asked whether the Prime Minister would give facilities for the discussion of a Motion for the imposition of retaliatory duties against certain countries having protective duties?

Sir, I am unable to give a day for the discussion of the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman has given Notice. I beg now to move—

"That for the remainder of the Session Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority, and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday."

The only argument that is necessary for this Resolution is the statement that it is now the 1st of August, and the House met on the 6th of January. I may justly be asked what course the Government intend to take with regard to measures still pending, and which have given rise to indications that they will involve considerable discussion. I am very sorry to see that the Rivers Conservancy Bill, which has been viewed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board as a measure of importance and practical utility, is, nevertheless, a subject of controversy, and, considering the very late period of the Session, we are compelled reluctantly to abandon it. Then there is the Augmentation of Benefices Bill, with which we shall not be able to proceed. I do not know there is any other Bill, on which we are at present aware, on which there will be any general or prolonged discussion. With regard to the Notice just given by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), if I understand him right, he thinks at this period of the Session it is too late for the discussion of a measure which introduces any new principle; and yet he does not think it too late to decide that instead of reducing the debt we ought to apply the money to a reduction of the duty on tea and coffee. On the point, however, which he has raised, I must ascertain what is the general feeling of the House. Viewing the pledge given by the Government to use all its available means for putting forward Supply, we are desirous to redeem that pledge in the best manner possible. We have considered the best means of putting Supply forward with despatch, and, consequently, we do not propose that the House should have Morning Sittings.

asked the Lord Advocate if he intended to proceed with the Entailed Estates Conversion (Scotland) Bill?

said, in reply, that there was no reasonable prospect of passing the measure, and, therefore, it would not be proceeded with.

said, that in reference to the Motion just made, and the remarks of the Prime Minister on the question of Terminable Annuities, he would like to make one or two observations. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no new principle in bringing in a Bill of this kind. Perhaps not; but they were carrying out a very important principle, which the country knew nothing about, and which there was no opportunity of discussing in any way.

said, the hon. Member must be aware that it was irregular on the present Motion to discuss a Bill not before the House.

said, he did not rise to say anything against the proposal of the Prime Minister, but wished to remind him that the first Order of the Day for Wednesday week was the adjourned debate on the Motion with regard to the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. That Motion had been adjourned in consequence of a misunderstanding between the two Front Benches, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to afford him facilities for taking the decision of the House on his Resolution.

said, that he would communicate with the hon. Member.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Resolution of the Prime Minister. He knew that every Member of the House would welcome the termination of a prolonged, harassing, and wearisome Session. What he was desirous of doing was to briefly call attention to the state of Business. The House usually sat 26 weeks in a year; but it had already been in Session now for 30 weeks. The Votes in Supply numbered 193. Of these 53 had been taken, and 140 had still to be got. What he wished hon. Members to realize was that in 30 weeks they had disposed of 50 Votes, and in the next few days they would be compelled to hurry through the remainder—the 140. Under any circumstances, and at any time, the Business of Supply was conducted in a very fluctuating, uncertain, and irregular manner. But it was absolutely beyond the power of Members to apply themselves with business-like assiduity to the granting of all the money at such a late period of the year, and under such circumstances as those in which they were now placed. For all practical purposes, the Government were about to get the major portion of the Revenue of the country without criticism or control. He had referred to the Records of the House, and, as far as he could make out, there was not a Session for the last quarter of a century or more where Supply had been so hopelessly in arrear. There was only one occasion when the condition approximated to what it was now, and that was in 1870. He knew hon. Gentlemen excused the authorities by saying that the present Session was exceptional. [''Hear, hear!"] He was pleased to gather from their applause that hon. Gentlemen on both side of the House, and belonging to all Parties, agreed with his statement. There was no doubt that the Session was exceptional—one of the most exceptional in the history of Parliament. But, unfortunately, as far as the voting of Supply was concerned, every Session was exceptional. All the arrangements made by Ministers, whether Liberal or Conservative, were to curtail the powers which the Representatives of the people had in controlling the National Expenditure. The duties they were charged to perform wore two-fold. First, they had to make the laws of the country; second, they had to assist in the administration of its affairs, and transact the general Business of the State. In his judgment the latter duty was the more important. It was always urgent, and it should have primary consideration. At the commencement of every Session the Ministers should submit a statement of the money they required. Parliament should apply itself to inquiring into the amounts thus named; and, having given the necessary consideration, should vote them. The time loft after the business-like discharge of this function should go to making new laws or amending old ones. This was the old theory of the Constitution, and it was the soundest and the best. But they reversed that plan. They commenced the Session by making laws, and when they terminated the Session they wore still busy with the same process. Just before the close—a few days prior to the Prorogation—the Estimates, containing hundreds, or rather thousands, of items, were thrown upon the Table, and they were compelled to vote them, practically without debate. Again and again this unsatisfactory state of things had been alluded to, but there was never so gross a case as the present. He hoped that the Government next Session would endeavour to mend matters by submitting the Estimates as soon as the House met, and, notwithstanding previous refusals, agree to appoint a Committee which should have the power of calling before it the Heads of the different Departments. With such a Committee, and with such information, the work of Supply might be greatly lightened. The Report submitted by the Committee would obviate the necessity for a good deal of the detailed conversation they had in that House, and altogether it would further the Business of the country. It was not his desire to object to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, or to prolong the discussion; but he was anxious to avail himself of the opportunity to point out in what way and to what extent the first function of Parliament was year after year set aside, if not altogether overridden.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had done good service in calling attention to the condition of the Votes in Supply. He rose, however, to ask whether they were to understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government now intended to proceed with Supply de die in diem, and in preference to any legislative measures? He thought they were right in taking Afternoon instead of Morning Sittings. There were six principal classes of Votes in the Civil Service Estimates which they had not yet touched at all. They might also fairly now expect to receive from the Government some intimation as to the time at which they anticipated they would be in a position to close the Session. It was usual, when demands like the present were made on the time of the House, for the Government to make some communication on that subject. As to the Bills before the House, it was quite understood that there were some that it was absolutely necessary to proceed with; but there were still one or two respecting which there was some doubt as to the decision of the Government. He therefore wished to know what course was to be taken with the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill?

asked whether a Resolution was to be moved that night in regard to Terminable Annuities?

said, that whether the Tories or Liberals were in power, the same thing always happened in regard to India. Again, the discussion on the Indian Budget was not only put off, but was not even mentioned. Surely, with a population seven times more numerous than that of the United Kingdom, and an area 12 times greater, and a Revenue approaching to that of the United Kingdom, the affairs of such a vast Empire well deserved a day for discussion. He wished, therefore, to ask the Prime Minister when he expected that the Indian Budget would come on, and whether the assistance to be given to India from the Imperial Exchequer would be given in instalments or in a lump sum?

said, he had been requested by his right hon. Friend to answer a question put as to the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill. The Government were, of course, desirous to proceed with that Bill, but they felt that in the existing circumstances they were not able to make that progress with measures for Scotland which they and the Scotch Members would desire. They had reason to believe that this Bill was one which the great majority of the Scotch Members wished to see passed, and, if that were so, he should think there would be no difficulty in passing it in the present Session, and the Government would certainly do all they could to facilitate that result. On the other hand, if a large number of Scotch Members were adverse to the Bill proceeding this Session, the Government would not press it on against their wish.

said, he regretted that the Prime Minister had not offered him an opportunity for bringing forward a subject which was far more important than the unfortunate Land Bill, about which no man in England cared a straw. It could not be denied that the question of Free Trade, Reciprocity, and retaliatory Protective duties excited a strong feeling out-of-doors.

said, that the Educational Endowments Bill was a measure which the majority of the Scotch Members desired to see passed into law. They approved its principle; but a great number of them were opposed to proceeding with it at this period of the Session. In their opinion—he did not say whether it was his opinion or not—the measure could not now be adequately discussed, because it would be necessary that there should be an interval between the second reading and the date fixed for the Committee, in order to give the country and the people of Scotland an opportunity of judging of the Amendments to be submitted for the consideration of the Government and the House. It was, he believed, on that ground that a large number of Scotch Members, certainly the majority of those now in London, recently presented a Memorial to the Prime Minister, asking him to forego the Bill this Session. Twenty-four Members signed the Memorial to that effect, and although the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped to take the Bill this Session he did not fix a day for it. The majority of hon. Members had been in attendance for more than seven months; and at this period of the Session they might expect to be relieved from all uncertainty as to the progress of any measure, and to have a specific day fixed for the second reading, whether it ever got through any further stage or not.

said, he was sorry that the Prime Minister had not given a little more definite information. The House had been sitting from a very early period, and if only the most necessary Business were now transacted, it would be obliged to sit until a very late period. He did not know that the Scotch Members deserved to be treated any worse than any other section of the House; but he thought it was treating them very badly to keep them hanging on night after night, and refuse to say even whether the Bill was to be proceeded with or not. He approved—as a good many of the Scotch Members did—of the principle of the Bill; but they disapproved of details, and the discussion of those details would certainly occupy one good Sitting. If the Government proposed to proceed with it, by all means let them have a discussion, and the Scotch Members were quite willing to go on with it; but if it was not to be so—and he saw no prospect of its being done—the Government ought not to keep the Scotch Members dangling on, not knowing whether the Bill wag to be taken or not. The Memorial to which reference had been made stated that the Memorialists approved of the principle of the Bill, but thought it expedient that it should be left over till next Session, and the 24 Members who signed that Memorial did not at all exhaust the number of Scotch Members who were of the same opinion. There was no doubt that at a time like this, however willing the Government might be to proceed with the Bill, it was utterly impossible that they would be able to do so, and therefore they would do well to defer it at once.

observed, that a large number of Scotch Members sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and if they could not bring influence to bear on the Government in reference to this subject, it was not likely that anything falling from him would have that effect; but if the Government really intended to press the Bill this Session, they should name a time at which they would be disposed to take it. If the Government fixed on a night on which they could report Progress in Supply at a certain hour to proceed with the second reading, it would be found that the differences of opinion existing about this measure were not great; but when, the Committee stage was reached it would certainly be necessary to give an entire Sitting to it. By that means the measure might pass even at this late period of the Session; but he agreed with hon. Members opposite that the idea of still going on with the measure, without even yet fixing a day for it, was wrong. He differed from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), who said that it would be necessary to consult the country between the second reading and the Committee. He believed the people of Scotland had made up their minds on the subject. The thing had been before them so very long that what was now looked for was the passing of the measure, and not that it should be sent back for consideration. It might appear inconsistent to make these remarks, and yet to have signed the Memorial alluded to; but the feeling of himself and other hon. Members was that that the period of the Session which had been reached made it difficult to secure an adequate discussion of the Bill, while if the Government showed a strong wish to proceed with the measure, they would not oppose that course, but they considered in that case a time ought now to be fixed for the second reading.

said, he believed there was a general approval of the principle of the Bill, but various details would require considerable discussion. The Government had been informed of one or two important points on which the Scotch Members entertained very strong opinions, and with respect to which it was desirable to have the opinion of the people of Scotland; but the Government had declined to give them any satisfaction in regard to those points. One question was whether the future Governing Bodies were to be representive or not, and upon that the Government absolutely refused to give any reply. That roused the suspicions of the Scotch Members, and of a considerable number of the people of Scotland, as to what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the future Governing Bodies. If the Government had come forward frankly, and expressed their views upon that subject, the opposition to the Bill would have been very much modified. But, after what had passed, it was of very great importance that the people of Scotland should express a decided opinion as to whether they wished these Governing Bodies in future to be representative, and also how far they wished the Bill to be extended. He was personally very strongly in favour of the main principle of the Bill, his only doubt being as to whether the revision went far enough.

thought enough had been said. ["Order!"] At that time of the Session any Member who got up to withdraw a Bill deserved to be heard. He thought quite enough had been said to satisfy him that although, as he understood, all the Scotch Members were in favour of the Bill, none of them, so far as he had been able to gather, wished it to go on. That he understood to be the sentiment expressed on both sides of the House. ["No, no!"] He heard hon. Gentlemen say "No!" but perhaps they were among the 25 who signed the Memorial. After what had been said, it was evidently quite hopeless for the Government to struggle against the differences of opinion existing on the subject, and therefore he should not attempt to go on with the Bill; but, at the same time, he must express his entire dissent from the explanation given by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

said, he regretted that the Government had been in such a hurry to withdraw the Bill without consulting the Scotch Members who did not sign the Memorial. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the Government ought to have named a day for the second reading; but he believed the provisions of the Bill were not of so wide a character as to be likely to cause any very great discussion. Moreover, the difficulty would have been a great deal removed by a frank statement of opinion on the part of the Government and the Scotch Members. At the same time, he must admit that the Government were struggling against great difficulties, and he would only hope that nothing which had now been said would act as a bar to their bringing on the Bill at a future time. The Government should bear in mind that there was at present a determined opposition on the part of Scotch Members. It was not that they loved the Bill less, but that they loved grouse-shooting more.

said, he joined with his hon. Friend in the regret that the Home Secretary should be in such a hurry to abandon the Bill, when Scotch Members who had served on the Commission were anxious to go on with it. He wished, however, to clear himself from all responsibility for the withdrawal of the Bill. The blame for the delay which had occurred lay with those hon. Members who persistently kept blocking Notices on the Paper against it, among whom was the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who, although he now said he was in favour of the measure, had blocked it from the first on account of some small question which might be easily settled in Committee. Those who had been misled into signing the Memorial to the Prime Minister must also take some of the responsibility.

said, it was unreasonable that Members should be detained in town till the third week in August in order to discuss a Scotch Bill.

said, he would suggest that the Ballot Act Amendment and Continuance Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session, and that a simple Continuance Bill should be introduced. As far as the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill was concerned, he would suggest that it should be divided in two parts, one having reference to the re-constitution of the Court consequent on the removal of the Master of the Rolls to the Court of Appeal, and the other dealing with the question of legal patronage. A considerable time ago it was understood that a Return of the patronage of the Judges had been ordered, but that Return had not yet been received. He supposed that the Bill had been drawn in ignorance of the amount of the patronage, and he suggested that the portion of it dealing with the question should be withdrawn. He repeated the question of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to whether the Government intended to take Supply de die in diem?

said, he would urge that the House should not be allowed to separate without an opportunity being given for a discussion on the manner in which the law was at present administered in Ireland. In that country Constitutional Law was suspended, and the Government were every day making arrests of the most arbitrary and unwarranted character on the mere suspicion of any of their officials. If the Government had any necessity or excuse for that system, they ought to justify themselves before the House and before the world; but so far they had made no attempt to do so. The recent policy of the Government and the recent arrests by their officials had not been brought directly under the consideration of the House, and he could not think that any sincere Member of the Liberal Party would like the House to separate without some statement from a Member of the Government as to all those arrests, and without some explanation which would show that the Government were sensible that after all there was a Constitution, although it had been suspended in Ireland, and that they were bound to offer some justification of their extraordinary conduct. It was a question which ought to be fully discussed, and he hoped the Government would give them an opportunity. The House of Commons had never been fairly informed as to the powers which the Government had taken under the Coercion Acts, nor had they properly understood the explanations given on behalf of the Government. The explanations had been inconsistent with each other, and inconsistent also with the policy which the Government had pursued. At the outset the Chief Secretary said the sole object was to relieve Ireland from the oppression of "village tyrants" and "midnight marauders;" but a very few days afterwards the Home Secretary gave an explanation which was quite different.

rose to Order, and asked whether it was competent on the Motion of the Prime Minister to review a discussion which had already taken place?

I consider that the hon. Member is transgressing the Rules of Order by the course he is now taking. The Question before the House is simply in reference to the course of Business. Upon that he is quite entitled to express a wish that the policy of the Government in Ireland may be reviewed at a proper time; but to enter into details is clearly out of Order.

said, he was simply asking the Government to give the House an assurance that he should have an opportunity of discussing these matters. He was urging the great necessity for obtaining information as to, and, if possible, some justification for, the conduct of the Government. Surely, it would be most unreasonable and wrong that the House should separate without any such information or explanation.

said, he should not proceed with his Motion with reference to Tripoli in consequence of the issue by the Government of Papers on the subject.

, in reply to the question of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross), said, that the first part of the Judicature Bill dealt with the transference of the Master of the Rolls to the Court of Appeal. It was very necessary that that should be passed this Session. The second part of the Bill was designed to vest with the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor the legal patronage formerly exercised by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Baron. That question, though not so pressing, was one of great importance; but it would not be unduly put forward for discussion if some interim arrangement could be made for dealing with it. The difficulty was that unless the subject were dealt with the patronage must either be left in abeyance or remain with the Lord Chief Justice.

said, he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

thought the Bill before the House for dealing with Education in Scotland was, in many respects, a very good Bill.

remarked, that it was impossible that the Government could fix a night for bringing on the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill. With regard to Supply, it would be the duty of the Government to ask the House to apply the whole of the valuable time left to pressing it forward—at least, during the principal hours of the night. There was no intention at present to ask the House to recur to Morning Sittings. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin McCarthy) would have ample opportunities for bringing forward the subject he had referred to before the end of the Session, seeing that the Appropriation Bill could not possibly be passed until the matter had been discussed. With regard to the Ballot Bill, it would be withdrawn, and a simple Continuance Bill would be substituted for it. With regard to the Indian Subvention, he had nothing to add to what had been said before in reference to it—namely, that India would be put under an obligation to repay the £2,000,000 advanced, and that the remainder of the subvention would be made in a certain number of annual instalments. With regard to the New Annuities, a Bill relating to them would be introduced to-morrow night, and time would be given for its consideration. He could not name a day for the Indian Budget till he saw what progress had been made with other Business. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman as to when the Prorogation might be expected to take place, he wished to point out that Votes of considerable importance in Supply still remained to be discussed, and it was impossible at the present moment to forecast the exact number of days that the discussion in reference to them would occupy. Months ago he had stated that there was a probablility that the Prorogation would take place next week; but what had since occurred had not encouraged him to form too sanguine an estimate of the speed with which Public Business might be disposed of. In the course of a few days, however, he hoped to be able to give a more definite reply on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman.

inquired at what hour the Bill for the Regulation of the Forces would be brought on?

Late this evening; perhaps about 12 o'clock. It is absolutely necessary that the Bill shall be passed speedily.

said, he certainly was very much surprised to hear the reply of the Prime Minister to the very temperate request of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)—namely, that he would be able to hold out some hope that the Government would afford Irish Members facilities for the purpose of discussing the wholesale arrests that have been made in Ireland. It was not as if they had pressed the Government unduly in reference to this question, and not as if they had refrained from giving them every facility with regard to the passing of the Land Bill, and not as if they had made use unduly of any of the Forms of the House for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain the ear of Par- liament for the purpose of condemning the acts of the Irish Executive. It was not under these circumstances that his hon. Friend had pressed the Government for some reasonable facilities to put this matter before the House. Their conduct with regard to the Government had been to facilitate Government Business in every possible way. Since the Coercion Acts left this House until the present time, he himself had incurred considerable blame from many persons in Ireland, because they had considered he had allowed the captive to rest in his prison cell unnoticed and uncared for; and speaking for himself, and, he believed, for the majority of the Irish Members of that House, he protested that the Irish Members could no longer allow this neglect, for it was nothing more, to continue in regard to these suffering and helpless men. If they had neglected the case of the prisoners of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it was because they wished to give the Government every chance of passing remedial legislation for Ireland, and because they desired it might not be in the power of anybody to say, from any side of the House, that they wished to prevent Her Majesty's Government from having a full trial in regard to their attempts to remedy Irish grievances; but now, when all that was passed, when nothing remained but the obtaining of sundry Votes in Supply, when the Government had expressly given up their other contemplated legislation, he said that they were entitled to ask that Her Majesty's Government should give them an opportunity of bringing forward the case of these men, who nobly sacrificed, many of them, their business and their social prosperity, in order to do what in them lay to help the cause of the Irish tenant. His hon. Friend had asked that some reasonable time might be given for the purpose of laying the case of these "suspects" before this House, and he had been told that on the Appropriation Bill he would have an opportunity. Well, he did not know whether the Prime Minister really expected them to wait till the Appropriation Bill, and give up all the time—namely, Tuesdays and Wednesdays—which would be at the disposal of private Members to any measures he proposed to bring before the House. But because they had been neglectful of the personal liberty and freedom of the "suspects" in Ireland during the months that had rolled by since the introduction of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, because they had refrained from pressing these questions, that was no reason that now, when these matters had disappeared, there was longer any excuse for them or for the Government to withhold the light of day from their doings in Ireland. Then he submitted that they were entitled to press this matter on Her Majesty's Government; that they were entitled to use the Forms of the House and assert the right, perhaps, of a majority of that House—certainly of a majority of the Irish nation—to justice, truth, and fairness in the doings of the Irish Executive. He, for his part, should not shrink from using all the Forms of the House to prevent the Government from appropriating these days, and thereby preventing them from any possible chance of laying this case before the House. It might be contended that the Government had followed precedents in regard to their doings in this matter; that they had not applied to Parliament at any unusually early period for these days; and to the fullest extent he admitted that, testing this matter by the calendar, the Government had not come to Parliament at any unusually early period. But testing the matter by the unexampled occurrences of this year, looking to the fact that at a very early period of the Session the Government obtained all the days—both the days of private Members and also those days which nominally belonged to the Government, but actually belonged to private Members—he alluded to Fridays—except Supply stood the First Order of the Day—looking to that fact, that all the days of private Members were placed at the disposal of the Government at a very early period of the Session for the purpose of passing Coercion, and looking at the fact that in the interval between the passing of the Coercion Act and the introduction of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill no attempt was made by the Irish Members or by the great bulk of private Members to press their grievances before Parliament or impede or incommode the Government in any way, and that immediately after that interval was over the Government again annexed all the days of the House for the purpose of proceeding with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill—he saw that the attempt of the Government to annex Tuesdays and Wednesdays now practically meant the extinguishing of the total rights of private Members in the time of the House. Now, they were really getting into a way of looking to the Government as a sort of Deux et machinâ of the House of Commons, and, indeed, the Prime Minister appeared to be invested with the amount of regard for those who witnessed it, which was applied to the attributes of ancient Jove. Private Members, from occupying a position, when very much of the legislation was shaped in the various Motions and Bills brought forward by them, were now descending to this stage that, practically speaking, no opportunity whatever was to be afforded to them for the purpose of signifying to the House those matters in reference to which their constituents had sent them to this House. In other countries they found the Ministry of the day were not even allowed a place in the Representative Assembly. In the Legislature of the United States no Cabinet Minister had a place in the House; and formerly in this House it was the custom to regard the Government of the day as the Representative of the Crown, and not necessarily the Representatives of the entire popular opinion of the country. But now they were losing all regard for these matters. That House was composed of the Representatives of three distinct Nationalities, not to speak of a fourth. Yet they saw day by day all individual opinion, all private judgment and action merge in the ipse dixit of the Prime Minister. Now, they could not allow the fate of the Irish prisoners to remain unconsidered. Daily for the last three or four months he had been in receipt of dozens and scores of letters from these prison cells, which the Government must very well know, as they had opened them. These captives cried to them and asked them whether they were going to leave the men who had won the Land Bill? He said they ought not to leave those men, and they ought to urge upon the Irish Chief Secretary the duty of informing the House.

The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Question before the House.

said, he would be very sorry to go beyond the Question, and he wished to confine himself within proper limits. The Prime Minister had moved that during the remainder of the Session Government Business should have precedence on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and he (Mr. Parnell) had endeavoured to point out that it was the imperative duty of Irish Members to bring the question of these "suspects" and the evidence on which they had been arrested before the House. These men had been arrested without a charge, almost without an accusation. The Government had repeatedly refused to give any replies to Questions which Irish Members had put with respect to them. It was absolutely necessary for the fair fame of many honourable men in Ireland that Irish Members should not allow the Government to continue to libel those men. The Government had arrested the hon. Member for Tipperary; they had arrested a trusted priest. [Cries of "Order!"]

I must caution the hon. Member that he is transgressing the Rules of Debate. The Question before the House is of a very limited character, and the hon. Member is not entitled to bring on the question of the imprisoned "suspects."

said, he understood that the Question before the House was a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that for the remainder of the Session the Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion, and that Government Orders should have priority; and he had endeavoured to point out that if that Motion were acceded to Irish Members would practically be deprived of an opportunity of bringing the case of the imprisoned "suspects" before the House. He had desired to show that the character of these "suspects" was in danger—["Order, order!"]—that he might urge with additional force the right that Irish Members had to demand from the Government facilities for rescuing these men from the unworthy libel that had been cast upon them. He would not presume to continue his observations if the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that he was out of Order in saying that a good priest and a good Irishman—[Cries of "Order!"]

I have already ruled the hon. Member out of Order, and I am surprised that he should continue to make such observatious after my ruling.

said, that Irish Members would appear to have lost sympathy for the "suspects" if they did not bring their case before the House. [Cries of "Order!"] The Ministry of the day, of course, always gained the sympathies of the powers that be in that House; but if they might not bring the cause of their imprisoned countrymen before the House, he would boldly say that all liberty and regard of private right was lost to that Assembly, and that the Minister of the day had transferred himself from a Constitutional Minister into a tyrant—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name him!"]

I have repeatedly cautioned the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and notwithstanding these repeated cautions he has held language utterly un-Parliamentary and improper; and I hereby name Mr. Parnell as having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

I was about to move, Sir—

rose and said: I will not wait for the farce of a division. I will leave you and your House, and the public will see that there is no longer freedom of discussion left to the Irish Members.

Sir, I was about to move, when you rose from the Chair, that the words of the hon. Member be taken down. I must say I never in the course of my whole experience ever heard such words addressed to you—[Cries of "Order!"]

I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order!"] I rise to Order. The Standing Order on which the Prime Minister is about to act prescribes that he shall make his Motion without speech or debate; and I understand that on previous Motions of this kind the Prime Minister went very speedily to his duty.

I thank the hon. Member for Wexford for reminding me that I ought not to have made a speech. I move that Mr. Parnell, having been named, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Sitting.

said, that it was perhaps regrettable that the Representatives of Ireland had only been able to intervene in this discussion at a late period; but this was due to the time that had been consumed by the Scotch Members. He thought that in asking the House to assent to this Motion the Government might have given the House more explicit information as to their intentions on several points. He had not been able to gather what the Government intended to do with regard to the Indian Budget, or to the discussion of Indian affairs generally. If the Liberal Party sat on that side of the House and such incidents were brought forward as wholesale murder in Indian gaols—for the charges on that matter amounted to nothing less—the Liberal Party would be in a ferment of generous indignation on the subject. He did not belong to the Liberal Party, and he hoped that Heaven might spare him from that final fall; but he thought that the Government should give the House the opportunity of discussing the affairs of the people of India, who, like the Irish people, were deprived of every form of Constitutional liberty. When the Prime Minister was in Opposition he had taken from his hands a Motion on the enslavement of thought and opinion in India by the Vernacular Press Act. That was two years ago; but nothing had since then been done in the matter.

I must remind the hon. Member that the question of the Vernacular Press of India is not now before the House.

said, he would only express a hope that the Prime Minister would give them an opportunity of discussing that important question. They ought also to have the opportunity of discussing the new University Scheme in Ireland—a scheme which promised well under the late Government, but which, according to recent rumours, did not promise well under the present Government. They were likewise entitled to receive an assurance from the Government that distinct facilities would be afforded for the investigation of the very serious charges of maladministration and oppression made against the Irish Executive. The Government had challenged Irish Members to bring forward a Vote of Censure in regard to alleged cases of tyranny and wrong, and they would meet them. But although they indulged in those valorous challenges, they proposed to take away all the time available to private Members, thereby preventing them from bringing forward any such Votes of Censure. The conduct of the Government was such as to lead the people of Ireland to believe that they shrank, in violation of their pledges and in violation of every principle of Constitutional liberty, from a review of their conduct, and that they desired to see the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) anywhere rather than in the House, exposing their policy and holding them up to the indignation of the Irish people. Owing to the course taken by the Government, the Irish Members could only avail themselves of discussions in Supply, during which, no doubt, many unclean spots in Irish administration could be exposed, but where the full discussion to which they were entitled could not be secured.

said, that as his right hon. Friend had already spoken, he might state with regard to the inquiry as to the Indian Budget that it was the expectation of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to bring it forward as soon as they had disposed of or had made sufficient progress with Supply. With respect to the Irish University, the House would have two opportunities of considering that question—when the Bill now pending in the House of Lords reached that House, and again when the Vote in Supply was moved relating to it. With regard to the chief accusation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell)—namely, that the Government avoided investigation into the conduct of the Irish Government, he had to remind the House that no Notice of a Vote of Censure had been given, and, therefore, the Government did not avoid such Motion. But if it was desired to review the conduct of the Irish Government, or to take a Vote of Censure, there could be no better opportunity of doing so than that mentioned by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government—namely, that which would be afforded by the Appropriation Bill. Not only was it impossible for a Government to avoid having their conduct reviewed, but it was impossible for them to avoid any Amendment to the Bill, which would be a distinct Vote of Censure. There could be no better opportunity for such a purpose or one more in accordance with Constitutional precedent, for it had been made available by Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston to enable them to review the policy of the Government of the day. Nothing could be more consistent with the gravity of the subject and with the feeling of a section of the House than that the opportunity he suggested should be taken to move a Vote of Censure; but till it was, the Government had very serious duties to perform.

said, he had nothing to complain of in the speech which had just been delivered; but he must remind the hon. Member for Dungarvan that a misspent Session could not be recovered during its last few weeks. He asked independent Members, was it possible, would it be decent that another Session should be so misspent? When the hon. Member asked the Government for facilities, he could not forget that the hon. Member had acted with a Party which had deliberately delayed the Business of the House during the Session. To their conduct was it attributable that independent Members had been obliged to resign one after another the opportunities reserved to them by the Constitution for the expression of independent opinion. From first to last the Irish Party had monopolized the Session by their misconduct. ["Order!"]

asked whether the word "misconduct," applied either to a Party or individuals, was in Order?

It struck me that the observations generally of the hon. Gentleman are not within the subject of the Motion before the House?

said, he would confine himself strictly to the Motion, which involved the resignation on the part of private Members of their proper opportunities of bringing independent questions before the House. He did not say that the Motion was untimely or unprecedented, but its effect would be that, with very few exceptional occasions, independent Members would be deprived of their Constitutional privileges. The blame did not lie with the Government—it lay elsewhere; but he deprecated the fact that the House of Commons should be Session after Session incapacitated as a Representative Body, as it had been that Session, from transacting the Business of the country. There was no remedy for that state of things save a revision of their Rules. He claimed for the Leader of the House that he should apply himself to such revision, with a view to secure a fair distribution of opportunities for independent Members to express the feelings and opinions of Great Britain with reference to measures before the House. If the Government did not take the matter up, he hoped that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and other independent Members would.

observed, that whatever differences of opinion existed among them they were all, he believed, anxious to get into Committee of Supply. He therefore hoped hon. Members would withdraw the Motions down on going into Committee of Supply, and allow them to proceed to Supply. He trusted also the Government would consider that the unanimous desire of the Press of England was that the Newspapers (Law of Libel) Bill, which had been blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) should pass.

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had a Motion down in Committee of Supply, and it appeared to him that he simply asked him to withdraw his Motion on going into Committee so that he might bring his on.

said, he would also withdraw.

complained that the Government had not promised to give to Irish Members the opportunity which was asked by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). The condition of Ireland was quite as worthy of having a day given by the Government for its consideration as was the Ministerial policy in the Transvaal. He considered the hon. Member for Longford was quite justified in the request he had made to the Prime Minister, and that had it been acceded to the House would have been much nearer Committee of Supply than it was likely to be for some time. The reason why the Irish Members had not yet put a Vote of Censure on the Paper was because the Land Bill stopped the way. When they brought forward any of the arrests that had been made they were taunted with obstructing the Land Bill. Now that the Bill was passed could not the Government give them one day on which to bring this subject forward? If they had not an opportunity of discussing the conduct and policy of the Government, they did not know how many arrests would be made during the Recess.

said, he was surprised at the supineness of the Scotch Members in permitting Bills in which they were much interested to be unceremoniously withdrawn. He held that the suggestion that Members with grievances had full opportunity of bringing them forward on the Appropriation Bill was worthless; and on the Constitutional maxim, that "the redress of grievances must precede Supply," he hoped his hon. Friends would not fail to urge upon the House and the Government their views on matters which they deemed to demand Parliamentary attention. The Estimates were, in fact, a series of pegs on which hon. Members could hang any Questions or Notices they liked, and it was perfectly impossible that discussions on them could be avoided. The opportunities which the Estimates afforded had, however, been much curtailed by the Government getting large Votes on Account. This was a practice which could not be too much condemned. He hoped his Colleagues would avail themselves of the opportunities which Supply still afforded to bring forward the grievances—and there were a great many—from which Ireland still suffered. The Prime Minister must see that the appeal of the hon. Member for Longford was a very reasonable one; and as the Forms of the House would preclude the right hon. Gentleman from speaking again, in order to give him a fresh opportunity of addressing the House he begged to conclude by moving that the debate be now adjourned.

seconded the Motion. He said, he thought that there was every necessity for this Motion. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made a reference to Irish Members.

No, I referred to the Members for Great Britain.

thought the hon. Member spoke more particularly with regard to the Irish Members. He (Mr. Biggar) certainly repelled the idea that English Members who might or might not be thoroughly ignorant of the question in hand were at liberty to lecture Irish Members as to how they should behave and how the Irish people should be governed. The Irish Members stood in that House with equal rights with the English Members, and they had determination enough to insist on being heard on behalf of the causes they had to advocate. As to Supply, the Irish Members would vindicate their right to criticize the Estimates. He suggested that Business might proceed more satisfactorily if English and Scotch Members would make fewer speeches when Irish questions came up for discussion, and would be more influenced by those who understood the subjects. In the early part of the Session Bills were introduced which were of great interest because opposed by Irish Members, but the greater part of the discussion was taken up by English and Scotch Members.

The hon. Member is not keeping to the Question before the House. He is wandering far wide of it.

said, that being so, he would confine himself to the Bills under the consideration of the House. There were Bills in which both the English and Scotch Members were interested, and, consequently, the Irish Members also felt an interest in these Votes, seeing the large number of Irishmen in England and Scotland affected by them. Some English and Scotch Members might think that Irish Members had no right to take part in the discussion of English and Scotch Votes in Supply; but he held quite the contrary opinion.

The hon. Member is not keeping to the Question at all, and if he does not keep very close to the Question I shall be called upon to regard him as wilfully and persistently disregarding the authority of the Chair. MR. BIGGAR thought that perhaps enough had been said on the question, and he would simply conclude by seconding the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

, in rising to call attention to the administration of Greenwich Hospital with regard to Merchant Seamen's Pensions, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the grant should include widows whose husbands contributed to the fund, and merchant seamen now in receipt of the Mercantile Marine Fund pensions;"

said, the merchant seamen contended that while the seamen of the Royal Navy and the Marines had received full and ample pensions from the contributions made by and for seamen generally from the Greenwich Hospital Fund, they had been debarred from receiving anything beyond the miserable pittance granted by the present Secratary of State for War in 1867. Since 1867 the aged seamen had been receiving £3 8s. a-year, while the widows had not received anything whatever from the fund to which enormous sums had been compulsorily contributed by seamen for a long course of years. If the seaman who might have contributed to the Greenwich Hospital Fund should elect to receive £3 8s. a-year, he was debarred thereby from obtaining another pension to which he was equitably entitled—namely, from the Mercantile Marine Fund. On the other hand, if he elected to receive a Mercantile Marine Fund pension, then, although he was entitled through the contribution which he might have compulsorily made to the Greenwich Hospital Fund to the pension which would accrue to him from the latter fund, he was debarred from obtaining it. It was desirable that the existing Act should be so amended as that men who were entitled to the Greenwich Hospital Fund should not be debarred from enjoying the benefits of that fund because they accepted a Mercantile Marine Fund pension—they being entitled to both. It would, perhaps, be said, in answer to the claim that he was setting up, that the Government had taken over and advanced a large sum of money in connection with another fund, the Mercantile Marine Fund. He granted that; but the House must understand that the Mercantile Marine Fund was a compulsory fund, created by the Government of the day, equally with the Greenwich Hospital contribution. Therefore, if the Government lost by the winding up of the Mercantile Marine Fund, that was no reason why the poor men who had compulsorily contributed towards the Greenwich Hospital Fund should be excluded from their rights in regard to the latter fund. He denied that the one fund was intended to be a substitute for the other. The Preamble of the Mercantile Marine Fund Act contained an admission of the right of merchant seamen to the benefits of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. The Act was, in fact, passed for the purpose of supplementing and assisting the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He asked anyone acquainted with the Charter of 1694 and the Act of 1696 whether it was consistent with common sense that Parliament intended that merchant seamen should be taxed more than any other class of the community in order that they might bear the cost of pensions to men who had served in the Royal Navy? For his part, he did not think that such a proposition could for a moment be maintained. He trusted that his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) would urge upon the Government the claims of a deserving class who were now mulcted to the extent of about £12,000 a-year by enforced deductions from their earnings. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Amendment, assured the Government that the dissatisfaction with regard to the application of the fund since 1834 was not confined to the constituency of the hon. Member who had brought forward the Resolution. It was widespread among the seamen throughout Scotland, and more particularly in the seaports of the East of Scotland. He should not say a word as to the de-servings of that most patient and hardworking class of men. Waiving this, it was quite plain that some legal right was recognized on the part of merchant captains and seamen when the division of the Greenwich Hospital Fund was made by Parliament. It was also plain that the division with respect to merchant seamen was exceedingly parsimonious, and that the share allotted to them was not what they were entitled to. He hoped that the Lord of the Admiralty who had to represent this matter to his colleagues would see his way to recommend the claims of that deserving and ill-requited class. These claims were of very old standing, and he hoped the Government would look favourably upon them, even if it were necessary to introduce a Bill.

thanked the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) for bringing forward this subject, because, rightly or wrongly, these old people thought that they had a grievance. They had been obliged to contribute to two funds from their hard earnings, and now if they received a return from one fund they were precluded from the benefit of the other. He never liked to break faith with those who relied upon the law. There were only some 3,000 or 4,000 of them alive, and they should not be denied when they demanded their rights. Seamen were, as a rule, a helpless class, and therefore he hoped that the Government would show some consideration for these applicants. This was one of those cases where a small wrong became very irritating.

said, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had made a persuasive appeal on behalf of the aged seamen. In much that he had said he concurred. Some years ago he had brought forward a proposal in that House for a seamen's benefit fund, to be managed by the officials of the shipping offices. He still cherished the hope that the merchant seamen might receive some assistance in their efforts to combine for their mutual support in advancing years. It was not an essential feature of the plan for a merchant seamen's fund that the State should make a contribution of money. Whatever might be the decision on this point, it was his duty to resist any proposal to take money from Greenwich funds. Before submitting a short statement of the leading facts, there was one obvious remark which he might offer. His hon. Friend would acknowledge that the injustice of which he complained was not due to any action which had been taken by the present Admiralty. Similar demands had been steadily resisted by successive Boards, who were under strong temptation to become popular at the public expense by lavish charities to the merchant seamen. The unanimity of their decisions was, in his judgment, conclusive. The present Government, however, in their anxious desire to be just, had once more consulted the experienced officers of the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, under whom the pensions to seamen and the funds of Greenwich Hospital were administered. The Papers containing the correspondence with the Board of Trade would be distributed in a few days. The constituents of his hon. Friend would doubtless be supplied with copies of the Papers, and when they had read them they would be convinced that they had no claim whatever to further assistance from Greenwich. Without entering too minutely into details, he might observe that the relief of seamen who had served in the Royal Navy was the exclusive object of the noble foundation of William and Mary. That object was steadily kept in view both in the Act of 1696, under which the seamen of the Merchant Service were required to pay 6d. a-month to Greenwich, and again in the Act of 1834, under which they were relieved from the obligation. The protection afforded by the Navy to the commerce of the country was held to be a sufficient justification for imposing a tax on the Merchant Service. Passing from the original object for which the hospital was founded to the subsequent efforts of the State to administer to the wants of the Merchant Service, he might refer to the onerous obligation undertaken in connection with the Merchant Seamen's Fund. The management was unsatisfactory, and in 1851 the fund was wound up by Act of Parliament. Pen- sions were granted at the average rates of the preceding five years, and the Exchequer was made responsible for any deficiency which might arise. The net result had been a loss of no less than £920,000. Notwithstanding the losses sustained in connection with their fund, a generous gift was made to the merchant seamen on the occasion of the closing of Greenwich Hospital as an asylum for the Royal Navy. By the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1869, power was taken to expend £4,000 a-year in providing pensions at the rate of £3 8s. to seamen who had contributed 6d. a-month to Greenwich Hospital for five years prior to 1835, and who were not in receipt of a pension from the Merchant Seamen's Fund. In making this concession the Admiralty were doing an act of grace, and they distinctly declined to acknowledge any legal liability. In 1872 a further concession was made. The annual expenditure from Greenwich funds was no longer limited to £4,000 a-year, and an Act was passed authorizing the purchase of annuities by the Board of Trade out of funds provided by Greenwich Hospital for all seamen who could prove a claim to pension under the regulations laid down in 1869. The charge which had come on Greenwich Hospital in providing pensions and annuities under the Acts of 1869 and 1872 had already amounted to £158,000, and it was contemplated that a further sum of from £40,000 to £50,000 would be required. The regulations under which the pensions were granted had been made the subject of complaint. It had been argued that seamen who were in receipt of pensions from the Mercantile Marine Fund ought not to be debarred from the enjoyment of pensions from Greenwich Hospital. In November last the Admiralty addressed a letter to the Board of Trade asking them, as the official protectors of the merchant seamen, how far the sum of £3 8s. per annum, whether paid in the shape of a Greenwich pension or a Merchant Seamen's Fund pension, was a sufficient equivalent for the enforced contribution of 1s. a-month? In reply, they were told that the sum now paid was in excess of the value of the enforced contribution with interest. The hon. Member for Sunderland was not content to urge the claims of the seamen themselves, and he asked that pensions should be extended to widows. The de- mand could not be presented to Parliament as a matter of right and justice. If, on the other hand, the cause of the widows were pleaded as a case for the charitable consideration of the Government, he had already shown that there were other resources directly arising from the Mercantile Marine from which, if they thought it right to make a concession, an appropriation might be made. The pensions from the Mercantile Marine Fund and the grants from the Greenwich Funds, so far from being an inadequate return for the contributions, had already involved a loss to the State of more than £1,100,000. Having dealt thus far with the case of the seamen as founded on their individual contributions, he passed on to the claims put forward on their behalf as heirs to former generations of contributors. It had been maintained in several Petitions that not less than £2,000,000 of the accumulated funds of the Hospital had been derived from the enforced contributions of merchant seamen. The statement was incorrect. The personal property of Greenwich Hospital was mainly derived from other sources—from unclaimed prize-money, assigned to the Institution in the reign of Queen Anne, and from the prize-money of deserters, made over to the Hospital in the reign of George II. It included a percentage of 5 per cent on all prizes taken during the Great War. The sale of portions of the Derwentwater Estates, which were appropriated to the Hospital in the reign of George II., had been another source whence the personal property had been accumulated. But of all these sources of wealth, the most important was the transfer, in 1814, of the funds of the Chatham Chest, amounting to £1,355,000. The Chatham Chest was originally established in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the revenues were derived from Parliamentary grants, charitable bequests, prize-money, and a tax of 6d. per month levied on seamen serving in the Navy. Having shown that the merchant seamen have no claim, whether in law or in equity, to further contributions from Greenwich Hospital, it might not seem necessary to carry forward this discussion. It might, however, be satisfactory to the House to know the numerous and benevolent uses to which the funds of the Hospital were devoted. Its whole revenues were bestowed in ministering to the necessities of men who had done long service to the coun- try. Out of a total income of £161,000, no less than £120,000 were expended in pensions and gratuities. In addition to this, they were educating 1,000 boys, the sons of seamen and marines. They were doing this at a cost below the average in similar institutions. It had been objected that too large a sum was expended in salaries. To this he had to answer that the school was completely re-organized in 1870 by a committee of which the present Secretary to the Admiralty was the chairman. But although the Establishment was thus recently revised, they had thought it right to appoint a committee, which was on the point of reporting the result of its inquiries. He had reason to know that the work undertaken by Admiral Hickley and his colleagues, the Member for Falmouth, and Sir Digby Murray, had been thoroughly done, and that it would result in valuable improvements in the dietary of the school, and in the training of the boys for the sea service. Where an increase of expenditure was required, they would be able to meet the cost by economy in other directions. In conclusion, he had to express the hope that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the explanations he had received. He had done his duty to those whose cause he had advocated by stating their case in Parliament. It had been his (Sir Thomas Brassey's) duty, on behalf of the Navy, to show that the cost of the benevolent plan of his hon. Friend could not in justice be made a charge upon Greenwich funds. Hon. Members would believe that it was not an agreeable duty to resist an appeal on behalf of aged and, perhaps, necessitous persons belonging to a class with which he had a warm sympathy. In following his hazardous calling the merchant seaman did a duty to society and to the State, and he had a strong claim to our benevolence; but the seamen of the Navy might be called upon at any moment for yet greater sacrifices. Even in peace, grave disasters might occur, bringing misery to many homes. The present Board of Admiralty were anxious to make more ample provision for these distressing calamities, and if they permitted an unjustifiable encroachment on the limited resources of Greenwich Hospital, they would deprive themselves of the means of giving relief to seamen who had grown old in the service of their country and to the widows and orphans of their comrades who had fallen at the post of duty.

, who was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving the following Resolution:—

"That the annexation of the whole country of the Akhal Turcomans by Russia, in violation of her promises to this Country, has been encouraged by the unfortunate evacuation of Candahar, and is a menace to the security of British India;"

said: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that it should be necessary to discuss so important a question as that to which my Motion relates at a period very late in the Session, and at an advanced hour of the evening. Hon. Members are naturally exhausted with the heavy labours of a prolonged Session; but the opportunities open to private Members have been so very rare that I do not feel justified in postponing the discussion, on the remote chance of finding a more favourable day before the Vacation. My Notice was placed upon the Paper before recent events in Afghanistan had made the subject even more important. The grave crisis which now exists in that country makes the question peculiarly appropriate. Candahar, the great position which those who wished well to British supremacy in India were so anxious to retain, the scene of our defeat and triumphs, is now in the power of a bitter enemy of our rule. The Prince who inflicted the greatest reverse that British arms have experienced in Asia for more than a generation, is now supreme in Southern Afghanistan. Ayoub Khan, who defeated General Burrows, and was in turn overcome by Sir Frederick Roberts, has recovered from his reverse, has utterly vanquished the Army of our pensioner and protegé, Abdurrahman, Ameer of Kabul, and is now master of Candahar. The £400,000 of treasure, the rifles and the cannons which our Armies captured, and which were handed over with such foolish precipitation to an untried and incompetent candidate for the Afghan Throne, have now become the spoil of his rival and our enemy. By a striking coincidence, the defeat of Abdurrahman took place on the very day on which, 12 months ago, Ayoub inflicted the crushing disaster of Maiwand upon a British force. Such a triumph must have an injurious effect upon the prestige of England, not only throughout Afghanistan and Central Asia, but too probably in Hindostan as well. A state of civil war and anarchy, which is the fertile soil for Russian intrigue, has been created in Afghanistan. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India must now remember, with painful vividness, many of the arguments and prophecies which were addressed to the Government from Members of the Opposition, with regard to the abandonment of Candahar. I do not propose to reiterate those arguments now beyond the briefest recapitulation. On four principal grounds the retention of Candahar was urged upon Her Majesty's Government. It was pointed out that its strategic position, as a great military stronghold, was of immense value for the security of British India. That value has been testified to by the authority of every soldier of any eminence, with one single exception, both in India and Europe. Candahar is on the high road by which every great conqueror of the past has advanced to the subjugation of Hindostan. By a trifling expenditure of money, and with a garrison of some 10,000 or 12,000 men, it might have been made an impregnable bulwark of the Empire. As a great centre of commerce, Candahar is equally important. It has always been the chief mart of Afghanistan and Central Asia. Under our beneficent rule there, its trade had already doubled. If the railway, which Lord Beaconsfield, with such brilliant foresight, planned and begun, had been completed, Candahar might, in a few years, have become one of the greatest emporiums of the world. The manufactures of Lancashire and Yorkshire could have been carried, in four weeks, into the heart of Afghanistan. Vast regions now closed to British commerce, and about to fall under the influence of Russia, would have been opened to our stagnating manufactures, which would have been then diffused throughout Afghanistan, Northern Persia, the country of the Turcomans, and even remoter territories. The interest of the population itself of Candahar was a most forcible argument in favour of our retention of that city. None of the pretences under which it was abandoned are falser than the specious statements that the people wished us to go. The majority of the inhabitants of Candahar wished us to remain. They greatly flourished under the reign of impartial law and peace, which, for the first time for many years, they enjoyed under British ascendancy. Their trade doubled. They bitterly dislike the Afghan tyrrany under which they have suffered nothing but extortion, oppression, and suffering. Three-fourths of the people of Candahar are not Afghans at all. They are Persians and Hazerehs, who are by nature and habit industrious and peaceful, and who hate the rule of the licentious Afghan. It is equally incorrect to state, as the noble Marquess has done, that the Candaharis showed their hostility to British rule by falling upon the remnant of General Burrows' Army as it fled from the battle-field. Had any such general hostility been displayed, not a man could have escaped. In a few villages only, and these Alizai and Pathan, our soldiers were attacked. The best disproof of the statement consists in the fact that the inhabitants of Candahar remained perfectly quiet and loyal during the trying siege when our very scanty garrison was surrounded by Ayoub Khan's numerous host. It was not for the interest of the people of Candahar, but against their interest and to their grave injury, that we abandoned Candahar. To whom did the British Government give up that populous and flourishing city? The Governor, whom the Ameer, our protegé, had sent to succeed us, was described by the able correspondent of The Times, then with General Hume, "as a loutish-looking youth of 19, with manners worse than that of the average Afghan noble." It was to this "loutish-looking youth" and his tender mercies that the people of Candahar were given over by a Government that professed to consult their interest. Now, the same unfortunate people are exposed to the resentment of the new victor, and the House may easily picture the fate of those who are obnoxious to Ayoub, because they have been partizans either of England or of Abdurrahman. Well, Sir, there is a fourth ground, on which those who wish well to the power and repute of Great Britain, opposed the policy of surrender. I do not expect this reason to carry much weight with hon. Members opposite, who seem as indifferent to the honour as they are to the material interests of their country. The word of England—that word hitherto inviolate—had been pledged to the people of Candahar, that "they should not again fall under the rule of Cabul." These were the words in which Sir Donald Stewart, as Governor and as General, representing the British Government, addressed those people. That promise was in 12 months fulfilled by their transfer, their unwilling transfer, to the considerate autocracy of a "loutish youth of 19," the Agent of the Ameer of Cabul. Sir, when I speak of this humiliating transaction, I cannot help recalling a similar episode, associated with others even more disgraceful, in the recent history of another portion of the British Empire. Sir Garnet Wolseley, also as Governor and General, assured the loyal Colonists and Natives of the Transvaal that—[Cries of "Question!"] I have no doubt those home truths are extremely unpalatable to hon. Members below the Gangway. I am entitled to illustrate my argument by a reference to a parallel case, and I do not intend to be disconcerted by the interruptions of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine). Sir Garnet Wolseley said that "the rivers should flow back in their courses, that the sun should rise in the West," before the Transvaal should be again given up to the Boers. Both these solemn assurances have been falsified by the action of the present Ministry. It is an evil practice which they are introducing; a practice which destroys all confidence among the nations in the honoured word of England. Sir, I trust that I have been able to show that the abandonment of Candahar was most unfortunate and ill-timed, and that it benefited no one. Neither the power, the influence and commerce of Great Britain, nor the interests of the people of Southern Afghanistan, nor the safety of Hindostan, were secured by our retreat. Within a few months of the day on which the last British soldier filed out from the ramparts of that splendid position, our enemy is within its walls; and Russia, has, in breach of her engagements, annexed a splendid people and a fertile territory, which brings her armies 400 miles nearer our Northern Indian Frontier, and close to the borders of Afghanistan. That country is the key of Hindostan. Nadir Shah, the great Persian conqueror, said that "the power which holds Candahar holds India." All the great authorities are agreed, whatever was their side in English politics, that all Russian influence must be excluded from Afghanistan. Even Lord Lawrence, the great standby of hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, had said that if Russia moved with regard to Afghanistan "we must wage war with her in every quarter of the globe." The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs strongly affirmed this principle in his recent speech during the Candahar debate. Afghanistan could not stand by itself. It must fall under either British or Russian influence. If we deliberately abnegate our interests and duties in that country, Russia will quickly and gladly occupy our position, and we can hardly blame her for doing so. Every event of recent Afghan history proves this. When Shere Ali had been satisfied that the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) were, in 1873, too short-sighted or too timid to give him the alliance he offered and prayed for, Shere Ali at once threw himself into the arms of Russia. There is no unity or homogeneity about Afghanistan. It is not united, and hardly ever has been united. For a short time, under Dost Mahomet and Shere Ali, but only after bloody and exhausting civil wars, has Afghanistan been united. The inhabitants are made up of different races, with no bond of union, who are alien in religion and hostile in feeling to each other. The military strength of even an united Afghanistan is contemptible. We have never found any difficulty in conquering it; nor should we have had much trouble in holding it, provided we had possessed the courage to have a distinct and consistent policy, and to stand to it. A large party could soon be formed favourable to our rule, and the whole country would settle down as quietly as the Punjaub did in 1847. There are already 700,000 Afghans subject to British rule in that province. Russia can easily conquer and hold Afghanistan. What, then, are the dangers from a Russian advance? However much the apprehensions and warnings of those who have often been styled alarmists and Russo-phobists may have been ridiculed, no one who contemplates the patent facts of Russia's recent progress in Asia can any longer be indifferent to her advance. I will not weary the House with the details of Russian conquest in Asia. Suffice it to say that since 1862 she has moved forwards over 1,000 miles in the direction of British India. Her armies have traversed vast regions, great rivers, sterile deserts; have overcome savage and warlike races; have conquered great and populous cities, and acquired fresh bases for their operations within striking distance of Afghanistan, if not of India itself. In two directions her outposts are now barely 600 miles from our North-Western Frontier. The great Khanates of Central Asia have been conquered and annexed; and in the cities of Tashkend, Bokhara, and Samarcand, General Kauffman presides over an immense Vice-Royalty, bounded by the Oxus. On the more menacing side of the Caspian, General Skobeleff has recently made a prodigious advance, which has brought him close of Herat, and made Russia master of the richest portion of the Turcoman country, and of Northern Persia. It will be a terrible mistake, one fraught with the most disastrous consequences, if Parliament shows itself indifferent to this menacing proximity. Do hon. Members really ridicule the danger of a Russian invasion of India? Do they still assert that she has no intention nor wish to acquire that splendid Dependency for herself? On what grounds do they base their foolish confidence? What is there in the history of Russia to justify it? Has not her whole career been one of continuous aggression and conquest? Which of her neighbours have escaped her tenacious and devastating onslaught? Race after race, country after country has succumbed to the insatiable greed of the Russian power for fresh territory. What is there in the special case of India to justify such confidence? I ask hon. Members to consider the bare facts of the Russian advance in Asia, and ask themselves, dispassionately, for what object she can have incurred the vast sacrifices she has cheerfully undergone to extend her power, and always in the same direction—towards Hindostan? Why has she expended so much blood and treasure, so much labour and time in the conquest of wild countries and of brave and barbarous peoples? There can be but one reply. Her toil and expenditure have been devoted to one great object quite worthy of such efforts and offering an ample reward. The prize sought for is the fabled wealth of Hindostan. India, the Eldorado of all great conquerors, from Alexander I. down to our own time, is the reward that Russia has in view. It may be that experience has taught us that India is not so rich as we once imagined. Yet there is a vast amount of realized treasure in that country, of coin, of precious stones, of ornamental wealth, which are most attractive to an avaricious bureaucracy, civil and military, such as that which has control of the Russian Power. They are troubled with no scruples. It is not the good of the conquered people they seek. There are no sentimental humanitarians to press the claims, just or unfounded, of the subject population upon the conscience of the Russian public at home. The Russians desire to conquer countries in order to exploit them. The Natives of India would soon enough discover the contrast between our beneficent supremacy and the remorseless tyranny of St. Petersburg. Russian rule has been a curse and not a blessing to every people that has fallen under its crushing power. But, Sir, do facts in any way show that Russia has no intention of invading India? I have good evidence to the contrary. Scores of Russian officers have in my presence avowed their hope of sharing some day in the attack upon that coveted Dependency. Russians are extremely frank in their admissions upon these subjects—I mean the ordinary Russian officer or civilian, not, of course, the professional diplomatist or politician. General Skobeleff himself, the ablest of Russian commanders, has repeatedly stated that he hoped himself to lead the Russian Army that should march to the conquest of India. The Grand Duke Nicholas the younger, in a book recently published, speaks of a pass in Central Asia which he was then exploring as on the route that he expected to traverse with an army of invasion. India, I affirm, is the goal, the ultimate end, not only of all Russian progress in Central Asia, but of the military aspirations of the great bulk of the Russian Army. Now, Sir, this being the case, I should like to ask hon. Members opposite if they have any idea what that Army is? Authorities of great weight say that in a few years it will number over 8,000,000 of fighting men. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, these are not my figures, they are the official estimates of the Russian War Office as to the results of its new scheme of Army Re-organization. They are confirmed by the evidence of a gentleman of intimate acquaintance with Russia, the only European who took part in General Skobeleff's recent Turcoman campaign. I should like to read what this gentleman, the Correspondent of The Republique Française, the leading journal of Prance, M. Gambetta's organ, says of the Russian Army—

"The Russian Army within seven years will number an effective of 8,000,000 of men. You cannot imagine the ardour which excites all these young men, soldiers to the tips of their fingernails, only demanding a campaign—content, satisfied, proud, when they gain the Cross of St. George, or when in the midst of flashing sabres they can die gloriously. You cannot compare these men with any other European Army. To them war is a game, a pleasure, a recompense. 'Hurrah! the Tekkes!' they cried, when they were on the march to Central Asia, ready to die rather than to retreat (he saw two whole companies slaughtered, not one having tried to fly). You must see them, you must hear them, you must live in their midst to understand them. War is a perpetual song; it is their ardent irresistible desire to hurl themselves into the melée."

Now, Sir, it does not matter very much for my argument whether the Russian Forces are 8,000,000, or 4,000,000, or 2,000,000 strong; the smallest number would, I imagine, be a most awkward problem for our scanty Army to cope with. India has been often conquered by invaders who followed the very route by which the Russians are now so rapidly pressing. To take one instance only, Nadir Shah, in the middle of the last century, marched with 80,000 men from Teheran to Candahar, from Candahar to Delhi, the capital of Hindostan. He took and sacked the Imperial city, and then marched to Bokhara, North of the Oxus, by way of Herat and Balkh. Nadir Shah thus traversed the two great pathways by which the Russians are now converging upon India. How, then, does the Party which advocates indifference and neglect propose to meet an invasion when it comes? Do they think that Russian bayonets can be met by anything except armed men? Do they think that they can repel the onslaught of the men who took Plevna by laughing at them? Or do they propose to entrench themselves behind their moneybags—and even these are shrinking—and expect the Russians to retire overwhelmed from the contest? Is it by their superior "moral sense?" Is it by their self-satisfied consciousness of superior philanthropy? Is it by their pacific intentions that they hope to drive back the Cossack and the Circassian? I know, Sir, it has been the fashion to allay alarms by assuming that Russia has not the money, nor the resources wherewith to invade India. Let not hon. Members lay that flattering unction to their souls. There cannot be a greater mistake. No country that has the men, and the spirit, the courage, enterprize, and desire to undertake a great war is ever kept back for want of money. Lord Derby, in this respect, made a prediction as mistaken as most of his political conclusions. He publicly stated, early in 1877, that Russia could not possibly attack Turkey because her finances were in such a bad condition. Well, Sir, Russia did attack Turkey within a few weeks of that prophecy. She waged a tremendous and. exhausting war with her valiant enemy and was victorious. I doubt if the credit of Russia stands much, if any, lower now than it did before that struggle of 1877. Russia has an unlimited supply of good fighting men; nor will she want for money. Iron has always conquered gold. It always will conquer gold unless the gold is defended by strong arms and courageous hearts. You can only repel a Russian invasion by being prepared and resolute. It is the strong man armed that keeps his house in safety, and not those who wait until the danger is upon them in an overwhelming torrent, before they begin to take necessary precautions. It would be a fatal blunder to meet the Russian attack on the Indus—that is, on the plains of Hindostan. For if Russian Armies were in possession of Afghanistan, the key of India, if behind "that veil of mountains" Russia could mature her plans of invasion at leisure and in secrecy, it would be open to her to select her own time for pouring her armies by different outlets upon your immense and ill-defended Frontier. A single battle there would settle, as it has often settled before, the fate of India. It is an axiom of good generalship to keep your enemy as far as possible away from your central resources—from the heart and strength of your power. Once let him penetrate within your inner lines, and immediate collapse may follow from a vital blow. This was the case with France in 1870. So soon as the Germans penetrated her Frontier line of fortresses around Metz, all resistance was ineffectual. War should be, if possible, conducted in your enemy's country rather than in your own. It spares your own people great ravages and suffering. If you had such a splendid position as Candahar, you would paralyze any attempt to attack you by any other route. You could then await your enemy with confidence in a fortress of great strength, abounding in every kind of natural resource. With the railway to Candahar, British troops could be placed within its ramparts within four weeks of their leaving your shores. Not a man or gun need be moved from Hindostan itself. All the garrisons of that country could be retained to meet the emergency of internal trouble. It is by no means improbable that if you waited to meet the Russians on the Indus, the most serious difficulty you would have to deal with would not be their bayonets in your front, but an alarmed and discontented population in your rear. Well and honourably as India is governed, it would be folly to shut our eyes to the fact that there are large sections of the population jealous of our rule. There are fanatical feelings towards the alien race, and ambitious Princes jealous of our ascendancy. There are proud races discontented at having their right of tyranny over their less warlike neighbours taken from them by the equity of British rule. There are Princes whose right to make war, to plunder and annex, has been curtailed since they were compelled to bow before the flag of England. How artfully, and with what success Russia would work upon the jealousy, ambition, and smouldering discontent of the Natives of India, those who know her history will be at no loss to realize. Russia would choose her own time for her great and final blow. It might well be such a one as the present, when our scanty Army has its hands full with a revolt in a distant Colony and with revolution and anarchy at home. Meet her onslaught at Candahar, and even if the most improbable contingency of your being driven out of that fortress occurred, there are dozens of positions among the defiles between Candahar and India which a few men can make good against an army. Sir, there are two facts in connection with the Russian system of con-quest which deserve special notice. They constitute the great difference between her conquests and those of England. Every race, every district which Russia acquires is immediately subjected to a rigid conscription. Her fighting material is thus constantly increased. Each fresh acquisition is thus made a stepping-stone for a further conquest. In the late Russo-Turkish War, it was her auxiliary and subject races that bore the brunt, at least of the earlier stages of the contest. It was after the Poles, the Finns, and the Cossacks had been decimated that the Imperial Guard was brought up to finish the war. In Asia Minor it was the Grenadiers of the Caucasus that stormed Kars, and Georgian and Circassian regiments that did most of the fighting. In a few years the most determined of Russia's opponents will learn to fight under her banners. Those same Daghestani mountaineers, who, under Schamyl, waged a struggle to the death for 12 years before they succumbed, are now her choicest troops. It is with them that Skobeleff has just annihilated the Turcomans of Akhal. Therefore, it is of serious moment to us whenever Russia adds fresh strength to her already enormous forces. She is conquering the finest races' of Asia. With our scanty Army and declining military spirit this cannot be a matter of indifference to us. It has been said that these conquests weaken the Russian power. It may be true that her internal condition, honeycombed as it is with revolution and discontent, is very bad; but her military strength is not less—it is considerably greater than it has ever been before. The second point is the system of colonization that Russia adopts with regard to every new and unsettled country. Colonies of Native Russians or Cossacks are planted among the conquered population. These live side by side with them, and hold their land on tenure of military service, like the old Roman Border Colonists, from whose tenure originated the feudal system. They are thus able and ready to suppress the first beginning of revolt. In the Caucasus these Military Colonies are frequent. Some of the Circassian mountaineers have actually been transported 1,000 miles from their homes to make room for their oppressors. So now the recently subjugated country of the Turcomans is being effectually colonized with Cossack settlements. Now, Sir, I come to the latest advance of Russia towards India, and the most serious of all. In my humble judgment, the fall of Geok Tepé was the gravest event for British interests that has taken place in Asia since the Indian Mutiny. Russia has at one stroke advanced her outposts nearly 400 miles nearer to our Empire in Hindostan; she has subdued a gallant people, and acquired a very rich and valuable territory. Before considering the annexation of the Turcoman country further, I wish to bring under the notice of the House the horrible, the atrocious cruelty with which this last conquest, like so many others, has been effected. The conduct of General Skobeleff closely resembles that of his predecessor, General Lomakin, in the expedition of 1879. Within the badly-constructed clay walls of the great aoul or village of Geok Tepé were collected most of the families, as well as the fighting-men, of the Akhal Turcomans. Upon this vast assemblage of some 50,000 souls, men, women, and children, the Russian General rained continuously for three weeks, heavy shot, mitraille, and bullets. He surrounded the encampment with his Cavalry and Artillery (70 cannon), and prevented any attempt at escape on the part of these wretched beings. When Geok Tepé was taken by assault, aided by dynamite mines, General Skobeleff, in his official Report, states that 4,000 unburied bodies were found within the walls. The number of Turcomans who perished in their most gallant defence is estimated, at the very least, at 12,000 persons. So much for the humanity of a Russian General who bombards an inhabited encampment even of Turcomans, and refuses to allow the women and children to escape. But what followed? I will describe it in the words of General Skobeleff himself. When the survivors, abandoning the struggle, fled from this scene of death, he let loose upon them his Cavalry and Horse Artillery.

"For 17 versts our soldiers pursued and slaughtered the fugitives; 8,000 of both sexes were hacked to pieces by our pursuing troops."

Was a more fearful, more heartrending scene ever pictured by the imagination? These wretched people, encumbered with their families, fled across the level plain without protection or shelter. Grape shot and rifle bullets were poured through their dense masses, while the sabres and lances of the Cavalry did their work upon the defenceless fugitives, and the bayonets of the Infantry despatched the wounded and exhausted who could no longer fly. Let me briefly quote the account of what General Lomakin did in 1879. General Lomakin wrote as follows in his official Report to the Russian Government:—

"During six hours our 12 cannon kept up a continued fire on the fortified village settlement, where were collected nearly all the population of Akhal, including women and children, more than 20,000 persons. The effect of our artillery was terrible. The Turcoman prisoners say that several thousands of their people were killed."

The Correspondent of The Golos, the principal Russian newspaper, thus describes the scene—

"At 4 o'clock the women and children streamed out of the aoul by two roads with pack-camels, in the hope of passing through and escaping. Picturesque was the sight. The long line of pack-camels, surrounded by women clad in variegated garments, and half-naked children with cries and noise and tears, winding in the direction of the mountains. To the feet of our troopers the beautiful, swarthy Tekke women on their knees, threw themselves, holding forth in their hands sucking babes, and imploring in an unknown tongue to have mercy on them. All of them by command of the Chief of the Staff were turned back to the aoul. Affecting were these scenes; but war will always remain war."

[Mr. CAINE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) cheers the last sentence. Such barbarity is not war. It may be the warfare of an Attila or Zenghis Khan. It is not the warfare of modern times or of civilized nations. If the hon. Member for Scarborough thinks that it is, let me recommend him to re-read his history. Such atrocious deeds are a disgrace, an ineffaceable disgrace, not only to the cruel generals and soldiers who perpetrate them, but to the Government and Monarch under whose rule they are permitted and encouraged; aye, and to civilization itself. For it is under the pretence of civilization that such foul barbarity has too often of late been committed. I trust, Sir, we shall hear no more of the civilizing mission of Russia, even from the right hon. Gentleman himself, who has been so often her apologist. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] Well, Sir, I will not now detain the House by trying to disprove the disclaimer of the Prime Minister. I regret to say that I cannot accept that disclaimer, recollecting, as I do, expressions with regard to "the knightly crusade," "the sisterly mission," "the civilizing labour" of Russia; recollecting, above all, how actively the right hon. Gentleman worked on her behalf when he was in Opposition. These are no exceptional acts of cruelty on the part of Russian commanders. This is the usual way in which Russian warfare is conducted. General Kaufmann treated the Yomud Turcomans with equal cruelty in 1875. I could even parallel these massacres from a hundred similar and worse cases in Bulgaria and Roumelia during the late devastating war. At Hermanli this same Skobeleff, able general and agreeable companion that he is, drove with his Cossacks and Artillery 80,000 helpless refugees, most of them women and children, through a deep river and a narrow gorge, and finally into the bleak hills of the Rhodope, where most of them perished amid the frost and snow of a severe winter. What, Sir, is this Turcoman region which Russia has just annexed in spite of her promises? It will be remembered what an effect the assurances of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had upon the House during the Candahar debate. He told the House in the most formal manner that the new Czar had recalled Skobeleff, and that Russia would withdraw from her recent conquests. Sir, I cannot suppose that the hon. Gentleman, a responsible Minister of the Crown, would have made such a statement had he not possessed what he believed to be ample grounds for making it. I cannot believe that he would make a statement which was intended to influence, and which did influence, a critical debate on a great subject without having received some direct assurance, in the sense he quoted, from the accredited Agents of Russia. What has happened? General Skobeleff was not recalled. Within a very few weeks of the Under Secretary's solemn statement there appeared an Imperial Ukase incorporating the whole country of the Akhal Turcomans, and much beyond it, in the Russian Empire. Even that was not enough. Within the past month we learn that the whole of the Attrek Valley and a region extending close up to Meshed, and including some of the most fertile portions of Khorassan, are also annexed. Time was when the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not the humble and ever ready apologist and defender of Russian aggression that he always now appears to be. Time was when he took a manly and statesmanlike line upon these questions, and when he was no inconsiderable thorn in the side of the Prime Minister's "masterly inactivity." In 1871, during the debates on the Czar's arbitrary abrogation of the Black Sea Clause, the hon. Baronet denounced in no measured terms the weakness and incapacity of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman. What legerdemain has worked the painful change that we see? Is it the thraldom of Office? Is it some other reason? or is it the spell of national humiliation which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) seems to cast over all those with whom he is brought into contact. The hon. Gentleman made a statement in 1871 which I should like to repeat to the House, so sound and admirable as it is itself, and so unlike the uncertain and unsatisfactory utterances which we have been getting accustomed to expect of late from the Under Secretary. It related to the shuffling and pusillanimity shown by Ministers over the Black Sea Clause.

"It is none of the fault of England; but comes of the timidity of her statesmen, and the weakness of her rulers. It is said that the policy of the Government has been a peace policy. I do not think that it has been either a peace policy or a safe policy. It may be a policy for a time cheap—although your Estimates do not show it; but it is not a truly pacific policy, if it is neither calculated to maintain the present dignity of this country, nor the security of any in the future."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 915–16.]

Admirable words! The policy of Her Majesty's Government is, indeed, not a peace policy; it is not a safe policy. It is not cheap. It is a peace-at-any-price policy, a policy of humiliation and surrender—a policy which suggests aggression and invites attack. It is a policy which leads you to spend millions of money and thousands of lives in the near future that you may save some trifling expenditure and some little effort at present. It is a policy which allows threatening evils to accumulate until it is impossible to cope with them without the most desperate sacrifices. It is the policy which drifted England into that unnecessary and costly struggle of the Crimea, which by a little firmness and statesmanship could have been so easily avoided. This is known by nobody better than by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Would that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) retained a little of the patriotic watchfulness and forethought which he displayed 10 years ago. The moment that we abandoned Candahar and that the present Government showed that they really meant to go backwards and close their eyes to evident perils, then the Russian Government took heart of grace, and decided that it might venture to annex whatever it fancied. This Turcoman region is a splendid acquisition. The country is rich and prosperous, especially that portion which lies South of the Kopet Dagh range, the water-shed of Khorassan, and the proper boundary of Persia. Every traveller who has visited this country has borne evidence to the fertility of the soil and the physique and courage of the people. I will only quote one extract from a good authority, at least one which hon. Members opposite will not dispute. General Petroosevitch, the Russian explorer, writes that besides cultivating juwarree or maize, they grow barley, rear enormous crops of melons, and manufacture embroidered carpets and cloths having no equal in Asia. In one of his rides along the Akhal Frontier in 1878, he caught a glimpse from the crest of the Kopet Dagh of the Tekke country near Askabad. He says—

"Before me stretched a broad zone of gardens inclosing settlements and containing, according to those who had been there, any quantity of peach-trees, nut-trees, and grape-vines. Walnut trees and vines I myself saw in the neighbouring valleys. Consequently, if the Akhal Tekke settlements, exposed to the North wind, enjoy such a propitious climate, how much more so must the valleys further to the Souti, sheltered by mountain ridges?"

The valleys the Russian traveller refers to are the valleys of North Khorassan, where sheep lamb twice a year, and the people never know what it is to have a bad harvest. These valleys have already been annexed by Russia. Khorassan, up to and including Herat, was for several centuries the granary of Central Asia. This is really the first valuable country the Russians have yet conquered in Asia. It brings them South of the Desert, which is their natural boundary in Asia, and which should be the barrier between England and Russia. It gives them a fresh base close at our gates, from which they can prosecute their further advance with every advantage of position and resources. They will no longer have long and difficult marches to make, or dangerous opposition to overcome on the road to India. Their railway will soon be able to convey any number of troops from the Caspian to Herat. The Russian Army of the Caucasus is over 100,000 men. It can readily be trebled, and. one half despatched to annoy, if not to invade, one of our Indian Possessions. The Russian head-quarters are now barely 100 miles from Meshed, the capital of Khorassan, and second town in Persia. They are less than 300 miles from Herat, "the outer gate of India." From the Caspian to their new outposts, a distance of over 400 miles, has thus been bridged by one campaign. The integrity of Persia is violated, and the Shah seems to have become a mere instrument in his great neighbour's hand. The most serious fact connected with this advance is the railway which the Russians, with real statesmanship, are bringing forward from the Caspian to Herat. Already, half of the distance to Meshed is laid down; soon one-half of the remainder will be completed. The same Correspondent, whom I have already quoted, gives a most interesting description of its progress and value, written in April last—

"The railroad no longer encounters the least obstacle. It is an immense green billiard-cloth of turf, upon which the sleepers and rails can be placed without need of spade or pick. By next June (1881) the railway will certainly be completed to Bami—i.e., 264 versts (180 to 190 miles).…This line, which, such as it is, has so efficaciously served General Skobeleff, will, after June, have a fresh destination. It will then serve, not only to throw into Central Asia as many troops as the Russian Government may desire, but it will serve equally for the transport of merchandise coming from Herat, from Meshed, from Bokhara, and from Samarcand. General Annenkoff is busy in appointing special agents to most of these places, who will direct all their caravans to concentrate at Bami. Let people in England be under no illusion that this line, so excellently constructed, and upon which I have already travelled 35 versts an hour, can arrest itself at Bami. Once at Bami, a Ukase will direct its prolongation to Askabad, if not immediately to Herat. They may move gently (doucement) at St. Petersburg, and dole out their orders by doses of 20 or 60 versts; but it will not be surprising if they make 500."

According to this well-informed gentleman, there is not the slightest obstacle between the Russian troops and Herat. The ground is level and well watered. "They have but to march some 300 miles, and say 'J'y suis.'" The efforts, and successful ones, which Russia is making to secure the trade of all these regions are not the least suggestive to us. Will it be believed that a British Ministry deliberately threw away such a rare opportunity of extending British trade and political influence as was offered by the railway to Candahar? It seems incredible; yet this was done only four months ago, and we are now reaping the evil fruits. There now remain only the Tekkes of Merv and a few minor tribes independent. These cannot long retain their liberty. Gallant they are; but no untrained and ill-armed race, be it as brave as Hercules, can long stand against breech-loaders. General Kaufmann, from the Oxus, and Skobeleff or his successor, from the Tejend, will join hands at Merv, and the whole of this magnificent people of the Turcomans will become Russian subjects. You will then find, too late, what you have lost in allowing such a valuable barrier between your possessions and the Armies of Russia to be beaten down, and not only beaten down, but to be added to the strength of your enemies. The physique of these Turcoman horsemen is unequalled. Their courage is proved by Geok Tepé, when they lost over half their numbers in defence of their liberty. They will make a far finer cavalry than the Cossacks, say Sir Henry Rawlinson, General Baker, Colonel McGregor, and Professor Vambéry. Their breed of horses is matchless, both for speed and endurance. A Turcoman rider will go, for five or six days, 100 miles a-day, on the same horse. It is no wonder that the Russian generals are anxious to conquer, and turn this splendid race into auxiliaries of the Czar. They might, by a very little management and support, be turned into our allies, and fight our battles for us for many years. Instead of this, we shall only too probably have to meet them as enemies upon the Indus. For her advance upon Herat, and thence upon India, there are now three roads open to the Russian Armies. One along the Tejend by Sarakhs, the second through Kuchan and Meshed, and the third West and South of Meshed, avoiding Herat, and striking the main road to Candahar at Farah. That there is no difficulty in marching from Herat to Candahar, Ayoub Khan's advance over the very ground twice within 12 months shows its facility. We have, Sir, a great dominion and a great charge at stake. On the highest ground, we have to guard the safety and interests of 250,000,000 of an alien population in India. However short our rule there may fall of the standard of absolute perfection, no one can deny that England has done much for that wonderful Dependency. It is no empty boast to say that the people of India have never, in their long history, enjoyed such benefits of government as England has conferred upon them. These growing myriads, alien to us and to each other in origin, in creed, in feeling, and in interests, enjoy to an extent, for them unequalled, the blessings of order, of law, of peace, and education, and all that makes a people prosperous and happy. It is our duty to preserve this vast population from the blighting domination of Russia. Nor are the benefits to England herself inconsiderable. The trade with India is worth £100,000,000 every year to this country. The number of your surplus population to whom India gives beneficial occupation, is close upon 250,000,000. She buys your manufactures, and sends you in return her products. More than this, upon the possession of India depends all the carrying trade with the East, with China, Japan, the Islands of the Archipelago, with Arabia and the Persian Gulf. No Englishman can wish to see this mine of wealth for England handed over to the most backward of European Governments, a Government that shuts British products out by protective tariffs. I have ventured to remind the House of these reciprocal advantages to India and to England from our connection with that country. They may be of service to those who would cry "Perish India!" or who could hear that cry unmoved. I have to thank the House for the kind and patient hearing it has granted me. I regret that I could not have dealt with a subject so extensive and important in a shorter compass. The interests and honour of the most noble fabric of Empire that human genius and enterprize have ever erected are at stake. I am very sensible of the inadequacy of my statements. I would only urge upon the Government to be forewarned and forearmed in time to meet the danger while it is still a small cloud upon the horizon, and, before it has swollen and covered the whole sky, to take that "stitch in time which saves nine" in political as well as in domestic relations. Let them retrace their mistakes. Let Candahar be held as an impregnable bulwark of our power, and let the Russians be courteously but firmly informed that they will not be allowed to annex the Turcoman people. England cannot afford to lose the high repute she has hitherto held in the East. I never thought, Sir, that I should hear, as I did in this House a few days ago, the reputation of England spoken of as "that miserable thing called prestige." Sir, what else is prestige but the character, the moral status, the reputation of a people among the nations? It behaves no State to guard its prestige so vigilantly and resolutely as England. Her "thin red line" can do a great deal, but it must have the prestige of old at its back. It is not by your bayonets, your rifles, or your cannon; it is not by your handful of soldiers among myriads of an alien population that the supremacy of England is secured. No, Sir; it is by the belief, hitherto unimpaired among your subjects in India, that the courage of Englishmen is invincible, that the word of England once pledged is never broken; that the foes of your power never gaze upon the backs of your soldiers in permanent retreat; that although you might be beaten once, or twice, or thrice, yet you would return to the struggle with quenchless resolution. These were the great qualities by which Englishmen of the past built up and consolidated the Empire you enjoy. It is by maintaining your reputation for courage, for statesmanship, for unflinching tenacity of purpose that you can alone maintain it.

said, he did not hear any proof from the hon. Member that the annexation of the country of the Akhal Turcomans was a violation of any promises made to us. He considered that the hon. Member had been alarming himself unnecessarily. By many persons the importance of Merv had been ridiculously over-estimated; but they had forgotten that Merv was not on the road to India. Candahar was on the road to India, he admitted; but he did not see why there should be so much outcry about it. The late Lord Beaconsfield; while a Member of that House, described in the darkest colours the atrocious character of these Turcomans. They were a set of robbers who had damaged Russia, and had always been a terrible scourge to Persia. It was not for us to complain when Russia, in her own interests, had been forced to make an advance against those enemies of the human race. This advance of Russia was having a civilizing influence in Central Asia; and, even were we so misguided as to seek to stop her advance, we had not the power. He hoped, therefore, the Government, by fair diplomacy, would come to a fair understanding with Russia.

Sir, I find it difficult to deal with the somewhat extensive speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The hon. Member has evidently given his attention to this question, and has collected a great deal of information on it. I should be sorry if he or the House supposed that I mean to treat him with disrespect in saying that I will not attempt to follow him through the whole of that speech. But I should find considerable difficulty in doing so, because I am utterly unable to ascertain what was the exact point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said, there was not a word in the speech of the hon. Member to prove the proposition that Russia's annexation of the Akhal Tekke territory was a violation of her promise to this country. Neither has he said a word as to the second proposition in the Motion he had intended to make, that the annexation of the Akhal Tekke territory has been encouraged by the unfortunate evacuation of Candahar. I think the hon. Member was well advised in avoiding that subject, for he would have found it difficult to prove that operations which had been going on for a year before our evacuation of Candahar were encouraged by that evacuation. There is no connection whatever between our occupation of, or advance from, Afghanistan, and the Russian occupation of the Akhal Tekke territory. Does the hon. Member mean to say that if we had resolved to remain in Candahar Russia would have been prepared to abandon the results of her campaigns, and to have retired from the Akhal Tekke territory? [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT was understood to observe that the Under Secretary of State said so.] The Under Secretary of State said nothing of the kind. I do not think it ever entered the head of any reasonable person that such a result would follow. As far as I could gather from the hon. Member's speech, his sole object was to discuss again a subject which was fully discussed months ago—namely, our evacuation of Candahar, which evacuation was approved by a large majority of this House. I do not think it necessary that I should follow the hon. Member into another discussion of that subject. The only matter which I think it may be necessary for me to advert to for one moment is his endeavour to prove that our retirement from Candahar has led to the victory of Ayoob Khan, and that that victory is a condemnation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government and the House also, I think, were perfectly aware that the success of Ayoob Khan against Abdurrahman Khan was perfectly possible, and even probable. We have never pledged ourselves or our policy to the success or to the ability of Abdurrahman Khan to overcome his rival. On the contrary, I remember perfectly well that in the observations that I made to the House in the debate, I stated distinctly that the question of his supremacy in Afghanistan could never be decided until there had been an appeal to arms, and that it was impossible to foretell what the result of that appeal would be. No doubt, we have given some support to Abdurrahman Khan; but, if so, we have done nothing more than to discharge what we considered to be a debt to the people of Afghanistan, rather than an act in our own interests We have, undoubtedly, inflicted a very great injury and mischief on Afghanistan. We have destroyed whatever existed there in the form of government, and we have replaced it in the state of anarchy in which it was before Shere Ali succeeded to the Throne. That may have been necessary or it may not; but, no doubt, great injury was thereby done to the people of Afghanistan. We decided that it was not necessary in the interest of England that we should permanently occupy and undertake the administration of Afghanistan. Having decided to retire from that country, we considered that it was our duty to its people to give them, at all events, a chance of re-establishing for themselves settled government. Whether we selected the best candidate or not, what was done was done not so much in our own interests as in discharge of a debt to the people of Afghanistan, and to give them the opportunity of restoring, if they thought fit, a settled Government, such as existed before we destroyed it. The hon. Member has informed us that Russia can have no object in conquering these vast and sterile regions, unless it is with the view of invading India. At other times he informed us that she had acquired by those conquests fertile districts and the control of useful, warlike, and also industrial populations. He told us that he had had the privilege of conversing with General Skobeleff and hundreds of Russian officers, who, with wonderful unanimity, had avowed their intention of invading and conquering India, and that Indian Sepoys are quite unable to cope with the Russian soldiers. I wish when he made that assertion that somebody on the Bench opposite had explained how, under those circumstances, it entered into the mind of the late Government to bring Indian Sepoys from India for the purpose of defeating Russian soldiers in Europe. The hon. Member told us that the danger which now threatened India from the advance of Russia is only to be compared to a small cloud; but that soon we shall see Russia commanding the services of 8,000,000 men. He did not inform us by what process the Russian Army of 500,000 men is to be increased to the extent of 8,000,000. He indulged in an eloquent denunciation of the cruelties practised by Russia in the conquest of the Turcomans. It is no business of mine to defend Russia, and, no doubt, those campaigns may have been accompanied by some cruelties. But when the hon. Gentleman denounced Russia in such warm terms he ought to have adduced stronger proofs than he did of the facts that those cruelties were committed. All that he brought forward was the report that a Russian General had bombarded a fortified place, which not only contained soldiers, but the families of soldiers. I do not conceive that it is possible, if women and children and property are placed within a fortified inclosure, to avoid the bombardment of such a fortified position consistently with the necessities of war. The hon. Member only quoted the Correspondent of a newspaper, and gave no official authority for the allegation he made in that respect. He had spoken of the annexation of the Akhal Tekke country as a menace and a danger to India. Differing altogether as I do from the views of the hon. Member and those who agree with him as to the security of our position in India, I cannot admit his contention in this respect. But if it is any satisfaction to him, I have not the smallest hesitation in saying with perfect plainness that I do not think the annexation by Russia of the Akhal Tekke country is a matter of indifference to us. I will not enter into the discussion of the question whether that annexation was consistent or inconsistent with the pledges given by Russia to this country. I think that a good deal may be said on both sides of that question; but it has not been entered upon by the hon. Member, and I do not wish to enter upon it now. We are not concerned in the independence of the Akhal Tribes. But the recent advances and conquests of Russia have, no doubt, had consequences which do affect us in two points very nearly. The extension of Russian territory along the Northern Border of Persia raises a question of the integrity of Persia which cannot be indifferent to us, and the near approach of Russia to the borders of Afghanistan is not a matter of indifference to us. The present Government have admitted as plainly as any other that the integrity and independence of Afghanistan is a matter to them of vital importance, and that they do not intend to permit interference by any foreign Power with the internal or external affairs of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were under a settled form of government it might be indifferent to us whether Russia or any other country extended to the very borders of Afghanistan. But that is not the case of Afghanistan. It has not, and perhaps it never may have, what we recognize as a settled form of government. There could be no doubt that, if Russia advanced towards the borders of Afghanistan, a state of things might ensue which would not be of advantage to the good relations between this country and Russia. Such an advance, therefore, could not be a subject of indifference to Her Majesty's Government, and I have no objection to state that what has taken place in Central Asia is receiving the consideration of the Government. But what does the hon. Member ask us to do? I have listened to his speech, and I confess I failed to ascertain the conclusion at which he arrived. The hon. Member, indeed, said there was some connection between our leaving Candahar and the advance of Russia; but, so far from that being so, it is my opinion, and it is the opinion of many persons—military men and others of high authority in India—that our continued retention of Candahar would have been in itself a sufficient reason for the advance of Russia.

said, he wished to explain that what he had said was that it was the general policy of retreat which had been adopted which encouraged the advance of Russia. He had not said that none of the Sepoys were a match for the Russian troops. What he did say was that most of them were not.

expressed his thanks to the noble Lord for the re-assuring speech he had made. For his part, he did not look at the question from a political point of view. The noble Lord said that the Government had always shown Russia that the independence of Afghanistan could not be a matter of indifference to them. The present position of that country was most serious, for if it fell under the rule of Ayoob Khan it would be governed by an enemy of ours and a friend to Russia. Her Majesty's Government could not, therefore, too plainly give Russia to understand that there should be no interference on her part with Afghanistan.

said, that the noble Marquess had stated the broad outlines of the policy of the Government, and it was satisfactory to have to deal with a Member of the Government who did not take shelter under evasions. For his part, he would not regret seeing Ayoob Khan Ruler of Afghanistan. It was true he hated England, and not without cause; but if he kept England out of Afghanistan on one side he might be relied on to keep Russia out on the other. He thought the real danger of the matter was that Russia was advancing near enough to India to be within striking or, at any rate, agitating distance; and in the latter case her action would be sufficient to compel this country to send to India a force which would have a tendency to cripple her power in Europe.

asked leave to withdraw the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair. I should not have done more than make that Motion if it had not been for the Notice given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander), in the early part of the evening, of his intention to oppose the Motion for going into Committee. I have not the slightest idea what the motive of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in taking that course. The Bill is a very simple one, and it has been in print for some time. It contains certainly two important clauses—one to enable the Chelsea Commissioners to grant certain pensions, in regard to which I have been interrogated several times in the course of the present Session; and the other to enable the Crown to increase the Reserve by allowing men, after their 12 years' engagement, to volunteer for four years more into a second Reserve. All the rest of the Bill relates to matters of detail in connection with the Scheme approved this Session, or improving the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not persist in his opposition to the measure at this stage, believing, as I do, that when the House goes into Committee, I shall be able to prove that there is no real ground of objection to any of the proposals contained in it. I promise him that when we come to any clause he objects to, I will explain the purpose of it as fully and as candidly as I can. I hope he will allow the House to go into Committee.

said, it was with considerable surprise that he had first perused the provisions of the Bill now before the House. When, two years ago, after labours only exceeded by those of the present year, the House at last succeeded in passing the Army Regulation Act, it was imagined that their labours had terminated for ever. They were doomed to find, however, that like those of Sisyphus they were eternal. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had placed in their hands a Bill which really consisted of three parts and 53 clauses. The contemplation of the prospect before them was eminently discouraging; and he looked back with regret to the halcyon days when they were able to pass 100 clauses of the Mutiny Act in the course of a single Sitting. Two years ago it was proposed to substitute for the Mutiny Act a consolidated Code of Army Regulations, and it was imagined that that Code contained, at least, the element of permanence. They relied upon the judgment of Sir Henry Thring, the eminent draftsman, for rendering the provisions of the Act perfect; and they were told that it was impossible for the ingenuity of man to contemplate a crime which would not be dealt with and punished by the Act of 1879. Yet, notwithstanding that declaration by so eminent a draftsman, he found that the Bill now before the House contained many additions to, and alterations of, the Act of 1879; and some of them, in comparison with the provisions of the Act of 1879, were distinctly disadvantageous to the British soldier. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War he would withdraw his opposition to the Motion for going into Committee; but when the Bill went into Committee he should propose certain alterations in some of the clauses, which he hoped would meet with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman, and with that of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Before he sat down he wished briefly to make good his assertion that where the Bill erred it erred on the side of excessive severity. He would take, for instance, the important clause which dealt with the composition of a general court martial. This was an important court, because, with the exception of what was known as a field general court martial, an ordinary general court martial was the only court which had power to sentence a prisoner to death or penal servitude. In the English Army, following the customs of the Swedish, Dutch, and German Armies, the general court martial originally consisted of 13 members; but in the Army of James II., by the Articles of War, the court was made to consist, according to the French practice, of not less than seven members. From the passing, however, of the first Mutiny Act of 1689, in the Reign of William III., down to so recent a period as 1868, the minimum number of members of a general court martial in the United Kingdom was fixed at 13. In 1868 an important alteration was made and the minimum number of members composing a general court martial was fixed in the United Kingdom and the East Indies, Malta and Gibraltar, at nine; for Bermuda and Nova Scotia, at seven; and in any other Colony or place out of the Queen's Dominions, at five. An important provision was also added that no sentence of death in any circumstances should be passed, except with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members composing the court. In the Act of 1879 the minimum of nine members was continued for a general court martial, except when, in the opinion of the officer convening the court, that number in the interests of the Public Service was not available, in which case the general court martial was to consist of not less than five members. But now, what did they find in the present Bill? The word "nine" had no place in it at all, and it was simply provided that the general court martial should consist of not less than five members. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would ask him to read to the end of the sub-section, and would point to the provisions which forbade any officer below the rank of captain from sitting as a member of a general court martial; but he had yet to learn that a prisoner would derive any consolation from being sentenced to death by a captain instead of a lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman also said that five was the minimum number of members composing the court, and that, as a general rule, the number of members composing the court would exceed that minimum. That was quite true; but he had had considerable experience in acting as Deputy Judge Advo- cate before general courts martial, and he could remember more than one case in which the actual number of members composing the court was, through sickness and through other causes, reduced to a minimum. That was not very material in the days when 13 formed the court; but they were now making a very small minimum number of officers as the composition of a general court martial. In point of fact, they were fixing the composition of a general court martial, which would have power of life and death, at precisely the same number as that which, only two years ago, they fixed for the inferior tribunal of a regimental court martial, whose powers were limited to sentencing a prisoner to 42 days' imprisonment with hard labour. He also found that they were going to allow four members out of five composing the court to pass a sentence of death, and three out of five to pass a sentence of penal servitude. Then, again, he found that, by Clause 48 of the Bill, the Governor of a Colony or the officer commanding the troops out of the Queen's Dominions was authorized to declare from time to time that it was necessary, either in consequence of the imminence of active service or in consequence of the recent existence of active service, that the troops under his command should be subject to the Act of 1879 precisely as if they were upon active service. In other words, it was provided that a soldier should be liable to suffer the penalty of death for offences which in ordinary times, would only have been visited by a few months' imprisonment. That was one of the results of the total abolition of corporal punishment, and that was not the last time that they would have to deplore the consequence of yielding as they did in 1879, just previous to a General Election, to the popular clamour for the abolition of corporal punishment. He had never been an advocate of excessive corporal punishment; and it would be remembered that, on a certain memorable occasion, he advised his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), the then Secretary of State for War, to mitigate the severity of the punishment, and his right hon. and gallant Friend was pleased at the time to say that he would act on his (Colonel Alexander's) advice, and that he would reduce the punishment from 50 to 25 lashes. But he did protest against the spurious humanity which strained at the gnat of corporal punishment and swallowed without compunction the camel of capital punishment.

said, he was glad to see that it was not intended to re-open the question of corporal punishment. The Act of 1879 was necessarily only a tentative Act; and, in consequence of the time occupied in the discussion of the question of corporal punishment, many parts of the Bill were passed without the consideration and discussion which their importance required. It had been found, since the Act came into operation, that there were certain defects and omissions in it which tended to produce a miscarriage of justice. No one knew that better than himself, as he had been charged with the administration of the Act of 1879. The object of the present Bill was simply to remedy those defects and omissions; and he would call the attention of the House to one of them which had already been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander)—namely, the composition of general courts martial. The Act of 1879prescribed a certain minimum number of officers both for district and general courts martial, and then allowed that minimum to be reduced by the general officer who convened a court of inquiry, where the larger number were not, having due regard to the Public Service, available; but the fact had to be stated in the order convening the court. The proceedings of several courts martial had been rendered invalid in consequence of the later requirement not having been properly complied with. The object of the Bill was to reduce the minimum number of officers composing the court, and to make the number uniform in every case; but, on the other hand, it was proposed to raise the standing of the officers composing the court. The alteration was a most desirable one, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his objection to it. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that as soon as they got into Committee the Government would be happy to offer every explanation in their power. It was hardly necessary to remind his hon. and gallant Friend that at that period of the Session it would be quite impossible to pass the Bill at all unless the House was disposed to accept the guarantee of the Government that the changes proposed would be advantageous to the interests of the Army.

said, he understood that the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) was to the very small majority of a very small court by which important sentences—such as death and penal servitude—could be passed under the Bill as it stood. He hoped the question was one on which the Government were open to persuasion, because, of course, although the argument was very strong that at that time of the Session they could not afford to devote to the measure a very scrutinizing spirit, still it was desirable that some consideration should be given to points of this kind.

did not understand that the point raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was one of those which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander).

said, he had a verbal Amendment to move in line 21—namely, to substitute the words "punishable for" for the words "guilty of."

said, it would be necessary to make an addition to the clause, for the purpose of incorporating a former Act.

said, he thought this clause would be found to be quite unworkable. Under the Act of 1879 a witness might be sentenced by a court martial for contempt of court to imprisonment not exceeding 21 days' hard labour. The present clause authorized the court to sentence a prisoner for using violent or threatening language to the same punishment of 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour. But the use of threatening language to the members of a court martial was one of the greatest military offences a prisoner could commit; and it had always been the practice, up to the present time, to try a prisoner so offending by general court martial. He recollected an instance, when he was himself acting as Deputy Judge Advocate, where a prisoner was tried for using abusive words. He was tried by an inferior court; and on being asked if he had any objection to make to the composition of the court, he said he objected to the whole lot, and he used most violent and threatening language. For that offence he was subsequently tried by a general court martial and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. It was quite evident either that such a term of imprisonment was too great, or that 21 days' imprisonment for the same offence was much too little. He thought it would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would allow the clause to be struck out altogether.

said, the clause simply gave power to the court by which a man was tried to sentence a prisoner who was guilty of contempt of court to 21 days' imprisonment; but, if it were considered necessary, the contempt committed having been of a serious character, there was power to convene another court. Hitherto, in every case of contempt, however slight, it had been necessary to convene a second court for the trial of the second offence. That practice had been found to be highly inconvenient, and there had occasionally been great difficulty experienced in summoning another court. This clause, in such a case, gave power to the court against whom the contempt was committed to sentence the offender to some punishment.

wished to point out that a punishment of 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour might, in many cases, be wholly inadequate to the offence.

said, that, in the event of the offence being of an aggravated nature, of course another court martial would be summoned. It was only where the offence was slight that power was given by the clause to the same court to try it.

thought, if the object of the clause was to amend the provisions of the Mutiny Act, power might be given to the court to award a far higher punishment than 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour. Such a punishment seemed to him to be absurd, for the grossest conduct which could be committed by a soldier when before a court martial. As a rule, when an offence of this character did take place, it was of a violent and aggravated character; and he thought the clause might be amended so as to extend the punishment inflicted without rendering it necessary to summon another court martial.

I will consider the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member before the Report is brought up. I must remind him, however, that it would be introducing a clause very much against the prisoner. We have thought it better to leave the Act as it stood, with the single exception of giving the same court the power of trying the case. The clause does not restrict the power of a second court martial. I think the Committee would hardly venture to allow a court martial, not specially summoned for the purpose, to inflict a heavy punishment.

thought the clause was one which was worthy of further consideration. He remembered a case where a prisoner in the Army, being tried for some trifling offence, had his cap removed from him, because he would persist in throwing it at the President or members of the court. On another occasion, a prisoner got away from the escort and struck a member of the court. He did not think that for such offences 21 days' imprisonment was sufficient punishment; but, of course, a general court martial might be convened for the purpose of trying the second offence. He understood that the present clause was only intended to meet minor offences, when they did occur. But, unfortunately, they seldom did occur, because when a soldier lost his temper he generally went in for some gross act of insubordination.

said, the hon. and gallant General was quite right. It was only intended that the present clause should deal with minor offences.

said, he perceived that sub-section 2 of this clause reduced the number of members composing a regimental court martial from five to three. The power of the court was limited to the infliction of a punishment of 42 days' imprisonment with hard labour; but he also observed that there was, for the first time, a provision in the clause that each member of the court should have held a commission for not less than one whole year. Up to the present time the requirement had been that no officer should serve on a court martial until he had joined his regiment for six months, and that during that time he should have attended all the courts martial which were held in the regiment. That provision had been found to work irregularly, because it was not improbable that in the course of the six months no court martial would be held, and, consequently, an officer was liable to be placed on a court martial before he had had an opportunity of attending any court of the kind, or, at the most, only one or two, and when he was, consequently, altogether incapable of performing the duty he was required to perform. He quite approved of the alteration made by the clause in this respect; but he disapproved of sub-section 3, which reduced the number of members composing a general court martial from nine to five. He would, therefore, move that sub-section 3 be struck out of the clause, in order to leave the number nine, as it now stood in the Act of 1879.

said, the Section was governed by section 48 of the Act of 1879, sub-section 2. That section provided that a general court martial should consist of not less than nine members; but, under the present law, nine was not adhered to as the minimum where the general officer who convened the court thought it would be impossible to bring nine officers together. Having regard to the interests of the Public Service, it had often been found expedient to reduce the minimum to five. Therefore, it was not correct to say that nine officers were the actual minimum. Nine formed the minimum in England; but abroad it was rarely found that nine officers were available, and the minimum was generally five. The present minimum, therefore, was practically five abroad and nine in England.

asked what the minimum was in India?

said he could not answer for India. He did not see the records of Indian courts martial; but he did see them in regard to all other courts martial, and as there really existed at present a power to reduce the nominal minimum, he did not see what objection there could be to the clause. Her Majesty's Government thought the best course would be to reduce the minimum, and to provide that the number which was constantly employed should, in future, be the minimum, so as to make the proceedings uniform in every case. On the other hand, it was proposed to raise the status of the officers composing the court, so that, although the number was reduced, a prisoner would have the advantage of being tried by officers of higher standing. As a matter of fact, the clause did not reduce the minimum below that which was found necessary in the case of general courts martial abroad.

said, that what he wished to point out to his right hon. Friend was that the Act of 1879 fixed nine as the minimum for all general courts martial assembled in the United Kingdom, Malta, Gibraltar, and the East Indies; seven for Bermuda and Nova Scotia; and five for any Colony or any other place out of the Queen's Dominions. He did not see how it was not possible to continue that arrangement, and why the number should not be nine in the United Kingdom as heretofore.

I think there is something in the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and on the Re-port I will consider the desirability of introducing nine as the number for the United Kingdom and the East Indies.

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession, and would not press the Amendment.

said, that for the same reason he proposed to amend the clause in regard to district courts martial. The clause reduced the number of officers composing a regimental court martial from five to three, and also reduced the number of a district court martial from seven to three. He would move that the number "five" be substituted for a district court martial.

said, he would introduce an Amendment on the Report, making the number uniform.

intimated that upon that understanding he would not press the Amendment.

asked for an explanation with respect to sub-section A of this clause. The powers of commanding officers were considerably increased by the Act of 1879, and it seemed to him that this sub-section would tend to induce commanding officers to keep soldiers in confinement, thereby delaying the punishment due to their offences, which ought to be awarded as soon as possible.

said, that would not be the effect of the clause, which was intended to correct that portion of the Act of 1879 which provided that a soldier absent without leave should forfeit his pay during his absence, and also for every day of his imprisonment and detention on the charge for which he was brought before the court martial.

said, he found no provision in the clause that where a commanding officer delayed to bring a soldier to punishment the soldier should not suffer for the delay caused by the misconduct of the commanding officer.

said, that Section 45 of the Act of 1879 provided that the soldier should be brought to trial within eight days.

said, that sub-section 3 would, in his opinion, effect a considerable improvement on the existing practice. There were amongst commanding officers different methods of calculation with regard to the days of a soldier's absence without leave; and, therefore, this portion of the clause could not but be regarded as effecting a great improvement. But, then, the next sub-section went in the opposite direction; and the Government, it would seem, took away with one hand what they had given with the other. He, therefore, begged to move its omission.

said, he trusted the Amendment would not be pressed. It had been deemed right that the commanding officer should have power to inflict heavier punishment where necessary.

said, it was a question of importance whether the Militia and Volunteers, when called out for training, should not be exempt from serving upon juries. He had known one or two cases where men belonging to these branches of the Service had been called upon to serve during the time they were in camp; and, therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) whether it would not be possible to exempt these persons from serving on juries during their periods of training?

said, that this question had been gone into by him on a former occasion, when it was found that there were difficulties in the way of making the exemptions suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet, although the law exempted persons belonging to the Militia from serving on juries during the period of their training.

said, he considered that words should be introduced to prevent Volunteer officers being called upon to serve on juries.

said, there was considerable difficulty involved in this question with respect to the Volunteer Service. He was not prepared to introduce any words into this Act providing for the exemption of Volunteer officers from serving on juries.

said, at the time of the passage of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act of 1879, he had drawn attention to the question of Marines landed and serving on shore, and had referred to a case where a body of Marines had been, under these circumstances, for 14 days subject neither to the Mutiny Act nor any discipline Act whatever. He asked that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may," so as to make it clear that a Marine force serving on shore would be under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act.

said, he thought it better that the wording of the clause should remain for the present.

said, this clause gave great power to the Governors of Colonies, and to commanding officers of troops out of Her Majesty's Dominions. The Committee would see by the 6th clause of the Act of 1879 that a very great distinction was drawn between offences committed on active service and those committed at other times. For instance, a soldier who, on active service, was guilty of sleeping or being drunk at his post, was, on conviction by court martial, liable to the penalty of death; while, for the same offences committed when not on active service, he was liable to imprisonment only. He thought the Committee should hesitate before they conferred upon the Governors of Colonies or upon officers commanding troops out of Her Majesty's Dominions such extensive powers as were proposed by this clause.

said, he would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the following clause, which provided that the Governor of a Colony or the commanding officer of troops, if they had the means of direct communication with the Secretary of State for War should obtain his consent before carrying out the sentence.

pointed out that it would have been impossible to communicate directly with the Secretary of State in the case of the outbreak of the Zulu War, because there was no telegraph with the Cape at the time.

regretted to say that he considered this clause to be absolutely necessary, because he believed that circumstances had arisen which had compelled the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to insert it in the Bill, although it might be true that the punishment of flogging had nothing to do with the question, yet the abolition of that punishment had made it absolutely necessary that the powers provided for in the clause should be granted.

said, the practical effect of the clause would be that offenders on active service would be liable in future to much severer penalties than at present. He thought the clause should be revised, because he objected to a commander having power, merely for the purpose of punishing a certain class of offences, to create a fictitious state of war ad hôc.

said, that all cases would be most carefully revised.

said, he must object to the Amendment. Sub-section 3 was inserted to prevent the destruction of birds which were not noxious, and did not increase too fast, but rather the con- trary. Such birds ought to be protected, and for that purpose this section was necessary.

urged the undesirability of encouraging the killing of these birds in foreign countries by allowing them to be sold in this country.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had rather misunderstood the object of the clause, and contended that the effect of the sub-section was to extend protection to the importer.