asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a case decided at Arva Petty Sessions, on the 1st instant, before a Mr. Tanner, J.P. who fined a man named Robert Connolly in the nominal sum of 1s. for firing a revolver at a girl named Brady; and, if he intends to remonstrate with the magistrate for what appears to be a miscarriage of justice?

Connolly was summoned to Arva Petty Sessions under the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, section 10, for "discharging a firearm on the public road." The maximum penalty for that offence is 10s, and Connolly was fined 1s. It is not within the province of the Attorney General to review the judicial action of a magistrate; but, if it was, I see nothing illegal in the present decision.

asked the Postmaster General, If he would consider whether it would not be of advantage to the public, and profitable to the Post Office, if a prepaid reply telegram form, available for ten words, were issued on payment of an additional sixpence to the price of a telegram sent?

I regret to say that, after giving careful consideration to the subject, I do not see my way to accede to the suggestion contained in the Question of my hon. Friend.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the action of the magistrates of Blessington, who, at a road sessions on the 10th of January last, gave the works presented for by Miles Quin, Patrick Byrne, and Joseph Leg-grew, to others whose tenders were in each case double theirs; whether this is in direct violation of the statute; and, whether the grand jury can be directed to give the contracts to the lowest tenders at the approaching assizes at Wick-low?

, in reply, said, he was informed that it had been decided by the Judges that the lowest tender for public works was not necessarily to be accepted, and the Government had not any authority to interfere.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether pre-transfer or post-transfer telegraph clerks can be legally compelled to do the work of sorting clerks in post offices?

There can, in my opinion, be no doubt that the power to which reference is made in the Question can be legally exercised.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. George O'Toole, farmer, of Baltinglass, in the county of Wicklow, has been confined as a "suspect" in Dundalk Gaol, 100 miles from his home, for the last five months; whether Mr. O'Toole recently asked to be let out on parole for a few days to buy seeds for his farm and give directions as to sowing his crops, and was refused; whether he is aware that Mr. O'Toole has no male relative or friend to manage his affairs during his imprisonment; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will consent to his liberation on parole for a week or ten days for the purpose indicated?

, in reply, said, that there would be no objection to this man being liberated for 10 days on the understanding that his return to Baltinglass would not be made the occasion of any public demonstration or display, and that he would strictly confine himself to private business.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the performances of a so-called religious body entitled the "Salvation Army;" and, whether he will issue special instructions to the local magistrates to suppress the street processions of this body, processions which have caused, and are likely to cause, serious rioting; which tend also to create gross profanity; and which have been the means of greatly disturbing the peace and quiet of respectable citizens?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will be so good as to devise some means of protection from mob-ruffianism and occasional magisterial weakness for the loyal and law-abiding people called the "Salvation Army," who are endeavouring to rescue from vice and crime the very dregs of the population not hitherto cared for by the great religious organisations of the Country?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a Memorial, accompanied by sworn information, from several of the leading tradesmen of Basingstoke, with regard to the riots which have taken place in that town recently, and at recurring intervals during the last twelve months, caused by the persistent efforts of an organised gang of roughs to suppress by violence and intimidation the processions and meetings of a religious body known as the "Salvation Army;" whether he has instituted any inquiry, with a view of ascertaining the names and position of those who are well known to be the ringleaders of this dangerous mob; and, if he will take prompt and immediate steps to secure for the "Salvation Army" that protection from injury and outrage which the magistrates and police of Basingstoke do not afford them?

There are no less than seven Questions on this subject on the Paper, and, if the House will allow me, I will answer them all at once. First of all, I will say with reference to most, if not all, the Questions, that they seem to be founded upon an erroneous impression as to the relation of the Secretary of State to the magistrates. They ask me if I would give directions to the magistrates to do this, or not to do that. Now, the Secretary of State has no power to direct the magistrates, either in their judicial or in their executive capacity. Those who are in the Commission of the Peace have the responsibility to preserve the peace as they think right. If magistrates come to the Secretary of State, he is bound to give them such advice as he can, and to render such assistance as he is able. Now, as respects Basingstoke, there were great disturbances this time last year. The Mayor and magistrates did what was very proper. There being these processions of the "Salvation Army" attacked by the mob, they made every effort to protect the "Army." They had out their own constables, which were, I believe, 16 in number, and swore in 100 special constables, and had, besides, a detachment of Artillery. Then the magistrates, expecting the thing would happen again, came to me, and said, what was very reasonable, that they could not expect to have a detachment of Artillery every Sunday, and that special constables, with their best clothes on ready for going to church, did not want to fight with the mob on Sunday. They asked me what, under the circumstances, I would advise them to do. I naturally looked to see what my Predecessors had done. I found that the matter had been settled by eminent Law Officers of the Crown—first of all, Sir John Karslake, Lord Justice Brett, and afterwards confirmed by the present Lord Chief Justice, the present Master of the Rolls, and Lord Young. I wrote the letter, which has always been written for several years, applicable to those circumstances, and which I saw in some of the newspapers was said to be bad law, and worse sense. I have quoted the authorities for the law, and, as for the sense, it was acted upon by Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Bruce, and by all their successors. The magistrates accepted the advice in that letter; and, as there is such high, authority for it, I shall be happy to lay it on the Table, if the hon. Member who has asked the Question with reference to it (Mr. Caine) will move for its production. Having accepted the advice contained in the letter, they issued a proclamation forbidding the procession, and peace was preserved in Basingstoke from April to August. But a change took place, either in the personnel or the opinions of the Bench. They disregarded the advice I had tendered, and withdrew the proclamation. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: No, no.] Well, I Deg pardon. The right hon. Gentleman says "No;" but I had my information from the Mayor, who, finding there was a majority against him, no longer issued the proclamation, and, therefore, a disturbance took place. The consequence was that there had been disturbances ever since. The magistrates made no further application to me, as it is not very likely they would do. I have given them my advice, and it was not followed—that is all I can do in the matter. I offered that advice at Exeter, at Stamford, and at Salisbury. It has been followed in all those places, and, as far as I know, it has answered its purpose—namely, the preservation of peace. It is not in my power to compel the magistrates to do what they do not see fit to do. If they do not preserve the peace they are liable to a criminal information for failing to do their duty. In 1832 proceedings of that kind were taken with regard to the Mayor of Bristol. I cannot, as I am at present situated, issue any instructions to the magistrates. If I am asked for an opinion I am, of course, bound to give it. I may say that those people cannot be too strongly condemned who attack persons who are only meeting for a lawful and, I may say, laudable object; but, on the other hand, I cannot but condemn the imprudence of those who encourage these processions, which experience has shown must lead to disorder and violence.

said, that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he should move for the whole of the Correspondence between the magistrates of Basingstoke and the Home Office.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in accordance with the Transvaal Convention, the British Resident has been the medium of communication between the Transvaal Government and the Native chief Montsioa, who was recently attacked by other Natives, aided by a Boer contingent; whether the provision of the Convention, under which such a dispute might be referred to the arbitration of the British Resident, was acted on; and, whether a Report of the Resident's proceedings in the matter has been called for and will be presented to Parliament?

As far as the information at present received by Her Majesty's Government and communicated to Parliament goes, the Transvaal Government has had no disagreement or dispute with these Natives, and therefore no communication to make to them through the Resident under Clause b of sub-section 3 of Article 18 of the Convention. No dispute has been referred to the Resident by Transvaal residents and Natives outside the Transvaal under Clause e of sub-section 3 of Article 18. A telegram recently sent to Sir Hercules Robinson explained to him that a Report upon the recent fighting was expected from the Resident; and a despatch will be sent by to-night's mail repeating the request for such a Report.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an inquiry has been recently held relating to the government of the Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin; and, if so, by whom, and what was the immediate object of that inquiry?

If the hon. Member was in the House when I moved the Army Estimates early on Tuesday morning, he may have heard me say that in consequence of the effect of short service on the number of pensioners, and on the marriage of soldiers and the number of soldiers' children, it had become desirable to institute a thorough inquiry as to the present condition and the prospective requirements of the two great hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham, and the two schools, the Duke of York's and the Royal Hibernian. The Committee to whom this inquiry has been intrusted, and who are now conducting it, consists of Lord Morley, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Lieutenant-Generals Sir Beauchamp Walker and R. C. H. Taylor, Major-General Harman, the Rev. J. W. Sharpe, Sir P. Keenan, and Mr. C. Dilke Loveless. Considering the recent changes at the Hibernian School, it was considered desirable that they should visit that institution and Kilmainham first. When Her Majesty's Government have decided what action to take on the Report of the Committee, which, however, is not likely to be completed for some time, it is probable that I shall be able to lay it on the Table of the House.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been called to the fact that, during the last month, twenty-one tons of fish have been seized by the officers appointed by the Fishmongers' Company as being unfit for human food; that seventeen tons of that amount were land-borne fish; that Mr. Spencer Walpole, in the Report to the Home Secretary in 1880, attributed much of the loss in fresh fish to the distance it had to be carried from the Railways to Billingsgate; and, whether, under these circumstances, he can state to the House what steps, if any, are being taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works to furnish the public with a suitable fish market, so imperatively demanded, near the termini of the Railways on the north side of London?

In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to say that my attention has frequently been called to the seizure of fish at Billingsgate, and I am cognizant of the Report to which he refers. The Metropolitan Board of Works had the whole question before them last autumn; but the time at their disposal was not sufficient, in the opinion of the majority, to enable them to decide upon a site for a market before the period fixed for the deposit of Parliamentary Bills, and they are not, therefore, taking any steps in the present Session; but the matter is still receiving consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, By whose authority the sitting magistrate at Westminster has had under investigation a case of murder committed at Yalding in Kent; whether several witnesses have been brought up to London from Kent for examination; and, whether such course is in conformity with the usual practice of magisterial investigation, and can be supported by precedent?

I have inquired about this matter of the Solicitor to the Treasury, who has charge of it. It appears it was doubtful where the offence was committed; but it was supposed at first to have been within the jurisdiction of the magistrate at Westminster. The point is not even now clearly established; but if it should turn out that the offence was committed in Kent, the case will be remitted to the magistrates there.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that one of the rules of the Literary, Musical, and Dramatic Association, established at Enniscorthy, county Wexford, at the end of last year, is, "That nothing of a political or sectarian nature be discussed at any of its meetings, or on its premises;" that the said Association embraced within its roll of members men of different classes, creeds, and political leanings; that it had permission from George C. Roberts, esquire, J.P. to hold its meetings in the Market House, Enniscorthy, subject to the non-political and sectarian condition; that a meeting was publicly announced, to be held about the 20th December last; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that, previous to such meeting being held, the sub-inspector of police (Mr. Innes) informed the chairman that the proposed meeting could not be held, and, should it be proceeded with, he, the chairman, would incur great risk; that he had already gone far enough, too far for his own safety; and that if he did not want to go to Kilmainham he had better drop the business, or he would find himself there before long; whether he approves of such conduct on the part of the police; and, if such proceedings had his sanction?

, in reply, said, he understood that political subjects were not introduced into this society. The Sub-Inspector denied having used the language attributed to him.

wished to know whether, in a case where complaint had been made against the police, the Chief Secretary had ever ordered an independent inquiry to be made?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he would state what was the substance of the Report of a Sub-Committee of the Council of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, dated the 6th August 1880, communicated to the Foreign Office, and referred to in and necessary to explain, No. 69 of the recently published "Representations from Chambers of Commerce and other Commercial Associations relative to the proposed new Commercial Treaty with France and the French Tariff;" why such Report was not included among the other "representations" published; and, whether a Copy of the same will appear among any papers on this subject to be hereafter laid upon the Table?

The hon. and learned Member appears to have been misinformed, as the Report to which he refers was not communicated to the Foreign Office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. M. C. Dennis borrowed from the Board of Works the sum of £100, to be expended upon a farm held by John Halloran, at Pallas, in the Barony of Clanmaurice, in Kerry; whether the works in question were carried out to the satisfaction of the Board's engineer and certified by their inspector; whether any representations have been made to the Board by John Halloran to the effect that the works he executed on the farm represented £22 more than, the loan, and that, nevertheless, the landlord refuses to allow him more than £30, retaining the balance of £70; whether John Halloran, considering his rent too high, and having served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed, applied to the Board of Works on the 25th February, sending the usual fee, for copies of the engineer's report and of the inspector's certificate; and, whether the Board of Works returned the money and refused the document, thus depriving the tenant of useful evidence in the Land Court? The hon. Gentleman said he had received a letter informing him that if the Land Court ordered the documents the Board of Works would produce them. He would, therefore, not put the Question; but would ask whether the documents would be produced upon the direct application of the gentleman himself?

said, he wished for Notice of the Question; but he might add that the loan was made to the landlord and not to the tenant.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the grand jury of the Queen's County were, on Friday last, asked to make a presentment of £112 15s. 2d. as a charge upon the county on account of extra police sent into the county on some thirteen occasions during the previous half-year; whether the county inspector, on the occasion in question, admitted that the Constabulary Force in the county was seventeen men short of the quota; and, whether, inasmuch as the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 103, sec. 14, provides that a moiety of the costs of extra police shall be charged upon a county only when the fixed quota of men shall be increased, he will cause the demand for the sum mentioned to be withdrawn?

, in reply, said, he had not yet been able to get the information to enable him to answer the first portion of the Question. The second portion of the Question was based upon a misapprehension. By law the sending of police into any other county than the one they belonged to should be paid for by the county into which they were sent.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of Mr. Henry Egan, in a letter in the "Freeman's Journal" of Monday, that for saying "release the suspects" in the course of the Eight honourable Gentleman's speech at Tullamore, he was threatened with arrest by a sub-inspector and policeman in attendance, and was put under the supervision of a policeman during the remainder of the speech; and, whether the alleged conduct of the police on the occasion is approved by the Government?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to ask him whether Sub-Inspector Allen, who threatened Mr. Henry Egan, is the same Sub-Inspector who, whilst in command of a party of police, meeting two young men on the road, said to the police, "Punch them on before you," the consequence being that one of the young men has been in bed ever since?

I think the hon. Member who has just spoken will see that in common fairness he ought to have given me Notice of this Question. I do not know whether the Sub-Inspector is the Sub-Inspector Allen to whom he refers, neither do I know if the statement of the hon. Member is correct. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, I may say that I saw the letter in The Freeman's Journal, and directly communicated with the Sub-Inspector of Constabulary at Tullamore. I have received from him a Report, stating, as I fully expected—for it would have been contrary to my orders if it had not been so—that it is not true that, on the occasion of my speech at Tullamore, both the military and the police were present in large numbers. What I believe is true is that a Sub-Inspector and a couple of men were on duty in the town; but I cannot learn that even those three men were at the meeting. I have reason to believe, however, that one man came, not by my orders, but out of curiosity to hear what I might have to say. The military were not employed in any way, nor were there any soldiers present, except a Dragoon and two Infantry officers, who happened to come up at the time, and who remained to listen. There were no policemen in plain clothes—no detectives—present, except that the Sub-Inspector who was present was not in uniform. I think he rather wished to hear what I had to say. [Ironical Home Rule cheers and laughter.] I suppose a good many people did. The Sub-Inspector informs me that Mr. Egan came down from his shop in a very excited state, and several times shouted in an angry manner, and in a loud voice, "Release the 'Suspects!'" evidently, in the opinion of the Sub-Inspector, with the view of exciting the people, who were attentively listening. Some words passed between the Sub-Inspector and Mr. Egan. The Sub-Inspector did not give him in charge; but his brother, Mr. Patrick Egan, then came out and took him away, saying, "This is no place for you." I am also informed by Mr. Blake, the Resident Magistrate, that what really happened was this—that the people wished to hear me, and that Mr. Egan wished that they should not do so. The Sub-Inspector goes on to say that there was no further interruption, that I was heard to the end in good humour, and that I walked about the town afterwards—I am sorry to be obliged to say so much about myself—unattended by a single policeman. That is a simple account of what, according to the observations of the Sub-Inspector, occurred. I have also had a letter from Mr. Blake, from which I will read the following quotation:—

"The military were not communicated with, either directly or indirectly; and I am in a position to state that it was your express wish on the subject that no precautions of any kind were to be taken, and no change to be made in the everyday police arrangements. That was carried out to the letter—not a single policeman was brought into Tullamore, only two policemen being, as usual, on duty."

One at either end of the town, I suppose. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer another Question put on Friday night by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and about which he gave Notice of Motion on going into Committee of Supply, as to the report of my speech.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in referring to a Notice of Motion which is to come on this evening?

Perhaps I may ask if it will be in Order if I answer the Question as a personal explanation?

The right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly in Order in completing his answer to the Question.

A statement has been made that I hired, at the expense of the Government, an official reporter to give a report of my speech. What I want to say is, that no official reporter was employed to take my speech at Tullamore. I have made inquiries, and I find that there were three reporters present, one representing The Irish Times, and two others the local papers, being also local correspondents of the Dublin papers. One of these reporters, the correspondent for The Freeman's Journal and The Dublin Express, was in the room. He stood behind my chair, and the others stood under the window. Neither the English nor the Irish papers were furnished with reports of my speech at the expense of the Government. I may say that I saw the gentleman representing The Irish Times, although I did not know his name. I had no opportunity of correcting my speech; but, having read the report, I should say that it is very accurate.

I wish to ask whether the Government will grant an independent inquiry into the conduct of the Sub-Inspectors, magistrates, policemen, and officers of the Army, who happened to be on the spot at the time?

There is no charge against the officers. They simply came there, happening to be in the town, because they wanted to hear what a man speaking out of a window had to say. If the hon. Member wishes for an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police, let him move to that effect.

The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that there is a charge made against them. One of the listeners was threatened with arrest because he shouted "Release the 'Suspects!'" That could be proved by an independent inquiry,

What I said was, that there was no charge made against the officers in the Army or against the soldiers into which inquiry could be made. As to the police, I consider that there is no case for inquiry against them. If the hon. Member thinks that there is ground for any charge against them, let him bring it forward in the usual way, and let the House decide between us.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if the reporter of The Irish Times, Mr. Murray, was not a Government reporter; and whether he was not employed by the Government to report, among other things, the State Trials in Dublin; and why information as to the right hon. Gentleman's visit was not supplied to other papers. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Do not answer!"]

I would rather answer.

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have given a full answer to the Question; but if he desires to make a further explanation he can. do so.

I do not wish that a false impression should go abroad as to this matter. As regards the reporter, I did not know his name until to-day. Mr. Murray is not a Government reporter. I am informed that he, like many others, was employed to report the State Trials for The Irish Times. The fact is that, thinking it possible that I might say something at Tullamore, I sent to The Irish Times to say that perhaps they might think it worth while to send a reporter there, and they did so. The hon. Member asks me why I did not inform other newspapers. As a matter of fact, I believe other newspapers were informed, and that, having sent word to The Irish Times, I had done as much as I wished to do. I may, however, add that I did not let it be generally known that I was going to speak; because, if I had, I have no doubt the advice given afterwards—that I should not be allowed to be heard—would have been given then.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Messrs, Joseph Wren and Thomas Kitwood, who resumed their seats on the Boston Borough Bench last July, are the same persons who were scheduled by the Boston Bribery Commissioners, as being guilty of bribery; whether the Mr. Wren aforesaid is the gentleman who gave evidence in the case of Regina v. Rowley, at Lincoln, on Monday, July 25th, 1881; whether the Mr. Kitwood aforesaid is the same gentleman who was prosecuted for corrupt practices at Lincoln Assizes in July last, a nolle prosequi being entered, because, as the Solicitor General stated, a statement had been sent to the Bribery Commissioners by Mr. Kitwood, although it had not been read by them, and the Commissioners preferred to treat him as a party who had been examined, although practically he had no certificate; whether it is correct that Captain Henry Charles Allenby, of Ken-wick House, Louth, who was scheduled for providing £400 for direct bribery, is still permitted to act as justice of the peace for Lindsey and other divisions of the county of Lincoln; and, why, although another Boston Borough justice, named Samuel Pilley, who was scheduled for paying the sum of £5, in small amounts, to eighteen men, for work done on the day of the poll and previously (which employment it was contended was perfectly legal, and for the receipt of which the employés were not scheduled), was struck off the Borough Roll, Mr. Wren, who provided £750, and Mr. Kitwood, £100, for direct bribery, are still permitted to act as justices?

Before the Attorney General answers that Question, I wish to appeal to you, Sir, on a point of Order, and to ask you whether the hon. Member for Northampton is justified in stating in a Question put in this House that a gentleman is guilty of a direct act of bribery, who, by a jury of his countrymen, has been found not guilty?

The hon. Member for Northampton, has put the Question on his own responsibility, and I have no desire to interpose between the hon. Member and the House.

As I understand the Question, it does not say that this gentleman is absolutely guilty of bribery, but only that he was scheduled by the Commissioners. [Mr. T. COLLINS: I am speaking of the fifth paragraph.] I will not enter into that matter, except to say that the suggestions contained in the first three paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question are substantially correct. As regards Captain Allenby, I have to say that the fiat of the Lord Chancellor for the removal of this gentleman from the Roll of Justices was issued three weeks ago. As to the last portion of the Question, there are special circumstances attending these cases; but they are receiving the careful consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and his decision will shortly be given.

asked, whether, in view of the further consideration of these cases, it would be borne in mind that Mr. Parnell was removed from the list of Justices merely because he was reasonably suspected of inciting to intimidation?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. James Hegarty, of Falcurragh, county Donegal, recently confined in Derry Gaol in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour, was deprived of the privilege of receiving visits oftener than once a week; was not allowed to receive newspapers sent to him by his friends; was compelled to take exercise with prisoners committed for trial on serious charges; and was sentenced to twenty-four hours' solitary confinement on a charge of whistling in his cell, although the warder of that part of the prison in which Mr. Hegarty was confined declared that the charge was untrue; and, if he can state why Mr. Hegarty was subjected to such exceptional treatment?

, in reply, said, he would make inquiries into this matter. He had not as yet been able to ascertain the truth of the allegation contained in the Question of the hon. Member.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, an official Return giving the names and occupation of those persons who have been from time to time either arrested for, or convicted of, having taken part in nocturnal attacks, with a view to ascertaining how many, if any, Militiamen have been implicated in them?

, in reply, said, that the Question was very vague. "From time to time" was really very indefinite; no time at all being given. He did not think the Return would be of any practical use; but if the hon. Member really wished for the information he would ask him to set forth the nature of the Return in more definite form, and he would then consider whether it could be granted.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that Mohammed Afzul Khan has been appointed agent to the Viceroy of India at the Court of the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any instructions which have been given to him regarding his duties while so employed?

Yes, Sir; it is true that Mohammed Afzul Khan has been appointed agent of the Government of India at Cabul; but no copy of instructions to the agent has as yet been, received.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that on Sunday last, during the hours of Divine Service, the officers of the Military force stationed at Carndonagh visited the owners of cars in that town, and threatened them with heavy fines and the forfeiture of their licences if they refused to supply cars for the conveyance of troops to the scene of pending evictions in the neighbourhood, and insisted that, even where the cars had been previously engaged by other persons, they must be given to the Military; and, whether such action is legal?

I understand that this occurred, not during the hours of Divine Service, but afterwards. The military officers sent round to the car-owners to say that the cars would be required; but I am not aware that they threatened them in case of refusal. As a matter of fact, they would be liable if they refused in such a case.

said, it could be proved that the cars were previously engaged. He would put another Question on the subject on Thursday next.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would have any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of the warrant under which Mr. Thomas Mahoney, Clerk of Union Castlecomer, was arrested on 15th December 1881; of the warrant given by the sub-inspector in Castlecomer to the constable who had charge of Mr. Mahoney from Ballyragget to Naas; of explanation why he was refused admission into Naas Gaol on his arrival there in charge of the Constabulary on the 16th December; of authority of the Constabulary authorities in Naas for detaining him in the police barrack there during the night of the 16th December, instead of being lodged in Naas Gaol as directed by warrant under which he was arrested; of Correspondence which took place between the Local Government Board and Mr. Mahoney on the subject of his arrest; of Correspondence between the Board of Guardians of Castlecomer Union and the Local Government Board, including resolutions in Mr. Mahoney's favour on the subject of his arrest; of Resolution of the Board of Guardians of the Athy Union of the 21st December last on the subject of his arrest; of Mr. Mahoney's letter of the 28th December, written to the Chief Secretary from Naas Prison; and, of the order for his release, dated 4th January 1882? The hon. Gentleman said, if the Chief Secretary had any objection to give some of these Returns, they should take those they had no objection to give.

, in reply, said, he had not yet received the full information that would enable him to answer the Question.

said, he would repeat it on Monday.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding the readjustment of relative rank and retiring pay for the officers of the Army Veterinary Department, with a view of placing these officers on an equality in this respect with the quartermasters and riding masters, and other commissioned officers?

In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I have looked into this question, as I promised last year, and before the end of the Session I may be able to give some information on the subject; but the difficulties are much greater than I anticipated when I first took up the question.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he can explain the reason why an application from Plymouth, made in September last, for a Naval Artillery Volunteer Corps to be enrolled, has only now received a reply, refusing enrolment, while a similar application from Swansea, made some time afterwards, has been granted; and, whether, in future, it is intended to discourage the formation of such auxiliary forces, after the example applied to Plymouth?

The Admiralty, while fully appreciating the patriotic offers of service which they have received, have not felt justified in sanctioning the enrolment of a corps of Naval Artillery Volunteers at Plymouth. They do not consider that a force of that nature will be required at a Naval port where a considerable reserve of Marines and Naval Pensioners already exists. The number of Naval Volunteers enrolled at Bristol being comparatively few, it was thought a contingent from the neighbouring port of Swansea would be useful; and the recent visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales afforded a good opportunity for raising a battery.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his atten- tion has been called to the great difference in the treatment of Protestant and Catholic Military chaplains in India; whether it is the case that, while a Protestant chaplain is paid at the rate of £300 and £500 a year, and is assured of a comfortable pension on retirement, a Catholic chaplain is not only remunerated at a far lower rate, but is totally destitute of any provision for his old age, no matter how long his service with the troops may have been; whether many thousands of Irish Catholic soldiers receive the services of such chaplains in India; whether, in particular, his attention has been called to the case of the Reverend Father Augustine, late chaplain at Dagshai, who retired last month after thirty-three years' service, during which he was never allowed a day's leave or furlough to recruit his health, and who is now, in old age and broken health, an absolute pauper, solely dependent upon a small dole from the poor Bishop of his diocese, and upon the occasional charity of native Christians; and, whether he proposes to remedy this state of affairs?

This subject was fully explained in Papers presented to Parliament (Re-turn No. 243 of 1876), and I can scarcely give a full explanation in a reply to a Question. There are no military chaplains in India, Protestant or Catholic. There is an establishment of chaplains of the Church of England; because the great majority of civil and military servants of the Crown in India belong to that communion. But wherever there are a sufficient number of Roman Catholic soldiers to justify expenditure for provision of the ministrations of religion Roman Catholic priests are employed for this purpose; and the principles upon which their remuneration is based will be found to be explained in the Papers referred to. My attention has not been called to the case of the Rev. Father Augustine, and the India Office have no information on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the three Petitions proceeding from the Mohammedan National Association, Merchants and Bankers of Calcutta, and the Anglican Bishop and Clergy of Calcutta, respec- tively, recently presented to Sir Ashley Eden on the subject of increased drunkenness, and suggesting the closing of liquor shops on Sunday as a means of diminishing the evil; whether he has noticed the statement of Sir Ashley Eden, in refusing the Petitions, that, "there can be no doubt that there is an increase of drinking among the natives;" and, whether he proposes to take any steps in view of the numerous representations on the subject of the increase of drinking habits among the Indian population?

I have seen the Petitions referred to, asking that liquor shops in Calcutta may be closed on Sundays. The hon. Member's Question conveys an inaccurate idea of the effect of the Lieutenant Governor's reply to the Memorialists. Sir Ashley Eden said that while—

"No doubt there may be an increase of drinking, it is not among the class that frequents the liquor shops; it is among the middle classes, who drink in their own houses."

That careful inquiry had convinced him that—

"The alleged increase in intemperance is more imaginary than real."

And that, at any rate, any such increase was not due to multiplication of liquor shops, as the number of these shops had been reduced in Calcutta and its suburbs, with a population of 550,000, from 602 in 1871 to 403 in 1881. Nor did Sir Ashley Eden absolutely refuse the prayer of the Petitioners; but said he could not legally comply with it during the term for which the existing licences were granted, but that he would see that the houses were closed for a part of Sunday when the licences came to be renewed. In reply to the last part of the Question, although I have no reason to think that there is any disposition on the part of the Government of India to adopt measures which may have a tendency to promote intemperance among the population, I shall call their attention to the necessity of exercising extreme care and caution in the matter.

asked if there was not a considerable increase in the Excise Revenue during the last financial year, especially in Bengal?

There has certainly been an increase in the Revenue referred to by the hon. Member; but I do not admit that it has anything to do with the subject of the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Correspondence, with reference to the negotiations for a French Commercial Treaty, subsequent to August 22nd, 1881, will be laid upon the Table of this House?

The Correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers was laid on the Table on Tuesday, and is being distributed this day.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether those purchase captains who, having reached the age or service at which, under the Royal Warrants of 13th. August 1877, and 1st May 1878, they became ineligible for further promotion or higher pension, were, in order to avoid supersession, compelled to retire and retired on pensions under those Warrants, will be placed on the same footing as regards rank and pension as officers of the same class compulsorily retired under the Royal Warrant of 26th June 1881, the latter having no stronger claims than the former, while enjoying the advantage of not being liable to supersession on account of age?"

The Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman relates to certain officers retired under the Warrant of 1877, who, if they had remained in the Army until 1881, might have retired on better terms; and the object of the Question is to obtain for them that the rank and pension on which they retired should be raised to the level of the officers compulsorily retired in 1881. The ground of the claim I take to be that we have cancelled the retirement of certain non-purchase captains, who were compelled to leave the Army at 40 years of age, thus, in a certain sense, giving a retrospective character to the Warrant. The difference, however, between the two cases is that in the latter there was no question of improving the terms of an already-completed retirement, but only of re-admitting to the Army certain officers within a few months retired for age, who, under the new Warrant, need not retire. After well weighing both sides, I feel bound to adhere to the rule that no increase of retired pay can be allowed under a new Warrant to an officer who retired under a former one; and that the only been which could be conceded would be as to honorary rank, and this has been granted.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, with regard to the Warrant of January 1880, which directs that—

"(8) a public and open competition shall be held twice in the year, for the admission of qualified medical candidates as probationers, and that the number of appointments so competed for shall not be less than half of the number of vacancies which shall have arisen in the last completed half-year ending on the 30th June or 31st December,"

and that—

"(9) not less than half the number of vacancies shall be filled up by competition,"

he could state how many medical vacancies occurred in the half-year ended 31st December 1881; and how many of such vacancies were filled up by competition at the last examination; and, whether the terms of the Warrant, and the engagements it held out to candidates, have been satisfied?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me a Question turning on the meaning of the word "vacancy." Formerly, when the medical service was not so popular as it is now, and it was difficult to fill its ranks by competition, it was considered desirable that the Secretary of State should have the power to allow some of the first appointments to the Medical Department to be made by selection through the principal medical schools; but it was provided by the Article which he quotes, that at least half should enter by competition; the word "vacancies," of course, meaning the number of appointments which it was requisite to fill up. As a matter of fact, this power of nomination has never been exercised, and all vacancies have been filled by competition; so that, in the direction of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, we have gone far beyond what the Warrant required. I may add that there were, in reality, no vacancies at the end of the December half-year, 30 medical officers having been thrown on our hands from India; and the gentlemen who succeeded at the last examination will be appointed to vacancies as they occur from time to time. In reply to the second Question, it is evident that the terms of the Warrant have been more than satisfied.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the continued postponement of the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee, and of the Sessional Committee, whose duty it is to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters relating to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and to select and arrange for Printing the Returns and Papers presented, in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House, is in any way detrimental to the Public Service; and, if so, whether he will state to the House why he postpones from Tuesday to Tuesday the Motions which stand in his name in the Order Book for the appointment of those Committees, when no steps are taken by the Government to prevent constant counts-out on Tuesdays?

The postponement in the appointment of the two Committee referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend is of very serious inconvenience, more especially that of the Public Accounts Committee. After having proved by experience that it was useless to place the Motion for the appointment of these Committees on days on which the Orders of the Day have precedence of Motions, I came to the conclusion that my best chance of success was to place the Motions down for Tuesdays. Having been detained by business on Tuesday afternoon I was on my way to the House on Tuesday evening, when I found to my regret that it had been counted out. I only hope that I shall meet with better success next Tuesday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will cause such arrangements to be made in the various prisons in Ireland in which political "suspects" are confined, as will shorten the time of their solitary confinement; whether he sees any objection to a relaxation of the rules which confine the "suspects" to their cells from about six o'clock in the evening until the following morning; and, whether he will cause permission to be given to them to assemble, in such place and manner as is consistent with prison discipline, for two or three hours after their early supper?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Times of this day, signed "Audi Alteram Partem," giving extracts from letters alleged to have been written by some of the "suspects;" and if the description therein given of the treatment of "suspects" in Ireland is substantially true?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I wish to point out that the hour at which prisoners are confined in the evening is 5 o'clock and not 6, as stated in the Question of the hon. Baronet.

I put in 5 o'clock.

With respect to the Question of my hon. Friend, I certainly saw the letter to which he refers. The letter certainly states that in The Tuam Herald—a paper of rather strong views in the direction of hon. Members opposite—two letters had appeared from persons at present confined as "suspects," in which they certainly gave the impression to their friends that they did not find the prison arrangements inconvenient; in fact, rather of a contrary kind. I have not myself seen those letters, but I have no reason to believe that they are not correct; and I have myself received information that several prisoners have taken the same view. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend (Sir Arthur Otway), it is a matter of importance; and I am afraid I must ask the House to give me a little more time than is usual in answering Questions. Strictly speaking, my hon. Friend's Question would, to my mind, refer to a very small proportion of the "suspects" now in gaol. My hon. Friend uses the phrase "political suspects." As I have frequently stated, I do not think that any of those prisoners can be rightly called' political prisoners,''—[Mr. HEALY: Oh, oh!]—except those who are detained on reasonable suspicion of treasonable practices. I do not wish to debate the matter now; but I must again state that I do not think persons who are detained on reasonable suspicion of either committing crimes of violence, or intimidation, or inciting thereto, can rightly be called "political prisoners." I take my hon. Friend's Question as if he meant to apply it to all the "suspects;" and, undoubtedly, it would be undesirable that arrangements should be made for some and not for others. I can only again state what I stated last year. When asking Parliament to assent to the Act I stated that we intended to use it for the purpose of prevention, and not of punishment; and although I do not expect any credit from hon. Members opposite, I may say that I have carried it out irrespective of anything said about too much forbearance or too much relaxation, upon the principle of listening to every complaint, by whomsoever it was made, that reached me, and simply on this ground—that the regulations that were made were to be as easy as is consistent with being in prison, provided these three conditions were fulfilled—first, the observance of prison discipline, which, hon. Members must be aware, is necessary; secondly, provision for the safe-keeping of the prisoners; and, thirdly, the prevention of the carrying on from the prison these incitements to outrages for which the "suspects" were detained. And I do not think I need do more than refer to what are notorious circumstances to show that this last has been a provision necessary to be kept in view, and which it is necessary still to keep in view. As regards the six hours' association, I must remind the House that the matter was debated last year, and though I do not mean to say it was approved by hon. Members opposite—[Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!]—because they were opposed to every matter connected with the Act—it was accepted by the House as an arrangement which was fair and reasonable, and which was believed to have worked well in the Westmeath Prison; and the case shown in the House was not against having the six hours adopted, but against the adoption of the general rule of prisons allowing only two hours. I stated a day or two ago, when the matter was brought forward, that I would immediately make inquiry as to whether more could not be given in the evening. I did so at once, and I am very glad to say that I find more time can be given. I propose that, without delay, this modification of the rule shall be made. There shall be half-an-hour allowed for exercise. [Mr. HEALY: Oh, oh! and laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to finish. Half-an-hour more for exercise will be given in the morning, and an hour and a-half given in the evening after supper. The prisoner will not be compelled to take exercise at these hours if he does not wish to do so; it would be at his option whether he preferred to be in the association hall or taking exercise. I do not deny that there is some degree of danger in this; because it is an undoubted truth that such a letter as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) alluded to does represent some portion of feeling in Ireland, because we not unfrequently have had cases in which we had reason to believe that people wished and preferred to be arrested. I think myself it is better to err on the right side; and, therefore, I am glad to be able to make this modification. As so much has been said about the authorities in Dublin Castle, I may say I am entirely supported by them on this subject. I wish to say one thing. If blame is to be attached to anyone for the administration of this Act, and if it can be proved afterwards that there is blame, it must fall upon me. I alone am responsible for it. I have carefully looked into the details of the cases, as much as I possibly could; and nothing could be more unfair than for me to allow the House for a moment to suppose that anything that may be considered harsh—although, I am sure, it has been my endeavour to make it as little harsh as possible—is due to the authorities at the Castle. I say at once that is not the case. I wish, with the permission of the House, to refer to one or two other matters bearing on this subject. It was stated by hon. Members opposite that the time for Divine Service was taken from the time during which the "suspects" associated. I promised to inquire into this, and stop the practice, if it did take place. My information is, that there was only one prison in which this was done. Half-an-hour was deducted at Kilkenny. [Mr. HEALY: And Armagh.] Well, that will be looked into; but it has been stopped at Kilkenny. Then it was stated that visitors came to gloat over the sufferings of the prisoners. This I did not believe to be true. [Mr. HEALY: I can give you the name of one man—Townsend.] Very numerous applications have been made to see the prisons in which the "suspects" are detained; but the rule is, and the order is, that these applications shall be refused. Then it was stated how hard it was that the prisoners should not have any recreation; and the hon. Member for Sligo descanted upon my barbarity in not permitting chess to be played.

I said nothing whatever about it.

You refer to me.

Well, the real truth is, that from the very beginning the game of ball, which is very good for exercise, was allowed, and when the matter was laid before me, I at once approved of chess, draughts, and similar games. Certainly, since last November, there has been no restriction on such games, and, so far as the game of ball is concerned, the permission has existed for a longer period. If permission was not given before, it was because it was not asked. Then it was said that the prisoners were not allowed to rest at night in peace, and that the lanterns of the turnkeys were flashed every now and then upon sleeping prisoners. This, I am told, is quite untrue. The warders have not, in fact, keys in their possession after 10 o'clock; and, besides, the prisons in which this was said to have occurred were not specified. I have only further to add, although they are not contained in this Question, that in other statements I believe there was either very great exaggeration or great mistakes. I think it is only fair to the members of the General Prisons Board that I should read the concluding words of a letter from one of the members of the Board in answering these questions. He says—

"I regret to have not had sufficient time to enable me to inquire at each prison on the various questions raised; but I believe the treatment to be the same in all prisona. But the statements made are, in many instances, untrue, and in others much exaggerated."

This is what I wish to impress upon the House—

"The extreme unfairness of not at once bringing to the notice of the Board any cases of complaint I need not again point out; as if the Board did not immediately remove any real ground for complaint any prisoner could at once appeal to the Chief Secretary."

I may just say to those in the House who will believe me—it may be the large majority—that I never would have thought of neglecting to examine any case in which it was stated the Board had refused to redress a grievance.

asked whether he was right in supposing the right hon. Gentleman to say that after the usual time for locking the prisoners up they would be allowed to assemble together for an hour and a-half in the evening?

intimated that that was correct.

asked his right hon. Friend whether, in regard to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Swansea, there was reason to believe that the letters in The Times were invented for a purpose; if not, whether he had any reason to suppose that, in all probability, they were the letters of an Irish prisoner; or whether it was not possible that they might be an Irish joke?

I do not think they were more than the mere expression of what the writers felt. I know that similar statements have been made before in Ireland.

I ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman has stated, on the authority of the Prisons Board, that some of the complaints made were exaggerated, and some untrue. I have made two statements in this House of my personal experience in prison, and these have attracted considerable attention. I wish now to say, most solemnly, in the presence of this House, that every statement I made was accurate; and that there were other matters equally accurate with which I have not troubled the House. I am prepared to substan- tiale all I stated, and much more, before any tribunal.

I am glad the hon. Member made that remark. If he will give me Notice of a Question on the subject to-morrow I will give him an explanation, and, to a considerable extent, a refutation of the statement he made about himself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not a fact that "suspects" have to sweep their cells, or pay men for doing so?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that also.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Daily News" of yesterday, headed "Uproarious Meeting at Basing-stoke," describing a meeting held by Mr. Arch in that town, in the Corn Exchange, to consider the question of the agricultural labourer. It states that—

"The room was occupied before the proceedings commenced by a gang of roughs. Mr. Arch attempted to speak, but was refused a hearing, and was pelted with rotten eggs and ochre. Mr. Mitchell shared the same fate. After an hour and a half had been vainly spent in endeavouring to obtain quietude, the meeting was brought to an end amid much uproar;"

whether the authorities of Basingstoke were aware that this meeting was broken up by the same organized gang whose violence towards the members of the Salvation Army has more than once been the subject of Parliamentary inquiry; and, if the Home Office will take the matter into immediate consideration?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that, on September 21st 1881, ten of the Basingstoke roughs were released from Winchester Gaol, where they had been suffering a fortnight's imprisonment for attacks on the Salvation Army; whether they were brought home to Basingstoke in a carriage and four, escorted by outriders in fancy costumes, and accompanied by their supporters, the brewers and publicans of Basingstoke; whether, in the evening, a banquet was given to the. released prisoners in the Corn Exchange, which was granted for the pur- pose by the Corporation, the proceedings being wound up by a free fight, in which the police were powerless; and, whether any communication has been made from the Home Office to the authorities of Basingstoke, with a view to the better preservation of order?

I know nothing of either of these two circumstances referred to in the first Question. I have had no communication whatever on the subject with the local authorities. The circumstance referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle has not been brought under my notice.

gave Notice that, in consequence of the Home Secretary's reply, he would, on an early day, call attention to the fact that the Magistrates in various parts of the Country fail to provide adequate protection to Her Majesty's subjects, assembled in lawful public meeting, from the attacks of disorderly persons; and to move a Resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that a young man is being prosecuted in the City of London for selling a religious periodical called the "War Cry" in the streets; and, whether he is prepared to direct the prosecution also of the persons who habitually obstruct the streets of London by offering for sale the indecent periodicals, with offensive contents bills, which have been hawked in public for the last nine months without any interference on the part of the police?

I know nothing of the circumstances, and I have no authority over the City Police or the City Magistrates in this matter. In regard to the latter part of the Question, it would be the duty of the police to prevent the public sale of such papers as the hon. Member refers to.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is his intention to introduce the Bankruptcy Bill before Easter?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I may say I am extremely anxious to in- troduce the Bankruptcy Bill; but, considering the present state of Public Business, I am not sangine of being able to do so before Easter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the Madrid Correspondence of the "Times,"

"That Spain has offered England the 'most favoured nation' terms, on condition of Spanish wines being admitted at a shilling per gallon, up to 36 degrees of Sykes' alcoholmeter, but that England is trying for concessions on English imports, especially textiles and machinery, which makes an understanding somewhat difficult;"

and, whether it is the case that Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary, have so far reconsidered their position as to be actually in negotiation, at the present moment, with Spain, Italy, and Portugal, with a view to the conclusion of Commercial Treaties based precisely upon that principle of reciprocity which the Government has hitherto repudiated?

My answer to the first paragraph of the Question is that it is not true. My answer to the second paragraph is that it is not the case.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the sum of £10,000 mentioned in the Civil Service Estimates, issued on the 10th instant, as a grant in aid of the Medical Relief given to Parochial Boards in Scotland, is the whole sum proposed to be given this year, taking into consideration the statement made by him on the 2nd of August last, that—

"There must be equalisation adaptable to this and some other particular Votes, but that adoption must be immediate. He meant that they must not again present the Votes in the shape in which they now were?"

I beg to disown rather emphatically the words which this Question ascribes to me. I am reported in this Question to have said that—

"There must be equalisation adaptable to this and some other particular Votes, but that adoption must be immediate."

Sir, I am not a great master of the English language; but I must distinguish between the form and the substance, and the substance of what I said, I think, was this, and it will convey a clear idea to the mind of the hon. Member. I did say, last year—I am now speaking from memory, but have no doubt about it—that the question of those particular Votes would have to be reconsidered before they were again proposed, either upon their own merits, and alone, or in connection with some more general proposal. That is the fact; and, likewise, the other day, in refering to the present form of the Estimates, I mentioned the matter, and I said that no inference was to be drawn from the present form of the Estimates as to the intention of the Government to propose them, as they stand upon this and some other points. But I said it would be impossible to recast the Estimates until Parliament had determined upon the principle and the substance of its proceeding.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill for the purpose of filling up the six seats in this House rendered vacant by the disfranchisement of certain boroughs?

This is a Question of great importance, upon which Her Majesty's Government have not yet thought it necessary for them to arrive at any positive determination; but they will take good care to announce their intention at such a time that Gentlemen will have the power, not only of comprehending it, but of taking any course of action which they may think proper.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the "Freeman's Journal" of the 14th instant, containing letters from Mr. Nicholas H. Devine, lately detained under the Coercion Act, and Mr. James O'Connell, at present detained under the said Act; and, whe- ther he regards these letters as presenting the kind of evidence invited by him, with a view to inquiry into the administration of the Coercion Act, so far as regards the prison treatment of "suspects?"

I will, with the permission of the House, answer this Question. I have seen the letters referred to, and they seem to me to afford further proof that the proper course to be taken by prisoners wishing to make complaints is to communicate with the Prison Board, who, of course, cannot examine grievances unless they are told them. If, however, the hon. Member will ask me definite Questions as to the facts alleged in these letters, and will give me time to make inquiries before replying, I shall be obliged to him.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, How the first new Rule of Procedure, if adopted, would operate in the case of a series of Amendments on going into Supply; and, whether the term "Question under discussion" will mean the original Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, or whether it will have reference to each of the series of Amendments in succession as they become the subject-matter of debate; and, in the latter case, what is to happen when, the first of such series having been negatived, the subsequent Amendments can only be debated, and cannot be put from the Chair as substantial Amendments to the main question? The right hon. Gentleman said he asked this Question because he apprehended that the Rule of Procedure to which it referred was rather a development of the existing practice of the House with regard to the Previous Question. It was a well-known incident of that practice, and laid down in the work of Sir Erskine May, that the Previous Question could not be moved on an Amendment.

That, I believe, which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned is a well-understood portion of the Procedure of this House; but this Rule, which establishes a new Procedure, will not, of course, be governed by the practice. Of course, I have no authority to expound any Resolution which the House may adopt; but the right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to ask me in what sense we understand the proposed Rule. We understand the Resolution in the strict sense—that is to say, that the step taken shall refer to the actual Question then under debate, which the Speaker shall next put from the Chair, and to no other. For example, if the Question be an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply, the Question will be, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question;" and it is to that Question so put, and to that alone, that the terms of the Resolution will apply.

called the Prime Minister's attention to the latter part of his Question relating to a series of Amendments subsequent to the first.

I think I have answered that, Sir. I have said that the Rule will have no application whatever except to the Question immediately to be put from the Chair.

In the case I have put there would be no such Question.

As I understand it, it would have no reference at all to subsequent Amendments.

asked the Prime Minister a Question, of which he had given him private Notice—namely, whether his attention had been called to a letter which had appeared in The Times of Wednesday the 15th of March, signed "A Conservative M.P.," impugning the correctness of the Prime Minister's statement as to the time necessary for carrying the Ways and Means Bill through its various stages; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the statement that it was necessary to take the Report on the 20th of March, in order to avoid a breach of the law?

Sir, this is, I may say, the first time in my experience that the statements of the Government in regard to a matter of this kind have been called in question, especially that they are called in question by a Gentleman who has held Office in former Governments, and who has held Office in the Treasury; As this has been done, however, probably it will be the wish of the House that I should fully answer the Question of my hon. Friend behind me. I think this Question terminated with the words, "in order to avoid a breach of the law." But I shall answer the Question as if it had run "in order to make a certain compliance with the law." As there are some steps and stages of this matter which do not depend on the discretion of the Government, or even on the discretion of the House, and we have no command over them, it is quite evident with regard to these that all we can do is to form our computations on reasonable principles. That is what we have done, as I think, and I adhere most strictly to the declaration I made in this House on Monday last. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend, my attention has been called to the letter to which he has referred; but I do not think it necessary to enter into the letter, which I have not studied with great care, because the letter, as I understand, rests entirely upon the postscript, which contains the heart of the matter; and it is very evident that the "Conservative M.P.," whoever he might be, is a gentleman who has never served in the Treasury, or he could never have written the postscript to that letter. The errors I should call three. Two of them are matters of fact; the third is matter of opinion, and the House will be able to form its own judgment. The writer of the letter says that if the Royal Assent is to be given on Wednesday, March 29, there will be two days to spare. Well, when we say there are two days to spare, the meaning of that is that there are two days not wanted for the transaction of Business. That is totally and absolutely incorrect. On the contrary, the two days will be closely filled with the complex and various proceedings that are necessary, after the Royal Assent has been given to the Ways and Means Bill, before an expenditure of public money can be made. If inquiry were made into the matter I have not the least doubt that the practical officers who conduct these operations—for they are not political operations—would satisfy every reasonable demand upon the subject. It is also to be observed, in order to make more intelligible the present state of the case, that it is only within the last 12 or 14 years that proceedings, especially where they touch the Exchequer and Audit Board, in compliance with rules now laid down, require somewhat longer time and somewhat greater care and deliberation in carrying them through than used to be the case in the old time when the rule was different. These two days, therefore, are not days to spare; and in illustration of that, I may say that on no occasion since the year 1871, when the new system of audit was hardly in full operation, has the Ways and Means Bill been passed later than the 29th of March. Only twice has it been passed so late as the 29th of March, never later since 1871. But then the writer of this letter says that the Bill having been read a first time in the House of Lords on Friday, March 24, it would pass through all its stages on Monday, March 27, and a messenger might be sent to Mentone on that evening. Now, what is necessary is this. Of course, I assume that the House of Lords proceeds in its ordinary form. The Bill, it is said, would be read on Friday the first time in the House of Lords, after being read a third time in the House of Commons. On Monday it would go through all its stages in the House of Lords. But the House of Lords begins Business at a quarter past 5 o'clock. You will say that the Business might be concluded, perhaps, as soon as 6 o'clock. That having been done, intelligence that the Bill has passed through all its stages must be sent by telegraph to Mentone. The time occupied by the message in travelling is uncertain; but, unquestionably, it would amount to several hours. According to the "Conservative M.P.," this procedure having terminated, we will say, at 6 o'clock, and the telegram requiring four or five hours for transit—and certainly less could not be prudently allowed. ["Yes!"] Well, I will not quarrel with you on that point, and will take it at three hours, or a further rationally shorter period, and supposing it does, you will see the effect immediately. Supposing, then, the message arrives at Mentone at 10 or 11 o'clock. It is stated in the postscript to the letter that the messenger would leave Mentone that night; but the objection to that is that the only express train he could leave Mentone by departs in the afternoon at 4 o'clock. It would not be easy for the messenger to leave by that train, when the proceedings here do not conclude till 6 o'clock, and the telegram does not reach Mentone till three or four hours afterwards. Then, thirdly, the assumption of this postscript is that one of the stages of the Bill is to be taken on Wednesday, the 22nd. Now, I say we should have been grossly culpable if we had assumed that a stage of the Bill would be gone through on Wednesday. When this matter was first brought under my notice I immediately struck out Wednesday, and I am responsible for that striking out. We have had a little illustration to enable us to judge whether that was a prudent course or not, for at 10 minutes to 6 yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War proposed to take a stage with the Report of the Votes obtained the night before. An objection was taken and the proposition fell to the ground. We are absolutely at the mercy of any single Member of Parliament as to a stage being taken. I have shown, therefore, I think, how far from trustworthy the writer of this letter is in his computations. But that I may expose myself to criticism, I will give what I call a safe assumption as to progress upon this matter. But though it is a safe assumption as to progress, it would leave the financial part of the work which succeeds the passage of the Ways and Means Act in a condition of such compression that it might readily become confusion. Suppose that on Monday, the 20th, we obtain Report of Supply, and that under the present altered Resolutions of the House the Bill is read then a first time. On Tuesday, the 21st, the Bill would be read a second time. On Thursday, the 23rd, the Bill would go through Committee. On Friday, the 24th, it would go through the third reading, and have its first reading in the House of Lords. On Monday, the 27th, it would go through its remaining stages in the Lords. This would be telegraphed to Mentone, and a messenger would leave Mentone by the next express train at 4 P.M. on Tuesday. He would arrive on Wednesday evening, the 29th, and the Royal Assent would be given on the 30th. Now, that is the only computation perfectly sound as regards Parliamentary procedure. But I hope we shall do much better than that; because, as I said, the Royal Assent on the 30th imposes such difficulties upon the Departments that it is impossible for any reasonable person willingly to subject himself to those difficulties. On the other hand, as I hope might be the case, if no impediment were offered on Wednesday, then the advantage gained would be very great indeed to the Department of the Treasury, and the Audit and the Treasury would at once be relieved; because if the Bill passed through its stages on Friday a telegram would be sent to Mentone, and the messenger would come from Mentone in such time that the Royal Assent would be given on Tuesday, the 23 th, or possibly even on Monday; and if it were, it would not be a bit too soon to insure perfect deliberation and regularity in all the proceedings. You say the House of Lords is bound, of course, to accelerate its proceedings. We have no right to expect the House of Lords to alter its procedure in order to enable Members of the House of Commons to debate at a certain length a Motion that they may bring forward. I adhere, therefore, in the strictest manner to the statement I have made. I think I have shown that the errors in this postscript are such as to render entirely unsafe this letter as a basis of calculation.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question having relation to the answer he has just given. I have not given him private Notice; but I believe he will be able to answer it. I wish to ask if he can state whether, in his experience, it has ever occurred before that a charge of misrepresentation on the part of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, purporting to come from an hon. Member of the House, has been made anonymously?

Sir, I am not a great student of anonymous letters in newspapers. I am not aware that I have ever written an anonymous letter in the course of my life, and I must confess that I have no wish to encourage the practice by noticing them. I may frankly own that I did not dwell on the letter itself as much as I ought to have done. It seemed to me that, like a lady's letter, the virtue of it lay in the postscript. I hope it does not charge me with misrepresentation; but if it does I am sorry for the writer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the importance of maintaining the waterways of the Country in an efficient condition, he will consider how far it may be convenient and desirable to refer other Bills that contain powers for the sale of Canals to Railway Companies to the Committee to which the Bill affecting the Regent's Canal has been referred?

in reply, said, that there were only two Railway Bills before Parliament this Session which proposed to acquire Canals. One was the Regent's Canal Bill, which had already passed the second reading in this House, and been referred to a Hybrid Committee; and the other was the Thames and Severn Canal Bill, which had passed the second reading in the House of Lords. If the latter came down from the Lords, he would consider whether it might not be well to move a Resolution, referring it to the same Committee. The Board of Trade intended to make a special Report as regarded both of those Bills, and those Reports would be in the hands of hon. Members when the Bills were referred to the Committee.

wished to ask a Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The hon. Member had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to-night to the block in Irish Land Courts. The subject was discussed yesterday at some length; and now, if the hon. Member proceeded with his Motion, it would be again discussed. Many Members on both sides of the House were anxious to discuss the Navy Estimates; and he wished to ask the hon. Member whether, in order that that might be done, he would not proceed with his Motion in regard to the Land Courts?

said, he was absent from the House yesterday; but he had noticed that a discussion had taken place on the subject to which he wished to call attention. He was not at all anxious to proceed with a further discussion now, because he thought that the subject had been already pretty well threshed out, and because the block in the Courts appeared to be universally admitted. He was, however, anxious that the definite sense of the House should be expressed on the subject, and was, therefore, desirous of moving the Resolution. As, however, there would be very little probability of a division being taken that evening were he to do so, he was willing to yield; and the Resolution would, therefore, not be brought forward. He did not wish to interfere with the discussion of the Navy Estimates, especially as so much time had already been consumed by the unusual length of the Ministerial replies to Questions.

asked when the Easter Recess would commence, and what would be its probable duration?

said, that next week—probably on Monday—he hoped to be able to make a communication to the House on that subject.

appealed to his noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) to postpone the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper. That Motion dealt with the subject of the strength and condition of Her Majesty's Navy; and it would be quite impossible to do justice to it that evening if the Estimates were to be brought forward subsequently, unless the latter were not to be adequately discussed.

said, it was with very great regret he felt bound to relinquish that opportunity of bringing before the House a question of great interest to the country. He recognized, however, that, after all, his statement could only be a statement of a private Member, and could not forget that the country was looking forward to the Financial Statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty in hopes of learning what steps the Government intended to take in the present critical period of their Naval history. Taking these matters into consideration, and remembering that when he should bring his Motion forward he should have to occupy more time than he usually did in that House, and that the discussion would probably last many hours, he could not refuse to agree to the request of his right hon. Friend; and he would, therefore, postpone his Motion. He accompanied that renunciation with a special appeal to the Prime Minister for an assurance that an early day would be devoted to the discussion of the subject to which he had intended to call attention.

said, that, in the present condition of Public Business, it would be impossible for him to name a Government day for the discussion of the noble Lord's Resolution. He admitted that the subject was one which ought to be debated, and hoped that an early day for the discussion would be obtained by the usual methods at the command of private Members. If, however, a considerable portion of the Session should elapse and no day be obtained in the manner which he had indicated, it might be reasonable for the Government to make some proposal.

asked the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) whether he intended to proceed with his Motion on the subject of the Treaty signed by Lord Lyons and M. de Freycinet continuing the existing state of things with regard to fisheries, trade-marks, and navigation? The Treaty was not yet in the possession of the Members of the House, because there were a few words which did not correspond in the English and French versions, but which were at present being put right by the two Governments concerned. Until they were so put right, the Treaty could not be placed before the House; and as it had not even appeared in the newspapers hon. Members must as yet be ignorant of its terms.

said, it was his intention to proceed with his Motion that night.

wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was in Order for an hon. Member to call attention to a Treaty, which he declared had been signed, but which had not yet been laid on the Table, and of which, therefore, the House had no official cognizance?

The course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member is, no doubt, very unusual; and a Motion made under those circumstances would be very disadvantageous to his own interest. But if the hon. Member thinks it right to go on he is in Order.

said, he hoped to be able to take the Report of Supply on the Army and Navy Estimates to-morrow evening. With regard to Report on the Supplementary Estimates, he should state to-morrow whether it would be taken as the first item of Business on Monday.

asked the Prime Minister whether, if it was intended to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill to-morrow, he would give an assurance it would not be gone on with after 9 o'clock?

said, the answer given by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) was that the Bill would not be gone on with after half-past 10; but with respect to to-morrow evening, he did not think there was any reasonable expectation of bringing it on at all.

asked the hon. and learned Member for Bridport whether it was his intention to proceed that evening with his Motion on the subject of the sale of Patent Medicines?

replied, that the course which he should follow must depend upon the advice which he might receive from the Leader of his Party.

I would appeal to my hon. and learned Friend not to proceed with his Motion.

May I ask the hon. and learned Member for Bridport who is the Leader of his Party?

I beg to give Notice that on an early day after Easter I shall call attention to certain dormant provisions of the Land Act (Ireland), 1881, and move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, further legislation is imperatively required to provide increased facilities to enable tenants to acquire the freehold of the land in their occupation on just and reasonable terms."

On Monday I will ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether, in view of the admission by the Government of the necessity of inquiring into the Land Act, he will take steps to rescind the recent Resolution condemning an inquiry into the Act by the other House of Parliament?

said, he had seen a statement that negotia- tions were either resumed, or about to be resumed, between England and France with reference to the Commercial Treaty. He should like to get some information from the Government on the subject as to the correctness or otherwise of the statement.

replied, that no instructions had been given to Lord Lyons, and that there had been no re-opening or resumption of negotiations. But a desire had been shown on the part of certain Representative Bodies in France that negotiations [should be resumed, and it was possible that some conversation might have been held on the subject; but no instructions had been given.

rose to call attention to the appointment of Major Bond as a stipendiary magistrate in Ireland, and the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in relation thereto; and. to move—

"That this House regrets that the Chief Secretary did not exercise more care and better discretion in appointing this gentleman to such a responsible office."

The hon. Gentleman said, that the first intimation the Irish Members had as to the antecedents of Major Bond was the Question put to the Chief Secretary in that House on the 10th of February by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). The facts, as disclosed in that Question, and not denied in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, were startling in themselves; but the reply of the Chief Secretary was of a much more startling and surprising character than any of the statements in the Question. The question was one vitally affecting the character of a gentleman appointed to a most responsible office in Ireland. It was a question whether he had been guilty of swearing recklessly in open Court; and whether he had been dismissed from office by an English Corporation. What was the answer given by the Chief Secretary? The House would bear in mind that, at the present time, in Ireland, the ordinary safeguards of personal liberty were suspended, and that everything, so far as regarded the maintenance of order, depended upon the accuracy of the evidence and of the care and discretion of the stipendiary magistrates. Here they had a gentleman appointed to a responsible office who had been dismissed, not more than a month previously, from the office of Chief Superintendent of Police in Birmingham. In reply to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Ipswich, the Chief Secretary said it was not his duty to enter into the question. He asked the House what was more incumbent upon the Chief Secretary than to inquire into the antecedents of Major Bond? The right hon. Gentleman stated that he hoped his hon. Friend would believe that the Government had good reasons for the appointment of Major Bond, and that it was not his duty to go into the charge to which his hon. Friend had referred. He would now content himself with reading a true statement of the facts of the case as copied from the English Press. He would read a report of the proceedings at the Warwickshire Quarter Sessions. It was a report, the accuracy of which had not been impugned, and it appeared in The Birmingham Daily Post—a journal that supported the right hon. Gentleman, and was also in favour of the Caucus. Among the applicants for the renewal of licences was one Stevens, and it appeared that on his case being called on, the Justices, without hearing evidence, said they should refuse to renew his licence, although it was a rule that an applicant was always entitled to a renewal, unless he had done something disentitling him to a licence at all; and, in fact, Stevens' counsel informed the Justices that their refusal to renew was entirely at variance with the Act of Parliament. At the meeting of the Justices Major Bond was examined, and said he had received a report from some of his subordinates in reference to the case. Prior to the annual meeting of the Justices on August 25, he had made no communication to the Justices with reference to the case; but at the last meeting he made a verbal report to them in their private room; but Mr. Dugdale, one of the Justices, asked Major Bond whether the report was in the nature of an objection, to which a reply was given in the affirmative, and continuing said that after considering the report the Justices went into Court, and said the application would be postponed until next meeting. At the adjourned meeting Major Bond stated that he "believed" he saw the record of Stevens' conviction before the Justices. After hearing several cases he continued that the Justices renewed several licences, but refused that of Stevens. Ultimately, the magistrates before whom the appeal was heard stated their belief that Major Bond's case had broken down. The question to be decided was, in their opinion, one of fact, and they were clear in their view that it would not be right to grant a case for an appeal. The result of the appeal was reported to the next meeting of the magistrates, an immediate opportunity being thus afforded Major Bond of denying the accuracy of the report of the case, or of explaining his evidence; and his explanation was considered by the magistrates at four meetings, and their opinion thereon was communicated to the Watch Committee, at a meeting of the Watch Committee on November the 29th. The Chief Secretary must have read it, unless he was either badly served or neglectful of his duty. If he did not ask for the magistrates' Report, he showed great negligence; if, on the other hand, he did ask for it and read it, it was an extraordinary statement for him to make that it was not his duty to go into the question. A communication was received from the borough magistrates which recited the facts of the case, and then stated further—

"At the meeting of the Justices on the 25th of October, 1881, as the evidence of Major Bond was contrary to the facts of the case, he was called in, and an opportunity given him of explaining it, when he replied that he was not even present in Court at the adjourned Licensing Sessions on the l5th of September; and on being asked why he had not, therefore, refused to answer the questions as to what had taken place at that meeting, he answered that he understood he was only answering supposititious questions. The result of these remarkable proceedings appear to be (1) that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place in consequence of the magistrate at Warwick being seriously misled by erroneous evidence as to facts; (2) that the principal witness in giving this erroneous evidence was Major Bond, the Chief Superintendent of Police, who stated that judgment was given in the matter by the Birmingham Justices without a public hearing of the case, and when called before the Justices for the purpose of explanation, stated that he was not even present in Court at the hearing of the case upon which he was then giving evidence; (3) that the interests of the public are compromised by the decision of the Justices of Birmingham being overruled, and a licence granted by the Warwickshire Justices, in consequence of such evidence, to a person who, in the opinion of the Birmingham Justices, is most unfit and improper to hold such licence. (Signed),

• "THOMAS ARCY, Mayor.
• J. C. SNEYD KYNNERSLEY, Stipendiary.
• J. JAFFEREY.
• J. D. GOODMAN.
• THOMAS MARTINEAU.

"At a subsequent meeting of the Committee they passed a Resolution in which they concurred in the Resolution of the Justices in ceasing to regard Major Bond with confidence."

The matter, however, was further adjourned, and Major Bond was again heard in his own defence; and, after denying statements which he had previously made, he again returned to them. The only member of the Committee who dissented from the Resolution was Alderman Manton; but he afterwards disclaimed all attempt to justify Major Bond. Finally, at a meeting of the Watch Committee, the following Resolution was adopted:—

"That the Council be informed that the magistrates, having passed a Resolution to the effect that they could not continue to regard Major Bond with confidence, and this Committee, after full and fair inquiry, have passed this Eesolution—' That having regard to the difficulties that have arisen on previous occasions between this Committee and Major Bond, and the want of confidence now expressed in him by the magistrates of the borough, in which this Committee has concurred, it is, in the judgment of this Committee, necessary to the interests of the public service that he be called upon to resign.' "

This was the comment of The Birmingham Daily Post upon the matter—

"Unless Major Bond has some much more satisfactory explanation of his conduct to offer," The Post said, "than those which were forthcoming at this interview with the magistrates, we fear he must not look for a favourable verdict."

A fortnight having elapsed, he (Mr. Callan) found forthwith a report in The Post that, at a meeting of the Watch Committee to consider the matter. Major Bond admitted, according to his own statement, that there could be no graver subject than the object for which the meeting was convened. His conduct, the Major went on to say, must either be more than "eminently unsatisfactory," or else the charges amounted to nothing. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. William Hart), however, put it succinctly enough, and in language which he (Mr. Callan) would adopt. Addressing Major Bond, he said that they further had relied upon his statement as a matter of fact, as the head of the police had led them to believe that he was present—when, as a matter of fact, he was not—at the proceedings, which constituted an important element in the decision of the Justices. The charge against Major Bond was that he had been guilty of making a statement that virtually amounted to false swearing. The question was, did Major Bond, when he applied to the Chief Secretary, state that he had been obliged to retire from the office of Chief Superintendent of Police at Birmingham? No doubt he had given the Chief Secretary glowing accounts as to how he had preserved the peace in Birmingham. On leaving the Police Force of Birmingham Major Bond addressed to the men—he" (Mr. Callan) was going to say a pastoral—but a declaration somewhat Napoleonic in its tone. It ran—

"Major Bond, in resigning the position of Chief Superintendent of the Birmingham Police Force, wishes to express to the officers and men his high appreciation of their conduct, discipline, and energy, as a consequence of which this once turbulent town, over which he had been placed as a guardian of life, property, and public morality, has settled down into a most satisfactory state of quiet and good order."

[A RADICAL MEMBER: Hear, hear!] But, nevertheless, he had been dismissed by the Borough Justices, dismissed by the Watch Committee, and dismissed by the Town Council of Birmingham by a majority of 48 to 10—that was to say, that if he had not resigned when he did he would have been dismissed 48 hours afterwards. What was the next event that happened to Major Bond? They next found him installed by the Chief Secretary as a stipendiary magistrate in Ireland. The Chief Secretary's defence was that it was not his duty to investigate a charge like that—a charge amounting substantially to one of false swearing. He wished, then, to know whether Major Bond had concealed from him the fact that he had been obliged to retire from his post in Birmingham? Had the case been one of emergency there might have been some excuse for the appointment; but it was well known that there were numbers of deserving retired officers in Her Majesty's Service who had applied for, and would gladly have accepted, the post. He would like to know what was the private influence that was brought to bear upon the Chief Secretary; for surely no public influence could be brought to bear with such a declaration, not a snatched vote of the Dublin Corporation, but the reiterated vote of the guardians of the peace and order in Birmingham, expressing their disapproval of Major Bond's conduct, and their want of confidence in him. Anything in the way of comment that he could offer on the facts he had stated would be so superfluous that it would be absolutely thrown away. He (Mr. Callan) appealed to English Members opposite, however anxious they might be to follow the lead of the Government, to say if Major Bond was the sort of person to be sent to Ireland in the responsible position of a resident magistrate? He would endorse as his own the words of The Birmingham Daily Post, which were that—

"The real point was this. Major Bond had given evidence of a matter as having occurred in his presence, when he afterwards admitted that he was not present, and which he did not witness himself."

But having been removed from his office by the Corporation of Birmingham, the Chief Secretary had absolutely promoted him, either recklessly or without due inquiry, in defiance and in spite of the vote and decision of the Town Council of Birmingham. He charged the Chief Secretary with recklessness. When even a servant was engaged the first thing an employer inquired into was his character. But in this case, where it was of the highest importance that the selected candidate should be trustworthy and faithful, the Chief Secretary selected a man who had been dismissed for false swearing. If the liberty of the people of Birmingham was likely to be endangered by the retention of Major Bond as Chief Superintendent of Police, surely the liberty of the people of Ireland at the present juncture was more likely to be endangered by his presence there in the capacity of a resident magistrate. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was a Vote of Censure upon himself for not having exercised more care and discretion. In appointing Major Bond to such a responsible office there were really two questions to be considered—one, whether he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was justified in making the appointment; and the other, whether, having made that appointment, he ought to have cancelled it. The hon. Member for Louth seemed to suppose that he knew all the circumstances of the case before he made the appointment.

No, I beg pardon; I said distinctly that either you were wrong in making it without due inquiry, or else you made the appointment with a reckless disregard of the circumstances.

Well, those were the words with which the hon. Member had concluded; and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have to reply to the two charges, the real point being—was he justified in making the appointment? He trusted that he might be allowed to give some of the grounds on which he made the appointment. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that the post of temporary resident magistrate was a promotion for a man who had held the office of Chief Constable at Birmingham; but his own opinion was that the position was certainly an inferior one—at any rate, so far as the emoluments were concerned. Owing to the state of Ireland it was necessary to appoint several temporary resident magistrates, and Major Bond was one of those last appointed for a period of three months, their continuance in office after that time depending upon the state of the country and the manner in which they discharged their duties. Major Bond made his application for an appointment in the usual way, and private influence was not brought to bear in the matter. He heard that Major Bond had been an efficient officer at Cardiff and at Birmingham. He had never seen stronger testimonials than those of Major Bond. Mr. Kynnersley, the stipendiary magistrate at Birmingham, wrote that he should at all times have pleasure in bearing testimony to the admirable manner in which Major Bond had managed the police force, and spoke of his judicious dealing with crowds in the streets, and of his good humour, courage, and firmness. There was also a testimonial from the Recorder of Birmingham, who stated that Major Bond had raised the police force of the town to a very high state of efficiency, and wished him every success in the application he was making. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had also given him a testimonial, in which he stated that Major Bond had discharged his duties in a most efficient manner, especially with regard to the great public meetings which had been held in Birmingham. The brother of the right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) likewise testified to Major Bond's efficiency, and it was on the strength of the various testimonials he received that the appointment was made. The hon. Gentleman, in making his statement that night, said that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had declared that it was not his business to investigate the charge against Major Bond; but what he had said—or, at any rate, what he had meant to say—was that he did not consider it his business to try the matter in the same manner as it was the business of the magistrates of Birmingham to try it. He had thought it, however, his duty to look into the charge, and he lost no time in doing so. At the time he was speaking of Major Bond had been appointed; but he sent for him, and said it had become necessary for him to inquire into the charges that had been made against him, and to consider whether he would have to cancel the appointment. Cancelling the engagement after Major Bond had been appointed was a very serious thing, and it would have been a gross act of injustice if he had not, at any rate, waited three months. When he came to examine into the matter, however, he confessed it did not appear that he should be justified in doing so. Major Bond had made a mistake; but that was all. He stated—

"I also was examined as a witness, but only to prove a formal notice of objection, and up to the moment of entering the witness box, I had no idea I was called upon to make any other statement. I was about to leave the box when the Bench addressed me, asking about the procedure of the magistrates already spoken of."

If it had been clear that it had been perjury he would not have hesitated a moment about dismissing Major Bond; but he did feel a great doubt whether he ought to dismiss him without being sure it was not merely an accidental circumstance. Upon that matter he went on with the examination; and, in the first place, it appeared to him quite clear that what Major Bond had done had had nothing to do with the decision of the magistrates in the case. This was fully shown in a letter written by the Recorder to the Mayor of Birmingham in reference to the subject. He personally was inclined to believe that this was a pure mistake on Major Bond's part; and he believed this was the general opinion at Birmingham, so far as he could make it out. The stipendiary magistrate had written a letter, in which he expressed his belief that Major Bond was taken quite by surprise, and had confounded two altogether different transactions, and added—

"I can only state that there was hardly a magistrate on the Bench who did not rejoice at his appointment and believe he was well fitted for the post."

What was the opinion of the Town Council after having had the whole matter before them? It was this—An instruction was given to the Town Clerk to inform Major Bond, in answer to his letter, that the magistrates had no intention of imputing to him, nor did they impute in their Report to the Watch Committee, the wilful misstatement of facts. The Town Council, on the motion of the Mayor, also passed a Resolutions to the effect that the resignation of Major Bond be accepted, and that it regretted the circumstances that led to it. They also allowed him six months' salary. The Mayor, in proposing this Resolution, said he entirely acquitted Major Bond of all intentional misrepresentation, and believed that he might say the same of every member of the Council, and every member of the Watch Committee, and he completely exonerated Major Bond from any intentional wrong-doing. In the face of such a statement, in the face of the testimony of the Recorder, and of the Resolution of the magistrates, would he have been justified in inflicting upon Major Bond a stigma which never could have been removed, and which would have appeared as if the Government entirely believed in the charge? He would at once acknowledge that had he known that there was this dispute about Major Bond he would not have appointed him. ["Hear, hear!" from Irish Members.] In saying that he was not giving an opinion against Major Bond; but he had difficulties enough in Ireland, without raising a Major Bond difficulty, and he should have looked about for somebody against whom nothing could be said. He, however, entirely acquitted Major Bond of any misrepresentation to himself. If he himself had been to blame at all—although he thought that anybody else would have done the same as he did with the strong testimonials that he had before him—it was in not doing in this case what he had done in almost every case—namely, to write and make personal inquiry. He thought, however, he was justified in taking the course he did under the circumstances, for the Government were under considerable pressure to find good men, and he had reason to suppose that Major Bond was well fitted for the post. He was appointed only for three months, and his continuance in his appointment must depend on two things—whether they wanted those temporary magistrates any further, and whether he. was a person who ought to be so continued. Although he had subjected himself to much trouble in that matter, which he might, perhaps, have avoided by taking a different course, he yet felt that he should have acted in a cruel and harsh manner towards Major Bond if he had cancelled the appointment. Nothing had been brought before him which led him to suppose that Major Bond would make a bad magistrate in Ireland, although that gentleman had made a mistake which certainly ought not to have been made, but which was not likely to occur again, and one which he honestly thought almost any Member of the House might have fallen into.

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had been very successful in the defence he had made in that case. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted he had been careless in making the appointment. If the position of temporary resident magistrate in Ireland was inferior to the position of Chief Superintendent of Police in Birmingham, ought it not to have struck the Chief Secretary that there was something peculiar in a man resigning his position for one of lower emolument and less honour? Ought it not, at least, to have produced in the mind of the Chief Secretary sufficient suspicion to cause him to institute some inquiries in Birmingham, or to learn from Major Bond himself the circumstances of his resignation? Major Bond did not give him the slightest information on the subject, merely stating he had resigned. Major Bond, at least, seemed to have been very unlucky and somewhat careless in his way of stating important matters, both to the Chief Secretary and the magistrates for Birmingham—unlucky as regarded what he did state and what he did not state. He could well understand the magistrates acquitting Major Bond of wilful misrepresentation, and no Member of that House wished to charge him with it. But he was guilty on both occasions of carelessness and indifference about the truth, or lack of presence of mind regarding the truth, or he was, at least, very loose in his way of putting very important facts. The House had to consider whether such a man was suitable for holding an important position in Ireland, where the liberties of the people depended on truthfulness and scrupulous care in representing words and acts. Might there not be the same lapse of memory about the truth, the same indifference or carelessness on the part of Major Bond in his dealings with Ireland? Nothing could be more fatal to a man in his present position than that he should be liable to make such mistakes. If the Chief Secretary had seriously considered the interests and the feelings of the Irish people he might, on learning the facts of the case, have risen to the height of the occasion and have cut short Major Bond's career. Since the days of Cornwallis the standing complaint in Ireland had been that discarded men who could not, or would not, be trusted in England were sent to fill important positions in Ireland. He begged to support the Resolution.

, as a magistrate of Birmingham, testified to the accuracy of the account given by the Chief Secretary of the proceedings relating to Major Bond. He knew nothing of Major Bond's judicial capabilities; but, having been chief magistrate of Birmingham, and being long connected with that borough, he could state that that gentleman had succeeded in organizing there one of the most efficient police forces in the Kingdom; that he had improved the condition of the town, and put down rowdyism for which it had been notorious a few years ago; and under his regime the town enjoyed greater peace and tranquillity than under any of his predecessors. Major Bond undoubtedly made a great mistake in the evidence he gave at Warwick; but, at the same time, Major Bond had the sympathy of the great proportion of the people of Birmingham, and there was rejoicing when it was found that he had got another appointment, and great regret expressed when the question was raised in Parliament by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). The Chief Secretary for Ireland could not have acted otherwise than he had done in the circumstances. It would have been a harsh and cruel course for him to have dismissed Major Bond.

said, he thought the Chief Secretary had virtually conceded the whole case. He said if he had known that this question would have been raised about Major Bond he would never have appointed him; but now, notwithstanding that this question had been raised, the Chief Secretary said he had testimonials in his possession which would justify him in retaining him in his appointment. The Chief Secretary had stated that no miscarriage of justice had resulted from the evidence of Major Bond; but the very first sentence of the magistrates' Report stated that a great miscarriage of justice had taken place in consequence of his evidence. The result of a most exhaustive examination by three different bodies was that he was called upon to resign. They were told that Major Bond brought the police of Birmingham to a high state of efficiency. Well, then, why did not the magistrates of Birmingham retain him? But now, when the liberty of the subject no longer existed in Ireland, a man who had lost the confidence of all his employers in Birmingham was appointed a magistrate in Ireland. He would ask hon. Members whether that was an appointment which ought to be maintained? He could understand the Chief Secretary saying that, having appointed Major Bond for three months, he did not wish to get rid of him before the time was out. But now that the three months were about to expire, Irish Members had a right to ask the Chief Secretary not to continue Major Bond in an office to which the right hon. Gentleman said he never would have appointed him had he known of the charges which were brought against him.

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Longford disclaimed imputing any intention to deceive on the part of Major Bond. The Motion before the House was a censure upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland for appointing as magistrate in Ireland a man who, by his efficiency and energy, had won the confidence of the community of Birmingham.' The facts of the case were these—At a licensing sessions a man applied for a renewal of his licence. On the original occasion the magistrates refused the application without hearing any sworn evidence—an irregularity which caused the subsequent proceedings to be set aside. Major Bond was examined, and, having proved certain formal matters which he was called upon to prove, he was asked some question, and in reply spoke of matters of common knowledge and not in dispute at all. He did not intend what he said to be taken as if he spoke on oath; and the statement which he did make was really in the nature of an admission. It was an act of indiscretion on the part of Major Bond; but anyone acquainted with Courts of Law must know that such things were done frequently, when a witness in reply to questions forgot that he was speaking not from his own knowledge but from hearsay. The magistrates, whose decision had been reversed, were indignant at the slur cast upon their proceedings, and there was a disposition on their part to censure Major Bond. When the Resolution calling for Major Bond's resignation was carried into effect the Mayor, on the part of the Bench of Magistrates, said that one and all heartily wished him a great measure of success in his future career; he was presented with, a half-year's salary; a sum of £450, being contributions towards a superannuation fund, which they could have retained, was returned to him by the Corporation; and a testimonial was got up in a few hours signed by 4,000 inhabitants of Birmingham, wishing that he should be retained in his position. The question, so far as concerned his right hon. Friend, was whether he was in any degree censurable for having engaged Major Bond. It was conceded that he was not. ["No, no!"] He certainly understood that the hon. Member who last spoke—an particular the hon. Member for Wexford—said Major Bond's testimonials were admirable.

said, that what he stated was that assuming that the right hon. Gentleman was not to be blamed in making the appointment, yet when it was said that had the Chief Secretary for Ireland known that charges could be brought against Major Bond he never would have made the appointment, the question then was whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland should continue the appointment after having had an opportunity for inquiry?

said, the testimonials which came before the Chief Secretary for Ireland being exceptionally high, he did not think any fair man would blame the Chief Secretary for Ireland making the appointment originally. He did not understand his right hon. Friend to say that if he had known everything he would have considered Major Bond an unfit person; but only that, rather than raise any question, he would not have made the appointment. Then, was the House to pass a censure on Major Bond because he had made a very natural mistake? Such a proceeding would be foreign to the practice of the House of Commons. Major Bond had been guilty of no misconduct in any other position of life. What he had said upon the occasion referred to constituted a serious mistake. Who had not made great and serious mistakes in the course of his life? Major Bond had been appointed to the position in Ireland, which he was eminently qualified to fulfil, by previous training and previous conduct; and, therefore, he considered the foundation for this Motion had entirely failed.

said, that, as a Warwickshire magistrate, he was well acquainted with Mr. Kynnersley—the stipendiary magistrate of Birmingham—and Mr. Dugdale—the Recorder—and he believed that a fair representation of their views had been made. They had no wish to justify any inaccuracy into which Major Bond had been betrayed; but they set against the inaccuracy—which he (Mr. Newdegate) thought was very severely dealt with—the conduct of Major Bond in a most responsible position for many years. He thought he gathered from what had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, and from his own knowledge of these two eminent magistrates for the county, that they thought the right hon. Gentleman had done well—whether he had done so by accident or intentionally—to overlook a trifling mistake on the part of a most efficient officer, against whose character, before this unhappy occurrence, he (Mr. Newdegate) had never heard a whisper. He knew something of Birmingham, and something of the police. He believed it was perfectly true that Major Bond had brought the Birmingham Police Force into a state of efficiency which it never before attained. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was somewhat careless and did not consult the two right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham, he might be excused. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would have found, if he consulted his right hon. Friends, that their opinions were quite in accordance with those of the Mayor. He should not think it was likely they would have differed from the Mayor; and he protested against that which he considered to be a harsh proceeding on the part of the Corporation of Birmingham towards this efficient officer being used in the House of Commons for his further condemnation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted with a sense—which did him honour—of what was due to his own decision and courage in refusing to remove Major Bond from his present position. He felt that they might well entertain much jealousy of the working of the Coercion Act, at present so unpopular in Ireland. He had never voted so unwillingly for any measure in his life. He would much, rather have seen Ireland placed under military law, because that would have formed no precedent for future legislation, as he feared this Coercion Act would. He was compelled to deprecate much of what had happened in Ireland; but, while lamenting the state of Ireland, and confessing that he would have voted for even more stringent measures, he could assure the House that, in his opinion, as an old Warwickshire magistrate, Her Majesty's Government had in Major Bond a person who would act with good temper and with courage in the position to which he had been appointed.

said, it had been forgotten that the gentleman who gave Major Bond a testimonial was the very man who had signed the declaration that a gross miscarriage of justice had occurred in consequence of Major Bond's conduct. In reference to the friendly expression of the magistrates and people of Birmingham, he had never known any man who had passed a long time in a public office that something good had not been said, especially so as in the case of Major Bond, who appeared for the 30 years to have acted efficiently with regard to a turbulent population. He was not surprised, and was very glad that a solatium had been given; but that was not the point. The point was, that they had got a Coercion Act in Ireland, and that any magistrate in the position of Major Bond could send any man he liked to prison as a "suspect" whatever his position.

I cannot permit that statement to go forth un-contradicted even for a single moment. No magistrate has the power to send any person to prison under the Protection Act. He has to report to me, and I have differed in opinion from the magistrate in many cases.

, continuing, contended that the Chief Secretary for Ireland must rely for his information on the stipendiary magistrates, such as Major Bond. They claimed that such an appointment would not be so grave were the condition of Ireland normal. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland stated that Major Bond had committed an indiscretion; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated there was no intentional misrepresentation, that there was no paltering, and that he made a mistake. Were not these extraordinary euphemisms for what was some- thing else—blank perjury? ["Oh, oh!"] He maintained the expression. It was to be borne in mind that Major Bond was on his oath. It was to be borne in mind that he was a practised witness—not a witness brought up for the first time, and in a state of hesitancy and in confusion as to what was going on in the Court. He was an old expert, he was a trained and hardened witness, and he was a man who was accustomed to taking the oath. He was there in the witness-box, an accustomed, trained witness; and were they to be told that this statement, made upon his oath, was not that which was untrue, but simply an indiscretion? He had never known anything so absolutely ludicrous as the Chief Secretary for Ireland's description of perjury. He said that if Major Bond had not remained so long in the box he would not have committed perjury. That was just like saying that when a warrant was presented to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for his signature it would not have been a warrant if he had not put his name to it. Many other hypotheses might be suggested as well as that. If Major Bond had never been born he would not have committed perjury. Major Bond got a number of excellent testimonials 10 days after the occurrence of this scandal; and in presenting them to the Chief Secretary, with the statement that he resigned his position, did it not appear to the right hon. Gentleman that he was, at least, guilty of disingenuousness? Did it not occur to him as a remarkable thing that Major Bond resigned a position of £900 a-year in Birmingham, and solicited one of £500 a-year in a remote district of Ireland? Were all the right hon. Gentleman's appointments made in this way? How was it that upon charges of a much lighter description than that of perjury men without a stain upon their characters had been obliged to resign by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? But Major Bond filled the office of reasonable suspector, and he supposed the Chief Secretary for Ireland thought any character good enough for a position of that kind in Ireland. Major Bond's evidence led to a grave miscarriage in connection with a licensing case in Birmingham. One of the chief matters he would have to deal with in Ireland was the giving of licences. That was a matter into which political feeling largely entered, and already a number of men had been deprived of their licences because they were arrested upon the warrant of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as "suspects." Major Bond would have to decide in cases of that kind; and what were they to think of his action when, in a case into which no political feeling entered, and in which there was no object involved, he gave evidence which led to a gross miscarriage of justice? The Chief Secretary for Ireland, with unusual frankness, confessed that had he known the facts he would not have appointed Major Bond; but, considering that he had only appointed him for three months, he ought to be in a position now to state whether he would continue him in his office. He knew nothing about Major Bond; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland told them, and the people of Ireland, that they were to be obliged to respect law and order. Before they could get the people of Ireland to do this, however, they must have gentlemen carrying out law and order whom the people were able to respect. Nobody would be able to respect Major Bond, because he had committed an indiscretion, which, according to the Statute Book, merited seven years' penal servitude. If a man committed perjury——

I do not admit that in the slightest degree; and I do not admit that the statement which Major Bond made was untrue. The witness gave second-hand information, which I believe was correct, and which he ought to have given out of the witness-box.

said, that no such statement as that then made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared in the report of the case.

, resuming, said, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had put a very strange gloss on this conduct; but he would accept the theory. Major Bond was now in charge of an important district in Ireland, and when he sent up information about "suspects" he would not be upon his oath. There would also be no counter statement, so that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have to deal with the information simply upon the Major's ipse dixit. What, then, were they to think of a man who, when he was in the witness-box, would make a statement which was admitted, on the authority of Mr. Kynnersley, to have led to a gross miscarriage of justice? What was the view which would be taken of Major Bond's character in Ireland? The people of Ireland would say—" We have to live under the régime of this man, who will have almost the power of life and death in his hands. If the English are so nice in their sense of justice, is a man to be sent over with these extraordinary powers—with his sword of tyranny hanging over our heads—who has been discharged by the Town Council of Birmingham by 48 votes to 10." He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and ask if the ordinary just feelings of the people of Ireland were not to be weighed in this matter? Major Bond might be an angel in disguise; but, unfortunately, there was a stain upon his character. His point was—ought the Government, who had said they were so careful as to their dealings with Ireland, to allow this man to remain in office? He agreed with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it might have been unkind to have appointed Major Bond and immediately to have sent him adrift; but now the three months were up, his appointment had expired, and the Government ought to say they could not give him further employment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would not do that. This man would be appointed again; and in time to come Major Bond would step higher up the round of the official ladder, and they would have him on the car case of the country for all time to come.

said, he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to pass unnoticed. The charges the hon. Member had brought against Major Bond were preferred absolutely without any evidence. Major Bond had not committed perjury, and, in his opinion, had not been guilty of any act even deserving censure, or which could constitute a stain upon his character. The only mistake he made was in not specifying the source from which he derived the information he communicated; but, in a person of his position, having the superintendence of a large body of police, that could hardly be called an error, for it was quite usual for a Superintendent of Police to state as facts not only those things which were within his personal knowledge, but also those which were communicated to him by his men. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was the first person to charge him with intentional misrepresentation. It was now admitted that every statement made by Major Bond was perfectly true; and those who conducted the investigation into the matter had absolutely acquitted him of any intentional misrepresentation. He did not think that the Birmingham magistrates were justified in the course which they had adopted. He protested strongly against the injury which had been done to Major Bond by the utterance of these unfounded statements; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was perfectly right in not cancelling the appointment.

said, he thought that not only had the people over whom Major Bond was appointed reason to complain, but the resident magistrates of the country had strong ground of complaint in the appointment, as one of their number, of this dismissed police-constable. It seemed to him that the issue before the House was whether or not, seeing that Major Bond had notoriously given evidence which was contrary to the truth, the Chief Secretary for Ireland used proper precaution and care in regard to his appointment, and whether Major Bond was a person of a character which justified his holding the position, which ought to be one of very great honour, and which gave very great power to the person filling it? He did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland was justified in appointing a gentleman who had given evidence which led to a miscarriage of justice. They all knew that testimonials, while saying everything in a person's favour, said nothing against him; and when the Chief Secretary for Ireland had before him the fact that Major Bond resigned a lucrative position in Birmingham for an inferior one in Ireland, he should not have trusted to testimonials merely as to his character. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the very hard case it would be for Major Bond if the appointment were cancelled, saying that it would be a slur upon him for the remainder of his life. He should look at the logic of the other side. There were other parties whose interests should be consulted as well. There were the unfor- tunate people who were placed under his jurisdiction—the jurisdiction of this gentleman who had sworn in rather a careless manner. He did not see with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Ireland should spare the feelings of Major Bond, seeing that the Town Council of Birmingham, who knew him for many years, did not spare him. There was, he thought, very great negligence shown in this appointment; and the right hon. Gentleman had shown a want of consideration for the feelings of the Irish people in not making the three months the full limit of Major Bond's stay in Ireland as an official of the Government. If he was such a very valuable officer as his friends represented, why did not they keep him in Birmingham, instead of relegating him to a remote district in Ireland at a much lower salary?

said, that, as an old Warwickshire magistrate, he took very great interest in this case. Having listened to the reasons which had been urged against the appointment of Major Bond, he entirely acquitted the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of anything approaching misconduct in this matter. He was pleased to be able to make this statement, because there were many things with which he disagreed in respect to the Irish policy of the Government. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had received testimonials of the very highest character of Major Bond from gentlemen with whom he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was well acquainted. One of these was Mr. Kynnersley, Deputy Chairman of the Sessions; and the other (Mr. Dugdale) held the high and honourable position of Recorder of Birmingham. His right hon. Friend said that if he had known the whole of the circumstances, perhaps he would not have appointed Major Bond; but the question now was, having appointed him, should Major Bond, with those high testimonials in his favour, be dismissed? The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had introduced the word "perjury" many times in the course of this discussion; but he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had yet to learn that anything in Major Bond's conduct in any way amounted to perjury. Was it likely that two gentlemen like the Recorder of Birmingham and the Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions would write those testimonials if Major Bond had been guilty of perjury—a crime for which he was liable to seven years' penal servitude? What were the facts of the case? Major Bond, after giving in evidence facts which he knew, went on to give hearsay evidence of what had transpired in his absence. No doubt, that was a very wrong act to do; but still they knew that those who had the largest experience of Criminal Law were often themselves betrayed into stating as facts things which they had learnt on hearsay. The question was whether those facts, having come to the knowledge of his right hon. Friend, he had done right or wrong in not cancelling Major Bond's appointment? So far as he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) thought, the right hon. Gentleman did perfectly right. He thought his right hon. Friend had done right, not by accident, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, but with honesty of purpose, uprightness, and with excellent intentions, and that he would have done wrong, after having made the appointment, to cancel it. He had much pleasure in recording his opinion respecting the appointment made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had done what he thought was best in the circumstances of the case; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not now be induced, from any expression of opinion on the part of Irish Members, either in that House or out of it, to cancel the appointment of Major Bond, who had been known for many years as an excellent police officer.

could not help thinking that this question was a very unfortunate one. The plain fact was that Major Bond was practically dismissed by the Birmingham magistrates, and after that he was thought good enough to be sent to Ireland to administer the law there. They had heard a good deal of the character of Major Bond; but would it not be possible to find a place for him in all England, without sending him to Ireland, where it was surely desirable that men should not be appointed who had the slightest stain on their character? If Major Bond was a man of such excellent merit as he was represented to be in that House, why should not Birmingham have him back again? He would strongly advise the Chief Secretary, for the sake of law and order in Ireland, to undo the mistake which he made in appointing Major Bond to administer the law in Ireland.

, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the Press reports of the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant at Tullamore, on Monday, the 6th instant, which appeared in the Dublin daily papers of the following day, and to the letter of Mr. Henry Egan, Chairman of the Tullamore Town Commissioners, which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 13th instant, with reference to the presence of soldiers and the presence and conduct of members of the police force at the meeting addressed by the Chief Secretary at Tullamore; also to call attention to the fact that the same report of his speech appeared in all the papers; that it was supplied to each of them by the same person, free of charge; and that the person who acted as reporter to the right honourable Gentleman on the occasion in question was in the habit of acting officially for the Irish Executive; and move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable that official reporters should be employed to report the political speeches of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Constabulary forces of the Crown should be employed to intimidate the public, and prevent any expression of public opinion at the Chief Secretary's meetings in Ireland,"

said, although he was shut out by the Rules of the House from taking the sense of the House as to the Motion which was down on the Paper in his name, he was very glad to have the opportunity of bringing the subject before the House. He did so for two reasons. In the first place, the Motion had a personal bearing upon one who held the very distinguished position of a Minister of the Crown; and he thought hon. Members would agree with him that the sooner the Motion was disposed of the better. In the second place, the Easter Recess was close at hand, and as the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be tempted, during the Easter Recess, to repeat the proceedings in which he lately indulged in Ireland, he thought it would be for the public interest to ascertain as soon as possible under what conditions he proposed to repeat them. The question he concerned himself with was the method which the right hon. Gentleman took for bringing the substance of the speech which he delivered at Tullamore before the public. He need scarcely point out that when any person of the eminence of the right hon. Gentleman—a Minister of the Crown responsible for the affairs of Ireland—took upon himself at a time of great excitement and great tension of feeling to address public audiences in the country, it was of great importance that able and impartial Pressmen should be present to act as witnesses for the public, and note the demeanour of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had no right, by the agency of an official reporter, to manufacture public opinion. Now, there were three daily papers in Dublin. There was The Freeman's Journal, The Irish Times, and The Daily Express; and the invariable custom on the part of any public body or any public man who had public proceedings in contemplation was to inform those journals of his purpose. The right hon. Gentleman did not inform The Freeman's Journal or any member of its staff. The Freeman's Journal was the popular organ in Ireland. It was the organ to which the representatives of the public habitually resorted for information. Neither did he send information to The Daily Express, a very ably-conducted journal, the organ of what was called in the House the regular Opposition, and known as the Tory Party in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman confined it to a member of the staff of a third-rate newspaper in Ireland—The Irish Times. It was a newspaper of undefined politics, but at present was a supporter of the agrarian policy of the right hon. Gentleman. There was upon the staff of The Irish Times a gentleman named Murray. He wished it to be understood that against Mr. Murray he had not a single word to say. He believed him to be a gentleman of amiable disposition and affable manner; but Mr. Murray was practically—that was to say, in the financial sense of the word—an official reporter in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman declared himself to be ignorant of the fact that Mr. Murray had been a reporter of the State Trials in 1880. He (Mr. Sexton) had occasion to be present at the State Trials, and he could testify that Mr. Murray was present from day to day in charge of the official reporting. Furthermore, he was aware that Mr. Murray habitually received from the Government in Ireland commissions to make official reports, which were very lucrative. He wished to impress upon the House that it was a matter of common knowledge in Dublin that Mr. Murray, who was the gentleman selected by the right hon. Gentleman to report his speech at Tullamore, was repeatedly and continually employed by the Execu- tive upon lucrative official business. The right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed to deliver his speech, avoided giving notice to The Freeman's Journal or The Daily Express, and sent for a member of the staff of The Irish Times. Mr. Murray, therefore, had reason to be grateful to the Government, and to feel that gratitude which was supposed to spring from a lively sense of favours to come. When he did that, the right hon. Gentleman must have known that he was inviting a gentleman who was prepared to play a friendly part towards him. The right hon. Gentleman said there were three reporters present. No doubt, the local reporters were present. The report produced by Mr. Murray gave them abundant reason to think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed a very wise discretion in selecting him. He did not wish to make any charge of bad faith against Mr. Murray, but simply to say that he was so bound by ties of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to put the most favourable gloss on the whole proceedings. The report of the speech was headed "The Chief Secretary on the State of Ireland;" and it had as a second heading, in large type, "Favourable reception by the people at Tullamore." The introduction to the report stated—

"Mr. Forster was listened to, not only with deep attention, but respectful silence, there being scarcely an interruption, and some of the sentiments being cheered."

So spoke the official reporter. There was a system of comment by parenthesis, the use of which was well understood by accomplished members of the Press, and indeed by members of the Press who were not accomplished, and that consisted in throwing in a "hear, hear," and "applause," "cheers," and "laughter," at such points of a speech as either in imagination or in fact might have provoked these demonstrations of feeling from the audience; and they found that Mr. Murray had justified the choice which had been made of him by the liberality with which he had thrown in these parenthetical comments in his report. It was a practice not entirely unknown to Gentlemen occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman, to overlook their speeches and to revise them. Perhaps Mr. Murray felt an interest in seeing the right hon. Gentleman had the advantage of his co-operation and assistance in this way. At any rate, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had credit in the report two or three times of "hear, hear," twice for "applause," occasion ally f or "laughter," which might or might not have been complimentary, and three times for "cheers." The speech ended with a "round of cheers." The whole thing, in fact, looked very much as if the right hon. Gentleman had been the idol of the people and had gone down to Tullamore to be borne on the shoulders of the people, and to meet with a surging demonstration of welcome. Then there were other points in this report of an interesting character. When the right hon. Gentleman told his audience why he had gone down, the report said—"A Voice: We admire your pluck." He (Mr. Sexton) was quite unable to see where the pluck appeared in the whole transaction. The right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by official subordinates of every degree, and it did not require the courage of a Bayard to pop one's head out of a hotel window and address a small crowd collected outside in a little town where there were not only police magistrates in the room, but also in the streets; and perhaps if The Freeman's Journal and The Daily Express had been invited to attend, and if one of the able gentlemen who composed the staff of these journals had been in the window looking on and listening to what had been said, they might have been able to learn who it was said—" We admire your pluck." Was it a citizen, a constable, or a soldier?—[Mr. BIGGAR,: Or a detective?]—or, as the hon. Member for Cavan suggested, was it a detective? These gentlemen, he believed, were also in attendance on the scene. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I deny it entirely.] He (Mr. Sexton') fancied the voice came from one of the soldiers who were drawn to the meeting, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, with the laudable desire of drinking at the fountain of his eloquence. The right hon. Gentleman also said—"I know I may say many things you dislike." Then a voice was reported to have said, "Very few." He would leave the House to judge whether such an observation as this was likely to have been made by an ordinary member of the public. The report conveyed the idea that the right hon. Gentleman was met with a great demonstration of popular support, and that his observations were met with shouts of enthusiastic approval; that "hear, hear," "applause," "cheers," and "laughter" punctuated his speech as it would do, say, in the House of Commons. But the whole thing was worthy of Baron Munchausen or of The Arabian Nights. It did great credit to the right hon. Gentleman's penetration in not giving notice to the other papers, and in taking down only one reporter, who was in the pay of the Executive. But was that the way the affairs of the country were to be conducted? But he had not done yet with Mr. Murray. Between The Irish 'Times and The Freeman's Journal there was the greatest commercial rivalry, and they were always very glad to have a special report or piece of news to keep it for their own paper. What did Mr. Murray do with his special and exclusive report? He appeared at night at The Freeman's Journal office and offered this report for nothing. Why did Mr. Murray make himself the agent for distributing this cooked report? Why did he give it to his rival The Freeman's Journal and to The Daily Express and to The Irish Times, and also telegraph it to all the papers in England? And who paid for the telegrams? The English papers all got the report for nothing. Out of what fund did the money come? The whole thing was to him a mystery beyond the power of calculation, and he could only account for it by the fact of Government influence being brought to bear on The Irish Times. Where did the money come from to pay for those telegrams? Did it come out of the public funds? If not, why did Mr. Murray display such extraordinary energy, and how were the managers of The Irish Times persuaded to so far forego their natural jealousy of The Freeman's Journal as to offer a copy of the speech to that journal unasked? If the reporters of The Freeman's Journal and The Daily Express had gone down the public would have seen the real character of the reception accorded to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman up to the present had shown a great disinclination to give any information on the matter. He did not know that Mr. Murray reported the State Trials in 1880. In fact, he did not know that police and soldiers were present at the meeting. He could only say that, for a person who lived in an atmosphere of polities, in this sophisticated age, the right hon. Gentleman must be a masterpiece of innocence. Fortunately, however, a few days ago he (Mr. Sexton) had received a letter from Mr. Henry Egan, of Tullamore. Mr. Egan was a gentleman of the highest character and position, and by his actions and the whole tenour of his life he had earned and retained the best esteem of his follow-townsmen. It was true that he had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act; but that was of little consequence, as there was no man in Ireland of any influence with the people who had not shared that fate. This gentleman, the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, the principal civic person in the place, was drawn more by curiosity than by sympathy, he should imagine, into the streets to see and hear the wonderful man who could throw everybody into prison of his mere will and pleasure; and this was Mr. Egan's account of the proceedings—

"There was a small crowd of about 200 persons there, a very large proportion of whom were landlords and officials, together with all the small Tory fry of the town. There were a number of policemen and some soldiers. The presence of the parish priest in another window of the hotel secured the Chief Secretary for Ireland a respectful hearing. I had the hardihood to cry out, 'The suspects should be released,' when a policeman and a soldier placed themselves on each side of me. They said if I did not conduct myself I should he put back again, meaning that I should be re-arrested. The police-constable's name was Allan."

Such was Mr. Egan's story. Could English Members realize the reprehensible character of this conduct, occurring in the case of the chief civil person in the town, who had simply made an observation. He would remind the House of what had occurred towards the end of last year. This same man, Allan, and two other policemen, for no earthly reason, ordered two inoffensive young men named Cowen and Ryan to be beaten by the police at Newtown, in the King's County; that one of them was still in a precarious state. Yet this truculent bully was one of the policemen in plain clothes who, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, lent an appearance of popular assent to the proceedings by threatening the principal person in the town. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the stage manager or fugleman he had at Tullamore to direct the little comedy which was enacted there. Having laid before the House what he believed to be an honest account of the transaction, he should be glad to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland out of what fund Mr. Murray was compensated, and how The Irish Times was prevailed on to communicate the report to The Freeman? He would also be glad to know whether on future occasions the right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed to address public meetings in Ireland, would invite the public Press to attend? The right hon. Gentleman confessed with excessive frankness that if he had informed the people of his intended speech he would not have obtained a hearing. If it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman in order to make speeches in Ireland to steal a march on the people and to communicate the fact only to an official reporter, he thought the political capital to be made henceforth out of such demonstrations must be very little indeed. He could only say that the political capital made out of the speech at Tullamore was obtained, he would not say by false pretences, but by an ingenious device, and he hoped they had seen the last of such measures.

said, he did not intend to detain the House more than a few moments, on account of the very important Business before them; but he could not allow those remarks to go without reply, though he had already, by anticipation, made some answer to them. He must again repeat that two charges had been made against him—first, that he had provided in some way or other police or soldiers to overawe the audience at his meeting at Tullamore; and that he had taken means to provide a garbled report of the proceedings. As regarded the first charge, he would again say that he expressed his wish to the authorities of Tullamore that they should take no precautions whatever, to allow the crowd to deal with his speech as they pleased, and practically he believed that was done. The statement that there were police and soldiers present in large numbers he denied. He did not see them himself, and, from the information he had obtained, he did not believe it to be true. An officer and one or two soldiers came there through curiosity, and they were the only military he saw. There was no special force of police drafted into the town, and there were no detectives employed. There were three policemen on duty in the town, and he believed one or two of them came out of curiosity to hear his speech. What happened in the case of Mr. Egan was this. The sub-inspector considered he was interrupting, and asked him not to do so; and afterwards his brother came and took him away. So much for the charge of overawing. He had not revised the report of his speech. It was not a prepared speech—that was, he did not use any notes. As far as his recollection went, and that of others, including his son, it was a completely accurate report; and if it had not been, the correspondents of the Dublin journals who were present would have been glad of the opportunity of pointing out the inaccuracies. As regarded the demeanour of the crowd, the hon. Gentleman did not fairly describe the report. The hon. Member said the report ended with rounds of cheers; but it did not contain that statement at all. The report ended by stating that there was applause, and there was applause. [Mr. SEXTON: It ends with cheers.] He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought it ended with applause. He did not think there were rounds of cheers; but he was heard with respectful attention, and he thought there was some cheering at the end. The hon. Member asked why he did not send word to all the papers in Dublin. He had two reasons for not doing so. In the first place, he was not at all sure that he would make the speech; but he did think it was possible that he would say something, and he sent to The Irish Times telling them so, and stating that if they thought it worth their while they might send down a reporter, and they did so. He would tell the hon. Member why he did not send word to any other paper. He was perfectly prepared to meet the crowd at Tullamore; but he did not wish to give the friends of the hon. Member in Dublin an opportunity of sending down persons to organize opposition to him. The hon. Member said he used sensational language; but he did not think he could use simpler language in describing the outrage on the poor man Moroney, who had been murdered in Clare. What did he read in The Nation or Weekly News since? One of these papers said this thing must not go on. That was to say, the Chief Secretary for Ireland must not be allowed to speak again. He thought if he had given information to the other newspapers that that would be so, and as he desired to be heard he did not give the information. The pith of the matter was this. After the descriptions which had been given of him, and the speeches made about him right and left throughout Ireland—after the way he had been held up to the people, hon. Members thought it would be impossible for him to be heard with respectful attention in any of the prescribed districts or in a town where it unfortunately had been necessary to arrest some persons. It only proved what he believed would have happened if he or anybody else went to address these people, and enable them to see the other side of the question, which they had never seen at the meetings held in Ireland—that, notwithstanding the endeavours of the hon. Member and his Friends, the Irish people would give him a hearing. If he had given information of his intention, there would have been a very great effort made to prevent his being heard. He had been charged with desiring to make political capital. There was no political capital in the matter. Having seen the outrages which were committed in particular districts, and the terrorism which existed, he believed that what was required was that the people who were opposed to this terrorism should unite to prevent it; and he advised them to do so. The hon. Member, no doubt, disliked his making that statement. He also made a statement showing the terrible results of this system of intimidation, and he thought the audience seemed to agree with him that it ought to be put down. Why did the hon. Member complain of him for making those statements? He could not imagine why that speech in Tullamore had excited so much irritation. What he wanted to do, if he got the chance—and he was not then sure that he would get the chance—was to address an Irish audience, to let them hear the other side of the question, which they had not been in the habit of hearing. They knew the newspapers these people read, and they knew the sort of speeches they generally heard. The hon. Member spoke of letting out the "suspects" before he (Mr. W. E. Forster) attempted to address the people. That was really too much, when they remembered that for a long period he had been attacked right and left throughout the country as no public man was ever attacked before, and that never for a moment had the Government made use of any of its powers to prevent those speeches. He was determined to go amongst the people and speak to them, and see how he would be received. He was not loudly cheered, but he was received with respectful attention. One person in the crowd spoke of his pluck. He did not consider he showed any pluck, for the only danger he apprehended was the danger of not being heard. No doubt, it was very disappointing to the hon. Member that he should have been received in that way; but the hon. Member would have been serving his own interests better had he on this occasion concealed his irritation.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made a brilliant effort on behalf of Ireland in bringing forward this matter and dealing with it as he had done. He himself shared in the wide surprise that followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary at Tullamore; and he felt humiliated that an Irish audience in an Irish town afforded such a reception to the Representative of the present Government, and so endorsed its policy. The report was not bâna fide—it did not accurately describe the conduct at the meeting. Had it described the meeting, it must have shown that the proceedings were organized by the right hon. Gentleman himself. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: No, no!] Though the hon. Member for Galway cried "No, no!" he believed the right hon. Gentleman hid his movements from everyone except those who would give a specially coloured report of it.

I wish to say that I merely sent word to The Irish Times to send down a good reporter. I had nothing to do with selecting the reporter. I also ought to state that I did not revise the report, as the hon. Member for Sligo suggested. I have not paid a penny for it. The Government has not paid a penny for it. I suppose the reporter was paid by the paper.

thought the Irish people would perceive that the respectful silence which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about was due to the action of the police. He congratulated the hon. Member for Sligo upon having dissipated this delusion which was sought to be practised upon the Irish people. They would now see how the thing was got up, and how the police acted, and kept that respectful silence, and got those vociferous cheers from an audience in. this remote town. The whole thing would now be exposed. The right hon. Gentleman said the police were not there, that they did not interfere, that it was not their duty to do so. But it was his (Mr. Dawson's) duty to bring under the notice of this House how the police went into a municipal house in Ireland, and threatened members of the corporation as to what would be the consequences of the free expression of their opinions. It was part and parcel of their duty to do this; and if they could do this under the ordinary condition of things, how much better could they perform their duty when the Chief of the Executive, their paymaster, was the subject of their attention? The right hon. Gentleman said he drew his conclusions from the fact that the people were themselves ready to give him their respectful attention. But the right hon. Gentleman was on the horns of a dilemma. He had said there were no police present, and yet he had a quiet, decorous meeting. Let him withdraw the police from the disturbed districts, let him remove his police, his detectives, and the military, and he would not have that commotion which they were creating in Ireland in every way that they had dared to do. During his last absence from the House the Attorney General for Ireland, with that fairness which characterized him, gave a categorical denial to his statement that a policeman informed him that he could not address a meeting in the town of Carlow, which he represented, unless he promised not to attack the Prime Minister or the Land Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he referred to the sub-inspector, who denied having made any statement of the kind; but he (Mr. Dawson) had not alleged anything against the sub-inspector. It was the head constable who made the statement to which he referred. There was a yawning, gaping gulf which separated the people from their rights and privileges and their constitutional power. There was no doubt something had been done by the Government, for when he went to Limerick the other day he saw an abundance of papers brought in containing the right hon. Gentleman's speech, marked with bracketed headings, and sent there for gratuitous distribution. Who, he asked, would go about publishing such papers in Limerick for nothing? He knew the firm which published them was not established for gratuitous workmanship.

My son had them printed and circulated at his own expense.

The right hon. Gentleman now admitted that he not only had a special reporter, but that after his speech was delivered his son had it printed and circulated throughout the country at his own expense. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] It was then perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman, from the beginning to the end, lost no opportunity of taking the advantage; that was quite evident from the Tullamore speech and the preparation of it, and the paper in which it was reported; but it was a blessing to England that she might understand from Irish people that the utterances from which he expected so great a return had been scattered to the winds, and the hon. Member for Sligo had done well in dispelling the illusion, and so palpably exposing it to the public gaze.

remarked, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that certain Dublin newspapers had said that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to receive a hearing: but what those papers really said was, that as long as the Leaders of the Irish people who were capable of arguing the other side of the question were kept in prison and had their mouths closed the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be heard. That view of the case was perfectly sound and right. Those papers counselled the people not to offer the right hon. Gentleman the slightest insult or incivility, but to refuse to listen to him. He stood by that advice to the Irish people, and repeated it from his place in Parliament. The Irish people were quite willing to hear both sides, and when the Land League meetings were allowed to be held it was open for the Chief Secretary and his friends to have appeared on their platform and to have expressed their views there. But they had refused to do that, and preferred to put their opponents in prison. Their letters were stopped, and their conversations prevented by the prison warders, so that they were effectually gagged, and it was under that condition, of things that the right hon. Gentleman appeared before an Irish audience, and spoke of Irish affairs, of outrages, and the Land Act. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wished to show fair play, let him now try to argue out the question with them. Let him go to any part of Ireland, taking with him any of the imprisoned gentlemen or any of the Irish Members who were free to speak in the House but not elsewhere, and they would guarantee the perfect safety of the right hon. Gentleman and that he should not be subjected to insult. That, he considered, was a fair offer, and it was a fair, lawful, and legitimate advice for an Irish Member or an Irish newspaper to give to the Irish people.

said, he was unwilling to interpose before the Estimates came on; but though silence might be golden, under many circumstances silence might be carried too far. And unless there was some answer to the remarks which had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite by one who still claimed to be an Irish Member, much injury might result. He would like to ask the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) how he would undertake to guarantee the safety of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? He had made very great professions in that respect; but they had the fact that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland went to a country district there, unprepared and without anybody knowing, and assembled around him the real inhabitants of the town and district—a disturbed district—he was received with perfect courtesy, typical of the Irish character. Well, then, what were the relations of the hon. Gentleman with those who would put the life of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in jeopardy? He wanted that question answered. It was a disgraceful thing to state to this House that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or anybody else, would want protection when he visited a town in Ireland, and it was no compliment to the Irish people. But the House and the country would see at once that the well-meant attempt of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to come in contact with the Irish people themselves was the cause of this irritation amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not mean for one instant to say that the people whom the Chief Secretary for Ireland addressed sympathized with his policy or the policy of the Government. On the contrary, they hated it; and they would have no better state of things till this wretched policy was reversed. As long as they had 600 men locked up—some of whom were guilty, but many of whom were undoubtedly innocent—at the will of one man, it was nonsense to talk of peace between the two countries; but when the Chief Secretary for Ireland went amongst the people where the most disorder had taken place, and endeavoured, in an honest, straightforward manner, to meet them face to face, and to tell them what he had got to say, they received him—as he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would be bound to say the Irish people would always do, and as they would receive anybody else who came to speak to them in a bold, honest and straightforward manner—with respect and courtesy. Had it not been the boast of the hon. Gentleman and of Irish Representatives that ever since the time of Sir John Davis, of all the people in the world those who loved fair play and justice were the Celtic Irish race? That was said by him; but the hon. Members seemed to regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not howled at and prevented from speaking. Was there anything in his speech which they objected to? Was there anything immoral in it? What he said was the opinion every honest man ought to express—namely, to denounce outrage and crime, He said the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to be circulated through Ireland, from one end of it to the other; and he was exceedingly glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had caused a considerable number of copies to be distributed. He had had experience himself of Irish meetings, and it was perfectly true that the Land League would not now allow him to go into any of the towns to address his own constituents; but he would add this, that he met Mr. Parnell on the platform at Galway before the General Election, and combated to his face, in the midst of an audience that was enthusiastic in his favour, the doctrines which Mr. Parnell had put for- ward, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was heard with perfect respect and fair play. Further than that, when at Loughrea, he also stood on the same platform with Mr. Michael Davitt, who came unknown to him, and he, to Mr. Davitt's face, combated the views he put forward; and again he was received with perfect respect and fair play. He knew now he could not go. The Land League would take good care that stones and dirt would be used to prevent the people from hearing the other side of the question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland must have felt great difficulty in making his address, because he was obliged to speak in the open air; and that was a chronic difficulty in Ireland—they had no halls in which to speak, but had to do so from open platforms, where their voices could not reach the people, and where, in the outskirts, the well-known tactics of the opposing side could be easily carried out, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman or any other gentleman from being heard. He said this, while he protested against and opposed, as he did and had done throughout, this policy of arbitrary arrest. He welcomed from the bottom of his heart the attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to come into contact with the people. If he would go oftener, and if he had gone more into the towns since he had been in Office—if he had gone from place to place, instead of remaining at the Castle at Dublin, listening to what was told him by centralized officials, the right hon. Gentleman would not have pursued the policy he had pursued; and until that policy was reversed, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not believe they would have any peace or good understanding between the two countries. But, in the name of the Irish people, in the name of fair play, he protested against this attempt to minimize the effect of this honest, straightforward desire to come into contact with the people. In many places where the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was read, and where it would be read on the Saturday night in the weekly papers, people would say—"He is not so bad as we supposed. He is very ignorant of us; but he wants to do what is right. If he will come a little more amongst us he will learn something more than he knows now. He will see that his policy will not stand, that we are made with the same feelings and of the same flesh and blood as himself, and that we are entitled to equal rights with any other of Her Majesty's subjects.

quite agreed with the hon. Member for Gal-way with regard to the importance of the speech of the Chief Secretary, and would be glad to see it disseminated throughout Ireland, for he considered it a very useful and very important speech. So far from having any objection to it, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had made it. He was glad that the reports of the speech, for which the right hon. Gentleman had paid, were perfectly accurate.

I did not pay for the reports of the speech at all. I have contradicted that statement over and over again. Neither the Government nor I paid for them.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that he had caused them to be disseminated at his own expense.

Yes; but I did not pay for the report.

said, at any rate the report was accurate. The right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech at Tullamore that it was with the earnest desire that God might save Ireland that he thanked them for having heard him. But while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking the cries, which, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had said, "punctuated" the whole speech, were—"What, about the prisoners?" "Let out the 'suspects.'" The right hon. Gentleman avoided taking any notice of those cries until the end, and then he said—

"You ask me about the 'suspects.' As soon as I can fairly say that outrages have ceased in Ireland, and that men are not ruined, are not maimed, are not murdered for doing their duty, for doing what they have a legal right to do, the 'suspects' will he released."

He asked the House to consider the full significance of those words. They contained a very important declaration, because they, in effect, amounted to this, that the Irish Members of Parliament now in prison, and a very large proportion of others, were detained no longer as "suspects" but simply as hostages. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not liberate them until the outrages had ceased. He did not say that he would liberate them as soon as he had ceased reasonably to suspect them of inciting to outrage. The outrages might have been caused by men in the pay of the Government, who were detected committing perjury in open Court, and yet the "suspects" would not be liberated.

The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said, or misunderstood my meaning. As soon as outrages cease there will be no occasion, of course, for the Coercion Act continuing. I never meant to say, and never said, that if I believed I had arrested any man under a mistaken idea or unreasonable suspicion he would not be released. I made no such statement at all.

said, that he had read from a report which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted to be accurate. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Read again.] The words were these—

"As soon as I can fairly say that outrages have ceased in Ireland, and that men are not ruined, are not maimed, are not murdered for doing their duty, for doing what they have a legal right to do, the 'suspects' will be released."

He contended that the admission amounted to a complete abandonment of the previous position of the Government. For, first of all, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government required a Coercion Act to arrest the "village ruffians." But the right hon. Gentleman had arrested a number of men who were not village ruffians, and had nothing to do with outrages. He arrested them on reasonable suspicion, he said. Now he was detaining them because outrages continued, and not because they were connected with outrages. These men were to be detained, not for punishment nor for crimes that had been committed, or that they were reasonably suspected of having committed, but that might possibly be committed hereafter by persons over whom they had no control. He repeated, then, that these men were detained as hostages, not as "suspects." He trusted that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be disseminated throughout the country, and that the people of Ireland would understand the significance of the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman.

In placing the Navy Estimates before the Committee at this hour of the night (11.40) I must ask for the indulgence of the Committee, and I shall endeavour to observe both clearness and brevity. There is a course into which the Member of the Government charged with that duty naturally falls, and which I propose to pursue tonight—that of dealing with matters affecting the personnel of the Navy first, and laying them altogether aside before coming to the Financial Statement. Those questions of pay and rank have an interest of their own, and an import- ance of their own, which requires that they should have a full and respectful consideration; and this is more than ever necessary when the time has come round for re-considering and re-arranging the pay, position, and prospects of any important class of our men or officers who are paid under Navy Votes. During the past year the Board of Admiralty has found itself able to do something on a large and comprehensive scale for the advantage of a distinguished Corps to which the country owes a great debt, which, in times past, it has been rather slow to acknowledge. There have been long periods in the history of the Royal Marines which were little more than one large story of great services repaid by neglect, and something very like ingratitude. Things have been mending for some time past, and we are far from the day when a single brevet majority was considered an adequate recompense for the gallantry displayed by the Marine officers who fought in such numbers at the Nile and at Trafalgar; but it is only since last July that Marine officers could be expected to acknowledge that, in matters of pay and promotion, they had been but fairly on a level with their deserts. The position of a lieutenant in the Royal Marines may have been said to be deplorable. While a lieutenant in the Artillery obtained his promotion within 10 years, in the Engineers within 12 years, and in a Line regiment on an average within 11 years, a Marine officer did not become a captain until he had served full 16 years as a subaltern. But, much as the Admiralty felt for the grievance, they would have been unwilling to remedy it, if, in order to do so, they had been obliged to force into retirement from the Service officers of the rank of captain who still were in the prime of life and anxious to devote their vigour and energy to the service of the country. It is with great satisfaction that they found themselves able to devise a scheme which would give every lieutenant of the Royal Marines his promotion after 12 years' service, at latest, without forcing any officer out of the Service while in the rank of captain. The number of majors has been increased by six in the Royal Marine Artillery and by 18 in the Light Infantry. Compulsory retirement is not to begin until an officer is a major and 48 years of age; and the certainty that a lieu- tenant would obtain his captaincy in 12 years, if not before, and that a captain would betimes obtain his majority, has been secured by a considerable reduction in the establishment of captains and lieutenants. The Royal Marines, like other branches of the Navy up to recent days, had come to be largely over-officered; and the staff of 356 officers, as against 391, which the Admiralty has now laid down, will fully suffice for all the duties of the Corps at home and abroad, and will enable that flow of promotion to be kept up, without which no Service can be efficient or contented. And, while attending to the interests of the officers, the Admiralty have not neglected the private men. The non-commissioned officers of all ranks have been raised in pay and rank in exactly the same proportion as the Secretary of State for War has recently raised the non-commissioned officers of the Army. An allowance of a penny a-day has been allotted to noncommissioned officers and privates to perfect themselves in gunnery. The lodging allowance given to married men has been improved in such a manner as greatly to add to their ability to keep their families in comfort; and a vexatious stoppage of pay for a minor purpose has been remitted. I trust that hon. and gallant Members who advocated the cause of the Marines with so much force in the early part of the evening, will remember the amount of advantage which has been conferred upon that Corps. The full amount of advantage conferred on the Marines amounts to upwards of £24,000 a-year, and this additional benefit has been conferred on the Corps without any additional burden whatever on the public. The method by which it has been secured has been by a reduction in the number of officers and men. On the reduction in the number of Marines, I should be glad to say one word. Some little while ago discussion of rather a trenchant sort went on with regard to the Corps of Royal Marines, and proposals were made with reference to that Force, which in some cases amounted to little less than its abolition as an historical Service. These proposals the Board of Admiralty cannot entertain. They regard the Corps of Royal Marines, organized as it is at present, as a Corps of the highest value in times past. It appears to me that, for very good reasons, the changes in the condition of our Naval Service have detracted nothing from the importance of the Marines. In the first place, it is of priceless worth as a Reserve—not to the Army, that I would never allow—but to the Royal Navy. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance, in time of emergency, of having 6,000 trained men on shore, with military habits and with nautical aptitudes, who could be put on board our rapidly-filled ships, and among our newly - gathered crews of Naval Reserve men, there to act as a nucleus of discipline and martial skill. In the second place, it is a very convenient thing to have another mode of recruiting our Navy than through the training-ships for boys. However excellent may be our system of providing our continuous-service seamen, it is always well to have two strings to your bow, and the Corps of the Marines is a very popular channel by which we can secure grown men to recruit our Navy. How popular is the service, how high the class of men we thus obtain, may be judged by the fact that while only 38 per cent of the recruits were rejected by the Army surgeons in 1879 and 1880, in the same years no less than 62 per cent were medically rejected by the Marines. Since the new territorial system has come into vogue for the Army, it must be allowed that the Army competition is much more serious; but as long as we share the pick of the market among men of 20 and 21 with the War Office, for that reason, if for no other, the Corps of Marines well deserves to be continued. But there likewise remains what seems to me the strongest reason of any, and which, I am sure, will at once go home to the minds of hon. and gallant Members who have advocated the cause of the Royal Marines. In these days of complicated vessels and highly-trained mechanicians for so large a part of their crew, you cannot detach a strong force from a ship's company to serve on land without weakening and crippling your men-of-war for their legitimate purpose of fighting at sea. When a naval brigade is landed it is the Marines who ought to be told off first to go on shore. That was the opinion of the greatest sailor whom England or the world ever possessed—Lord Nelson—and, if it was true in his day, it is far more essential to observe that policy in ours. For these three great reasons—exactly the reasons that existed in the days of Nelson—the Marine Corps should continue to be maintained on its present footing; but those same reasons govern likewise the reduced strength at which the Board of Admiralty have fixed it. If Marines are now, as heretofore, to form a certain known proportion of the complements of our ships the strength of the Corps must depend on the strength of our complements. Now, I have taken the complements of specimen ships 20 years ago and at the present date. A first rate man-of-war in 1862 carried four Marine officers and 156 men. The Thunderer and the Devastation, in 1882, carry one Marine officer and 39 men; while the largest of our vessels, and those very few indeed, carry three officers and 130 men. A second-rate, in 1862, carried 150 Marines, and a third-rate 122. There is not a second-rate now in the Navy that carries 100 Marines. But perhaps the best comparison is afforded by taking a 40-gun frigate and a modern corvette. The 40-gun frigate of 1862 carried 59Marines, men and officers. The Comus and her consorts, in 1882, carry only some 35. In 1862 the total force of Marines afloat was 8,500 men. In 1882 the force afloat has fallen, by the force of circumstances which cannot be controlled, to 6,200 men; and, as the Admiralty is fully persuaded that, in order to preserve the efficiency of the Corps as a sea-going force, there should be at least one man afloat for every man on shore, they feel themselves bound to place the establishment of the Corps at the figure at which it appears on the present Estimates—about 12,400 men. To name a higher figure, for the sake of swelling the apparent numbers of the Fleet, would be to increase the number, not of Marines, but of bandsmen. And the Board considers itself most fortunate that a reduction of numbers, which was more a matter of necessity than policy, has enabled them, without asking for a penny from the taxpayer, to put on a footing satisfactory, as we have reason to think, to all its friends, including its warm friend, the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), a corps about which that great naval officer, Lord St. Vincent, used this memorable expression—

"If ever the hour of real danger should come to England the Marines will be found the country's sheet-anchor."

And now, Sir, I pass to the considera- tion of a very important branch of our Naval Service, with regard to which I gave a pledge last year—a pledge which I have done my very best to redeem. The words of that pledge I must, in justice to the Admiralty, recall. On the 19th of May, in reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth, I used these words—

"The Engineering Department is the only naval service of importance which has recently sprung into existence, and its organization has not yet been arranged on a final and satisfactory basis. When the Estimates are introduced next year, I shall be prepared, if I still hold the Office which I now have the honour to fill, to submit to the House a scheme which I hope will meet with approval."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 815.]

Now, Sir, the more this matter is looked into the more strongly does the first part of that statement come into relief. All the embarrassments in which we have found ourselves with regard to the engineers arise from the fact that that service was not formed, but grew up under conditions which made it impossible that the shape which it assumed should be satisfactory as a final arrangement. When steam was introduced into the Navy, it was necessary, of course, to find men to conduct the working of it. The Government had to go where such men alone could be found, and to go for them in large numbers. Our earlier engineers were admirable, practical men of their craft, of the same quality and very much the same class as the engineers of steam vessels in the Merchant Navy. Up to 1847 they were not officers at all in the Navy, but ranked with the boatswain and carpenter. But the inconvenience and impropriety of having no commissioned officers acquainted with the working of the motive power of the Navy became so evident that the Admiralty went too far in the other direction—turned all their engineers into commissioned officers, and by the year 1863 had no less than 1,414 commissioned naval engineers—that is to say, about as many as our present establishment of captains, commanders, and lieutenants together. And this great multitude of officers were employed on the most multifarious and ill-assorted duties, because, to speak plainly, there was not officers' work for half the number. There were actually three engineer officers on board a small gunboat with engines of 400 or 500 horse power, which certainly did not want more than one man of the rank and education of an officer. The Admiralty, seeing their mistake, from that time forward began to correct it, and introduced a class of naval mechanics for the practical work of the engines—the class of engine room artificers. The growth of this new class and the diminution of the commissioned engineer officers went on with rapid steps. In 1868, there were 1,247 engineers and 90 engine room artificers; in 1874, 950 engineers and 282 artificers; in 1877,845 engineers and 493 artificers; and in 1880 there were 775 engineers actually borne and 643 artificers. In this change of system the Admiralty were guided by the principle that the Navy required one class to work the engines and another to do the duties of scientific supervision and be responsible for the military discipline of the engine room. But the Admiralty did not find that by going into the open market they could obtain with certainty the qualities they looked for in a commissioned engineer officer; and they accordingly instituted a system of special training, lasting over a period of six years, which now is carried on in the College at Keyham and on board the Marlborough at Portsmouth, and a very fine set of young men that system produces. The present Board are thoroughly satisfied with the sort of young men who come from these establishments. They are determined to make them in all respects commissioned officers, messing from the first with the other executive officers, and doing duties of a nature, and only of a nature, such as shall repay the country for the great cost to which it has been put in training them. The number of engineer officers will for the future be fixed at 650, instead of their present establishment of 832 as now authorized. The duties for which officers, with their long and expensive training and commissioned rank, are not needed will be transferred more and more to the class of chief engine room artificers, who will be increased up to the number of 150 as the existing staff of engineer officers diminishes; and if the Admiralty sees fit, the operation may be continued by increasing the chief engine room artificers and decreasing the engineers as long as their united number does not exceed 800. When I was in the Mediterranean last year I made careful inquiries of the commanding officers of our small ships; and all to whom I spoke were of opinion that, if they had a good chief engine room artificer on board, one engineer officer would suffice for the duties of the ship. In every new ship that is now building arrangements are made for the engineers to mess in the ward-room and gun rooms, and in existing ships the process of amalgamating the messing is being carried out with all possible rapidity. One question on which I was frequently pressed last Session related to the pay of the engineers, and on this subject I have made full and careful inquiries, the result of which I will state to the Committee. I have compared them first with the executive officers of the Navy. No executive officer, except the captain, receives a higher rate of pay than the maximum of a chief engineer. A commander receives the same pay as a chief engineer after 21 years' service. An engineer of only three years' service gets the same pay as a lieutenant. A sub-lieutenant actually gets Is. a-day less than an assistant engineer. And it must be remembered that whereas executive officers pass most of their time on half-pay, the engineer is always on full pay, except by his own default, and a chief engineer has less time on half-pay than a captain or commander. When we come to the navigating officers, a special service like that of the engineers, it will be found that all through his service the navigating officer gets 1s. a-day less than the engineer. And when we turn to the Merchant Service, and see what the higher class of naval engineers command in the open market, we find that a chief engineer in our largest men-of-war gets as much as from £400 to £470 a-year, including his charge pay, while the first engineer in the largest packet ships is paid at the rate of from £18 to £22 per month; and the engineer in the Royal Navy has a pension to look forward to, a prospect for which a first engineer in the Cunard or the Inman Line would give a great deal of his less considerable pay. And that the advantages of the position of a Royal Naval engineer are thoroughly appreciated among the class from whom we are desirous of drawing those officers is proved by the fact that during the last four years we have had 774 candidates for 209 posts; and as to the quality of those candidates, I can rely upon the testimony of the hon. Member for South. Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), who, both as a Lord of the Admiralty and a neighbour of Plymouth, is well able to speak upon the subject, and who said emphatically that our present engineer students are just the kind of men we want to get. As regards pay taken without reference to promotion, I cannot draw from these comparisons any conclusion but one—that the engineers are not an underpaid service. But it must not be denied that promotion, which, dining the earlier history of the Service, was abnormally quick, has of late years been abnormally slow. The older engineers—those who have qualified for the post of chief engineer, but who cannot obtain a vacancy—have reason to complain of their position. Now, as regards the officers of the future, the Admiralty have completely remedied this grievance. Since January, 1877, they have reduced the lower ranks of assistant engineer and engineer from 726 to 418, and they have increased the higher ranks of inspectors of machinery and chief engineers from 180 to 232, and by this process they have very considerably more than doubled the rate of promotion. The only effectual and legitimate method of placing and keeping a body of officers in a satisfactory position is by strictly limiting the entries to what the Public Service actually requires, and so preserving a due proportion between the higher and the lower ranks. A Government which is willing to restrict the number of first appointments will always have cheerful and contented services. As regards the engineers now at the top of the list, the Admiralty propose to recognize their exceptional slowness of promotion by giving them an extra Is. a-day after nine years. As regards the chief engineers, the Admiralty would not be justified in increasing their emoluments; and I think any hon. Member who heard the comparison of pay with other ranks in the Royal Navy and with the Merchant Service will endorse that decision. But the officers who are at the top of all—the chief inspectors and inspectors of machinery—in the opinion of the Admiralty, are not in quite as good a position as should be held by men who are in possession of the prizes of a Service. The chief inspectors will therefore receive 3s. a-day more than at present, and the inspectors a somewhat smaller increase. The principal diffi- culty of carrying out these changes is the small number of engine room artificers who are qualified to take the part of chief. At present an artificer must have served 10 years before he can get his promotion; and as the Service was only instituted in 1868, and as there were only 150 to 200 members of it during the few first years, it may well be believed that qualified men are not easily found. The Admiralty have determined to reduce the probationary period from 10 years to six, a space of time quite long enough to ascertain whether a man has the character and the knowledge which would fit him for a post of responsibility. A chief artificer of over six years' service will henceforward get 7s. 6d. a-day. With these posts of trust improved somewhat in value, and eventually nearly doubled in number, the naval engineers will be supplemented to a greater extent than hitherto by these non-commissioned officers of the engine room. A service cannot be re-organized in a day, and the scheme which I have now described in its leading details is the crown and outcome of the action of several Boards of Admiralty over the space of 14 years; but I am satisfied that if we could look forward 14 years more, the condition of the Naval Engineer Service will then be such as will conduce both to the efficiency of our Fleet and the individual interests of our officers. The Admiralty has likewise been able to confer an advantage upon a class of officers who are, perhaps, and that is saying a good deal, the class which has taken the strongest hold, almost timeout of mind, upon the popular imagination. Anything which can be done in justice to the taxpayer to reward the invaluable services of our gunners, boatswains, and carpenters will meet with general approval. At present a warrant officer who serves on board our harbour ships, with some exceptions, is at a pecuniary disadvantage as compared with one serving on a seagoing ship—a disadvantage which increases with his length of service; until after 15 years' service he gets 1s. a-day less in harbour than at sea. This difference in pay has been defended on the ground that it affords an inducement to warrant officers not to shrink from foreign service; but the Admiralty hold that if a roster is properly kept, and each man has to go to sea in his turn, this reason does not exist. They accordingly have decided to place every warrant officer holding an actual appointment in a harbour ship on the seagoing scale; though the warrant officers borne for disposal in the Home Reserves, and not employed, will remain, as at present, on what may be considered as a very advantageous scale of half-pay. The amount of this concession reaches something over £2,000 per annum, and here I may be allowed to address a word to the economists of the House as to the principle on which the Admiralty endeavours to act. The Board holds that a great spending Department is in this respect like a private business, that constant and innumerable sources of fresh expenditure are for ever arising, and must be met by constant and equivalent reductions of old forms of expenditure which have now become obsolete. I have explained how the Board has met the increase to the marines and the engineers by changes which make those increases a positive alleviation of the burdens of the country. The same process has been accomplished with regard to the warrant officers. While boatswains are as much needed as ever, and gunners more needed than ever, the change from wood to iron in our ships has brought about a decreasing demand for the services of the third class of our warrant officers—the carpenters. Much of the carpenter's most important work is done by the engineer and engine room artificer. Much of his less important work can be done by an artificer of the rank of petty, and not of warrant officer, and accordingly we propose to make a reduction of 20 in the list of carpenters. Sir, I think I have dealt with the most important matters in Vote 1, and it only remains to ask hon. Members to observe that we propose to vote exactly the same number of men and officers as for 1881–2, allowing for the reduction in the Marines. And now I would ask hon. Gentlemen to turn to their copy of the Estimates, and I will point out what the sum is for which the Admiralty propose this year to ask Parliament. In the present year of 1881-2, including the Supplementary Estimates, £10,945,919 has been voted for the Navy, of which £303,000 is due to the war in the Transvaal. Exclude this £303,000, and the normal Naval Estimates of the current year amount to £10,642,919. But since these Estimates were presented to Parliament a great change has been sanctioned by the Treasury. The Navy has always been allowed to take in aid of its Votes the lion's share of the extra receipts; but certain extra receipts of the Classes shown on page 238 of these Estimates used to be paid into the Exchequer. The sum in question amounted in 1881–2 to about £162,370. This Christmas the Treasury agreed with the Admiralty that extra receipts of all sort whatsoever should go to the credit of the Navy Votes; and those extra receipts, which this year amount to £160,000, will in the coming year reach the figure of £240,000, owing chiefly to the intended sale of old ships, which are now past their work. Well, now we have this sum. In 1881–2 the Navy Estimates—minus the extraordinary expenditure—came to £10,642,919. Deduct from that £162,370 for extra Naval receipts, and the net burden on the Exchequer for 1881–2 was £10,480,549. For the year 1882–3, we ask the country for £10,483,901. That is to say, the burden on the Exchequer will be, within a trifle, exactly the same as last year. But as we shall obtain £80,000 more by extra receipts than last year, the spending power of the Department will be increased by that amount. In other words—for at a time when a considerable change is made in the method of presenting the accounts it is right that the state of affairs should be clearly made known—we propose to spend on the service of the Navy £80,000 more than last year, the extraordinary service for the Transvaal being omitted from the account. But this £80,000 will be covered by an increase in the sale of old ships, which now the Department have an interest in not giving too freely away on the one hand, and in not keeping longer than they are useful on the other. We propose annually to sell these ships—of which there is a considerable number, maintained at some expense to the public, but long ago condemned for service—carefully and gradually as there is a market for them. In order that the new method of presenting the Estimates may not tend to confuse, two statements have been prepared. On page 5 the gross sums have been shown with the entire extra receipts taken into account; but on page 6 hon. Members will find a table which accurately gives the Votes of next year as compared with the Votes of this year. The figures there shown I cannot but regard as satisfactory. All, or almost all, the Votes, the size of which depend upon careful administration, show no tendency whatever to rise. The Victualling Vote is swelled by a transfer of £17,000 from the Transport Vote; but there is a real reduction on it of £6,000. The statesmanlike manner in which General Pasley handles his not inconsiderable budget has enabled the Works Vote to be reduced by £64,000. There is a very satisfactory decrease in Civil Pensions, and the only increase on other than the Shipbuilding Votes is the usual automatic increase of £19,000 for Military Pensions, which advances over our Estimates with the unrelenting and desolating certitude of a sort of financial car of Juggernaut. But the general feature of these Estimates is that, by unremitting diligence and public spirit, the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and the permanent Heads of Departments, have kept down those sources of expenditure which can be kept down only by patient, minute, and judicious industry, and have presented the country with a large sum to spend upon those shipbuilding enterprises which the safety of the country demands. On Vote 6, the Labour Vote of the Dockyards, there appears to be no increase; but last year the 53rd week fell due, and absorbed £20,000, so that this year there is an actual increase of that amount. The Naval Store Vote and the Vote for Building by Contract are larger between them by £160,000; so that the general effect of the Estimates is that, with only £80,000 to draw on, we have been able to devote no less than £180,000 more to the all-important task of increasing our Fleet. With this money we have been able to raise the prospective construction of 1882–3 to the amount of 15,502 tons to be built in the public, and 4,640 tons in private yards—that is to say, to 20,142 tons in all, of which 11,466 tons are in armoured ships; and the improved and improving proportion between the Estimate and the execution which is visible in our Dockyard accounts leads us to hope that what has been promised we may reasonably expect to perform. And now, Sir, it will not be necessary for me long to detain the Committee over the destination of the money which we pro- pose to devote to increasing our ironclad Fleet. Towards the close of last Session, with, I think, the concurrence of everyone who takes interest in these matters, I announced that the Board of Admiralty had come to the conclusion not to build ships of very great size and very great cost, or in any great variety. I argued on the importance, when we had once got hold of a good type, of reproducing that type in sufficient number. For economy and rapidity of construction, for facilitating the manœuvring ships in fleets, and for familiarizing our men and officers with the vessels in which they are to live and fight, this policy appeared to hon. Members to be the right one. There was another conclusion to which the Board arrived, and which I had the honour of stating and defending, and that was the firm determination to press on the ships we have in hand and get them afloat as soon as possible. Those are the two leading features of the Admiralty programme of the coming year, and which I foreshadowed last year. The Agamemnon, the Ajax, the Conqueror, and the Polyphemus will be actually finished in the course of the year. The Collingwood, the Colossus, the Imperieuse, and the Warspite will be pushed vigorously on, and the Majestic at Pembroke will be finished to the point at which she can be brought round to Portsmouth for completion. The Rodney and the Howe, the two ships which belong to what may now be called the British Admiral class, will be put forward at Chatham and Pembroke respectively, and a fourth ship of the same type will be commenced by contract, which will give me the pleasure of fulfilling a pledge I made to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), and commemorating his favourite old naval worthy, Admiral Benbow; and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit Admiral Benbow might wisely yield place to Rodney. These three vessels will be Collingwoods, modified to carry four 60-ton guns, instead of the 43-ton guns which will be carried by the Collingwood, the Conqueror, the Majestic, and the Colossus. An addition of 400 tons to their displacement, and some £25,000 to £30,000 to their expense, will not take them out of the class of comparatively moderate-sized and moderate-priced ships, while it will enable them to carry a gun which will do all that a gun needs to do. [Lord HENRY LENNOX: What is the size of the guns?] The Collingwood, Conqueror, Majestic, and the Colossus will carry 43-ton guns; the Rodney and the Howe, which have been recently designed, are intended to carry 60-ton guns; and three ships, which we must at present call paper ships, will likewise carry that gun. I will speak a little more specifically. Before the year is out, at Portsmouth and at Pembroke two new iron-clads will be laid down, the details of which, following the example of last year, I will specify at a later period of the Session. While spending money on fresh construction, the Admiralty have not been neglectful of the condition of our existing ironclads. The Bellerophon will be finished and made fit for service. The Rupert will have her boilers renewed, and will be re-armed with the 18-ton breechloaders of the new type. The Audacious will have new boilers. The Shannon, which has come off foreign service in exceptionally good condition, will be thoroughly overhauled and made ready for the Coastguard. A novelty, and, I hope, an acceptable novelty, has been introduced into these Estimates by Malta being placed among the naval yards, which are thought worthy of having a programme, and the Thunderer and the Invincible will be made ready for re-commission in that cheap and very workmanlike establishment. The question of guns, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is only too painfully aware, does not touch the Naval Votes; but in a general review of the condition of our Fleet it would be pedantry not to refer to so important a matter. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: There is the Monarch.] The Monarch was repaired at Chatham in 1878 at a cost of £46,000, and paid off and re-commissioned at Malta in January, 1882. The present occasion is one of statement and not of controversy, so that I will leave aside all disputed topics and confine myself to specifying what has been done and what is designed to be done; and I do not think that I am exceeding the limits of a statement when I claim for the present Government that from the first moment they entered Office they have been pressing on the substitution of the new gun for the old with all the celerity which the caution necessary in such a critical undertaking demands. The Conqueror, within this calendar year, as we confidently hope, will be actually armed with the new 43-ton gun, and that date may be looked upon as the inauguration of the new system, for the Majestic and Colossus, which come on next for armament, will carry the same weapon; and no large gun of the old type will thenceforward be freshly supplied to any of Her Majesty's ships. The 43-ton gun, by the aid of that chilled shot which we owe to the inventive genius of our lamented Colleague the late Member for Taunton (Sir William Palliser), will really pierce anything that floats, except a narrow belt on the water line of a very few ships, which it is 50 to 1 a shot would never hit in battle. At 1,000 yards the projectile goes through 22 inches of iron and 19 inches of compound steel; and, looking to the material impossibility of armour beyond a certain thickness being carried in any quantity on a ship that can float at all, it is doubtful whether a much more powerful gun is required, and whether increased power in our weapons would not be dearly bought by the loss in number. The belief of the Admiralty is that a 60-ton gun of the new type would probably give as high a power as it is necessary to obtain under the rapidly improving conditions of gunnery construction; and there is reason to believe that the French Government have been led to the same conclusion by the same reasoning, and have fixed on a 59-ton gun as their heaviest weapon in the future. There are five ships in the list of English vessels in the Estimates which will carry this gun. Of lighter armour-piercing guns, if an 18-ton gun, piercing 17 inches of iron, such as that which this year the Hercules will carry a broadside, can be included among light guns, we shall have 174 of all sizes of the new type by the end of the next financial year; and the War Office has engaged to supply us with a large quantity of these machine guns, which will play a part in modern naval warfare certainly great, and, perhaps, quite preponderating. Of the Nordenfelt gun, which, during the two minutes that a torpedo boat would be within range, could discharge at it nearly 500 balls, each of which could penetrate its deck and sides, we shall, by the 31st of March, possess no less than 504, while 200 ad- ditional Gardner mitrailleuses will be provided during the coming year; and of torpedoes we have 300 afloat, and by the end of this year shall have 250 in store. It may interest the Committee to know that the Admiralty have determined to renew, in a somewhat different shape, a most important experiment. If anything can ever diminish the ruinous expense of naval preparation, it would be the substitution for armoured ships of cheaper and swifter ships formidable for offence. This country, as of right, was the first to devise an auxiliary ship which should assist the iron-clads in battle, and that was the origin of the Polyphemus, which was designed to do great things with ram and torpedo, and to look for security in her high speed, in her protection from machine guns, and in the smoke and confusion of conflict, when alone she would venture to approach an armoured enemy. But the Polyphemus had her drawbacks. In the first place, she, if we may apply a feminine term to such a monster, was, for a so-called cheap ship, very dear. In the next place, she was not habitable; she could carry a crew only to fight and not to live, according to the ordinary conditions which make human existence endurable. In the next place, she had small coal endurance, and would have been reduced, after a comparatively short spurt, to get her supplies from her consorts. The Chief Constructor, at the personal request and suggestion of Sir Cooper Key, has designed a vessel which will serve as an auxiliary in the combat of iron-clad fleets without losing all the qualities of a cruiser. She will be armed with a ram and torpedoes, under water, fore and aft. She will have water tight compartments and an underwater deck, two to three inches thick, protecting her engines and her torpedoes. She will have two conning towers, with armour 10 inches thick, from which the gear for fixing the torpedoes will be worked and the ship navigated. She will thus be, for the purpose of fighting with ram and torpedo, an iron-clad. Then, she will carry four 6-inch guns and 10 machine guns in turrets, or rather bastions, proof against a mitrailleuse; but, otherwise, she can be searched by machine gun fire through all her upper works, so that she will presumably only use her guns when engaging as a cruiser. For service as a cruiser she will be very reasonably fit, for she will carry coal sufficient to take her a month at from 8 to 10 knots, while at an emergency she will steam up to 16 knots. She will comfortably house a crew of 200 men, and will cost, if all goes well, £110,000 for hull and engines, as against the estimated £150,000, and actual £200,000, of the Polyphemus. Of cruisers proper, the Leander, the Arethusa, and the Phœton will pass out of the hands of the contractors, and will come to our own Yards to be completed and fitted with the new 6-inch breech-loader; and the Amphion, at Pembroke, will be pushed forward in the intervals of the iron-clad building. Hon. Members will observe that the Admiralty does not propose to construct or buy any sailing ships for training seamen. For many reasons—and, not least, for that of the safety of the crews—our men and officers should be trained in the same class of ships as those in which they are to work and fight. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins), if I understand his views, holds that it is questionable policy to take a large body of men and officers who are accustomed, during the rest of their career, to have steam power to fall back upon in time of danger, and place them for a single twelvemonth, for purposes of practice, in a sailing vessel—a class of which we should never dream of sending to sea in case of war. And therefore it is that the Admiralty have adopted another policy, and have issued an order that the Commander-in-Chief for each station shall collect his ships every season for a combined cruise, in which officers and men may be trained in sailing and in manœuvres performed in company; and anyone who reads the most interesting despatch of Admiral Willes will acknowledge the success which has attended this order. That despatch is accompanied by a Return of each ship, stating the number of days she has been under sail, the number of times she has tacked and wore, and the number of times she has gone in and out of harbour under sail alone. The last words of the despatch run thus—

"The result to the crows has been an improved physique and knowledge of their profession, which cannot be measured in figures, but which, I hope, may be manifested hereafter. If this combination of ships for cruising is carried out every year, the China Station may be reckoned one of our best training grounds for young seamen."

With such a training ground in every foreign station, with the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, the Coastguard Meet, the Detached Squadron, it may safely be said that it is many years since there has been such an amount of practical training of our men and officers as in the last 12 months. And now, Sir, I must conclude, having reserved to the end the mention of a circumstance most nearly concerning us at the Board of Admiralty, and not, I hope, unacceptable to the Committee. In view of the rapid, and ever more rapid, march of science, and its increased bearing on naval matters, the Earl of North brook and his Colleagues, as I stated in answer to a recent Question, have determined to call into their councils scientific assistance from both inside and outside the Navy. The Controller—Admiral Brandreth—who has succeeded so admirably at Chatham, has been invited to join the Board; and a new office has been created, to be held by a practical man of science, who shall unite special mechanical and engineering knowledge to wide administrative experience. If such a man can be found, he should not be lightly lost; and, by making the non-acceptance of a seat in either House a condition of the office, we have enabled successive Boards of Admiralty to avail themselves, if they choose, of the experience of the same adviser. Such a man has been found in Mr. George Rendel, who, as a member of Sir William Armstrong's firm, has been a pioneer in the successful application of the principle of hydraulic machinery to the working of heavy guns, and who was the first to devise, for the defence of our coasts, those useful little gunboats, that are nothing more than a floating carriage for a huge gun. His experience as a member of a first-class firm will enable him to apply to the organization of the labour of our Dockyards that knowledge for the want of which men trained within these walls—I speak for myself, and I speak feelingly—cannot always successfully make up by any amount of industry. His experience as a mechanician will enable us with confidence to refer to him in those questions which are growing on us daily, and almost hourly. Hydraulic machinery for turning the turrets, air-compressing machinery for feeding the torpedoes, electrical apparatus for internal communication, for firing broadsides, for illuminating the sea during a nocturnal action—everything is more complicated, everything more special in its nature, everything, above all, the more cruelly expensive. With armour costing £90 a-ton, where, 10 years ago, it cost £40; with the gear for mounting a single pair of guns standing the nation at£l2,000,£15,000, £18,000; with torpedoes for offence, and torpedo-netting for defence, required for every vessel of size; defending our coasts; holding our own in the Mediterranean; providing for the protection of our commerce over the globe; surveying and mapping out the sea for the benefit of the entire civilized world; alone among nations making a serious and burdensome effort for the suppression of the Slave Trade, the British Navy cannot fail, under any Administration, to be a heavy call upon the resources even of such a nation as ours, and difficult indeed, and never-ending, is the task of those whose duty it is to see that in security and fighting power the country gets its worth for its money.

I am sure the House will feel that the very admirable and very clear and very satisfactory Statement, on the whole, which my hon. Friend has made, deserves more consideration than it is possible to give at this time of night. I therefore wish to ask, before entering upon any question to which my hon. Friend has referred, whether, in the event of a Vote being given to-night, the Government will name an early day upon which the discussion of the Estimates can be taken? I should be very far from doing justice to the speech of my hon. Friend, or to the great questions which are involved, and which require careful consideration from this House, if I were to venture upon commencing a debate at a quarter to 1 o'clock; and there is no desire whatever to embarrass the Government. If they feel and state that money must be had, money must be given; but, at the same time, an opportunity must be afforded for the full and complete consideration of these very important questions. I may, perhaps, be allowed to make one remark, because it seems to me to be a necessary one, with regard to the appointment of Mr. Rendel. I had the great satisfaction of entering into communication with Mr. Rendel before I ceased to be First Lord, with a view to bringing him to the Admiralty, and I am satisfied that no more experienced and no more capable man could be found to strengthen the Board of Admiralty in a Department in which it was certainly weak, and which needed reinforcement; and, therefore, without in the slightest degree committing myself to the way in which the appointment has been made—because that is not necessary, and the Board have carefully reserved to their successors full power to act as they think fit—I think there is no doubt that the appointment of an engineer possessing the great knowledge and capacity for the Public Service which Mr. Rendel possesses is a great addition to the strength of the Department, and a great security for the welfare of the country.

said, he wished to join in the entreaty of the right hon. Gentleman to the Government to fix an early day for the serious discussion of the Navy Estimates. Some years ago it was an understood thing that these Estimates, upon which he was sure the existence and safety of this country depended, should be debated, night after night, with care and the most utter thoroughness; but last year the Secretary to the Admiralty made his Statement in March, and nothing more was heard of the Estimates until August, when in one Morning Sitting millions of the country's money were disposed of. He hoped there would be an end to this system this Session, and that the Government would promise a night on an early date for the discussion of these important Estimates. He was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty wished to give that opportunity, and had sufficient influence with the Government to procure one day on which Members might speak out.

There can be no doubt that what was said on Monday night with respect to the Army Estimates applies to the Navy Estimates. It will be the duty of the Government to give to the House the earliest possible opportunity for a full discussion, which is not possible at this time of night, of these Estimates. I am not able at this moment to say when it will be possible to resume the consideration of this question; but I think I may admit, on behalf of the Government, that a very early day and a convenient opportunity ought to be afforded for the discussion. I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) will take the Army Estimates on the first day after Easter, and we should wish to take the earliest opportunity after that for this discussion.

I should be very sorry to request that any exact engagement should be given, because I know the difficulty in which the noble Marquess is placed; but it does appear to me that we ought to have some indication of the time within which this discussion will take place. I do not ask that it shall follow on the next Government night after the discussion on the Army Estimates, because it may be necessary to reserve that for the Budget or some other purpose; but if the noble Marquess will say that within a fortnight after the Easter Recess we shall have a night for this discussion I shall be content, and I think my hon. Friends will be content to give the money which is necessary. But the discussion ought not to be delayed beyond that period; and in mentioning a fortnight I recognize the necessity the Government may be under of going on with measures relating to the Budget; but certainly a fortnight is the utmost limit beyond which we ought not to be delayed in entering upon this discussion.

said, he thought the Government might at least say that they would allow the Estimates to be discussed on one of the Government nights in April. They had promised that the Army Estimates should be taken on Monday, the 17th of April, and there would then remain Thursday, the 20th, Monday, the 24th, and Thursday, the 27th of April; and if these Votes were taken now, there ought to be an undertaking that one of those three Government nights should be given up for the discussion of the Navy Estimates. If such an undertaking was given, he should be willing to agree to this money being taken; but, if not, it would be for the Committee to decide what course they should take.

also wished to press the Government to name an early day for this discussion. There was great inconvenience last Session through the discussion being taken on so late a date; and there were many points for discussion in the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) which, though so admirable in itself, contained many flaws. In the first place, great eulogy had been passed upon the Board of Admiralty with respect to the engineer officers; but that subject could not pass without remark; and there were many other matters which those connected with the Navy in any way should be allowed to bring before the House as soon as possible. The Government would, therefore, be wise to name an early day for the discussion. He did not wish to interfere with the Public Service, or in any way to stop the necessary Supplies; but he thought the Government were bound by all their promises and by all precedents to give the House a very early day.

said, he wished to remind the Committee that last year very similar promises were made to those of the noble Marquess now; but the exigencies of the Public Business, and so forth, interfered time after time, and the House was obliged to accept that as an excuse, and to be satisfied with taking the Estimates at inconvenient times, in snatches of days and parts of nights, and so there was no sort of opportunity of discussing in anything like a proper way these important subjects. When he and some other Members ventured to discuss the Navy Estimates, and the Government had kept a House with a few Members on the Government Benches, many of them were so impatient at the lateness of the Session that it was with difficulty that he and his Friends could be heard, and were constantly interrupted by hon. Members who had not paid much attention to the subject, and cared less about it than about going home at that late period of the Session. All he asked for was that this time there might be a definite arrangement, and it would be easier for the Government to get through their work by setting a day apart for this particular Business—and a day not too near those for the Army Estimates and the Budget. He would rather it were a week later, so that it might be beyond contingencies; but it should be in the month of April, and he hoped it would not be left to chance, notwithstanding the expressed wishes of the Government to afford an early opportunity for the discussion.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) a question with respect to the appointment of Mr. Rendel. There might be advantages to the Public Service in that appointment; but it could not be forgotten that Mr. Rendel was the embodiment of antagonism to armour in Her Majesty's ships. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that on a recent occasion Mr. Rendel's partner (Sir William Armstrong) made a speech in which he not only spoke in the strongest possible manner against our armourclads, but, in unmistakable terms, indicated his desire to do away with armour altogether. He should be sorry if in this appointment the Government were giving the public an intimation of their intention to adopt those views, because the doing away with armour would be a step fraught with the greatest disadvantage when they came to cope with the vessels of other nations. Therefore, he would be glad if the Secretary to the Admiralty would state whether the appointment had any significance of that kind or not, or whether it was apart from Mr. Rendel's views touching the abandonment of armour, and was solely because of his great skill and eminence as a mechanical engineer?

assured the hon. Member, as he himself had been assured, that Mr. Rendel did not hold the views which the hon. Member imagined he must have obtained from his connection with Sir William Armstrong; and, further, that on no point was the Board of Admiralty more convinced than that the safety of this country depended upon our having armoured vessels of great speed and size. It was a creed in naval warfare that unarmoured vessels could not stand against armoured vessels in battle.

said, he should not wish this discussion to close without some remarks from that side of the House endorsing the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) as to the admirable way in which these Estimates had been submitted. He scarcely knew which to admire most, the broad statesmanlike views underlying the hon. Gentleman's Statement, or the conspicuous lucidity with which the technical details of the subject had been explained. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentle- man's speech was worthy at once of his great literary fame and his constantly increasing administrative experience.

With regard to the suggestions which have been made, they seem to me to have been conceived in a reasonable spirit; and, after such consultation as I have been able to take with my Colleagues, I may say that I think it will be possible, and most desirable, though I do not know precisely what the Business may be after the Easter Recess, that we should have an opportunity for discussing these Estimates before the end of April, or in the first week of May.