, in moving—

"That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection,"

said, that the object of his Motion was to secure that the Bill should be referred, not to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, but to a Hybrid Committee; and he could hardly understand how there could be any reason for objecting to a Motion such as that. His desire, of course, was to enable persons to appear before a Committee, without being compelled, in the first instance, to establish a locus standi. That was the usual course in cases in which the public interests were involved —namely, to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, for the purpose of having the public interests properly represented. Nobody would pretend that the Metropolitan Board of Works represented the public interests, or the interests of the ratepayers. Nor would anybody contend that the London Commissioners of Sewers represented the public interests. The interests of those who travelled by the District Railway were not likely to be served by the rejection of the present proposition, which was simply to enable persons who were interested in the question to appear before the Committee, without being obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. So far the House had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to these Bills. It had deliberately suspended the Standing Orders, in order to undo legislation which it had approved of and sanctioned a very short time ago; and the mode in which it was proposed to undo that legislation was, in his opinion, of a most objectionable character. The Bill simply provided that these ventilators should be closed, and that the expense of closing them should be borne by the public. Not only was the expense of closing them to fall upon the public, but the original expense of opening them was also to fall upon the public. It was estimated that the expense of opening, and the expense of closing them, would reach altogether the sum of £40,000; and it was proposed by these Bills to throw this burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The ratepayers of London had, therefore, every reason for opposing this Bill; and it was desirable that persons who professed to represent the ratepayers, other than the Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board of Works, should be able to appear before the Committee, and state their objections to this proposal to throw upon them a charge of £40,000. Unless his Motion were agreed to, the ratepayers would have no means whatever of opposing this exorbitant and improper charge upon them. But if the Bill were referred to a Hybrid Committee, the ratepayers could come before that Committee, and give evidence to show what their opinions were; whereas, before a Private Bill Committee, they would be obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. He thought it would be a most objectionable course if the public were not to be represented in the same way as they were upon occasions when the general public interests were at stake. It was frequently the case that the Board of Trade represented the public, and the Board of Trade insisted on Hybrid Committees, in order that the public interests might be properly protected. On this occasion the Board of Trade had neglected its duty. It ought to have dome forward in the interests of the public; but it had failed to do so, and the only thing he could do was to move that these Bills be referred to a Hybrid Committee. He had spoken of the burden of £40,000 which it was proposed to throw improperly upon the public. There was, however, another burden—namely, that of suffocation, which was to be thrown upon the travellers by the Railway; and yet they were to have no power to appear before the Committee of their own Motion, but were to be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers. He said nothing about the Railway Company. He desired to leave the Railway Company to fight its own battle. He had nothing to do with them, and he was speaking solely in the interests of the public, upon whom it was proposed to inflict the burden of £40,000, and in the interests of the travellers by the Railway, whom it was proposed by the Bill deliberately to suffocate. He intended to propose, in the case of both of these Bills, that a Hybrid Committee should be appointed, instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill he referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."— (Mr. Anderson.)

said, his hon. Friend had made an extremely good speech, no doubt; but it was a speech which ought to have been made upon the second reading of the Bill. The object of his hon. Friend was to secure an independent representation of the public before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that if they were to have four Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection, the Metropolitan Board of Works would represent the ratepayers before that Committee. He was certainly surprised to hear from his hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis. So far as he knew, the Board of Works was the only representative the ratepayers of the Metropolis had. Not only would the Metropolitan Board of Works be heard, but the Commissioners of Sewers would also represent the interests of the public; and, on the other side, the Railway Com- pany would naturally seek to oppose the Bill, and would call all witnesses who would be able to speak on their behalf. Of course, they would call a reasonable number of travellers on the Underground Railway in support of their case, who would be able to say whether or not the contention of his hon. Friend, that they were likely to be suffocated by the passing of the Bill, had any foundation. There was no reason for saying that other evidence would not be submitted to a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection; whereas, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were agreed to, there would be a Committee of seven, three of whom would be appointed by the Committee of Selection and four by the House, who would consist, he presumed, of two advocates on one side and two on the other. That was a fair presumption, and it was what was done when a Committee was appointed in this manner. After the Railway Company had given evidence, and after evidence had been heard on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers, if the Committee was a hybrid one, any gentleman who had a fad about this Railway would be able to come forward and give evidence. Now, he was a ratepayer of the Metropolis himself, and he objected to spend the public money in feeing counsel in order to examine all these amateur witnesses. Even when the case was closed they would have to discuss and settle the matter between two advocates on the one side and two on the other. There was, therefore, no reason, he thought, for departing from the usual course of procedure in these matters. And he would beg to move that all the words of the Amendment after "That the Bill be referred to a" be struck out, and "a Committee of Four Members" be substituted.

pointed out that au Amendment of that nature was not necessary.

said, he would confine himself, therefore, to opposing the Motion, as he understood the same object would be gained by negativing it.

said, he had not much to say in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he felt bound to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The question raised was not whether the course taken by the Railway Company was right or not. In point of fact, the Company had taken powers under a previous Bill, and they had misused them. His objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was simply that, as a rule, a Hybrid Committee represented a particular interest; whereas it was essential, in the inquiry they wore about to enter into, to consider the question in a merely judicial spirit. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London were not represented upon the Committee, but were perfectly content to submit the matter to an ordinary Committee, in which they had complete confidence. It was because he believed that all the questions at stake would be much more fairly discussed, and that much less waste of time and expense would be involved by referring the Bill to an ordinary rather than to a Hybrid Committee, that he opposed the Motion.

said, he rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said the speech of his hon. Friend ought to have been made on the second reading. He (Mr. Cropper) thought that speeches to a similar effect had been made on the second reading. At any rate, he had said all he could on the second reading against the proposal to close the ventilators. He thought it was an important point now that they should select as good a Committee as possible. The question was settled, and therefore was not worth arguing, whether these ventilators should be retained or not. But it was important that some good system should be proposed and adopted. He thought, if that question were well put before the Committee, and if the Committee were as large as possible, some good result might be brought about in the interests of the millions of people who travelled underground, and whose welfare ought to be considered in the question. His opinion was that the ventilators themselves were an improvement. He did not think they were any eyesore to speak of; and he thought that all the weight which could be given to the Committee should be given to it. He supported the Motion, because he believed that a large Committee would be able to act more satisfactorily than a small one.

hoped the House would not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) that they ought to have a good Committee; but his experience of the House did not teach him that the goodness of a Committee consisted in the fact that it was composed of an extreme number. All they wanted was an intelligent Committee, who would devote their time to the consideration of the questions referred to them. Such a Committee would be able to come to a much better decision than a Hybrid Committee; upon which there would probably be two advocates on the one side and two on the other. For instance, if he were placed upon the Committee—which he presumed he would be—in such a case everybody would know how he should vote, and the only effect would be to leave the decision of the question to the Chairman and the other two Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection. Before an ordinary tribunal the Railway Company could call what evidence they liked, and the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers would also be able to call any amount of evidence to show that these ventilators were a disfigurement to the Embankment, and that in the City they were dangerous to the traffic. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had observed that the expense to the ratepayers of pulling down the ventilators would be about £40,000. He wanted to know if the hon. Member had ever thought over, in his own mind, the sum which the Embankment had cost the ratepayers of the Metropolis? It was much nearer £2,000,000 than £1,000,000; and it would be a great mistake to allow the Railway Company to take land for which they had never paid, but for which the ratepayers had paid for the enjoyment of the public. Surely, then, it was a matter of great importance to the people of the Metropolis that the Railway Company should not be allowed to take away a largo portion of the Embankment from the enjoyment of the public, for which the Company did not propose to give one farthing in return. Nor had they made any use of their own property for the construction of these ventilators; but their sole desire seemed to be to put money into the pockets of their shareholders. He hoped the House would adhere to their original intention, and send the Bill to an ordinary Committee in which they would all have confidence. The Committee of Selection would take care to appoint good men upon it; and four men were, in his opinion, much better than seven or 17. He hoped the House would negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and that both in regard to this Bill and the Bill brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works they would appoint the ordinary Committee in the usual manner.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had supplied his opponents with an argument in support of the Motion, because he said that if an ordinary Committee was appointed, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly be placed upon it.

said, he did not think the hon. Member had rightly heard him. What he had said was, that he had no desire to be upon a Hybrid Committee, because his views would be known, and his vote would be known, and he wished to have an independent Committee consisting of men who would have no interest in the matter except that of the public good.

said, the answer to that was that an independent Committee had already allowed these ventilators to be made. He thought a Hybrid Committee, selected with ordinary care, would take into consideration the interests which the public had in the matter; and in the event of a Hybrid Committee being appointed, an opportunity would be afforded to the Committee of hearing a large number of persons who could not appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and who, therefore, could not otherwise make their complaints known. It was said, he did not know with what justice, that a large number of working men in London considered that some system of ventilation ought to be adopted, in order to secure their health and comfort in travelling along the Railway in crowded trains. It therefore might be worth while, during the sitting of the Com- mittee, to ask some questions of the working men themselves, in order to ascertain what their views upon the matter wore; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had done well in bringing the question forward. Then, again, he did not look very favourably upon the alliance between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London. He did not think that the Metropolitan Board of Works was the most popular Body in London at the present time; and he did not think it would do much good to prevent public opinion being heard before the Committee. He should certainly support his hon. Friend if he carried his Motion to a division. He was bound to say that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be the duty of the Committee to ascertain the best means by which the Railway could be ventilated.

said, the Corporation of London, the Commissioners of Sewers, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were all agreed that the best way to bring this matter to a speedy termination would be to refer it to an ordinary Committee in the usual way. These who opposed the introduction of the Bill now moved that the Committee should be appointed in a different way from the usual way, and it was plain that their object was to delay the measure. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) said there were millions of people travelling by this Railway, and it was the duty of the House to see that they were not smothered by the smoke which the Railway Company emitted from their engines. At the same time, his hon. Friend pointed out that the ventilation might be conducted in a better manner than it was at present. No doubt, the Railway could be ventilated in a different manner from that which was now adopted. He therefore hoped the House would not be led away by those who opposed the Bill, and that they would not, by adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), shunt the Bill to another Committee.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had travelled for a good many years upon this Railway, and he did not see that his hon. Friend had suffered very much in consequence. Until the Railway Company took steps to promote the ventilation of their Line, he hoped the House would persist in the course they were taking of preventing them from ventilating it at the expense of the public. He hoped the House would reject the Motion, and refer the Bill to an ordinary Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 171: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 124.) Bill committed.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Reports of the Inspectors under the Alkali Works Act, 1881, will be in the hands of Members?

Sir, The Reports of the Inspectors under the Alkali Works Act, 1881, were in the hands of the printers shortly before Notice was given of this Question. The printing is being expedited; but the printers tell me it will be a fortnight before proofs can be obtained, which seems a long time. No delay that can be avoided shall take place, and arrangements will be made that in the coming year the Reports shall be presented at an earlier date.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make any alteration with regard to the ship fitting branches; and, whether it is contemplated to withdraw the shipwrights' apprentices from the fitting shops in the two dockyards where, under the new system, they have been introduced?

Sir, the Report of the Committee, presided over by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, which has inquired into the Constructors' Department, deals with the two questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. I hope that that Report will very shortly be laid on the Table, and it will supply a much more complete reply to my hon. Friend's inquiry than I could give in answer to him at this time. I would therefore ask him to await its production, and I trust there will be very little delay.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received a Letter, signed by the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon, regarding their view of the engagements entered into between Her Majesty's Government and them on the occasion of their pleading guilty to the charge of rebellion against the Egyptian Government, together with a copy of a Letter on the same subject from Mr. Mark Napier, also a Letter from Toulba Pacha in regard to a change in his place of exile; whether he will lay these Papers upon the Table of the House; and, whether any steps are being taken to secure to the exiles the minimum allowance which the Governor of Ceylon has stated is requisite for them, viz. £50 per month to each family?

Yes, Sir; these Papers will be laid upon the Table. It is under consideration, in distributing the additional £500 recently awarded to the prisoners, to distinguish the different eases so far as possible, and to assist those most in need. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with Sir Edward Malet and the Governor of Ceylon in the matter.

asked whether the houses free of rent which these exiles now occupied would be taken from them?

That is a further question which will be taken into consideration in connection with what I have just now stated.

Are we to understand that no effect is to be given to the views of the Governor of Ceylon that these exiles ought to have from £40 to £50 a-year allowed them in place of the rent of these houses?

A distinction will be drawn according to their circumstances. We are informed on very good authority that one of these exiles is well off; in fact, their circum- stances vary. My hon. Friend will see that it would not be wise to treat all exactly the same. We are waiting further explanations on the subject.

Is it true that the first act of the Governor of Ceylon, on returning to the Island after a throe months' leave of absence, was to give a banquet to Arabi Pasha and his fellow-prisoners?

I have no information on that point.

Will the noble Lord say whether a Copy of the despatch of the Governor of Ceylon will also be laid on the Table?

I must ask my hon. Friend to give Notice of that Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the recent decision of the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in the case of Chaine v. Nelson, had the effect of altering the view taken of the sixtieth section of the Land Act by the Land Commissioners, and showing that their action under this section had been ultra vires; whether a special Circular was issued by them on 21st May, intimating that, in consequence of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, the date of the judicial rent commencing to accrue is the gale day next after the actual decision fixing such rent, and not earlier; if it is the case that, notwithstanding such Circular, the Sub-Commissioners, or some of them, continue to use the form of order as previously; and, what steps it is proposed to take to modify the orders already made, but now decided to have been illegal?

I understand, Sir, that the personal opinion of the Land Commissioners remains unchanged; but they, of course, accept the decision of the Common Pleas Division so long as it remains unaltered on appeal. With regard to the Circular of the 21st of May, the circumstances are that numerous inquiries having been made as to the effect of the decision, the Commissioners thought it right to prepare a Minute showing that effect. The Order to which the hon. Member refers directs and determines no question relating to the judicial rent. It merely uses the words of the 60th section of the Act of 1881.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question, which refers to Orders already made.

I presume the Commissioners are awaiting the result of the appeal, which, I am told, will be determined very shortly.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the proceedings at au inquest on Saturday last respecting the death of Herbert Walsh, vaccinated in St. Pancras Workhouse by the public vaccinator, in which a medical witness attributed the death of the child to the cessation of mother's milk caused by the mother having been re-vaccinated without her consent being asked the day after the child's birth; to the statement of the public vaccinator that in re-vaccinating mothers a few hours after their confinement he was acting under the advice and with the knowledge of the Local Government Board; whether the child was vaccinated when only eight days old; whether the Local Government Board approve of the re-vaccination of a woman, with or without her consent, so early after her confinement while nursing her infant, or of the vaccination of an infant so young; and, whether the Board will issue directions to restrain a practice attended with such results?

Sir, the Board have obtained a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest respecting the death of Herbert Walsh. It was stated by a medical practitioner at the inquest that he was of opinion that the vaccination of the mother caused the flow of milk to cease, and the verdict of the jury was to the effect that the child died from inanition or wasting, caused by the absence of the mother's breast milk and want of proper nourishment. On the other hand, three medical men, including Dr. Sharkey, assistant physician at St. Thomas's Hospital, and Dr. Henderson, pathologist of St. Mary's Hospital, who were examined at the inquest, could see no connection between the suppression of the milk of the mother and the vaccination; and, in fact, there was no cessation of the milk for a month after the time when the woman was vaccinated. The mother was re-vaccinated on the day after her confinement. She was admitted into the workhouse in labour, and was delivered early in the afternoon of the same day. There had consequently been no previous opportunity of re-vaccinating her. The labour was a natural one, and the mother was progressing favourably; and the medical officer was satisfied, from his previous experience, that the operation could be performed without injurious effect. With regard to the question whether the consent of the woman to the re-vaccination was obtained, the medical officer in his evidence at the inquest stated that the mother knew that she was going to be vaccinated, and raised no objection; and that in cases where objection has been made he has not vaccinated. The Board have not advised the re-vaccination of mothers a few hours after their confinement, and the Board have no reason to suppose that this is a general practice. The child was vaccinated when eight clays old. As regards the re-vaccination of mothers on the day after their confinement, the Board have been content to leave this to the discretion of the medical attendant, who can best estimate the risk of small-pox encountered by the woman during her stay in the lying-in ward. The Board have not had occasion to announce their approval or disapproval of the practice; but, under ordinary circumstances, would think it better that any required re-vaccination should not be associated with the accidents of the lying-in room. With regard to the vaccination of infants a few days after birth, I would refer to my answers to Questions on the 20th of February and the 6th of March. With respect to the case of the mother referred to in the Question, the Board will communicate with the medical officer.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Army Pay Department is the only Department that has not an officer to represent it on the Committee which is now sitting, under the presidency of Colonel Harri- son, R.E., for the purpose of remodelling the equipment and the uniform of the Officers of the Army; and, whether it is a fact that there are now 278 Officers serving in the Army Pay Department?

Sir, there are no Departmental officers on this Standing Committee for remodelling the equipment and uniform of officers of the Army; but if a question affecting a Department be under consideration, the Committee has power to associate with it ad hoc a member of the Department concerned. In reply to the second Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that on the 1st of May there were 282 officers serving in the Army Pay Department.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Government intend to withdraw the Royal Marines who have been for some time on special duty in Dublin in aid of the Civil Power?

Sir, it is not intended to keep the Royal Marines permanently in Dublin; their numbers are being gradually reduced, according as it is believed that their services can safely be dispensed with.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the grave charges and insinuations freely brought in evidence before Lord Morley's Committee, and in the Press, against Medical Officers in the late Egyptian war, he will take care that the Vote in the Army Estimates relating to the Medical Service of the Army (Vote 4) is taken at a time when those interested in vindicating the conduct of those officers will have ample opportunity of doing so; can he now name the day on which that Vote will be taken; and, will adequate notice be given of the day selected for taking the Vote?

, in reply, said, that it would be necessary for the requirements of the Public Service to obtain some Votes for the Army during the course of the present month; but as the Medical Vote was comparatively small in amount, and as the discussion to be raised upon it would probably take a considerable time, he proposed to postpone the Vote until the next following evening on which the Army Estimates were put down. As to the date on which Vote 4 would be taken, he hoped to be in a position to make a statement to the House on the night this month which, as he had stated, would have to be dovoted to the obtaining supplies for the Army.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will by acquiescence sanction the renewal of litigation by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, with the owners of property and residents of Hampstead, respecting the use of the hospital there for fever or small-pox patients?

Sir, the Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said—

"I think that there ought to be a new trial in this case, because the verdict of the jury upon the main issue does appear to me to have been founded upon a state of evidence which is not to my mind satisfactory, having regard to the nature and importance of the question to be determined."

The heavy expense which the litigation involves is much to be regretted. The Board have reason to believe that an endeavour has been made to arrive at a compromise, but that the offer has not been entertained by the plaintiffs. In the event of the case proceeding, no sanction on the part of the Board is necessary to enable the managers to defend the action brought against them, and the matter is not one in which the Board have any authority to interfere.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that the Grand Juries of Leitrim and Roscommon have levied. and have now on hand a considerable part of the sum requisite to construct a bridge over the Shannon at Upper Drumkerriff near Drumshambo, and if he will use his influence with the Grand Juries to have this reform carried out, the present dilapitated bridge being on the leading road from Enniskillen to Boyle, and also said bridge causes such an obstruction of the river that much land is consequently often flooded?

I understand, Sir, that this matter is in the hands of a Joint Committee, consisting of members of each of the Grand Juries concerned and the respective County Surveyors. This Committee was not satisfied with the plans originally prepared. Fresh plans are being prepared with all possible despatch, and it is expected that the work will be actually commenced at an early date.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that a young female pauper named Keenan, servant to the matron of the Belfast Workhouse, and under her immediate control, was seduced by a male pauper named Reid, the result of which was a child was born; is it true that Reid was married to another female pauper, prior to Keenan's seduction, named Beckett; is it a fact that Keenan and her child, and Reid and his wife, continue paupers in the workhouse although able-bodied and fit for work, and that Reid holds a position of trust as pauper assistant in the workhouse, which enables him to have access to various parts of the institution; will he, as President of the Local Government Board, cause an inquiry to be made as to how many similar cases of imposition exist in the Belfast. Workhouse, and is he able to say whether the guardians have taken any steps to discontinue relief to these recipients, or to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful conduct?

, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, wished to ask him whether he had yet received from the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) the substantiation which he said he would endeavour to obtain of the very serious charges implied in the Question which the hon. Member put on June 1 against the Lurgan Board of Guardians and the officials of the Lurgan Union?

No, Sir; no such communication has been received. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), I have to say that it is true that a woman named Keenan had an illegitimate child, but there is no ground for supposing that the father of the child was in the workhouse. Charges of the character mentioned were made against a pauper named Reid by another pauper named James Cullen, who immediately afterwards left the workhouse, and has not since come forward to substantiate his charges, although every effort has been made to find him and bring him before the Guardians for the purpose. His statements were wholly unsupported, and their truth was distinctly denied by the persons concerned when the Guardians inquired into the matter last September. It is not the case that Reid holds a position of trust as a pauper-assistant. At the time when the charges referred to were made against him he was removed from the position which he formerly hold, and has not since been restored to it. He has lately been admitted into the infirmary.

With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), I may state that I am in communication with the gentleman who supplied me with information on that subject, and I expect to be able to substantiate the charge in a few days. At the same time, I have not the slightest doubt of the accuracy of the statement contained in my Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to make any further communication to the House respecting the imposition of an Eight per Cent. Valorem Duty on British Manufactures introduced in the Ottoman Dominions?

Sir, Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople having reported that the British merchants in Turkey have not protested against the imposition of the 8 per cent ad valorem duties, he has been instructed that, provided that the British merchants do not object, he may accept those duties, while making a reserve on the part of Her Majesty's Government as to the action of the Porte in suddenly bringing the new Tariff into force in disregard of the assurances given to Her Majesty's Embassy, that no change would be made before October next.

asked under what Treaty the duties were now levied on British manufactures?

said, they were now levying under the Treaty of 1863.

So there has practically been no change?

They are now levying the Duty under the Treaty as they have a right to levy it up to 8 per cent. British merchants are of opinion that in regard to several important classes of articles this change is by no means unfavourable to our manufacturers, as compared with the Tariff which the Porte claims has expired before the Treaty.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Sub-Commissioners in Mayo have recently refused to allow the agents of landlords, who have been brought into the Court for the purpose of having their rents reduced, to cross examine the tenants on matters of fact; and, whether, as the land agent is the person who, presumably, is the most likely person to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property which he is in the habit of managing, and as there appears to be no Clause in the Land Act which prohibits a person acting as agent for a property, under power of attorney, from personally appearing in a case in which his principal is concerned, he will call the attention of the Land Commissioners to the hardship which is inflicted on owners of property by this new regulation, with the view of enabling the landlords' case to be brought before the Courts in the simplest and fairest way, and without the necessity of extraneous professional advice?

I rise to Order. I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the opening lines of the second paragraph of this Question, which state that—

"Whether, as the land agent is the person who, presumably, is the most likely person to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property which he is in the habit of managing."

I hold a contrary opinion altogether; and I submit that these words are of a distinctly argumentative character, and, according to the Rules of the House, ought not to be put.

No doubt, it may be a matter of controversy whether the land agent is the person who is most likely to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property he manages; but, at the same time, I have not thought it necessary to object to the form of the Question.

Sir, the 52nd section of the Land Act specifies the persons who may conduct a case before the Sub-Commission. A landlord's agent is not included in the list; and a Sub-Commission, consequntly, acts properly in refusing to allow an agent to cross-examine a tenant, or, in any way, to conduct a case.

Have the Sub-Commissioners acted improperly in allowing land agents to cross-examine the tenants up to the present?

I conclude that that is the case. There are only four classes of persons specified in the 52nd section, and undoubtedly the landlord's agent is not included.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether notice has been served on the mail car contractors in Ireland, setting forth that from the 18th of August next no parcel under seven pounds in weight can be received or carried by mail car other than what passes through the Post Office; if, in consequence of the loss which contractors will suffer by this regulation, it is proposed to grant them fair compensation; and, if so, what facilities will be afforded to the contractors to prove their exact losses; and, whether the Post Office authorities have adopted any scale by which to regulate such compensation?

In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member's Question, I may say that notice has been served on the contractors for mail services throughout the Kingdom, that parcels up to the weight of 7 lbs. w ill form part of Her Majesty's mails from the date on which the Parcels Post comes into operation; and in a certain class of contracts it has also been necessary to restrict the carriage of parcels entirely to such parcels as may be sent through the post. The terms of payment under these altered conditions are a matter for negotiation, and a settlement has been already arrived at in a very large number of cases. Where fresh terms cannot be agreed upon, it is open to the contractors to terminate the contract by three months' notice, when the service will be put up to public competition.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government can now see their way to insist upon the strict fulfilment of Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin, so as to avoid such terms being forced by Bulgaria on the Varna Railway bondholders as practically confiscates their property; whether, the bondholders having been obliged to take the guarantee of Bulgaria for the £140,000 a-year, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as are necessary to preserve their rights; and, whether, before any final arrangement is agreed to by the agent of Her Majesty's Government at Sofia, he will be directed to secure the payment of all arrears of interest to the bondholders as a precedent condition?

Sir, the Bulgarian Government, after long negotiations with the Varna Railway Company, have, at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, agreed in principle to refer the amount of their liability to the arbitration of the Ambassadors of the Great Powers at Constantinople. The precise terms of the agreement of arbitration are still under discussion; and Her Majesty's Government regret that the Bulgarian Government have neglected to answer the last two Notes on the subject addressed to them on the 3rd of April and the 4th of May last. The reason given for the delay being the recent change of Ministry and the absence of the Prince of Bulgaria at Moscow. Her Majesty's Agent at Sofia has been instructed to press urgently for a reply to the above-mentioned communication.

The noble Lord has not in the least answered my first Question. I would ask him, whether the Bulgarian Government only agreed to remit the matter to arbitration on the absurd condition that the decision should be unanimous; next, whether there has been any alteration of the Ministry at Sofia since March last?

The question of unanimity has been one of the points under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Bulgarian Government; and it is on this and on other points that, as I stated the other day, Her Majesty's Government regret that they have been unable to obtain any understanding.

What change has there been in the Ministry at Sofia since the 11th of March?

I am not aware that there has been any change of Ministry, but there have been changes of individual Ministers.

said, he would repeat his Question that day week.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, owing to the defects in registration, many persons in Ireland entitled to the franchise are precluded from obtaining it; whether, owing to the provisions contained in the sixty-third section of the Act 11 and 12 Vic. c. 91, many thousands of persons otherwise entitled to the Poor Law, Municipal, and Parliamentary Franchise in Dublin, are deprived of any share in the selection of Poor Law, Municipal and Parlimentary representatives; and, whether, with a view to encourage Constitutional action in Ireland, he will press forward the Registration Bill he has introduced, and amend it so as to remove the difficulties which at present exclude many thousands of people in Ireland from franchises which the Law intends they should enjoy?

Sir, I am well aware of, and I regret, the circumstances referred to in the second paragraph of this Question, which the hon. Member has in so patriotic a manner brought before me more than once. I think this is a matter which would more properly be dealt with in a measure relating to the franchise, whether Municipal or Parliamentary, than in a Bill dealing exclusively with registration. I almost doubt whether it would be considered within the scope of a Registration Bill by the opponents of the measure. With regard to the defects of the existing system of registration, I may say that among the proposed Irish measures of this Session there is none that I am more anxious to see promptly carried than one dealing with this question. But the delay in the Government Bills has been so great, and was so unexpected by me when I first brought forward my programme of Irish measures, that I must own I have not now the same confidence of being able to get them carried this Session.

asked whether it was not a fact that in the English Registration Act of 1878 the provisions referred to in his Question were incorporated from political motives?

said, the provisions were practically determined by the Act of 1869, introduced by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). That Act was undoubtedly of a political nature, and was only carried after considerable discussion.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, by letter of the 18th April 1883, the Board of Public Works informed the Board of Guardians of the Rathkeale Union that they had effected an insurance on the Ballastkerry Dispensary buildings for the sum of £1,150, at the rate of 3s. per cent.; whether, by resolutions of the 21st March and 2nd May 1883, the Board of Guardians objected to pay more than 1s. 6d. per cent. being the usual rate in the Union, and whether the rate was reduced in consequence of said resolutions; whether, by resolutions of the 11th April and 2nd May 1883, the Board of Guardians called upon the Board of Public Works to inform them how the sum of £1,150 was apportioned over the separate buildings in order to enable the Board of Guardians to effect an additional insurance; and, whether the Board of Public Works have complied with those resolutions, or will now do so?

Sir, the facts appear to be correctly stated in the Question; and I learn that the Board of Works have already complied with the resolutions referred to.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the new Post Office Annuities and Insurance Tables, authorised by the Act of last Session, will be ready; and, whether, in view of the fact that these tables must be laid upon the Table of the House thirty days before they come into operation, he can give the House an assurance that they will be presented in sufficient time to be approved during the present Session, and thus avoid another year's delay in bringing the Act into operation?

Sir, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, that the two sets of tables should be issued together. The Actuarial Reports on which the annuity tables must be founded are still under review; and, though the work will be pressed forward, I do not think I could give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What provisions have been agreed to between the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Sewers as to rebuilding on the sites cleared under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts 1875 and 1882; and, when the Correspondence, for the production of which an Address was agreed to on the 3rd May, will be in the hands of Members?

said, the terms of the arrangement relating to the various sites would be found in the Correspondence which was in the hands of the printers, and would shortly be laid upon the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When a Bill will be brought in for confirming the Provisional Orders made in the four schemes under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, 1875 and 1882, brought forward by the Metropolitan Board?

said, that the Bill had been already brought in.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a leading article in the "Times" of 6th June, which states that "an attempt has been made to relieve the Home Office of a part of its work," a scheme for transferring to the Local Government Board the control of business relating to factories, artizans' dwellings, and burials; and, if the statement is correct; and, if so, under what statute such transfer has been made?

No, Sir; it is not the fact that anything that could be properly called a transfer of business has taken place, nor do I think that any such scheme would be practicable. It is true that during a pressure of business, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had been good enough to render me assistance in looking through Papers; but there has not been, nor could there be without Statutory authority, any transfer of responsibilities to that Board.

asked Mr. Attorney General, When the Report of the Standing Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill be presented to the House, so that the Country may have an opportunity of considering the Amendments which have been made in that Bill by the Committee?

, in reply, said, this Bill was being considered together with the Criminal Code Bill. The Standing Committee on Law had not made such progress as he could have wished, but he should be the last to give up the hope of proceeding with these Bills during this Session. He would promise that the Report of the Committee should be presented at such a time as would allow the House and the country the fullest opportunity of examining the Amendments which had been introduced.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the last portion of the Question?

said, that would be acting in opposition to the Instruction to the Committee, which was to deal with both Bills jointly.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with the declaration of Her Majesty's Government recognising "the Queen of Madagascar as absolute Monarch of the whole Island" and with the understanding between Great Britain and France "that the two Governments should maintain an identic attitude of policy in Madagascar and act in concert in the matter," Her Majesty's Government has made representations to the French Government concerning the action and the claims of France in Madagascar?

No representation, other than those contained in the Blue Book already presented to Parliament, has been made to the French Government on the affairs of Madagascar.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Guardians of Old-castle Union granted a superannuation allowance of £38 2s. 8d. a-year to Mr. John Flood, aged 67 years, which was duly sanctioned by the Local Government Board; whether the same Guardians granted a superannuation allowance of £12 a-year to Mr. Francis Hartley, age 71 years, which was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the ground that Mr. Hartley did not devote his whole time to the service of the Union; whether the Oldcastle Guardians pointed out that Mr. Flood had not given his whole service to the Union; and, whether the Local Government Board in continuing the sanction of the payment of a pension to Mr. Flood is acting legally?

Sir, the facts are substantially as stated; but it should be mentioned that when the Guardians submitted to the Local Government Board the claims of Mr. Flood to pension, there was nothing whatever to show that his entire time had not been devoted to the two Poor Law offices in respect of which it was proposed to pension him; and it was in the belief that this was the case that the Local Government Board sanctioned the grant. The Superannuation Act does not contain any express provision enabling the Board to cancel the grant; but they will take legal advice as to whether they have power to take such a step.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board of Works have systematically refused, since the 18th January 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on any of the open spaces which they are required to protect and allowed to regulate?

I beg to state, Sir, that the Board has not systematically refused, since the 18th of January, 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on the open spaces; but, having regard to the powers given to the Board to prevent acts or things tending to interference with the use of the open spaces by the public for the purposes of exercise and recreation, the Board has not seen fit to grant permission to persons desiring to hold public meetings for the purpose of discussing religious and other topics upon Sundays. I may add that the magistrate at the Lambeth Police Court, on the 7th instant, in convicting two persons charged with the infringement of the bye-laws, stated his opinion that meetings such as I have mentioned would interfere with the use of the open spaces for the purposes of exercise and recreation.

Are people allowed to discuss religious questions on week-days?

If the hon. Baronet will give Notice of the Question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Is it not a fact that the Board have refused to give its assent to the holding of any public meeting of any kind whatever—religious, secular, or otherwise — on Sundays or any other day?

Every application that is received is considered on its merits.

Have they not been systematically refused? I understand they have.

I most distinctly state that they have not been systematically refused.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Hill, of 81, Barlow Street, Old Kent Road, was summoned at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works before the Lamboth Police Court for speaking on the occasion of a public meeting at Peckham Rye on 1st April; that the hearing of the summons was adjourned to 7th June, when Mr. Hill was fined twenty shillings and three guineas costs, with the alternative of fourteen days imprisonment, though four witnesses, whose testimony was not impeached, deposed that he had not spoken; whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have extended their powers in prohibiting meetings on public places, when the Law under which they exercise their powers allows them to regulate such meetings only; whether it has not been the custom for various meetings to be held for many years past, especially by advocates of temperance, on Peckham Rye, without objection, and even with the sanction of the vestry; and, whether, considering that working people cannot assemble to discuss grievances, or assist reforms in other than open spaces near London, owing to the expense involved in hiring rooms, he can check the action of the Board of Works?

Sir, so far as the Home Office has anything to do with this matter, which is confirming and sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I have expressed my opinion to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that the power to regulate public meetings in these open spaces ought not to be extended to an absolute prohibition of such meetings. I have expressed my opinion that in sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I did not contemplate that public meetings should be prohibited altogether. On the contrary, I think it would be very inexpedient to prevent meetings being held. They are allowed to be held in Hyde Park, and I cannot see why they should not be allowed in other open spaces.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what is the present position of the negotiations which are understood to be now or to have lately been proceeding with the Government of the United States of America regarding the establishment of an International Copyright between the two countries?

Sir, a proposal for the settlement of this question was made to the Government of the United States by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington in November, 1881, but no reply has yet been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is intended to take a Supplementary Vote of Supply for the Salary and Allowances of Major Baring; whether the relative position of Major Baring as Agent and Consul General will be the same as that of Lord Dufferin with respect to the Officers in Command of Her Majesty's Naval and Military Forces in Egypt; and, whether Major Baring will be independent of, or subordinate to, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople?

Sir, it is not intended to take a Supplementary Vote in Supply for Major Baring's salary and allowances. I am not sure that I rightly understand the bearing of the second portion of the noble Lord's Question; but I may explain that the position of Lord Dufferin was altogether an exceptional one, and cannot be compared with that to be held by Major Baring, who succeeds Sir Edward Malet and not Lord Dufferin. Major Baring's rank and position will therefore be the same as those of Sir Edward Malet, and he will continue to receive his instructions from the Secretary of State, to whom his Correspondence will be directly addressed, Copies, when necessary, being sent to Her Ma- jesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, according to the rule hitherto adopted by Her Majesty's Agents in Egypt.

Is the House to understand that no part of the pay and allowances of Major Baring will become payable during the present financial year?

No; I do not say that. I said that there would be no Supplementary Estimate.

If that is not so, where is the money to come from?

It will be included in. the Votes before the House. As the House is aware, the Diplomatic Vote has not yet been taken, and according to the usual practice the money saved by the economy of the Government with respect to other charges could be applied in payment of such an extra charge as the present.

Does the noble Lord mean to contend that it is usual in the beginning of a Session, in making financial arrangements, not to take a Vote of Credit for one portion of any Service because there is some hope of effecting a saving in another? That seems to me a now doctrine.

I was not making any general statement of financial doctrine, but answered a Question which was asked.

The matter stands in this way. It is proposed to increase the salary of a certain officer, and for that increase a sum of £2,000 will be required. Do the Government intend to make that increase without giving Parliament an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it?

I do not think it would be fair to give an answer to a Question of this character without Notice.

Due Notice has been given. The Question put by my noble Friend is, "Whether it is intended to take a Vote in Supply for the Salary and Allowances of Major Baring?"

I have answered that portion of the Question. It is not intended to take a Supplementary Vote.

If it is not, then where will the extra £2,000 be obtained?

I give Notice that, as the noble Lord has stated that the extra salary and allowances of Major Baring will be included in the Diplomatic Vote, I shall, upon that Vote, move, as an Amendment to it, that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £2,000.

May I ask the noble Lord whether the recompense which Major Baring will receive will be charged on the Imperial or the Indian Exchequer?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question?

said, he had given Notice that he would oppose this Vote.

inquired whether, except for this extra payment to Major Baring, there would not be a surplus of £2,000?

There would be no difficulty whatever, if economies are effected in a Vote, in applying the surplus resulting from such economies towards payments in respect of the other details of the same Vote. The details of each Vote are not voted separately, but are given for the information of the House only.

The point to which I desire the noble Lord to direct his attention is this. Parliament has had Notice that the salary of a certain office is £2,000, and the Government are now proposing to increase that salary. I think that is an unusual course. I think it is an unusual course to increase a salary in that way without asking the authority of Parliament. Do the Government intend to increase that salary without the authority of Parliament?

Nobody could possibly object to the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward that question upon the Diplomatic Vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that I have fairly answered the Question upon the Paper, and that any further discussion should properly be taken then.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any arrangement respecting Major Baring's salary has been brought before the Treasury, and whe- ther the Treasury have given it their sanction?

No arrangement of that character has been officially brought forward, though we are aware that it will be proposed in due course. My opinion is that the change should be explained to Parliament before it is made; and, so far as I am concerned, I will take care that this is done.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the Army Hospital Corps attached to the British Expeditionary Force in Egypt was so deficient in men and appliances that, had it not been for the loan of a large number of bearers and dandies by the Indian Contingent, it would have been impossible to have removed the wounded from the field of Tel-el-Kebir, except after a long delay; and, if this is the case, who was responsible for this state of things?

Sir, I will refer the hon. Baronet to the reply of Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff, to Question No. 6,079 of the Evidence taken by Lord Morley's Committee of Inquiry. The Question was—

"Before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir you got a number of Indian dhoolie bearers from the Indian Contingent. Was that in consequence of the British bearer companies not being sufficient?"

Sir John Adye replied—

"No; but knowing that they had a large establishment, and as the Native regiments were very few in number up at the front, I thought it was common sense that the superfluity of that establishment should be devoted to the general use of the Army on that occasion."

This view is supported by the evidence of Sir Herbert Macpherson. (See Q. 636.) There is no doubt, however, that the dhoolie bearers attached to the Indian Contingent rendered most valuable service to the British troops, which I have no desire or intention of depreciating.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What Department of the Foreign Office will be charged with making and keeping for the purposes of transmission, a record of Mr. Errington's proceedings during his protracted and repeated visits to Rome?

No Department of the Foreign Office will be charged with making and keeping the record of any Correspondence with Mr. Errington. The record of it will eventually be placed in the archives of the Office for the information of successive Secretaries of State.

Is there no record to be kept now, or is it only to be made when Lord Granville retires from Office?

That was what was stated at the time by the Prime Minister—"For the information of succeeding Secretaries of State."

The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said the Correspondence would be placed on record at once, and not when the Government left Office. I do not think the present arrangement a fair fulfilment of that promise. The noble Lord has not signified in what Department the record will be kept.

My intention was to signify that the record should be kept from time to time as convenience dictated.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following resolution unanimously adopted by the Town Commissioners of Longford on last Wednesday, viz.—

"That we no longer desire to offer to Mr. Errington advice or suggestion, and only wish to make known to all whom it may concern that in anything said or done by him during the last three years, he is not to be understood as speaking for, or in any way representing, the people of Longford, who are of almost one mind in resenting the part which it is believed Mr. Errington has taken in influencing His Holiness the Pope to issue a circular letter to the Bishops condemnatory of Mr. Parnell and his policy;"

and, whether, after such declaration, Her Majesty's Government will retain him as a confidential medium of communication upon Irish affairs with the Holy See?

Notwithstanding the respect which is due to the Town Commissioners of Longford by Her Majesty's Government, it is not intended by Lord Granville to make any variation in his relations with Mr. Errington.

May I ask the noble Lord whether he accepts the definition contained in the Question as to the Government retaining Mr. Errington as a "confidential medium of communication upon Irish affairs with the Holy See?"

No, Sir; I carefully avoided doing so.

Is Mr. Errington still at Rome making communications with the Pope? I will ask that Question to-morrow.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the increased attention latterly paid to agricultural instruction in National Schools in Ireland, and the want of acquaintance with agricultural subjects felt by the inspectors who have to conduct the examinations for results fees, he will consider the advisability of substituting in the examinations for inspectorships of National Schools marks for proficiency in agricultural knowledge for the marks at present given in respect of the German and Italian languages, with which the duties of inspectors of Primary Schools are not conversant?

Sir, I know no reason to suppose that there is any want of capacity on the part of the Inspectors to examine the pupils of the ordinary National schools in the agricultural class books. The position is different with regard to the agricultural schools—i.e., schools having land attached to them—and in these cases there is a professionally qualified Inspector. With regard to the suggested alteration in the course of examination for Inspectorships, I have to observe that German and Italian are not obligatory subjects, They are among the voluntary subjects in an examination which is intended to test general ability, and not special knowledge. Candidates who have succeeded in the preliminary competitive examination are required to qualify in agriculture and other special subjects before they are given charge of a district. I do not think, therefore, that there is any necessity for the proposed change.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board is yet in a position to express an opinion on the action of their auditor in refusing to allow the reductions granted by the Corporation of Wexford to its tenants on account of bad seasons?

Sir, the matter remains as it was when I answered the hon. Member's former Question last week. The auditor has reserved his decision until his next audit, and the Local Government Board are not called upon to express any opinion on the matter unless it comes before them on appeal, which could only happen in the event of a surcharge being made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is accurate, as stated at the road sessions of the north riding of Tipperary, and reported in the "Tipperary Advocate" of the 2nd instant—

"That fifty of the ordinary Police force of the district were taken off, and put on again as an extra Police force;"

and, if true, whether this does not involve heavy additional taxation on the district, without any addition to the Police force to which the district is entitled?

Sir, the hon. Member is probably aware that the Constabulary Acts require a re-calculation every five years of the number of men to which each county and riding in Ireland is entitled as a free force. The last quinquennial redistribution was made by Order in Council of July 27 last, and the free force of the North Riding of Tipperary was then reduced by 50 men, as it was found to be that number in excess of the proportion to which the Riding was entitled, comparing its area and population with other counties in Ireland. But the state of the Riding at the time did not permit of the total strength of the police being reduced; and it was therefore necessary to add the 50 men to the extra force employed under the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 13, a moiety of the cost of which will be charged upon the Riding. This force will be reduced as circumstances permit.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he is aware that Parliamentary powers have been granted to the South Eastern Railway Company respecting their bridge over the Thames at Charing Cross; and, whether these proposed works will encroach on the Embankment, and tend to spoil both that and Northumberland Avenue; and, if so, whether he proposes to ask Parliament to suspend its Standing Orders to enable him to repeal that legislation?

Sir, the South-Eastern Railway Company promoted two Bills in the last Session of Parliament, which were opposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and considerably modified. One of the works comprised in the Bills was the widening of the railway near Charing Cross, which was required for the purposes of enabling the Company to carry their increasing traffic with public safety. The Board objected to this widening upon various grounds, one of them being that it would be objectionable with reference to Northumberland Avenue, and the Board suggested that the widening should be upon the Eastern or City side of the railway. Although Parliament did not adopt this view, the Bills, as passed into law, provided against any occupation of the land of the ornamental gardens, or of the Victoria Embankment roadway, and did not involve any works which might lead to public danger. Under these circumstances, the Board does not propose to ask Parliament to repeal that legislation.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the position of certain lower division clerks in the Education Department (and not third class clerks, as understood by him in a former answer) who entered that office as junior assistant clerks at the age of fourteen, under a signed agreement, with a pro- mise of a nomination for a permanent clerkship if they had a good character and remained there till they were nineteen, but who were deprived of that nomination by the alteration subsequently made in the service; whether they are receiving now the very much smaller smaller salary of about £100 per annum instead of about £300 per annum; whether the yearly increase is much less than they otherwise would have received; whether the heads of the Department have recommended some compensation to be made to them; and, if the Government will now make them some compensation for the breach of the conditions on which they entered the service; and, if not, on what grounds such compensation is refused?

Sir, I have looked into the facts of the case referred to in the Question. There was no promise given of a nomination for a clerkship, only a chance of being allowed to compete for any vacancy that might be open. As a fact, there have been no vacancies, such as one or two of the men might possibly have filled, but all of them have been turned into lower division clerks. The Education Department recommended that they should reckon their pensionable service from the time they became writers; but the Treasury, upon careful consideration, and having regard to the precedent that would be created, decided that no case was made out for this concession.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, as the Agricultural Holdings Bill is now postponed until after the Committee of the Corrupt Practices Bill, the Government will consider the advisability of re-committing it, in order to incorporate it in the Clauses of "The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875," to which reference is made in the Bill?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he should like to put another Question to him on the same subject, and, with the indulgence of the House, he would say one word in explanation. When the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill was fixed for that day, they were led to believe that the Committee would be proceeded with with as little delay as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, given a pledge to that effect to the Member for Gloucestershire. He wished to ask the Government whether, having regard to that understanding, they would consent not to postpone the Agricultural Holdings Bill until after the Committee of the Corrupt Practices Bill?

said, he also should ask the Government to reconsider their decision, as if the Agricultural Holdings Bill was not taken first, it would come on when hon. Members interested in it would have to be away attending to Quarter Sessions.

In answer to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Kingscote), I can add nothing now to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the subject on Friday last to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. The Government are disposed to look favourably on the proposal, but wish to reserve their judgment as to the time and mode of giving effect to it until further progress has been made with the Bill. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to whether the Government will give precedence to the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, I can only say that when I stated what I did on a former occasion that was the intention and view of the Government. It was not an engagement on the subject; and I can only say that it has now been determined that it would be better to proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill.

I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I will ask the Prime Minister what has since occurred to alter the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with as little delay as possible with this Bill?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated by "La France" and other French papers, that Her Majesty's Government have asked the Government of the French Republic for explanations as to a speech made in the Senate on the 2nd by M. Challemal Lacour, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he said:— "We know that there are attempts to excite China against us, and we also know from what Power they proceed?"

No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government have not asked for explanations, as they do not believe that the statement in question could possibly be intended to affect them in any way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, If it be the fact that the Scotch Lunacy Act (25 and 26 Vic. c. 54), by section 23, empowers the Governor of Perth Prison to send prisoners who have become insane back to the prison where they were committed, but that this must be "within fourteen days" of the expiry of the sentence; if the Governor of Perth Prison or the Prison Commissioners were entitled to interpret this power as extending to any period subsequent to the expiry of the sentence, in some cases even twenty years after; if the authorities at Broadmoor have legal power to send prisoners to Perth Prison for the purpose of being disposed of as above; and, if he is aware that within a few months back four prisoners under such circumstances have been sent to Glasgow to be supported, though having no claim of settlement there; and, if so, what redress he proposes?

An inquiry is being made into this matter by the Lord Advocate, but the information asked for has not yet been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the construction of a Railway from Hyderabad to Chunda under the guarantee of the Government of Nizam?

The Papers in the India Office relating to this matter refer to negotiations extending over some years, but which have not yet led to any definite result. At present they must be considered confidential. In the course of a few weeks I hope to be able to give the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire further information.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether those officers, now Majors, who entered the service from the Militia after the age of twenty will be allowed to remain in their regiments, or on the list of the Army until the age of fifty, the same as Majors who purchased their companies?

Sir, the Question is not quite fairly stated, for it is not all majors who purchased their companies who are allowed to serve till the age of 50, but only those who became majors not later than the 1st of July, 1881. The Royal Warrant does not extend the same privilege to majors who came from the Militia, unless they were captains before purchase was abolished in 1871.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that in the province of Leinster there is not one of the Crown Solicitors who is a Roman Catholic, and if it is now intended to appoint a gentleman, not a Roman Catholic, from the north of Ireland to the office of Crown Solicitor for the county of Kildare which is at present vacant?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would wish to ask him, Whether the newly appointed Crown Solicitor is the same Mr. Givan who in September last declared at a banquet in the County Monaghan that he would not accept any appointment from a Government who would not grant the entire of the Amendments of the Land Act demanded by the tenantry of Ulster; and, if so, whether we are to gather from the fact of the appointment that the Government are to bring in a Bill embodying Mr. Givan's views?

The only information I can give the hon. Member is that the Mr. Givan who has accepted the Crown Solicitorship for Kildare is the Member for Monaghan. With reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, the question of religious profession does not appear to have been at any time much considered in connection with the provincial distribution of Crown Solicitors. Although I have not positive information on the subject, I believe that the hon. and gallant Member is correct in his description of the religion of the Crown Solicitors in Leinster; while, on the other hand, in several counties of Ulster, having a large proportion of Protestant inhabitants, the office is filled by Roman Catholics. I believe that up to the present date there is only one Crown Solicitor in Ireland who is a Presbyterian, to which body the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) belongs.

asked whether, under the circumstances, it was the intention of the Government to issue a now Writ for the election of a Member for Monaghan County. [No answer was given to this Question.]

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the numerous cases in which marriages have been solemnised in England between Englishwomen and Frenchmen in accordance with the provisions of British Law only, which marriages have, subsequently, been held to be invalid in France; whether his attention has been called to the great hardships which have thereby been inflicted on innocent persons; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will forthwith take steps to remedy this evil by legislation; or, if not, if they will issue a circular notice to all registrars and ministers of religion authorised to perform the marriage ceremony inviting them to call the attention of British subjects presenting themselves to be married to the provisions of the French Law, and to the fact that, to insure a valid marriage, these provisions must be strictly complied with?

The attention of Her Majesty's Government for some time past has been directed to the matters referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and various communications have passed between the British and French Governments on the subject. There is reason to hope that measures will shortly be adopted which will practically obviate the danger of marriages contracted in this country between Englishwomen and Frenchmen being held invalid in France by reason of non-compliance with the formalities required by the laws of that country.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government will consent to an inquiry, either by a Royal Commission or by a Committee of this House, into the present system of ground leases in towns, whether of houses or of land for building and occupation?

This question has not been discussed in the House, and Her Majesty's Government are not aware of a state of facts sufficiently serious to lead them to think that it would be right to move for an Inquiry.

asked whether the Government would oppose a Motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission?

We should first require to know the case of the hon. Gentleman before we could consider it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great interest taken by many Irish Members upon the subject, and in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when replying to a deputation which waited upon him on the 27th of April last:—

"That the Irish Government could never acquiesce in the Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill not being passed into Law this Session,"

he will provide an early opportunity for taking the judgment of the House upon the measure?

Upon this question I am afraid I must remind the hon. Member that this Bill is a Bill competing with several others, but at the same time undoubtedly stands in that class of Bills which we are exceedingly desirous to see passed, and which we believe the House in general wishes to see passed. I therefore see no reason to doubt—and certainly no exertion will be wanting on the part of the Government—that the House will have an opportunity of giving a judgment on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the assent of M. de Lesseps has been ob- tained to the laying upon the Table of the House Copies of the communications that have passed between the Administration of the Suez Canal Company and Her Majesty's Government as to the construction of a second Canal; and, if so, to inquire when the House may expect to be in possession of those communications?

We find that we are not at present in a position to publish the Correspondence to which reference is made in the Question.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to make a personal explanation. On Friday I, in the House, stated that certain matters had been laid before Lord Dufferin in Egypt, and he did not consider himself at liberty to incur the responsibility of going into them. The Prime Minister, without ascribing exact falsification to me, implied something very near it. I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times to-day from Mr. Eve, solicitor to Arabi Pasha, in which occurs the following passage:—

"A portion of this evidence was offered before the close of the trial of Arabi to Lord Dufferin for his private information. Upon reference to a letter now before me, I find the circumstances of the communication most distinctly stated as follows:—'First, it was offered to his Lordship to bring witnesses to prove that Omar Lufti had ordered Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment down unharmed, and that Suleiman had refused to be made a fool of, seeing well the construction that would be put upon it; also that, perceiving what would be said if he stayed away while massacre was going on, after an hour's delay he came with his troops in arms in distinct contradiction to Omar Lufti's orders, and quelled the riots; secondly, it was offered to bring the man who had received the order and taken it to Suleiman Sami; and, thirdly, to bring another who had heard Omar Lufti in the streets exhorting the massacrers to strike home on the heads of the Christians, and not to spare.'"

The letter adds—

"Lord Dufferin said it was not his business to prosecute Omar Lufti."

I wish to ask also, whether, in view of such a statement, the Prime Minister still adheres to the allegation made by him on Friday last, that—

"As far as Lord Dufferin's recollection and knowledge went, he entirely declined to recognize one jot or tittle of the statement as entitled in the slighest degree to credit."

I also wish to know whether the Prime Minister, in view of his statement on Friday last—

"That it was the duty of the Government to investigate any definite charge which was left in their hands, and that they would make the best examination in their power,"

intends to make such inquiry into the "tremendous charge" make against the Khedive of Egypt of having been concerned in the instigation of the massacres of June 11 at Alexandria, and, if so, when he will state in what manner Her Majesty's Government intend to carry out this duty?

Sir, with regard to the second of these charges, the noble Lord has correctly stated that I said that it would be the duty of the Government to investigate any definite matter or charge which might be left in their hands, and that we should make the best examination of such a charge in our power. I am bound to say, however, that, on perusing the speech of the noble Lord, I find very little definite matter in it; and, before proceeding to say anything upon it, I wish very much to know whether that speech, or any particular report of that speech, is the basis upon which he proposes to found his Question? The matter is a very serious one, and a Member making a charge of this kind incurs an immense responsibility. But we should not like to make investigation without knowing that we were dealing with the subject-matter with which the noble Lord desired that we should deal.

I shall be perfectly prepared to place all the materials which are in the possession of myself and others in the hands of the Prime Minister, in order that he may judge of their nature, if he will only tell me the character of the tribunal which he purposes shall make the Inquiry?

The tribunal, in the first instance, must be the Government itself. It would be our duty to make the examination in the first instance; but it would be a prelimary and not a definite examination, and there would be an appeal to this House in case we should discharge our duty in an unsatisfactory manner. With regard to the first Question of the noble Lord, I think the misunderstanding that has arisen between us is this. The Question which the noble Lord puts relates entirely, if I understand it aright, to the evidence brought forward against a certain personage named Omar Lufti.

Which would be brought against him?

The statement of the noble Lord to which I desired to apply the negative and the repudiation of Lord Dufferin was a statement which, as we understood—and I think the noble Lord probably meant it—applied to the Khedive.

Acting through Omar Lufti.

There is no proof of any connection whatever between Omar Lufti and the Khedive in this question. That would be my first answer. Now, I am bound to say, viewing the nature of the case, that the House takes a very humane interest in every question of life and death, and I fully recognize the title of the House to be informed upon all that the Government have done in regard to such a question. The course which I propose to take at present for the information of the House is this—I propose to read two telegrams from Egypt which touch the vital parts of the case of Suleiman Sami; I propose then to read a letter or despatch which Lord Dufferin has addressed to Earl Granville, in which he notices the case of Omar Lufti. These Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as possible, together with some germane Papers. When I have read the despatch hon. Members will have the most material parts of the case before them, and will be able to found upon it either Questions or discussion. This is a despatch from Sir Edward Malet, dated June 9 (Saturday)—

"Suleiman Sami was executed this morning. The evidence against him established clearly that the burning of Alexandria was done by his orders, in disobedience to orders received by him from Arabi Pasha. In thus abstaining from interference I have been guided by the principles laid down in Lord Dufferin's despatch (No. 138), in which Her Majesty's Government concurred, and by your Lordship's despatch to me (No. 304) of the 8th of September, saying that Her Majesty's Government would not take any steps to prevent execution in cases in which participation in the burning of Alexandria was proved."

Sir Edward Malet has also sent another short telegram, saying—

"I have received the following telegram from Major Macdonald, dated yesterday.

Then he gives the body of Major Macdonald's telegram, which runs as follows:—

"I consider that the charges against Suleiman Sami were proved, and that the sentence was a just one.'"

On what date did the Government receive the despatch?

It is addressed to Lord Granville to day. Now this is the despatch addressed to Lord Granville by Lord Dufferin—

"My Lord, —As it has been suggested in Parliament that the Khedive of Egypt was the author of the massacres at Alexandria on 11th June last year, and as it has been publicly stated that I hurried the trial of Arabi Pasha to a premature conclusion, lest, were it to have been prolonged, revelations might have been made injurious to the character of His Highness, I beg to say that such a supposition is quite erroneous. It is perfectly true that during the course of some preliminary conversations I had with Mr. Broadley in regard to disputed points of procedure between himself and the Egyptian Public Prosecutor, that gentleman occasionally hinted, in ominous but vague language, that in the interests of his clients he would be compelled to make very damnatory disclosures in regard to a number of eminent Egyptian personages. To these observations, which were more than once repeated, I invariably replied, as I am sure Mr. Broadley will himself testify, that such a result would be a matter of indifference both to myself and to Her Majesty's Government, who could have no possible desire to shield anyone to whom such a dreadful crime as murder could be brought home. Nor did I ever utter a word to discourage Mr. Broadley from executing his intentions. It is true I did not regard these minatory suggestions as serious—at all events, so far as the Khedive was concerned; but even had I attached more importance to them, I should not have held different language. It was during the course of one of these conversations that Mr. Broadley said to me that in strict justice it was Lufti Pasha, and not Arabi, who ought to be in the dock, and that he could mention facts to support this assertion. The circumstances which he referred to did not, however, appear to me to make out a case against Lufti which could be seriously sustained, and if, as Mr. Eve has asserted in his letter to The Times of to-day, I replied during the course of what was expressly a privileged,' and therefore unguarded, conversation, that it was not my business to prosecute the Minister of War,' I can only congratulate myself upon having made so sensible a reply. The circumstances under which the trial of Arabi was concluded I have already related to your Lordship in my previous despatches, and especially in the despatch of the 5th instant. The narrative speaks for itself and disposes of the theory that I did anything to hush up the proceedings. Only one other person, and that an English gentleman, in some degree professionally connected with the Arabi interest, ever submitted to me a suggestion that the Alexandria massacres could be traced to the agency of His Highness the Khedive; but the accusation was not supported or substantiated by any tangible fact or circumstance which could bring conviction to a reasonable mind, especially when account was taken of the avowed sentiments of my interlocutor. Nor during the whole of my stay in Egypt was a tittle of evidence brought to my notice which would in the faintest degree have authorized so strange an allegation. After the conversation in question, however, I thought it worth while to sound a number of trustworthy and unprejudiced persons, both European and Native, on the point, and I especially discussed the matter with Sir Charles Wilson. As I have already stated, Sir Charles Wilson's sympathies were absolutely impartial. In fact, he was considered by the Egyptian Government to have taken a far too indulgent view of the Arabi movement. Sir Charles Wilson ridiculed the idea of the Khedive's complicity in the massacres, as I am bound to say did every other person to whom I mentioned the subject. Under the foregoing circumstances I have never been able to come to any other conclusion than that the accusation in question was one of those thousand baseless calumnies which teem from Egyptian soil, for whose origin there is no accounting, and which, being unsupported by any substantial or tangible evidence, are the more difficult to refute."

Then comes a postcript—

"With regard to Mr. Eve's statement as to the witnesses to whom the safe-conduct was to be given, I have no recollection of the circumstance to which he refers. Had Mr. Broadley required a safe-conduct for any of his witnesses, he would have made me an official demand in writing to that effect, and, as a matter of course, I should have requested the Egyptian Government to comply with his desire."

The two important questions are the execution that has lately taken place, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to it, and the question which, I deeply regret to say, has been raised by the noble Lord with regard to the Khedive of Egypt. But I hope we may be allowed to place these documents in the hands of Members; and I think it would be better that I should make no collateral or subsidiary statements, because the main points raised are, I think, fully dealt with in the Papers I have read.

Sir, I do not propose to enter into the questions raised by the Papers we have heard read. But with regard to the execution of Suleiman Sami, the House will expect to have some information as to the course the Government have taken. Therefore, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he undertake to communicate to the House the several telegrams that have passed between the British Government and their Representatives in Egypt, or between the British and Egyptian Governments, on the subject of Suleiman Sami's execution? In asking for the telegrams that have passed, I wish to have the dates, not only of the days on which they were despatched, but the hours. I hope the Government will also be good enough to make the proper correction for the difference of time between this meridian and that of Egypt. There is another question; reference has been made to a telegram on Saturday from Major Macdonald. I wish to know what is the position he holds, and by whose authority he is acting?

said, the right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave him Notice two hours ago of his intention to ask for the production of these telegrams; and he might mention that these telegrams, with the dates and hours corrected in the manner asked for, would, of course, form a portion of those Papers mentioned by the Prime Minister, which would be presented to the House with the least possible delay. He thought that it would be better for the House to have full details presented at once rather than piecemeal information. With regard to Major Macdonald's position, he did not think he could give a better description of it than by saying that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt, after rendering most valuable services, Major Macdonald was appointed to watch the trials on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and now he was performing the duties previously performed by Sir Charles Wilson.

What regiment does he belong to?

A Highland regiment.

asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to producing the text of the telegram sent at 3 o'clock on Friday to Sir Edward Malet; also, whether, among the fresh evidence that Suleiman Sami wanted to call was that of Arabi Pasha; and, if so, why Her Majesty's Government, considering the nature of the evidence upon which Suleiman Sami's fate depended, did not delay his execution until a Commission could be sent to obtain Arabi's evidence?

said, that neither he nor the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a telegram was sent at 3 o'clock on Friday. What he said was that a telegram was sent subsequently to the meeting of the House, and not previously. With regard to the other Question, he was not in a position to inform the House whether among the fresh evidence required by Suleiman Sami was that of Arabi Pasha.

asked the noble Lord, Whether his attention had been drawn to the letter from Mr. Mark Napier in The Times of that morning, and whether the course there mentioned with regard to the trial of prisoners had been pursued in the case of Suleiman Sami?

said, his attention had been drawn to Mr. Mark Napier's letter. He might mention that the letter alleged that he had been entirely wrong in stating that the procedure followed was that of the French Code, rather than that with which they were more familiar in this country. There were six heads in Mr. Mark Napier's letter. Two of those statements distinctly proved that he was right, and Mr. Mark Napier was wrong, for Mr. Mark Napier mentioned certain facts which were distinct features of the French, and not of the English procedure. As to the remaining heads, he was not in a position to state whether Mr. Mark Napier was correct as to the facts, but his own impression was that he was not correct. He was sorry to have to differ from Mr. Mark Napier, and he must, in justice to himself, mention that when Mr. Mark Napier called upon him at the Foreign Office he had a most interesting conversation with him, in the course of which Mr. Mark Napier frankly and candidly admitted that he had not the slightest acquaintance with the French procedure.

asked whether the course mentioned in Mr. Mark Napier's letter as having been pursued was in accordance with the French procedure?

said, that he was unable to speak with authority upon the French procedure. He was only quoting from information supplied to him by gentlemen who were cognizant with it. He believed he was right in stating that at the French "instruction" evidence was taken, and that witnesses were examined and cross-examined upon it at the final trial.

Although the Government have promised to lay the Papers on the Table, yet, with reference to one portion of the Question, I do not think it is desirable or necessary for the House to wait until the Papers are presented—I mean the Question with reference to the course taken as to the execution of Suleiman Sami. I propose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the recent Trial and Execution of Suleiman Sami at Alexandria. The leave of the House having been given:—

said: Sir, I understand it to be the feeling of the House that it was desirable that the earliest opportunity should be taken to ascertain precisely how we stand in regard to a matter of great importance. I do not desire to go at any length into this question, but I will remind the House of what took place on Friday. The House met at 2 o'clock, and a Question was put to the Government with reference to the statement that Suleiman Sami had been condemned to death. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not at the moment in the House, and the Prime Minister apparently was not in possession of the information desired with regard to the matter. The noble Lord subsequently came down to the House, and we heard from him a very clear explanation of what had taken place at the Foreign Office. As far as I understand, the first communication that reached the Foreign Office on the subject of the conviction and sentence was on Thursday; some communication had taken place, and the matter had not been brought under Lord Granville's notice till some time on Friday. The noble Lord spoke of it, as "the first thing on Friday morning." We want definite information on a matter upon which so very much turns. However, according to the noble Lord's statement some time prior to the meeting of the House at 2 o'clock the matter had been under Lord Granville's consideration, and he appears to have come to the conclusion to make some inquiry. After discussion took place on the subject, he made a communication which led to some communication in return. We want to know the nature of these communications. What was the telegram sent? It would not be difficult for the noble Lord to give us that telegram, and the other communications, with the exact time and hour at which they took place. All that of which I have spoken occurred during the Morning Sitting. When the House met in the evening further Questions were put, and we were left in a position of some uncertainty as to whether instructions were sent to our Representatives in Egypt to take steps to stay the execution until the receipt of further instructions. Was any second telegram sent, and at what time, and what answer, if any, was received? I wish also to have some clear and distinct information as to Major Macdonald's position in the matter. His position clearly was of very considerable importance in relation to Her Majesty's Government. This was not a case of an ordinary judicial transaction in Egypt; it was not a case in which we should hold aloof and allow the Egyptian tribunals to act according to their own judgment; but, having arisen out of the transactions of last year, and being so closely connected with the circumstances in which we occupied the position we now hold in Egypt, it was a matter on which it was our right and our duty to make inquiries and to see that right was being done. I want to know what authority and functions Major Macdonald was to exercise in this case. Her Majesty's Government themselves acknowledged a certain responsibility by the very fact of the instructions given to Major Macdonald. I am anxious to know whether we were right on Friday in supposing that the Government had put themselves into communication with their Representatives in time to ascertain before the prisoner was actually executed whether there was a case for the interposition of Her Majesty's Government, and also whether there was time for that interposition if there was occasion for it. There ought not to be a moment's doubt left on the mind of the House or of the country as to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government, because if, on the one hand, they did nothing, then the House has a right to complain of the breach of the understanding which seemed to be arrived at on Friday; and, on the other hand, if they made representations, and those representations were disregarded, then a serious state of things has arisen. It is necessary that we should have at once, without waiting for Papers, clear explanations on these points; and if the noble Lord would tell us at what hour the telegrams were sent, and what telegrams were sent, we should have more means of forming a judgment than we have at present. I therefore, for the purpose of getting an answer, beg to move the Adjournment of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

I think, Sir, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable one, and I shall proceed to answer his Questions at once. I was under the impression that the most important of these telegrams having been read by the Prime Minister it was hardly necessary to produce the short telegram of Lord Granville, to which Major Macdonald's telegram was a reply. I will, however, at once produce the telegram. But I must entirely demur to the account of what took place as to what was said on Friday evening by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of great importance to make that point clear. Her Majesty's Government had no doubt whatever, from the information that reached them, that the sentence which was to be executed upon Suleiman Sami was a fair and just one; because they knew that they had on the spot a trusted and trustworthy agent, who had not sent to them any information such as his instructions would have obliged him to send if he had thought that a great act of injustice—nothing less than a judicial murder—was about to be perpetrated. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government recognized that there had appeared in many newspapers statements, some of which they believed to be entirely incorrect in regard to that matter, which were producing a disturbing effect on the minds of the public generally and on Members of this House, who were anxious that justice, wherever English influence prevailed, should be tempered with mercy. That being so, the President of the Local Government Board on Friday stated that the Government had decided to put themselves in possession of Major Macdonald's opinion, so as to be able to fortify themselves should any question be raised, not only by the negative argument of Major Macdonald's silence, but by his positive statement and affirmation on the question. As was stated by the President of the Local Government Board, Lord Granville determined, on Thursday evening and on Friday morning on consultation with those whom he thought it well to consult on the matter, on communicating with Sir Edward Malet on the subject. That decision having been arrived at, early at the Morning Sitting on Friday certain Questions were put without Notice. I was not in my place at the time—there being no Foreign Office Question on the Paper—but I was communicated with, and I came down to the House just as the discussion was over. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity of answering his Question shortly before 7 o'clock, and I stated that the Government had determined to have those trials carefully watched by a British officer, assisted by gentleman specially conversant with the Turkish and Arabic languages. Major Macdonald was not himself acquainted with Turkish and Arabic; but Mr. Maccullagh and Mr. Cameron were not only conversant with those languages, but many members of the Court Martial were well acquainted with French, Italian, and also English. Sir Charles Wilson has told me that the President of the Courts Martial held while he was there, spoke English almost as well as an Englishman. But on all the Courts Martial, as the Papers presented will show, the utmost care had been taken that persons well qualified by their knowledge of the country and of the languages should form the tribunals to which those important issues of life and death were intrusted. I would remind the House that on that particular tribunal sat a distinguished Englishman (Morris Bey) and a distinguished Italian (Frederigo Bey). That being so, Sir, Lord Granville, as I have just said, de- termined to inform himself of the facts so as to be able at the earliest date to give information in either House of Parliament, should any Question be asked. I have been asked whether the telegram was sent from the Foreign Office previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House at the Morning Sitting on Friday. In answer I have to say that although the determination had been arrived at previous to the meeting of the House, the actual telegram did not go until some hours after. We never said anything about the telegram having been sent at 3 o'clock. The point raised was whether the decision to send the telegram had been arrived at previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House. As I have stated, the decision was arrived at before the meeting of the House, but the actual telegram was not sent until after. I communicated to the Secretary of State what had occurred in the House, and the first telegram was sent immediately on my return to the Foreign Office. It was sent at 7 o'clock on Friday evening. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to state what hour it would be in Egypt, and I am informed by those who are competent to speak on the point that we ought to allow two hours. That would bring the time to six minutes past 9 o'clock. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: When would it get there?] I think if I said in 21/2 or 3 hours I should be accurate. The first telegram was couched in those words — "Will the sentence against Suleiman Sami be carried into effect?" The second telegram was sent at a quarter past 8 P.M. It has already been read to the House. It was as follows:—

"Has Macdonald any doubt as to the justice of the sentence of death passed on Suleiman Sami Is the date of execution fixed?

They were both sent to Sir Edward Malet. Then, Sir, we received the answer from Sir Edward Malet which has been already read to the House, dated June 11. The third telegram, which I have already read to the House, said that the evidence against Suleiman Sami established the fact that he was implicated in the burning of Alexandria and that he had acted contrary to his orders. Then there was a later telegram, which has just been received, which states that Major Macdonald considered the charges against Suleiman Semi proved and the sentence a just one. These are the facts; and what I wish to impress upon the House is that the Government did not send telegrams with a view to stopping the execution, because it is highly improbable that, if they wished to do so—which they did not—that course would have been the one likely to accomplish that end; but they were sent with the view of satisfying themselves positively that Major Macdonald was satisfied, so as to be able to say so in the House. The position of Her Majesty's Government was, that having taken steps, as they considered. sufficient to secure a fair and impartial trial, they did not think that in the complete silence of their adviser, Major Macdonald, there was any reason for their departing from the ordinary course, and not allowing justice to proceed in the case of Suleiman Sami, as in the case of other prisoners who had gone to their account for crimes committed—not in connection with the burning of Alexandria—for I believe I am right in saying this execution is the first one on that charge—but in connection with those other painful and terrible events which have attracted universal attention. I hope the House will see that Her Majesty's Government, in adopting that course, have acted in accordance with the known facts, and that they have been fully justified by the result; because they not only had the argument from the silence of Major Macdonald, but from absolute statements, confirmed, as I can prove them to have been, by all the probabilities of the situation, and all the facts, that Suleiman Semi, when he met his fate, deserved that fate, and that a bad and wicked man has gone to his account with the guilt of crimes upon him which have been execrated all over the civilized world.

said, he thought the House had reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for giving them an opportunity for arriving at some enlightenment as regarded this terrible business of June 9. But he thought the House would agree with him when he said that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the statement made by the noble Lord. It was unsatisfactory, because, with all its ability and ingenuity, the Government had a case which it was impossible to defend. The noble Lord had said that the Government never had any doubt as to the justice of the proceedings of the trial and conviction of the prisoner. That statement was rendered absolutely absurd and ridiculous by the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government on Friday. If they never had a doubt, why did they telegraph to Sir Edward Malet to make inquiry? If the Government never had a doubt, the Prime Minister never had a doubt. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Why, then, was the right hon. Gentleman unable, at 2 o'clock on Friday night, to give the House any information on the subject? But the case appeared now to be much worse, because they seemed on Friday to have sent two telegrams which he could only characterize as panic-stricken. The first was to Sir Edward Malet, asking what day was fixed for the execution.

said, this showed the inconvenience of discussing Papers which had not been presented. The words were, "Will the sentence on Suleiman Semi be carried into effect?"

said, that made it even worse, when they remembered that the Government had no doubt as to the justice of the trial. Then they had a second telegram which was sent to ascertain Major Macdonald's opinion on the trial. The first telegram was sent at 7 o'clock, and the other an hour later, on Friday. But they had been told that when Lord Granville saw the statement in The Times that Suleiman was condemned, he arrived at the decision that it was better to make inquiry. The President of the Local Government Board said that the delay in making the inquiry was due to the fact that it took a long time to put the telegram into cypher.

said, he merely suggested it as a possible reason because he was pressed to give names. Not being a Member of the Foreign Office, he could not know what were the circumstances which produced the delay. All that he said he knew was that a determination to inquire into matters of fact had been arrived at on Thursday night.

Thursday night?

said, he had stated that, and he had further said that Lord Granville had come to the determination after consultation with Lord Dufferin.

said, then it was not to be wondered at that our foreign policy sometimes led to disaster. It seemed that on Thursday night they arrived at a decision to make inquiries, and yet, although this was a matter of life and death, no inquiry was sent till 7 o'clock on the following day. And, besides, no reply was received or could be received until Suleiman had been hanged. These were circumstances which, however the Government might attempt to brazen them out, would be considered by the country in a very serious manner. He was perfectly well aware that it was very convenient to the ruling authorities that he should be hanged. He should ask the House to consider for a moment the telegram which appeared in The Times on the 7th instant with reference to the trial of this unfortunate man. The Times Correspondent at Alexandria had watched these trials with great care. The Government had great confidence in him because he had been a firm and strong supporter of the Government of Egypt and of the English connection with it. He wrote as follows:—

"The preliminary inquiry into the case of Suleiman Sami, who is accused of burning Alexandria, was conducted, according to the testimony of Major Macdonald, with perfect impartiality, and resulted in conclusive evidence of the prisoner's guilt. The prisoner did not deny the accusation, but alleged that he acted under the superior orders of Arabi. His four witnesses called to support this theory of defence gave contradictory evidence. The Commission considered that the defence was not proved, and committed him and his subordinate officers for trial by Court Martial. Sixteen days were allowed for the preparation of the defence. At the end of that period the prisoner's counsel threw up his brief. A second counsel who was engaged asked for 14 days to be allowed him, and eight were granted."

Before he went further, he wanted to recall a statement made by the Prime Minister before Whitsuntide as to the manner in which these trials were to be conducted. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had stated that the prisoner was not present while the witnesses were examined, nor when they were cross-examined. The Prime Minister gave him a direct contradiction on these points, but he added that—

"This was to be followed by the real trial, in which the evidence would be sifted, the wit- nesses cross-examined, and their evidence rebutted. He should agree with the noble Lord"—

that was an extraordinary thing—

"if the preliminary proceeding concluded the whole matter, and if it were not to be followed by the real trial. It was not the first time the subject had engaged his attention. Immediately there was reason to believe that suspicion existed, Earl Granville took pains to inquire and ascertain the facts. The substantial object to be aimed at was that justice should be done. It was not necessary, and it would be highly inexpedient, to quash all that had been done; but it was necessary that the information that had been accumulated should be liable to be sifted, examined, rebutted, and contradicted. In this instance a pledge had been given that counsel should be employed; he understood that to mean the bringing out of all the facts of the case without fear or favour; and with that assurance he hoped the House would be satisfied.

That was as to the trial of Khandeel.

contended that the pledge alluded to the case of Suleiman Sami and other political prisoners charged with him. Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to watch the case if you did not care about Suleiman Sami?

I must call on the noble Lord to address himself to the Chair.

begged to apologize, but he must repeat the question. Nothing could be more unworthy of the Prime Minister, and it would be the last thing he should attribute to him, that he should wriggle out of the matter by saying the pledge he had given only applied to the case of Khandeel. Now, let them read The Times' Correspondent as to the way in which the Government kept their pledges—

"The proceedings having commenced, the counsel desired to re-open the entire question, to re-examine all the witnesses, and to summon fresh ones. The Court thereupon called on the Public Prosecutor, who demanded the condemnation of the accused upon the report of the Commission. The prisoners' counsel protested against the Public Prosecutor stopping the defence, and demanded the documents used and recorded in Arabi's trial. The Court refused this request, upon which the counsel threw up his brief. The tribunal was subsequently induced by Major Macdonald to allow the prisoners to call further witnesses. But its members have now suddenly announced their intention of closing the proceedings and pronouncing sentence to-morrow."

Why to-morrow? It was because the Khedive instructed this impartial tribunal that he was anxious to enter Alexandria on Sunday, and it would have been extremely awkward that the Khedive of Egypt should enter Alexandria on Sunday morning, if the man who had reduced Alexandria to ashes in obedience to the orders of the Khedive were to be hung before his eyes. ["Oh, oh!"] He asserted, and he defied contradiction, that the order to open fire on the English Fleet, which produced the bombardment of Alexandria, which let to the destruction of the town, was signed by the Khedive. He defied Her Majesty's Government to contradict that statement. He repeated the statement, and defied contradiction of it. The Times' Correspondent went on to say—

"Major Macdonald has protested to Sir Edward Malet, and has asked for a suspension of the proeeedings. The entire incident has been caused by the ridiculous mode of procedure which has been adopted, whereby one Court hears the evidence without pronouncing judgment, and another pronounces judgment without sifting the evidence; and also by the sheer inability of the Natives to understand the necessity of satisfying the public by holding an open trial."

Now, was it true that Major Macdonald had asked for a suspension of the proceedings? [An hon. MEMBER: It was not true.] All he could say then was, that Major Macdonald was a perfectly useless person, and unworthy of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government, if, after inducing the Court to say they would allow witnesses to be called, he did not protest when they said they intended at once to pronounce sentence. Further, what became of the Prime Minister's promise, in reliance upon which the matter was allowed to slide? Suleiman Sami had been sentenced to death and hanged by the Court before he could call a single witness—without being allowed to call a single witness—and yet that was the kind of tribunal before which the political prisoners were being tried in Egypt, that was the Court and that was the sentence which Her Majesty's Ministers now told the House they had no doubt was perfectly fair and just. He looked upon Her Majesty's Government as responsible for the hanging of Suleiman Sami as much as for the hanging of Timothy Kelly in Kilmainham. They could have stopped the execution in a moment if they had wished to do so; and he was justified in charging the Government, either from neglect or from some other cause, with the grossest and vilest judicial murder that ever stained the annals of Oriental justice. ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear!"] He charged the Prime Minister and his Colleagues with the murder of Suleiman Sami, and he challenged him to say that his pledges had been fulfilled. Suleiman Sami wanted to call Arabi Pasha as a witness. Arabi gave Suleiman Sami his first appointment in the Army in 1882—he gave him the command of a regiment —and from that time to the suppression of the revolution he was under the orders of Arabi. What was the charge upon which he was hanged? For having been responsible for the destruction of Alexandria. Suleiman Sami was left behind by Arabi to cover the retreat of the Egyptian Army; that Army was in a state of complete panic at the idea that the English forces were about to land and occupy Alexandria, and he had one thought and one thought only, and that was how to get the Egyptian troops out of the town, and, as a military measure, he decided to burn the European portion of the town in the hope that the English forces would be diverted from their pursuit of the Egyptian troops. Did the House admit that as a defence—["No!"]—when that measure was adopted for military purposes? If not, then that man ought not to have been hanged. If the Government did not admit that as a defence, why did not they hang Arabi? On what just grounds could they acquit the Commander-in-Chief and hang one of his inferiors? Why had the Government hesitated to ask for a delay of a few weeks for the purpose of taking Arabi's evidence by commission in Ceylon? There was another reason why Suleiman Sami was entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Was the House aware that Suleiman Sami was the person who on the 11th of June one year ago had put a stop to the massacres at Alexandria? Was Her Majesty's Government aware that it was not until he arrived with his regiment at 6 o'clock that these massacres were stopped, and that if he had not arrived many Europeans in Alexandria would have perished? He now came to a matter he had touched upon last Friday. It was of vast importance to the Egyp- tian Government that Suleiman Sami should be hung. He was in command of the only efficient regiment of troops, and at 5 o'clock Omar Lufti sent a message to Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment into town to put down the riots; but they were to come unarmed. He disobeyed that order and came with his regiment, under arms, and put a stop to the riots and saved the lives of hundreds of Europeans. And it has been proved in evidence that the police, under the direct orders of Omar Lufti, committed massacres of the Christians. The House would find that statement substantiated over and over again by evidence given by Naval officers, who said that about 6.30 the regiment of Infantry appeared and drove the mob off. That proved the cardinal fact that Suleiman Sami, even if he had burned Alexandria, was entitled to every effort that could possibly be made to save his life, because, when our soldiers and sailors did not dare to land, Suleiman Sami came with his troops and saved the lives of hundreds of our fellow-countrymen. Never had Her Majesty's Government shown baser ingratitude, even in the case of the Bechuanas—though that was bad enough—for here they allowed to go to execution the man who had rendered them signal service. It was, however, essential to the Government of Egypt that Suleiman Sami should be hung, because he could prove the conduct of Omar Lufti on the day of the massacres, and that he was the tool of the Khedive of Egypt. There was another man in Alexandria, Ahmed Khandeel, who was Prefect of Police, now lying in a dungeon in Alexandria, who might be tried in exactly the same way, and who, if the House of Commons did not take the matter out of the hands of the Government, would most certainly be hung. The conscience-stricken action of Her Majesty's Government on Friday afternoon showed how surprised they were to find how much was known about this matter. That alone proved that they were not satisfied with the course of action that had been pursued. He left the matter for the public to judge of, and he charged the Government again with having been the responsible authors of a judicial murder; and he called upon them, while exculpating themselves from the charge, to take care that they were not guilty of another.

Sir, I am so accustomed, upon such a variety of subjects, to the loud assertions and sweeping accusations of the noble Lord, that, perhaps, they make less impression on my mind than they would on the mind of one less accustomed to his mode of action. I generally observe that his accusations become more unmeasured and his assertions more sweeping in proportion to what we ultimately find to be the nullity of the truth of them. The noble Lord finds a leading article in one newspaper this morning, and the communication of a correspondent in another, and the matter supplied from these sources he brings down to the House as establishing an irrefutable case, we having had, of course, no opportunity of testing them, and not being in a condition to deny them—[Cheers]—unless, indeed, we are disposed to adopt the method which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), by his cheering, seems to suggest— namely, that we should go about like the noble Lord to anonymous and unauthoritative sources, and allege before Parliament, as a matter of fact, everything that we can gather in the way of surmise or suggestion from these unauthorized informers. Sir, I cannot follow the noble Lord; I find him so inaccurate. I find that when he is contradicted on one point, he so rapidly substitutes another that it is hardly possible, without too largely drawing upon the patience of the House, to attempt to follow him. The noble Lord thinks he has established a most astonishing and irrefragable case against me because, although I said that I never had any doubt as to the propriety of the sentence passed on Suleiman Sami, yet I agreed to ask for further information. That the noble Lord treats as establishing a conclusive case against me. I agreed to ask for further information on the subject to satisfy the noble Lord, and not to satisfy myself; and it is because I do not choose to make what satisfies me the measure of what satisfies the noble Lord, he comes down to the House and treats that as an admission on my part that I had been entirely wrong in professing to have no doubt upon the case. Because I declined to make the noble Lord's mind the measure of mine he would now compel me to make my mind conform to the measure of his—a pro- cess that I respectfully decline. You have heard the loud assertions of the noble Lord with regard to Ahmed Khandeel, and the manner in which the promises have been broken, the wretched state of this man, and with regard to the administration of the law. It does happen, but by singular good fortune, that I have received a few words which are really authentic with regard to Khandeel, within the last few hours—namely, a telegram from Sir Edward Malet, who says—

"I have received the following telegram from Macdonald, dated Sunday:—'Khandeel has had every opportunity of calling witnesses for the defence during the "instruction," and he called one, who gave evidence against him. Mr. Beaman is his counsel.'"

said, neither the prisoner nor his counsel could be present at the "instruction;" and, therefore, he could not call witnesses then.

The noble Lord says he did not call witnesses; but Major Macdonald says he did call witnesses, and I believe Major Macdonald. This House will not suffer itself to be led away from its duty and from the dictates of good sense by the violent assertions of the noble Lord made in defiance of the responsible evidence of the most competent persons. Then the noble Lord has, in his best language, described me as wriggling out of an assertion that I have made.

Pardon me; what I said was, that the Prime Minister would not wriggle out of his assertion.

I think that I had better not examine too closely into the literal accuracy of the statement which the noble Lord has now made; but if he says that I would not wriggle out of an assertion I am at one with the noble Lord. Now, the noble Lord said that we had given certain specific promises with regard to the trial of the political prisoners. I may observe that his treatment of the subject is most inconvenient, because it entails the constant necessity of a number of further explanations and protestations. We never made any promise at all at the time to which the noble Lord refers with regard to the political prisoners, nor do we admit for a moment that Suleiman Sami was a political prisoner. We did not look upon him and his fellow-prisoners as political prisoners at all. Then, said the noble Lord, apparently with great triumph, "Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to attend the trial?" and loud cheers followed from the Gentlemen behind as if the noble Lord had convicted us of some inconsistency. The explanation of our conduct was this. Although we did not concede that these men were political prisoners, still we knew that the acts in respect of which they were arraigned were acts which were committed within the precincts of time marked out by the rebellion, and we thought it just and wise to have the proceedings carefully watched. There is the whole explanation of the matter in regard to which the noble Lord thought that he had made so damaging a discovery. The noble Lord has said that the Government ought to have made the greatest exertions for the purpose of saving Suleiman Sami's life in consequence of the splendid service which he rendered on June 11th. True, Suleiman Sami was the commander of a regiment of Egyptian troops, which had very late in the day a material share in putting down a movement which ought to have been put down very much earlier in the day. We are not in a position to say whose fault it was that it was not so put down; but with respect to Suleiman Sami, I must say that I have never before even heard such a notion as that he in the part that he took in putting down that movement was doing anything more than acting ministerially in obedience to orders which he received from his superior officers.

In strict disobedience.

Of course, our knowledge is not unbounded like that of the noble Lord. It is limited, unfortunately, to that which we have received from men like Lord Dufferin, Sir Edward Malet, Major Macdonald, and Sir Charles Wilson, who is now in London, and from whom we may be able to supply a little information to check that of the noble Lord. But from none of those gentlemen have we ever received the slightest intimation that the character of Suleiman's action on June 11th was what the noble Lord boldly proclaims it to be. What does the statement of the noble Lord come to on that point? If his statement with regard to the action of Suleiman Sami is right, Sir Edward Malet and Major Macdonald must have been substantially cognizant of the character of that action. [Lord R. CHURCHILL: No, no!] Then what are they good for? The noble Lord is perfectly ready in reliance on his anonymous and irresponsible authority to place no confidence in the experience, responsibility, and honour of the servants of the Crown. He has no choice in the dilemma in which he has placed himself. If Suleiman Sami performed on June 11th an extraordinary service by disobedience to a military order, either Major Macdonald, Sir Charles Wilson, and Sir Edward Malet knew it or did not know it. If they did not know it, they are certainly totally unfit for the position which they hold. If the fact could reach the noble Lord with all the clearness and absolute certainty with which he has laid it before the House, strange, indeed, must have been their blindness to the facts passing around them if they remained in ignorance of the matters assorted by the noble Lord.

It is in the Blue Book.

I deny that the facts as the noble Lord has stated them are recorded in the Blue Book. According to the noble Lord, these English gentlemen, knowing that this splendid service had been rendered on June the 11th, by Suleiman Sami, nevertheless allowed him to become the victim of the foulest judicial murder ever perpetrated, and yet could send home reports that the trial had been fair. I wish the noble Lord were under some real responsibility. I wish he knew what he is doing in making those charges, and using his privilege of speech in this House for the purpose of casting out the most scandalous and shameful accusations—first upon the Egyptians, and then upon Judges who are members of this Court —men like Morris Bey, the English Judge, and Frederigo Bey, the Italian member of the Court. But the noble Lord casts his net a little wider, and includes in it Sir Charles Wilson and Sir Edward Malet.

I never said a word about Sir Charles Wilson.