asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can now state to the House how it is proposed to treat the west front of Westminster Hall?

No, Sir; I cannot do so now, but I hope to be able to do so in a few days.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state the number of extra Police drafted into Belfast for the recent visit of his Excellency to that town; whether their services were required beyond their mere routine duties; whether the conduct of the people on that occasion was unexceptionable; what has been the total extra cost incurred in connection with the movement of such force; and, further, to inquire from what source such extra expenditure is to be defrayed?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the hon. Baronet, I would like to ask him whether the demonstrations were not, to a great extent, demonstrations of armed men, such as at the- meeting at Dromore, where sackfuls of re- volvers were left behind; whether at the Orange meetings there were not bodies of armed men, some of whom were prepared to make murderous attacks upon the Nationalists? I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the gentlemen who were received recently as a deputation on the occasion of His Excellency's visit to Belfast were members of the organization which prepared for these counter-demonstrations; and whether His Excellency has over, on any occasion, received a body who represented armed demonstrations, calculated to lead to a breach of the peace?

Sir, there wore bodies of armed men at the Dromore and other meetings; as regards the rest of the Question, I am not prepared to answer. In answer to the hon. Baronet, I may say that the number of extra police drafted into Belfast on the occasion in question was 10 officers and 400 men. Their services were required, as the ordinary routine duties had to be performed by the town force as usual, and the extra men were employed to assist them, and to keep order at places visited by their Excellencies, and along the routes taken by them. The conduct of the people was unexceptionable. the total cost incurred in connection with the movement of such force was about £500, which will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether His Excellency received a deputation, and whether the members of it did not belong to the same Orange Society which was declared by himself to be the organization which prepared these counter-demonstrations?

The hon. Gentleman asks me several Questions on this subject. There undoubtedly have been Orangemen who prepared these counter-demonstrations; but it does not follow that all men followed the example of those of the rank and file who came armed.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman were there any extra police drafted into Belfast on the occasion of the visit of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that one Vijiaraghava Chariar, finding his petitions for redress unattended to by the Government of Madras, has sued the Secretary of State for injuries caused him by that Government in wrongfully and illegally removing him in 1882, on the Report of Dr. Macleane, Magistrate of Salem, from the post of Municipal Commissioner; whether the High Court has found the Secretary of State liable for the conduct of the Governor of Madras, liable for damages, liable for the costs of complainant, and liable for interest on both these amounts until paid in full; and, whether the Governor of Madras, or the State, is to pay the amount of the decree?

It appears from the newspapers, but is not otherwise known to the India Office, that the individual named recently brought an action against the Government to recover damages for his having been removed by the Government of Madras from his office as one of the Municipal Commissioners of the town of Salem; and that the High Court of Madras decided that the removal was illegal, and gave the plaintiff a decree in the usual form for 100 rupees damages with costs. The amount decreed will doubtless be paid by Government in the ordinary manner.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will state by whom and under what authority, the funds of the Episcopal Sees in Scotland which fell to the Crown at the Revolution are collected and disbursed, and if the accounts are regularly audited, and by whom; whether he will state the present position and amount of these funds and their revenue; if they are public property belonging to the Nation; or treated as being the private property of the Sovereign; and, if any account or statement of these funds, and the revenues from them, is to be found in any Blue Book or other Papers accessible to Parliament?

These ecclesiastical funds form part of the hereditary re- venues of the Crown, the income of which is enjoyed by the public during the lifetime of the present Sovereign; they are managed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and accounted for and audited in the same way as other property in their charge; they cannot be accurately distinguished from other Crown property in Scotland, but they probably amount in gross to about £10,000 a year.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state by whom, and under what authority, the funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland are collected and disbursed; if the accounts are regularly audited, and by whom; to whom do these funds belong; are they National funds or the private property of the Crown; and, on the latter supposition, in what character, and by what title; and, is the Sovereign for the time entitled to dispose of them, or of the revenues from them, at pleasure and without Ministerial responsibility?

So far as I can ascertain, the facts are as follows:—The funds of the Deanery of the Chapel Royal in Scotland are collected and disbursed by the agents of the Deans and under their authority; the agents render accounts to the Deans, who presumably audit and examine them for themselves. The funds in question originally formed the endowment of the Chapel Royal, which was a Collegiate establishment consisting of a Dean and Prebendaries; in 1688, when Episcopacy was abolished in Scotland, they reverted to the Crown, and from that date until 1858 they were bestowed by the Crown upon three Crown Chaplains, who were called Deans of the Chapel Royal. By Royal Warrant under the Privy Seal, and by Ordinances of the Commissioners under the Scottish Universities Act of 1858, which have the force of law, they have been apportioned between certain University Professors and their successors in office, as Deans of the Chapel Royal; particulars will be found in House of Commons Paper No. 167 of last Session. It appears, therefore, that they have now become permanent endowments for the Professorships.

What is the annual amount of the funds of the Deanery?

I think it is about £2,300 a-year.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that in consequence of some party disturbance in the village of Drum, county Monaghan, a Catholic named Mullin was committed to Dundalk Gaol without bail, by Mr. Murray Ker, J.P., although bail to any amount was forthcoming, is Mr. Ker the magistrate who advised the Monaghan Orangemen, on the occasion of Lord Rossmore's reception, "never to fire their revolvers unless they were aiming at somebody," is it the fact that in the case of the Newry Orangemen charged with the much more serious offence of shooting with intent to kill, bail has been accepted, will the Government take care, in the absence of Catholic justices in Ulster, that party cases shall only be adjudicated upon by resident magistrates; and, can he state whether the prisoner in the present case must remain in custody till the trial takes place?

I am informed that this case was not a Party one, but an ordinary street disturbance, in the course of which Mullin struck a man named Dawson on the head and rendered him insensible. Moreover, Mr. Murray Ker did at first allow Mullin out on bail; but subsequently, upon its being ascertained that Dawson was confined to bed and in a critical state, the District Inspector directed that Mullin should be rearrested and objected to bail being taken. When the injured man got better, the prisoner's friends were so informed with the view of their renewing the application for bail if they saw fit; but they did not do so. The remand was for eight days only, and the accused will be brought again before the magistrates to-morrow. As to the alleged words used by Mr. Murray Ker, I believe that he was quite misrepresented in the papers at the time. In consequence of a Question which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had upon the Paper, I looked at these remarks, and received an explanation of them. I was informed that the object of these remarks was to dissuade these persons from bringing their revolvers to the meeting, and I quite believe that explanation.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what were the exact words used if these were not the words?

I think it is very likely that these were the words used, but the revolvers were not brought for the purpose of being put to any practical use. It is a very dangerous and irritating practice to bring them to public meetings.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman would any Nationalist be permitted to use similar language?

Undoubtedly, if his object were the same—namely, to dissuade persons from coming armed to public meetings.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what other interpretation he could put upon the words addressed by Mr. Ker to murderous parties of men who were watched by armed Constabulary and excited to the extremest by the violent language of their leaders, who advised them "to keep a firm grip of their sticks and not to fire their pistols unless they were certain to shoot somebody," except as murderous incitement to a breach of the peace by one whose duty it was to preserve order?

said, that these and many other specimens of violent language had been quoted before, but upon inquiry he found that the words bore a different interpretation to what had been put upon them.

wished to ask whether in the case of the Newry Orangemen, in which the evidence was much more serious—that of intent to kill—bail had been accepted, and also in the case of the Tyrone Orangemen, and that the magistrate did not consider that the application in the case of Mullin should be accepted?

said, that bail was accepted in the case of Mullin, and was only refused on account of the dangerous state of the injured man. The same course would have been adopted in the other cases had there been danger.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Wingfield, who was compelled to resign his position in the Castle in consequence of a recent crim. con. action, is still a member of the Wicklow magistracy, and does the Lord Chancellor intend to continue Mr. Wingfield in his functions as justice?

Mr. Wingfield's name is still in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Wicklow; but he has not sat as a magistrate there since early in April last year, and I understand that he resides permanently out of Ireland. The matters connected with the action referred to occurred several months before the present Lord Chancellor took Office, and have not been under his Lordship's consideration. The late Lord Chancellor had the matter brought under his notice to the same extent as the Government had—namely, by newspaper reports of the trial. He, however, took no action with regard to it, and I do not propose to refer it specially to his Successor.

May I ask if in the county of Wicklow a certain person named Charles Stewart Parnell was not removed from the Commission of the Peace?

said, that this was the action of the late Lord Chancellor, and the object of the late Lord Chancellor had not been considered. He did not think it proper to go into or take up cases before the term when the present Lord Chancellor came into Office. Had he been in Office at the time referred to by the hon. Member, possibly he would not have taken the same view.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in reference to the supplementary election for the Macloneigh Electoral Division of the Macroom Poor La w Union, the Local Government Board will direct that the election should be conducted by a new returning officer, in view of the charge that the returning officer at the late election was absent from his office during the days when the voting papers were collected, an irregularity for which, under the twentieth paragraph of the Circular of the Pool-Law Commissioners, dated 17th January 1854, he is liable to censure or dismissal, and in view of the further fact that the said returning officer is the nephew of one of the candidates?

The Local Government Board do not consider that there are grounds for superseding the Returning Officer of Macroom Union, and appointing another person to perform that duty; and the supplemental election is now proceeding. It is true that the Returning Officer absented himself from his office on two days during the last election; but the Board trust that this irregularity will not occur again. The Board are not aware whether the Returning Officer is related to one of the candidates; but, even if that should be the case, the circumstance would not afford any sufficient reason for removing him from his office.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that Mr. Combes, one of the members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, recently spoke of England as a "Foreign Country," and of the Imperial Parliament as a "Foreign Senate;" whether it is a fact that Mr. Combes is a justice of the peace for New South Wales and a "Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George;" whether the Government of New South Wales last year struck off the roll of magistrates, with the approval of the Imperial Government, three gentlemen, because they signed an address to Mr. J. S. Redmond, M.P., in which the words "Foreign Senate" were applied to the Imperial Parliament; and, whether the Colonial Office will now recommend a similar course being adopted in. the case of Mr. Combes?

We have no information of the matter to which the hon. Member refers beyond the fact that Mr. Combes fills the positions do-scribed. But as to the last part of the Question, I may say that, as shown in. the Parliamentary Paper, the action of the New South Wales Government was based not merely on the words indicated in the Question, but also on an expression of admiration of "resolute resistance to the oppressive proceedings of the Foreign Senate." The Colonial Government acted entirely on its own initiative, and the initiative in such matters rests solely with them.

said, he was sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman; but he wished to inform him that it was in consequence of the expression he had mentioned that the action was taken. The words "Foreign Senate" were, he might say, the words relied upon in the case.

The action of the Government was taken after a consideration of all the facts and bearings of the case.

asked whether the Colonial Office would inquire into all the facts of the case?

As I have already said, the initiative in such cases rests entirely with the Colonial Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to his recent statement that abuses in connection with the labour trade are "prevented in Queensland vessels by the presence of a Government agent," whether one of the persons recently tried in Brisbane in the Alfred Vittery murder case was the Government agent of the ship, one "Freeman;" whether the Colonial Office, after expressing the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the acquittal in which the trial resulted was "a failure of justice," made any representations to the Government of Queensland as to the immediate dismissal of Mr. Freeman from the office of Government agent; and, whether he can state how these Government agents are appointed, what are the qualifications required, and what class of persons generally hold the position?

I did not state that all abuses in connection with the labour trade were prevented in Queensland vessels by the presence of a Government agent, but that such abuses as were described in the Question relating to the ship Eileen, to which I was at the moment referring, would be impossible under the system of Government agency. As to the case of the Alfred Vittery, which represents quite a different class of cases, the Colonial Office wrote to the Governor of Queensland to the effect that the conduct of the Government agent on the occasion referred to appeared to indicate the necessity for the choice of superior men to fill situations of this nature, from which it is impossible to dissociate a large share of responsibility. These agents are appointed and removed at the discretion of the local Government; but naturally it is not a service for which it is very easy to find the men that it would be desirable to obtain. I do not doubt, however, that the Queensland Government will do their best to get good men.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Did Mr. Richard Tipping Hamilton, Local Government Inspector hold a sworn inquiry in the union workhouse, Ballycastle, county Antrim, on Saturday the 21st instant, into a complaint made by the Protestant chaplain, regarding the religious registration of two inmates; did Mr. Hamilton, at the meeting of the Board of Guardians held the same day before the inquiry, read a letter he had received from Mrs. General Boyd, Bally-castle, in which Mrs. Boyd complained that she and her daughters were pro-vented from distributing religious tracts, &c. in the workhouse by the master; is it true that Mrs. Boyd's late husband bequeathed an annuity for the support of a professional scripture reader, and that that scripture reader visited the workhouse accompanied by Mrs. Boyd's daughters for the purpose of distributing religious tracts, and was prevented from doing so by the master; did Mr. Hamilton hold two other inquiries, one on the 28th of March 1866 and the other on the 30th of October 1867, in the same workhouse, into matters of dispute arising from the evangelical visits of other ladies, and was he (Mr. Hamilton) made thereby aware that such visitations had heretofore been a source of heartburning in the Ballycastle Workhouse; and did Mr. Hamilton, notwithstanding, write a resolution at the meeting of the Board of Guardians, on the 21st instant, and ask the Board to pass it, to the effect that Mrs. Boyd, her daughters, and other ladies should be admitted into the workhouse for the purpose of distributing religious books, tracts, &c. among the inmates; and, did Mr. Hamilton thereby exceed his duty as Local Government Inspector; did he act contrary to the Poor Law Act (1 and 2 Vic. c. 56, s. 48 and 49), which, by enumerating only the official chaplains and other regular ministers of the persuasion of the inmates as authorised to visit workhouses to give religious assistance to the inmates, excludes all others, and contrary to the wishes of the Local Government Board; and, if so, what action does the Local Government Board intend to take in the case?

Mr. Hamilton held an inquiry as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. At the meeting of the Board of Guardians held on the same day, Mr. Hamilton read a letter which he had received from Mrs. Boyd complaining that the master of the workhouse had prevented her from giving books to Protestant inmates whom she visited. The master appears to have acted in accordance with a rule made by the Guardians some years ago. In the course of the conversation which ensued Mr. Hamilton mentioned the arrangements which exist in most other workhouses in his district, under which ladies are allowed to visit the sick of their own persuasion and give them books, provided that no sectarian or controversial work is given. It is not the case that Mr. Hamilton framed a resolution with the object of permitting ladies to distribute religious books at Ballycastle. On the contrary, though asked to do so, he declined, saying it was for the Guardians themselves to deal with the matter. A resolution was subsequently proposed but was not carried. Mr. Hamilton held the inquiries referred to in 1866 and 1867, and was aware of what occurred then. He did not act in the manner imputed to him in the Question, and the Local Government Board do not think that he exceeded his duty in bringing Mrs. Boyd's letter before the Guardians, or that the course suggested by his remarks would have been an infringement of the Poor Relief Acts. The Local Government Board know nothing of the alleged annuity referred to in the third part of the Question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state the number of cases of smallpox that have been treated in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board since the 1st of January 1884, and the number of deaths that have occurred among them; and, if he will state the total number of deaths from small-pox that have occurred in London, since the same date, outside those hospitals?

The number of small-pox patients who have been treated in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board since the 1st of January, 1884, is 2,628. The number of deaths that have occurred among them is 282. The number of deaths from small-pox that have occurred in London since the same date outside those hospitals is 107.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the closing of portions of the Augustinian burial ground at Bally-haunis, county Mayo, against further interments, and of the long delay that must take place before the Board of Guardians can obtain a new cemetery, What provision the Local Government Board propose to make for the burial of members of the families of persons owning grave plots in the ground now closed against interments?

Only. a very small portion of the burial ground was closed by the order of the Local Government Board, and the Board cannot, with due regard to the public health, open it again for interments. Persons who have had members of their families buried in the part of the graveyard which has been closed, can, in future, if they see fit, inter the remains of their relatives in the portion of it which still remains available for such purpose.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, Whether, under the statutes of the Royal University of Ira-land, which have been, sanctioned by Her Majesty, all Senators are entitled to be present at meetings of all Committees of Senate; whether, on the 30th May, a member of the Senate requested to be informed of the date of the meeting of a Committee, so as to enable him to be present at such meeting; whether Mr. J. C. Meredith, one of the secretaries, refused to inform, him of such date, alleging that the request for information would be brought before the Standing Committee, which will not meet until July next; whether, under the eleventh section of the Charter, the statutes of the University are binding on every member thereof; whether it is the case that the statute above referred to is evaded unless information as to meetings of Committees be given to every Senator who desires to receive such information; whether secretaries of the Royal University are merely appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but are removable by the Lord Lieutenant alone, and not by the Senate; and, whether this fact fix on the Government the responsibility of taking cognisance of the acts of a secretary in an official capacity?

The statutes of the University contain a provision which gives to all Senators a right to be present at the meetings of any Committee. This right has, however, I understand, been very seldom exercised. The Senate recently appointed a Special Committee for a particular purpose. A member of the Senate who inquired the date of the meeting of this Committee was informed by the secretary that no date had as yet been fixed. The 11th section of the Charter contains a provision as stated. The question whether information as to the meeting of every Committee is to be given to every Senator is to be brought specially before the Senate at its approaching meeting on a notice given by the Senator already referred to. It may be inferred, therefore, that heretofore the secretaries have not been expected to give such general notice. The secretaries are removable by the Lord Lieutenant; and no doubt if any complaint of misconduct were made to his Excellency, it would be his duty to consider it. No such complaint has been made to his Excellency so far as I am aware.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the accelerated mail service between London and Dublin will, as he recently anticipated, come into operation on the 1st of July; whether notice thereof has been given to the Irish Railway Companies; and, whether he will kindly state what progress has been made in the arrangements for the acceleration of the mails out from Dublin?

asked the Postmaster General, If he is now in a position to state whether the hoped for acceleration of the mail service between London and Cork can shortly take place?

asked the Postmaster General, If he will arrange with the Great Northern Railway Company that when the mails arrive late in Dublin they shall at once be forwarded by special train to Belfast and North of Ireland?

As the Questions of the hon. Members for Cork, Carlow, and Tyrone refer to the same subject, I think it would be convenient if I answer the three Questions together. The accelerated service between London and Dublin will, as stated some time since, come into operation to-morrow. With regard to the general acceleration of the mails beyond Dublin, I am glad to be able to state that negotiations have proceeded so far that I think there is now no doubt that on an early day, probably by the 1st of October, the mail will leave Dublin for Cork at 8 in the morning instead of at 9, arriving in Cork at a quarter past 12, instead of, as it now does, at 2. The mail train will leave Cork at a quarter to 2, instead of leaving, as at present, at half-past 12. When the accelerated steam service comes into operation next year, the mails will arrive in Cork a quarter of an hour earlier than the time just mentioned, and leave a quarter of an hour later. The acceleration to Cork will, I hope, improve the service to Waterford and Limerick, and generally to the South of Ireland. With regard to the mails for Belfast and the North of Ireland, the Department is now carefully considering what will be the best plan of accelerating these mails; and as to providing for those cases in which the packet arrives late at Kingstown, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) shall not be lost sight of. With regard to the acceleration of the mails to the West of Ireland, the question presents greater difficulties; but I am carefully considering whether anything can be done to improve the service to Gal way, Sligo, and to the other towns served by the Midland Great Western Railway Company.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would include in the acceleration to Belfast the North and North-West of Ireland generally?

I said Belfast and the North of Ireland generally.

asked whether there would be an improvement along the Wexford line?

I hope so; I am looking over the whole service, and am considering Wexford. We are considering generally throughout Ireland, whether it would be possible to effect an acceleration.

asked whether the proposed arrangements might not be placed in the Library of the House, so as to save Members the trouble of putting these Questions?

said, when they came to a decision with regard to any particular acceleration, he would very gladly communicate it to the Members who were interested in it.

asked if there was any intention to accelerate the service between Portadown and Londonderry as well as between Dublin and Belfast?

I should not like to give any promise; but that is one among many accelerations that are now being considered. It is a complicated question, but we will deal with it so far as we can.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as much dissatisfaction is expressed by the free miners of the Forest of Dean with the interference with their rights and privileges contemplated in the Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels Bill, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Commission, to carry out a local inquiry into the nature and value of those rights before proceeding further with the said Bill?

My bon. and gallant Friend will remember that, in answer to a former Question put by him, I spoke of the Dean Forest Bill rather as a scheme embodying equitable principles of settlement than as one to be insisted upon in its details; and I may say that I have always thought that in the absence of agreement Parliament could scarcely be expected to fix the amount of compensation to be given to the free miners. It is now evident that an agreement cannot be easily established; and among the means of settlement of the question a Commission is perhaps the most promising. The Government will at once consider the expediency of appointing such a Commission.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in deciding on any suggestions which, in accordance with his invitation, may be laid before him by Telephone Companies, he will take care to exact such conditions as may protect the public against the evil effect of private monopolies which might be created by the amalgamation of, or by arrangements between, the Companies?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the considerations to which he refers will be carefully taken into account in dealing with the question of telephonic communication.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether there has recently been appointed to the position of Stationery Clerk in the office of the Surveyor of the Midland District of Scotland, a son of the Postmaster of Edinburgh; if so, whether this gentleman, till thus appointed, held any appointment in the Post Office; and, if not, whether there were no employees in the lower grades of the Department qualified for the post; whether a son of the Postmaster in Glasgow has recently been put on the staff of the Surveyor for the Northern District of Scotland, and whether he held any prior appointment in the Department; and, whether a gentleman in the Surveyor's Department in Scotland was formerly in an Irish Militia Regiment, and is now in a Surrey Regiment of Militia; and, whether he draws salary both in his capacity of officer of Militia and Post Office employée?

The practice has long prevailed of allowing the Surveyor to select stationery clerks from the clerks in Provincial post-offices. I find that the son, not as stated in the hon. Member's Question, of the Postmaster of Edinburgh, but of an official in that Office, was appointed a stationery clerk almost immediately after he was appointed to a clerkship in a Provincial post-office. The soil of the Postmaster of Glasgow is employed temporarily as a Surveyor's clerk; but he has no permanent appointment on the Surveyor's staff. I am considering whether it will not be desirable to introduce some change in the present mode of selecting not only stationery clerks, but also Surveyor's clerks, whether permanent or temporary. It is the case that a Surveyor's clerk in Scotland holds a commission in a Militia regiment. I certainly think such an arrangement would be undesirable if it in any way interfered with the due discharge of official duties; but I do not think this can be so in this case, as although he has held this commission for 18 years, on only one occasion has he been absent from his official duties for more than the ordinary period allowed for leave of absence. I presume that the officer in question draws the pay of a Militia officer while out with his regiment for training.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Memorial has been received by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury from the engrossing clerks in the office of the General Register of Sasines, Register House, Edinburgh, date 12th May, 1884; and, if so, when an answer to it may be expected?

This Memorial was received on the 19th instant, and a letter dealing with it was sent on the 24th instant to the Keeper of the Sasines Register.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that not a single one of the following offices in Athlone is held by a Catholic, namely, those of,—1. Divisional Magistrate for Western Division; 2. Assistant Divisional Magistrates (two); 3. Resident Magistrate; 4. Divisional Inspector of Police; 5. Head Constable Royal Irish Constabulary; 6. Master of Workhouse; 7. Clerk of Workhouse; 8. Civil Engineer under Board of Public Works; 9. Clerk of Petty Sessions; 10. Clerk of the Crown for the County of Roscommon; 11. Clerk of the Crown for the County of Westmeath; and, whether the Government will take care, in filling up future vacancies, that Catholics are not excluded from these offices?

I have already more than once recently explained to the House that I could not make statements with regard to the religious distribution of the Constabulary Force. With regard to the other offices mentioned, there is no official record of the religious profession of their respective holders, and the Government must decline to make personal inquiries on the subject. Several of these offices are not in the gift of the Government at all. With regard to such of them as are, I can assure the hon. Member that, whatever may be the facts as to the present occupiers, there is certainly no intention on the part of the Government that in filling future vacancies religious profession should be any bar to the appointment of properly qualified candidates.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the advantages to the public service of having private establishments in existence which can be used for the manufacture of arms of precision for Military purposes, he can inform the House what course the War Office propose to adopt with regard to the Small Arms Factory at North Bow, which has hitherto received orders from the Government for such arms?

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the War Department has reconsidered the decision arrived at not to further employ the Small Arms Factory at Old Ford for the manufacture of rifles?

, in reply, said, that the Government had decided to continue the employment of the Small Arms Factory at North. Bow.

asked whether a promise of continuous employment would be given to the factory?

said, that the terms of the proposed contract would be sent to the Directors at once.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will inform the House what steps are being taken to remove the difficulties which prevent the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty with Spain, and what prospect there is of a satisfactory arrangement being speedily arrived at?

In consequence of the dissolution of the Spanish Cortes last Spring the Protocol of the 1st of December, 1883, has not yet been discussed in the Spanish Legislature. Her Majesty's Representative at Madrid has urged the Spanish Government to seek without unnecessary delay to obtain the assent of the Cortes to the arrangement recorded in that Protocol, and will continue to press the adoption of this course.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether information has been received at the Colonial Office of a Return by the Collector General to the Governor of Jamaica, showing that, under the new franchise in that island, the number of voters will be only 9,400, with a probable reduction through the disqualification of many, instead of 15,000, as anticipated; and. whether he can explain the discrepancy, and which is the correct number?

Yes; we have just received from Jamaica a Return drawn up by the Collector General, at the request of the Governor, in which he reports 9,400 as his estimate of the number of the new voters. I cannot without further information explain the discrepancy between this and the estimate made by the Franchise Commission. I am afraid that the Collector General is more likely to be correct than the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing, by years and in sufficient detail to be explanatory, the causes which have led to the expense of the General Staff of the Army being increased from £83,993, the amount voted in the Army Estimate for 1872–3, to £173,411, the amount voted in the Army Estimate for 1885?

With the exception of about £25,000 for the Staff in Egypt, and an improvement in pay of military staff clerks, almost the entire increase is nominal only, and represents a transfer of charge from one head to another. Before 1881–2 the emoluments of a staff officer were provided from two sources. He had staff pay under the head of General Staff, and either regimental pay or half-pay. At present he draws but one consolidated pay under the head of General Staff, These two items account for about £75,000 out of the apparent increase of £90,000. The remaining £15,000 is attributable partly to the improved pay of staff clerks referred to above, and partly to the fact that officers commanding Artillery and Engineer districts now for the most part receive pay as colonels on the Staff, whereas they were formerly paid as regimental officers. To give the Return in detail by years asked for by the hon. and gallant Member would involve great labour, and I fail to see that it would answer any useful purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh, 8th Battalion Rifle Brigade, was recommended for £20 a-year annuity, for highly-meritorious conduct and long service, by Lieutenant Colonel Gore, commanding 2nd Battalion 3rd Foot, 25th May, 1865, name noted in Military Secretary's Office 27th June 1865, and likewise strongly recommended for £20 a-year annuity by Colonel Pearson, 2nd Battalion "The Buffs," on 22nd December 1867; whether this Non-Commissioned Officer was strongly recommended for the appointment of Quartermaster in the Militia in the year 1877, and noted for the appointment in the Adjutant General's Office, but was subsequently declared ineligible, in consequence of a recent Order of the War Office limiting those appointments to Non-Commissioned Officers serving in Regiments of the Line; and, if he can hold out any hope of a reconsideration of Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh's case, and this Non-Commissioned Officer obtaining the annuity of £20 a-year?

My hon. and gallant Friend will, perhaps, allow me to answer his Question since, it relates to the annuity of a non-commissioned officer. The recommendations and notings on this non-commissioned officer's behalf were made as stated in the early part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question. It is not now usual to award annuities of more than £ 15, and the amount allotted to men from each regiment is strictly limited. In 1881 Sergeant Major Patrick Walsh was granted an annuity of £10 a-year. and he is noted for an increase to £15 when a suitable opportunity occurs. As, however, he has no service in the field, one of the elements for consideration in awarding these pensions, there are many sergeants whose claims are stronger for the increased pension than his. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that Sergeant Major Walsh is not eligible for an appointment as Quartermaster, not being a non-commissioned officer serving on his Army engagement with the Militia.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Greer, Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, was transferred to the county Armagh at-his own solicitation, so that he might be enabled to reside in his own dwelling-house at Moygannon; and, whether Mr. Greer receives the game allowances as other Commissioners who have to live away from home, or whether the change was made for economy?

Mr. Greer's present delegation is for the counties of Londonderry and Armagh. He was not deputed to act in that district at his own request. His residence is in the county of Down. Neither he nor any other Sub-Commissioner receives an hotel allowance when residing at his own home. The question of economy did not arise. The Commissioners decline to make public the grounds of their action in the distribution of particular Sub-Commissions. To do so would be contrary to the principle upon which they have always acted, and would, in their opinion, be injurious to the Public Service.

inquired whether this gentleman's district was really only five miles from his residence, and whether there was any other instance of the Land Commissioners appointing a Sub-Commissioner at so short a distance from his own house?

That I do not know.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps the Government are taking with a view to the possible approach of cholera to this Country; and, whether it is not in the power of the Local Government Board, under the special circumstances of the case, to impose some stringent rules upon the local authorities in London in regard to the efficient cleansing of the streets, particularly where wood pavements have been laid down? I wish to supplement my Question by asking whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been directed to the sanitary condition of the streets surrounding some of our markets, and especially of those surrounding Covent Garden Market?

Last year, owing to the outbreak of cholera in Egypt, much attention was given to the subject. Revised cholera regulations were issued, and the attention of the sanitary authorities was drawn to the precautions to be taken against cholera. Under the regulations which were issued, and are still in force, an officer of the Customs may detain a vessel on its arrival in England, if he suspects that it is infected with cholera. He is to give notice of the detention to the sanitary authority of the place where the vessel is detained, and they are thereupon to cause the ship to be visited and examined by their medical officer of health or some other medical man. Moreover, without any action on the part of the Customs' officer, the medical officer of health may visit and examine any ship which he has reason to believe is infected with cholera, or has come from a place infected with cholera. If, after his examination, the medical officer of health certifies that the ship is infected, no one can leave it until he has been examined by the medical officer of health, and any person who is found to be suffering from cholera is to be sent to a hospital. Doubtful cases may be detained on board or at a hospital until it is ascertained whether the disease is cholera. Provision is also made in the regulations for the disinfection of the ship or articles which are infected. Port sanitary authorities have been established at the ports, and they have sanitary officers, whose duty it is to deal with ships bringing cases of infectious disease into the country. The Board are not empowered to impose rules upon the local authorities of London in regard to the cleansing of the streets; but the efficient cleansing of the streets, including those where wood pavements have been laid down, should be regarded by the authorities as an every day duty, and no way dependent on an apprehension of cholera, lean assure the noble Lord that the matter referred to in his supplementary Question will not escape the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

asked how long the regulations referred to in the hon. Gentleman's answer would remain in force?

Until they are repealed, I suppose.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Would he have any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of Correspondence between his Department and the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, or any other person, respecting the employment of gunboats or Government vessels for the protection of salmon fisheries in Ireland; and, have any such vessels been ever so employed in England or Scotland; and, if not, why have certain Irish salmon proprietors been specially favoured by the State in defending their alleged rights.

It is the case that vessels of the Royal Navy have been employed in former years in protecting salmon fisheries both in Scotland and in Ireland. Recently, however, it has been the policy of the Board of Admiralty to confine the services of the Navy to the protection of sea fisheries, and to allow the duty of protecting fisheries in inland waters to be discharged by the Conservators of the respective fishery districts. At present no vessel of the Navy is employed on this service. I regret that as the Correspondence to which the hon. Member refers is confidential it cannot be produced.

asked if the hon. Gentleman could give them his assurance that no gunboat, or any other Government boat, would be lent to private proprietors to protect salmon?

said, he thought he had given in his answer sufficient indication of the policy and desire of the Board of Admiralty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that an official report of the capture of Berber and massacre of the garrison has been received at Cairo, as stated in The Daily News of the 27th?

The statement in The Daily News refers probably to a telegram received by the Khedive from the Mudir of Dongola. He reported that a soldier who had arrived from Berber stated that on the 26th of May the rebel troops had attacked and taken that town. The intelligence, however, is contradicted by a telegram received yesterday from Consol Baker at Suakin, who states that he has received the following information from the Governor of Suakin:—

"Pilgrims who left Khartoum May 23 and Berber June 7 report all well Khartoum. Food plentiful. Garrison numerous. All right at Berber also. Government and soldiers there. Food cheap."

In the face of these contradictory statements, it is impossible to say that any report is "official."

asked whether the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given the whole of Consul Baker's telegram, and if it were not the fact that the story of the pilgrims was disbelieved, and that orders had been given to detain and search them, as it was supposed that they had letters from the Mahdi in their possession?

That statement is not in the telegram.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the Representation of the People Bill has been passed by the House of Commons, he will now undertake to give facilities for the discussion of the Police Superannuation Bill?

The Government desire to push on this Bill as rapidly as circumstances will allow. Its appearance on the Order Paper to-day may be taken as an indication of our wishes in the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, the pledge of the Government to submit the result of the Conference on Egyptian Finance, and the preliminary agreement with Prance, to the judgment of Parliament, when the labours of the Conference are ended, involves the submission of the whole matter to the judgment of the two Houses of Legislature in this Country; and, whether the Government will propose to take such judgment by a vote affirmatively approving such result and agreement, or how do they propose to obtain such judgment.

Without reference to the particular words in the hon. Member's Question, the language which I used was intended to convey that the whole proceedings of the Government in relation to the preliminary agreement with Franco, and the transactions that might take place in the Conference—if they do take place—will become entirely subject to the judgment of Parliament. I answer, therefore, the second part of the Question by saying that we anticipate obtaining an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, which will have the effect either of sustaining or of overthrowing that arrangement.

In the House of Commons only?

I have no doubt that in "another place" there will be plenty of disposition to ascertain whether the proceedings will be dependent upon the judgment of both Houses.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any date had been fixed for the next meeting of the Conference, and, if so, what that date was?

No date has been fixed.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the proposed neutralisation of the Suez Canal being carried out, the war vessels of a Foreign State with "whom this Country might be engaged in hostilities would have the same rights as English vessels of passing through the Canal, and that the British Government would neither be able to stop these hostile men of war nor to fortify the Canal against possible injury or destruction?

Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to answer his Question. I may point out to the hon. Member that the word "neutralization" as applied to the Canal is misleading, the proposal being in the nature of an agreement to secure the free passage of all ships under all circumstances. The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The British Government would not be able to stop hostile men-of-war in the Canal or its approaches. It is contemplated that provision would be made for the immediate repair of any damage to the Canal caused by a war-vessel at the cost of the Power to which she belonged; but the British Government do not claim the right to fortify the Canal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether news had been received of the death of some of the crew of the Nisero?

I regret to have to state that news has been received and forwarded by the Government of the Straits Settlements, under date the 27th of June, to the Fo- reign Office, to the effect that letters, dated the 26th of May, had been received stating that three of the crew of the Nisero had died. It appears that an epidemic of a choleraic character has broken out among the crew. I need not say how deeply I regret to have to communicate this intelligence to the House, which will be so painful to the relatives and friends of the men; and I am sure that the House will understand how sensible the Foreign Office is of its being their duty to do all they can in the matter. The whole question is at this moment the subject of an interchange of views between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands; but I cannot communicate the details of what is passing at the present moment.

said, that a telegram which he had received stated that other members of the crew were sick; and he wished to know whether this was the case?

I meant to convey that impression when I said that an epidemic had broken out.

The Government have received a promise from the Royal Academy that they will spontaneously frame documents in the most convenient form and address them to the Government, who will then be able to lay them before the House, giving all the information on every head that has been given from year to year, whether in the form of a Parliamentary Return, or in the form given by a Royal Commission.

I beg to move that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion with reference to Egypt has been disposed of.

Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of disputing the Motion of my right hon. Friend. At the same time, I wish to Say that I myself and many hon. Members on this side of the House are of opinion that the discussion likely to arise from it is one which is inopportune and inconvenient. And we think so still more now that we have heard from the Prime Minister within the last few minutes that the Government intend to submit an affirmative Motion to the House approving of all that they have done, both as regards their Agreement with France and their proceedings at the Conference.

I did not mean necessarily a Motion setting forth everything we have done, but one that will make the whole matter contingent on the vote of the House.

That statement does not alter my view of the matter, since it makes it certain that an opportunity will arise for the discussion of the question. But we have collected together for a great Party fight, and I suppose that anybody trying to prevent it from coming off will be in the position of a person trying to prevent a prize fight. I shall not trouble the House with any remarks, except to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). There are some of us who, perhaps, may not altogether hold the same views with regard to the Agreement, but who still are strongly of opinion that it is undesirable at this moment to give an opinion upon it, especially considering the course taken in France and all other contingencies. The way in which we can best show that opinion is by the usual Motion of the Previous Question. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford has put on the Paper a Motion which has precedence of, or would come before, that of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and which he considers the same as the Previous Question. It is not quite so; in fact, there is a considerable difference, the difference being—

"This House withholds its opinion upon the result of negotiations with France until it has been placed in possession of the proposals submitted to the Conference of the rowers of Europe."

Now, that is not the view of many of us who wish the Previous Question shall be submitted to the House. We want not merely to know what are the proposals to the Conference, but also what is the final decision of the Conference on which it is understood the Agreement depends. Many Gentlemen who are in favour of the Previous Question would like to record their votes in favour of it before being compelled to vote either for or against the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I think there would be many advantages in our being able to do so. Upon these grounds, I venture to appeal to my hon. Friend—and I am speaking on behalf of many who agree with the proposal—that he will either himself consent to move the Previous Question, or withdraw his Amendment so as to allow some other Gentleman to move it.

I was not in the House when the Prime Minister made the statement as to the intentions of the Government with reference to Some affirmative proposal; but, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I have only to say that, while acknowledging the similarity which exists between my Amendment and the Previous Question, I regard the Motion which I have put upon the Paper as being-somewhat more intelligible, and as better expressing what I hope and believe will be the feeling of my right hon. Friend and those who act with him. With reference to the remark of my right hon. Friend as to the desire of himself and those who feel with him to know the result of what takes place in the Conference, I have no difficulty on that point, because I have absolute confidence is the pledge -which the Prime Minister gave to us on the subject. On the present occasion, while I deeply regret to differ, even in the smallest point —and it is a small one—from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, I am bound to say that I feel it my duty to persevere with the Amendment which stands in my name.

I should like to appeal to the Government somewhat in the same sense as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. I do not suppose that he and I agree very much on this particular question; but still I do think the Previous Question would be the course which, as far as I know, would secure almost the whole support of hon. Members on this side of the House. I have no authority to speak for anyone; but I think it quite possible that some Members on this side would not wish to vote, under these circumstances, for a direct negative, or even for the Amendment of which Notice has been given. I beg to second the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I think he has proposed a more satisfactory mode of considering the circumstances in which we are placed. If the object is to have a good Party fight, we could not have a better one than on the Previous Question.

I do not quite gather what the Government are going-to do upon this question. Do they meet the Motion with a direct negative, or do they intend to support the first Question put on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold)— "That all the words after the word 'that' be left out?" If so, we shall have the word "that" left alone.

With respect to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, I wish him to understand that I am a most reluctant party. I have to say, on the part of the Government, that, so far from coming down here in the glee with which we may very often contemplate Party conflicts when we feel that we are in the right, on this occasion I come down here with a very deep sense that I am, under the pressure of circumstances, and as the choice of evils, giving facilities for bringing forward a Motion which we feel to be most inopportune, and most injurious to the public interests. I. therefore, am under pressure; but, with regard to the Question which has been put by the two hon. Gentlemen following my right hon. Friend, what I have to say is this. It is absolutely impossible, as, I think, must be well known to the Mover of the Resolution, for us, in the position in which we stand, to enter at large upon an explanation or a defence of our policy in regard to the complicated Egyptian Question; and if I address the House after the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce), the chief part of my duty really will be to endeavour to describe accurately the Parliamentary situation, and to explain and justify the course that we propose to take in view of that situation. I am afraid I should be clearly deviating from the common order, at any rate, of the proceedings of this House, if I were to enter upon that subject on the preliminary Motion for postponing the Orders of the day.

What has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirms me in an opinion which I have held during the last two or three days, and to which I should have wished to have given more formal expression if it had been possible to have given Notice, and to take the opinions of others since Friday evening. My own opinion is that, after the speech of my right hon. Friend, and chiefly looking to the circumstances of the case, the House would best do its duty if it were to refuse to postpone the Orders of the Day, with the view of giving: an opportunity of bringing on a Vote of Gen-sure which is most inopportune. I freely admit that the Government were bound to give a day for discussion when they were challenged by the Opposition, and I also admit that the Leaders of the Opposition may have found themselves in this difficulty, that if they did not propose a Vote of Censure at this moment some uncontrollable Member opposite might have done so. But I claim this, that the House of Commons at large is entitled to disregard these considerations, and that we have simply to look at what is most for the interests of the country and that which will best preserve our liberty of action and our independence of judgment which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has distinctly promised us. For, whatever may be said, this debate if it proceeds, and the Division following it, will be looked upon by Europe and by the country as decisive of the questions which are at issue. It will be wrong; but we know perfectly well how difficult it is to make these distinctions, and it will be considered decisive. Meanwhile, what has been the attitude of the French Chambers? They have said that they refuse to discuss this question; and are we, the House of Commons, to bind ourselves in advance and to commit ourselves to principles of great political and international importance while the rest of Europe refuses to commit or to pledge itself? I say, therefore, the argument is overwhelming that this debate ought not to be allowed to proceed. I dissent entirely from the argument which might be put forward by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if this debate and Division do not take place before the Conference then it will be impossible to upset the results of the Conference. I say that that is a position which is derogatory to this country. We are not going to be bound either as regards the neutralization of Egypt or its evacuation by a Conference assembled simply to deal with the financial question. We shall remain, and we ought to remain, entirely masters of our position and masters of our political action. For my part, I think that this House ought not to be driven into the Division Lobbies upon an incomplete case and at an inopportune time; and therefore for my part, if I have any support, I shall be perfectly ready to say "No" to the Motion.

This preliminary debate is one of rather an unusual character; but it appears to me to be absolutely necessary that I should say a few words in reply to the observations which have been made, and especially to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). When it was announced by Her Majesty's Government, some time ago, that it was intended to hold a Conference of the Powers of Europe on the Egyptian Question, very careful and very jealous inquiries were made by Members on this side of the House, and I think by Members on the other side also, as to what were to be the limits and the functions of that Conference. We were assured, over and over again, that the object of the Conference was purely financial—for the purpose of settling the Law of Liquidation. If any intimation had been given to the House at that time that it was intended to hold a Conference for the purpose of considering the question of the limitation of our occupation of Egypt, or the question of the neutralization of Egypt, or any questions of a similar character, I think there can be no doubt that this House would have desired, at the earliest possible moment, to express its opinion on these questions, and would have insisted upon doing so. What has taken place? The Conference is called together, it is true, for the single purpose, as we are informed, and as we believe, of deciding and settling financial questions, and that they are very difficult and im- portant questions we do not for a moment doubt; but we find that, as a preliminary measure, in order to enable the Conference to be brought forward, there has been a correspondence going on between this country and one of the Powers of Europe, and that an Agreement has been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France touching and laying down principles of the very greatest importance as to the time during which we are to occupy Egypt. What is the position of the House with regard to that? We do not take this haphazard or on hearsay. We have had Papers laid before us by Her Majesty's Government, and we have had ample time to consider them. The question is not as to what is proposed to be done, or even a part of what is proposed to be done; it is what has been done? It is a question whether that agreement ought to be accepted as a basis of any further proceedings. Serious principles are involved in that correspondence; and we have felt it our duty at the very earliest opportunity to call the attention of the House to them, and to challenge the opinion of the House as to the propriety of these principles. Of course, it is for the House to say whether they will accede to the proposal of the Prime Minister, that the Orders of the Day be postponed, for the purpose of going on with that discussion. It is a matter with which the majority must deal; but I say that our course is, in our own minds, perfectly clear. There is no question as to whether anyone would anticipate us. The question is whether, having this fact before us, we should approve it or not; and we cannot put ourselves off to consider this after the Conference has been held. Other questions may be raised then which the House and the country may have opinions upon one way or the other; but that is no reason why we should now allow this proposal to go forward without challenge.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not been altogether accurate, for he has said, or implied, with respect to the work of the Conference, that there has been some change since the Government stated to Parliament that it would be summoned and why it would be summoned. Sir, there has been no change whatever. What has happened is simply this. Her Majesty's Government have summoned a Conference for the precise purpose set out in the original Papers presented to Parliament. But before going into the Conference Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Government of France, and the result of those communications has been faithfully and frankly stated to Parliament. If after we go into Conference the result is an inability to bring about an agreement with the Powers, all that has been done in communication with France will come to an end. If, on the other hand, we agree in the Conference, then this House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing, not only the proceedings of the Conference, but the previous understanding with Franco; and, therefore, Sir, I claim that the Government have not departed one jot or one tittle from the promise they gave to Parliament; and I am bound to say that, although in accordance with the demand of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government agreed that a day should be set aside for the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce)—a demand that the Government could refuse—yet they think that a debate on this occasion is certain to be most mischievous.

I think the House will be somewhat astonished at the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). It appears to me that there is somewhat of communication between those observations and the refusal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to give way to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. F. Forster), and allow the Previous Question to be moved. The Previous Question is one of those vague things for which hon. Gentlemen ran vote without affecting their political consciences. The announcement of the Prime Minister, that he intended to meet the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce) with the direct negative, has evidently caused great perturbation and dismay in the minds of hon. Members both above and below the Gangway. If they had been able to afford an opportunity for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and to prevent the Prime Minister from directly negativing the Resolution of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; and if he had done that without absolutely endorsing the policy of the Government, of which only a portion had been presented to the House, we should have heard but little of the candid and impartial suggestion of the right hon. Members for Bradford and Ripon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon suggests that this debate should not take place; but the Party representation of this House leads to a different conclusion. It will be in the recollection of the House that on the 27th of May the Prime Minister said—

"We can undertake and engage, in the event of any common understanding with France, of consultation with the Powers, and of any plan resulting from those communications, that those results and the whole conclusion which is arrived at shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets."—(3 Hansard, [288] 1474.)

I should be glad that the Prime Minister's attention should be called to the words which he has uttered, and to the whole consequences of that which his own words represent. Now, for what purpose was the whole conclusion to be presented to Parliament previous to the meeting of the Conference? Surely, no mere matter of general information could be submitted as a matter of fact. But I venture to think that no general observation would produce any substantial effect amongst the Members of a Party of which I have the honour to be a Member.

said, that, whilst he should be willing to vote cither for the Previous Question or the direct negative should the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) move his Resolution, he considered the Motion inconvenient and mischievous; and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would take a Division against the Motion before the House, in order to protest against the most ill-timed and unpatriotic Motion he had ever seen proposed in his Parliamentary experience.

We on this side of the House, supported by the great majority out-of-doors, regard the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) as not only inopportune, but as most mischievous. The Government had no option save to answer the challenge of the Party opposite. But I hope that the entire Party on this side of the House will take the simple and straightforward course of saying "No" to the proposal before the House, to enter into a discussion from which nothing but mischief can result.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) to reflect what will-be the immediate effect if the course which he has recommended were adopted by the House. Will the public out-of-doors believe that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon was not in any way prompted by the Government? Will it not be thought, and will it not be said, and not merely in this House and throughout this country, but throughout Europe generally, that the one point with regard to this question upon which the great Liberal Party was united was that they were afraid to face a discussion? I think the Parliamentary course of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), if it needed vindication, has been most fully vindicated by the way in which events have shaped themselves, and has received ample justification this afternoon. When we hear hon. Gentlemen talk about a Motion being inopportune, we know very well that it is inopportune to Her Majesty's Government. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, whom we all so greatly respect, to consider whether, by the observations which he has just made, he has not given a blow to Her Majesty's Government from which it will be extremely difficult for them to recover.

I will answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will answer it in this way. I say there is no man outside this House who will believe, and I believe there is no man inside this House who would have made that suggestion except the right hon. Gentleman, who would have made a suggestion which would have been equally dishonourable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and to Her Majesty's Government. I will leave to the right hon. Gentleman opposite the sole monopoly of his insinuations. That, Sir, is the only answer which I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions and insinuations require or deserve.

Sir, there is one observation which, with the indulgence of the House, I hope I may be allowed to make. It is an observation of great surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on Thursday last, upon the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce), should have named this day for the discussion, without intimating, in the slightest degree, that he considered it would be injurious to the public interest, and that to-day he should come forward to announce for the first time that, in his opinion, it would have that injurious effect. [Cries of "Question!" and 'Order" from the Ministerial side, and 'Move the Adjournment!" from the Opposition Benches.] I am anxious not to move the adjournment, or in any way to interfere with the Business of the House. I think we occupy a more dignified position by merely calling attention to the fact, which I think one that will be under- stood in the country, and making this protest.

Sir, I do not think that when the right hon. Gentleman asked for the indulgence of the House, the House was perfectly aware of the use he intended to make of it. ["Oh!"] I am so accustomed-to this kind of interruption that I consider it is not to be taken notice of. But I mean to keep my remarks within the same, or even shorter, limits than those of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope I may claim the same indulgence. When the right hon. Gentleman inquired of me on Thursday as to whether we would give a day, the question had been the subject of much consideration in my mind, and in the mind of my Colleagues; because, on the one hand, we felt that it was not the business of the Government to deprecate discussion, and that, on the other, it was our business, as long as we could, to adhere to the rule which has of late been made use of to such an extraordinary extent, of giving a day when a Vote of Censure is threatened. When I answered the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly felt that, having arrived at the conclusion that a day ought to be given, I ought to give it without grudging, or giving expression to any adverse opinion, or seeming in any way to deprecate debate. But when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the exercise of his discretion, and hon. Gentlemen who followed him especially, in the exercise of their discretion, made a direct appeal to me on the subject, and I found myself saddled with the responsibility of bringing on this Motion, then it was absolutely necessary for me to give nay opinion on its bearing on the public interests, with respect to which I have never entertained a doubt.

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.