asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statement in paragraph 20 of the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, namely, "The Results Examinations show that the Model Schools continue to maintain their high character," is to be understood as implying that the Model Schools show results superior to those of the best ordinary National Schools, say those examined for the Carlisle and Blake Premiums; whether he is able to give any statistics in support of the Commissioners' assertion; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that the Model Schools realise the "chief objects" for which, according to the Commissioners' Rules and Regulations, paragraph 37, they were founded, namely,

"To promote united education, to exhibit to the surrounding schools the most improved methods of literary and scientific instruction, and to prepare young persons for the office of teacher,"

having regard to the present state of the attendance, and also to the fact that, during the year 1880, only eighty-five teachers were prepared by ninety-four Model School Departments?

, in reply, said, that the words quoted from paragraph 20 did not imply any comparison, nor was any intended. The statement was one of opinion, and did not require any statistics to support it. The Commissioners of National Education did their best to make the Model Schools realize the chief objects they were founded to promote.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the prisoners detained, under the Coercion Act, in Monaghan Prison have been prevented from subscribing for shares in the National Exhibition Company, their letters making application having been detained by the authorities: and, if so, whether he has sanctioned such a proceeding?

, in reply, said, it was true that the collective applications of the prisoners referred to were stopped by the Governor, and, as he thought, rightly stopped; but, at the same time, they were informed that, individually, they might apply for any number of shares they desired.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds John M. Murray is still retained in prison, he having been arrested over twelve months ago?

, in reply, said, there must be some mistake in this matter, as he could find no one of this name among those detained in prison.

said, that the name should be John M'Murray; and he would ask the Question with the proper name on an early date.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that the officials of the Irish Land Commission decline to acknowledge the receipt by Post of stamped agreements entered into voluntarily by landlords and tenants in Ireland for the purpose of fixing a fair rent for fifteen years, and also refuse to give any acknowledgment of having received similar notices when left at the Land Commission Office; and, whether such refusal is sanctioned or directed by the Chief Land Commissioners; and, if so, upon what grounds? He also wished to know whether the demand made by the Stamp Office as to the scale of stamp duty to be charged had been sanctioned by the Treasury?

Sir, with regard to the last Question, the matter, which is entirely abnormal, is under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and no opinion has yet been given. The agreements, to which the Question of the hon. Member refers, are those in Form 33, in the Schedule to the Rules of October last. Up to the 6th of February, 1882, those agreements were considered originating notices, and on receipt were filed on the record of the Court, and, therefore, not otherwise acknowledged; but on that date the Land Commission judicially decided that they were not originating notices, and ever since the 6th of February, those which are forwarded by post are duly acknowledged, and for those which are lodged by hand a receipt is given if requested.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government has received a Memorial from certain loyal inhabitants of Derry relating to a projected procession or demonstration in that city on a grand scale fixed for the 17th instant; whether the Government has taken into consideration the facts and allegations stated in such Memorial, tending to show that such demonstration is intended to be a disloyal one, and is likely to lead to a breach of the peace; and, whether the Government will take steps to prevent the placing on the walls, or in the streets of Derry, of any arches or other erections on which dis- loyal emblems and devices may be fixed or exhibited?

said, that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he should like to ask whether this was not a demonstration in honour of St. Patrick, the patron Saint of Ireland; and whether the 17th of March, known as St. Patrick's Day, was not recognized in official circles as a national holiday?

also wished to ask, whether the Catholic majority of the population of Derry did not carefully respect the annual demonstrations of their Protestant fellow-citizens?

Sir, a Memorial has been received from the Apprentice Boys' Association, asking that the proposed celebration might be stopped. The matter will require serious consideration, and the Government are in consultation with the Mayor and magistrates of Derry to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent a breach of the peace.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number and value of the scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions open exclusively to the Queen's Colleges, and derived from public funds; whether it has ever happened that there were not as many candidates as there were scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions; and, if so, on what percentage of marks were the scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions awarded on those occasions; whether these scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions are open to all the students in the Queen's Colleges, irrespective of any limit of age; whether the students from the Queen's Colleges are also eligible for the scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions in the Royal University; and, if so, whether, in the interests of education, steps will be taken to open the scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions, at present open to Queen's College students only, to all the students of the Royal University; and, whether he will give a Return, showing the proportion of scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions in each faculty to the number of students in that faculty; the average number of candidates for each scholarship, prize, and exhibition; and the definite minimum percentage of marks on which the scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions are awarded in the Queen's Colleges?

, in reply, said, that much of the information the hon. Member asked for would be found in chapters 9 and 17 of the Statutes of the Queen's Colleges. The scholarships, prizes, and exhibitions of the Royal University, were open to all students. He believed that in every University the number of prizes sometimes was greater than the number of persons competing for them. There was no limit of age, and candidates were eligible to scholarships and other prizes in the Royal University, from whatever quarter they came. He did not think it would be in the interests of education to open the prizes in the Queen's Colleges to all the students of the Royal University.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Charles Mangan, a prisoner detained, under the Coercion Act, in Dundalk Gaol, has been unanimously elected Mayor of Drogheda; how long Mr. Mangan has been imprisoned; whether the district of Drogheda is in a peaceful condition; and, whether he will, under the circumstances, order the release of Mr. Mangan, so that he may fulfil the functions of his position as chief magistrate for that borough?

, in reply, said, he understood that Mr. Mangan was not now Mayor of Drogheda, as a successor had been appointed by a majority of 14 to 8 votes. Mr. Mangan had been in prison since the 14th of October. The district was, happily, peaceable; but, in the interests of peace, he could not at present consent to put an end to Mr. Mangan's imprisonment.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he could explain why Major Derriman, Royal Marine Artillery, has not been seconded in his Corps whilst serving as an Adjutant in the Auxiliary Forces, as is the custom in the Army, and has been the custom in the Royal Marines hitherto; also whether, considering that the length of service of the senior Captains of the Royal Marines exceeds that of any branch of the Service, a scheme of promotion, by length of service, will be prepared for them similar to that proposed for the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers?

Sir, I beg to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the number of majors of the Marine Artillery is in excess of the peace requirements of the corps sufficiently to allow an officer to be temporarily taken for other duties. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not forget that the number of majors in the Marine Artillery has been increased within the twelvemonth from eight to 14. With regard to the other Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the Admiralty and the War Office are at the present moment in communication on the subject of promotion by length of service in the higher grades of the corps of Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and Royal Marines.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the number of resignations received from members of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force in the years 1879, 1880, and 1881, respectively?

, in reply, said, the number of resignations received from members of the Irish Constabulary in the years 1879, 1880, and 1881, were 113, 155, and 352 respectively. The whole strength of the force was about 12,000 men.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for so large an increase in the number of resignations?

That Question was asked and answered a few days ago.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. That Question has not been asked.

I understood it had. A large proportion of the resignations were from recruits. There had been a large number of recruits, and it is generally found in the case of recruits that there are a good many resignations.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that tenants on the estates of the "Irish Society," in the county of Derry, being in arrear of rent, and having offered to pay off part of the arrears, and to apply for a Government loan towards paying off the remainder, under the Arrears Clause of the Land Act, have had their offers refused by the agent of the "Irish Society," and are to be evicted for the entire sum of unreduced arrears, together with large amounts of alleged illegal costs; and, whether he will inquire into the case of John Carlin, farmer, Braehead, Derry, holding sixteen acres of mountain land at a rent of £36?

Sir, only three evictions are pending on the estates referred to by the hon. Member. The ejectment in one case was held over for some time to afford the tenant an opportunity of selling the farm. As to the case of John Carlin, the hon. Member has been misinformed. The farm consisted of 38 acres, not 16. It is not mountain land, but agricultural upland land, within two miles of the city of Londonderry. The Government valuation is £32 15s., and the rent £33 15s. 7d., with £2 for interest on £50 advanced to the tenant. The tenant was three years and a-half in arrear.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that extensive evictions of tenants, for arrears of rent, are taking place, or are about to take place, in the districts of Clonmany, Binnion, Garryduff, Adderville, and Cardonagh, in the county of Donegal; whether it is true that meetings of the inhabitants to protest against these evictions, and to invite public sympathy with poor tenants, on the ground of their incapability to pay the unreduced rents accumulating since the years of distress, have been prohibited by the Government, on the ground that such meetings might obstruct the sheriff in the exercise of his functions; and, whether it is not the case that all these dis- tricts were scheduled as "distressed districts" in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and were in receipt of famine relief up to and since March 1880?

Sir, since the 1st of January 339 persons have been evicted in Donegal, of whom 83 have been re-admitted as caretakers. It is not the case that any meeting of inhabitants to protest against the evictions, or to invite sympathy with the tenants, has been prohibited by the Government. The district was scheduled as the hon. Member states. I have good reason to hope that in many of the cases satisfactory arrangements will be come to between the landlords and the tenants. In some instances such an arrangement has already been made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow meetings of the kind referred to to be held in future?

Only those meetings are prohibited which we have reason to believe have been called for purposes of intimidation.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that a Turkish force is stationed at and near Novi Bazar; what is the size of that force, and with what object has it been concentrated in that district; and, whether any representations have been made by the Austrian authorities against the amassing of this force on their Herzegovinian border?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not received any official information with regard to the concentration of Turkish troops towards the frontier of the Provinces administered by Austria which are at present the scene of a partial rising. At the same time, we have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers in the newspapers, and we think there is little doubt that the concentration of troops has taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Memorandum has been issued to the troops at Aldershot, dated 13th February 1882, directing them to practise a system of attack which is entirely at variance with that enjoined in the Field Exercise under the sanction of Her Majesty; whether this attack contains principles which have been rejected and condemned by all the armies of Europe after the experience of their recent campaigns; and, if such a Memorandum has been issued, whether it has received the sanction of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief?

Sir, no Memorandum has been issued to the troops at Aldershot directing them to practise a system of attack differing from that in the Field Exercises; and of course, therefore, my answer to the third Question must be in the negative also. A Memorandum has been issued, however, to one of the brigades requesting the officer commanding it to try experimentally a particular system of attack. It was issued on the 13th of February, and again on the 9th of March in a revised form. It involves no new drill, but only the application of drill already known. In reply to the second Question, I have to say that, allowing for certain differences of organization, the principles of the system tried are identical with those adopted in the German Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee who were appointed, under the presidency of Sir Daniel Lysons, to inquire into the system of rifle practice in the Army?

No, Sir; the Report is of a very confidential character, and I shall certainly be unable to lay it on the Table in extenso. I will consider whether, later in the Session, some extracts can be given.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to allow the recommendations to be laid on the Table?

I have considered that; but it would not be possible without disclosing confidential matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the late action taken by Lord Digby against his tenants in the King's county, on the Geashill Estate; whether many of these tenants had not served initiatory notices in the Land Court for a judicial rent; and, whether he will propose any means to quicken and facilitate the fixing of judicial rents in such cases, and so enable the tenants to avail themselves of any of the advantages of the Land Act?

, in reply, said, his attention had been drawn to the subject; and he could only say that the Government were taking steps in the direction indicated in the latter part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has any objection to a Return being furnished, giving the names of persons arrested in past twelve months under the Coercion Act (whether now in prison or released), the place of their arrest, the prison, and period of confinement, the number of re-arrests, the dates of release, where release has taken place, and the conditions of release if such have been signed, showing the counties where arrests have taken place?

said, he would lay a Return upon the Table which would give the hon. Member nearly all the information he required.

hoped that the names would be given in alphabetical order, as otherwise it would be almost impossible to follow it; he also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the names of persons who had signed conditions of release, as some released "suspects" who had not signed conditions had been nearly ruined by the suspicion that they had done so?

said, that the hon. Member's last statement was a somewhat significant one. He could only say that it was the privilege of Members of the Government to give Returns in the form they thought best. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied with the Return he proposed to give he could move for another.

said, he hoped the residences of those who were arrested would be given, and the prison to which they were conveyed.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will inform the House whether there is any probability of the system of electric lighting by means of incandescent lamps being tested in the House of Commons during the present Session?

I propose, Sir, to try the incandescent electric light in the New Law Courts. Until I see the result of that experiment I do not think it would be advisable to make another experiment in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Lyall, Financial Commissioner, quoted by the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, stating that "there is a growing liking among the natives for rum," and complaining of the insufficiency of the supply; whether the Lieutenant Governor approves of Mr. Lyall's proposal to require licensees to keep a full supply of rum, and to sell it at reasonable prices; and, whether the Home Government has approved of this action of the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, and whether it is in keeping with general instructions of the Indian authorities?

Sir, in the Report on Excise Administration in the Punjab in 1880–1, Mr. Lyall says—

"There is a growing liking among Natives for rum, now that its price is not very different from that of Native liquor, and if the trade were allowed to follow its natural course the consumption would expand rapidly, somewhat to the detriment of the revenue derived from country spirits."

His proposal—

"To require all rum contractors to keep a full supply of rum and to sell it at reasonable prices,"

is simply intended to check the practice of those interested in the sale of country spirits—

"Who frequently buy up the rum licence, not with the view of making a profit by selling rum, but of limiting or preventing its sale,"

and who, having thus acquired a practical monopoly, "prefer to sell country liquor at a high price, because it gives them the larger profit." This being the case, the Lieutenant Governor is of opinion that the growing taste for rum, "which is, at least, as wholesome as country spirits," should not be discouraged, and approves Mr. Lyall's proposal. It has not been considered necessary to comment in any way on the order of the Lieutenant Governor on a detail entirely connected with local administration.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, under the new Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill (India), no European British subject may be sentenced to more than one year's imprisonment by the judgment of a sessions court, but that an Indian British subject may be sentenced by the judgment of the same court to imprisonment for fourteen years, to transportation for life, and even to the penalty of death?

Sir, the Criminal Law of India contained in the Indian Penal Code is precisely the same for Natives and Europeans. But there are differences in criminal procedure originating in the fact that the Courts of the East Indian Company had no power to try European subjects of the Queen, over whom the Supreme Courts, being Crown Courts, had exclusive jurisdiction. Since the assumption of the government by the Crown, the Indian Legislature has taken considerable steps towards assimilating the procedure applicable to Natives and Europeans; but some differences still remain, and that referred to in the Question is one of them. A Sessions Court can try a Native and sentence him, if convicted, to any punishment prescribed by the Penal Code; but there is an appeal from the conviction and sentence to the High Court. In the case of a Euro- pean subject of the Crown, if the Sessions Court thinks that the offence with which he is charged demands a severer punishment than one year's imprisonment, it must transfer the case to the High Court, which will try the accused person with a jury, and sentence him, if convicted, to the proper punishment, and there will be no appeal. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill—in the latest shape in which it has reached the India Office—does not propose to alter the existing law in these particulars.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in the "Daily Express," March 9th,

"That, on Monday night, a house on one of seven evicted farms, which are in charge of a small party of emergency caretakers, at Kilrush, near Thurles, county Tipperary, was set fire to and burned down by a mob of 700 persons. The head caretaker with difficulty restrained his men from firing on the incendiaries. The caretakers are, under the late rule, without police protection, and the alleged patrol system proved to be wholly unavailing in this case;"

whether a more efficient system of patrol can be established in that district; whether distinct official orders will be issued for the guidance of caretakers of the Emergency Committee and Property Defence Association, in regard to their right of firing in defence of themselves or of the property which they may have in their charge; and, whether, if they act strictly in accordance with such instructions, they will be held to have acted within the Law?

There is no truth in the statement as given. There was no mob of 700 persons present, or a large mob of any kind, and no house in charge of caretakers was destroyed. A house was found to be on fire, and some neighbours, about 20, were seen assisting to quench the flames. We have reason to believe that the system of patrolling in the district was sufficient and efficient.

said, that in the accounts of the outrages which had been published there were doubtless occasionally exaggerations; but he was sorry to say that in an enormous number of cases the accounts were neither exaggerated nor untrue.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question whether an official order had been issued with reference to the right of caretakers to fire to defend themselves.

said, that but for the fact that the hon. Member was misled by the report he did not think he would have asked the Question. The Government did not think it necessary to issue instructions of any special character for such cases. Caretakers had the right of every Irishman and subject of Her Majesty to defend themselves, and if they acted within that right they would be held to have acted within the law.

inquired if they were entitled to fire in the defence of property they were protecting?

said, that caretakers in Ireland possessed neither more nor less than the ordinary rights of every citizen of the Empire.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as so much delay has taken place in the issue of the new Education Code, and that thus there will be practically no opportunity of considering its important provisions before Easter, the Government will provide a suitable opportunity for discussing the Code before it becomes Law?

asked the Vice President of the Privy Council, At what day the new version of the Code, which has appeared at length in a public journal before being circulated, will become Law; and, if he will undertake that a day shall be set apart for its discussion before it becomes Law, or that it shall not become Law till the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

asked the Vice President of the Council, How it comes that the New Education Code has been reviewed, and its provisions freely discussed in the daily papers, be- fore it has been placed in the hands of Members?

Sir, the delay spoken of is only one of four days. I laid the Paper on the Table on Monday night, and I thought it would have been delivered on Wednesday. The New Code will, unless previously rejected by Parliament, become law on the 5th of April; but as it will not come into operation for payment until the 30th of April of next year, its provisions can be modified by any Minute consequent upon a discussion in Parliament, made within a month of the close of the present Session. I regret to find that, owing to the present state of Public Business, the Government is unable to give any time before Easter for the discussion; but if the House will consent to give a Morning or a Saturday Sitting—["Oh, oh!"]—though I do not ask for it, that will be one means of discussing it, if hon. Members are anxious to do so, before the lapse of the 80 days. The Code is not like an Endowed Schools scheme. It can be altered at the expiry of 30 days by any Minute. It is very desirable that teachers and managers shall not be left in uncertainty as to the course of teaching they are to pursue. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I have to say that I wish to take upon myself all the responsibility and blame that can attach to me in that matter. In the first place, the Code was reviewed before it was ever printed, because substantially the leading provisions of the Code were the same this year as last; but when I laid the Code on the Table on Monday night, I anticipated it would be distributed on Wednesday morning. Owing, however, to some delay of the printers, it was not distributed until Friday or Saturday. On Tuesday I received some rough, uncorrected proofs, and being much pressed by the educational and other papers for copies, and assuming that the Code would come into the hands of Members on Wednesday morning, I allowed these to be sent out. I very much regret if I have done anything irregular, and I shall take care that it does not occur again.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how it came to pass that the Code was reviewed in The Times on Monday, the day on which it received the signatures of the Parliamentary Chiefs of the Department?

said, the comments in The Times were based on the revised proposals for the Code, and not upon an actual copy of the Code.

gave Notice that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and with the view of raising a discussion on the matter, he should object to any Vote on Account being passed in support of elementary education until there had been some discussion on the Code.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, as he declines to recommend an alteration of the Law to permit flogging for brutal and aggravated assaults, he will recommend the abolition of flogging in cases of robbery with violence; and whether, in the latter case, the flogging is inflicted in respect of the robbery or of the violence?

Sir, I do not propose to recommend any alteration in the law in this respect at the present moment.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, during the period when the "Irish World" was seized in Irish post offices, it was allowed to be delivered as usual through English post offices; and, if so, why a distinction was made; if it is correct that, under Article 6 of the Postal Convention, signed at Paris in June 1878, Great Britain binds herself to pay an indemnity of fifty francs to the sender of certain registered articles, including newspapers; whether the senders of undelivered registered packets of the "Irish World" will be entitled to receive the indemnity; and, whether any advice is sent to the addresses that their property has been appropriated, and under what Act of Parliament the Government have seized the paper?

, in reply, said, that the Government had not considered it necessary to take the same action in this matter in England as they had done in Ireland. The Postal Convention of 1868 applied only to cases of accidental loss, and not to the detention of papers by proper authority. The Government did not think that they were bound to pay any indemnity in respect of the seizure of the registered copies of The Irish World which were sent to Ireland from foreign countries, or to send any notification of the fact of the seizure to those who had sent the papers. If the legality of the action of the Government were questioned, it could be challenged in a Court of Law.

wished to know whether this rule applied to registered numbers addressed to Ireland; and, if so, under what Act of Parliament they could be seized?

said, that was a legal question.

said, he would ask the Attorney General for Ireland under what Act of Parliament these papers were seized, because he did not believe such an Act was in existence?

replied that, inasmuch as he had received official notification of the fact that an action had been commenced in respect of the seizure of the paper, he could not answer the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What compensation may be expected by "Purchase Colonels," who on reaching the age of fifty-nine, must, under the Royal Warrant taking effect from 1st July 1881, retire from the Army, and thereby lose all chance of further promotion, as well as in some cases suffer abbreviation of command, and be deprived of other pecuniary advantages awarded for meritorious service?

Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that "purchase colonels," who, unless employed, would be in receipt of not above £200 15s. half-pay, will, on compulsory retirement at 59 years of age, receive £420 a year retired pay, and will also be compensated for the loss, if any, of prospective unattached pay as general officer and colonel of a regiment, the amount being assessed by the Army Purchase Commission as provided in Article 978, Section 12, of the Warrant of the 25th of June, 1881. Rewards for meritorious service granted before the 1st of July last will be carried into retirement by colonels, and £60 a-year will be so carried in respect of rewards granted since the 1st of July.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in some districts of Ireland, payment not only of the poor rate but of the seeds loan is insisted upon as a qualification for the right of voting at poor law elections; and if this action is not illegal?

It is enacted by the 7th section of the Seeds Supply Act, 1880, that the special rate is to be added to the poor rate, assessed on the rateable tenement, and collected therewith. Thus payment of the aggregate rate is a necessary qualification for the right to vote at elections of Guardians.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have consented to the payment of the levies of the Cape Government out of the confiscated lands and cattle of the Basutos?

Sir, I thought I had answered the Question last Friday. It is for the Cape Parliament to provide the means for the payment of the Cape levies. All that has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Government on the question of the future treatment of the Basutos appears in the Blue Book issued last week.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it i is true that Mr. Scott Byrne has been for some time back in receipt of a salary of £200 per annum in the office of his father, the Collector General of Rates in Dublin; that his father placed him in that position without his having passed the usual examination, and without the necessary approval of the Lord Lieu- tenant; that his salary is much higher than those of many gentlemen who were regularly appointed, and who were in the department several years before him; if the Government Auditor, in his recent Report, has disallowed his salary, on account of the irregularity of his appointment; and, if, in view of these circumstances, he will be removed from the department?

said, the Government had asked for an explanation, which was not satisfactory, and was referred to the Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, who, together with the Auditor, were now engaged in an inquiry, which, he hoped, would be completed soon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has issued an order directing that prisoners, discharged from the Government gaols unprovided with sufficient clothing, should be supplied with such clothes by the union authorities in which the prison is situated, although they might belong to other unions or other counties; and, if so, under what authority he has so acted?

, in reply, said, he had further made inquiry into this matter and directed Returns to be made. These came in only that morning, and from them he found that the matter was one of very small pecuniary value. He hoped shortly to make arrangements which would be satisfactory to the local authorities.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a Copy of the Resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill, referring, among other matters, to the injustice of rating the uplands for the benefit of the flooded lands; and, if so, whether the Government will now favourably consider the proposal to exempt the uplands entirely from the operation of the Bill?

Sir, I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to; but I may observe that it does not appear to have emanated from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, but from the Council of that body. I am afraid that I cannot undertake, on behalf of the Government, to exempt uplands entirely from the operation of the Act; but I may point out that under the Bill, as it at present stands, any uplands may be excluded from a Provisional Order, and, further, that the occupiers of uplands will in no case be liable to contribute to the rate.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the admitted losses universally prevailing amongst those engaged in agricultural pursuits, he will take into his favourable consideration the direct relief for one year of agricultural and pastoral tenants from the Property and Income Tax, Schedule B, taking into account that farmers can at present, though in a circuitous and troublesome manner, get back the tax on proof that no income is earned in respect of the occupation of land?

Sir, the Question of the hon. Member, as I understand it, practically amounts to this—whether I am prepared to propose that for a certain period Schedule B should be dispensed with altogether. I cannot undertake to make such a proposition, which would create a revolution in the tax. At present there is power to obtain relief where there are no profits.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the fact that operations are being rapidly carried on for the construction of the proposed Channel Tunnel, Her Majesty's Government have any power to restrain such operations pending the decision of Parliament on the subject; and, if so, whether they are prepared to exercise it?

Sir, I understand that the operations in connection with the Channel Tunnel have not reached the point below low-water mark at which any question can be raised. I understand that when they have reached to below low-water mark they will come under the control of the Crown, at least as long as they are within the three-mile territorial limit. At present they are between high and low-water mark, and I am not sure that they are under the control of the Crown. That is a question which is being contested between the Crown and the Company, the Company contending that they have purchased the title from the owner of the foreshore. I apprehend it is obvious that, under these circumstances, the Company proceeds at its own risk.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can hold out any hopes that it may be found practicable, in the financial arrangements for the next year, to abolish the Railway Passengers' Tax, and thereby remove that burden on trade and free locomotion in the Country?

I am afraid, Sir, my reply to this Question must be a very short one. There is no prospect of the financial means of next year being sufficient to enable us to repeal so important a tax as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay a Copy of the Judgment in Adams v. Dunseath upon the Table; and, whether the Government have yet been able to consider the effect of the decisions therein given?

Sir, the rule is that these Judgments should not be produced, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary usage in this matter. But, whether that be so or not, the time has not yet arrived for considering the question, because we have not yet received any authentic Copy of the Judgment; but, of course, after it is known it may be made matter of discussion like every other subject. We cannot pledge ourselves to lay a Copy of this Judgment on the Table.

asked whether, during the last Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, a Copy of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, in the Galway case, was not laid the Table?

That is quite a different case. The Judgment was one on an Election Petition.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government will take into consideration the urgent necessity for the introduction of a measure to extend the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and to make effectual provision for facilitating the transfer of the ownership of the land to tenants, who are occupiers, on terms which would be just and reasonable to the existing landlords?

I am afraid, Sir, I cannot answer this Question in an adequate manner within the limits which ought to be observed in a reply. I am not quite certain whether I understand its exact gist. There are two points of view from which the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act may be looked at. One is the enactment of the clauses in themselves, and the other is the financial arrangements which have been made in order to insure that there would be no financial bar to their operation. As regards the first Question, I am of opinion that we have as yet no experience at all to enable us to judge of the adequacy of the clauses, or to pronounce an opinion upon the question whether they can in any respect, or ought in any respect, to be amended. As regards the financial question, however, the House will doubtless recollect that the arrangement which was made under the Act of last year was avowedly a limited and a provisional arrangement; and the whole of that part of the subject will require careful consideration, which we are now engaged in giving it, and which undoubtedly will be made the subject of provision during the present year.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would postpone the consideration of this Bill until some days after it had been circulated, so as to give Members an opportunity of considering it?

, in reply, said, he had postponed the Bill to Thursday. He would, however, endeavour to ascertain the wishes of the other Members for the counties concerned; and if they concurred with the noble Lord in desiring that the Bill should be deferred to a later day, there would be no objection on the part of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for War after what hour that evening he did not intend to proceed with his Statement on the Army Estimates?

Sir, I intended when the Order was called to have made a statement to the House on this subject; but I may as well embody it in my answer to the hon. Gentleman. What I was going to say to the House is this—It is absolutely necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of the financial system—and those who have held Office at the Treasury will know exactly what I mean—that the first two Votes in the Army Estimates and in the Navy Estimates be reported not later than next Monday. If this is not done, it is difficult to say how illegality can be avoided. There are only two days in this week on which the Government could by any possibility take these Votes—namely, Monday and Thursday; and it has fallen to my lot to take the Army Estimates on the first of those days, and to the Secretary to the Admiralty to take the Navy Estimates on the second. Therefore, I put it to the House whether it would not be for their convenience that we should go into Committee today on the Army Estimates at as early an hour as possible, and on the Navy Estimates early on Thursday? It is absolutely necessary that we should go into Committee at some hour to-night, however late it may be.

asked the Secretary of State for War if the extreme urgency of proceeding with the Army Estimates to-night was present to the mind of the Government when they invited the House to engage in a fortnight's abstract discussion on the House of Lords?

wished to know whether, in the event of those who had Notices on the Paper waiving their right that evening, the Government would undertake to put down Supply for Monday week, in order that these Motions might then be brought on? He asked this because he had himself an important Motion on the Paper.

I am afraid, Sir, it is not in my power to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War to give them an assurance that there would be ample opportunity for the discussion of the questions concerning the Army. If the Vote was allowed to be taken at a late hour that night there would be no opportunity for full discussion.

I have great pleasure in giving that assurance in the fullest and most unequivocal terms. The Votes for men and money must be taken to-night; but I will take care—as I did last year—that a future opportunity shall be provided as soon as possible for discussing the Estimates.

Will there also be a full opportunity of discussing the Navy Estimates? Last year, although an engagement similar to the present was entered into by the Government, there was no discussion of the Estimates until August. It would be discreditable, in view of the serious subjects to be considered in this connection, if that example was to be followed this year.

The general assurance of my right hon. Friend refers undoubtedly to both branches of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, with great truth, it would not be creditable that the Navy Estimates should not be discussed until August. I entirely agree with him; but I go further, and say that the entire state of the arrangements for the discharge of Public Business are as far as possible from being creditable to the House.

I rise to ask the Prime Minister, as he cannot undertake to put down Supply for next week, what Business he will then proceed with?

With the adjourned debate on the Resolution which I have submitted to the House.

At what specific time will the opportunity of discussing the Army and Navy Estimates be given?

I will give Notice of that opportunity before it arrives.

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that sufficient opportunity was given last year for discussing the Army Estimates. All the opportunity we got was a Morning Sitting after Easter. [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. and gallant Member is not in Order in making this matter a subject of debate.

I am not at all satisfied with the assurances given as to the discussion on the Army Estimates. The Prime Minister must know that we are entirely at his mercy, and——

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already spoken on this question. [Cries of "Move!"]

Then, Sir, I will venture to ask for a definite assurance that we shall have a fair opportunity of discussing the Estimates before Easter. Otherwise we cannot undertake that the Votes will be passed this evening.

I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the state of Public Business, he could not adjourn the Resolutions regarding Procedure? [Cries of''Order!"] I am only asking a Question—whether he would not postpone his Procedure Resolutions till after Easter, so as to allow the Army and Navy and some of the Civil Service Estimates to be proceeded with in the meanwhile, and then go on with the Procedure Resolutions continuously?

I cannot, Sir, entertain the proposal of my hon. Friend.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the House for the purpose of eliciting, if possible, from Her Majesty's Government some more satisfactory assurance than they had yet condescended to give as to the opportunity which would be afforded to Members to do their duty to their constituents. He had been for many years a Member of that House re-presenting a Dockyard constituency; and e regretted to say that, both under the late Government and the present, the Naval Estimates had not come on for discussion until August. He ventured to say that in the present condition of the British Navy, it was important that questions should be raised on the Naval Estimates; and it was not creditable to the business capacity of the House that the discussion of those questions should be relegated to so late a period as July or August. He and other Members were there especially to watch and criticize the action of the Government in those matters. The Secretary of State for War had stated that it would be impossible to take the Army Vote to-night. He had asked the Prime Minister whether, if he and others gave way, he would give some further opportunity of bringing forward those questions. The Prime Minister answered that he would not. Then the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty had both stated that further opportunities would be given for discussing the Army and Navy Estimates. When, however, he asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when those opportunities would be given he received an extremely curt reply, to the effect that at some indefinite future time he would be kind enough to inform the House when those opportunities would be given. Before hon. Members gave way they were entitled to be distinctly told when those opportunities would be given. If the right hon. Gentleman told them that he would allow that important discussion to be taken next week, he, for one, would be perfectly ready to offer every facility to the Government. Members opposite below the Gangway thought they had nothing to do but vote with the Government. But those who took a different view of their duties and were interested in examining the naval and military expenditure of the country were not to be put off as they had been. He was not exceeding his rights as a Member of the House when he asked the Government to give them some assurance as to the time at which an opportunity would be given of discussing those Votes. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

in seconding the Motion, said, he did so in no Party sense, but to show the Government that the House was not to be trifled with. Ministers had already wasted five Government nights in succession, four in an attack on the other House, and one in an attack on the Procedure of that House, and now they came down and implored the House to help them out of the mess they had got themselves in. He wished to remind the Prime Minister that of all the vices in this world the most expensive was that of temper.

said, that it seemed to be the deliberate intention of Gentlemen opposite to throw every obstruction possible in the way of Public Business. ["No, no!"] He was not alluding to hon. Members from Ireland, but to the Conservative Party. Everybody knew their object. It was to go to their constituents at the end of the Session and say that the Liberals had promised grandly, but done nothing. But whose would be the fault? It would belong to the Conservatives themselves. How was it possible to go on with the Business when every day time was consumed by Motions? [An hon. MEMBER: Bradlaugh.] An hon. Member hinted that he (Mr. Labouchere) did the very thing that he complained of. He had never brought forward a Motion like the present one, with the object of Obstruction, and with no desire to see it passed. The Motions proposed by himself had had specific objects, and he had always wished to pass them. He hoped the Prime Minister would stand to his guns. What had just occurred proved better than any argument that it was necessary, as soon as possible, to carry those excellent Resolutions respecting the Business of the House which the Prime Minister had moved. If, after the statement made from the Treasury Bench that it was absolutely necessary to pass certain Votes to-night, hon. Gentlemen chose to take the responsibility of postponing those Votes by the use of obstructive tactics, let them accept that responsibility before the country. He hoped the Prime Minister would next week insist on taking the debate on clôture and the other Procedure Resolutions from day to day until they were disposed of.

Sir, I do not intend to enter into the contentious part of this discussion, and I shall be satisfied to pass by in silence the various taunts that have been thrown out against the Government with respect to the debate which, on account of their responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, they thought it necessary to give occasion for by submitting a Resolution to this House, although I do not say that they have any responsibility for the extent of four nights of this debate. I rise to show, as I think I can, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there is good cause why his Motion should be withdrawn, and that he has not exactly apprehended the position of affairs with regard to the Question that has been put to me. But I may observe that there is, at all events, some merit in this—that whereas it has been very common during recent weeks to find fault with the answers given by Members of the Government to Questions for being too long, I am now taken to task by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham for making my answer too short. We shall endeavour, on all occasions, if we can, to hit the golden mean which lies between the extremes of prolixity and undue brevity. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, perhaps inadvertently, stated the circumstances not quite accurately. He said that he had asked me whether we should offer any time for the discussion of Motions, in which he seems now to have had in view his own Motion, and that I said I could not name any time. What the hon. and learned Gentleman did was this. He made himself the sponsor of no less than 11 Motions; and he then asked me if, in the present state of Public Business, not "would I be disposed to give time for any of these Motions?" but "are you prepared to name a day when these Motions may be proceeded with?" These two things are entirely different. The Motion of which the hon. and learned Member has given Notice tonight is one with regard to which he has a right to see that it should not be subjected to unnecessary disappointment. I hope he will, therefore, see that I have not met his Motion in the spirit which he has stated. The whole of my statement amounts to this—that I am not prepared, at the present time, to name a day when Supply could be postponed, in order to give facility for the Motion. We have got the full work of the week before us, and the full work, I apprehend, of next week before us. Under these circumstances, I do not think the House will be of opinion that I should hold out expectations which I might not be able to redeem. We are of opinion that, subject to matters of primary necessity, it is our duty to proceed with those Resolutions of which we have given Notice, with regard to the Procedure of this House. When we are told that it is not desirable to postpone the discussion, in detail, of the Army and Navy Estimates until July or August, there is no one who feels the truth of the proposition more keenly and acutely than we do. We are now in the beginning of March, and we believe that by taking the judgment of the House on matters of procedure, and by endeavouring, if we can, to arrange a good system, both with regard to procedure, so called, and with regard to the devolution or delegation of labour, we are really offering to the House the best security that we can offer them for the discussion of Estimates in proper time. Nothing could be more improper than the postponement of these measures to a late period of the Session. When I decline now to name a day, it is because it is not customary, and would not be convenient, to name days for what is not in immediate prospect. It is with a view to the proper disposal of Supply that we are about to submit our Resolutions to the House. One of the principal objects we have in view, whatever may be the form which those Resolutions may ultimately assume, is the effective and early discussion of matters in Supply. I hope I have explained that I by no means intended to make light of the subject of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, which I think is one that appeals very strongly to us, and I certainly should be very sorry if we were not able to suggest to the House some method by which that Motion should be discussed.

said, he wished, as far as possible, to save the time of the House; and he hoped, therefore, that the discussion would not be continued, and that the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham would not be pressed. At the same time, he desired to point out that the matter did not entirely lie as the Prime Minister would lead them to suppose. According to him it would seem as if the Business of the day were properly the Army Estimates, and that any opposition in the nature of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply was abnormal, and stood in the way of the regular Business. It was, however, an admitted principle that questions of grievance preceded Supply; and, of course, those hon. Gentlemen who put down Notices of Motions had primâ facie a perfect right to expect to have an opportunity of bringing them forward. Then an appeal was made by the Government to those hon. Gentlemen to waive or curtail their privilege on this occasion, in order that the Government might proceed with the Army Estimates. All hon. Members-were anxious that the Army Estimates should be proceeded with in proper time, and were willing to accept the statement that they must be dealt with to-night. But the Gentlemen who waived or curtailed their right to bring forward Motions were hardly to blame if they asked when an opportunity would be given to them. He did not think they had been treated with that consideration which ought to have been shown to them under the circumstances. Those hon. Members had been told what they could, not have, but they had not been told what they could have. He would urge the House not to waste any time in a discussion on the Motion for Adjournment, but to go on with the Business. They must all see where the responsibility would lie. At all events, hon. Members on that side of the House had a pretty strong opinion on the subject. Nothing could be more unedifying than to continue a discussion of this sort; and, therefore, he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion.

said, that he happened to have the first Motion on the Paper that night. Nothing would be further from his desire than to stand in the way of the Army Estimates, or in the way of the debate regarding Procedure, and he should be most happy to withdraw his Motion unconditionally, if that would serve the purpose which the Government desired; but it manifestly would be totally useless to withdraw his Motion in order to allow the Government to fall into the hands of the other Members who had Motions.

said, the prospect before them was that they were not to have an opportunity of discussing important questions at all until the clôture was passed, and then the clôture would prevent them from discussing important questions. That prospect was not inviting. At the same time, he admitted that a discussion of this character might, under ordinary circumstances, have been usefully postponed; and, therefore, he regretted that the Prime Minister had initiated the discussion. The statement volunteered by the Prime Minister as to the arrangements for Public Business was far from being creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, and the remarkable confession that fell from his lips was quite unprecedented. It was impossible for them to regard with indifference the accusations made by the sitting Member for Northampton. Of course, he fully recognized that the sitting Member for Northampton was under a deep debt of gratitude to the Premier for having been his champion, and now the hon. Member thought it grateful to become the right hon. Gentleman's champion. It was by no means fair, however, for the hon. Member for Northampton to convert an ordinary discussion on the facilities to be given to private Members into a medium for a Party attack upon the Gentlemen sitting opposite to him. It could not be the case that Members sitting on that side of the House could entertain any such intentions as were imputed to them by the hon. Member for Northampton. What they complained of was that the Government measures were not being brought forward; but that, from day to day, the regular Business of the House was being interfered with. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not stop to reply to taunts in regard to the conduct of Public Business. His own opinion was that it would not be at all desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to those taunts, he having no reply at hand. They were now asked by the Premier to hurry forward, in a by no means decent fashion, the discussion of the Estimates on the ground of shortness of time, simply because the Premier had wasted the time of the House since the commencement of the Session upon grounds now acknowledged to be utterly fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not responsible for four nights being taken up by the discussion on the House of Lords. Did the Premier really believe that the discussion on his important Motion—or what promised to be an important Motion, although it came to nothing particular at last—would end in a few minutes after his fiery abjuration to ride rough shod over the decision of the other House of Parliament? Not a minute more than was necessary was spent in the discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. If it came to the small end to which it did come, the reason was that the discussions showed how groundless were the accusations brought by the right hon. Gentleman. As regarded the accusation against the Conservative Party of wasting time, he was sorry to say that the Conservative Party most unduly abbreviated the discussion on that Motion. It was the action of the late Attorney General for Ireland that prevented the Irish Members from completely discussing the operation of the Land Act. He hoped the small amount of gratitude which the Conservative Party received for that good turn would be remembered by them when they again attempted to curtail the opportunities of Irish Members.

Before the Orders of the Day are read I wish to inform the House that the following has been received from Sir Hercules Robinson by telegraph:—

"12th.—Yours 11th. On 27th February, Rutherford, in absence of Hudson, reported as follows:—' General Joubert, with 60 mounted police, left some days ago to coerce Skalafyn, a Kaffir Chief, residing within Transvaal territory, on the western borders, who had given trouble, and raised wall defences. Meanwhile, Skalafyn had come to Pretoria by another route, and given explanation to the Government which had led to instructions being sent after Joubort to stay proceedings, subject to Skalafyn paying expenses of expedition, which he had promised to do. There had been extensive commandeering in Potchefstroom, and a large number had left the district to follow Joubert; but it is understood all will be recalled.' On 6th March Rutherford reported having received on 3rd a letter from Government, stating that affairs on the west border continued unchanged; within Transvaal line all quiet, but outside daily fighting and bloodshed, and Government apprehended conflict will extend and last long."

The telegram contains some observations on the possible mode of dealing with the difficulty, which it would be premature to mention at present; but I may state that Sir Hercules Robinson adds, on his own part, that the Transvaal Government seem doing what they can to maintain the neutrality of their territory.

asked whether the fighting and bloodshed in- side the Transvaal borders was caused by the leader of the Boers having previously attacked the Natives outside the borders?

No, Sir; the two things are distinct.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any information had been received by the Government with reference to 47 arrests said to have been made at Gibraltar by order of the Governor, acting under directions from the Government, or whether Lord Kimberley had telegraphed to obtain a Report on the subject?

asked whether the action of the Government any connection with the reported mission of Mr. Erring-ton to the Vatican?

There is no connection whatever between the two—whatever that mission may be. We have no fresh intelligence with respect to the arrests at Gibraltar.

asked whether this was an admission that there was a mission?

No, Sir.

rose, in accordance with Notice, to call attention to the ultimate effect of a continuance of the International Tribunals in Egypt on the present footing; and to move—

"That it is inexpedient to make, or renew on expiry, engagements by which Foreign Governments may have a claim to insist on the enforcement of private debts against natives of Egypt, the transfer of lands, vexatious sanitary regulations, and other demands, in super session of the autonomous legislation and government of the country; excepting only provision for the free use of the Suez Canal as an International commercial waterway."

He was unwilling, he said, to touch much on the burning and critical ques- tions which now existed with regard to Egypt. He wished to confine himself mainly to economical and social questions. It was his impression that it might be said, and with some truth and justice, that the troubles which now existed in Egypt were, to a certain extent, raised rather by the upper classes than by the lower classes; but they must take care lest, in the future, circumstances should arise which would cause discontent in the midst of the people of Egypt. He was quite free to admit that the mixed or International Tribunals were a great improvement on many tribunals which had existed in Egypt, and justice was usually done by them. But there were circumstances with regard to the constitution of these tribunals to which it seemed to him, in the interests of the people of Egypt, some attention should be paid. They were, no doubt, good and able tribunals; but it seemed to him that they were the rich man's rather than the poor man's tribunals. They were popular with Europeans who were rich, and who, having debts to enforce, could afford to go to great expense in enforcing them. They were placed only at a few centres of European residence, and they were expensive tribunals, before which a poor man could not afford to appear, although they were international and for the disposal of debt. Owing to their international character they were very large—even cumbrously large. There were 25 Judges of these tribunals in Alexandria alone. Although they were found only in the European centres, they exercised jurisdiction over the whole of Egypt. Good as they were, they were enormously expensive; consequently absolute justice was not being done to the people of Egypt in the matter. They, moreover, possessed very extensive powers in the country, as to which he had great apprehension. They could enforce their decrees against the Natives by the sale of their lands; and it was to be feared that in consequence of the difficulties experienced by the Natives in complying with those decrees, large quantities of the land would gradually fall into the hands of the money-lenders. Then these tribunals were constituted in a peculiar manner, which was almost unique in the history of tribunals, being, in reality, placed above the Government and the Legislature of Egypt, ft was the fact, because the Government of the country was subject to them, that European interference had taken place which had led to the critical position of affairs which was now existing. Our present troubles were the result of control and interference of Europeans in Egypt, and the Control was a direct result of the action of these judicial tribunals. The present situation was, that by the action of these tribunals the enormous debt of some £90,000,000 sterling had been decreed against Egypt, and that was being enforced by the joint action of two of the European Powers. But he most wished to call attention to another effect of these tribunals, which was to establish an enormous private debt, which would have an ultimate political effect, very great, and, he thought, very dangerous. Those who took an interest in such matters knew that there had been numerous financial institutions, both in London and in Paris, established for the purpose of "exploiting" Egypt and lending money to the Natives. Why was it that these financial institutions were formed to lend money to the Egyptians? He imagined that it was not out of benevolence towards the Egyptians. It was because they expected to get a high interest for their money, upon extremely good security. That security was the land of the Egyptians, which was known to be valuable. The Natives had thus entered upon a course of mortgaging their lands, which, it was to be feared, would ultimately fall into the hands of these associations. Finding such facilities afforded them of obtaining money, the Egyptians, in common with other Oriental peoples similarly situated, were living in a sort of fool's paradise. It was pleasant for the time to have accommodating money-lenders; but a day of reckoning would come at last, and we might have not only social and commercial ruin, but a political difficulty in the case of debts due by the Egyptian cultivators. The same state of things existed in India, when the people were encouraged to acquire complete rights of property, although they were as ignorant how to use those rights as children; for they became only too ready to receive loans and accumulate debts. But the day of reckoning eventually arrived, and the result was that great disturbances took place, just as in Russia at the present moment. A Commission was then appointed to inquire into the condition of the Deccan ryots, which led to the disclosure of a very dangerous state of things. Great sympathy was extended by the Government of India and of this country to the ryots of India, who had been deprived of their lands at a price very much below their value. If the present state of things were allowed to continue in Egypt, it was a matter of almost absolute certainty that serious disturbances would take place in that country; for these financial associations were pushing and aggressive. As regarded India, the Deccan Ryot Act was passed, by which a considerable amount of protection from the money-lenders was afforded to the ryots; but who had power to overrule these associations and these tribunals in Egypt? It had been held that the Government had not the power, by an Egyptian decree or Egyptian legislation, to overrule the decisions of the tribunals established by the European Concert. If that were so in regard to public debts, his apprehension was that it would be so in regard to private debts. There were a number of other nations, besides France and England, interested; and without the consent of all the Powers who were interested in these arrangements they could not alter the power of these tribunals. As the thing now stood, if the tribunals went on on their present footing the creditors would be entitled to their pound of flesh, and it would be impossible to make any satisfactory arrangement. The reason why he was desirous to call the attention of the House and the Government to the subject, at this moment, was that the agreement under which these tribunals were established was a temporary agreement, that it had expired, and was being renewed year by year. What, he asked, should be the result when it was again renewed? Such arrangements should be made that it would not be possible for any foreign tribunal to override the faction of the Legislature of Egypt, to enforce on the people of Egypt private debts which would have the effect of creating great disturbance and great political danger. As an instance of the difficulty of these international arrangements, he might notice that there was now in Egypt an institution called an International Sanitary Board, at which were represented al-most all the nations of Europe, small and great. The result was that in that Sanitary Board were represented many of the petty European Kingdoms which had practically no interest in Egypt. It was a somewhat dangerous state of things that the gentlemen upon the Sanitary Board were not gentlemen specially appointed for the purpose, but were local gentlemen carrying on the trade and commerce of the country. That Board of 18 members, of whom France and England had only two, had instituted regulations which appeared to the merchants and shipowners of London to be vexatious in the very highest degree; and it was impossible to get rid of those regulations without consulting all those petty Powers. The consequence had been that the traffic of the Suez Canal had within the last few months been seriously interfered with, to the detriment of trade and commerce; and he understood that a very great deal of profit to the local community of the Europeans established in Egypt had resulted from the detention of vessels in the Canal, and the enormous prices which had been paid for tugs and pilots and things of that kind. Therefore, it might happen that the members of the Sanitary Board might find themselves in a position in which their private interests were arrayed on the same side as the public prejudice. There was a strong feeling among the mercantile community here that this should rather be dealt with by an autonomous Government than by one of those complicated tribunals. He wished to avoid the burning political questions which had arisen; but would just say one word on the question of European Control, which, in the hands of the Controllers, had been rapidly becoming a European administration of Egypt. This was said to be a satisfactory state of things; but he confessed he had very considerable doubts upon it, because they found, when they dealt with foreign countries in different parts of the world, that it very often happened that the Natives would rather be ill-governed by their own people than well-governed by foreigners. The late Lord Lawrence once instituted an inquiry into the relative advantages of European and Native rule in India; and it was found that the Natives were not at all clear that the advantages were so decidedly on the side of European rule as one was apt to suppose. And if there could be any doubt on that point in the case of a country like India, how much greater must the doubt be as to Egypt, where the circumstances were very different and very much more dangerous, especially as there was this enormous disadvantage—that they had not one Power trying to do their best for the people of Egypt, but a cumbrous Joint Control, which rendered good administration infinitely more difficult? He was not prepared to say that jobbing had been carried on to a great extent in Egypt; but, looking at the enormous amount of patronage, and remembering how much human nature was given to nepotism, he should not be surprised if there was a considerable degree of truth in the allegation that there was a good deal of nepotism and jobbing in regard to the personnel of the European Administration. Again, there was an uncertainty with respect to the stability of the European Control in Egypt. The Natives of India were accustomed to our rule and believed in its stability; but the case was very different in Egypt, where, owing to its peculiar character, the combined Control which existed to-day might be upset to-morrow by some divergence of view arising between the European Powers. They were sometimes told that under the European Control the Natives had great advantages in respect to taxation; but he was not so sure of that. He was aware the taxes had been regulated, and that new brooms usually swept clean. He had no doubt that had been well regulated; but he was not so sure that the taxation had really been diminished, seeing that an enormous revenue was raised from the people, more than double that which was required for the administration of the country, and more than half of it was paid away to foreigners. He thought they must all feel that there was a danger to ourselves and our neighbours in this system of Joint Control. It was said there was nothing so dangerous as two friends travelling together, as they were almost certain to quarrel before they reached the end of their journey. He thought this country and France had undertaken a somewhat hazardous Egyptian tour together. He hoped the newspapers were right in their interpretation of the action of the Government of France, it having been announced that morning that the French Controller had been withdrawn, and the inference being that the French proposed to interfere as little as possible; and he trusted the Government of this country would do the same. He hoped the Government would regard interference as at best a necessary evil, and that it would be only temporary, and as little as possible. He particularly urged that great social and political evil was likely to result if the great private debts to which he had referred were allowed to be superadded to the public Debt of Egypt which already existed. It might be that the Government of France was at present peaceable and reasonable; but another man of heroic mould, like Gambetta, might by-and-bye prevail on France to pursue a different policy. Other nations might demand a share in that policy; indeed, they had a share already in the international tribunals, and the difficulties might increase. When we interfered with foreign countries, we said it was for the benefit of the Natives; but there was a good deal of hypocrisy in that. It was the interest of the moneylenders of this country and of France that had prevailed in the case of Egypt, not the interest of the Natives. Now, he should like to see Egypt as autonomous as possible. He did not see why the Egyptians—an acute, peaceable, and moderate people—should not be allowed to govern themselves. It might be that they would have a revolution now and again. Why should they not have an occasional revolution, as other States had? He did not see why they should not. We had had a great many revolutions before we attained our present state of peace and quiet, and he did not see why they should not have a trial of autonomy on one condition, that being that the freedom of the Suez Canal, as a great international highway, should be maintained. But was it the case that there had been any anarchy in Egypt which interfered with the international interests of Europe in that Canal? On the contrary, had that Canal not been made for the benefit of Europe, very much with Egyptian money and altogether with Egyptian labour? The lives of thousands of Egyptians had been sacrificed in making it, and, as far as the Egyptians were concerned, we had enjoyed perfect freedom of commerce through that Canal up to the present. He believed that every international agreement was an evil, it might be a necessary evil; but on the single point of the Suez Canal he was free to confess that the object of maintaining it as an international concert was so great that some international system for that purpose should be maintained. There was an international system with regard to the Danish Sound, and another with respect to the navigation of the Danube. But as far as we were concerned, if things came to the worst, we had got a great highway to India round the Cape. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that, although he apprehended this discussion was likely to be rather academical than practical, he would like to say a few words on the other side of the question. The speech of the hon. Member opposite (Sir George Campbell) would be regarded in Egypt as an attack upon the international tribunals; and as he (Mr. M'Coan) knew something of the manner in which those Courts had worked in Egypt up to the present time, he wished to say that they had been the one reform in the history of the East during the present generation, which commanded universal approval in Egypt. They were, in fact, almost the only effective and successful reform which had been achieved by European influence in that country. In the administration of justice they had reated nothing less than a revolution. Seven years ago, before these Courts were established, such a thing as justice was unknown in Egypt, and more especially in the cases where Europeans were interested. The prosecution of a claim against an Egyptian Native by an European plaintiff was formerly managed through the foreign Consulates, and the process almost invariably led to great corruption. The late Khedive carried on a long negotiation with a view to reform these abuses, with the result that these institutions were established, composed of nominees of the principal Powers, presumably the best men their respective Foreign Offices could recommend. And, although there were varying shades of ability and learning in the Judges thus selected, the Courts as a whole had given great satisfaction, and the men composing them had discharged their duties with honour, integrity, and efficiency. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as a ground of offence that they made the Natives pay their just debts. However much he (Mr. M'Coan) might wonder at such a fact being made ground of complaint, he could say, that whenever judgment was so given against Native defendants, it was invariably just. The result was that these tribunals were popular even with the Natives themselves; and the scale of fees being exceedingly moderate, justice could generally be had for a few piastres. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had further complained that they were above the Government; but that in his (Mr. M'Coan's) opinion was one of their greatest merits. They were thus able to do justice as it had never been done before between the Khedive and the humblest plaintiff or defendant. Hon. Members could hardly realize how little authority the so-called Egyptian Legislature really possessed. Its Members were ignorant peasants, most of whom had been bastinadoed at one time or other for non-payment of their taxes. It was true that a large proportion of the Judges of the international tribunals were Natives; but secure in their position, and with the example of their European Colleagues before their eyes, they had become, as a rule, equally fearless and upright. If any improvement in the condition of the people of Egypt were needed it would be best effected, he believed, not by curtailing, but by extending the power of those tribunals and bringing all classes, both Native and foreign, under their jurisdiction.

said, that the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had touched upon three special subjects, the question of Control, the question of the national movement, and the question of international tribunals. He (Mr. Goschen) did not intend to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the Control, or to venture upon the exceedingly delicate ground of the political situation in Egypt. That situation seemed to him to present every kind of difficulty, and, knowing, as he did, the attention paid in. the East to everything said in that House—for hon. Members could scarcely exaggerate the interest with which their debates were followed at Constantinople and at Cairo—he trusted they would be exceedingly careful in the remarks they might make upon that subject. Before expressing any opinion, he thought they would do well to wait till they had Papers before them, showing what information was in the hands of the Government; for, with their present information, it would not be safe for them to express any opinion whatever as to the attitude of one party or the other in Egypt. There were many inaccurate statements appearing in the newspapers, among many, no doubt, that were accurate, and it was at present impossible for them to discover the truth. In the letters he himself received from Cairo there were the most contradictory views expressed as to the character both of Arabi Bey and Mahmoud Pasha, and of the "National movement," so that it would be unwise on their part if they were prematurely to pronounce against the possibility of there being a National movement in Egypt. He hoped, therefore, they would reserve their opinion till they had more light, and that the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) would not be understood in Egypt as being the opinion of the House of Commons. With regard to the international tribunals, he should have thought that, if there was one institution in the East introduced from the West which had proved more than any other a success in the eyes of Europeans and Natives, that institution was the international tribunals in Egypt. The objection, however, taken to them by the hon. Gentleman was in reality that they were too strong and too efficient. To abolish the international tribunals would be to strike at the very basis and foundation of civilization—namely, the pure administration of justice. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member as to the possible dangers of the land of Egypt being absorbed by foreign moneylenders; but considered that the hon. Member had committed himself to rather an extravagant mode of giving vent to his opinions when he wished to re-introduce Turkish or Arabian in the place of European tribunals, in order to frighten capital away. The hon. Member had spoken as if the introduction of European capital into Egypt was almost a curse, and as if the good administration of justice was an civil because it encouraged capital. He (Mr. Goschen) trusted the Government would not assent to the Resolution; but that when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came to speak, he would state that the maintenance of international tribunals was a matter of great importance not only to England, or to the European Powers and capitalists, but that it was essentially of value as teaching the Egyptians and Mohammedans generally the value of pure and incorruptible justice. The selection of the Judges and the probity of their conduct had generally been praised; and, notwithstanding the many failures which had been encountered in the endeavour to regulate the affairs of Egypt, and the jealousies which naturally existed between different nationalities, these tribunals had worked together in such a manner as to command the esteem of the whole community—he might almost say without exception—in Egypt. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would agree that the international Courts ought to be maintained, and he considered that a great debt of gratitude was due to Nubar Pasha for the force and for the courage with which he had introduced those institutions into Egypt.

said, he did not think that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), there was much left to be said on the part of Her Majesty's Government, who were, moreover, very anxious that some progress should be made in Supply that night. He agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), who had done great service to the House in the way in which he dealt with international tribunals, and also with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon. His hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had warned the House against the dangers that would arise in the event of these international tribunals not being put an end to. But the abuses of the old system had been clearly pointed out by the present Lord Derby in a despatch written in 1868, and that despatch so admirably contrasted the state of things prevailing before the existence of these tribunals, and foreshadowed so excellently the state of things existing now, that he could not do better than refer hon. Gentlemen interested in the subject to it. Lord Derby, at that time, pointed out that the system then existing had become a great abuse, as the whole authority of local tribunals had been usurped by the extra-territorial jurisdiction; and his suggestions were marvellously accurate as to the effect which tribunals similar to those now existing would have on the people and the country. His hon. Friend had not proved any portion of his case. In the first place, he had asserted that there was great danger that the whole of the land in Egypt would pass into the hands of the foreign moneylenders; but, in the course of a long speech, he had failed to show any reasonable ground for that apprehension. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) ventured, upon the best authority, to deny that there was any reason to expect that such would be the case. Looking at the whole of the speech of his hon. Friend, he felt it necessary to ask what he was driving at, because, if the international tribunals were merely to be got rid of, the whole of those abuses against which Lord Derby had protested would be revived. It must be remembered, moreover, that throughout the whole of his speech his hon. Friend did not put forward any alternative scheme in place of that which was now being worked with success in Egypt. The quinquennial period for which the Courts were established in the first instance expired at the beginning of this year, and a renewal for one year had been agreed upon. In the interval, inquiry was being made, and an exchange of views was taking place between the Powers and the Egyptian Government as to the results of the system up to the present time, and as to the conditions under which it might be renewed. His hon. Friend seemed to be unacquainted with the history of the establishment of these mixed tribunals, the services they had rendered in a greater degree probably to the Native than to the foreigner, and the absence of an independent judicial system in Egypt outside these Courts. The immediate result of a lapse of existing arrangements would be a revival of all the old Capitular prerogatives of 17 different Consular jurisdictions, and of the system of enforcing foreign claims by diplomatic pressure, abuses which, before 1876, were exercised to the enormous detriment of Egyptian interests, and were surrendered most reluctantly by certain of the Powers, mainly by the insistence of the British Government. The idea of Nubar Pasha, the author of the reform, was to apply it to the Native population as well as for foreigners; but he was unable to carry his point in this respect. He intended, side by side with the international tribunals, to establish Native Courts affiliated to the former, presided over by a certain number of competent Judges selected by the Egyptian Government in foreign countries. He desired gradually to accustom the people to the notion of independent judicial procedure, and felt that he could only do it by having recourse to foreign assistance in the first instance, with the ultimate expectation of arriving at a purely Egyptian institution. Only half his scheme was, however, adopted, and the policy of all well wishers of Egypt should be to complete it, and not to undo what had been effected. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the tribunals were unpopular with the Natives; but all the evidence went to show that the exact opposite was the case. The Government were informed on all sides that the Courts were just as popular with the Natives as with Europeans; and he might state also that there was a very strong Native movement in Egypt in favour of placing the whole of the cases between Native and Native under the control of these tribunals. There had been undoubtedly in the speech of his hon. Friend a great begging of the question, because he had argued that there were great defects in the present system, and that he was prepared to return to the old system, the vice of which he admitted, rather than continue to bear the evils of which he complained, and of the existence of which evils he had given no proof whatever. No ques- tion as to any one of these Courts had ever been raised by the Native population in Egypt, or by the Egyptian Government. Another proof of the confidence these tribunals inspired was to be found in the fact that property was now registered in their land offices, in preference to the Native land offices, to the amount of about £8,000,000. The sole charge which had been made against the Courts by his hon. Friend, which, however, was unsupported by any evidence, was that they served too much as debt-collecting machines for the money-lenders, and that their procedure facilitated the forced sale of land; but at least two-thirds of the business of the tribunals had nothing to do with the money-lenders, by whom was meant the class which lent money on the security of land. It was a class which had always existed in Egypt, where there was heavy taxation and an improvident people. The effect of the Courts had been, by the greater security they afforded, to invite capital into the country and to lower the rate of interest. Money used to be advanced by petty usurers at the rate of 4 per cent a-month. It was now lent at 9 per cent per annum by large financial establishments. Debts used to be collected through the intervention, first of the Cadi, who sold his justice, and next through the Mudir, or Provincial Governor, who alone could execute the sentences, and whose services were equally venal. If the peasant could not or would not pay, he was imprisoned and flogged. That had been abolished, and debts were now collected by a tribunal according to law. There was no imprisonment for debt, and, it was needless to add, no flogging. In cases of mere debt collection, the mixed tribunals exempted from seizure goods and chattels which were necessary to the maintenance and occupation of the debtor. No such rule existed formerly. As regarded land questions, the Courts had worked good. For instance, by a series of decisions, they had laid down the principle of undivided or family ownership, which obtained under Mahomedan law, and had never recognized a mortgage placed on the family land by its head as binding the property, unless the head of the family had obtained the consent of all whom he represented. Very frequently the money-lender had thus lost what he thought a good security, and he began now to recognize the superior value of a title registered at the land office even as against possession and apparent ownership. The procedure of these Courts was extremely simple and within the reach of everyone, and such reforms as were really needed they might hope to be accomplished before the existence of the Courts was renewed for a further term of years. The popularity of the Courts was shown by the amount of work they did, and the increase had been extraordinarily rapid. The three tribunals of First Instance had given judgment on an average on 5,000 cases every year. The Court of Appeal had decided an average of 300 cases annually. The work done had steadily increased, as was shown by the following statement from the Court of Appeal:—In 1875–6 there was 87 cases decided; in 1876–7, 213; in 1877–8, 327; in 1878–9, 388; and in 1879–80, 405. It was to be regretted that the third tribunal at Mansourah had recently been suppressed. There was always much to be done, and it was especially useful from its position in the heart of the Delta to the Natives of Egypt, who now for their cases had to come either to Alexandria, which was practically outside Egypt proper, or on to Cairo, which was away on the confines of the desert. The mixed tribunal more than paid their own expenses by the judicial receipts; but the fees of Court were too high, and the Court of Appeal was now preparing a new tariff, which would reduce the fees 50 per cent in all smaller cases where the fellaheen were most concerned. The tribunals and the Appeal Court were all in arrears with their work. This arose from the large number of Judges required to sit in every case, from the limited jurisdiction of the summary justice or small causes Court, and from the cumbrous procedure. His hon. Friend had also said a few words about the Sanitary Board and the Board of Control. With regard to the question of Control, he should follow the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and say nothing on the subject at present. He not only thought it was dangerous to speak on the subject, but he also thought it was unnecessary, because in that respect, as in others, he would say that the Introducer of the Motion brought forward no evidence whatever to sup- port his contentions. His hon. Friend spoke of the Sanitary Board; but the same remark applied to that as to the remainder of his speech—namely, that he did not say what he proposed the Government should do. On the proper occasion he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could speak at length on that subject. The action of the Board was, no doubt, vexatious in the highest degree, and they had placed serious obstacles in the way of the commerce of all countries, and especially upon the large commerce of England. That Board, however, was not within the reach of the Government. The Government could, however, protest and take certain steps to induce the Board to see things as Her Majesty's Government saw them. He could assure the House the matter was receiving the most constant attention at the hands of the Government. His hon. Friend asked them to pronounce in favour of autonomous government in Egypt, a country which, until now, had possessed very little autonomous government. He did not think there were any grounds shown which ought to induce the House to adopt so sweeping a Motion, or to retrace the steps which had been taken in the establishment of the international tribunals, which formed one of the best institutions in the Eastern world. He must, therefore, meet it with a negative.

, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), said, that the discussion seemed to have travelled wide of its terms. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy denied the advantages of the international tribunals, but that he drew attention to the fact that it was inexpedient to make a new expiry engagement by which foreign Governments might have the claim to insist upon enforcement of all private debts against Natives of Egypt and the transfer of lands. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that the loans and capital were identical. It depended on the application of the loan whether it became capital or not. The essence of the objection of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was that a large portion of the loans would not prove reproductive, and that a crisis would sooner or later arrive similar to that which occurred in the Deccan, and that, therefore, there ought to be moans established of effecting a compromise between the money-lenders and the fellaheen, so as to prevent the occurrence of like evils. Usurious speculators were now finding in Egypt an opportunity of placing loans to an immense amount amongst a primitive population, and on terms that would be found not less crushing, considering the wide extent of the borrowing, than that which had been before experienced. Farm after farm would be sure to come into the hands of European creditors, and unless an equitable arrangement was made a revolt would be the consequence. He admitted that the international tribunals were a great improvement upon the existing system, and that they gave judgments that were technically just; but there was a point in Egypt, as in Ireland, where it might be necessary to interfere with contracts in connection with the tribunals. As regarded the European Control, the National party at present in Egypt did not declare that such Control was useless. It recognized that within a large sphere it was most useful. But that party objected to the exaggerated salaries paid to Europeans, and to the endless multiplication of those officials. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said that there had been no complaint by the Egyptian people or Government. But it was only during the last few months that the people had any voice in the matter, and the Egyptian Government had been entirely in the hands of the international tribunals. Those who were conversant with the matter could testify to the hate and detestation that was universally felt throughout the Egyptian population against the swarm of highly-paid European officials. He hoped that improvements would be made in the constitution of the international tribunals, and that some provision would be made for equitable as well as strictly legal provisions, for really what was wanted was a Court of Equity in dealing with the question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. The hon. Member had complained that the Egyptian National Government was composed of mere fell a heen—bastinadoed fellaheen; but it was a very illogical conclusion to come to, that because these men had suffered from oppression they would do nothing to lessen the oppression of others.

said, that he had only recently returned from a visit to Egypt; in fact, during the last 15 years he had annually visited that country. In that period he had travelled the whole length and breadth of the land. During the last six or seven years the improvement in the condition of the people had become most apparent, indeed so striking that no one could have possibly failed to notice it. With respect to that improvement, he believed that nothing had exercised a more beneficial influence than the international tribunals which formed the subject of the hon. Member's (Sir George Campbell's) Motion. They had worked admirably, and the rich pasha was treated with no more favour than the poorest fellah. He hoped their influence would extend throughout the whole country; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that there was great need of caution and for a conciliatory spirit towards those with whom we did not altogether agree. He hoped nothing would induce Her Majesty's Government to relax the position which they had taken in Egypt, because our influence had been of the greatest benefit to the people. He thought the less said about the National party and Arabi Bey the better, and he hoped that no language would be used in that House which would give offence to any body of people in Egypt. With regard to the Control, it might be admitted that a large number of Europeans were employed, and that the salaries were high; but he did not believe that the Control cost the country more than £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. He thought that the evil was of no great magnitude, and would remedy itself. There was a growing opinion in favour of the greater employment of Native Egyptians, who were very steady and trustworthy; and wherever a Native could be substituted for a European in the service that had been done. He hoped there would be as little interference as possible with the Control, which had worked well with the country.

rose to call attention to the dress of the Army, and said, that, had the Forms of the House permitted, he should have been glad to have moved the following Resolution:—

"That the present conspicuous colour and tight-fitting Dress of the Army interferes with the efficiency of the soldier and causes the unnecessary loss of many valuable lives."

He had brought forward the subject last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War admitted that a change ought to be made in this respect, and suggested that he should bring the matter on when the Estimates for Soldiers' Clothing were discussed. He regretted that he had not done so; but when the time came two-thirds of the House were absent, and he deferred bringing the subject forward, in the hope that it would receive a more satisfactory discussion than it could have obtained last year. Nothing had yet been done in the matter, and he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman really intended carrying out what he had said? He did not complain of want of alteration in the uniform of the Army, because those changes had been frequent, and he knew that some of the small alterations which had been made had been of a vexatious character, and had been the cause of great expense to officers. Last year the right hon. Gentleman ordered the stars to be removed from the collars of the officers to their shoulder straps, and this slight change, which did no good whatever, cost each officer in the Guards about £20. The other day he was talking to an old Militia officer, who told him that since the year 1852 his headdress had been changed no fewer than eight times. His (Colonel Barne's) complaint was that the alterations were made in an entirely wrong direction. First, with regard to the colours worn, it had been found by the Emperor Napoleon that the most conspicuous were white, black, gamboge, and then scarlet; thus, the dress of our Army was composed of the most conspicuous colours that could be found. The Rifles, for instance, who ought to be the least visible, were clothed in black, which was the second most conspicuous colour. Moden warfare consisted largely of battles between two lines of skirmishers, each armed with weapons of precision, so that the loss of life was necessarily conspicuous amongst the more conspicuous body. This was proved by the experience of our men in the conflict with the Boers in South Africa, and more recently by the testimony of the Austrians in Herzegovina. Our losses in the Transvaal War were, generally speaking, due to the superior marksmanship of the Boers, and their ability to pick out our men, whereas the English soldiers complained that they could see nothing of the enemy except their heads. It was found that the grey dress of the Rifles was far less conspicuous. That colour was also advocated by Military and Volunteer officers who had tested the point. He also advocated a change of colour on the ground of economy, for the scarlet dye took the oil out of the wool and impaired its durability. He objected to the tight-fitting tunic, because it did not allow the lungs to expand in a natural way when a man began to ascend a hill, or to do any kind of hard work. The regulation trouser was also objectionable, because it gave an immense drag at the knee, especially if it got wet through. He should like to see the British troops dressed in a Norfolk jacket, breeches loose at the knee, and gaiters, with a light helmet, which would not impede the men in their work. He could not move the Resolution of which he had given Notice; but he had ventured to bring the subject under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that he would consider it, and make a move, if possible, in the direction indicated.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down (Colonel Barne), that an unnecessary expenditure had been thrown upon officers by the alteration in the collar and shoulder straps, also that soldiers should wear a dress thoroughly adapted to the work they had to do, and did not think he could add anything to what he had said. As to the question of expense entailed by the changes in the uniform, such as altering the mark of rank from the collar to a shoulder strap, he believed the cost to an officer involved by the renewal of uniform in accordance with the changes was about £20, which he was bound to say was a very unnecessary expenditure. As regarded the question of convenience and comfort in the matter of uniform, he was an advocate of easy clothing, as the movements of a soldier should not be constrained by his uniform. The clothing of the hardworking navvies was loose, and they wore a strap under the knee to prevent the dragging of the trousers. He believed it was a fact that if two men, equal in all other respects, were set to walk, one dressed in knickerbockers or a kilt, and the other in the present uniform of a soldier, in course of the day the former would very considerably outwalk the other; and, besides, trousers were not so fitted for work as other descriptions of clothing. The Secretary of State for War was the person really responsible for the efficiency of the uniform; and he wondered how his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War, who was a most kind and indulgent man, and about as sensible a one as he (Lord Elcho) was acquainted with, when he went down every day to his office could bear to see the sentries with trousers so tight at the knees and baggy below, that it seemed impossible for them to go up and down hill without splitting them. The trousers were, in fact, the very reverse of what they ought to be. It was the custom to ridicule the "peg-tops" worn by the French troops; but they were much more sensible than the trousers of the English soldier. Then, in the Cavalry, the clothes were so tight that the men could hardly mount, and only did so at imminent risk of splitting their trousers. He hoped his right hon. Friend would give his attention to these matters, which were by no means trivial, but essential to the welfare and efficiency of the Army, and would see especially that good and efficient leggings were supplied. He would now turn to the question of colour. As regards the colour, the War Office Volunteer Committee had reported in favour of the Volunteers being clothed in red. He had on his right his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay), who was a Member of that Committee. He was a great advocate of scarlet, and, having won his Victoria Cross in red, naturally thought there was no colour like scarlet for the British soldier. But he (Lord Elcho) did not share in that partiality, and he there- fore obtained permission for the regiment he commanded to retain their old grey uniform; and he hoped that, instead of the whole Force being put into red, they would be turned into grey. When the Army went to India, the soldiers were dressed in a uniform khaki or dustcolour, and in the Ashantee campaign the dress of the London Scottish was adopted. At the time of the Edinburgh Volunteer Review, he met Sir Frederick Roberts, after he had been round looking at the troops as they were drawn up, and that officer said—

"I only wish an order would come out that within five years every Volunteer should be clothed in grey instead of red. I am so struck with grey as being a very much better colour than red."

He (Lord Elcho) had great hopes that, instead of all the Volunteers becoming red, there was some chance from some thing he had heard—and perhaps his right hon. Friend would tell the House if he was right—that the working dress of the Army would be made grey. He was told that experiments were being made at the present with a view of testing what really was the effect of colour at distances in Woolwich marshes and elsewhere. With the small Army we were able to put into the held these were matters of the greatest importance, for it simply meant whether in action a greater or less proportion of our men were to be hit or not. Recently, wishing to try some experiments with a range finder, and sighting a Martini-Henry rifle, he had a target erected at 2,000 yards distance. Had that target been grey, he would not have seen it at the distance; but he covered it with red Turkey twill, and saw it flaming at the other end like a danger signal on a railway. To give them an idea of the accuracy of the weapon, every shot from that distance would have gone into a space not larger than the Palace Yard, or into a regiment in column. Whether they could see men or not at that distance, would depend on the colour of their dress; and with the view of effecting a saving of life, as well as on the score of convenience and comfort, the question of uniform was one which should be thoroughly gone into.

said, he was sure no Member of the House would complain of the character of the remarks which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barne) and his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had made. He must, however, take exception to one of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member about small alterations of uniform, and especially about the change made above a year ago in the marks on the collar and shoulder strap denoting rank. For these he (Mr. Childers) was not responsible; but he had clearly informed the House last year that henceforward the Secretary of State would be responsible for changes in uniform, and to this declaration he adhered. As to the particular object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he quite agreed in his general position that, putting colour aside, the fighting uniform of a soldier should be as appropriate for fighting as the shooting dress of a sportsman or gamekeeper was for the pursuit of game. In one respect the authorities were hardly responsible for undue tightness of dress, which they did not encourage, and which was the result often of commanding officers wanting their men to look smarter, and tightening their tunics. On the question of colour, he proposed to offer some explanation, when they were in Committee, as part of his general statement. He would only say now, that there was more to consider than the mere question of greater or less visibility, important as that was as a factor in the case.

, who had the following Resolution on the Paper:—

"That this House regrets the action of the Irish Executive in enforcing a rule whereby the suspects detained in various prisons in Ireland under the Coercion Act are locked in solitary confinement within their cells for eighteen out of every twenty-four hours, and is of opinion that, such a rule constitutes a violation of the pledges of Ministers last Session, that no hardship which was not necessary for their safe custody would he entailed upon the suspects,"

rose to address the House——

rose to Order. A Motion of his had precedence on the Paper.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport could not now proceed with his Motion as he had not risen in time.

said, he stood up when the last subject before the House was disposed of.

said, the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) was the only Member that rose when he put the Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair." He was, therefore, entitled to proceed.

said, he regretted that the Forms of the House did not permit him to move the Resolution which he had upon the Paper. In calling attention to the subject to which that Resolution had reference, he did not propose to discuss the policy or impolicy of the Coercion Act, but the manner in which it had been carried out, and the undue hardships inflicted on men arrested under its provisions. The object of the Coercion Act, as stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was to reach men engaged in the perpetration of outrage; but he did not think any defender of the Government would contend that that was the object the Chief Secretary for Ireland had in view in the recent administration of the Act. Under the Coercion Act hundreds of men, without any form of trial whatever, had been imprisoned, and had actually undergone longer imprisonment than they would have been sentenced to if they had been tried and found guilty. He was sure that all the Members of the House would agree with him that in administering such an Act great care should be taken not to inflict unnecessary hardships. There were many causes of complaint of the present treatment of prisoners in Ireland. But he proposed to call the attention of the House and the Government to one cause only, and that was that out of every 24 hours the men who had been arrested under the Coercion Act were locked in solitary confinement, were in their cells, 18 hours. Last Session Ministers frequently stated that the object of the Goercion Act was not to punish men, and that it would be used solely for the purposes of prevention. If that was the spirit in which this Act was to be administered, then it was the duty of the Government to take care that no undue hardship should be inflicted on the men in prison. The Chief Secretary for Ireland on many occasions last Session, when the Bill was in Committee, assured Members that no hardship would be inflicted which was not absolutely essential to safe custody. He (Mr. Redmond) ventured to appeal to the House, whether it was necessary for the safe custody of the "suspects" that they should be locked in solitary confinement in their cells 18 out of every 24 hours? He contended that the present regulations in this case should be so modified that, without the slightest danger to the safe custody of the prisoners, very much of the hardships which they at present suffered might be mitigated or done away with altogether. In considering the effect upon men of 18 hours' solitary confinement out of every 24, we must remember first the character of the men imprisoned, and next the sort of cells in which they were imprisoned. He was convinced that there were many men, even in England, who would be horrified to hear that for 18 hours out of every 24 the "suspects" were locked up in solitary confinement in cells, without either fireplace or windows, having only wretched little gratings the size of a man's hand. They had none of the cheerfulness or comfort which might be given to them by the presence and companionship of a fire; and as early as half-past 5 in the evening the "suspects" were locked up within these cells, whore they were secured until a late hour the following morning. What must be the feelings of these men when they were locked up for the night on a spring day, when the days were lengthening? No words could exaggerate the hardship of such a punishment; and all he asked was that the prison regulations might be so modified that the prisoners might be allowed an extra hour or two of association with one another after half-past 5 in the evening. Surely this might be done without in any way endangering the safe custody of the "suspects," or causing any inconvenience or trouble to the prison officials or the Government. This was his only request, and he was convinced that if it went forth to Ireland tomorrow that it had been scouted by the Government and refused, if it were possible to do so, that fact would further embitter the feelings of the Irish people against the coercive government of the right hon. Gentleman, and prove to them that the Chief Secretary's words last Session were spoken in vain and in insincerity, when he assured the House that his object was not to inflict punishment upon the "suspects," but simply to prevent the perpetration of outrages. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to show how he could consistently refuse this moderate demand. It would be no consolation to him to be told that the "suspects" were treated like untried prisoners, for while untried prisoners could only be kept waiting trial for a limited time, those who were incarcerated in Kilmainham were in the clutches of the Government, and might be kept in durance vile for an indefinite period. He might, in passing, allude to the manner in which men usually convicted of crimes in this country were treated. Mr. Valentine Baker was convicted of a crime, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment to prevent his doing harm in the future; but as punishment for the heinous character of the offence which he committed was he treated as the "suspects" were to-day? He understood that Mr. Baker had his suite of rooms, and a constant flow of visitors from morning till night to pass away the tedious hours of imprisonment. He had every luxury that could be given him. Yet these men in Ireland, unconvicted and unaccused of any crime, and who enjoyed the confidence of the Irish people, were treated infinitely more harshly than those who had been convicted of heinous crimes. Did the Chief Secretary believe that it was necessary to confine them in their cells for 18 out of 24 hours? Such a regulation was not necessary for their safe custody, and would not be tolerated by a Government possessing the ordinary feelings of humanity. The regulations of the Act of 1877 for untried prisoners had been modified by the Lord Lieutenant in favour of the "suspects," who were allowed to associate for six hours in the day. He asked for an extension of this time for association, wishing that the prisoners might be given one or two additional hours for the same purpose after the evening meal and before bedtime. Many of those imprisoned under the Protection of Person and Property Act were not literate men, and in their case the long, solitary evening could not fail to be very wearisome. He did not ask the Government to assent to his request as a favour. He proffered his demand as a right, being of opinion that, in enforcing the regulations under which, the "suspects" were now suffering, the Government were breaking the pledges which they made last year.

Sir, I have only two remarks to make to the hon. Member for New Ross. In the first place, I cannot admit that any of the "suspects," excepting those imprisoned for treasonable practices, have been arrested without being, in my opinion, at least connected with outrages—that is, if intimidation be outrage, as I think it is. [Mr. REDMOND: Father Sheehy.] Well, I consider Father Sheehy was connected with outrage, and I think that the man who instigates to outrage is very often quite as guilty, and sometimes more guilty, than the man who perpetrates it. When the hon. Member says that many of them are imprisoned much longer than they would have been under the Common Law, I will repeat what I have said before this Session, that they might have been prosecuted under the Whiteboy Act. I suppose no one at the present time would think of resorting to some of the punishments of the White-boy Act, such as flogging; but they certainly would resort to imprisoning, which, under the Whiteboy Act, is very long. It amounts to penal servitude; and therefore the statement of the hon. Member that they are imprisoned for a longer time than they could have been under the Common Law is not a correct one. Now, with regard to this rule, the hon. Member says we have broken the pledges which we gave last Session. I think it is impossible that the hon. Member can recollect what happened last year when he makes such a statement. It is not as if this rule had not been thoroughly debated. There were debates for hours, almost for days, on the length of time which prisoners should be allowed exercise. The hon. Member says we are taking the punishment for untried prisoners. That was the basis of the rule; but it was objected that the rule for untried prisoners would give 22 hours' confinement out of the 24—a very strong objection. Well, I felt the force of that objection, and stated that we would modify the rules and put them on the Table of the House. Hon. Member after hon. Member went on to the supposition that there was only to be two hours' exercise. The rules were put on the Table of the House, and they contained what has been the case in the West- meath Act, which has worked, I suppose, as well as any prison rules can work—namely, six hours. I had a question asked me by the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy), who thought that too much indulgence was given. At the time I stated there would be 18 hours of confinement out of the 24; therefore, when the hon. Member speaks of breaking pledges, nothing can be more contrary to the fact. The understanding of every person connected with the Act was that the rule would allow six hours' exercise out of the 24, and no Member objected to that. That is my simple answer. I may remind the hon. Member that six hours out of 24 is a great deal longer than is given to untried prisoners; and I may state that proper arrangements have to be made for the due management of prisons, and for the safe keeping of the prisoners, as well as for the prevention of what, I am sorry to say, we do find to be the case—namely, the prisoners making use of their liberty for communication outside, and for carrying on some of the very projects for the furtherance of which they were imprisoned. We cannot be blind to that fact while it exists. The hon. Member speaks of the advantage that would be enjoyed by giving the "suspects" time after half-past 5. I can only say that I will communicate with the prison authorities and see whether these hours cannot be spread over such parts of the day as would be more acceptable to the prisoners themselves, though I may state that the complaint comes simply from the hon. Member, and that I have heard of no complaint from the prisoners themselves. Therefore, I should, first of all, wish to know what they really thought about it with regard to variation of time before I could make a regulation. I am afraid that is all I can say on the subject.

said, there was not one word uttered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland against conceding what his hon. Friend had asked which might not also have been employed against giving the "suspects" any recreation whatever. It seemed that the Prime Minister, and indeed the entire Liberal Government, felt more for political prisoners undergoing incarceration in foreign countries than they did for the 600 of Her Majesty's subjects who in a portion of the United Kingdom had been thrust into prison on suspicion. If it were necessary, he might quote from the humane writings of the Prime Minister with regard to the imprisonments in Naples. But what good would it be to do so, since the Government had disappeared? He considered it was almost waste of time to appeal to the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and if any proof were required he would only point to the short and "pert" answer just given to his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman having replied to a question which so much concerned his administration, immediately walked out of the House, leaving the Irish Members to discuss the subject amongst themselves. He, for one, was not prepared to put up with such treatment as that. He believed that the imprisonment of these "suspects" was one of the most gigantic mistakes the Government had ever made—nay, it was worse than a mistake, it was an absolute crime against the peace of Ireland. He wished to draw the attention of his countrymen to the fact that while this important question was being debated the entire Government had walked out of the House. He could conceive nothing more disgraceful or discreditable to the Irish administration of Her Majesty's Government—the Ministerial Benches empty, the whole of the Liberal Benches deserted; not one of those Radical Members present who had made such splendid promises when they wanted to catch the votes of the Irish electors. They had all gone, and the question then before the House was being discussed by a dozen Irish Members and three or four Conservatives. Under these circumstances, he would say no more; and he thought the most dignified course for the Irish Members to adopt would be to leave the subject where it then stood, and to let the country see how far the Government took charge of matters they professed to have in hand, and the treatment the Government was prepared to offer those who simply went to that House to perform their duty.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that it was futile to discuss that or any Irish question in that House. The brief and curt reply given by the right hon. Gentleman to the moderate speech of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), was sufficient proof of the folly of Irish Members making objections to anything with the hope of receiving consideration or attention from the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had assured the House that during the passage of the Coercion Act no objection was made to the limitation of six hours for association and exercise. He had a right to reply that the six hours' rule had not then been tested by experience. He, at least, had tested it in his own person, and the relatives of others were testing it now, and they all could assure the House that the six hours' rule amounted to nothing short of positive daily torture. It had been contended that many of the "suspects" were undergoing, on suspicion, longer terms of imprisonment than they could receive at Common Law after conviction. The right hon. Gentleman, driven behind the only Statute which a Constitutional Minister could acknowledge, was forced in reply to fall back upon that hateful compendium of tyrannical practice which was called the Whiteboy Act, That Act provided that persons found guilty after trial before a Judge of certain grave offences might be sentenced to be flogged three times and transported beyond the seas for seven years. The mere mention of this sentence was enough to prove that a Statute which provided so barbarous a sentence after trial and conviction ought not, in the latter part of the 19th century, to be applied to untried prisoners arrested on suspicion. He had intended to express regret that the Forms of the House prevented his hon. Friend taking a Division; but when he remembered the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the curt, unsympathetic, and inhuman manner in which he had treated his hon. Friend's appeal, and when he saw the Benches which, on a common Party question would be crowded to repletion, completely empty to-night because it was only a question of humanity that was before them, he could not say the words he had intended. He could not regret that his hon. Friend was not permitted to take the sense of the House, because he could not feel that from the sense of the House there was any hope for Ireland upon this question. The 11th rule of the regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under the powers conferred upon him by the Coercion Act was—

"Prisoners may be in association during exercise, and for any further period not exceeding six hours each day, subject to such regulations as the General Prisons Board, with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, may from time to time make."

It was with the hope that the Government might be moved to modify this rule that the hon. Member for New Ross gave Notice of his Motion. If they wished to realize the daily torture inflicted on 600 untried prisoners under that rule, they had to reflect upon the classes of persons imprisoned. He supposed no person would say that the persons called "suspects" in the hateful jargon of the Government belonged to the ordinary criminal classes. They were men upon whom prolonged imprisonment would produce serious effects as regarded both health and intellect. They belonged either to a class which could, when they wished, enjoy fresh air and healthful exercise, or they were farmers who lived mostly in the fields at work. To those men confinement for 18 hours in small and narrow cells—damp by day and dismal after dark—was positive torture. Since he had the honour of being a prisoner in Kilmainham he had received many letters from men of sensibility and refinement still in prison, and he could see from those letters that the writers hesitated to confide even to him the sufferings they had to endure. One person said that the confinement from an early hour in the afternoon till an advanced hour in the succeeding morning amounted to this, that many men were obliged for the greater part of that interval to live in a poisonous atmosphere. He supposed he need not go into any explanation. This was not the only indignity. They were weighed and searched like common criminals, and restrictions were placed upon visits from their friends which were galling to any man of natural affection. His personal experience might serve to throw some light upon the treatment of the prisoners. Though he was not in a condition to leave his bed his cell door was kept locked night and day. The ordinary cells were only locked during the night. His personal experience would illustrate the effect of the regulation upon men of even good health. He remembered having had on two occasions either to cry for assistance or to leave his cell. On the day of his arrival at Kilmainham the warders told him they would place in his cell a bell or some other means of communicating with the prison authorities. But during 18 days a bell was not placed there. He was thus left without any means of communicating with the prison staff, and on two occasions when it was necessary for him to call assistance he was obliged to leave his bed and crawl to the cell door and knock his fingers against the iron until he attracted the attention of a warder. He had to remain there shivering on each occasion for an hour, and one time almost fainted. When he had to undergo that ordeal a second time, it occurred to him that the Chief Secretary for Ireland—the Philanthropist he wished to be called—had an idea in his head that he might get rid of him (Mr. Sexton) by a more summary process than by a charge of high treason. He was compelled to suffer the annoyance of having another person—his nurse—confined in his cell with him. The prison officials had promised to procure him a separate cell, but forgot to keep their promise, and he (Mr. Sexton) was, in consequence, subjected to irritation and sleeplessness. He was not aware that the man had been guilty of any other crime except that of having nursed him; but he was allowed only one hour's exercise in a small yard filled with a poisonous atmosphere. The remaining 23 hours he was locked up in his (Mr. Sexton's) cell. One evening the nurse was taken ill, and he (Mr. Sexton) was compelled to suffer the additional discomfort that fact entailed. The door of the cell was locked, and as no communication existed the poor fellow was compelled to crawl to the door, as he (Mr. Sexton) had done, and to knock with his fingers against the iron door for a time that certainly seemed interminable. At length a warder came, and the man's request to be allowed out was replied to with unnecessary insolence. But the keys of the cell were not procurable, and he then learned for the first time that all the keys of the various cells were carried off to the Governor's house at 5 o'clock every evening; and the unfortunate man and 70 or 80 others had to exist under those conditions until 9 o'clock next morning without any opportunity of leaving their cells. Such conduct was barbarous. He could find no other word to apply to it. That was the treatment he had received, and it was probable that the prison officials were more careful not to exceed the regulations in his case than they were with other prisoners. Other men had not the opportunity of lifting up their voices in that House, and therefore he was compelled to refer to his own experiences, though he exposed himself to risk of receiving all sorts of anonymous and insulting letters, presumably from, prison officials, for so doing. He could go at greater length into the matter; but he would only express a hope that if not from some Members of the Government Bench, at least from some Members on the other side of the House, they would hear something to show that they did not all postpone the claims of humanity to the claims of Liberalism, or, rather, mock Liberalism. He hoped they would hear from someone condemnation of such a system of cowardly and barbarous outrage. He asked the Government to put an end to tyranny and barbarism, which was contrary to their assured policy, and to the explicit letter of the Chief Secretary for Ireland last summer. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was using the Act, not for the purposes of repression, but of punishment. Why else were the prisoners—men accustomed all their life to live in the open air—not permitted more freedom, not allowed more intercourse with one another at least till 7 or 8 o'clock, instead of being shut up at half-past 5? There could be no danger in allowing them to talk with one another with the large number of warders present. They had been told that any inquiry into an Act of Parliament would be injurious to the prosperity and good government of Ireland; but more danger was to be feared from the exercise of this arbitrary power, which was opposed to the instincts of civilization, and repugnant to the common interests of humanity.

said, there was a strong desire on the part of many of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government in that House, as well as out of it, that every leniency should be shown to the "suspects" now in prison in Ireland. During the passage of the Coercion Bill he voted for every Amendment which he thought would safely ease the pressure which was being put on the "suspects;" and he sincerely trusted the Government would take into their earliest con- sideration whether they could not ameliorate the condition of the misguided and unfortunate men—whom they felt themselves bound to imprison—in the direction in which they had heard so eloquently described that night.

confessed he had heard with great regret the account given by the hon. Member for Sligo of his sufferings, and he never imagined when he voted for the Coercion Act that any such results would have occurred. He understood the Government to say that a few persons would be imprisoned, and that every case would be properly inquired into. He certainly did not imagine that the result of the measure would be that Ireland would go from bad to worse, that 4,000 outrages would be committed, and 600 men who had not committed them thrown into prison, while the 4,000 men who were guilty of them remained at large undetected. He did not think the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) went half far enough in his remarks. Had he been a Liberal of the old type he would have voted for a searching inquiry into the whole question. As a Scotch Member, he felt bound to lift his voice against the injustice that was taking place in Ireland. On another occasion he would express his conviction that another mode of policy was the only one by which Ireland could be made a country habitable by civilized men; but meanwhile he maintained that Irish Members had just cause for complaint that a certain number of men were in prison on suspicion, while the men who had committed the 4,000 outrages were still at large. Men were being called out of their beds to be shot at and maimed for fulfilling their just obligations, while the Government were helpless to put an end to such things. The Government made no sort of suggestion that the persons who were in prison were the same ones who committed the outrages, and yet they went on issuing lettres de cachet for their Irish bastiles.

thanked the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down for his warm-hearted support. He did not regret the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, nor did he desire to appeal to the sympathy of the House, but rather to that of the people outside. He would ask those who had heard the speeches made by his two hon. Friends, whether they would not come to the conclusion that the Government were using their powers in a manner which was not calculated to keep order, but merely intended to punish individual men? The statement made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was as impressive as it was simple and straightforward. Liberals must think they lived in strange times when punishment of that kind could be inflicted on men who admittedly did not belong to the criminal classes. The Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke of the fact that the Government, if they chose, could have prosecuted the "suspects" under the Whiteboy Act; but he forgot to mention that before punishment could be awarded under that Act the man must be tried and convicted, and that was not the case with the "suspects." A humble countryman in his own county had been arrested on a warrant charging him with being

"Reasonably suspected of having instigated other persons unlawfully to intimidate other persons with a view to prevent their buying or selling to some other persons."

Did the House understand the crime for which that man was sent to gaol? How could the Whiteboy Act affect him? That was a very fair representation of a large number of men imprisoned under the Act. All the prison rules were harsh, and especially that which gave each prisoner 18 hours of solitary confinement every day in a stifling atmosphere. The House might imagine the ill effects of such a regulation on a man accustomed to plenty of fresh air and exercise. For himself, as a man of literary pursuits and more sedentary habits, he could only say that he had rather be tried by some more severe Act than be condemned to such a punishment. Whatever might be said in favour of such severity, it was idle to allege that it was necessary in the interests of order and good government, or to prevent communication with the outer world. He supposed the men, if they were so disposed, could send in six hours enough communications out of doors to create rebellion all over the Kingdom. They were the enemies of government and good order in Ireland who maintained such a system by force, and they were to some extent enemies of good government and order in Ireland who, knowing that system to be going on, did not boldly raise up their voices against it.

was aware that there must be a good deal of iteration in a discussion of this sort, but the question was one that pressed itself upon the attention of the House. Besides, the arrests themselves furnished an instance of iteration, and justified a tolerably frequent renewal of protests from the Irish Members. When complaints were made of the treatment to which the prisoners were subject, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said it was all in the bond—all in the Act of Parliament. That was true, no doubt; but the House, when it passed the Coercion Bill, was unquestionably given to understand that the measure was aimed at criminals and perpetrators of midnight outrages, and not men of quite another character. Certainly, the declarations of the Government were that such was the object of the Act, and yet the persons arrested under it, or, at any rate, the majority of them, were men of reputation and respectability. There was a "Captain Moonlight" in Dublin Castle who was doing worse work than any of the others, whether he worked by moonlight or by gaslight. He worked in secret, and the trials he conducted and the sentences he passed were the work of himself and his gang of political conspirators. He did not see how the Government could denounce Ribbon trials or sentences in Ireland in view of their own secret tribunals. The Government talked of outrages, but committed outrages every day; for what greater outrage could there be than to deprive a man of his liberty on suspicion and, by imprisoning him, to impoverish his unoffending family? Outrage produced outrage, as surely as one blow led to another; and he therefore held the Government primarily responsible for the crimes that were now of too frequent occurrence in many parts of Ireland. A few days ago this country was startled by the perpetration of a very shocking crime. The country was startled by the crime of a madman or a miscreant, as the case might be, who had shot at Her Most Gracious Majesty. If it had happened, as it might have happened, that the perpetrator of the wicked crime had been an Irishman and not an Englishman, born in Oxford Street, London, what would not have been suffered in Ireland? Would not hon. Gentlemen opposite have pretended to find between the lines of some of the speeches made in Ireland an incitement to the outrage? He was perfectly certain that it would have been so, and that hundreds of arrests would have been made under that pretence. The whole system was unfair and unjust, and when the law itself was iniquitous evil begat evil, and all chance of peace was thrown away. Could the Government assert that the Act had had a good effect in any single particular? If not, they clearly ought to admit the logic of events and abandon coercion. Until this was done there would be no peace or tranquillity in Ireland.

said, that although he did not now, and never did, expect very much good from the Government, he certainly was disappointed at the reply given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). He did not think he would have lost the opportunity of making at least some slight concession. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that when these rules were under discussion in Committee they were debated for a considerable time. That was so, and one of the results of the discussion was that under the 3rd section of the Coercion Act power was given to the right hon. Member to modify and mitigate these harsh rules if he thought fit. He wished also to refer to the great difficulties which had to be encountered in visiting the prisoners confined under the Coercion Act in various prisons in Ireland. Under the existing arrangements at Kilmainham no more than half-a-dozen visitors could see the prisoners on any day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the prisoners were allowed six hours a-day for communication with each other; but a Return forwarded to him (Mr. Leamy) by a "suspect," confined in Dundalk Gaol, showed that in the 21 days from 14th February to the 8th March the "suspects" in the gaol had been cheated out of nine hours and 31 minutes, or nearly half-an-hour a-day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised that every facility would be given for visiting the prisoners; but, as a matter of fact, those facilities were not given. He had himself gone to visit his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo in prison on two consecutive days, when the warder told him, in an insolent tone, that he could not see his hon. Friend, and shut the grating in his face. On the third day he went again and saw the Governor, or the Deputy-Governor, who told him that his hon. Friend was ill and unable to come to the visiting cage, and that he should not be allowed to see him. He ventured to say to the Governor that that was solitary confinement, and he appeared to be very indignant. For 21 days the hon. Member was thus confined in that prison and not permitted to receive a visit from a friend, when such a visit would have been about the best consolation he could obtain. The prison rule was that every prisoner should be allowed to be visited by one person, or, if circumstances permitted, by two persons at the same time, for a quarter of an hour on any week day during such hours as might be appointed. That rule had been deliberately broken to his knowledge over and over again. The 18 hours per diem of solitary confinement were also often exceeded, although, in the case of poor, illiterate men, who were unable to read, a far shorter period of solitary confinement in a miserable, cramped, and ill-lighted cell, more like a vault than anything else, must amount to absolute torture, and be enough to drive a man mad. He knew there were several in durance at present who were suffering seriously from the effects of this barbarous treatment. What could the Government gain by persisting in such a course of severity as that? The Irish people saw the men whom they trusted and elected as their Leaders and Representatives put into the gaols of the country and treated with needless cruelty. The House had been told that the mere introduction of the Coercion Act would drive away the men who were committing outrages. Well, the Coercion Act was passed, and 700 or 800 men were flung into prison, and yet outrages were still going on and increasing. Liberal Members who had supported the Coercion Act, as they alleged with reluctance, ought now to show their sincerity by insisting that the Act should not be administered with unjust harshness. He was inclined to believe that if they could only see the miserable little cells these men were confined in, even their loyalty to the Liberal Administration would not be sufficient to prevent them from joining with the Irish Members in any protest they might make against the action of the Govern- ment in this matter. In conclusion, he trusted that the hon. Member for New Ross would on the first opportunity take the sense of the House on the manner in which their present exceptional powers had been exercised by the Irish Executive.

said, he joined most cordially in the appeal made to Her Majesty's Government for some mitigation of the severity of the Act. The appeal was a most reasonable one. He understood that the object of the Act was the prevention of intimidation, and not the punishment of the individuals arrested. He would have a much lower opinion of Irish Members than he had if they sat down contented with their own personal liberty without raising their voices on behalf of the men who were in prison. The power of detention had been given to Her Majesty's Government; but it was not intended that the power of torture should be given at the same time. The shutting up of men for 18 hours in a cell, which, as had been said, was little better than a stone coffin, was more than was necessary for detention. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that one of the reasons why their hours of liberty had been restricted was because they made use of them to communicate with their friends outside. But if the prisoners must not communicate with their friends at all they had better be kept in solitary confinement the whole 24 hours. The exasperation of these men, nearly 600 in number, and the feeling of disloyalty engendered in the breasts of themselves and their friends, must be a far greater evil than any which would result from occasional communication with persons outside. He was quite willing to say, although he knew his hon. Friends behind him would not agree with him, the evil that had been done had been done with a good motive. [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh!] Indeed, it had been said that all evil was done with good motives. He did not impute a bad motive to any hon. or right hon. Gentleman sitting upon the Treasury Bench, especially the right hon. Gentleman representing the Irish Government; but he believed they were perfectly and hopelessly deluded upon the subject of the working of this Act. He believed that the action of Her Majesty's Government in its treatment of the prisoners tended to perpetuate outrages, and he said so deliberately. He believed it, because the feeling of exasperation in the country in the minds of the people was so great, not only by reason of the seclusion of their friends, but on account of the unnecessary sufferings inflicted upon them. He was glad to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland now in his place. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not imagine he had the slightest sympathy with outrage or disloyalty of any kind; and he would appeal to him to mitigate as far as possible the sufferings of the prisoners, who, if tried and found guilty, would not be punished more severely than they were now. He had appealed to the Government when the Land Act was passed to open the prison doors; but they did not do so, and what was the result? The feeling of disloyalty was growing every day, and if Her Majesty's Government saw the end of it all it was more than he did. Things were going from bad to worse. It appeared as if Her Majesty's Government had committed themselves to a war from which they could not withdraw. He regretted this with all his soul, because he was elected as a friend of Her Majesty's Government; but the action of the Government had compelled him to go against them, because his duty to his constituents was much higher than any claim any Party could have upon him.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friends that the punishment felt most by the prisoners was their solitary confinement. On Sunday, if they went to their devotions, the time so spent was counted among the six hours. If such things were done by a foreign Government they would be called acts of petty tyranny. He believed that on Sunday the time spent by the prisoners at their evening meal was also deducted from the six hours. When the Coercion Act was being passed the Government were warned that the effect of it would be to drive the people into secret societies, and it was in that way that the enormous increase of outrages was to be accounted for. Was not the "Moonlight" Society a secret one? The Land League was an open association that spoke in the face of Heaven, with newspaper reporters present, and the Government reporters on the platform. But since the Land League had been put down the outrages had enormously increased. It was said that the "suspects" were different from untried prisoners; but he believed the bulk of the "suspects," conscious of their own innocence, would be glad to be put upon their trial before any jury that could be empanelled. Mr. Rorke, who was arrested the other day—his hon. Friends around him said because he was Mr. Egan's business partner—wrote a letter, in which he stated that he would be willing to be tried even by a jury of landlords. He was convinced that had the severity with which the Government administered the Coercion Act been foreseen they would not have obtained the support of many hon. Gentlemen who had followed them into the Lobby when the Bill was before the House.

said, that, as a Conservative, he had supported Her Majesty's Government in their coercion policy; and although in general a strong opponent of the Government, he could not, as an Englishman, listen without protest to the remarks which hon. Members from Ireland sitting on that side made against the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was sure that no one felt more bitterly than the right hon. Gentleman the cruel necessity of what he had to do; and when he was told that the right hon. Gentleman was acting under bad advice he was bound to say that if he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman carefully examined every ease, as he had constantly assured the House he has done, he, for one, would no longer support the policy of the Government. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been outvoted in the Cabinet in the autumn of last year, as they all knew was the case, Ireland would never have required so strict a Coercion Act. It was not the duty of Members on the Conservative side to sit in silence and hear abusive remarks concerning the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he carried out the provisions of an Act which they themselves had been a party to. He wished to say this as a matter of fair play, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman was doing his very best to carry out the Coercion Act, hateful as it must be to him, and to every Member who sat on this side of the House also, and he did not like to hear these constant charges of inhumanity.

I have no right to speak again; but I understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Gill) to say that the hour for worship was taken out of the hours of association.

I was informed so.

I was not aware it was so, and if it is the case in any prison it shall cease to be the case.

And about the evening meal on Sunday?

That is another matter; but as regards the attendance at worship, that ought not to be considered part of the hours of association, and if it be the case I will take care that it shall cease.

said, he must congratulate the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) on the ability and moderation of his speech. Having visited Kilmainham more than once, he was quite able to endorse the description given by the hon. Gentleman. The cells in which the "suspects" were confined were small, badly ventilated, and badly lighted, with, in many cases, no fireplace. It was his firm belief that prolonged confinement, under such circumstances, must prove exceedingly injurious to the physical and mental health of the unfortunate prisoners, many of whom had been as gently reared as any hon. Member in that House. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the matter, and grant to the prisoners every reasonable indulgence.

said, he differed entirely from the view taken by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), when he said the Chief Secretary for Ireland felt bitterly the task of having to administer the Coercion Acts. His own opinion was that the right hon. Gentleman felt the most intense delight in having to administer those Acts. ["Oh!"] If he could guess from the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman, whenever he replied to any question connected with the Coercion Act, it seemed to him that the Chief Secretary for Ireland always rose with the most profound pleasure and satisfaction from the thought of the sufferings which it was in his power to inflict upon the Irish people under his charge. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]

The hon. Member for Cavan is again imputing unworthy motives to the right hon. Gentleman. I must caution the hon. Member that, if he proceeds in that course, I shall have to bring his name before the House.

said, he had not wilfully infringed the rule. He should be very sorry to impute unworthy motives to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Still, he felt bound to say that the hon. Member for Guildford had expressed opinions very different from his. With regard to the question more immediately before the House—namely, to what extent the prisoners should have solitary confinement, he felt bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman, in the very few remarks which he deigned to offer in reply to the hon. Member for New Ross, seemed to regard the matter from a very mean point of view. The excuse which the right hon. Gentleman made for not extending the recreation hours seemed to him to be very mean. He might have said—"I have now got these prisoners in my power, and I mean to do what I like with them;" or he might have said, which would have been more respectable—"Nothing can be suffered by anyone if I extend the recreation time of these poor people by two hours." Instead of that he quibbled. ["Oh, oh!"] He quibbled with regard to the part of the day when this recreation should take place, and gave a most ungenerous reply to the appeal of his hon. Friend. He contended that the Coercion Act was not being administered in any respect in the way in which the House was led to believe would be the case. They had proved by many cases that it was being used for purposes of punishment. They had a further proof of it that afternoon when the Chief Secretary for Ireland refused to release certain prisoners, although he admitted the district in which they lived was now quite peaceable. If the Government could not rule Ireland except by the total absence of Constitutional government, they had better let it alone.

said, that sufferings endured by those who were subjected to the long periods of solitary confinement inflicted upon them very grievous hardships. He could not see on what grounds that Government inflicted this terrible punishment. The more intellectual the character of the prisoner, the more he was accustomed to society and the occupations of society, the greater the suf- fering from being locked up for long periods in the prison cells. The punishment of political prisoners in some civilized countries was not greater than that inflicted on those unconvicted and untried men. He could not conceive why the relaxation of rules which had been asked for should not be granted. It could not be refused on the ground of expense, for the Government had been saved expenditure by the voluntary contributions made by the Irish people for the purpose of mitigating the severity of the prisoners' incarceration. The Government could, therefore, well afford a small extra sum for the warders, who would have to perform some additional work if the prisoners were given more time in which to associate together. Did the Prime Minister appreciate what 18 hours' solitary confinement in a cell 12 feet by 8 feet meant? Surely the slight concession now asked he might make to Irish public opinion without any danger.

said, he agreed in the remark of the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Gray), when he said that the only hope of Irish Members lay in exposing the acts committed in Ireland, so far as they could, before the world. He believed there was no use appealing to the majority in that House, for the majority would rejoice if, as The, Times once expressed it, "Ireland were sunk under water for twenty-four hours." The Irish Members could, therefore, only hope to expose the Government to the small extent to which their complaints were reported in the English papers. The Prime Minister, upon a memorable occasion, appealed to the world regarding the prisoners confined under King Bomba. The right hon. Gentleman was not then in Office, and was enabled to exercise his ripe English sensitiveness in writing about the penalties inflicted upon people in Neapolitan dungeons. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to subtract a little time from the duties of his Office to visit a few of the prisons in which Irishmen were now confined for offences less heinous than those for which the Italian prisoners were confined. During the imprisonment of the Fenians, when asked to remit some portion of their sentences, the right hon. Gentleman said the difference between the Italian and the Irish prisoners was that the Italians were confined by men who had broken their oaths to the people, and that they had been imprisoned without trial or the hope of trial. He submitted that the present condition of affairs with regard to the Irish prisoners was exactly similar. The Irish prisoners had been arrested and imprisoned by the action of men who had broken their oaths to the people. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, for whom Irishmen spilt their blood that they might put him into Parliament, did little less than break his oath, and was one of the principal members of the Privy Council in carrying out a policy under which men, much honester and more respectable than he, were enduring 18 hours' solitary confinement of every 24 they were imprisoned, without trial or the smallest hope of trial. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister permitted that state of things which he condemned in Italy to go on in Ireland. Much as he disliked the Prime Minister's public action in Ireland, there was no man he, if he were an Englishman, would have a higher respect for; but he bated, abhorred, and detested the way in which the right hon. Gentleman permitted his Colleagues to rule Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had grown grey in the public service, and that he might not continue to administer public affairs much longer, although he (Mr. Healy) hoped he might, the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that many of his Colleagues would have to deal with Ireland for a very long time. The tide of affairs might turn some time, so that, under a Home Rule Government, the despised Irish Members sitting below the Gangway might have the upper hand. Therefore, he invited the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of some of his Colleagues being suspected of treasonable practices against the régime then existing in Ireland. With the large Liberal majority that now seemed impossible; but things might change in Europe, and England might be compelled to grant to Ireland some vestige of local government, and then Gentlemen sitting on his side of the House and Gentlemen now in gaol might become the chief Legal Advisers of Her Majesty. How would the Solicitor General then like to be reasonably suspected and placed in solitary confinement for 18 hours out of every 24? His hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had been reproved from the Chair for stating that the Chief Secretary for Ireland delighted in personal suffering. He (Mr. Healy) should be sorry to say so; but Professor Huxley had remarked that there must be a working hypothesis for everything; and upon what working hypothesis could they explain the fact that the Chief Secretary—humane and benevolent as they were compelled by the Forms of the House to believe him—kept men in solitary confinement for 18 hours out of every 24? This was a conundrum which the right hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to answer. The Bible-loving Chief Secretary for Ireland should remember that a certain city was not to be destroyed if it contained 10 good men. Perhaps there were a few innocent men among the "suspects." Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to act upon the Book he was so fond of quoting. He invited him to listen to a description of what some of the "suspects" had to undergo. He held in his hand a letter from one of the "suspects," who had experience of two gaols, and the description he gave of the cells was perfectly horrifying. The furniture was of the coarsest character, their beds were narrow and thin, and made of oakum, supported on canvas a few inches from the ground; and they had to use the combs they had inherited from the criminals who had been lodged in those cells before them. Those who were not inclined to pay a penny a-day for attendance had to sweep out the cells for themselves. Such a regulation as that was hardly fair for men who had committed no crime whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to see that some of their remarks were appreciated by Gentlemen on both sides whose consciences were not controlled by Caucuses. The gentleman whose letter he had referred to also said that in the yard where the "suspects" took their exercise there were closets, the offensive effluvia of which were distinctly perceptible in the yard. That was philanthropy.

said, the hon. Member spoke of a complaint made by one of the "suspects." He had received no complaint. In what gaol did this state of things exist?

It was so in Kilmainham when I was there.

Then the hon. Gentleman's remarks apply to Kilmainham.

said, he was reading from a letter from a gentleman who was first in Kilmainham and then in Naas. This letter was marked "Per underground." If it had been sent in the ordinary way it would never have reached him. He did not know what "underground" meant; but the letter would never have reached him in a legitimate way. He was not surprised the right hon. Gentleman had received no complaints. Complaints were not allowed to come out of the prison, and no one dared to complain. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had the heart of a man he would get up at that Table——

The language of the hon. Member is really not to be tolerated. He addressed himself to the Prime Minister, and asked him if he had the honour of a man. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Heart of a man!"]

said, that Mr. Speaker had misunderstood. That right hon. Gentleman had said that his language was not to be tolerated. He (Mr. Healy) would venture to say, in reply, that the system he was denouncing was not to be tolerated. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, if the words were Parliamentary—he must leave Mr. Speaker to judge if they were or not—if he had the heart of a man in him, to come to this Table and—[An hon. MEMBER: "Name!"] Would the hon. Member allow him to conclude his observation—to defend the atrocities described in the letter just read? And yet they, whose friends were suffering under conditions such as these, were supposed to be able to keep their hearts so tame that they should not be provoked into any heated expression. That was too much to expect in such circumstances. Visitors, too, came to gloat over the sufferings of the prisoners. Some ladies had sent chess and balls and marbles for the amusement of the prisoners; but they were not permitted. Would the British Constitution tremble if political prisoners were allowed such a solace? Letters, too, were stopped on the most trivial grounds. One was stopped, for instance, because the writer said he wanted some new clothes; another because mention was made of one of the prisoners having been released. In one letter which he had received the writer said he must stop because the light was failing, as the room was surrounded by walls 30 feet or 40 feet high. Even at night the prisoners were not left quiet, as they were disturbed by the sentries calling every half-hour. How would the right hon. Gentleman relish being disturbed like that in his slumbers? The food, too, was described as objectionable in the extreme. The coffee and cocoa were thick, and the bread of the coarsest description. One meal was supplied by the self-denial of the Irish tenants, or the prisoners would, indeed, fair badly. The beef was so tough that one of the "suspects" said that it must have come from a cow that had lived in the days of Cromwell. It got its happiest description from the term "corduroy beef." When freshly cut it looked red, but before a portion could be masticated each part on your plate assumed a uniform darkness of colour. It seemed to have every characteristic of rottenness except tenderness. The meal was laid at the door of the cell, and the order was called out by a warder—"Come forward and take your victuals." This did not take place at Naples under King Bomba, or the House would have resounded with the complaints of hon. Members on the other side. It was sickening for Irish Members to address that House. They knew that their action there was abhorred by Liberal Members, and that they were looked upon as their enemies. They were their enemies. They were the enemies of the English Government in Ireland in every shape and form, and they did not bring forward these complaints because they expected justice. They did not expect justice. They knew that, as far as Ireland was concerned, the hearts of hon. Members were as hard as the nether millstone. Still, in spite of the prejudice of the English Press, which tortured and distorted the observations of Irish Members whenever it suited its purpose, they hoped that some faint glimmer of the exposé of the sufferings of these men would reach America and foreign countries, which would thus have a chance of knowing the horrors and iniquities of the men who had formerly denounced the iniquities of King Bomba in Naples.

Sir, I am very sorry to be compelled to say a very few words after the speech of the hon. Gentleman, as we are extremely anxious if we can to economize a portion of the time that may still remain to us for an important part of the Business of the evening. I do not, however, like to pass by—I do not feel able to pass by—in absolute silence the speech which the hon. Gentleman has delivered. But I do not mean to make any complaint of the language that he has used—as far as I am myself concerned especially, I do not mean to make any complaint of it. So far as regards the Members of this House in general, I own I think he is intemperate and unjust when he says that in respect to Ireland their hearts are as hard as the nether millstone. Many hon. Members have laboured much and striven much, and even suffered something in the cause of Ireland. I am very sorry the hon. Gentleman weakens his position by the vehemence of his language, which at the same time arises from the action of his own sympathies, which in this case are naturally strong. But my main purpose in rising is a practical purpose; I hope he will supply to my right hon. Friend a copy of the letter which he has read to the House. I do not say with the name of the writer—that is a matter entirely for his own discretion—but specifying days and date and place, so far as to enable my right hon. Friend to make an examination of the statements made therein. My right hon. Friend has let me have the advantage of his observations on the various points noticed in the letter, and with regard to one that he mentioned—namely, the means of recreation—a chess-board, I think, in particular—my right hon. Friend is in a condition to say that he did hear of a case of that kind where there had been some difficulty, and that he gave immediate orders. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No; I heard there was a wish——] Ah! my right hon. Friend heard a wish had been entertained, and upon hearing of that wish—not opposition to the wish—he gave immediate directions to have the wish gratified. Now, Sir, two things only I wish to say, in the first place, do not let the hon. Member rest himself under the delusion, and therefore propagate the delusion, which I am sure he would not do unless he rested under it himself—let him not rest under the delusion of believing that in this country and in this Parliament he ever will be regarded as an enemy of the State for making known to the public of this country and of the world any real hardship—real injustice suffered by those who are unhappily detained in prison. On the contrary, the British nation, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think of it, the British nation and the House of Commons, which still represents the British nation, will feel themselves the debtors of the hon. Gentleman for bringing before them accurate and well-sifted statements of that nature. That is one thing I wished to say; but I wish to say another thing on account of the repeated and not unnatural reference which the hon. Gentleman has made to the case of Naples. He appeals to me in regard to the course which I pursued many years ago in connection with that case. I must venture to point out to him that the course pursued by me was different in the most essential respects from the course pursued by him, because every statement I made against the conduct of the Government of Naples, and every account I gave of the sufferings of the persons imprisoned there, was carefully by me, through sure channels, submitted to the eye of the Government of Naples many months before one word was spoken by me on the subject, so that the fullest opportunity was given to the Government of Naples either to contradict what was wrong, or to amend what was truly alleged; and I make this observation, that both in the interests of justice and in the interests of those for whom the hon. Gentleman feels a natural and a laudable sympathy, it would be well if, when he hears allegations of this kind, he would give to my right hon. Friend and us precisely the same measure of justice as I endeavoured to secure for the Government of the King of Naples—namely, that they might have an opportunity of challenging my statements whore they were incorrect, or investigating proceedings of their agents, and setting them right where they were cruel or where they were wrong. I do not think those are unreasonable demands, and I must say I live in the hope that if the hon. Member would only give that opportunity, he would find that the effect would be very materially to restrict the circle of his complaints, and that, upon the whole, the result would be much more favourable to the establishment of a unity of sentiment and of affection between our re- spective countries, which we must, after all, all of us, desire to bind together in unity of sentiment if we can—than the production of unsifted statements in which, without any fault of the hon. Gentleman, there may be a very large proportion of error combined with, after all, but a moderate proportion of what is true.

said, in his opinion the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was following exactly the course taken by the Prime Minister in the case of the prisoners of Naples. The right hon. Gentleman said he brought the case of the Naples prisoners before the Naples Government. The hon. Member for Wexford was bringing the case of the prisoners under the Coercion Act before the Irish Government. The silence of hon. Members opposite fully corroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Wexford as to their hard-heartedness in regard to the sufferings of the Irish prisoners. With only one exception, the false Liberals below the Gangway remained silent—not one of them had the courage to rise in his place to express his disapproval of the treatment of the Irish prisoners. He challenged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show that there remained some sincerity yet in the Government by getting up and informing the House that they intended to make some modification in the rule which compelled the "suspects'' to spend 18 hours out of 24 in solitary confinement. He believed if the matter was clearly put before the Prime Minister, and if he had an hour to think on the condition of these prisoners, that he would, as far as in his power lay, ameliorate their condition. But it was hopeless to expect any concession or any friendly act at the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The manner in which he had, for the past two months, treated every representation with respect to these prisoners forbade the idea that he would in the smallest degree improve their condition. He had deliberately violated the pledges given during the debate on the Coercion Act. He stated last Session that the prisoners would be, consistently with their safe custody, allowed to transact their daily business—had he done that? In the case of a gentleman from Co. Louth, imprisoned in Dundalk Gaol, a representation was made to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in favour of his release. Guarantees were given that he would not interfere in politics after his liberation; but in what way did the Chief Secretary for Ireland treat the representations? Within two days after they were made the man was actually sent to Naas, 200 miles away, and to aggravate the hardships of his removal it occurred on Christmas Day. If that was not done for the deliberate purpose of ruining the man and his family, he challenged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to get up and deny it. He charged the Irish Executive with a total disregard of their pledges, disregard of the commonest feelings of humanity in their administration of the Coercion Act. But St. Patrick's Day was just coming, and he trusted that on that day, in every Irish centre throughout England, the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be shown up to Irish audiences, and that a vow would be registered that when the time came no supporter of the Chief Secretary for Ireland would receive a single Irish vote.

said, he did not intend to pursue the discussion of this very painful subject. He hoped that the declarations of the Prime Minister that evening, made as they had been with every mark of interest, and even of emotion, would lead to the better treatment of the prisoners under the Coercion Act. Numerous endeavours had already been made to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the discomforts inflicted on the Irish political prisoners. As far back as December last detailed statements were published in The Freeman's Journal of the uneatable character of the food in Kilmainham, and of the unhealthy and gloomy nature of the cells; but no attention was paid to that complaint. He himself, in a communication to The Freeman's Journal, ventured to suggest that as a modification of the darkness, from which the prisoners suffered so much, reflectors might be introduced with advantage into the cells, so that the small amount of air that filtered down from high roofs might not be diminished in the process. Not one of these recommendations had been attended to, although published in the Irish papers so far back as December. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was surrounded by influences of so peculiar a character that he was unable to gauge the true facts of the state of Ireland. Why, judging from the communications which appeared in that day's Freeman's Journal, the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to be wholly unaware that half the audience which he addressed at Tullamore consisted of policemen in plain clothes, and that a large number of soldiers were drawn up in the neighbourhood. Of course, those who took these elaborate precautions wished to obtain for the Chief Secretary for Ireland the luxury of courage coupled with the comfort of safety. The right hon. Gentleman had moved in an enchanted atmosphere; but nothing that was favourable could be said of the spell which surrounded him.

, who had upon the Paper a Motion to the following effect:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no encouragement ought to be given to any projects for rewarding assailants of the Basuto people by the confiscation of land and cattle,"

said, he had intended to move his Motion with regard to the very dangerous crisis in Basutoland; but he was prevented by the Forms of the House from doing so. Any remarks that he would venture to address to the House would be very brief indeed; but he did not think that he ought to lose altogether the opportunity of calling the earliest possible attention of the House to a matter with which he believed it was deeply interested. He complained of the action of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Basutos as being dangerous in the extreme, for the reason, above all others, that it was uncertain and vague. He need do no more than remind the House of the disasters which followed in the Transvaal from the uncertain character of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. If the Government had been then held to the doctrine of putting down the rising in the Transvaal, or if they had held to the doctrine that the annexation was unlawful, the country would have been saved from the wretched fiascoand deplorable bloodshed of Majuba Hill and Laing's Nek. What was it, as far as could be gathered from the most recent Blue Books which had issued from the Cabinet, the Liberal Government was engaged in but a sequel to the policy of Sir Bartle Frere in Basutoland? If there was one policy which was condemned by the Resolutions of the Liberal Party it was the policy of Sir Bartle Frere. The original quarrel with the Basutos was of Sir Bartle Frere's seeking. His policy was that of land speculators on the one hand, and of exaggerated and unscrupulous Imperialism on the other. The Basutos were made use of to support that policy; they were encouraged to acquire arms and to assume a warlike attitude; they were loyal in the extreme, and as a reward for their loyalty they were required, in the most offensive and threatening manner, according to their view, to deliver themselves helplessly into the hands of Sir Bartle Frere. It was quite natural for them to readily believe that the intention was to make slaves of their women and children, many of whom had been reduced to a condition which was practically one of slavery by being indentured out to compulsory servitude. A Circular issued by the Cape Secretary refused permission to Native prisoners of war on their release to visit their families, who wore held has indentured servants by Colonial farmers. After that we could easily understand the apprehension with which the Natives would receive a demand that they should give up their arms. The House was aware that the Basutos successfully defended their freedom; their mistake was that they trusted the British Government as distinct from the Cape Government. They imagined that the British Government would give them a just and equitable award, which would free them from the Cape Government. It was admitted by the magistrates and the Secretary for Native Affairs of the Cape Colony in the Correspondence before the House that the fines placed upon the Basutos were exorbitant, and, as regarded Masupha, the ringleader, that he had eaten up his own people in order to pay the fine, and that even by depriving them of nearly all their cattle he would hardly be able to do so. He would ask the House to bear those facts in mind in connection with another fact—that it was purely upon the ground of their defalcation in paying the fines that the goods and cattle of the Basuto nation were to be confiscated. While the original aggression of the Basutos was unjustifiable, yet the fine placed upon them was ex- orbitant, and active agents had been set to work to prevent any settlement. Had it not been for the intrigues of persons in Cape Colony interested in promoting a renewal of hostilities a settlement would have been effected. The Cape Colony had admitted that it could not put down the Basutos by the ordinary measures of warfare. Perhaps the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies might say the Government had not authorized in express terms a confiscation of Basutoland; but Lord Kimberley had sent a number of messages which might mean the wholesale confiscation of Basutoland. He wished the Government to say whether or not they would allow Basutoland to be confiscated. The same policy that had characterized the English rule in Ireland had characterized that rule in the Cape Colony. All the terrors of the English law were to be called in aid against the unhappy Natives; but none of the rights of English citizens were extended towards them. If this policy were to be continued a large number of Native fugitives would be driven across the border, who would go to swell the growing mass of hate for British rule. Nothing could be better than that we should take the control of Basutoland into our own hands, and protect the unhappy Natives from the land speculators, the lower class of politicians, and from the brutalities of the so-called Volunteers, who thirsted for the lands and cattle of the Natives, in order that they might spend their property in the rum shops that always accompanied a Volunteer expedition. He ventured to point out to Her Majesty's Government that in the condition of things which now prevailed, when the vast majority of the White population of South Africa held on to British rule by a more than doubtful allegiance, it was high time for Her Majesty's Government to go back on the policy which they seemed to have had for a short time of being the independent and loyal protectors of the Native races. This was desirable even from the point of view of Manchester. The Basutos were eminently susceptible of civilization; they stood in need of better buildings, better food and clothing; and he said that, from the point of view of commerce alone, the attempt should be made to secure them as the best customers of British manufacturers in South Africa. He reminded the House that the party of Whites—the Dutch element in the population—was bitterly hostile to British trade, and that special arrangements had been, and were being made, to "Boycott" British trade in South Africa through the great export houses of Holland. If fair justice had been dealt out in Zululand and the Transvaal, the South African wars would not have taken place; and if justice were dealt out to the Basutos, he said there was still a locus penetentiœ for the British Government. He said if Her Majesty's Government fairly and honestly took up the defence of the Natives a permanent settlement might be arrived at; but if they failed to discharge the great responsibilities of the situation, and sought to escape from the difficulty which presented itself, by leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Cape Government, then there could be no satisfactory termination to the disturbances now prevalent in Basutoland; and he called upon every Member of that House to set his face against the confiscation of the country. It was the riffraff of Colonial society, the desperadoes of Natal, who would swell the ranks of the Volunteers, and they alone would be benefited by the heartless despoliation of the Basuto people.

said, he very much regretted that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was unable to put to the House the Motion which stood in his name upon the Notice Paper, because it seemed to him that had he been able to do so, he would have been confronted with the question which he had not dealt with in the course of his speech. The hon. Member appeared to have forgotten that they had given to the Cape Colony the privileges and responsibilities of self-government; and he had altogether omitted to consider in what way, and in what degree, they could interfere with the Cape Government or the Cape Parliament within the limits of the Colony. That was really the question that had to be dealt with, and unless the hon. Member was able to give a solution of it, he confessed that the contribution he might make towards the settlement of the present difficulty was a very small one.

wished to point out that the Cape Government itself admitted that the ordinary kind of war- fare would not be sufficient in Basutoland. He suggested that Her Majesty's veto should be exercised against the Colonial policy.

said, this was a domestic question within the limits of the Cape Colony; and it was no answer to that to say that the Cape Government were only to solve the difficulty in the way which might commend itself to Members of that House. The question being a Cape question, he would ask ton. Members who called upon the Imperial Government to interfere in its solution to consider what were the limits of action which they were disposed to advocate in interfering with the self-government that had been conceded to the Cape Colony, and the responsibility which had been thrown upon it. That was a question to which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not given that attention which he (Mr. Courtney) should have thought the hon. Member would have paid to it. The hon. Member called upon the Imperial Government to supersede the action of the Cape Government in this matter. But the Cape Government were in this difficulty—namely, that after considerable delay; after referring the disputes between themselves and the Basutos to arbitration, an award had been delivered. The hon. Member for Dungarvan said that the conditions of the award were exorbitant. But he could not assent to that statement. Hard and heavy they might be, but that they were exorbitant he could not admit; and he did not think there was any phrase used within the scope of the award which would justify that expression. Although the conditions were hard and heavy, it must be remembered that they had been and were still accepted by the great majority of the Basuto Chiefs. He could not too strongly praise the action of the Cape Government in endeavouring to secure the execution of the award, which had only been resisted by a small minority. They had, undoubtedly, been resisted by a small minority of the Basuto Chiefs, and that resistance was still continuing. Under those circumstances the Cape Government stated their difficulty to the Imperial Government, and the reply which they received was with respect to a limited portion of the Basuto territory. The Imperial Government said with re- gard to those who resisted the award that they would not consider as inadmissible the action of the Cape Government, in the form of confiscation if necessary. If the Government were to interfere with the Cape Government in carrying out the measures which they deemed necessary to securing the execution of the award, they would raise the very difficult question of the extent to which they were to revise or amend the action of the Colonial Government. He was glad, with regard to the case now before them, in the interest of the Basutos, that the responsibility for its actions rested with the Cape Parliament, and for long past history had shown them that any attempt to control Colonial institutions from home was injurious to the Native people. [A laugh.] The hon. Member laughed at this. He did not know to what extent the hon. Member was versed in the history of South Africa, but if he was acquainted with it, instead of laughing at the statement just made, with regard to the effect of Home interference in Native affairs, he would agree that it was simply and literally true. The hon. Member had complained of the vagueness of the answer made to the telegram sent from the Cape; and he seemed to think that Lord Kimberley ought to have assumed to himself the responsibility of dictating the course of action to be followed by the Cape Parliament. But what had Lord Kimberley done in this matter? He said he would have no solution of this question by Proclamation; that whatever was done would be done by the action of the Cape Legislature; but with respect to that he very properly refused beforehand to say he would advise Her Majesty to accept that action. The hon. Member had spoken of what was in prospect as the result of the action, which would be taken by the off-scourings of the different parts of South Africa—the desperadoes of Natal and the lawless Boers of the Transvaal. But what was done would not be the action of these men, it would be the action of the Cape Parliament—as respectable and honourable a body of gentlemen as might be wished for in any Colony, and with regard to whose proceedings Her Majesty's Government were not disposed to anticipate any evil. They had dealt with this difficult matter in a spirit of the greatest conciliation. It was not of their creation; it was their inheritance, and they had been reluctant to take any steps whatever towards coercion of the Basutos. He believed that those who had watched with sympathy and intelligence the action taken in this matter were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government had adopted the only possible course in refusing to pledge themselves beforehand to object to the action of the Cape Government.

said, he had listened with considerable regret to the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he deprecated the discussion of this subject at the present time. Considering the grave importance of the question, involving as it did the lives and property of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects in South Africa, and in view of the fact that unless it was discussed then it would be left over until after Easter, he certainly thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan had done good service to the country and to the cause of humanity by calling attention to the position of affairs at the Cape with regard to the Basutos on that occasion. He was well aware that there was a large amount of urgent Business with which the House had to deal; but he also regarded this question as one of so urgent a character that it was due to the House and the people of the country that its discussion should not be put aside. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan with great interest, it appeared to him that, by the case as put by the hon. Member, three courses were open with regard to the affairs of Basutoland. There was the course of leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Cape Parliament; there was the course of Her Majesty's Government dealing with it themselves; and, finally, there was the course of abandoning the country altogether, which meant, practically, handing it over to the authority of the Free State. He reminded the House that 12 years ago, or rather more, when the Basutos were threatened by the Government of the Free State, Moshesh, at that time the paramount Chief in Basutoland, urged upon the Representative of the Queen to take over the government of the country. That course was approved in the House of Commons by many Members, who at that time took an interest in South African affairs. It was approved and strongly urged upon the acceptance of the House by one Gentleman who, although not a Member of the Government of the Prime Minister, was a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman in a former Government—the late Mr. Charles Gilpin. Well, Basutoland was taken over by the Government, at the head of which, he believed, was the present Prime Minister; and in consequence of that circumstance this country had contracted certain obligations towards the Basutos. Those obligations having been contracted, he certainly thought this country was bound in honour not to allow the Basutos to be oppressed. He thought it was the duty of the British Government to take an interest in the affairs of Basutoland. With regard to the question whether it was for the Queen's Government or the Cape Government to deal with this matter, the Under Secretary to the Colonial Office seemed to throw some doubts upon the capabilities of his Department to administer the affairs of Basutoland. But he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) could not but remember that the Colonial Office was now presided over by Lord Kimberley, a very able statesman; it was represented in that House by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney); and it had the advantage of being represented at the Cape by one of the ablest Colonial statesmen that this country had ever possessed—Sir Hercules Robinson, who, he learned with great pleasure from a statement made by the Prime Minister some weeks ago, Her Majesty had been recommended to place among the Members of the Privy Council. The Under Secretary for the Colonies went on to say that he had the utmost confidence in the Government of the Cape Colony. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was not there to say one word against the Government of that Colony. On the contrary, he believed that the statesmen at the Cape were as anxious to do their duty to their Sovereign and to the country, and to act in the cause of humanity, as any statesmen in the world. He had great confidence in Mr. Scanlan, the present Premier at the Cape; but hon. Members would remember that he succeeded a gentleman whose policy was strongly deprecated in that House and by this country at large. He believed there was a general consensus of opinion that the policy of disarming the Basutos was a very great mistake, and that was the policy which had undoubtedly led to the present difficulties. The question was this—Were those difficulties likely to be best adjusted by the Queen's Government or by the Colonial Government? It appeared to him that the course which was most likely to produce peace would be that Her Majesty's Government should authorize Sir Hercules Robinson, as Chief Commissioner of Native Tribes, to administer the affairs of the country; and in saying that he did not overlook the fact that, in case of interference with any award he might make, they must be prepared to support him with Her Majesty's Forces. But it appeared that the Government had arrived at the conclusion not to allow any interference on the part of the Commander-in-Chief at the Cape, while the Cape Government were to follow whatever course they pleased. In the language of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, they were about to permit an army composed of the riffraff of the Cape population to despoil the Basutos. The language of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) might be too strong; but, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government were going to allow an army to be levied, which would, of course, include in its ranks all the more fiery spirits to be found at the Cape, and who would certainly not look upon the unfortunate Natives with feelings of humanity; and this army was to invade and conquer the country of the Basutos in any way they thought proper. The result of this would be a cruel and bloody war. War, under any circumstances, was a terrible calamity; but he regarded it as less terrible when carried on by civilized troops under a civilized commander like General Smyth. That would not be the case with a war carried on by the Volunteers at the Cape, who would number in their ranks the worst characters to be found in South Africa. A war so conducted would, indeed, be an unmitigated evil. For the reasons he had stated, he regretted to hear that Her Majesty's Government had determined to hand over this question to the decision of the Cape Government; and he strongly believed it would have been better had they faced the responsibility of settling the difficulty themselves.

said, he regretted that the Under Secretary for the Colonies had already spoken, because he felt it his duty again to bring before the House the very grave disorders which had taken place at Gibraltar. If the hon. Gentleman would listen but for a very short time he would explain why he brought on the question on that occasion. It was because there were at that time 47 persons under arrest in Gibraltar, under what he believed to be an illegal act on the part of the Governor of the Colony. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in his place, and he invited his attention to the circumstances. He had privately appealed to the Under Secretary to telegraph to Gibraltar to know if it was true that these persons were under arrest, which the hon. Gentleman had declined to do. On Friday last, when he called attention to this matter, he was told by the hon. Gentleman that the next mail would bring the information; but to-day he learned that no information had arrived. At that moment there were men at Gibraltar in exactly the same position as used to be the case in the Ionian Islands under the police; they had been arbitrarily arrested, and some of them had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He would read an extract from the order of the Governor to the police, giving instructions with regard to arrests. It began by saying that where offences were committed the police were at once to arrest the people; but it went on as follows:—

"Even where no offence has been committed, but where a breach of the peace is likely to occur, the police are authorized to take into custody those whom they may reasonably suspect of being about to commit a violation of the law."

Hon. Members would observe that the language of Her Majesty's Government seemed to travel widely; but the powers which, in Ireland, were intrusted to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, were, in Gibraltar, intrusted to a policeman. He thought it right to defer any general discussion of the question until the Papers were laid upon the Table of the House; but he would point out that the circumstances arose out of a difference which existed between the Roman Catholic community in Gibraltar and the Vicar Apostolic named by the Pope. The Roman Catholic community had always had the management of the Church of Santa Maria Coronada, and they considered that they had the right to have jurisdiction even against the proceedings of the Vicar Apostolic. Instead of raising the question in the Law Courts the Governor took the matter into his own hands, filled the town with troops to the number of 2,500, brought out field-pieces, and arbitrarily arrested some people, who were sentenced to three months' hard labour without the option of a fine. He had asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies if he had any information upon this subject; but it appeared that on Friday last the Colonial Department knew nothing about it. He therefore begged to repeat his question; and in order to afford the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of replying he would, pro formâ, move the adjournment of the House.

said, the hon. Member for Portsmouth had made a Motion for the adjournment of the House in order to enable his hon. Friend to break through the debate. He was not sure whether he was himself also entitled to speak; if not, he hoped to be instructed from the Chair.

The right hon. Gentleman is enabled to speak a second time, as is also the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, by the action of hon. Member for Portsmouth—a mode of action which I am bound to say I deprecated the other night as highly irregular.

said, at a late hour on Friday night last the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had called the attention of the House to what he called the arbitrary arrests which had been made at Gibraltar, and the imprisonment of a certain number of the persons arrested. He told the hon. Gentleman at half-past 5 o'clock that afternoon that no information had arrived, and as he had not returned to the Colonial Office he was not aware that any had been received since that time. He would point out to the hon. Member that his statements were rather self-contradictory. Arbitrary arrest, as he (Mr. Courtney) understood the term, was the arrest of persons, and the keeping them under arrest, by the mere will of the Executive. But the hon. Member complained simultaneously that in connection with these arrests proceedings took place before the police magistrate. No doubt a number of persons were arrested. That he did not deny. And no doubt certain persons were brought before the police magistrate; but there was nothing whatever in the statement of the hon. Member which would lead Her Majesty's Government for one moment to suspect that any person had been taken into custody without being brought before a magistrate.

said, one paragraph stated that the police would keep strict order, and do the utmost in their power to prevent any breach of the peace; but, should such breach of the peace occur, they would at once arrest any person by whose conduct the peace was broken or endangered. Such person would at once be taken before the police magistrate, who would be present in Court to try such case immediately. There was an end of the magistrate in the matter; but then the order provided that where any offence was committed, and a breach of the peace seemed likely, the police should take into custody those whom they might reasonably suspect of being about to commit a breach of the peace.

said, the second part was precisely the same as the first; the order to the police was the same in each case. People committing, or about to commit, a breach of the peace, were arrested and taken at once before the police magistrate; and there was nothing to suggest that there were any persons in custody who had not been taken before a magistrate. If they had been arrested and taken before a magistrate for committing a breach of the peace, then, if they were in custody, it might be supposed that they had been tried and properly sentenced; and there was nothing in the intelligence which had been brought before them to lead the Government to suppose that anything of an irregular character had occurred, or that anything the Executive had done was not justified by the law. There was nothing to show that any person had been kept in custody beyond the power of the law; but if the particulars of these matters did not arrive in the regular course, the Colonial Office would send for full details of the proceedings before the magistrates, though it was not very respectful to imagine that a breach of the law had been committed, when all the intelligence produced by the hon. Member led to the supposition that all that had been done was perfectly regular.

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Playfair, before I make the Statement which it is my duty to address to the Committee, with reference to the Army Estimates, I must explain that to-night I shall only ask for the Votes for the Men and their Pay, and that we propose to resume the consideration of the Army Estimates at an early day; so far as I can judge, on the first day after the Easter Recess. We will not allow any matter of legislation to interfere with our taking the Estimates on that day, nor do I anticipate any other impediment; but, should any unforeseen impediment arise, we will devote to the Army Estimates the first day afterwards that circumstances may permit. To come to the business in hand, I would ask the House to observe that the form of the Army Estimates, as presented this year, is somewhat different in one important respect from that adopted hitherto; and this change extends to the Navy Estimates also. The Estimates as we have presented them to the House give the net expenditure for Army Services which will form the charge upon the taxpayer. In former years the Estimates have been presented in gross, certain sums which form what are commonly called Extra Receipts, whether of the Army, Navy, or Civil Service, going into the Exchequer, and constituting a portion of the Miscellaneous Revenue. That form of Statement, to which, I confess, I have always entertained an objection, and which I did my best, when at the Treasury in 1865 and 1866, and also as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the two following years, to change, is now, I am happy to say, changed with the assent of all parties interested. I may say that this beneficial reform is greatly due to the exertions of my noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who has devoted great attention to the subject. The Committee, therefore, as I have said, will be asked to vote for the Army and other Services the real charge upon the taxpayer for those Services; and the Extra Receipts connected with the Army and Navy will no longer swell the Miscellaneous Revenue. I would ask the Committee now to allow me to give a rough comparison, on that basis of the net charge, between the Army Estimates of the present year and those for a few past years. The Estimates for the year 1882–3 amount to about £15,500,000; last year—and the actual expenditure will pretty nearly correspond—they were £16,000,000; for the year 1880–1, the expenditure for which we were responsible, though the Estimates were drawn by our Predecessors, was £15,100,000; and for the two preceding years, 1879–80 and 1878–9, when the sums expended were considerably swollen by special War Charges, the amount was in each case £17,900,000. For the purposes of comparison, the last two years must be regarded as exceptional; but I thought it convenient that the Committee should see the net expenditure of the past five years. Now, coming to the particulars of the expenditure as estimated for the year 1882–3, I would refer the Committee to an explanatory statement which appears in the Paper called "Variation of Numbers and Explanation of Differences" accompanying the Estimates, and which is also printed at page 3 of the Estimate itself. That statement I thought it would be convenient to place in the fore-front of the Estimates, in order that the Committee may not be led into confusion by the difficulty of comparing the Estimate of this year, which is net, with the Estimate of last year, which was gross. I have also given that explanation for another reason. In several Votes, it has been necessary to make a certain amount of re-arrangement, in consequence of our having, as recommended so frequently, shown the total of their pay, called "consolidated pay," in the case of all military officers employed at the "War Office or on the Staff. The Committee will thus be able to see in one of the salaries received by these officers on the new basis, instead of having to refer to two different Votes. That re-arrangement interferes with several Votes, and, therefore, if hon. Members will be good enough to keep this explanatory statement in their hands, they will be able to tell at a glance what the difference is between the present Estimates and those of last year, without having to go tediously through the items themselves; and they will also see that there are only some dozen cases in which there is any considerable alteration. Keeping this explanation in view, I would ask hon. Members to notice the following changes, which are the only ones of importance in the present Estimates, as compared with those of the previous year. In the first place, it will be seen that the Estimates for the present year no longer include a charge for special expenditure in South Africa, which amounted last year to £1,066,000. On the other hand, there are certain special items of increase. The first of these is the additional provision for naval guns and projectiles. Owing to the great advance of artillery science during the last few years, we are engaged in carrying on a gradual re-armament of the Navy which had been commenced by the late Government. The Estimates for 1880–1, prepared by my Predecessor, provided £303,000 for this purpose; those of 1881–2, for which we were responsible, provided £369,000, and those for 1882–3 provide £616,000, showing an increase of £247,000 over last year, and of £313,000 over the Estimates of the previous year. Guns ranging from 43 tons downwards have been for some months under trial with satisfactory results; but so many points of detail arise, not only as to guns, but as to carriages, projectiles, and stores, that progress must be gradual. In addition to the re-armament of the ships themselves, we have to supply reserves both at our arsenals and depots at home and abroad. This item is a very important one, as accounting for half the increase in the Army Votes. I will say no more upon this point, because my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), in moving the Navy Estimates, will go in great detail into the policy of the Admiralty in re-arming our ships. The next item to which I need refer is that which relates to the additional pay of non-commissioned officers, amounting to £15,000. We provided in last year's Estimates for increase during only three quarters of the year, and this year we have also to provide for the fourth quarter. Last year we also somewhat reduced the numbers of the Cavalry, and, therefore, it was not necessary to provide so large a Vote for purchasing horses; but this year that source of economy will no longer exist, and we have provided £20,000 more for the purpose of keeping up the full establishment of horses. The next items of increase are £16,000 for the Militia Service, £22,000 for the Volunteers, and £10,000 for the Army Reserve, the details of which I propose to give further on. We then take £30,000 for what are popularly call ed the Autumn ManŒuvres, which, after an interval of some years, we propose to have again this year; and on that Vote it will be my duty, on another occasion, to give some detailed information. All I need say now is that both the Militia and Volunteers will take some share in those ManŒuvres, in which also the Artillery and Engineers will bear a more prominent part. The next item of increase is that for Forage and Fuel, caused by higher prices; and the following one for the Movement of Troops in Ireland. The increase in Non-Effective Charges amounts to £70,000, which may appear in excess of the increase as shown in the Estimates; but the difference is accounted for by a saving having been effected in the Purchase Vote of about £50,000, leaving only an apparent increase on the amount of the Non-Effective Votes of £20,000. The last item of increase is one of £10,500 for Huts, £17,500 being taken as against £7,000 provided last year. We have determined to proceed vigorously with the re-construction of the camps at Aldershot, the Curragh, and Shorncliffe, and those who have seen them will agree that this measure is of urgent necessity. There is one Vote to which I ought to refer, and it is the last. That is the apparent increase in the Vote for the War Office. It would appear on the face of the Estimates, and the circumstance has been commented upon, that there is to be an expenditure of £16,000 more on the Establishment in Pall Mall and its branches. That is not the case. The fact is that £13,200, or thereabouts, is an increase in this Vote and a decrease in others, being due to the fact that the whole consolidated pay is charged upon this Vote. The usual annual increments of salary amount to £5,500. That makes a total of £18,700; but, in point of fact, we have made reductions in the Establishment to the extent of £2,700, resulting in the apparent increase of £16,000, as shown in the Estimates. The Civil Establishment of the War Office has lately been revised, and it is not my present intention to undertake again that critical and disagreeable task; but the Head Quarters Staff has not been revised for some time, and I am in a position to state that the revision which is now being undertaken will end—though it is not yet formally concluded—in a reduction of two General Officers, at least, on that Staff. These reductions will take place as vacancies occur in the list of Staff officers. These, Sir, are all the figures with which I propose to trouble the Committee as to the detail of the present Estimates; but, before leaving the mere financial question, I think it may be convenient to make some comparison between the charges for this and the sister Service at the present time and in past years. I take the liberty of making that comparison, because it has been my lot in former years to be responsible for placing before the House, not only the Civil Estimates, as Secretary to the Treasury many years ago, but also during two years the Navy Estimates. I may, therefore, without unduly taking up the time of the Committee, say a few words as to the relative total charges for the great Services. I have always held the same language in preparing and moving Estimates, that our object should be that, where new charges occur in one direction, we should seek economies in other directions. When abnormal charges have to be met, we should postpone, if possible, others which, though desirable, are not absolutely necessary; and the time for these will come when the special expenditure ceases. The Estimates of this and last year illustrate this principle. While, therefore, I think that, whoever occupies my place ought to do his utmost to keep down unnecessary military expenditure, I do not consider that it is any the less incumbent upon him, from time to time, to see what relation that expenditure bears to the progress of the country and its Revenue, so that he may be in a position to meet some of those allegations as to inordinate or extravagant Estimates which are often made here and elsewhere. I have, with some pains, undertaken an examination of the Army and Navy expenditure in past years, and compared it with the expenditure at the present time, comparing, also, the population and certain features of the Revenue at the same dates. I will take, for the purposes of comparison, two years in addition to the present year, both of which are reasonable Years for that purpose. I will take 1858–9, which was the year of lowest expenditure between the Crimean War and the increase of charge which arose subsequently in Lord Palmerston's second Administration, and 1865–6, which was the year of Lord Russell's Government, when the high Estimates of Lord Palmerston's Administration reached their lowest point, and just before the great increase in Lord Derby's Government. I find that, whereas in 1858–9 the net Army and Navy expenditure amounted to £21,300,000, or at the rate of 15s. per head of the then population, and in 1865–6 to £22,700,000, or at the rate of 15s. 2d. per head, the net expenditure for the Army and Navy, as shown under the present Estimate of £25,940,000, is only 14s. 8d. per head of the present population of the country. I have also made a comparison between the net Army and Navy expenditure and the Revenue arising from one or two principal sources of receipt. Now, it is a remarkable circumstance that, over a long series of years, from which I omit years of war or military expeditions, the Army and Navy expenditure al ways exceeded by a measurable amount, although not very large, the total amount of duties received on fermented and spirituous liquors—that is to say, spirits, wine, and beer. For instance, in 1858–9 the duties received from these sources amounted to £18,500,000, and the net Army and Navy expenditure to £21,300,000. In 1865–6 the duties amounted to £21,600,000, while the net Army and Navy expenditure was £22,700,000. Later on, however, this race between these duties and the Army and Navy expenditure was won by the duties; and, at the present moment, the Army and Navy expenditure, amounting to close upon £26,000,000, falls more than £2,000,000 below the amount of the duties on spirits, wine, and beer, which are over £28,000,000. Again, if you make a comparison between the expenditure for the Army and Navy and what will be produced by the Income Tax, you have this interesting result. In the early days of the Income Tax, and even after it was extended to Ireland, the Army and Navy expenditure amounted to an Income Tax of just 1s. 6d. in the pound. It has gradually fallen till, in the Estimates of this year, the Army and Navy expenditure is just equal to 1s. 2d. in the pound, or 4d. in the pound less than it amounted to for many years. These figures, I think, afford some food for reflection. Passing from matters of finance, I now come to strictly military questions. Some of the matters to which I am about to refer are such as cannot be traced in the Votes themselves; and I am not, therefore, surprised that those who have cursorily criticized the Estimates have not discovered them there. I will, therefore, give the Committee some explanations on these questions without referring in detail to the items of the Estimates. First of all, I should like to explain what has been the result of that change which I proposed last year; and to which, I confess, I attach almost higher importance than to any other change in our military arrangements; I mean what I proposed to do in order to meet, as far as we could, the want of preparedness for small wars about which so much has been said, and which, to a certain extent, must be admitted to have existed during previous years. It is quite true that when we had, in the August of the year in which we first took Office, very suddenly to send out a considerable force to India after the battle of Maiwand, and, again, when in the early part of the following year we had to send out a considerable force to South Africa, we succeeded in despatching both those bodies of men without incurring the remarks and the censures which had been made on former occasions; but I am bound to admit that we succeeded at the expense of a serious dislocation of our Roster; and that measure of success did not warrant me in abstaining from submitting to Parliament such changes as I thought should be effected in order that we might be always able to send to distant parts, if necessary, a sufficient force for one of these minor wars without the dislocation which we had experienced. And I proposed to effect this by adding nearly 3,000 men to the Infantry, by which means the regiments at the top of the Roster might be so strengthened as to give us always a complete Army Corps ready for service. The Committee will remember that when we took up this question last year we were warned that the moment was not a propitious one, looking at the number of battalions then on foreign service; but, nevertheless, we did undertake the task, and I will now state how we executed it. Previously there stood first for foreign service 6 battalions, each numbering 800 rank and file, followed by 6 other battalions, each numbering 720 rank and file, the battalions in the Mediterranean only numbering 600. What we proposed was to raise the first 12 battalions to 950 rank and file, 8 of these with large depots of 150 each, and to raise the battalions in the Mediterranean and the Colonies to 800; and in this way we expected to have 18 Line battalions always ready for service, with 3 battalions of the Guards and the proper complement of Artillery and Cavalry. I do not pretend to possess a wizard's wand, or to be able to convert a battalion of 720 men into one of 950 at a stroke of the pen. You can only do this in one or two ways, either by adding to each battalion a certain number of recruits, or by transferring to it a certain number of men from other regiments. There are objections to either course, and we had to be very careful to steer between the difficulties which we should have brought upon us by using either method too freely. I think the Committee will be interested to hear what is the result which we have attained. As far as the 6 battalions in the Mediterranean are concerned the operation has been successful; they have been raised to 800 men each of fair service. As far as the 12 bat- talions at home are concerned, we had to bring them up to 950 men each, or a total of 11,400 men. I am happy to tell the Committee that on Friday last, while of those 12 battalions some were a little over strength and some a little under, as against the 11,400 to which it was necessary to raise them, they contained 11,264 rank and file. Therefore, in a few days we shall have completed in point of numbers the operation designed. Of these 12 battalions at home 8 are in camp—6 at Aldershot and 2 at the Curragh; and 4 are still in barracks, some of them I hope soon to be transferred to camps, where they will get the greatest benefit in drill and training. The depôts, which, on the average, are about 20 under strength, are also increasing from day to day. Therefore, as regards numbers, we have succeeded in our operation; but it is only right that I should say that there is still much to be done before these battalions can be considered in a thoroughly satisfactory state. There is still a larger proportion of younger troops than one could wish; but in that respect every month will show improvement. For instance, the battalions going abroad next year will not be depleted this year by drafts to other battalions abroad; and, therefore, they will daily contain an increasing proportion of seasoned troops and a diminishing proportion of recruits. And now let me state to the Committee what are the facts as to the necessary number of recruits in the ranks. I showed last year that the Army could not be recruited except under short service; and though I raised that service from six to seven or eight years, it still necessarily involved a very large annual enlistment; and at the present time, roughly speaking, the number of Infantry recruits is something over 19,000 per annum. The number of Infantry battalions at home may be taken as 71, and, with few exceptions, all recruits go to them, generally through the depots in the first instance. If you divide the number of Infantry recruits by the number of battalions at home, it follows that there will be in each of the battalions at home, on the average, nearly 270 recruits; and as the average strength of the home battalions is just under 600, it follows that nine-twentieths, or, allowing for the depots, two-fifths of the rank and file of the battalions at home must con- sist of recruits in any circumstances. Of course, the proportion will not be the same in all battalions; but if there are fewer recruits proportionately in some, as, for instance, in the 1st Army Corps when fully built up and in its normal state, there must be more in others; and those who see a series of regiments in the various home garrisons, with what appears to be a disproportionate number of young soldiers, must remember that this is the case because, as a rule, no recruits are sent abroad, it being our policy to maintain in India, our Colonies, and the 1st Army Corps efficient battalions always fit for service. Here, Sir, I ought to say something about the practice of calling for volunteers from one regiment to another. I have explained that we hoped to reduce this to a minimum, and, at any rate, not to employ it for filling up the ranks of regiments leaving on foreign service. I am happy to say that in this we have been successful. Although to build up the battalions in the 1st Army Corps it has been thought best to use this means to a certain extent, and not to increase their numbers solely by recruits, I am in a position to say that no volunteers went to any of the Infantry battalions which proceeded this season to relieve others on foreign service, and also that the drafts to this date and up to the end of the season will have contained no volunteers. I may add that the battalions going abroad as reliefs next year are also full, and will require no volunteers from other regiments. I trust, Sir, that this statement will be satisfactory to the House, and will relieve the minds of those who have doubted whether we should be able to fulfil the promises about the 1st Army Corps which we made last year. This, Sir, brings me to the system of relieving Infantry battalions abroad, which I explained to the Committee last year. We have most carefully discussed the proper details of the arrangements for this purpose, and there are now in the War Office exact rules under which it is laid down of what men each draft is to be composed. By that means we shall be enabled to keep the promise we have made to India, that every man sent there will have a prospect of serving six years. Some will serve a little longer, but the average service will be six years. I may say, also, that we have not neglected the other arrangements necessary for the despatch of an Army Corps in case of emergency; an Army Corps comprising not only Infantry and Cavalry, but Engineers, Artillery, Ammunition Reserves, Commissariat, and Siege Train. We are now in such a position that, if it were necessary to despatch abroad an Army Corps with all its equipment, it could be despatched as soon as the transports were prepared. The Committee will also be glad to know to what extent, in point of men, we are prepared for an expedition requiring more than a single Army Corps. In the event of our being engaged in a great war, it would be necessary, in the first instance, to fall back upon our Reserves, and I think the Committee would wish to be informed of the present condition of the most important of those Reserves—I mean the First Army Reserve. This Reserve has made great progress during the last year. The Committee will remember that early in the year we invited a certain number of men to volunteer from the Reserve to join the Colours in South Africa, and many of these joined in April and May. This, of course, chocked the progress of the Reserve. But, starting from the 1st of May and down to the 1st of the present month of March, a period of 10 months, I find that there went to the Reserve from the Army 7,126 men; that, on the other hand, 2,266 were discharged from the Reserve; so that there was a net increase to the Reserve of 4,860 men, or nearly 500 a-month—that is to say, at the rate of 6,000 a-year. And I must remind the Committee that up to the present time, in consequence of the short-service system in the Artillery and Cavalry commencing later than in the Infantry, and the short service itself in those arms having been somewhat longer, we have as yet no considerable number of men in the Reserve from these two sources. They will begin to join the Reserve in greater numbers next year, and we may then anticipate that the Reserve will be increased more rapidly. And perhaps I may say that since the 1st of July we have added to the Reserve, out of the number of men that I have stated, about 2,300 who were allowed, under the arrangements of last year, to join it before completing their six years' Army service. The present strength of the Reserve is 25,121 men. These would make up 71 battalions, the ordinary number of Infantry battalions at home, to 1,000 men, without calling on the depôts or on the Militia Reserve. I do not say that this is the exact way in which they would be employed; but it shows how rapidly the ranks could be filled up on an emergency. Before I pass from the Military Establishments I will state one or two proposals which are indicated in the present Estimates, and as to some of which Papers will be distributed to-morrow. It may be remembered that last year we proposed that the 12 battalions of 950 men should be followed in the Roster by 4 battalions of 850 men each; 4 of 650 men each; 8 of 500, and 43 of 480. We have made a change of some importance in this scale. It was practically found that the jumps from 500 to 650 and from 650 to 850 were inconveniently large. We have, therefore, altered the Establishment by making no jump of more than 100 men, so that, instead of the numbers as I have given them, we shall have 4 battalions of 850 men each, 4 of 750, 4 of 650, 4 of 550, 7 of 500, and 37 of 450. The result is that as four battalions go abroad every year, each battalion, after it reaches the 550 strength, will annually be increased by 100 men, until by a gradual ascent it reaches the number of 950 men. With regard to the Cavalry, we have had to consider how we should meet the inevitable effect of short service, which begins to operate this year, or will do so, at any rate, next year. The result of that change will be that a larger number of recruits will be required to keep up the Cavalry strength. There are several ways by which we might secure this. We might leave the present system intact, but with larger depôts; and, therefore, an increase in the number of men. Or, secondly, we might leave the present organization and numbers, but attach to regiments at home the depôts for regiments abroad. Or we might divide the Cavalry into brigades of three regiments, one for service abroad, one in readiness for service, and one devoted to purposes of recruiting and training. Or, fourthly, we might reduce the number of regiments. To the first and last plans I was most reluctant to assent; and we accordingly appointed a strong Committee, consisting of Generals Wardlaw, Fraser, Bulwer, Sir F. Fitz Wygram, and Mr. Knox, to examine the two other plans. We have considered their Report, which was unanimously in favour of the brigade plan; but the subject is beset with so much difficulty that I think an opportunity should be given for further consideration, especially as it is not absolutely necessary to make any change this year. Next year, however, it will be necessary for us to make some proposal to Parliament. With respect to the Artillery, it has been necessary to act without delay. There are several concurring causes which have compelled us to consider seriously the question of Artillery organization. The first is that the introduction of short service necessitates a larger number of recruits; the second is the absence of localization; and the third is the decision of the Government of India considerably to reduce the force of Artillery in that country. I appointed a very strong Committee to investigate this question also. On their Report we have arranged that there shall be 11 fixed Artillery depots in the military districts of the United Kingdom, chiefly at or near the coast, and, if possible, at the same stations as the head-quarters of a regiment of Artillery Militia. They will be assisted in recruiting by the Infantry depots of the district. All recruits will be retained a short time at the depots and taught dismounted duties. The field and garrison batteries will be divided into groups, some batteries at home and some abroad, and designated after their district. Recruits will be supplied from the district depôts. The batteries abroad will be supplied by drafts from home, and ultimately be relieved precisely in the same manner as in the Infantry. Batteries in the 1st Army Corps will not supply drafts to the batteries abroad. Thus, although in name enlisted for the whole regiment, so far as possible, men will be kept in their own district batteries. The Militia Artillery will become Royal, and, as in the Infantry, be the junior brigades of the Artillery of their district, their recruits being trained with those of the Regular Force. The Horse Artillery will not be localized, but remain, as now, with a double depot at Woolwich. I hope, Sir, that the new ties and associations thus formed will unite to their common benefit the Royal and Militia Artillery, and will enable us to secure what is so much wanted—a full and satisfactory supply of recruits. I will pass now from these questions of organization to one or two others connected with the changes of last year. In the first place, the Committee will remember that we greatly improved the condition and prospects of the non-commissioned officers of the Army. The result of this change has already been eminently satisfactory. I called at Christmas for Reports as to the effect of our measures, both on existing non-commissioned officers, as regards their willingness to extend their service, and on the men as to their desire to become noncommissioned officers. About one-third of the general officers and commanding officers consulted have reported that good results in both respects were already apparent; while, in other cases, sufficient time had not elapsed to enable a judgment to be formed. In no ease were the Reports unfavourable. I wish to refer to another matter—that of the employment in the Civil Service of non-commissioned officers—a subject which was considered by a Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman during two Sessions of the last Parliament, and with respect to which I was pressed a good deal last Session to state the intention of the Government. We have made some progress. The matter is now under consideration of other Departments; and I hope, before the end of the Session, to be able to tell the House what will be done. In reference to the condition of recruiting, I was extremely sorry to be unable to place the last Report of the Inspector General in the hands of hon. Members this evening; but I hope it will be in their possession to-morrow. I will, however, refer to the principal features of last year's recruiting. It must be remembered that in July we raised the minimum age from 18 to 19, and the length of service fron six to seven or eight years. More recruits were raised in purely regimental districts than were ever known before, 51 per cent being appointed to the territorial regiments; and this in spite of the changes in the Roster and re-linking. A larger number has also come from the Militia than during the last three years, and, though there have been some, there have been fewer cases of men passed carelessly. As to the condition of the recruits, there is admitted, on all sides, to be a great improvement, both in physique and in intelligence. General Torrens says he considers the class of recruits who have joined in his district (Cork) from January to December have been satisfactory both in intelligence and physique; in many cases they have had to make long marches in very bad weather, and the percentage that have fallen out is almost nil. General Bulwer, in the Report, says—

"Intelligent and educated young men are beginning to think that the Army holds out a good opening for them, and that many are joining with the hope and intention of becoming non-commissioned officers."

The waste of the Army was 2,000 less than in the preceding year, and the net loss from desertion 724 less. The number of invalids discharged in the year was 287 against 339 in 1880. I may say that, in the machinery of recruiting, we hope shortly to establish a better system than the present one, and already a better system of remuneration has been introduced; but we do not propose to make any other changes this year. I confess I should have liked to have raised, as we almost might have done, the minimum age from 19 to 19½; and I hope we may be able, before long, to raise it to 20 years. That I look upon as one of the most important of all reforms; but it would be a great mistake to carry it out till we are quite certain of success, and I do not think that at the present time we could safely do it. We have, however, been able to introduce one improvement—namely, to require, in certain cases, evidence of character; and this, I believe, will have a beneficial effect. In the Militia the quality of the recruits has greatly improved, the number of absentees fallen off, and the waste diminished. I pass now from this subject to another very important matter—I mean the recent changes as to the number, the pay, and the retirement of officers. The general features of what I proposed to Parliament last year were a reduction in the number of regimental officers, the almost entire abolition of compulsory retirement at the age of 40, its operation virtually commencing at 55, and a reduction in the number of general officers. The additional cost of this change, as estimated last year, has not been reached. The Estimate was a full one, and it is satisfactory to know that we shall not quite spend the whole of the Vote. The change involves an extremely difficult and complicated operation, one of the most difficult, all things considered, that can be undertaken; but there have been comparatively very few complaints, and many of these will be met by the modification of the Warrant of June last, which received the Queen's approval a few weeks ago. The number of general officers on June 30th of last year, not including Indian Officers and Marines, was 343, and it is proposed to reduce them ultimately to 119, or if the late Indian Artillery and Engineers (which are in progress of amalgamation with the British List) be included, there were 397, to be ultimately reduced to 140. The present number is 170, and the reduced number will be very nearly reached about the end of the financial year 1883–4. The number of regimental officers on June 30th of last year was about 5,600, and ultimately there will be only 5,150; at present they number 5,350. We did not discontinue the entry of officers; but only diminished it, and so spread the whole of the reduction over several years till it will be complete in the financial year 1884–5. Some remarks were made last year as to the supposed unnecessary first expenditure in connection with so large a scheme for the retirement of officers, and I met the objections then by saying that I had had similar experience in the Naval Promotion and Retirement Scheme of 1870, and that, in that case, though there was an immediate increase of expenditure, great economy would result in the long run. I have obtained, by the kindness of my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook), an accurate account of the result of that operation up to the present time. I find that in 1869, the year before the change was made, there were 3,383 executive and navigating officers on the Active List, and 1,589 on the Retired List, making altogether 4,972 officers, whose pay, half-pay, and retirement amounted to £963,000. At the present time the Active List contains 2,218, and the Retired List 1,575, allowing for officers who have commuted, making altogether 3,793 officers; and the annual cost is £895,000, so that there is already an annual saving of £68.000, and when the number of retired officers is normal, it will amount to from £150,000 to £200,000. But while this saving has been effected on the one hand, the change has been of great advantage to the officers themselves on the other; because, while in 1869 the average pay or retired pay of the officers was £194, it is now £236, or an increase of £42 per annum. I give this to the Committee as an illustration of the ultimate effect of carrying out a plan very similar in general outline to that which we adopted last year with respect to the Army. In connection with this subject, there have been some complaints made as to the super session of officers of Artillery and Engineers, under the "Warrant of June 1881. I inquired into the case with much care, and I was satisfied that there were some grounds for those complaints, but not for the considerable remedy proposed, which would have been unfair to many Line officers. I have, however, made two changes in the Corrigenda Warrant, one making captains of Artillery majors in the Army after 20 years' service, having regard to the 20 years' rule about Engineers; and the other giving the Army rank of lieutenant-colonel after seven years' regimental service to majors of Artillery and of Engineers who reached that rank before October 1877. These two changes will practically meet the grievance that we have in connection with the Artillery and the Engineers. I have now gone through all the principal changes which I explained to the House last year, and given the Committee the result of those changes. There are a few other matters about which I wish to give some information—questions which have arisen since last year, and about which we are engaged at the present time. As far as officers are concerned, we have under consideration at this moment, but not completed, improvements in connection with entrance into the Army, bringing into greater harmony the entrance by Sandhurst and by Woolwich, and through the Militia, both as to age and examinations. We have not completed those changes; but before the end of the Session I hope to be able to announce them. We have given very careful attention to a subject of considerable public interest—I mean the expense of regimental messes. The attention of general officers and officers commanding regiments has been called to the necessity of regulating the mess charges to officers with a view to economy, and in order that those who have not large private means may be able to live within the limits of their income. This refers not only to ordinary mess charges, as to which officers should be able to have their three daily meals for 4s., but to incidental expenses and subscriptions. Reports on this subject will be received from every general and commanding officer next month. We have also appointed a Committee, under Sir Garnet Wolseley, to inquire whether the expenses of officers might not be reduced by furniture and mess property being found by the public, as in the Navy—officers, of course, being charged a percentage. At present, except a table and two chairs, an officer's quarter is bare; and he is bound to carry about with him portable furniture, often of a very expensive kind, beds, chairs, baths, chests of drawers, wash-hand-stands, &c. This is not only burdensome to officers, but entails great expense on the public, every officer being allowed many hundredweights of baggage, from 9 cwt. to a subaltern upwards. So also every mess has to transport plate, crockery, glass, and all the details of an establishment at great cost to Government and the mess itself. All this employs men on fatigue duties, and is a hindrance to quick movements. The chief objection to change is the first cost; but the Committee will, it is hoped, propose a reasonable system. So far as the men are concerned, the first important change which we have introduced relates to canteens. Formerly canteens were often let to contractors; but some years ago they were generally handed over to regimental charge, the profits being devoted to the amusements and comforts of the men and their families. Recreation rooms and coffee bars have also been generally established, and shops where groceries and other articles can be got. There have been great varieties in practice; but the shops, and often the recreation rooms, have usually been connected with the canteens. It is proposed to separate altogether the shops and recreation rooms from the canteens and attach the coffee bars to the former. The canteen will be almost exclusively used for the sale of beer at a moderate profit, the coffee bar and the shop being merely self-supporting. There will be a committee of three in every battalion, one junior officer supervising the conduct of the canteen; another that of the coffee bar, shop, and recreation room; and a superior officer exercising general supervision. This has been strongly recommended in many quarters, and the arrangement will be very beneficial to the men. Another matter we have had to consider is the effect of short service on the marriage of men, and on the provision for children and for pensioners. Short service has already produced considerable changes in these respects, and we have thought it right to prepare for still greater changes to come. With this object, we have appointed a Committee to examine into the two pensioner hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham, and the Duke of York's School at Chelsea and the Hibernian School; and they will consider the effect of the great diminutions in the calls on these institutions, which must inevitably come before long. With respect to marriage, I hope, when short service becomes universal, that it will not be necessary to provide for the marriage of any considerable number of men, except non-commissioned officers. In point of expense, I believe the probable reduction in the percentage of married men will save the country, in transport and other charges, something like £50,000 a-year. To this subject we are giving our best attention. Great inconvenience and expense to both officers and men have hitherto been caused by what appears to us the unnecessary frequency in the movement of troops from one station to another. Of course, there are circumstances in Ireland and elsewhere for which no precise rule can be laid down; but we have arrived at the conclusion that where these circumstances do not exist, regiments or battalions ought not to be moved oftener than every two years. With regard to the efforts for the improvement of the shooting of the Army, we appointed a Committee last year to inquire into the matter; and although a great deal of the Report of that Com- mittee was necessarily confidential, and, therefore, I could not lay it upon the Table, yet we have been able to adopt certain of the recommendations it contained—a proceeding that will, of course, involve some additional charge. I was asked to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) what had been done with regard to the very important subject of an improved uniform for the Army when on active service, which he has frequently brought forward during the last few years. The first element of the question was to decide whether any change should be made in the colour of the present uniform, and whether that which was the least conspicuous should be selected for general use on active service. We have appointed a Committee to consider the subject, among the Members of which are Professor Stokes and Professor Abel, and they are now making the necessary inquiries with regard to it. Turning to the Auxiliary Forces, we propose that a portion of the Militia Reserve should be trained this year with the Line battalions of their territorial regiments. We are also going to do what will be hailed with satisfaction by the Militia—namely, to issue to them, for the first time, between 80,000 and 90,000 Martini-Henry rifles, as we have now a sufficient number of those weapons in store. We were pressed to do the same for the Volunteers; but we must begin, in the first place, with the Militia. We have made a new arrangement with regard to the Militia recruits. Where the Militia quarters are at the depot centre, the recruits are to go there to be trained at once on enrolment, instead of having to wait until the usual time when their regiments are called out. We hope that this will not only bring more recruits to the Militia, but also strengthen the union with the Line, and bring more men to the Line also. We expect to be able to arrange for six or eight battalions of the Militia joining in the Autumn ManŒuvres this year, and we propose to establish two Militia submarine mining companies at Plymouth and Chatham similar to those at Portsmouth. With regard to the Volunteers, there are two or three improvements contemplated, which I will now explain. First, we propose to increase the camp allow- ance by £10,000, so as to allow some 20,000 more men to go into camp; and, secondly, we propose to increase the capitation grant for officers passing in tactics from 50s. to 60s. We intend also to invite 15,000 men to join the ManŒuvres; and although we are unable to issue the Martini-Henry rifle to the Force generally, we propose to grant 4,500 instead of 3,000 for match shooting. We are unable to recommend the issue of greatcoats generally to the Volunteers; but we propose that, as regards capes, they may obtain them by payments spread over three years. It will be remembered that last year the regiments of Infantry Militia were made 3rd and 4th battalions of the territorial regiments, and we took power, under the Army Act of last Session, to make similar arrangements as regards the Volunteers. We do not propose to make any change in the character of the Force, except that, instead of being inerely described as located in the territorial districts, the Rifle Corps will become Volunteer battalions of the territorial regiments; and we propose that the officers of their permanent Staff should, as far as possible, be drawn from the regiments to which they will belong. If I had time—and, at half-past 2 in the morning, I am sure the Committee is tired—I should like to say something about one suggestion in connection with the Volunteers, which we do not propose to adopt at present, but which we should like the different corps to consider. At present the Volunteer is called efficient if he shoots away 60 rounds, and his corps receives its capitation grant accordingly. What we should like to do would be to carry out an arrangement, under which the test of efficiency would not be merely shooting away so many rounds, but obtaining certain points in marksmanship. We do not wish to save anything in the amount of the capitation grant; but I think we may, in the way suggested, greatly improve the efficiency of the Volunteers. I have now gone through the different heads of the Estimates. I have shown the effect of past proposals, what changes we have determined to propose to Parliament, and what subjects we have under consideration. I fear I may have unduly detained the Committee at this latehour; but the interests at stake are so vast that they justify a full explanation by the Minister. I hope the Committee will accept what I have said as showing a sincere desire on our part to do all we can for the efficiency of Her Majesty's Forces, and will believe that, if we fail in any respect, it will not be from want of will; and for myself I may truly say that it will be my earnest duty, so long as I hold my present Office, to promote the strength, efficiency, and popularity of the Army, Militia, and Volunteers.

said, he thought it would not be possible for the Committee now to go into the complicated, though clear, Statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he wished to ascertain the position in which hon. Members would be placed with reference to the future discussion of this Statement. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the Committee on what early occasion they would have an opportunity of going into the Statement. Of course, when the first Votes were taken, £4,000,000 would be at the command of the right hon. Gentleman; and then, to a certain extent, the House would be at the mercy of the Government for the rest of the Session, and so they might not get a discussion until a very late day.

I may repeat what I said at the very commencement of my Statement. What I said was that we proposed to resume the discussion of the Army Estimates in such a way that every point I have mentioned, and all other points and suggestions, may be fully discussed, so far as we are concerned, on the first day after the Easter Recess; and that we would not allow any legislative matter to interfere with our taking the discussion then, and we do not anticipate any other impediment; but if any unforeseen impediment should arise, we will take the first day after that the circumstances will permit. The exact day cannot be stated until we know when the Easter Recess will be. Taking the first Vote will not preclude the full dis- cussion of any questions arising on the whole Estimates.

said, he felt very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's Statement removed the difficulty. He was quite certain that the Secretary of State for War was perfectly loyal; but he had not stated upon what any discussion would be taken. When the Committee had voted the Money Vote, they would have put it out of their power, unless the Chairman should rule otherwise, to discuss Army questions. If the right hon. Gentleman would show them out of the difficulty, then it would be for them to consider whether they could accept his proposal. He himself should be happy to accept any proposal; but he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should now take a portion of the Vote on Account—say £2,000,000, or any other sum he liked—and then the Committee could have a discussion upon what remained to be voted. He thought that would be in Order, and in accordance with the traditions of the House; but he would appeal to the Chairman for a ruling.

said, he had been a good many years in the House, and he remembered many occasions on which, with respect to both the Army and the Navy Votes, it was distinctly understood that the taking of the 1st Vote did not preclude the discussion of any question affecting it. Although Vote I was for Pay, there were the Votes for Provisions, Transport Stores, and Auxiliary Forces, on which every question of organization could be raised. With respect to taking a Vote on Account, he could not imagine a Minister who would not naturally be very much tempted by the idea; but he hoped the House would not recognize the adoption of that course on any occasion. The effect would be to lead a Minister to come to Parliament early in the Session, and say—"Give me a Vote on Account, and we will discuss the Estimates generally later on;" and in that way there would never be any security as to the time when the entire policy of the Army Estimates would be brought forward by the Minister. He had distinctly promised an early day for this discussion, and that, he thought, would give the Committee the fullest opportunity of discussing the Estimates. He strongly deprecated any introduction of the system of voting money on account for either the Army or the Navy.

said, he thought there was so much objection felt in the House to taking Votes on Account that there would be little likelihood of a future Minister of War adopting such a system; but he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, on his own showing, his comprehensive Statement could be answered except upon this Vote for Men? There was no security that the whole of the other Votes would be taken at the time proposed; and, therefore, hon. Gentlemen would be in a position of great difficulty in regard to answering the right hon. Gentleman's Statement. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the taking of a Vote on Account; but was not this Vote of £4,000,000 practically treated as a Vote on Account for six months' service? In point of fact, as far as the Committee were concerned, the Army Service could be carried on for that period without any further Vote; and, therefore, if the Government desired the discussion to take place without prejudice, they would take a Vote of £2,000,000 now, and complete the Vote on the first day after Easter. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would acquiesce in that.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Navy as a subject which might bear upon this question; but last year, as a special permission, the general discussion was postponed for Vote 2, only on the ground that the Victuals Vote would enable a discussion to be raised. With regard to the Navy Votes, that course was also entirely forbidden, and was only allowed in consequence of a special application, which was assented to by the House.

remarked, that the Secretary of State for War had begun speaking at 10 minutes to 1, and no opportunity could possibly be given to Members of the Committee to make any observations on his interesting and able Statement, upon many new points of which they had not, till then, had any intimation whatever. It would be the most unfair thing in the world to press the Committee to give this Vote of £4,000,000. Never before had the Estimates been brought on at such a time in the morning. He therefore appealed to the Prime Minister to allow, in this instance, a Vote on Account to be taken. Last year the Government got the same Vote for the Army, and then the whole discussion was driven off to the end of the Session, till the month of August, and that was a thing that ought not to be allowed. There was one thing he should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and it was a subject of deep interest to the country—namely, the Army Corps, which the right hon. Gentleman had stated was now in an efficient state, nine-twentieths of that Army Corps being recruits of one years' service. That the right hon. Gentleman had stated to be the fact. Nine-twentieths of the men to be sent abroad in a great emergency would be recruits of one year's service. That was a statement which he should like to hear contradicted at once if it was not true. If it was true, the fact would take away all the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the fitness of the Army Corps for immediate service.

What I stated was that in some regiments there were more, and in some less.

wished for the ruling of the Chairman. If the Committee passed this Vote, and voted the number of men and the money, would it be possible to raise a general discussion on Vote 2?

The noble Lord is quite right in his statement that it is the usual practice in Committee to discuss the Statement of the Secretary of State for War on the 1st Vote, and not on subsequent Votes. One or two exceptions to this general practice have been admitted. Thus, in the Navy Estimates, where a like rule prevails, the general discussion has exceptionally been taken, not on the 1st Vote, but upon that for "Victuals," and, I think, upon the Shipbuilding Vote. But in these exceptions a single general discussion only has been allowed. If circumstances do not allow a general discussion on the 1st Vote to-night, it would be possible, at the next meeting of Committee on Army Estimates, to bring forward as the first question a general Vote, such as that on "Provisions," and take the general discussion on that Vote. But it must be borne in mind that only one general discussion is permissible, and that it ought to be, unless under exceptional circumstances, on the 1st Vote.

The hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) appeals to me. I believe it to be a practice totally unknown to Parliament to take a Vote on Account in regard to the Army Estimates; and the only occasions on which it has been assented to has been when there has been a Dissolution of Parliament, or a change of Government in prospect. That constitutes a state of things wholly exceptional, and then the whole of the House of Commons, it may be, has not been in a position to discuss the policy, because it was not known what Government would deal with the Estimates of the year. The case of the Civil Service Estimates is totally and absolutely different, because we have now introduced a principle under which all balances must be repaid to the Exchequer on the 31st of March. The Miscellaneous Estimates are presented at the beginning of the Session, and there is no means of going forward unless you can vote your Miscellaneous Estimates before Easter, except by Votes on Account. But with regard to the Army and Navy Estimates, that would be an innovation. I do not deny the inconvenience—I suppose it is inconvenient to all of us; and, indeed, it may be called a public mischief—that statements of this kind cannot be made at an early hour in the evening, when Gentlemen are in the full force of their strength, but should have to be made after midnight; but that is part of the general condition to which we are reduced, and which we are about to endeavour to remedy so far as it may be in our power. But you, Sir, have ruled that there is a precedent for discussing the whole forces of the Navy on the Victuals Vote, and some practice of that kind will be adopted in this case.

said, the Chairman had decided that a general discussion could be raised upon the Vote for Provisions. The Secretary of State for War had offered a fair compromise, and that was to bring up the Provision Vote either on the first or second day after the Easter Recess, and that would enable the whole question to be discussed at length.

said, the Prime Minister had told the Committee he was averse to any course which should partake of the character of an innovation; but he suggested that they should first of all vote the money and discuss it afterwards. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know whether that course was in accordance with Parliamentary precedent; but if it was it appeared to him it was a course which had better be postponed as soon as possible. If there was any difficulty in the present situation, the Government alone were responsible. They had up till now occupied the time of the House with Business which, no doubt, appeared to them to be very important, but which did not strike the rest of the House in the same light; and now the Committee were invited to vote not only the number of men for the Army without discussion, but also to vote away millions of money for one of the most important branches of the Public Services. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had said there was no precedent for voting millions of money away at this hour of the morning; but he thought the hon. and gallant Baronet must have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did last year precisely what he was doing now—that was to say, he tried to induce the House to vote away almost blindly over £3,500,000. He opposed, as long as he could, the object of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion; and he should feel bound to go into the Lobby with any hon. Gentleman who invited the Committee to divide this evening against this Vote. There could be nothing more improper than to vote away millions of public money in the small hours of the morning, because it was impossible that the questions involved could be adequately discussed, or that anything like justice could be done to the subjects. The Prime Minister said they could very properly discuss anything connected with the Army on subsequent Votes. It appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that as a matter of Order that contention could not be maintained. That a discussion had always taken place on Vote 1 in previous years was due to the fact that the Vote provided for the pay of so many different branches of the Military Service, and that there was scarcely a topic that could not be touched upon under the Vote. He was inclined to ask how, if the Vote was passed now, it would be possible to reduce it? If sub- sequent discussion showed that the Vote was unduly large, how were they to rescind their Vote? He knew it was not a very common thing for a Vote submitted by Government to be reduced; but he recollected that the year before last he was enabled to secure the reduction of one of the Votes submitted by Her Majesty's Government, though he believed he was one of the very small number of Members who had ever succeeded in that endeavour. But having succeeded once, he was not without hope he might succeed again. There were many things in this Vote which required discussing. For instance, he should be inclined to contest the utility of spending so much money on the Riding Establishment at Woolwich; there was, in his opinion, a great deal too much money wasted upon that establishment. On the Vote, too, would naturally arise a very important discussion as to the propriety of framing the Estimates in the way in which they had been framed this year. For instance, the extra receipts taken in aid had been so arranged that it would enable the Department to evade the proper Parliamentary control; it would enable the Departmental authorities to spend more money than Parliament had ever been asked to sanction. These were questions which naturally arose on Vote 1; and he did not see why they should be asked—and, indeed, almost peremptorily ordered—to vote away public money whether they would or not. He did not think it was necessary to vote the money; he doubted whether it was really necessary even to vote the men to-night. It was perfectly true that the Vote for Men must be taken and agreed to by this House and "another place" before the 5th of April; but there was abundant time for doing everything necessary between now and then. With regard to the Vote for Pay, he was convinced it was not necessary to take it to-night. The War Office had a large available balance—he believed it amounted to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—with which it was quite able to carry on without any further Vote by the Committee at present. If the War Office obtained this Vote they would be in a position to dispense with any further Votes until the end of August. Under these circumstances, he decidedly objected to the Vote for Pay being taken to-night; and he did not think it was at all fair that the House of Commons should be called upon, in the small hours of the morning, to pass the Vote even for men.

said, he could not understand, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, why a Vote on Account should not be taken.

said, he had heard no argument whatever against taking a Vote on Account, except the Prime Minister's statement that it was against all precedent. He ventured to say it was against all precedent to bring in Army Estimates at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. He did not think the Prime Minister, in his experience of 40 years, ever knew of the Army Estimates being brought on at such a time of night. They had heard from the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had had considerable experience in the matter, that there was no difficulty in postponing the Votes. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) did not believe there was any difficulty in the matter; but that a great and principal objection was the Prime Minister's own will. He repeated that he believed firmly that it was nothing else but the Prime Minister's will that stood between them and progress to-night. They had occasion to observe earlier in the evening the temper and animus which the right hon. Gentleman had shown. They ought to have better arguments adduced than they had heard to-night against taking a Vote on Account. He was perfectly willing to be reasonable in the matter; he was quite willing to fall in with any reasonable compromise the right hon. Gentleman might suggest; but when a proposition of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman suggested was brought forward without any argument whatever, and especially when it was opposed to the practice of the House, they had a right to resist it.

said, he really must object to the noble Lord's personal remarks. He did not wish, rising at 3 o'clock in the morning, to detain the Committee with a lengthened statement. He stated that it was totally without precedent, in his belief, to apply the system of Votes on Account to the great Military and Naval Services of the country; and the noble Lord, under those circumstances, rose and said it was nothing but his (Mr. Gladstone's) personal will, or, in other words, his obstinacy and dictatorial spirit.

I did not say that.

said, the noble Lord's meaning was obvious. The noble Lord said he was there to impose his will between the House of Commons and the progress of Business without reason; the true meaning of that was that his obstinacy and dictatorial spirit was the only obstacle in the way of the course which the noble Lord wished to see taken. The noble Lord then went on to say that he (Mr. Gladstone) had that night shown temper and animus, which justified him in putting an unfavourable construction upon the present proceeding. If the noble Lord referred to what took place early in the evening, he had no right to do so; the proper time for the noble Lord to have made his observations in relation to the matter was when the offence was committed. The noble Lord might indulge whatever feelings he thought fit; he would only make a respectful protest against the application of any personal remarks in matters of this kind. If the noble Lord would allow him to have an opinion, he would say that to introduce the practice of taking Votes on Account for the great Military and Naval Services would be a most mischievous and even dangerous innovation. They tolerated Votes on Account in the case of the Civil Service, because they were absolutely necessary; they never tolerated them except in cases of absolute necessity. If they were to allow Votes on Account to apply to the Military and Naval Services the consequence would be that a large portion of that expenditure would be sanctioned by the House of Commons at the beginning of the year without discussion. The scale of expenditure was fixed, and large portions of it were actually made without any discussion. That was the meaning of taking a Vote on Account. Could there possibly be anything more dangerous?