asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention which has been signed with reference to our commercial relations with Spain contains any stipulation that British and Spanish vessels shall be allowed to trade with Spanish ports on equal terms, both as regards the vessels themselves and the charges thereon, and as regards their cargoes; or if differential charges and duties are still intended to be levied by Spain against all commerce except that which may continue to be carried on under the Spanish flag?

Article 7 of the Protocol of Agreement laid before Parliament, and distributed last week, contains a full answer to the Question of the hon. Member.

asked whether the House was to understand that Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt whatever to relieve the British shipowners from the inequalities of which they complained?

Will the hon. Member give Notice of his Question?

said, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory position of the Military Foremen of Works (Engineers' Department) as regards promotion; if it is a fact that all the Surveyors and Assistant Surveyors in this department are civilians, and that, consequently, no member of the Military branch of the department can obtain a higher position in the service than that of Serjeant Major, although some of these men have served in that capacity for a period of sixteen years; whether this branch of the service is not the only one in which Quartermasters' Commissions are not attainable as a reward for long and faithful service; and, whether the War Office will consider the possibility of taking some steps to remove the grievances of which these men complain?

Yes, Sir; the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the position of Military Foremen of Works as regards promotion. At present the Surveyors and Assistant Surveyors are all civilians appointed after open competition. The examination is open to the Military Foremen of Works, some of whom have competed, but hitherto unsuccessfully. There are three Military Foremen of Works, who have been sergeants-major for more than 10 years. There are no quartermasters in the Department itself; but these warrant officers are eligible for selection for promotion as quartermasters in the Army generally. The Secretary of State is giving consideration to this matter, with a view to admitting to the higher grades of the Department qualified and meritorious warrant officers.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, after a consideration of the facts disclosed in the evidence at a coroner's inquest at West Bromwich in the case of the suicide of a school boy, consequent on the pressure to which he was subjected in order to force him through the examinations of the Code, he is still of opinion that the Code requires no amendment?

Sir, my attention was called to this lamentable case by the reports which appeared in the papers, and I directed that inquiry should be made of the Bromwich School Board as to the facts. I have received, in reply, a letter from the Clerk of the Board, and two local papers reporting the evidence given before the Coroner, and there is nothing in them to support the inference conveyed by the hon. Member's Question. The schoolmaster deposed on oath that the boy was a confirmed truant, and that lately he had refused to punish him for it, as he considered it useless. The letter states as follows:—

"Last week he was absent from school four half-days, up to Thursday afternoon, when the master sent a message by a school-fellow to that effect to the boy's home. The mother said she had kept him away once only, and the boy admitted having played truant the other three times. … The master told me that the boy had not been threatened nor unduly pressed with his work, there being no necessity for the latter, as he would have been a sure 'pass' "

The evidence given before the jury went to show that in various schools in the district unauthorized punishments were inflicted by assistant teachers, but not in this particular school. The jury recommended that, in future, all punishments should be inflicted by the head teacher, which is in conformity with the recommendations of the Education Department. The School Board state they are about to make a full inquiry into the whole case.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the office and duties of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific; and, whether he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take with reference to that Report?

Sir, the Report of the Committee referred to shall be given to the House without delay, but Her Majesty's Government have not yet been able to come to any decision, nor, indeed, to give any full consideration to the subject. The question has been materially affected by the action and resolutions of the highly important intercolonial Convention just held at Sydney. This may probably modify conclusions which might otherwise have been arrived at, and the recommendations of the Report may prove to be, in some respects, inapplicable to the altered conditions of the case.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a circular has been addressed by the constabulary authorities in Dublin to the local constabulary authorities in Ireland, calling upon them to report upon the religion of the magistrates in their several districts; if so, what is the object of the inquiry; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the circular upon the Table of the House?

Sir, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), a Return was ordered by this House showing, among other particulars, the aggregate number of magistrates of each religious persuasion in each county in Ireland. No inquiries of the character indicated in the Question were made, except such as were necessary for the purpose of preparing the Return to this Order. The Return was laid before the House in August last, but in the case of four counties the information given was so imperfect that it was deemed necessary to make further inquiry with the view of making the Return more complete.

Was the Return circulated?

It was laid on the Table.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state what is the amount of the Bankruptcy Estates Account; what amount was transferred to that account from the account of the Accountant in Bankruptcy; whether any, and, if so, how much, has been invested; and, also, what sums have been issued by the Treasury to the Board of Trade in aid of the Votes of Parliament to meet salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act of last Session?

Sir, I am informed that on the 7th instant the Bankruptcy Estates Account amounted to £230,095 19s., and £80,462 4s. 9d. had been transferred from the account of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, £200,000 had been paid over to the Treasury for investment, and £1,869 had been paid in aid of the Votes of Parliament to meet salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Queen's County is not completely free from foot and mouth disease; whether there is any, and, if so, what, reason for continuing the Privy Council Order prohibiting the holding of fairs within the county; whether the regulations of the Local Sanitary Authorities have not been found fully adequate to guard against the introduction of the disease; whether the same authorities have addressed to the Lord Lieutenant remonstrances against the prohibition of fairs within their districts; and, whether the fairs usually held in the latter half of February at Mountmellick, Mountrath, and Maryborough are to be prohibited?

Sir, the Queen's County is, according to the latest reports, free from foot-and-mouth disease. It remains under the provisions of the Privy Council Order prohibiting fairs and markets, because there were infected places in adjoining counties within the last 14 days. The regulations of the local sanitary authorities were not sufficient to guard against the introduction of the disease, because such regulations were made in only two out of six Unions wholly or partly within the county. The local authorities did remonstrate against the continuance of the Privy Council Order. The Lord Lieutenant did not feel that he would be justified in yielding to their wishes, but he caused them to be informed that he would favourably consider applica- tions for licences to hold fairs wherever an infected place did not exist within 25 miles of the site of the fair. Under these conditions licences have been granted for the fairs at Mountrath and Maryborough. I am informed that a fair is not usually held at Mountmellick during the latter part of February.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the proposed Bill for the promotion of education in Ireland will contain a provision for establishing a system of compulsory attendance; whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent disapproval expressed by Royal Commissions, and by Sir Patrick Keenan, regarding the district model schools; and, whether it is intended to dispense with them?

asked, before the Chief Secretary answered the Question, if he would say whether the endowed schools of Ireland would be dealt with this year in the Irish Education Bill, and, if not, whether a separate Bill dealing with the endowed schools in Ireland would be introduced?

Sir, I am not prepared to announce the provisions of the proposed Bill until I have an opportunity of making a general statement on the subject to the House. I am aware of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission over which Lord Powis presided in 1870 with regard to the model schools. That, I believe, is the only Royal Commission which has expressed any disapproval of them. I do not think Sir Patrick Keenan can be quoted as disapproving of these schools. His evidence before Lord Powis's Commission was in their vindication. The Commissioners of National Education have no intention of dispensing with thorn. In answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickson), I have to say that the Bill dealing with those schools is being prepared by the Government, and if there is any probability of its being passed this Session, it might be introduced. Several Bills, however, take precedence of it. If the Government find that it is probable that the Bill will pass without opposition they will introduce it, otherwise they will not.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the decision come to by the Municipal Boundaries Commissioners, who took evidence in 1879, with reference to the extension or otherwise altering the boundaries of the township of Arklow, in the county of Wicklow; whether he has noticed, at page 13 of the Commissioners' Report to the Lord Lieutenant, presented to Parliament in 1881, that they refer to Arklow as one of eleven towns in which they "have lessened the area in which full taxation is to be paid," and, at page 15, as one of seventy-six towns with respect to which they say, "if the extension of the boundary proposed by us with respect to each of those towns is carried out; "what is the explanation of the apparent contradiction; and, whether any communication has been made to the Town Commissioners of Arklow in regard to the inquiry held by the Municipal Boundaries Commissioners respecting the boundaries of the town?

Sir, the recommendations of the Commissioners will be found fully set forth in their Report to which the hon. Member refers, and which, as he mentions, is already before the House. They could not be conveniently quoted at length in answer to a Question. I do not think there is any such contradiction in the Commissioners' proposals as is suggested. While recommending an extension of the boundaries of the great majority of towns under the Towns Improvement Act, they also think that in the case of some of those towns only a restricted inner area should be liable to full taxation. Thus the boundary generally would be ex-tended as on page 15, yet lessoned "for full taxation" as on page 13. No communication on the subject has been made by the Government to the Town Commissioners of Arklow.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the list of 1,123 cases, reported to the Registrar General, of seamen who were drowned during 1881–2 by accident other than wreck, has been printed; and, if so, when it will be issued to the public?

, in reply, said, he did not find there was published any detailed list of the cases of accident by drowning other than by wreck published in the Registrar General's Returns. He would endeavour to obtain some information on the subject, and would communicate it to the House.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in The Army and Navy Gazette of January 22nd, that, in consequence of the large number of seamen suffering from venereal disease, orders have been given for men still diseased, but whose cases are not complicated, being sent to sea from hospital?

Sir, I am not aware what may have been stated in the newspaper referred to; but it is a fact that orders were some time ago issued directing that seamen suffering from the simpler form of venereal disease, which is not syphilis, and which is quite capable of being treated on board ship, should not be detained in hospital, but should be sent to sea in the regular course of their service.

Will the hon. Gentleman give me a Return of the number of men sent in this manner?

I will confer with the hon. Member on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as one of the Trustees to aid Coast Fisheries, When and where the Report of the Trustees on the administration of the Fishery Fund in their hands for the year 1883 can be had?

Sir, the Report has not yet been adopted, and will not, I understand, in the ordinary course be adopted for two months to come. If the hon. Member desires to obtain a copy of it when adopted, I would suggest that he should apply to the secretary to the Trustees.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, How many "urban districts" he has yet certified, in accordance with Clause 2, sections (2), (3); whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of such urban districts; whether he has found it necessary, in accordance with Clause 3, section (2), to order any Company to provide additional accommodation on workmen's trains; whether such orders have been complied with, and have resulted in increased facilities of locomotion; and, whether be can inform the House of the particulars of any such cases?

Sir, no urban districts have been certified; but under Section 2, Sub-section 3 of the Cheap Trains Act of last Session, the Board of Trade has certified certain stations and portions of railways as being within urban districts for the purposes of the Act. There is no objection to a list of those stations and portions of railways being laid on the Table of the House; but it would, I think, be desirable to wait a short time until the arrangements are wholly completed. The Companies have shown no indisposition to comply with the provisions of the Act with regard to penny-a-mile traffic and workmen's trains, and, consequently, there has been no occasion for the Board of Trade at present to make any order upon them in the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that there is in force a Treasury Minute, by which permanent clerks in the office of the Registrar General, Dublin, are rendered ineligible to do the class of work allotted to task writers; whether, nevertheless, for some years past this class of work has been wholly or most wholly given to the permanent clerks in the office, and the task writers have been thereby deprived of employment and support, after some of them had served the department for many years; and, whether, if this be the state of the case, any steps will be taken to amend it?

Sir, I have looked into this question, and have received a Report upon it from the Registrar General. The Treasury Minute to which the hon. Member appears to refer, was a direction given in 1876, that piece work should be given as little as possible to the established clerks. I have satisfied myself that this direction has been carried out, and the so-called task writers have been benefited thereby.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether Mr. Eyre W. Preston, who holds the salaried office of Investigator of Tithe Rent-charge under the Irish Land Commission, is the same person as Mr. Eyre W. Preston whose name appears in the published list of the names of the Committee

"Appointed by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, to express in a tangible form their sympathy with Lord Rossmore, and their disapproval of the conduct of the Executive; "

whether Mr. Eyre W. Preston and the other members of the Committee have published an "Appeal" for funds, in which they declare that the Government, by superseding Lord Rossmore, had "insulted the Orange body," and deserved "the most severe rebuke;" and, whether, if the member of the Rossmore Committee responsible for this language be the same person as the official of the Irish Land Commission, he will be continued any longer in the service of that Department?

Sir, this Question was referred to the Land Commissioners, and I have received the following communication from them:—

"The Land Commissioners were not aware till now that Mr. Preston was a member of the committee referred to in the Question. They strongly disapprove of his conduct in having become a member of that committee, and they have called on him to resign his situation in the Land Commission. Mr. Preston has accordingly placed his resignation in their hands."

I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman, and to give Notice that I shall ask him, Whether his attention has been called to speeches recently delivered by Mr. William Johnson, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland, and especially to a speech made in Dublin on the 8th of January; whether, in the opinion of responsible Law Officers of the Crown, such speeches are calculated to create hostility and ill-will amongst Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that three several warnings given to Mr. Johnson have been unsuccessful, he will now remove Mr. Johnson from his position?

I beg to give Notice that I will supplement that Question by asking the right hon. Gentleman, Whether any official of the Government who disapproves of their conduct is unfit to be in the Public Service?

I rise to say that the thanks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) are not due to me. Mr. Preston was connected with the Land Commission, and his dismissal entirely concerned the Land Commissioners. As regards the argumentative Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I shall be prepared on the proper occasion to give him a proper answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was by his authority or under his instructions, or, if not, by whose authority or under whose instructions, that the Public Prosecutor appeared at the Lambeth Police Court, on 11th September 1883, to support a criminal information against two medical men, Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates, for the manslaughter of a child by the improper performance of the operation of tracheotomy, and by criminal negligence connected therewith; whether the medical officer of the Treasury, or any other medical adviser, was consulted before the Public Prosecutor was instructed to appear to support the charge; what were the circumstances which were held to justify the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in the case; whether he is aware that the magistrate, before whom the charge was heard, dismissed it without hearing the witnesses or the counsel for the defence, with the remark that it was "persecution rather than prosecu- tion;" and, whether it is the intention of the Treasury to recompense Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates for the injury they have suffered from the appearance of the Public Prosecutor against them, and for the heavy expenses they have thereby been put to?

, in reply, said, as this matter did not come under the cognizance of the Home Secretary's Department, he would answer the Question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had no knowledge whatever of the course taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He acted entirely on his own responsibility, and, he believed, acted rightly. He did not institute the proceedings in any way—in fact, when applied to at first, he refused to initiate proceedings. The father and mother of the child who died, on a sworn information, obtained a summons from Mr. Chance, the police magistrate, to summon these gentlemen before the Court. When that summons had been granted, the persons interested waited on the Director a second time, and stated that they were American subjects, and had no means of employing legal assistance. The facts were brought under the notice of the magistrate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right that they should have aid in a qualified sense. Special direction was given that a solicitor should attend and see that all the evidence, whether it told in favour of or against the accused, was properly-placed before the magistrate. The view was expressed that the Director of Public Prosecutions did rightly, and was entirely free from blame. There would be no compensation given in the case. As to the observation of the magistrate, that the charge was "persecution rather than prosecution," all he could say was that the witnesses in the case placed all the facts on both sides fully and impartially before him.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the occasion of the proclaimed meeting at Killavullen on January 27th, the police charged a peaceable crowd before the proclamation was read aloud by the resident magistrates and a reasonable time given for the dispersal of those present, as prescribed by section ten of the Crimes Act; by whom was the charge ordered; whether it is true that, as reported in The Cork Herald of January 26th—

"The police rushed on the crowd, which included women and children, and struck them with the butts of their guns, the result being that two women, named Catherine Keeffe and Margaret Mahony, were badly injured, the latter sustaining several bruises on the side, while the former had a rib broken; "

whether Mr. John O'Connor, on complaining that a woman had been violently thrown down by the police, was ordered into custody and assaulted by a policeman; whether it is true that bodies of people arriving at the village subsequently, unaware of the proclamation of the meeting (which was only notified publicly on that morning), were charged and assaulted by the police and pursued for several miles through the country; and, whether he is aware that the resident magistrate in charge (Mr. Eaton) had a few weeks previously declared from the bench that he knew this district for the last sixteen years, and did not know a more peaceful or orderly district in the country?

Sir, I am glad the hon. Gentleman has put this Question, as it affords me an opportunity of stating that the reports which have been circuculated with regard to this matter contain very great misrepresentations of the facts. Mr. O'Connor, of Cork, the principal promoter of the meeting, was served with a copy of the proclamation before he left Cork, yet he persisted in going to the proposed place of meeting. The proclamation had been posted early in the morning at every place of worship in the vicinity and the people obeyed it. There was no crowd and no police charge. Mr. O'Connor persisted in parleying with the Resident Magistrate, and about 40 or 50 people collected round and pressed in to hear what was going on. They were pushed back by the police, and two women, pressed upon by others of the party, fell. They were not badly injured, and they have since resumed their usual avocations. Mr. O'Connor was not assaulted by the police. When he persisted in remaining, in defiance of the proclamation, his arrest was ordered, but was not insisted upon or carried out. A policeman laid his hand on him and advised him to go away quietly. It is not true that bodies of people, arriving afterwards, were charged and assaulted by the police, but a band of musicians were prevented from entering the village, and were followed by the police till they were clear of it. There is no doubt that they were aware that the meeting had been prohibited. Mr. Eaton's remark with regard to the state of the district referred to it as he had formerly known it. But very determined and continuous efforts have been made to get up an agitation against the payment of a police tax for constabulary stationed in the neighbourhood for the protection of a man named Hallissey, who had been cruelly "Boycotted" and threatened.

asked whether it was customary in Ireland that when their superior officer ordered an arrest the police had discretionary power as to whether the arrest should be carried out?

asked were the misrepresentations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in the police reports or in the public prints?

There is one portion of my Question that has not been answered. I asked whether the provisions of the Crimes Act had been carried out by the reading of the proclamation aloud, as required by the 10th section, and whether also a reasonable interval was allowed before the people were assaulted?

I am not aware whether the proclamation was read aloud, but there was nobody to read it to, and Mr. O'Connor was served with a separate copy.

The second part of the Question has not been answered. Was sufficient time allowed to the people to disperse before a charge was made on what now is stated to be a very insignificant crowd?

According to my information there was no crowd.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that at the Castlebar Petty Sessions on January 2nd the magistrates sentenced to seven days imprisonment a child named Anne Burke for being found in a house from which her mother had been evicted; whether it is true that this child is only three years of age; whether, at the Petty Sessions held in the same place on January 23rd, Mary Burke, the mother of this girl, with Thomas and Catherine Burke, her children, were also fined for the same offence ten shillings, or in default a week's imprisonment with hard labour; whether it was legal to impose hard labour for such an offence; and, whether this sentence against the child of three years old will be carried out?

Sir, this was a private prosecution for trespass. The case of Anne Burke was heard in her absence, as she did not appear in Court, and the magistrates, when passing sentence, were not aware of her ago. When informed of the fact, they at once directed that the warrant should not be executed. I am making further inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining how it happened that so young a child was summoned and who is responsible for such an occurrence. The case against the other members of the family was decided as stated. As regards the legality of the sentence that is a question of law as to which it is no part of my duty to express any opinion.

gave Notice of further Questions on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that William Hastings, who had been sentenced in December last by Chief Justice May to six months' imprisonment, on a charge of a scandalous libel, was on Tuesday last released, by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, when he had completed only two months of his term; whether he can state upon what grounds the Lord Lieutenant ordered this man's release, and at whose intervention; whether he can inform the House how often, during his present administration, the Lord Lieutenant extended this clemency to any prisoners convicted of a political offence; and, whether Hastings was treated during his imprisonment as a first class misdemeanant?

William Hastings was discharged by order of the Lord Lieutenant on Tuesday last on the ground of ill-health, the medical officer of the prison having certified that he was of very delicate constitution, and that his life was likely to be endangered by further imprisonment. The case against him was a private prosecution for criminal libel, and was not a charge for a political offence. He was not treated during his imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant, but his treatment as an ordinary convicted prisoner was modified to the extent of allowing him to communicate by letter with his friends and to supply himself with some books. The only case, so far as I am aware, of any person being imprisoned for a political offence since Lord Spencer came to Ireland was the case of Mr. Davitt and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). In both these cases the term of imprisonment was shortened by the Lord Lieutenant.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not consider the term of imprisonment with a plank bed which had been imposed on him (Mr. Harrington) was not for a political offence?

said, that the hon. Member's last Question was irregular, as it referred not to a matter of fact, but to an opinion.

asked whether the gentleman who had been released from prison was a person whose libels upon private individuals had been described by Chief Justice May as vile, scandalous, and atrocious; and whether the paper he published was not supported by Lord Spencer with Secret Service money?

As to the first Question, I believe it was so; as to the second, I cannot tell from what source the hon. Member gets his suggestions and ideas.

You do not deny it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Lords of the Treasury have announced to the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland that they will charge at the rate of £5 7s. 2d. per annum for every hundred pounds borrowed under the powers of "The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883," for the term of thirty-five years; and, whether it is true that all who borrow under the Land Act of 1881 can do so for the same number of years at the rate of £5 per annum; and, if so, why it is that loans under the Labourers' Act should be charged 7s. 2d. per cent. per annum more than loans under the Land Act, notwithstanding the fact that the entire Union are security under the Labourers' Act?

Sir, the terms of repayment of these loans are those prescribed by the Labourers' Act, and there is no power to reduce the annuity to the figure of 5 per cent. as suggested by the hon. Member, that rate having been prescribed only by special clauses for loans under the Land Act.

was understood to ask if the Labourers' Act did not provide that the loans should be repaid in instalments at the rate of £5 per annum for 35 years?

No, Sir, there was no such provision.

intimated that he would ask a further Question on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will immediately consider, in conjunction with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the propriety of suspending the cattle trade between England and Ireland for the last week of the present month, in order to secure the thorough cleansing and disinfection of all vessels employed in that trade, and thus prevent the serious risk of continuing the spread of foot and mouth disease by the constant infection of sound animals from Ireland when imported in tainted ships?

Sir, this matter has been under consideration, and it was thought expedient to issue from the Privy Council in Dublin a Circular Letter to all Companies engaged in carrying animals from Ireland. The Companies were asked to adopt extra measures for the prevention of infection through the medium of vessels engaged in cross-Channel traffic; and it was pointed out that it would appea that this could best be done by tempo rarily withdrawing from the service each vessel, and by cleansing and disin- fecting such vessel in a manner described in a Memorandum prepared by Professor Ferguson, and annexed to the Circular.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1871, with reference to Union Eating in Ireland?

I regret to inform the hon. and gallant Member that I cannot hold out any prospect that the Government will introduce a Bill on this subject within any period that I am willing to name.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he will introduce a Bill to enable Town Commissioners to borrow money on the security of their tolls, for the purpose of building town halls?

said, that the power had been expressly taken away by legislation, and was vested only in sanitary authorities. It was in the power of Town Commissioners to apply to have themselves made such, and it was not intended to introduce a Bill to confer the power referred to.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is intended to close the rifle ranges at Wormwood Serubbs, or to restrict the use of them in any way; and, if so, seeing how seriously such a course would impair the shooting efficiency of many Metropolitan Volunteer Regiments, whether another range, with equal facilities of access, will be provided in the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropolis?

Sir, the Wormwood Serubbs ranges are now closed in consequence of the danger to the prison. In order to enable the Volunteers and other troops to continue rifle practice at Wormwood Scrubbs, an officer was sent to Brussels to inspect the Tir National range in that city, which was stated to be perfectly safe. The report of this officer is now under consideration. There is no intention of providing another range in the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropolis, as it is believed that the Wormwood Serubbs ranges may be made perfectly safe.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has obtained any success in regard to the free navigation of the Tigris and Euphrates?

No further interruption of the navigation on the Tigris and Euphrates has taken place. Negotiations are proceeding with the Porte for a permanent settlement of the question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the Government of France any precise statement of the objects for which hostilities are continued in the Island of Madagascar?

No statement beyond that contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament has been received from the Government of France.

On that question I should like to ask why the Report of Commander Johnston, which detailed the insults offered to the British Flag, has not been published in the Blue Book?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that much damage was caused last summer at Meelick by the neglect of the authorities to raise the new sluices on the Shannon, and thus to avert the summer floods; and, if he will give directions that the sluices be raised in time next summer?

Sir, on August 20th last I answered a Question to the same effect as this one. The slight delay which unfortunately occurred in raising the new sluices on the first occasion of their being brought into use will not recur. There have, I believe, been floods since last Summer, and no complaints have been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House why the telegrams sent by Sir E. Malet to Hicks Pacha are not included in the Egyptian Papers lately published; and, whether he will lay upon the Table without delay any telegrams or other communications sent by Sir E. Malet or Sir E. Baring to any Egyptian officials in the Soudan? The right hon. Gentleman added: I may say, in explanation, that I refer to any telegrams or communications sent by Sir Edward Malet or Sir Evelyn Baring, and whether originating from Her Majesty's Government or the Egyptian Government.

Sir, the Foreign Office have no cognizance of any telegrams from Sir Edward Malet to General Hicks beyond that given as an inclosure in Egypt, No. 22, 1883, No. 80, and the telegram, the full substance of which is given in Sir Edward Malet's despatch of July 2, No. 59, page 72. Sir Edward Malet's telegram of June 22 to General Hicks, referred to in inclosure No. 2 in No. 58, page 7, was evidently an inquiry made respecting some Italian missionaries believed to have been captured by the Mahdi.

May I ask the noble Lord whether the correspondence that has taken place between Sir Evelyn Wood and General Hicks will be produced? Some letters have passed, I know, between these officials, and I think they ought to be produced.

I think that is a Question of which I may fairly ask Notice.

Do I understand the noble Lord that no telegram or other communication has passed between Sir Edward Malet or Sir Evelyn Baring and any Egyptian officials except those which he has named?

I answered the Question on the Paper.

The Question on the Paper is this—

"Why the telegrams sent by Sir E. Male to Hicks Pacha are not included in the Egyptian Papers lately published; and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table without delay any telegrams or other communications sent by Sir E. Malet or Sir E. Baring to any Egyptian officials in the Soudan?"

My answer, I think, quite covered the second part of the Question as well as the first—namely, that the Foreign Office had no cognizance whatever of any such communications.

May I ask the noble Lord, and, if he does not like to answer it, I will give him Notice of it for to-morrow, whether it is a positive fact that the Foreign Office are unaware that the following telegram was sent from Sir Edward Malet to General Hicks Pasha:—

"Orders have been sent by Cherif Pahsa to Suleiman Pasha, the Egyptian commander-in-chief in the Soudan, that no military movements are to be made without your advice and consent, and, consequently, that you are virtually commander-in-chief; that if he hears from yourself that your orders are disobeyed Cherif Pahsa will repeat them; and that you cannot be made commander-in-chief because the rebellion is a religious one, and if a Christian were publicly appointed to the head of the army to put it down, it would probably fan fanaticism."

I wish to ask if such a telegram could have been sent without the Foreign Office being cognizant of it; and whether the noble Lord will say whether such a telegram was sent, and, if it was, was it not strictly an official telegram, for which Her Majesty's Government must be directly responsible?

I shall be obliged to ask the noble Lord to put that Question on the Notice Paper.

I have another Question—if the noble Lord cannot answer it now I will give Notice of it—whether he will inquire from Sir Edward Malet and Sir Evelyn Baring if any such communications or telegrams have been addressed by them; and, if so, whether copies of them will be laid on the Table?

Certainly I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of that Question.

With regard to the telegram of which the noble Lord knows nothing, and of a Question as to which he requires Notice, is it true that the telegram is already printed in No. 2?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian authorities lately set on foot a system of man-hunting to get recruits for Baker Pacha's regiments to fight the Mahdi; whether, at Zagazig and other Railway Stations, black men were seen chained together by the neck, and guarded by Baker Pacha's gendarmerie; whether these were men who had been pressed or captured to serve against the Mahdi, and whether these prisoners were described as. "volunteers;" whether about one hundred and fifty such "volunteers" were obtained in a few days in the neighbourhood of Zagazig; whether he is aware that Baker Pacha stated openly in Cairo that all he could do with such men as those placed under his command would be to shut himself up at Souakim or get massacred in an attempt to reach Berber; and, whether the enrolment of "volunteers" above described, and the opinions of Baker Pacha, were known to the English representatives at Cairo some six weeks ago?

No reports in this sense have been received at the Foreign Office.

In consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I shall, on the earliest day, call attention to the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House a Return showing the number of Commissions obtained by Military Staff Clerks of the General Staff, as compared with the numbers of those obtained by Non-Commissioned Officers of all other branches of the Service?

Sir, the hon. Member can have the Return if he will move for it as for a definite period—say the last five years.

asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in surrendering the British Consular Jurisdiction to the French, in Tunis, any arrangement was entered into for the settlement of pending claims of British subjects; and, whether any steps have been taken to give effect to this arrangement?

The Papers laid before Parliament contain a full answer to the Question of the hon. Member. Steps are being taken to give effect to the arrangement for the settlement of pending claims.

Will the noble Lord state whether there is any chance of these claims being settled within a reasonable time? They amount to about £500,000.

I have just stated that steps are being taken to give effect to the arrangements for a settlement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that before the appointments to Receiverships in Bankruptcy in certain towns were made, Liberal Members of Parliament were allowed to address the officials of the Board in elaborate speeches in support of particular candidates?

Sir, I think this Question is rather an extraordinary one, and I have not the least idea of what it refers to; but I will endeavour to answer it with that disqualification. I am not aware that there is anything which prevents Members of Parliament, whether Liberals or Tories, addressing officials of the Board of Trade upon any subject; but I certainly think that it is quite unnecessary that they should address them in elaborate speeches, because all my officials, as far as I know, are very intelligent, and would understand what was meant without any-elaborate explanation.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if after the Liberal Members of Parliament had addressed the officials of the Board of Trade with regard to these appointments, he can still say he was ignorant of the politics of the candidates for the offices?

What I have stated is, that I am not aware of the politics of the majority of the gentlemen who have been appointed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Oh, yes; I am certain that I am absolutely correct in what I am saying—that I was not aware of the politics of the majority of the gentlemen who have received these appointments. In some few cases I do know what their politics were. For instance, I know that the politics of the gentleman whom I have appointed for Birmingham are Conservative. That statement, therefore, is absolutely correct; but in reference to what the hon. Member had said, I have already told him I am not aware of any case in which any Member, whether Liberal or Tory, has been addressing elaborate speeches to the Board of Trade in support of particular candidates.

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if the junior Member for Edinburgh did not address the officials of the Board of Trade in a speech of three quarters of an hour's length in support of the candidature of the candidate for Sheffield?

I think it is a Question which had better be addressed to the junior Member for Edinburgh. All I can say is, that this is the first time I have heard of any such incident.

After the answers I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I shall, at the earliest possible moment, move the following Resolution:—

"That in the opinion of this House the extensive patronage conferred on the President of the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 has been used for political purposes; and that the violation of the pledges given to this House with regard to the exercise of this patronage deserves the severest reprobation of Parliament."

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. R. W. Gamble, Q.C. who attended a recent Orange meeting, held in Dublin, in support of Lord Rossmore, and in condemation of the Executive for having superseded him in the Commission of the Peace, and who by his presence concurred in those proceedings, is the same person as Robert Wilson Gamble, Q.C. County Court Judge of Armagh and Louth; and whether, if so, the Government will consider whether it can be allowed that a person in a judicial position should publicly associate himself with approval of the conduct of a superseded magistrate and with attacks upon the Government?

The Question has only been recently placed on the Paper, and I have not been able to ascertain myself, nor have been able to learn from Dublin, what meeting it is the Question refers to.

The meeting on the 24th January in the Rotunda.

Now that I am aware of the date I shall make inquiries.

I shall repeat the Question on Thursday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the district around Portumna is free from foot and mouth disease; and, if so, will he grant a licence to hold a fair in that locality?

said, that the Lord Lieutenant had agreed to the granting of a licence for Portumna Fair on the 15th instant, provided no new outbreak occurred in the meantime.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, By whose advice was Surgeon Wheeler's demand against the Government (for attendance on a wounded landlord) resisted; whether it was deposed in evidence that the Government were willing to pay him £700, while his claim was £1,147 18s.; whether the Government employed the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Dodd (instructed by Mr. Lane Joynt), to resist his claim before a jury; if he can state what amount was marked on the briefs of the Government lawyers, and how much they obtained as "refreshers;" whether it is the fact that the Government ultimately admitted in Court the full claim of Surgeon Wheeler, that the case was withdrawn from the jury, and that they had to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs of three opposing Queen's Counsel; and, if he can state what the taxed costs of the Plaintiff amounted to, and how much the suit has cost the Government altogether beyond the £1,147 18s. originally claimed, which they subsequently admitted in Court was due to Surgeon Wheeler?

, who was very imperfectly heard, said, the demand was resisted on the advice of the then Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland. The Government considered the claim too large, but were willing to pay £700 on foot of it. The Government employed the counsel named in the Question. It had never been usual to state the amounts marked on the briefs of Crown lawyers, and he could not state the amounts. The Government defended the action on the faith of a memorandum of terms which had boon handed to Surgeon Wheeler by direction of the late Mr. Burke, who was afterwards assassinated. After the trial had been commenced, Mr. Wheeler stated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Hamilton, in which the amount of the fees was agreed upon. Mr. Hamilton, when appealed to, although he could not recollect the conversation, would not undertake to swear what occurred. Hence the Government admitted the claim, and, as a matter of course, had to bear the costs of both sides. The taxed costs amounted to £208 14s. 7d., and the suit would cost the Government, as he was informed, about £400, in addition to the £1,147 18s.

gave Notice that on the Estimates he would move to reduce the salary of the hon. and learned Gentleman by £400.

said, he thought it right to mention that on the occasion in question he happened to be counsel for Surgeon Wheeler.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If the Government have any intention of bringing in a Bill this Session for the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods?

Sir, Bills for this purpose have been introduced in five Sessions by the late and by the present Governments. That is not in itself a very encouraging circumstance. At the same time, I am so sensible of the need and the strong desire for such a measure in parts of the country that, notwithstanding the difficulties which beset any measure that would deal effectually with the subject, I shall be disposed, if the progress of Business should afford a reasonable prospect that the judgment of the House could be obtained upon it, to bring one in.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain the delay in presenting the Returns granted by the House last year on the subject of Trial of Prisoners; Valuations in Boroughs and Counties; and, Evidence in the Lease Clause of the Land Act?

replied, that he thought there was no avoidable delay. The Returns were ordered quite late last Session. The first two were presented on the 22nd August; but the House did not order their circulation. He thought there might be some better system of communication between private Members and the Irish Office as to Returns. The first Return was now deposited with the Librarian; the Return on Valuations was, he believed, laid on the Table to-day. The Reports of Evidence in cases under Section 21 of the Land Act would, he understood, be ready in a few days.

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and asked the Secretary to the Treasury, who had the appointment of the Committee for printing the Returns, was it the fact that private Members who obtained Returns which were not ordered to be printed by the House had to ask the Librarian, who acted for the Committee, for permission to see them, whereas the Returns obtained by Members of the Government were printed as a matter of course?

Oh, no; it is not a matter of course at all. It is a matter of discretion.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact, as stated by the Paris correspondent of The Times, that active negotiations are going on between France and England with a view to the co-operation of the former power in the struggle against the Mahdi and the pacification of the Soudan; and, whether it is contemplated to issue another joint Note?

The statement to which the hon. Member refers has certainly been made in error. I am aware of no such negotiations.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a letter from Tewfik Bey, Commander of Sinkat, which appeared in The Standard newspaper of the 22nd, and especially to the following portion:—

"I am in a very miserable position from want of proper provisions. I will do my utmost to resist up to the end of January, but unhappily I have hardly enough provisions to last to the 23rd. I pray you to induce the Government to send a relieving force with provisions as soon as possible, even before the 15th of January, after which our condition will be miserable in the extreme. The soldiers have become weak, and grave sickness has already begun; should the worst come to the worst, we will endeavour to cut our way through, when our fate is in the hand of God; "

and to the following remarks of the Correspondent of The Standard:

"Whether Sinkat falls in the meantime or is relieved, the above letter is interesting, and worthy of publication, as showing the indomitable spirit of this young civilian. If all those who hold the Khedive's commission had but a tenth part of Tewfik's pluck and energy, the regeneration of Egypt would be an easy task. The garrison of themselves would have yielded long ago were it not for the determination of their leader; "

and, whether, in view of the fact that this brave officer and his garrison are in deadly peril within thirty miles of the Red Sea coast, of which Her Majesty's Forces are now in occupation, Her Majesty's Ministers will take immediate stops to rescue the garrison of Sinkat from destruction; also, whether his attention had been called to the following communication from the Correspondent of The Times in that morning's paper:—

"Within four days of a British Army, 7,000 strong, within a few hours of a port where a British Admiral is tardily allowed to take the supreme command, are a small starving garrison who, having given signs of unusual heroism, are allowed to treat with barbarians for their bare lives, this request being refused, and the whole of them probably massacred? "

Before my right hon. Friend replies to this Question, I beg to ask him three other Questions, of which I have given him private Notice. First, Whether the Government has received any information confirming the telegram from Cairo, through Router's Agency, in this morning's newspaper, stating that—

"A less gloomy view now prevails concerning Tokar and Sinkat. It is reported that a convoy of provisions has succeeded in entering Sinkat."

Second, Whether it is not the fact that Sinkat is less than 40 miles from Suakim, which is now occupied by a British force, and that Tokar is less than 20 miles from the port of Trinkitat, which is within a few hours' sail of Suakim? I ask these two Questions in the hope that the relief of these garrisons is still not impossible; and I, therefore, also ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government intend to take any steps to relieve the garrison of Sinkat, or that of Tokar?

With regard to matters to which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) calls my attention, the first of them relates to a state of circumstances long gone by, and with regard to which we can only say we regret that the present circumstances are more hard and grievous than existed before. With respect to the statement made this morning to which he refers, it appears that, so far as I can catch the purport of it, that it is more a question for debate and discussion than for an answer to a Question. The Question of the hon. Member associates itself with the wider Question put to me by my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), to which I will reply. I will say that I have no doubt that the statement of distances given by my right hon. Friend is probably accurate. On the Question itself I would say at the present moment we are very sensible of the deep interest attaching to the question of the extrication of the whole of the Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, with respect to which we are not able to say positively, except as to the garrison of Khartoum, what is the actual condition of any of them. We share entirely the deep sympathy which is felt for those garrisons. But with regard to the inquiry whether it is in the view of the Government practicable to make any attempt towards the relief of the two garrisons in particular, I would say that we quite recognize the special features in the case of those two comparatively very limited garrisons; but it would not be possible for me, in an answer to a Question, to mate a statement satisfactory to the House. Conditions, diversity, and importance beyond what my right hon. Friend seems to contemplate by his inquiry are involved. All I can say is, I think the only satisfactory course would be, that in the very earliest opportunity in my power, in the debate to-morrow, I should state fully the views of the Government upon this question, that it can be made the subject of free comment, and when, also, I hope to be in possession of somewhat fuller material.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of the Question?

We have no telegram upon the subject whatever.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether Sinkat and Tokar are within the territory over which Admiral Hewett has assumed a British Protectorate, and whether it is the case that the officers and crews of a French and an Italian man-of-war wished to land at Suakim in order to protect the interest of foreigners at that place, and whether they were prohibited from doing so by Admiral Hewett?

I wish, first of all, to refer to the term "Protectorate," which the noble Lord inadvertently used; and which, he says, Admiral Hewett has assumed over a certain portion of territory. There is no such Protectorate. But Admiral Hewett has received full authority as Governor to act in Suakim itself, both on the island and on shore.

From whom?

Naturally he has received authority from the Ruler of the country. That I assume to be the case, just in the same manner as General Gordon has received a commission with regard to the Soudan. I make no doubt of it. Then the noble Lord asks whether the crews of French and Italian vessels have expressed a desire to land in Suakim for the protection of their respective nationalities, and have been prevented. We have no intelligence, I think, of any sort to that effect; and, moreover, I do not think it likely that any such refusal would be necessary, because, I believe, there is not the smallest doubt with regard to the security of Suakim under the orders of Admiral Hewett.

Would the right hon. Gentleman favour us—I do not ask for the minute instructions—but can he favour us with the nature of Admiral Howett's appointment or appointments? He is, I understand, in the service of Her Majesty. I presume he has some commission from Her Majesty on the subject, and apparently, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he has also a commission from the Egyptian Government. It would be very convenient if we could be informed of the nature of those powers which are given to him.

As Admiral Hewett is Admiral commanding-in-chief of the East Indian Station, and is in full pay of Her Majesty, is he not in command of Her Majesty's ships?

Well, Sir, I believe that the intelligence of Admiral Hewett's command has been conveyed to Her Majesty's Government in the very briefest and most succinct and decisive terms, and I cannot imagine that there can be any difficulty in presenting it to the House.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to decline to state to the House until to-morrow, whether the Government intend to take effective measures for relief of the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar or not? It seems to me that this is a question—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—which, in order to allay the intense anxiety of the country on the subject—["Order, order!"]—ought to be answered without a moment's delay. I do not ask for any details, but for a simple answer to the Question.

Sir, I am very sorry—though I attach all due weight to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman—that I cannot answer the Question further than I have already done. My object is to lay the views of the Government and the information that they possess before the House in such a manner that it can he made the subject of debate. I have already stated that it is not in my power at present to fulfil that intention. The hon. Gentleman really speaks as if it were in our power to create means of observation by the word of command. That is not so.

May I ask this Question of the right hon. Gentleman? I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he purposes tomorrow to place before the House the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the possible relief of these garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar. What I think the House really wants to know is not what are the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government, but what have been or are to be their acts. I therefore venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that no instructions have been sent, either to Sir William Hewett, or any other British commander, to procure the release and safety of the garrisons?

The instructions and the actions of Her Majesty's Government will be conformable to their views and intentions, subject to the correction of Parliament, and I must decline, after what I have said, to enter upon any question as to what Her Majesty's Government have done or have not done down to the present moment, only stating that it will, in my opinion, be found by Parliament that no part of this case has been neglected by them.

I hope I am not out of Order in saying I understand my right hon. Friend's answers, especially the first, to be that although he cannot give a definite reply to-day, yet that the Government have not come to an absolute decision or given up all hopes of relieving these garrisons. ["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] I assume that to be the tenour of his first reply. I wish also to ask whether the Government have received confirmation of the report that General Gordon has arrived at Berber; and also whether they have heard if he has or has not left Berber?

I not wonder at all at what has been stated by my right hon. Friend; but if I were to make any comment upon it, probably it would lead to discussion beyond the Rules of the House. Respecting General Gordon, we have received intelligence of his arrival at Berber. I may also state that General Gordon has informed us—of course very briefly and succinctly—that he has received numerous messages, but he does not state from where; but I have no doubt these are messages from within the Soudan, expressing pleasure at his appointment. We do not know whether General Gordon has left Berber.

Bearing in mind that we are on a question of hours, and of vital importance, and that these garrisons may be massacred within the next 12 hours, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the authority given to Admiral Hewett comprises in it a discretion, if he is able to act with the powers at his disposal, to march to the relief of Tokar to-night or to-morrow morning?

I have already been obliged by considerations of my public duty to decline to make any further statement on the subject.

Is there any truth in the report which appeared in The Standard of to-day to the effect that the military authorities at the War Office have given orders that no more English officers shall be allowed to join the Egyptian Army?

That statement is not accurate. No such orders have been given. It is, however, the fact that, looking to the efficiency of the British troops serving in India, it is not desirable that more officers or noncommissioned officers should be taken from that force to serve in the Egyptian Army. No obstacle will be placed in the way of a supply of officers and non-commissioned officers from home.

I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he will inform the House whether any special telegraphic instructions have been sent to Admiral Hewett, who as Commander-in-Chief in the East Indies and Red Sea, has no authority to act upon the Littoral or upon the shores of the Red Sea without instructions from home; and, if so, what are his instructions?

We are in constant communication by telegraph with the Admiral; and no doubt any instructions given to him will be announced to the House by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to-morrow, so far as he thinks it right to do so.

I wish to ask whether I am quite right in understanding that it is the deliberate intention of the Prime Minister that the House and the country shall be left in absolute uncertainty until to-morrow as to whether the Government intend to take any means or no means at all to relieve these garrisons?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him a Question with reference to his reply to the last part of my Question, as to whether the Government intend to take immediate steps for relieving these garrisons? The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was not in the hands of Her Majesty's Government to take these steps.

I said nothing of the kind.

Now, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this Question—Is it not the fact that on the 22nd of December last Sir William Hewett gave Her Majesty's Ministers full information of the state of peril in which the garrisons were; and whether it is not the fact that, within four or five days' march, at the furthest, from Suakim, there are 7,000 British troops available?

The hon. Gentleman refers to what Sir William Hewett knew with regard to these garrisons in December. I do not recollect dates or particulars; but unquestionably there was knowledge at that time that these garrisons were in danger. Perhaps I might extend that, and say that there were other garrisons in the Soudan which were in danger. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that at and after that time means were organized by the Egyptian Government for the relief of those garrisons, which it was believed and confidently expected would prove sufficient.

I wish to ask whether the Government will give the House any Papers before the debate to-morrow? [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Why not?

I will take care to communicate with my noble Friend. I do not know what the state of the case may be. It is a matter for the Foreign Office. I will take care that the latest information is laid on the Table—the latest that can be had tonight.

I am speaking not only of the Foreign Office, but also of the Admiralty. Why should we not have all this information in our hands?

It is of the highest importance that the despatches of the Admiralty in particular should be laid on the Table; because the right hon. Gentleman can understand that Sir William Hewett could not have taken the position offered by the Khedive without the sanction of the Government.

I perfectly understand that, and I may say confidently that what has been done has been done with the concurrent action, so far, of the two Governments, the permission of Her Majesty's Government apparently being necessary. I quite agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not able to commit the Representatives of the two Departments, but they will do their best to lay their Papers on the Table.

I wish to ask whether there is any truth in the statement which has been made public to the effect that General Gordon has requested that decorations should be forwarded to him for distribution among the population of the Soudan; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the nature of those decorations, and whether they are of English or Egyptian origin?

I am not of opinion that any advantage is to be gained to the Public Service by giving details of the means which General Gordon would have to use in the execution of his most difficult duty. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not through any discourtesy that I decline to answer him.

I wish to ask the Government, whether it is intended to ask for a Vote of Credit to cover the cost of the despatch of troops and ships of war?

Will the right hon. Gentleman toll us what amount of force we have available at the Red Sea?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any official confirmation of the melancholy tidings of the death of Cetewayo?

Yes, Sir. We received a telegram, which was published in all the papers on Saturday.

, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, without being called upon by Mr. Speaker, advanced to the Table. Mr. Speaker thereupon called him to. Order; but he nevertheless proceeded to read from a paper, in his hand, the words of the Oath, and having kissed a book which he had brought with him, signed the said paper, and left the same on the Table.

, having again called Mr. Bradlaugh to Order, addressed him as follows:—"Mr. Bradlaugh, you have come to the Table without being called by me, according to the Rules and Orders of the House, and have gone through the form of taking and subscribing the Oath, in your own way, without any of the prescribed formalities; and I must call upon you to withdraw until the House has considered your conduct, and the position you have assumed."

I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister, the Leader of this House, desires to rise I will give him the opportunity; but, assuming that he does not, I intend to do so, and I see no indication of his intention to do so, I shall call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand. It appears to me that the proceeding which we have just witnessed on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh is not in the nature of taking the Oath in accordance with what the Statute law prescribes. Of course, it is necessary that the Oath should be taken when you, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair; and at the moment when the Oath, or the form of taking the Oath, was gone through you were not in the Chair—you were standing on the step, and you were calling the hon. Gentleman to Order. Under these circumstances, I understand that the matter is entirely open to us. I, therefore, propose this Resolution, which is the same as that moved and carried in this House in several previous Sessions of Parliament—

"That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh he not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. C. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

Sir, I think it may be convenient that I should follow immediately the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has acted with perfect courtesy—there was no indication of an intention on my part to address the House or occupy its attention. It was a serious question—when first the Government found that they were unhappily placed in a state of difficulty with the House—it was a serious question, on which there were differences of opinion, whether the Government ought, or ought not, to have made themselves so far the instruments and servants of the House as to take the initiative in giving effect to a Resolution of which they deeply and pro- foundly disapproved. But the decision was taken by us, and we adhered to it for several years; and the House, I think, will feel that to recede from it now would be a proceeding totally without dignity on our part, and quite hopeless of giving satisfaction to anybody. It is much better that the right hon. Gentleman, who represents on this occasion the judgment of the majority of the House, should indicate to the House what he thinks the proper course to take, and that then we should listen to what he states in an equitable and candid spirit. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has given us his construction—he has put his own construction—upon the act which has just been performed by Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, and I will give my reasons why I do not follow him in placing any construction whatever upon it. It has been discovered in the course of these proceedings that if Mr. Bradlaugh should sit and vote in this House, so as to raise the question of penalty, that question could not be effectively raised at the issue of a private individual. That being so, the question occurred to us whether it would not be our duty, on the part of the Crown, to raise that question competently in a Court of Justice, should the case arise. Now, Sir, our impression is that it would be our duty so to raise the question, and it might then become the office of the Court to declare whether Mr. Bradlaugh had taken the Oath or not. On that account, I think it is the much better way that I should avoid giving any opinion whatever on that subject. There is another view of the case with which we have to deal. The right hon. Gentleman has made a Motion, with regard to which now I say, as I have admitted on former occasions, that it is fair and legitimate and consequential on the previous decisions of the House. My own opinion on that decision remains exactly as it was. I believe that almost the vast majority of those who sit on this side of the House regard the decision as unconstitutional. For my own part, as an individual, and speaking with due submission and deference, I do not see in what way it is to be divested of the character of being contrary to law. But, Sir, that is not the question. It is not the function, or the duty, or the usage of an Executive Government, dif- fering from the House of Commons on a particular point again and again to dispute the decision a which the House has arrived. Our view is known—there is no doubt or question about it. I recognize that the right hon. Gentleman, having induced the House to come to a decision, is bound in consistency to take certain consequential proceedings which are, or may be, necessary to prevent the order of the House from being disturbed by acts that are in themselves irregular and contrary to our established usage. On that account, although I may not be friendly to any part of these proceedings, I shall certainly not be the person to take the initiative in any opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Last year we had a Division upon the subject, which I deprecated, but in which I felt compelled to take part, agreeing with the proposition for which I voted, and feeling that for Members of the Executive Government, who represent the Crown in this House, to avoid the difficulty of a Division by retiring from the House, is not a mode of proceeding that can be considered satisfactory. But unless there is reason to suppose that some great change has taken place in the judgment of the House, I certainly would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be permitted to work out his way without a Division. ["No, no!"] It may be so; but I am only respectfully expressing the opinion which seems to me most, upon the whole, to tend to peace among us on a question of pure Order, which ought not to be mixed up with any other consideration. I think the Division that took place last year was somewhat injurious, because it did not afford a real expression of the opinion of the House on the original question. A much smaller number of persons opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman last year than had opposed it when the question of principle was fairly raised. On that account, I see no advantage to the case in repeating a Division of that kind; and I venture respectfully to express the hope—though it is not a very sanguine hope—that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) may be inclined to spare the House a Division. That is the only consideration that I think it my duty to lay before the House; and I think the House will feel that the right hon. Gen- tleman is right in working out the consequential principle that he has, unfortunately, induced the House to adopt, and that we are in our right in respecting the decision of the House, in so far as to avoid being parties to the expenditure of valuable public time.

I rise to a point of Order. I understood you, Sir, to state to the House that a serious breach of the Rules of the House had been committed. Mr. Bradlaugh, without any authority from you, Sir, or any pretence that he was acting in conformity with the Rules of the House, has performed an Oath in his own fashion; and, under the circumstances, I want to know if it is competent to raise any fresh matter, or antiquarian matter, while that question of the breach of the Orders of the House remains unsettled, and which, I must say, I can only regard as a piece of blasphemous buffoonery?

With respect to the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), I am of opinion that that Motion bears upon the matter before the House, and is in Order.

I am sorry to say I have not quite so much confidence in the Leader of the Opposition as the Prime Minister has. As I understand his Motion, it covers the whole Session, and that is a fair reason why I should object to it; because, even supposing there may be a decision by a Court of Law in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, yet, if this Motion were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh would not be allowed to appear and take his seat in the House. That is the reason why I oppose it, and ask the House to vote against it. If that is not the case, and if the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his Motion shall only hold good until a decision is taken, we can take a Division immediately. ["No, no!"] I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not assent to that, and that I am right in my views of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. On Saturday last Mr. Justice Stephen expressed the following views from the Judicial Bench:—

"The right of the burgesses of Northampton, I think, to be represented in Parliament, and the right of their duly-elected Representative to sit and vote in Parliament, and to enjoy the rights incidental to his position, in the terms provided by law, are, in the most emphatic sense, legal rights—legal rights of the highest importance, and in the strictest sense of the word."

Then, after dividing those rights into rights of which the Court might take cognizance, and rights which must be left to the judgment of the House, he says, with regard to the latter, that hon. Members

"Are bound, by the most solemn obligations that can bind men to any course of conduct whatever, to guide their conduct by the law as they understand it. If they misunderstand it, or—I apologize for the supposition—if they wilfully disregard it, they resemble mistaken or unjust Judges."

Now, as it appears to mo that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have never taken the trouble to find out what the law is, with their permission I will tell them. I can tell them in a very few words what the law is if they do not know. There is no question about it; it is written law—Statute law. This is the law. The Statute says—

"The Oath hereby appointed shall in every Parliament be solemnly and publicly made and subscribed by every Member of the …. House of Commons at the Table, in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House is there duly sitting, with the Speaker in the Chair, according to such Regulations as each House by its Standing Orders shall order."

Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that the Standing Orders cover the course they have taken. This is the only Standing Order on the subject—

"That Members may take and subscribe the Oath required by law, at any time during the sitting of the House, before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion have been entered on, or after they have been disposed of; but no debate or business shall be interrupted for that purpose."—(Rules and Orders, No. 23.)

Now, where do hon. Gentlemen find that the Oath has to be administered, or that the Member has to be called on by the Speaker? We assert, rightly or wrongly, that a Member derives his right to go to the Table by his election, and that neither Mr. Speaker nor the House has the slightest right to prevent him. I will quote the language of Mr. Justice Stephen. ["Oh, oh!"] Do hon. Gentlemen object? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] He said—

"If a man is to give evidence before a Court of Justice, he cannot take an oath unless it is administered to him, unless he is called on to come forward as a witness, and unless the officer of the Court, by some appropriate action—for instance, repeating the words of the oath, and handing him the book, or by whatever other method—does call on him to take an oath, and administer it. This Act"—the Act I have read—"says nothing about administering it, but simply that the Member of the House may take and subscribe it, which he may do himself, as far as I can see."

I have read from the Act of Parliament, from the Standing Orders, and from the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen; and will any Gentleman with any species of legal knowledge venture to get up in this House and assert that the Act and the Standing Orders are not as I have stated them, or that Mr. Justice Stephen is wrong in his interpretation of the Act? I challenge anyone to do it, and I am perfectly convinced that no one with any knowledge of the law would think of doing so for a moment. I might with perfect right go through the whole case of Mr. Bradlaugh's contention with this House; but I can perfectly understand the desire of my own Friends even that I should not do so. and I will not do so. I will only point out to the House that the real point of contention between Mr. Bradlaugh and the House was this—Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the declaration of allegiance, coupled with the Oath, was binding upon him, but that the words of the Oath which follow the declaration were to him an unmeaning form. That, I think, was perfectly well admitted, and I need not prove it. Well, I confess that, for my part, I do regard those words of the Oath as an utterly unmeaning form—utterly and absolutely an unmeaning form. To me they are just the same superstitious incantation as the trash of any Mumbo-Jumbo among African savages. ["Oh, oh!"] Why do hon. Gentlemen say "Oh, oh?" Are they aware that there are many in this House who regard those words as a blasphemous form? I say I regard them as an unmeaning form. Will anyone who says "Oh, oh!" get up and say what they do mean? I say distinctly and clearly that I do not myself know what they mean. I deny that there can be in any sort of way two measures of truth. When you ask a man to assert a thing, and then ask him to swear to it, practically you say that you do not believe his assertion unless he is willing to swear to it afterwards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) makes an Affirmation. When you say that this Oath strengthens the Affirmation, you say that you are not to believe my right hon. Friend—["No, no!"]—yes; and that is what I complain of; you say that you cannot believe my right hon. Friend in the same sense as you would believe anyone who had coupled the affirmation with an oath. There is no other sense in the thing. I shall he glad if anyone will tell mo what the words mean; I do not know. I do not understand the meaning of the Oath, and I object entirely to it. I say that when Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the Oath was an unmeaning form, he spoke in strict accordance with the fact. The last time a discussion took place on the subject the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock favoured us with the opinions of several Fathers of the Church.

I bog the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not quote a single Father of the Church.

Well some people connected with the Church. For my part, I confess that it is a matter of perfect indifference to me what any Father of the Church thinks on this subject; but for the benefit of hon. Members opposite I will cite what the father of English philosophical jurisprudence (Jeremy Bentham) thinks upon the whole subject. [The hon. Member read a quotation to the effect that to attempt to exclude Atheists by Oaths would only exclude those who objected to take an Oath, while those who would swallow the Oath could not be excluded by such means, and thus the Oath afforded no guarantee for the exclusion of immorality or irreligion. It could not be pretended that clergymen would stick at perjury, for they took it in with their mother's milk, and it was their meat and drink.]

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that the succession of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Gentleman has offered down to the present moment, in the course of his speech, to the religion of almost every Member of the House—whether the tissue of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Member has just offered, in a perfectly deliberate manner, to the religion of every Member of the House, is to be permitted as being in accordance with the Orders of the House? Is there no Rule to impose decency upon the hon. Member?

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is making these observations upon his own responsibility, and I have not thought it any part of my duty to interfere with the hon. Member.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself a great judge of what is right and proper in this matter; but, Sir, I do think that the public are really beginning to thoroughly understand this question, When Mr. Bradlaugh first came forward in this House, it did not occur to the Conservatives as a body to oppose him. It was the bright idea of the Fourth Party in this House, and from a Party view they ought to be congratulated. The Fourth Party—I presume they held some sort of consultation together—determined to oppose Mr. Bradlaugh. ["Question!"] It is the Question. It was only when the Fourth Party had taken that decision that they were followed by the Conservative Party. Otherwise the Conservative Party would have sat quietly by and let Mr. Bradlaugh take his seat. Why did they do that? Everybody in the country knows why they did it. They did it simply because they wanted to waste time. [Opposition cries of "Oh" and "Order!"] They did it because they wanted to throw impediments in the way of Liberal legislation. They did it—[Interruptions]—I am quite willing to stand here all night—[interruptions]—I am not going to have Mr. Bradlaugh put down by the cries and yells of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Bradlaugh has a perfect right to state his case; and I do not think anybody in this House can say that, considering the manner the House has treated Mr. Bradlaugh, the House has a right to complain of the courteous and decent manner in which, I think, hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit Mr. Bradlaugh has treated this House. He has stood by his rights—what he believes to be his rights. I do not think he has done any more. I believe the country understands the matter, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite do wish to waste the time of the House.

I rise to Order. I wish to know if the hon. Gentleman is in Order when he says that hon. Members on this side of the House wish to waste the time of the House?

made no reply.

Perhaps I had better put it in this way—["Order!"]

I rise to Order. You have ruled, Sir, that it is the highest offence known to Parliament for hon. Members to take up any particular subject, not for the purpose of having it debated, but to obstruct the proceedings and waste the time of the House. I wish to know if it is in Order for the hon. Member for Northampton to bring a charge of that nature either against an individual or against a Party as a whole?

The observation which I think fell from the hon. Member for Northampton was that he charged Members opposite to him with wasting time. I cannot say that such an observation is altogether out of Order. It is an observation which has been frequently made in this House, and it has not been confined to one side of the House or the other. I really do not think that I am called upon to interfere.

I heard an hon. Member shout out on the other side—I think the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett)—that I did more than charge hon. Members with wasting the time of the House—namely, that I charged them with wasting it deliberately. Well, I believe that if they did waste it they would waste it deliberately. But I will put it in this way-["Order!"]

I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.

Then the question is whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take his seat, and what objections there are to it. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the objections which they have frequently urged I am perfectly convinced they will urge no longer. Those objections, as I understand, are that they consider that, in the interests of Deism, they ought to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking any oath, because he has stated that the declaration "So help me, God," had no meaning to him. Let us see what occurred last Session, and we shall see whether that was clearly the view taken by hon. Members opposite. Last Session the Prime Minister brought in an Affirmation Bill. What was the object of that Bill? It was to meet any objections that might be entertained, and I per- fectly understood these objections, to Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Atheist, being obliged to go up to that Table and take the name of God when he says be does not believe in the existence of a Deity. What did hon. Gentlemen opposite do? I do not know what they call wasting the time of the House; I know the debate went on several days, and when it came to the vote hon. Members opposite deliberately voted that that Bill should not become law. Now, we may assume that Mr. Bradlaugh very possibly will be elected at the next General Election. If Mr. Bradlaugh is elected, there is nothing that can prevent him coming up to the Table among the first 40 Members and taking the Oath. If, then, he is able to do that, because you have refused to alter the law and pass an Affirmation Act, surely you cannot say that you are actuated by any desire or feeling in the cause of religion to prevent irreverence; because by your act you have obliged Mr. Bradlaugh, and every other person who entertains his views with regard to religion, to take the Oath before sitting in this House; whereas the Prime Minister and Members of the Government were anxious that he should be allowed to fulfil his Constitutional duties by making an Affirmation. That is the reason why I say that what I may really call the sanctimonious sophistry of this hypocrisy has been clearly understood by the country. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bradlaugh will find himself in a minority on this occasion; but you may depend upon it that in the end he will beat the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is in the wrong. The House of Commons is merely the creature, and behind Mr. Bradlaugh stands the people of England. We shall see who wins in the end. You will find the people of England, I do not say this from any feeling of affection or regard for Mr. Bradlaugh as an individual, will support him. Assume, if you like, that Mr. Bradlaugh is the vilest of men—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—as was stated by Mr. Wilkes—

"In attacking the rights of the vilest of men you have attacked the rights of the most noble of mankind."

It, is not a question of Mr. Bradlaugh individually. I am not raising the question of Mr. Bradlaugh's personality for a moment; but I say the constitu- encies are fully determined, when they elect anyone who is a duly qualified person, to see that he shall not be prevented from taking his seat in this House and from fulfilling his duties.

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton; for, whether as argument or fact, they appear to me to be utterly unworthy of the notice of any rational human being; but I rise upon a point of Order. Mr. Bradlaugh, as far as I could see, went through certain proceedings at the Table, and he laid certain documents on the Table. Now, it is perfectly clear, from what has fallen from the Prime Minister, that these proceedings are, with the cognizance of the Government, to become the subject of proceedings in a Court of Law, and a great deal will, of course, turn upon evidence as to what actually took place. I, therefore, wish to ask you, Sir, to direct the Clerk at the Table, who has carried off those papers, to replace them there, so that they may be inspected by any Member of the House; because I am under the impression—and should be prepared to give evidence on the point in any Court of Law—that, no Oath was taken and no Testament kissed. ["Oh!"] I am only stating my own opinion upon the subject.

In answer to the inquiry of the noble Lord, I have to say that the papers he desires should be preserved are now in the custody of the Clerk of the House, and that they are accessible to any Member of the House.

I have never taken part in the debates on this question, and I should not have spoken at all now if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall vote for his Motion in spite of his speech. But I could not do so without saying that I very much regret the tone of that speech. Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly at liberty to hold what views he thinks fit about an Oath; but I think he ought to consider, before he says that the Oath is an unmeaning form, that to a large portion of those whom he was addressing it was words of very great and sacred meaning. I could not hear that speech without separating myself from the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. I will just simply say that I cannot take the line suggested by my right hon. Friend, because I think this is a case which, when it comes to a Division, we ought to vote upon, upon this simple ground—that I think the electors of Northampton have a right to elect Mr. Bradlaugh, and that the House of Commons has no right to refuse to admit him. I was never more convinced of anything than that hon. Members—without so intending it, but certainly with that result—who have opposed the wishes of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat are striking one of the greatest blows against the cause of religion which have been struck for many years. They put upon the side of a man who, I regret to say, is opposed to religion, to Christianity, and even to Deism—they put upon his side the rights of the free electors of this country.

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the dictum of Mr. Justice Stephen; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that that learned Judge, while repudiating, on the part of the Court, all right of intervention on all matters of internal regulation in this House, did not state that the House had authority to regulate its own matters, similar to that possessed by the Court and by the Judges? The House would have observed that, on the advance of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Speaker rose from his seat, and remained standing during the whole time Mr. Bradlaugh was at the Table; that was a standing remonstrance against the violation of the Orders of the House, which had the force of law, and were superior to all law. He trusted hon. Members would manifest their respect for the House, without reference to any other consideration, by insisting upon the exercise of the authority of the House with reference to Mr. Bradlaugh, and that if he violated the Orders of the House, they would vote for his exclusion, until he recognized that this was not a casual assembly, but a Body conducting the Business of the country according to Rules laid down by itself, the violation of which must be followed by penalties.

I rise to a point of Order, and I wish to put a Question, Sir, to you. You have ordered Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw, and as far as I can perceive Mr. Bradlaugh has not withdrawn. I have been in this House when other hon. Members have been ordered to withdraw, and they were not confined to a select region below the Bar, but were required to retire beyond the portals of the House altogether. I wish to know, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys your leave and licence to violate your order, or if he is not subject to the orders of Mr. Speaker in the same way as any other hon. Member? Secondly, Sir, I wish to call your attention to a fact which will probably be in your recollection—namely, that a former highly respected Member of this House, Mr. John Dillon, was suspended by you for remaining on his feet at the same time as yourself. I should like to know whether Mr. Bradlaugh is beyond the pale of suspension for having committed the like offence; and whether, for a first offence, he could be suspended for a week, for a month for a second offence, and for the whole of the Session for a third offence? If that were so, I think we might soon be able to get rid of the hon. Member for Northampton altogether. It was by such machinery, Sir, that you put your authority in motion in the case of the Irish Members; and I should like to know what particular privilege Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys as an English Member which puts him beyond the pale of the authority of Mr. Speaker? I have myself been suspended three times, and it may be my lot to be suspended three times more—not, I trust, during your tenure of Office in this House. I should like, however, to have an opinion from you, Sir, for the guidance of your Successor, so that I and my Friends, if we happen to find ourselves suspended again, may know that we may retire to that quiet and enjoyable nook in which Mr. Bradlaugh is, now sitting. What I want to know is whether an order to a Member to withdraw simply extends to the Bar of the House?

The question raised by the hon. Member is really not a point of Order for me to decide. The hon. Member's speech has been made under a total misconception. He supposes that certain hon. Members were suspended by me; whereas, as a matter of fact, Members are suspended by a vote of the House.

May I ask, Sir, if you could not "name" Mr. Bradlaugh, and then a Motion might be made?

I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member for Northampton has taken his seat in the House, and therefore can be "named."

As there has been some variation in the form of our proceedings at this time, as compared with former times, it is probable there may be some misconception. I understand the hon. Member for Northampton intends to divide the House against the proposal I have made. Formerly, the Motion was met by the Previous Question; and some hon. Gentlemen, as the Previous Question has not now been moved, seem to have imagined that there would be no Division. As I understand, the hon. Member divides against my proposition. I do not wish to take up time, certainly not in following the hon. Member for Northampton; but I wish to point out what is the meaning of the Motion I have made, and what are the grounds upon which it is made. The meaning of that Motion is the same as that which was the opinion of the Committee which sat in 1880. That Committee, after stating the case, came to the conclusion that, under the circumstances, that compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh with the form used when the Oath was taken

"Would not be a taking of the Oath within the true meaning of the Statute; and, in consequence, the House can, and, in the opinion of your Committee, ought, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh going through the form."

That was the foundation of all the proceedings which had taken place since the Committee reported in 1880, and upon which the repeated challenges of the opinion of the House had been taken. It is a wholly different question which is raised as to what would be the view taken by a Court of Law of Mr. Bradlaugh administering the Oath to himself. That is not the point before us. We object to Mr. Bradlaugh going through the Forms of this House, whether the Oath be administered by the Clerk or by himself, because we believe it to be a profanation. This objection we raise equally, whatever may be the form he takes. The Resolution, if the House adopts it, equally precludes the administration of the Oath by the Clerk or the taking of the Oath by Mr. Bradlaugh. On that point we challenge the opinion of the House; and I really hope it may not be thought necessary to go into a very lengthened debate, because there is no reason to suppose that anything new can be raised.

Before we go to a Division, Sir, I wish to put a question to you. I wish to ask you whether, among the papers which have been impounded, is to be found any book which Mr. Bradlaugh pretended to kiss?

He did not kiss any book.

Yes; he did.

was again about to put the Question by reading the Resolution, when——

I rise to Order. Mr. Bradlaugh still persists in disobeying your ruling, Sir. He has not withdrawn, and I am informed that he intends to carry still further his disregard of your ruling, and to take advantage of his disobedience of your directions in order to go through the form of giving a vote in the Division Lobby of this House. I, therefore, ask you, Sir, if Mr. Bradlaugh is to be required to withdraw from the House, as you have already ordered him?

Mr. Bradlaugh is now below the Bar.

Then, Mr. Speaker, on the point of Order, you rule that an order to a Member to withdraw is satisfied by going below the Bar. If so, I would ask why it was that you ordered me out of the House?

I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, whether it is competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take part in a Division?—because, if it is, I propose to move an Amendment that he be excluded from the House.

After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), it seems we are really asked to go through a Division on precisely the same points the House has had before it in the three previous Sessions; and I ask whether, in that case, it would not place the Prime Minister in a different position to what he has taken, if he should hesitate as to the course he is to take on the present occasion?

My hon. Friend could not have heard distinctly what I have already said. I stated that I should be glad if no Division were taken; but if the House is called upon to divide, I shall, in that case, divide against the Resolution of the right hon. Member for North Devon.

Mr. Speaker, upon the point of Order—I beg to remind you of a precedent. My conduct was proposed to be taken into consideration in this House, and you ordered me to withdraw. No act of suspension or expulsion had been passed by the House against me; but you simply ordered me to withdraw; and you interpreted your own order to withdraw to mean that I was to withdraw absolutely from the House, and not simply to retire below the Bar. Therefore, I ask you to order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw from the House in exactly the same sense that you ordered me to withdraw from the House.

When the hon. Member for Dungarvan was ordered to withdraw he had taken the Oath at the Table, and was fully a Member of this House. With respect to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), as I have already stated, I am not prepared to admit that he has taken the Oath, and I have no authority to take the same course with him which I took with regard to the hon. Member for Dungarvan.

You have now ruled, Sir, that the hon. Member for Northampton does not come within the ruling applied to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because the hon. Member for Dungarvan had taken the Oath. Does he, then, come within your ruling when you order Strangers to withdraw? I wish to know if Mr. Bradlaugh comes within either of those designations?

Upon the point of Order I should like to ask you, Sir, whether your ruling does not amount to this—that half a Member, or an incomplete Member, has superior rights to a whole Member?

again rose to put the Question, when——

interposed amid cries of "Order." He said: I ask you to rule, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh, who has not taken the Oath, and who, to a certain extent, is a stranger, is to be authorized to remain in the House and to vote after you have ordered him to withdraw? When you order him to withdraw, does that leave him at liberty to go into the Division Lobby of the House after the House has been cleared for a Division?

I have already answered that point of Order.

I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, which has just been read from the Chair. It appears that the question of the rights of Members in reference to withdrawing is left in an extremely uncertain position. I think that it ought to be settled; and I will therefore move—

"That before the House proceeds to a Division on the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon, and during the time the House is occupied in that Division, Mr. Bradlaugh be ordered to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House."

I should like to know whether Mr. Speaker has not already put the Question?

Does the hon. Member for Sligo move that as an Amendment?