poor John Bull. He hoped he should not be thought unreasonable if he ventured to examine somewhat closely the gift which the Prime Minister was inclined to bestow. The Prime Minister reminded him of the old story of the siege of Troy. He would like to suggest to the agricultural interest of Great Britain a somewhat free translation of Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. It might be put—"Don't trust the present Government." Take the Malt Tax. He was not a farmer, he was not an agriculturist, he was a carrier, and his experience showed him that since the abolition of the malt tax he had been offered more barley, sugar, and other things to be brought into competition with the British farmer than ever before. The Malt Tax was abolished with the professed desire to benefit the British farmer; but the Government had omitted the safeguards by which the abolition should have been accompanied; and, therefore, as a matter of fact, that which they had done bad only increased foreign competition, and the only people who had been benefited by the abolition of that tax were that portion of the brewers who carried on the largest business. The Government adhered to what they called the principles of political economy. Political economy, however, was not an exact science, and they ought to deal with the affairs of the country in the same way that they dealt with their own businesses. How was it that we had got into such a mess with respect to the French Treaty? It was because, while we professed the theory of Free Trade it was rejected by the other nations of the world. There was no one in that House, he (Mr. Mac Iver) did not care on what side he sat, who had so thoroughly learnt the art of replying to a Question without giving information as the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had done. That hon. Baronet had, however, unintentionally misled the House in the replies which he had given to him. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had asked the hon. Baronet Questions about the Sugar Bounties and about the bounties on shipping; and the replies he gave amounted to this—that they were under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that Her Majesty's Government would make representations in regard to them. Now, he appealed to both sides of the House whether such replies were not calculated to lead simple-minded people in the country to suppose that the Government really meant to do something. ["Question!"] That was the Question, because those were matters with which a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce might well deal with; but which the hon. Baronet had not dealt well with, having much else to do. The whole question as regards bounties on shipping was practically settled and done with. Our Government might make any representation they pleased; but the French Government had perfectly concluded their arrangements to do a thing which was most detrimental to British interests. Let them look at the condition of Ireland. How could the industries of that country be restored unless the industries in Great Britain were prosperous? When they saw the woollen trade falling off, and when they saw competing goods from France and other countries increasing in their importation, and our own exportation decreasing, if we had a Minister of Commerce his first duty would be to see what could be done for the woollen trade at home. Let them look at the distress in regard to agriculture. He agreed with one remark in a letter lately written to Mr. Lord, of Bradford, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to the effect that the de- pressed state of our manufacturing industries was very much owing to the depressed state of the agriculture of this country. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the connection between our agriculture and our manufactures was very close indeed. That was not a new idea to him; but it seemed to be new to the right hon. Gentleman, who had not sufficiently considered the rest of the subject, because he went on to say that the depressed condition of agriculture was only owing to a few bad seasons, and that we wanted but a little more sunshine and a little more yield from the land, and everything would go right. Now, going back 12 years, and taking periods of three years each, he found that, in round numbers, our annual importations of agricultural produce in the first three years averaged £60,000,000 sterling in value; in the second three years, £80,000,000; in the third three years, £94,000,000; and in the last £106,000,000. To him that looked very much like the displacement of our own industry; it looked very much as though the real cause of our agricultural depression was the unfair competition of foreign countries whose tariffs were hostile to our manufactures; while, moreover, the conditions of the carrying trade had been altogether changed during the last few years. Trade in the United States was prosperous, and there was enormous emigration going on, and the result was that steamers in the Atlantic trade were more prosperous than they were years ago; but this was no advantage to the farmers. The homeward rates of freight never were lower; and, at the present moment, grain was being carried from New York to Liverpool at 2d. a-bushel, and cattle at about £4 per head. In conclusion, he maintained that a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture ought to have been appointed long ago; but he ought not to be a mere theoretic political economist, but a man who really had the best interests of Great Britain and Ireland and also of our great Empire at heart—one who was not tied to theory, but one who would do his best for the interests of the country.

said, he did not rise in order to follow at any length the extraordinary and somewhat miscellaneous speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver). He did not propose to discuss with that hon. Gentleman the principles of Adam Smith, or even the protective theories which the hon. Member had so much at heart. It seemed to him (Mr. Chamberlain) that the hon. Member had somewhat anticipated the Notice of Motion which he had put on the Paper, and which he intended to bring forward on the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. But he could not help thinking the hon. Member was rather ungenerous in his observations as to the abolition of the Malt Tax. The abolition of the Malt Tax had been for many years an object of the greatest importance with the Party to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead belonged. When that Party came into power they found themselves, owing to circumstances into which he need not enter, unable to deal with the question; and now that a Liberal Government had settled it, the hon. Member for Birkenhead declared that that which his own Party had called a boon had become a bane, because it had been granted by a Liberal Ministry. He hoped that the debate would now be brought to a close, especially as the statement of the Prime Minister had appeared to give general satisfaction. Some speakers that evening had, of course, unintentionally, tried to press further than his words would bear the statement of the Prime Minister. His right hon. Friend had not, as he (Mr. Chamberlain) understood him, said that the Government would pledge itself to the creation of a new Department. What he had said was that he would recognize, as a principle, that some Department of the Government should be prepared to meet every new demand made on behalf either of Agriculture or of Commerce. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate too much from any mere re-organization of the work of the Government Departments. Such a reorganization could not be expected either to revive trade, or materially to promote the interests of Agriculture. Nor would it enable Governments or individuals to perform impossibilities. Complaint was made that but little progress had been made; but if there was any fault, it lay with the House of Commons itself. The practice of debating every question at inordinate length had necessarily delayed non-political Business which was not so urgent; and if the commercial class wanted commercial legislation to make more rapid progress, they must bring to bear some reform on the practice of the House which should prevent the waste of time that undoubtedly seriously impeded the progress of commercial legislation. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) complained that the Board of Trade had not dealt satisfactorily with the question of railway rates; but his (Mr. Chamberlain's) reply was that they had done all that legislation enabled them to do with reference to this matter. They had raised important questions before the Railway Commission. On some of them they had been defeated by defects in the law; but the Government were quite prepared, when time would allow, to deal with the question, and to take the powers necessary that the matter might be satisfactorily dealt with. But the difficulty there, as in the case of other questions, was the time, and not the particular arrangement of a Government Department. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had spoken of the scandalous way in which the Board of Trade had betrayed the interests of the public, although he was good enough to say that in this he cast no reflection upon the present head of the Department; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) must protest, on behalf of the Department, on behalf of his Predecessors and the permanent officials, against the rash charge brought against them that they had been unmindful of the public interests. He was certain that in past times, as during his occupancy of the Office, they had, to the best of their abilities, protected the interests of the public. They had on every occasion pointed out to the Committees of the House of Commons any alterations of rates proposed by Railway Companies, and the responsibility of allowing those rates rested not with the officers of the Board of Trade, but with the Committees of the House. The hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget) spoke with reference to agricultural statistics, which he desired to see extended. A Report had been made of a very elaborate character; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) understood the hon. Member to require that they should be published more frequently, and contain a great deal of information which they did not now include. Now, it might be possible to improve the preparation of these statistics, and send them to the country at an earlier period than was now done; but the value of statistics often depended on a sufficient period being taken, and if they were published weekly or monthly, no practical conclusion could be drawn from them. But he must remind the House that no Government could do for individuals what they could do better for themselves. He believed the statistics published by the Government were chiefly valuable for the statesman and the political economist. They were not of primary utility to persons engaged in trade, who could better obtain what they wanted for themselves. The experience of the United States had been referred to; and while the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) was mistaken in supposing that there was a Ministry of Agriculture in the United States, undoubtedly there was a Statistical Bureau, which published a great many statistics; but as to the advantage of them he (Mr. Chamberlain) believed that there was considerable difference of opinion even in the United States themselves. The experiment in England was not a success. At the head of the Office had been Sir John Sinclair, and its Secretary was Arthur Young. Yet it was unsatisfactory. Begun in 1793, it was finally abolished in 1821, and no one said a single word in its praise. Another question was, whether the Department of Agriculture and Commerce could advantageously be combined under one head? He looked forward with the greatest anxiety to the possibility of such an undertaking; and, in connection with it, he would tell the House what had happened to himself. He had only been in Office a very few days when he received a copy of a Return issued by the Department to farmers and others, asking a great number of questions of interest. The Return came back to him from a farmer not filled up. The writer declined absolutely to furnish any information either to the Board of Trade or to anyone connected with it, so long "as they knew as little of practical agriculture as a pig did of watchmaking." He (Mr. Chamberlain) felt the refusal was not altogether without cause; and he could not help fearing, if these two great Departments were permanently combined and placed under one head, difficulties would arise either from the President of the Board of Trade knowing practically as little of Agriculture or, on the other hand, of Commerce, as a pig did of watchmaking. But that was one of the questions which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to consider by accepting the form of Motion proposed, and he could not help thinking his mode of putting it into practice would be satisfactory to the House. With respect to the other matters concerning which complaint was made, the chief thing wanted was, again, time and opportunity, as the Government were anxious to legislate on many of the subjects which had been touched upon. After the declaration of the Prime Minister, he thought the House might trust the Government to put in practice the principles they were willing to accept.

said, that agriculture was again beginning to assert itself, because trade was declining, and this question was of the greatest possible interest. If they had had a Minister to look after their interest, there would not have been so much bad legislation as there had been of late years. At the same time, he was ready to admit that the manner in which the Vice President of the Council had managed agricultural matters relating to cattle disease was most creditable, and had gained for the right hon. Gentleman the general respect of the agricultural interest. He did not think it was fair to find fault with the sensible speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) on the ground of its Protectionist tendencies, when Birmingham itself, represented by two Members of the Cabinet, had been asking for countervailing duties in opposition to the bounties. He (Mr. Storer) would inform the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that a large number of his constituents met a few nights since at Birmingham and passed a resolution in the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. It had been said that the agricultural interest was not sufficiently grateful for the abolition of the Malt Tax as they ought to be considering their former agitation on that question. But, though he recognized the good the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, he could not but remember that the result had only substituted one monopoly for another, for the monopoly now lay with the brewer. The Education Act, too, had also done the farmer much injury, and inflicted on him what amounted to an Income Tax of 1s. or 2s. in the pound.

said, he could have wished that the Resolution of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) had been more general in its terms. He (Mr. Rathbone) felt bound to take a particular interest in this subject in consequence of the constant complaints which, as formerly representing a large commercial constituency, he had received as to the failure of the Administration Departments to do their work satisfactorily. There could be no more important Departments than the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, and the Prime Minister had very often avoided in practice many of the evils of the system by placing able men at the head of every Department; but even in these cases the evil had not altogether been avoided. He thought the root of the evil lay in the present relative dignity and emolument of the different Offices of State. The heads of the Departments he had referred to were frequently not in the Cabinet; the Offices themselves were not considered as of equal dignity, and had not the same emoluments as great Departments. Therefore, when the time for promotion came, the merits of the individual did not enter into consideration. Besides, these very important Departments were often pushed aside from the fact that their Representatives were not in the Cabinet. He thought that the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland should all have places in the Cabinet, and that those Offices should no longer be considered as mere antechambers to the more important Offices. A like dignity should also attach to the Minister of Education. Under the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had thoroughly mastered the condition of Ireland and its system of local government. But he succeeded to a position in which he had everything to learn—the Colonies—and he was succeeded by a Chief Secretary by no means his own equal. He (Mr. Rathbone) hoped the whole question would be considered in a comprehensive spirit.

said, he did not intend to continue the debate after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion. The Prime Minister had stated that one of the great difficulties in connection with the re-organization of Government Departments was the necessary superannuation of officers. He (Mr. Round) understood that, at the present time, the head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade had resigned, and the Office was vacant.

Will the hon. Member communicate with the President of the Board of Trade?

said, he would take an opportunity of doing so, and, in the meanwhile, would suggest that the appointment should not be filled up until the new arrangements were made which it was stated were now in contemplation. As representing an important agricultural constituency, he felt much interest in the question, and desired also to thank the Prime Minister for consenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Devon. His constituency was one that had suffered much from the recent depression in agriculture, and was still suffering. As its Representative, he could not but watch with the greatest interest every notice taken by this House of questions connected with the agricultural interests; and he thanked the Government for their promise in connection with the Motion for a new Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture.

said, that that was one of the questions on which more than one Ministry had been in a state of chaos. On a previous occasion, in the course of his (Major Nolan's) inquiries on the subject of seed potatoes, he had been referred from one Department to another, from the Board of Trade to the Vice President of the Council, till at last it had been decided, after a consultation, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had more to do with potatoes than anyone else. At another time, he had been interested in a matter that was, perhaps, as much commercial as agricultural, and which was of some importance to the people of certain districts of Ireland—namely, the manufacture of kelp; but, on that subject, his inquiries had received no satisfactory answer. And, in like manner, a difficulty often occurred in Ireland as to the very serious question of the drainage of land. There was no one to whom application could be made, and the authorities were conspicuous by their absence. That a Department of Agriculture might greatly benefit small and unenlightened farmers by circulating information among them had been abundantly proved. That was a field in which the Department might prosecute the work that the agricultural societies neglected, or were unable to perform, especially among the small farmers in Ireland. He thought that the Government might fairly be asked to give assistance of this kind, reserving to themselves the question whether the Office of Irish Agriculture should be in London or in Dublin.

said, that he had heard the nostrums of hon. Members from all parts of the House for the relief of agriculturists, who, without doubt, had been very grievous sufferers from the late three or four unfavourable seasons, and for the improvement of Agriculture; and he would mention his, which had this peculiarity—an unusual one in that House—that every hon. Member, on whatever side or part of the House he sat, would agree with him in the opinion that it was the most important of any. It was this—that they, landowners and land occupiers, should learn their business. There was no business or profession in that country with regard to which those who were the most interested were so ignorant. He confessed, and he did so with regret, that until he became a landowner he knew, and he cared, nothing about land. He hardly knew one crop from another, and he felt no desire to know; he had but one ambition, to rise in his profession and get the command of a regiment. He owned this with regret and some shame, because it was his duty to make himself acquainted with the business and calling, a good knowledge of which would enable him to benefit himself and all who lived on his estate. He did not hesitate to say that if, half a century since, he had possessed as good a knowledge of the management of land, and acquaintance with the qualities and treatment of stock, as his land agent or bailiff, he would have been, perhaps, 20 per cent richer during the whole of that time; he would never have had a bad farmer on his land; more work, and better paid work would have been provided for his labourers, and the country would have been benefited by his land producing more food for man and beast. Every class in the country would be materially benefited by landowners being better instructed in land, excepting one—namely, land agents. Their occupation would be diminished by landowners knowing their own business, instead of leaving it to them. In Germany there were few land agents; owners managed their own land. If their present difficulties induced landowners to learn more about land it would prove beneficial to the whole community.

, who had given Notice on going into Committee of Supply to call attention to Trade Combinations having for their object the undue diminution of the price for food payable to the producer, and the increase payable by the consumer, now rose for that purpose, and said, that for a long time it had been his intention to direct the attention of the House to this subject. It was a matter which seemed to him to be of considerable importance to a very large portion of the people of the country. It was hardly necessary to state that agriculture had been in a very depressed state. What he was content to observe was that at present they could not grow wheat at a profit. It was of the utmost importance that, as agriculturists could not grow wheat, and were discouraged from growing barley, they should turn their attention to some things which might be of great benefit. There were many products of the soil which might be grown to advantage, only that the way in which those products were dis- posed of often turned into a loss what might be sources of profit. At present we were paying foreigners many millions a-year for eggs, butter, poultry, fruit, and vegetables; and he did not hesitate to say that those millions might go into the pockets of our own farmers and market gardeners, provided what they had to sell could be sold fairly. It was a singular thing that we could get fresh fruit and vegetables from France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium at a cheaper rate than that at which our own producers could send them to market, and that arose partly from the system of railway charges, which he hoped the Committee on the subject would soon correct, and partly from the fact that the markets, and especially those of London, were carried on in a most artificial and unbusiness like manner. He knew the case of a respectable farmer in Suffolk, finding his agricultural produce fetch him very little, directed his attention to onions. He got Sutton's seed, the best he could procure, paid the greatest attention to the crop, and sent up the produce to London salesmen. But when the account of profit and loss was made up, he was out of pocket by what he paid for the sacks. Another thought he would grow cabbages, filled two waggons with them, which he sent up to market, and got the sum of 6d. for his profit on the transaction.

rose to Order, and asked, whether it was competent for an hon. Member, who had given Notice of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply, to move it on going into Committee of Ways and Means?

said, that if the hon. Member proposed to move on the present occasion he would be out of Order.

asked, whether it was not competent to raise any question on going into Committee of Ways and Means?

said, he could not give an answer on a point of Order not absolutely before the House. The Notice of the hon. Member was for a Motion on going into Committee of Supply; but the Motion now was for going into Committee on Ways and Means.

said, he rose at the proper moment; but he could not prevent the calling out of the Order for Ways and Means.

asked the Government to explain why they had taken the course they had in so suddenly closing Supply?

, in reply, said, that the Amendment having been carried on going into Committee, it was not considered advisable to set up Supply again after 11 o'clock; and in so doing they had acted in accordance with the usual custom.

then resumed his remarks, when

said, he must again remind the hon. and learned Member that it would be quite out of Order for him to move, on going into Committee of Ways and Means, an Amendment which he had given Notice of on going into Supply.

then said, he would content himself by making some general observations on the subject of his Motion without moving it. What he complained of was that, by the arrangements made between the salesmen to whom fruits and vegetables were consigned for sale in the great London markets, the produce found its way into the hands of middlemen, who arranged the prices at which they should be sold to the greengrocers and costermongers, so that the producer did not receive as much as he ought to do for what he had to sell, and the consumers were compelled to pay much more than they ought to do for what it was necessary for them to buy. The telegraphs gave means to the salesmen in the London markets to regulate the supply that should be delivered, and, therefore, to have control over the prices that could be commanded. As matter of fact, it was well known that the London markets were supplied very largely with the refuse of the Paris markets; and, as far as our home producers were concerned, that they often received not more than ¼d. each for cauliflowers, for instance, which were sold to the consumers at prices ranging between 4d. and 9d. The same rule applied to poultry and meat, which were brought to this country from France and America, and sold at enormous profit as the product of English poultry - yards and grazing and feeding farms. But the evils which existed in connection with vegetables, fruit, and poultry dwindled into insignificance when compared with the case of fish. On the average, an acre of sea produced as much food as three acres of good land, except in those parts of the sea to which fish did not go. Now, sometimes there was a great catch of fish, but the public was seldom allowed to benefit by it, the greater part being in most cases thrown back into the sea or allowed to rot. This was the doing of the salesmen, who regulated the supply according to their own wishes, with the object of keeping up the price of the article. Fish could be kept in ice for 12 or 15 days; and, therefore, there could be no excuse for throwing it away. Providence having given us the blessing of great abundance in fish, surely we should avail ourselves of it. His object was to have fish properly exposed for sale for a sufficient time to enable the public to buy it. In conclusion, he would observe that the question concerned Irishmen and Englishmen equally; and he could do no more, after what he had said, than to hope that the matters to which he had drawn attention would receive the careful consideration of the Government.

, in rising to call attention to the deficiency of official information respecting recent events in Asia, said, he had intended to ask the Government, If they can explain to the House why, when they fixed on the 24th March for the discussion of their policy in Afghanistan, they failed before that date to supply the House with the necessary documents, since published, giving the Russian official exposition of the meaning of their previous assurances, as well as the objections of the Indian Government to the orders sent them from Downing Street? He apprehended, however, that according to the Forms of the House it would not be competent for him to address to the Government that identical Question; and, therefore, he proposed to put a Question of a different character to the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He would ask, Whether he could supplement the statement which he made on March 24 with information about the advances since made in Central Asia by the Russian Armies; whether the statement that General Skobeleff had been recalled was an accurate statement; and, whether his hon. Friend had any reason to believe that the Russians had been ordered to discontinue their warlike operations? On all questions of this character in a discussion the Government who were in Office had an enormous advantage, as they could produce what Papers they chose and hold back what they chose. If the discussion was likely to prove inconvenient, they had only to say they could not produce such and such documents. Well, on the occasion when his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) brought forward his Motion they were entirely in the dark upon two all-important points, and those two points were what were the opinions of the Indian Government upon the orders which they had received from home; and, secondly, what were the intentions of the Russian Government with regard to military operations in Central Asia. They had a pretty strong opinion at the time that the opinions of the Indian Government and of the Council of the Governor General were antagonistic to the orders they received from Downing Street, and they were very anxious to obtain from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India an accurate record of what were the opinions of the Indian Government, and they pressed the noble Marquess on that subject; but they could not induce him to afford them information. The Papers from India containing the objections to the orders from Downing Street somehow miscarried, and did not arrive in time for the debate. A debate took place, and a division was arrived at. The Government obtained a majority of 120; and that majority, he thought, gave the Prime Minister the greatest satisfaction, for he on more than one occasion alluded to it. They obtained that majority, and the British troops were ordered to withdraw from Southern Afghanistan. The British troops were still in Southern Afghanistan, and why? Because the Indian Government, although they did not dare to refuse to obey the orders that were sent to them from England, yet felt it so necessary in the interests of the Indian Empire that those orders should not be carried out beyond certain points, that they insisted on occupying Pishin. And Pishin was just as much in Southern Afghanistan as Candahar. The result was that at the present moment our troops in Southern Afghanistan were in a most unfortunate position. There were certain advantages connected with a permanent occupation of Candahar. There were certain advantages also connected with a withdrawal from Candahar. But they had abandoned the advantages of both by occupying Pishin. The advantage of remaining at Candahar was that the presence of British troops would prevent any local insurrection or disturbance. On the other hand, there was the danger that if a local disturbance did take place we might be involved in it. But, by withdrawing to Pishin, they had very much increased the likelihood of a disturbance at Candahar; and if that disturbance took place our troops would be bound to come forward and help our friends to suppress it—unless the Liberal Government came to the resolution that it was better to throw our friends over than run the risk attendant on such an operation. Well, such was the unfortunate position in which we found ourselves. And why were we in that unfortunate position? Simply because the House on the 25th March arrived at the conclusion, in absolute ignorance of the opinions both of the Indian Government and of the Council of the Governor General of India, as well as of the intention of the Russian Government. He thought he might here say that it had been the invariable practice of every Government to produce Papers which were relevant to any question which was to be discussed, especially if it was a Party question, in time for that discussion. It was perfectly clear that no discussion could be thorough if those who discussed it were not in possession of accurate information. The Secretary of State and the Viceroy had a power of enormous magnitude; but when Parliament vested Secretaries of State and Viceroys with that power it laid down certain precautions. It was felt at the time when the Government of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown that Indian questions might be more frequently introduced and become matters of Party conflict, and therefore that the House might always be in possession of the opinions of those who were not influenced by Home politics, it was enacted that any despatch, whether written by a Secretary of State at home or by a Viceroy of India, which was laid before their Councils, any opinions the members of those Councils might express should, with the despatch, be laid before Parliament; and by that means, therefore, Parliament would be in possession of the views of Indian officials on any question that might be under discussion. What had happened? On the 25th of March the House had arrived at a most important decision with regard to our Frontier policy in the North-West of India, and late on the night of the 24th despatches were laid on the Table of the House, so that his hon. Friend who had brought forward the Motion relating to Candahar had not had time to read them before he spoke on the subject. A few days after the opinions of certain Members of the Council of India were laid on the Table, and about three days subsequently a number of most important despatches relating to the intentions of Russia with regard to Central Asia were published by the Foreign Office. Now, he found the arguments which had been employed by the Members of the Council of India were entirely in accordance with the views expressed upon that (the Opposition) side of the House, while the despatches from St. Petersburg more than confirmed the darkest insinuations which had been thrown out in regard to the designs of Russia. It was impossible, therefore, to avoid coming to the conclusion that if the House had been in complete possession of the authentic and official information to which he referred, they would hardly have come to the decision at which they had arrived. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but he might mention that when the question as to who was to blame for the delay of the despatches came to be investigated in India, the Deputy Postmaster of Bombay, upon whom the responsibility was sought to be placed, was so affected by the decision that he committed suicide. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India was asked, in reference to the occupation of Candahar, whether a certain despatch from Sir Donald Stewart represented the views upon the subject entertained by that gallant General at that moment. There had been some doubt upon the point, and therefore the question was asked. There was now, however, in the Blue Book a despatch from Sir Donald Stewart which entirely confirmed almost every argument which had been put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) against the abandonment of Candahar. Yet in the debate the name of Sir Donald Stewart had been paraded by Her Majesty's Government as being in favour of the policy of abandonment. He now came to another and the most startling of all the documents which had since been published. The House was aware that the Russian Government had given the most positive assurances that they had no intention of attacking or going near Merv—one of the most important stations in Central Asia. But when the late Government were defeated at the General Election in the month of April last year, the Russian Government were sharp enough to see that it was possible the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his Colleagues might come into Office. What, under those circumstances, did they do? In April they prepared a despatch, which they sent to the Russian Ambassador in this country. The despatch stated, in effect, that they thought the importance of Merv had been very much exaggerated; that they could not pledge themselves to the exact limits within which their military operations would be confined; that they had no desire to push as far as Merv, but that, if they found themselves compelled to do so, they certainly would not contemplate a permanent occupation of the place, and would withdraw from it as soon as possible. He might add that the Russian Government gave to their Ambassador in this country absolute discretion as to the time when he should communicate the contents of the despatch to Her Majesty's Government here. At a later period Earl Granville protested against the despatch; and Lord Dufferin, when informed at St. Petersburg that Russia might occupy Merv, said that, as the late Emperor had given assurances on the subject in the most unequivocal language, he had led his own Government to regard the matter as having been placed beyond doubt, and that he hardly knew in what terms to convey to Lord Granville information to a contrary effect. All the Russian despatches were couched exactly in the same terms, and they showed that no assurances given by the Russian Government were worth the paper they were written upon. The date of the latest of the despatches being the 8th of March, and the day specially fixed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln being the 24th of March, he wished to know why the despatches had not been laid on the Table of the House before the debate was brought on? He did not for a moment pretend that either the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India or the Under Secretary had deliberately kept back these documents. [A laugh.] Under the circumstances, he thought the noble Lord ought to be very grateful for that statement, because the House had before them the remarkable fact that when the documents were not forthcoming, and he heard that the Motion was coming on, he suggested to the noble Lord that he should have them sent by telegraph. But—"No," said the noble Lord; "I cannot telegraph these documents. They are of too great importance; and to telegraph an abstract of such communications would materially diminish their importance." He could not help thinking that if these documents of great importance had confirmed the views of the noble Lord, he would have been glad to communicate the effect of them by telegraph, and to lay them in that way upon the Table of the House. And, although he did not mean to say that the noble Lord did not telegraph them because they were in conflict with his own views, there was a certain amount of vis inertiœ which the noble Lord allowed to overcome his energy and activity to supply the House with information with which it ought to have been supplied, and which, somehow or other, induced him to take less trouble in the matter than he might have been expected to take. As he had said before, the House were in a position of some little difficulty. They could not discuss the question again, because they were precluded from doing so by the Forms of the House; but, under the circumstances, he thought they had a right to ask for some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. If the Government could, as it seemed to him they must, admit the facts to be as he had stated them, then he did hope that the House would receive some assurance from them that if ever again they made a question a Party question—["Oh!"]—if, above all, they ever made an Indian question a Party question— ["Oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed; but he believed that it had not hitherto been the practice to make Indian questions Party questions. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Who made it so?] "Who made it so?" said the Home Secretary. Why, the Prime Minister. It was not a Party question in "another place." ["Oh!"] If it was a Party question, it was a very curious thing that so large a number of Liberal Peers should have voted against their Party. Having been for some years Under Secretary of State for India he knew, and was bound to state, that during the whole of the time he occupied the Office he must gratefully recollect the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary (Mr. Grant Duff) always gave to him. But, unfortunately, since the question of the policy to be pursued towards Afghanistan came under discussion many Indian questions, as the House well knew, had been made more or less Party questions. He sincerely hoped that, in the interests of India, they would soon get to the end of Party questions; and all he asked from Her Majesty's Government was an assurance that if they should consider it necessary in future to bring any one particular Indian question before the House, Her Majesty's Government would consider it right to publish all the information they had in their possession in reference to such question, and to take such steps as were necessary to have that information before the House before the question was discussed, and when it might be useful, and not afterwards, when it was more or less useless.

We all, I think, on both sides of the House, appear to have been labouring under a most unfortunate misapprehension in regard to this question of Candahar and Afghanistan. The noble Lord has informed us for the first time to-night that it was the Government who made this question a Party question, and that it was not in the mind of the Opposition to make it a Party question at all. We were under the impression, and it was never contradicted by any Member of the Opposition until this moment, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) was a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) put a question to the Prime Minister as to the opportunities which would be given for the discussion of the Motion; and the measures which were taken stamped it and marked it as a deliberate Party Motion—a Party Vote of Censure. Taking it in that light, my right hon. Friend gave the earliest and fullest facilities for its discussion. If we had known what we know now from the noble Lord, that it was not a Party Motion at all, but only an academical discussion of a question that was to be discussed like all other Indian questions, without reference to Party considerations, whatever they might have thought, it might not have been necessary for the Government, at an extremely inconvenient period of the Session, to have devoted the time they did to the discussion of the measure; and it is a pity that the intimation was not made until after the discussion which took up so much of the time of the House. In the course of the discussion on that Motion, which we now learn was not a Party one, the charge which the noble Lord made to-night was insinuated once or twice, and I rose to take the earliest opportunity I could to put the question directly to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to ask them whether they did deliberately believe that I, in the interests of the Government or in the interest of any particular view of the question, had deliberately suppressed, or taken measures for the suppression, of these Minutes of the Members of the Council of India, which were unfavourable to our views? I had no sooner asked the question than it was repudiated, as I thought universally, by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I understood that it was an expression of opinion from Members on the opposite side that no such idea was entertained by them. But now, after several weeks' interval, the noble Lord comes forward and deliberately resuscitates this charge, which I cannot consider as any other than a charge of having deliberately suppressed the despatches. ["No, no!"] Then I certainly cannot understand what it is that the noble Lord does mean. The noble Lord says the Government made a Party question of this, and fixed the 24th of March for its discussion, and he says that the Government named that day and at the same time did not take measures for placing the House in possession of all the information to which it was entitled. Let me just state to the House what are the facts and the dates in regard to this matter. At an early period of the Session several Questions were put to me as to what the answer of the Indian Government was with reference to my despatch on the subject of Candahar. I said that the reply had not been received; but, having communicated with the Government of India by telegraph, I was able subsequently to state that the reply was on its way. That reply was dated the 2nd of February, 1881, and ought to have been received about the end of the month of February. The concluding paragraph of that despatch was as follows:—

"The Minutes which are being recorded on the subject-matter of this despatch by some of our own honourable Colleagues will be forwarded by the subsequent mail."

I assumed, as I think I had a right to do, that the subsequent mail referred to would be the next mail. I could not imagine that when the Government of India agreed to send the despatch that they were likely to delay it beyond the subsequent mail. But in that I was mistaken. In spite of having been informed that the Minutes would come by the mail which followed the reply, sent by the mail on the 2nd of February, none of them were sent until the mail of February 21st; and the Minutes sent by the mail of February 21st were those which miscarried. On the 28th of February, two subsequent Minutes were dispatched, one of them being that of Mr. Rivers Thompson and the other that of Major Baring. Both of these arrived, I think, on the 21st of March, and it was only then that I ascertained that the despatches sent on the 21st of February had miscarried altogether. They had been sent by the previous mail of the 21st of February, but had missed altogether, and would not be forthcoming. I then found that it was of no use waiting for them any longer, and I gave directions at once that all the Papers in our possession should be printed and placed in the hands of Members. I regret exceedingly that they were not in the hands of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln until a few minutes before he rose to make his speech; but the despatches, which were extremely short, were in hands of hon. Members that evening, and all who cared to read them had an opportunity of doing so before they came to the division next night. These despatches, although not complete until the subsequent mail, did contain the most able and the strongest Minute against the policy of Her Majesty's Government—I mean that of Mr. Rivers Thompson. The noble Lord says that no explanation has been given of the manner in which the despatches miscarried. The noble Lord never asked what became of them, or it could have been afforded to him. The explanation is a very simple one. They did not go to St. Petersburg. By some mistake they were placed in the Bombay Post Office, and they were sent home, not by the mail, but as a parcel, and in that form they were received, I think, at Portsmouth. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord seems to think the matter extremely amusing; and, indeed, referred lightly to the suicide of the Deputy Postmaster of Bombay, who was held responsible for the mistake. I do not know whether the noble Lord meant to be serious. If not, it was an extremely bad joke. It is the fact, however, that Mr. Row, the Deputy Postmaster at Bombay, was held responsible for the mistake, and it is a fact that Mr. Row, subsequently to the discovery of the blunder, has committed suicide. What happened was perfectly clear, and there is no mystery about it. The noble Lord evidently believes that the Deputy Postmaster was instructed to send these despatches to Portsmouth by parcel instead of by letter, and that he has been made the victim of the machinations of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord says that if the opinion of Sir Donald Stewart had been in the hands of Members before the division was taken, it would have had great influence upon the House, and would have altered the result. Now, not one word was said about Sir Donald Stewart's opinion that was not borne out, and more than borne out, by Sir Donald Stewart's subsequent Minute. What did Sir Donald Stewart say in the Minute that did not reach us? He said that he did not consider Candahar as a strategical position, nor was an advocate of its annexation for any purpose, not even if it could be demonstrated, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that our Frontier could be strengthened by such a measure. I stated that Sir Donald Stewart was not an advocate of the retention of Candahar. I fully admit that he states in his opinion that the evils which may result from a change of policy on the part of one Government when it succeeds another are so great that he is of opinion that it is doubtful whether we ought to evacuate Candahar. Sir Donald Stewart's political opinion was that which I have just read, and it was quite as strong as anything that could be attributed to him in the course of debate. The noble Lord, not satisfied with referring to Papers which are not before us, has gone back to Papers which were before the House for weeks before the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln came on. He is now complaining that I published Lord Lytton's Minute, and he says that it has nothing whatever to do with the question. It may not have anything to do with the question in his sense—because he does not find it convenient from his view of the question—but it has a great deal to do with the question, as it was discussed, of the value of Candahar in a strategical and political point of view; and when I was placing before the House the opinion of great authorities on this question, I do not see why I should not include the opinion of so great an authority as Lord Lytton in the year 1878. The noble Lord invites me to discuss our present position in Afghanistan, and he says it combines all possible disadvantages with the fewest possible advantages. He says that this has arisen in consequence of the peremptory orders issued by Her Majesty's Government. Well, I can only say that the present position of matters is the one contemplated by Her Majesty's Government at home, and is the one supposed by the Government of India to be the most suitable. We issued instructions of a very precise character as to the abandonment of Candahar. We left it to the Government of India to decide as to the time of our withdrawal from Pishin. With the full assent of Her Majesty's Government, the Government of India have availed themselves, acting upon the best advice and information in their possession, of the discretion given to them, and in the exercise of that discretion have decided to prolong for some time the occupation of Pishin without, in the least degree, deciding what the permanent policy in regard to that place is to be. Pending further instructions from the Government, they are of opinion that our withdrawal from the position we occupy in Southern Afghanistan ought not to be precipitate, that it ought not to be sudden, that it ought not necessarily to be immediately completed. For that purpose, and with that object, bearing that consideration in view, great discretionary power was given to the Government of India. The Government of India has availed itself of that discretion, and I have no reason to believe that the Government of India has been placed in any position of embarrassment whatever by the position we now hold in Southern Afghanistan. The noble Lord has invited me to give assurances that in the case of future debates full information will be given to the House. I cannot undertake to give any assurance that any other course will be taken than has been taken in this matter. We had every reason to suppose that by the day fixed by my right hon. Friend for the discussion of the question the fullest information, and all the information it was possible to obtain, would be in the hands of the House. Some of that information was withheld by an unaccountable accident for which the Government cannot be held responsible, and I think it is rather to be regretted that the noble Lord and his Friends should by this carping attack endeavour to weaken the decision at which the House has already arrived by so large a majority.

said, he thought the noble Lord who had just spoken had very much misunderstood the observations of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and the spirit in which they were made. When he spoke of this question not having been brought forward until a month after the Afghan debate, the reason for this was very clear. His noble Friend had had no opportunity of bringing it on before. He had placed his Notice on the Paper, and called attention to the subject on the earliest occasion that presented itself. The noble Lord appeared hurt at the observations of his noble Friend with respect to this being or not a Party question. But the meaning of his noble Friend appeared to him perfectly obvious. The Motion, when brought forward, was rejected by a large majority of the House. That decision he perfectly accepted; but he was not without considerable hope that the arguments urged in the course of the debate which took place would even now have a very considerable influence on the policy of the Government. When the Motion was proposed, the Prime Minister at once accepted it as a Motion of Want of Confidence. No doubt, it was a very convenient course for the right hon. Gentleman to take, and he did not complain of his decision. After what had taken place in the House of Lords, it was, he thought, perfectly fair that the Motion should have been accepted in that sense. But anyone who looked at the terms of the Motion would see that it would have been very easy to have treated it in no such sense. However, at that moment it was really not worth while entering into an elaborate discussion as to whether it was proposed in a Party sense or not. All he would say was, that the sooner Indian subjects ceased to be discussed from a Party point of view the better, and he was sure the House would find that, as soon as those sitting near him could get away from subjects connected with India which they were obliged to press upon Her Majesty's Government, they were prepared to assist Her Majesty's Government to the best of their power in dealing with all matters relating to India. The noble Lord seemed to think that his noble Friend had made a charge against him of having deliberately suppressed certain Papers. He certainly had not understood his noble Friend's observations in that sense. What he understood him to say was, that the Government fixed their own day for the debate—namely, the 24th of March—and that they were so careless in obtaining information beforehand that, when the subject came on for discussion, the House was without information that the Government might perfectly well have laid upon the Table of the House. He hoped the noble Lord would not think he was referring to Papers with which he was particularly concerned; he was not referring to the opinions of the Government of India or of the Council of India. For his own part, he must say he thought the noble Lord would have been anxious that those opinions should be before the House. They were, on the whole, very unfavourable to the views of the noble Lord, and, in a certain sense, their absence had been made use of in the course of the debate. But he did think, notwithstanding, that the course adopted by the noble Lord and by the Government, although it might have been perfectly accidental, was most unfair towards Sir Donald Stewart, because throughout the discussion Sir Donald Stewart was being constantly misrepresented. It was urged in various quarters of the House that the opinion of Sir Donald Stewart was in favour of the policy of the Government, while it was urged in others that it was in favour of the policy supported on that side of the House. For his own part, having had an opportunity of reading all the Papers put forward by Sir Donald Stewart, he thought it only fair to say that he had been consistent throughout. He said from the first that, from a military point of view, it was not, in his opinion, of so much importance that Candahar should be occupied by British troops; but that, on political grounds, it would be the basest possible desertion of the people of Candahar that our troops should be withdrawn from it. Now, Sir Donald Stewart was not only the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in that part of the country, but the officer politically in charge of it; who had lived there for many months, and was the man most qualified to express an opinion upon the question. But that brought him to another point. The noble Lord had said he placed before the House—and, no doubt, he did—the opinions expressed by the Government of India, at the earliest possible date. But he ventured to repeat the complaint made on the occasion of his addressing the House before, as to the famous despatch dated the 2nd of February. That despatch had completely changed the position of affairs with regard to the retention of Pishin and Sibi, and it intimated to this country for the first time that the Government of India objected to the policy that was intended to be imposed on it from home, and desired, for a time at least, that Pishin and Sibi should be occupied by our troops, and had urged some strong contentions in support of that view. That despatch might have been in the hands of hon. Members three weeks before the debate took place; and yet, although it was perfectly well known that they, on that side of the House would, on the 24th March, call attention to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, not only with regard to Candahar but with regard to Southern Afghanistan generally, Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to keep back that despatch of the 2nd of February, and it was not put into his hands until 10 minutes before he rose to open the discussion. He now came to another point, and was glad that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not yet spoken, because his next observations would be specially directed to him. When he addressed the House on the former occasion, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs immediately followed, and made two statements with reference to the whole subject which had a very considerable effect upon the House, and had, as far as he could judge, actually influenced the course of public opinion on the question. He ventured to call attention to both statements. The first of them arose in this way. He had stated in the course of his remarks that an absolute pledge had been given by Sir Donald Stewart to the people of Candahar that they should never again fall under the dominion of the Ruler of Cabul, and he had further stated that to be a specific pledge given not only to the Ameer Shere Ali, but to the people themselves. What happened then? The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs got up and quoted a despatch that was not on the Table; but he frankly and fairly stated that the despatch, although not there, had become the property of the House; and he quoted from that despatch and from a diary certain declarations made by Sir Donald Stewart, that it was the object of the Government, if possible, to make the Ameer secure on his Throne, and, as soon as he had been made secure and independent of British assistance, to withdraw from Candahar. He had since seen the diary on which that statement was published, and found that the diary, so far from in any way affecting the statement which he made was a remarkable confirmation of it, because there was the further statement, which the hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to read to the House, that General Sir Donald Stewart reiterated to the Sirdar that he might rest assured that the government of the whole of Afghanistan would certainly not be vested in future in a single individual. So absolute a confirmation of his statement ought, he thought, to have been laid before the House. Then, there was another point. Upon the occasion to which he had alluded, he urged upon the House the importance which might be attached to Russian intrigues in Afghanistan, and to the Russian advance towards that country. The hon. Gentleman thereupon got up and said, with an air that, at any rate, carried conviction to the Liberal side of the House, that General Skobeleff had been recalled from Central Asia. On a subsequent occasion he had taken the opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman upon what that statement was founded, and he said it was founded upon information which had reached him, and which had been afterwards confirmed by a despatch from Lord Dufferin. But, upon examination of the despatch, he found that, so far from its being a confirmation, it stated that General Skobeleff had been, at his own request, relieved from his command. And that was what the hon. Gentleman described as being recalled by special order of the Emperor. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, appeared to him to have gone on the merest possible hearsay; and it turned out, two days later, when Lord Dufferin's despatch was received, that his statement was not confirmed. What his noble Friend complained of was that the despatches to which he had drawn attention were in the possession of Her Majesty's Government in sufficient time to be laid upon the Table of the House for the purposes of the debate that took place. But the noble Lord opposite had not even touched upon that subject. It was true that had the Government written to St. Petersburg for leave to publish the despatch, some time must have elapsed; but the telegraph would have brought in two days the fullest possible information with regard to the disposition of the Russian Government upon this question. He thought, in that matter, the Government had not treated them at all fairly. They had kept back, no doubt without any design of deceiving the House, information that ought to have been laid upon the Table; they had fixed the debate for a day that was convenient to themselves, and then witheld the information necessary for full and fair discussion.

said, he did not quite understand whether the charge against the Government was that they had fixed too early a day for the debate, or that it was owing to carelessness on the part of the Government that the latest Papers were not produced in time for the debate. In either case, he was himself present in the House when the Prime Minister was pressed to fix an early day for the debate, and was now quite ready to examine the two statements that had been made with regard to the Indian Minutes and the Foreign Office Papers. The noble Lord who began this debate had been, in his opinion, sufficiently answered by the Secretary of State for India with regard to the Indian Papers; and everybody on that side of the House, he believed, considered the defence of his noble Friend to be complete. With reference to these Papers, there was every reason to believe they would reach this country in time to be printed; but, owing to the error of the unfortunate man, the Sub-Postmaster at Bombay, who had committed suicide, they had not done so. How any charge could be made against the Government, under the circumstances, he really could not understand. The important despatch to which the noble Lord opposite had referred was that of Lord Dufferin, dated the 8th of March. That despatch was received at the Foreign Office on the 14th of March; and the hon. Member who had just spoken had inquired why leave to publish it had not been asked by telegraph? That had been done. It was the practice, whenever a Foreign Office Blue Book was to be laid before the House, and whenever Foreign Governments had to be consulted with regard to publication, to telegraph the numbers of the despatches, and the consent to publish was generally returned in the same way. But there were often in St. Petersburg great difficulties in seeing gentlemen able to give the consent of the Government; and, in the present instance, consent to publish was not received until the day of the debate. The hon. Member opposite made a further inquiry as to why the despatch of the 2nd of February, relating to Pishin, had not been published? The House would see that the last paragraph of the despatch alluded to the Minutes which were on their way home, and it was the wish of Her Majesty's Government to publish both the despatch and the Minutes together. When, however, the Secretary of State for India found that the Minutes had not arrived, the despatch was published without them. The hon. Member who had just spoken had also made one or two remarks personal to himself. He said that in the course of the Candahar debate, in which he followed him, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had quoted from a portion of the Candahar diary, and that, after reading the context, he thought it did not bear out the explanation given. The hon. Member argued that the present Government had reversed the policy of their Predecessors with regard to Candahar; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had contended that with regard to Candahar the late Government had no policy. The late Government, he would point out, had never themselves decided what they were going to do with Candahar. He had referred to the matter before; but the noble Lord had never been able to tell him the policy of his Party with regard to that city. Upon this matter he had quoted from the Cabul diary; and when he reminded the noble Lord that he had been unable to designate the line the late Government proposed to take on the question, he would point out that two speakers who had taken part in the debate to which reference had been made, one on the first night, and another on the second, who had been connected with the late Government, took different views to that which the noble Lord himself had taken. He could only refer hon. Members to the diary, which, he maintained, exactly bore out the statement he had made that the late Government had no definite policy with regard to the retention or abandonment of Candahar; and that, as a matter of fact, they were drifting with the stream when they went out of Office. Then a question was put to him as to the recall of General Skobeleff, and it was stated that the reply he had previously given was inaccurate, not being borne out by subsequent published documents. It was said that the General had not been recalled, but had retired of his own wish; but it must be remembered that when it was convenient for the home authorities to "recall" an official, it was usually explained that it was done at that individual's express de- sire. A great many cases of recall could be covered in this manner; and when the presence of a person in a certain place had ceased to be convenient, it was very easy to recall him "at his own wish." The Government had been informed by Her Majesty's Representative at St. Petersburg that General Skobeleff had been "recalled." They had continually asked for confirmations of that statement, and they had from time to time received the same reply, which had been submitted to the House in answer to Questions put by hon. Members. The noble Lord had put three questions to him, and this was one—whether the statement that General Skobeleff had been recalled was correct? His reply was that it was correct. Then the noble Lord asked whether orders had been given by the Russian Government for suspending the advance of the Russian troops in Central Asia? In reply, with regard to the orders given by the Russian Government, he could only state what Her Majesty's Government were informed. He could not say what orders had been given to the Russian forces; but they heard from Her Majesty's Representative at St. Petersburg, as he had twice informed the House, that there had been a stop put to the forward movement of the Russian troops in Central Asia. Therefore, as to what advance the Russian forces had made, he answered that they had made none; that they had, in fact, been falling back since the date of the debate. Before sitting down, he could only repeat the statement made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) that there was not the smallest foundation for the assertion, either in connection with the Foreign Office or the Indian Office, that Papers had been kept back at the time of the debate. The Government had been asked to name an early day for the discussion, and before that date they had got together all the Papers they possibly could, and had produced them; and even if the Papers which were ultimately found to be missing had been forthcoming at that time, he did not believe that they would have had any substantial influence upon the debate.

said, the hon. Baronet appeared to think it sufficient excuse for the Government having commenced the debate on the abandonment of Pishin when they did, that they had been urged by the Opposition to name an early day; but he would remind the hon. Baronet that it was impossible for them on that side of the House to know what information the Government were in possession of. When Members of the Opposition pressed the Government for an early day, it was not to be supposed that they wished the Government to bring on the debate before they were able to produce, for the information of their opponents, all the despatches that were at their own disposal. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down began his speech by saying that he really did not understand the charge made against the Government; and the noble Lord who preceded him on that side of the House (the Marquess of Hartington) appeared so to misunderstand the charge as to suppose that it was one of duplicity brought against Her Majesty's present Advisers. They both seemed unable to imagine that there was any middle charge between absolute duplicity on the part of the Government, and absolving the Government altogether from blame in this matter. The case of the Opposition was not that at all. No man on that side of the House believed that the Government intended deliberately to withhold these Papers from the House; but, at the same time, they could not absolve the Ministry from the charge of having so acted that important information which should have been given to the House did not reach them. Let them compare the manner in which the Government had used information, but had not produced it, when it was in their interest to so act, and when it was against them. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down was in possession of certain information with regard to the Cabral diary, to which allusion had been made. He made use of this information, and also referred to a despatch, subsequently laid upon the Table, with regard to General Skobeleff. He had used the despatches which supported his own view; but he had given them no opinion as to the despatch which told against them—information with regard to which he had in his possession. That was the natural thing to do; but let them observe how capable it was of abuse, for if Government allowed themselves to use despatches only that told in favour of themselves, it was certain that they would ignore all those despatches which in any way told against them—and that was exactly what the Government did. He was not touching on the Indian despatches that were kept back by an accident, but the despatch which the Government actually had in the Foreign Office—namely, the Cabul diary which had since been published. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, undoubtedly, did make quotations from that diary, which hon. Members sitting opposite to them were unable to answer because they had not the despatch before them; but he had for borne to quote from information which he also had, and which would have told powerfully in favour of his opponents. That alone, he thought, was sufficient justification to his noble Friend for having called attention to this matter. The noble Lord was unable to go into this question in the course of the debate they had had, as he had not been in possession of the materials to enable him to do so; but he had put down his Notice as soon as he could, and had brought on this question on the earliest possible day. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India got into a state of virtuous indignation at the supposed accusation from the Front Opposition Bench; but it must be remembered how fond the present Ministry and their Followers when in Opposition were of accusing the late Government of feloniously keeping back information. Well, if the present Opposition ever had an opportunity to make use of a similar accusation there never was one more plausible than the present, because there were two entirely separate sets of despatches, both telling in favour of the Opposition and against the Government, in charge of different Departments, and entirely subjected to different influences, neither of which came into the hands of the Opposition in time for the debate. He made no charge of duplicity; but he did say that if such an event had occurred during the tenure of Office of the late Government, he had not the slightest doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have been restrained by any similar delicacy. He supposed they would have no opportunity—in fact, they could not possibly have any opportunity—of discussing this question this Session with the full information they had received; but he confessed ho could not agree with his noble Friend who brought this subject forward, when he said that hon. Members opposite would have had their opinions influenced by these documents if they had been forthcoming. It was clear hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House had formed their decision entirely apart from the documents. Their opinion, in fact, was formed at the time of the General Election. They were influenced by no documents that were then in their hands, and he did not believe they would have been influenced by any documents which had lately been laid on the Table. The only consolation Members of the Opposition had was this—that, apparently, the Government were now being compelled by circumstances not only to go against the policy which they themselves intended to pursue, but to go in favour of that against which they had been able to bring down a majority of 120 votes in this House.

said, that as he had taken as much interest in this matter as any other hon. Gentleman in the House, he should like to be allowed to say a few words. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House had pressed the Government to fix an early day for the discussion on the Candahar question. Well, that might be so; but did hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House believe that the despatches the Government had at their disposal, or could have had at their disposal, could not have been laid on the Table when that discussion came on? He thought it was the duty of the Under Secretary to have warned the Prime Minister, when the right hon. Gentleman was fixing the day, that certain Papers of great importance could not be produced in time for the debate. The right hon. Gentleman, before the debate came on, should have been enabled to give reasons why it should be adjourned to a future date; but that was not done, and the House received no information of the absence of those Papers either from the Representatives of the Foreign Office or the India Office. He could not conceal from himself that the perusal of those Papers, which were not in their possession at the time of the debate, but which had since been produced, would have influenced many hon. Members on the other side of the House. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) said the Opposition had made this a Party question; but he was sure the noble Lord would not accuse him of having, at any time, made India a Party question in this House. He thought the whole policy of the retirement from Candahar was part of the policy that the noble Lord sketched out when he was addressing his constituents in North-East Lancashire at the General Election. The noble Lord had been determined to withdraw from Candahar, no matter what happened, and no matter what were the opinions of those now capable of forming a judgment, and had denounced, in no weak language, the policy of the late Government. Well, we had gone from Candahar, and it was only flogging a dead horse to discuss the matter any longer. He would venture humbly to advise the Government with regard to these despatches from India—for it was the first time in his experience that he had known despatches of this kind to be sent by parcel and not by the regular post—that in future they should be sent as all other despatches were transmitted. He did not know whether the noble Marquess had communicated to the Viceroy his displeasure at the course taken by the Assistant Postmaster; but it certainly seemed most extraordinary that these despatches should have come by parcel via Southampton instead of the ordinary method via Brindisi. It was the first time important despatches had come in this way from India, and he hoped it would be the last. It was a most important circumstance, on a question of such vital importance as this before the country, that despatches of great consequence should have been withheld. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that he had stated, in the course of his speech, with frankness, that General Skobeleff had been recalled. Yes; but why did he say that? He told them, at the same time, or he indicated, that there had been a change of policy on the part of the new Emperor; and he endeavoured to impress on the House that the change of policy was such, that Russia had no intention of advancing on Merv, and that so strong was the intention of the present Emperor not to follow in the footsteps of his Father, that he intended, on the first opportunity, to recall General Skobeleff. Well, he (Mr. Onslow) contended that the despatches before them did not bear out the impression con- veyed to them by the hon. Baronet on that occasion. He (Mr. Onslow) believed that Russia did intend to advance upon Merv, and that at no very distant date. It was said that nothing was to be gained by remaining in Pishin; but he very strongly disagreed with that view. If they were to leave Candahar, it was a great compromise indeed to stop at Pishin; and one of the strongest reasons for that course was, that if in the future they had to advance on Candahar, they would be in a much better position to do so than if they went away altogether beyond the old Frontier. But they were not discussing this matter; and he only wished to impress on the noble Lord, in his responsible position of Secretary of State for India, the necessity, on all future occasions when discussions on Indian matters took place, that he should put before the House all the despatches and all the information he possibly could, and that if he could not give them all the despatches, that he should tell the House why he did not do so.

did not wish the House to misunderstand the position of hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. No one would for a moment accuse either the noble Marquess or the hon. Baronet of an attempt at a wilful suppression of despatches; but, at the same time, they could not lose sight of the fact that there were some despatches that were not forthcoming, and the Government should not have allowed the discussion to go on in the absence of those despatches. The hon. Baronet should have suggested to the Prime Minister the desirability of postponing the debate until such time as the despatches could be laid on the Table of the House. If that had been done, all this difficulty would not have arisen. He (Colonel Makins) had no intention whatever of bringing any accusation against any Member of the Government; and all he wanted to do was to point out that they had made a mistake in allowing the debate to take place before the production of these despatches.

said, he had heard, with great pleasure, the concluding sentences of the noble Marquess, because they seemed not only to justify the speech of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), but the original Motion on the Candahar question. They now heard, with the utmost satisfaction, that the Government had arrived at no decision whatever as to the withdrawal of troops from Southern Afghanistan.

said, the noble Lord who had just sat down was easily satisfied, if he was satisfied with a statement from the noble Marquess, which was precisely similar to one which he had made before the decision was taken in the very debate to which reference had been made. If anything proved the absolute want of necessity for the bringing on of the present debate, it was the statement of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) that he was entirely satisfied that the object of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had been obtained by eliciting from the Indian Secretary the statement he made in his speech on the Candahar debate. The few observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down proved most conclusively that the time of the House had not been usefully occupied with the present discussion. The noble Lord had been beating the air to obtain from the noble Marquess a statement which he explicitly made a month ago.

inquired, as a matter of form, how hon. Members could obtain information as to Ways and Means?

said, Resolutions of this kind were never given Notice of, he believed; but they would be renewed on Monday, and could then be considered. The present proposal was not an important one; it was simply to provide facilities for refreshment on Pullman cars.

asked whether this tax was to be levied for Revenue, and whether Revenue was expected from it?

replied, that he believed there was one dining car now in use, and the object of the proposal was simply to enable persons dining in that car to obtain a glass of wine.

hoped a longer date than Monday would be fixed for this Bill, and observed that there was no chance of the Bill being taken on Monday.

said, the Bill would not be taken on Monday. Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and that the Order for Committee should be discharged.

wished to know the object of the hon. Member's Motion?

replied, that the object of sending the Bill to a Select Committee was that the Amendments on the Paper should be carefully considered in Committee upstairs, and evidence taken if necessary.

asked whether this Bill did not come under the operation of the half-past 12 Rule, as there were Amendments?

The Rule does not apply to Amendments when they are only Amendments in Committee.

said, it appeared to him and to some of his Friends desirable to have some definition as to what were public meetings for the purposes of the Bill; and he, therefore, proposed that for the purposes of the Act the words "public meeting" should mean "any meeting to which reporters of the Press were admitted." As this was a Bill to give certain privileges to newspaper editors and proprietors, he hoped the Committee would be of opinion that the definition he proposed was sufficient to give them an intimation of what a public meeting was, and how far their liability extended.

saw considerable objection to proceeding with this Bill, even though it was unopposed, at that late hour; but he should like to ask the hon. Member why he left out the defini- tion "not less than twenty Members?" Any hole-and-corner meeting might, by obtaining the presence of reporters, constitute itself a public meeting within the terms of the clause. He objected strongly to leaving out the definition "not less than twenty Members."

said, his hon. Friend had omitted the words at his desire, for otherwise meetings of Churchwardens, Vestries, Local Boards, and other local authorities would be excluded from the Act.

thought meetings of Guardians, Vestries, and such public bodies might very well be alluded to specially in the clause; but he objected strongly to leaving out the limit as to 20 persons, having regard to meetings other than those specially mentioned.

wished to know why the hon. Member omitted the words "with the consent of the meeting," seeing that reporters could not report unless they were admitted.

explained that the ordinary course for reporters who were sent to private meetings was to ask if they were to be admitted; and if they were admitted, it was understood that they were admitted by consent of the meeting. But the words "with the consent of the meeting" might render it necessary to put the question to every meeting. That was why he put the Amendment in that form. He thought the Bill very reasonable, and he put this Amendment on the Paper in order that it might be discussed.

thought the Amendment proposed was so different in character from that already on the Paper, that it would not be right to consider it at that time. It raised many questions which would require discussion. He should move that the Chairman should report Progress.

, gathering that the general feeling of the House was to adjourn the discussion, expressed his willingness to bow to that feeling.

said, it was so seldom that there was a chance of making pro- gress, that it was advisable to discuss this important Bill.

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) would not press his Amendment. The Bill had been carefully considered by a Committee upstairs for several years, and he had the honour to consider it as a Member of the Committee. The first year the Chairman was the Attorney General of the late Government, and last year the Attorney General of the present Government was Chairman. The Committee considered the question of putting in words precisely defining public meetings, but they gave up the attempt as being really impracticable. They, however, inserted words which they thought were a sufficient guarantee. It would add materially to the difficulties of applying the Bill if it was attempted to provide precisely as to how reporters were to be present at meetings, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.

said, he should like to take the opinion of the Committee on the matter. His object was to extend the operation of the Bill, and he did not anticipate the difficulties pointed out by the hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, take the opinion of the Committee as to whether it was desirable to introduce this definition.

thought the proposal most absurd. Two persons might meet together, and because they had a reporter present they became a public meeting.

considered the words proposed to be introduced most proper words, for the presence of reporters at a meeting made it a public meeting in the most effectual manner. He heartily approved of the Amendment.

said, he should certainly vote against the Amendment; but, in the event of its being carried, he should move that a public meeting should consist of not less than 20 persons.

proposed, in line 33, to leave out the words "Her Majesty's Attorney General," in order to insert "Director of Public Prosecutions." This question was raised in Committee upstairs, and he was bound to say it was there decided against his opinion and in favour of making criminal prosecutions for libel depend upon the allowance of Her Majesty's Attorney General. It appeared to him at the time, and it had appeared to him more strongly since, that no allowance for a criminal prosecution should be left to the discretion of a political officer. It appeared to him that in many cases the task of the Attorney General would be one of great difficulty and delicacy. Many libels arose out of a political controversy; and it might happen that the Attorney General was of opinion that no allowance should be made for a criminal prosecution, yet he might grant it, for fear that if he did not he would be accused of political partizanship. To relieve the Attorney General from the possibility of such a position he proposed this Amendment.

, suggested that, inasmuch as the Attorney General directed criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and as there was no such Officer in Ireland as "Public Prosecutor," the Amendment should read—" Public Prosecutor in England and Attorney General in Ireland."

said, the House was unanimous the other day in thinking the Attorney General by far the best authority to whom this question could be referred, because he could be called to order in the House of Commons if there was any misuse of his power. This would not be so in the case of the Public Prosecutor. They need have no fear of the duty being honourably discharged by the Attorney General for the time being; his social position and political status were sufficient to ensure an impartial administering of the Act. He disapproved of making any further differences between England and Ireland.

hoped the distinguished legal authority who had just spoken (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would excuse him if he did not agree with him. He should infinitely prefer the Attorney General to the Public Prosecutor. One thing was most amusing. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in moving the Amendment, did not know the name of the official he proposed to substitute for the Attorney General. He did not know whether it was the Prosecutor General, or Director of Prosecutions, or Prosecutor; and had to appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting near him. The fact of the matter was that the office of Prosecutor was on its trial. There was a staff of six clerks to be appointed; only one clerk had yet been appointed, and the whole Office was treated with discredit by everybody. The Prosecutor was a man of no weight; and there was no argument which could be used in favour of the present proposition. The hon. Member for Liskeard had said the duty would be a delicate one for the Attorney General to have to perform. No one ever supposed the Attorney General would act unfairly, no matter to which political Party he belonged. He knew the Attorney General was a most overworked man, and wanted to have no fresh duty thrust upon him. He was, however, the proper person to discharge a duty of this kind; and it was rather hard at this time of the morning to have an Amendment of this nature started upon them.

thought they ought to establish a precedent in this Bill and make the Public Prosecutor or Attorney General give this allowance without fee or charge. He therefore asked the hon. Member for Liskeard to consent to add to his Amendment the following words:—"The same will be given free of all charge or fee."

said, the Public Prosecutor in Ireland was the Attorney General. He understood the Attorney General assented to other prosecutions. If that were so, he did not see why his assent should not be taken in the case of criminal prosecutions for newspaper libel.

said, this was a matter which chiefly concerned editors and proprietors of newspapers; and he understood they preferred to be in the hands of the Attorney General rather than in those of any other official. In his opinion, it would be a great advantage to substitute the Public Prosecutor for the Attorney General. The Public Prosecutor was a permanent official; he was not a political Officer or a Member of the House of Commons, but was liable to give an account of his actions to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice for the time being. Under these circumstances, it would be held by the public that he was a more impartial official than the Attorney General, especially in libels of a political nature, and he must support the Amendment.

proposed to add, after the word "prosecutions," the words "in England, or the Attorney General in Ireland."

thought this a most objectionable proposal. They wanted a Public Prosecutor in Ireland. He did not wish to obstruct the Bill; but it was a most disgraceful thing for them in Ireland, where political strife was at times so heated, to have to apply to the Attorney General to be allowed to conduct the prosecutions. They had a recent case in Ireland—the case of Mr. Parnell and others against The Dublin Evening Mail. If Mr. Parnell and others had had to go to the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General in that matter, the fiat would never have been granted. The Attorney General for Ireland would see the force of his remarks.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) mistook the scope of the Bill. It was not a Bill to protect writers, but to protect newspaper editors from the consequences of publishing libellous reports. As they had no other official in Ireland than the Attorney General to whom a matter of this kind could be referred, he should support the Amendment.

asked why the word "fiat" was retained in the clause? How could there be a "fiat" to the Director of Prosecutions if such an official existed?

moved, at the end of the clause, to add the words—

"And every such prosecution shall be heard and tried on the same principles, and in the same manner, and subject to the same rules and regulations as civil actions now tried in the High Court of Justice."

He thought that, as a matter of principle and as a matter of right, the defendant in an action of libel might require the charge to be proceeded with as a civil action, and that it should not be in the power of the prosecutor to put him to the disadvantage of being put on his trial for a criminal action, where his mouth would be closed. He therefore moved this Amendment as an act of fairness and justice to the newspaper proprietors, and as an amendment of the law which had become absolutely necessary.

was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment. It might be right or it might be wrong to allow a person placed on his trial for a criminal action to give evidence and to have the same advantages as the defendant in a civil action. He would not enter into that question, which was a very broad one, now; but it was not proposed by the Bill that the trial in these cases should necessarily be by means of a civil action, and the question whether it was right or wrong to retain the present condition of things, and to refuse to a man who was criminally charged the power of giving evidence in his own behalf, should not be settled by making an exception to the ordinary rule in trials for libel. Under the Criminal Law, all persons put upon their trial for a criminal action were placed in a certain position, and it would be undesirable to establish an exception only in the case of a particular class of persons who happened to be newspaper proprietors. He trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not ask the Committee to assent to the important alteration proposed by the Amendment.

thought that some distinction ought to be drawn between an ordinary libel and a newspaper libel. Very often a newspaper libel only repeated words which some other person had used, whereas an ordinary libeller placed himself knowingly in the position which rendered him liable to be prosecuted. The newspaper proprietor who published a libel was in a totally different and in an altogether exceptional position. No moral criminality attached itself to him; but he was constantly harassed and distressed by being made the object of a criminal prosecution. He thought the House ought to avail itself of any legitimate opportunity for relieving the Press from the invidious position in which it was now placed.

said, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) seemed to forget that the Committee were now engaged in giving exceptional privileges to the newspaper proprietors, and already in Section 2 they had provided that if it could be shown that the newspaper proprietor had only published a report that was accurate, it should be a complete answer to the charge. It was unreasonable to ask them to go further, and to say that a case which the Attorney General or Public Prosecutor considered to be a fit case for a prosecution should be dealt with in an exceptional manner.

said, he should have been glad to accept the Amendment; but, after the remarks which had been made by the Law Officers of the Crown, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw it.

had no desire to put the Committee to any unnecessary trouble in the matter. He had understood that the Amendment he proposed had the assent of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Hutchinson) and others who took an interest in the question; and personally he should be glad to see such a provision extended to actions other than actions for libel. He had thought it right that the Committee should have their attention drawn to the subject, and that the law should provide that wherever there was an alternative remedy and the person aggrieved chose to proceed by way of criminal action, the defendant should have the right of giving evidence in his own behalf. He had no wish, however, to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, if the feeling of the Committee was substantially against his Amendment.

moved to report Progress. The Committee would recollect that in the course of the discussion which took place on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) called attention to the deficiencies of this clause in regard to the penalties imposed under it. It was necessary that the clause should undergo some alteration. He had no wish to stop the progress of the Bill at the present moment; but it was necessary to report Progress, because it would not be regular to propose any alteration of the penalty on the Report, and he was not in a position then to say in what respects it was desirable to alter the clause.

It would be quite competent to re-commit the Bill.

believed that an understanding had been come to that something should be done to alter this clause; and he certainly thought it would be better to report Progress. He did not think there would be any difficulty in getting the Bill through Committee when it was brought on again.

thought there ought to be a penalty of so much a day for neglect of registration.