gave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What information he had respecting the Orange riots in Cumberland; whether there had been more than one death, and how many persons were dangerously wounded; whether a large number of men had assembled armed with pikes and other weapons; and, what steps had been taken to prevent a collision between the Orangemen and the Catholics?

With the permission of the House, I will answer the hon. Member's Question at once. I have received the following Report from the Chief Constable at Carlisle, dated the 13th of July:—

"Sir,—I have the honour to report that about 1,500 Orangemen assembled in a field at Wath Brow, near Cleator, at 11 A.M. yesterday, the 12th instant, to hold a meeting by previous arrangement. Speeches were made, and a great deal of excitement existed during the day. The Orange party was armed with pistols, swords, spears, &c. They were dressed in the Orange costume, with flags, banners, and bands of music. Large numbers of the Orangemen were taken to Cleator Moor from Workington and other towns by special train. The Orangemen on their way back to the railway station were hooted by a large crowd of the Roman Catholic party. One of the Orangemen thrust a flag in the faces of some of the crowd, whereupon the crowd, which consisted of about 6,000, rushed in upon the Orange party. Several blows were struck on both sides. The Orange party fired several shots, and struck with their swords and spears. One young man, named Henry Tummilty, aged 17 years, who till recently was a letter carrier at the Cleator Moor Post Office, was shot dead on the spot; six others were wounded seriously by pistol shots. Several others were cut by swords and spears. No further deaths have occurred. The Roman Catholic crowd became furious on hearing of the death of one of their party. They made several attacks on the Orangemen with sticks and stones; many were cut and wounded, but this was after the firing, and the death of Tummilty. The police succeeded in separating the two parties, and by forming lines across the streets the crowd attacking the Orange party were cut off from pursuing them. The Orangemen were at last got to the railway station without further fighting; but while at the station waiting for their train the attack was renewed by large numbers of men and women who had got there by circuitous routes. A body of police were moved on to the railway bridge, from which place the attack was being made. Several shots were fired by the Orange party from the railway station at the attacking party on the bridge, but no persons were wounded there. Two magistrates, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Ainsworth, and 45 officers and constables of police were on duty to do everything that could be done to preserve the peace; and it was entirely owing to their great exertions that a most serious loss of life and destruction of property was prevented. I had previously applied to the Petty Sessions of the district to arrange for a magistrate to be present to read the Riot Act if necessary. The Riot Act was not read, as the peace was restored without resorting to that extreme measure. I was present myself during the latter part of the disturbance, and took command of the police. I kept a large body of men on special duty during the night, as it was feared that the houses of some Orangemen who reside in the district of Cleator would be wrecked; but up to 8 P.M. this evening all is quiet and orderly."

I would say from the Report that adequate measures were not taken. It appears that only about 50 police were opposed to a large armed party of Orangemen. I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the inadequate steps which were taken by the authorities to prevent this collision and loss of life.

Arising out of this Question I beg to give Notice that I will repeat the Question which I have put to the Home Secretary on a former occasion—namely, Whether the Government will not consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill dealing with the possession of revolvers in this country as well as in Ireland?

I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the time for Questions. These are Notices of Motion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Joshua Horsewood, an agricultural labourer at Donington on Bain, placed a headstone on his wife's grave in the churchyard, and paid the rector the customary fee of half-a-guinea; whether the rector demanded a guinea, and told Horsewood that if he did not pay that amount the stone would be taken up again, and he must pay the guinea or take the consequences; whether the stone shortly afterwards disappeared, and was found in a neighbouring mill pond; whether inquiries have been made to ascertain who removed the stone; and, whether there is any legal ground why it should not now be restored to its place in the churchyard?

I have received a good deal of correspondence with reference to this case. This is a matter in which I have no immediate jurisdiction; but thinking that the proceeding on the part of the clergyman had not been well advised, I wrote to him on the subject, and he has given an undertaking that the tombstone shall be replaced in the churchyard. I have communicated this to the parties.

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?

I propose at once to lay on the Table of the House a very long and interesting Report by the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson, on this subject. I shall also place in the Library the plans which he has submitted for the restoration of the West Front of the Hall. In the event of these plans not meeting with serious objection in this House, I shall submit in the present Session a Supplementary Estimate for carrying them into effect. In the event, however, of there being much difference of opinion as to the expediency of carrying them into effect, the Government will not object to referring the subject to a Select Committee. The plans will be placed in the Library of the House.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, with reference to the statement that the Department was not bound to teach Gaelic, thereby directly traversing the Report of the Crofters' Commissioners on the point, Whether it is the case that, in the national schools in Ireland, the Irish language has been placed on the List of Special Subjects, or, as it is termed, Extra Branches, with a result fee of 10s. attached; and, if so, why a different rule is presently followed, and apparently meant to be perpetuated, in those parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland where Gaelic is the mother tongue?

I do not know to what statement the hon. Gentleman refers; but it is true that the Irish National Board gives a grant for the teaching of the Irish language, and that no grant has ever been made under the Scotch or English Codes for the teaching of Gaelic or Welsh. But the Irish Board admits that all the evidence is against placing the teaching of Irish on the list of extra subjects. I have been making inquiries as to the best means of familiarizing Gaelic-speaking population with English, and as to the desirability of providing teachers who can speak Gaelic, with the object of the better instruction, in English, of Gaelic-speaking children. The question will be fully considered before a new Code is issued.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether official documents can be withheld from a member of a School Board in Scotland; and, if not, whether a chairman is liable to removal who arbitrarily keeps back public documents; and, what is the practice of the Department in regard to supplying Copies of Letters or Papers addressed to the Department when such are asked for by a member of the School Board?

All official documents addressed to the clerk of a School Board are for the use of the School Board, and every member is entitled to have access to them. I am not aware that there is any power to remove a Chairman; but this is a question of law. It is not the practice of the Department to supply copies of letters or papers, addressed to the Department, to individual members of a School Board. Copies of any such letters would, if thought expedient, be sent to the School Board for their remarks or information.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Returns of the amounts received for admission to the Museum of Science and Art in Edinburgh on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays respectively during the last year; whether he is prepared to recommend that the charge for admission on Thursdays be discontinued, as that day is frequently a holiday in Scotland; and, whether free admission may be given on every day except to the comparatively small portion used by the students?

I shall be very happy to give the Return asked for, if the hon. Member will move for it. It is very important that there should be students' days during which the bonâ fide student can work quietly. The Trustees of the National Gallery have adopted our plan of admitting the public by payment on students' days. We will, however, consider how far we can meet the wishes of the hon. Member. We are only desirous that the Museum shall be of the greatest use to the greatest number.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet been able to consider the case of the Public Prosecutor in Lewis, who is also land agent for the sole proprietor of the island; and, whether he proposes to take any step to carry out the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission that the Law Officers of the Crown in the district reported on should be placed in an impartial and independent position?

I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend to answer this Question. As I have had occasion to state in the House before, the Procurator Fiscal in Lewis is not land agent for the proprietor of the Island; he is only the local law agent for the proprietor, whose principal law agents are a firm in Edinburgh. The Secretary of State has no power to remove a Procurator Fiscal from office unless for inability or misbehaviour upon a Report by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, and there is no suggestion of inability or misbehaviour in this case. Upon the general question I have nothing to add to the statements and explanations which have already been made during the present Session.

Are we to understand that the Government do not intend to take any steps whatever on the recommendation of the Crofters' Commission with respect to the administration of justice in the Western Islands?

It has already been explained that the whole matter is under consideration.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Robert Paisley has been granted a publican's licence by the Excise in respect of premises situated in Bellshill, Lanarkshire; whether Paisley's application to the Licensing Court under the Publican's Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876, was for a new licence or for a renewal; whether he was granted a new certificate, and whether, on application for confirmation under the Publican's Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876, confirmation was refused; if his certificate was a new one, and not confirmed, under what Law the Excise authorities granted him a licence; and, if no licence has been granted, why Paisley is allowed openly to carry on business as a publican?

The Excise authorities in this case granted a licence upon a magistrate's certificate in the usual form. It is understood, however, that a technical point was raised at the Licensing Court, as to whether any confirmation was needed, as Paisley already had a grocer's certificate, and applied for a publican's certificate in respect of the same premises; but this does not concern the Inland Revenue.

said, the hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question, whether Paisley applied for a new certificate, and was granted a new certificate, or whether he applied for an old one?

replied that, as he understood it, Paisley had a grocer's certificate, and he applied for a publican's certificate.

A new one, or an old one?

A new one, I presume.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Inasmuch as it is enacted by section one hundred and fifty-one of "The Spirits Act, 1880," that every officer or person employed by the Excise who, by any wilful act, neglect, or default, does, or permits or agrees to do or permit anything in contravention or evasion of that Act, shall incur a fine of five hundred pounds, and shall thereafter be disqualified from serving Her Majesty in any office or employment, and, by section forty-six of "The Spirits Act, 1880 ts that—

"If any person hawks, sells, or exposes to sale, any spirits otherwise than in premises for which he is licensed to sell spirits,"

This is an extremely argumentative Question, and I reply to it under protest. The answer I have to give is this. In cases in which magistrates have practically granted a licence, and it is only withheld temporarily and for some formal reason, the Excise authorities do not think it part of their duty to refuse to accept the equivalent of the duty, or to take, or to allow their subordinates to take, any action for a breach of the Act of 1880, which is, in fact, not broken in spirit in such cases. If my hon. Friend or anyone else thinks that in any particular case the sale should be stopped and the penalties sued for, they have the remedy in their own hands.

asked under what Statute the Excise had powers to grant licences without the permission of the magistrates being had?

said, the officials had power to do anything for which there was no penalty, and in this case there was no official penalty.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the fact that nothing has yet been done by the Irish Board of Works in the construction of a landing place at Aughris, county Sligo, although several months have elapsed since the estimate and plan were returned to the Board, with the sanction of the Commission on Piers and Harbours for proceeding with the work; whether it is the fact that the prospect of the prompt erection of the landing place has induced several of the fishing crews at Aughris to purchase new boats and nets; whether these boats and nets are now constantly suffering injury through the ruggedness of the existing landing place; and, whether, in view of the facts stated, the Board of Works will now immediately proceed to construct the landing place?

The hon. Member has been misinformed in this matter, no sanction to a plan for this work having been received by the Board of Works. I hope the local fishermen have not been put to any inconvenience from sharing in this misapprehension.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has yet been formally notified to the Clare Land Sub-Commissioners that the Kildysart Board of Guardians have placed their board room at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners for the purpose of holding a sitting of their Court there; and, if the Sub-Commissioners intend to take advantage of the offer; and, if so, whether he can state how soon the Court will sit there?

The Chairman of the Clare Sub-Commission reports as follows:—

"It has never been intimated to us, officially or otherwise, that the Guardians had placed their Board Room at our disposal. The cases for the Kildysart Union for the present Sessions have all been disposed of; but if the accommodation be sufficient, and the public convenience requires it, there can be no objection to sit at Kildysart for the hearing of cases in that neighbourhood."

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was aware that such failure to do what he believed to be the duty of the Sub-Commissioners had occurred on several previous occasions; and whether it was the intention of the Local Government Board, on the representation made, to cause inquiry to be instituted?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of this Question, and I shall then have inquiries made.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, although in 1876 no fewer than seventeen Foreign States, including most of the South American Republics, Mexico, three of the United States, Greece, and Turkey, were in default for a total of nearly £400,000,000 of loans contracted mainly or altogether in England, any (and, if any, would he state what) diplomatic or other action was then or has since been taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the British creditors of those States; whether, especially, any such action was taken by this Country and France against the Porte when, in 1876, the interest on £86,000,000 of its public debt was, by a stroke of the Grand Vizier's pen, reduced from 5 per cent, to 2½ per cent., even of which latter rate nothing has since been paid, or on the subsequent suspension of the payment of both interest and sinking fund on its other loans, amounting in all to above £100,000,000 more, nearly all borrowed in England and France; and, whether there is any precedent in international finance for the joint action of the British and French Governments on behalf of the bondholders of Egypt since 1876 to the present time?

The action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the claims of foreign bondholders is regulated by Lord Pal- merston's Circular Despatch of January, 1848. What has passed in regard to most of the loans alluded to by the hon. Member is recorded in the Papers which, from time to time, have been laid before Parliament. I do not admit that Her Majesty's Government have interfered in Egypt on behalf of the bondholders; but they have interfered in Egyptian finance, because it is impossible to separate the financial from the political condition of the country.

said, the noble Lord had not answered his Question, whether there was any precedent in international finance for the joint action of the British and French Government on behalf of the bondholders of Egypt? He would remind the noble Lord that the ex-Khedive was deposed for his refusal to assent to certain arrangements in the interests of the bondholders. ["Order!"]

said, the whole of the Question on the Paper was of an argumentative character; and the hon. Member asked him to answer about matters relating to 13 different States. The only thing which he could do was to refer the hon. Member to information which was just as much open to his inspection as it was to that of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year no less than 523 affidavits, lodged at the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, viz. 86 used in the Divisional Courts, 2 in the Appeal Court, 237 in Judges' Chambers, 142 in Masters' Chambers, 46 in Masters' private room, and 10 in Judges' private room, had been lost; and, whether he would direct that some steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such carelessness on the part of some of the officials?

, in reply, said, it was true that a large number of affidavits had been lost, but that was not in any way due to the carelessness of the officials. He had inquired into the matter, and discovered that the loss only took place in the Queen's Bench Division. In the Chancery Division, in the course of the year, 88,000 affidavits were used, of which not one had been lost. But in that Division, copies, and not originals, were used in Court; whereas, in the Queen's Bench Division, in order to save expense, the originals were used in Court, and handed to the Judge, and from counsel to counsel. The result was that out of 45,000 affidavits so used some 500, or 1 per cent, had been lost. The question was then, in reality, more a question of economy than anything else.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House the reason of the great diminution of the sums of money paid to the credit of the finances of counties in Ireland from the proceeds of the Dog Tax?

By the operation of the Petty Sessions Clerks Act of 1881, the salaries and pensions of Petty Sessions clerks became largely increased. The increased expenditure is met in the manner provided by Section 2 of the Act, which authorizes the Lord Lieutenant to make an order for the deduction of the required amount from the sums otherwise payable to local authorities. In this manner the balances of the Dog Tax available for payment to local authorities become greatly diminished.

asked, was it not singular that there should be so large an increase in the salaries in that particular branch of the Service since the passing of that Act?

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the arrangement was made with Mr. Corry Connellan that his pension should be paid through the Bank of Ireland; by whom was it made; is there any precedent for such a practice; if so, can cases be quoted; was the arrangement made in writing; if so, can the correspondence be laid upon the Table; is the pension paid quarterly or yearly; and, will the Trea- sury ascertain from the Bank how and to where they transmitted the amount to Mr. Connellan?

Sir, this arrangement was made in November, 1868, with the Bank of Ireland. The recipient holds a power of attorney, and there is no right to interfere. A power of attorney is a document which is popularly used, and the arrangement is a common one. Rather more than 3 per cent of the persons entitled get their pensions in this way. The pension is paid quarterly.

asked if the pensioners who applied for the pensions to the State were not supplied with forms with a place for the address on; and if the one in question did not appear with a blank for the address?

reply was inaudible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that on Sunday week a party of bicyclists from Kilmallock, on arriving at Rathkeale (twenty-two miles off) about 5·30 p.m. were refused refreshment at the hotel by order of Captain Hatcell, R.M.; whether police were stationed to see that the order was carried out, on the ground that a meeting to be held earlier in the day had been proclaimed; whether the tourists then waited on Captain Hatcell, and begged of him to be allowed food and drink, as they had not come to attend any meeting; whether he at first refused, but, after being informed that they would report him, he detailed two policemen to allow them to get what they wanted; and, whether this stipendiary has any instructions to override the bonâ fide traveller clause of the Sunday Closing Act; and, if not, what notice will be taken of his conduct?

I have received a telegram from Captain Hatcell stating that, when the tourists referred to waited upon him and explained their case, he at once desired that they should be allowed to get the refreshment they wanted. It is not the fact that they were treated with any discourtesy, or that they threatened to report the magistrate. The telegram does not make quite clear the circumstances as to the order with regard to the public-houses which was issued by the magistrates, and I have called for further particulars on the subject.

As the right hon. Gentleman has not had sufficient Notice, I will put the Question down for Thursday.

I have had quite sufficient Notice; but that point has not been made clear.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, as the 345th sec. 20 and 21 Vic. c. 60 ("The Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857") provides that—

"Such petitioning trader (or debtor) shall, ten days before the date appointed for the private sitting, file in court, and in such form as may by any order to be made in pursuance of this Act be directed, a full account of his debts, and the consideration thereof, and the names, residences, and occupations of his creditors, and also a full account of his estate and effects, whether in possession, or reversion, or expectancy, and of all debts or rights due to or claimed by him, and of all property of what kind soever held in trust for him, and shall therein set forth such proposal as he is able to make for the future payment, or the compromise of such debts or engagements;"

Mr. Bolton petitioned the Court as an arranging debtor on the 3rd of May, and the first private sitting was fixed for the 3rd of June. The practice is that the accounting statement should be filed 10 days before the time fixed for the first private sitting, or such extended time as the Court shall grant. The debtor was allowed an extended time—namely, to the 4th of July—to file it, and the first private sitting was ultimately fixed for the 11th of July. Those extensions were granted on affidavit. I am informed by the Court officials that such extensions are frequently granted in arrangement cases, and that there was no exceptional ruling in Mr. Bolton's case. No creditor opposed the extension to the 11th of July. The statement of affairs, according to the practice, is vouched in the presence of any creditor who wishes to attend. It is not the practice to make a Report in arrangement cases to the Court, unless there is a special order obtained for the purpose. There has been no suspension or postponement of the vouching. It will take place in due course. I should say the accounting statement could be equally used in cross-examination of Mr. Bolton, whether it was vouched or not.

asked whether the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court on the 11th of July, when Mr. Bolton got a further extension of time, in order to put the hearing of his Petition off until after the trial of his action against Mr. O'Brien at Belfast?

replied, that he saw the statement referred to in the newspapers only. He had merely to say that the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court had exercised his discretion in the matter.

gave Notice that he would call attention to this proceeding, and show that, in spite of the opposition of creditors, this extension of time was granted to Mr. Bolton.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whe- ther Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Government of the Cape relative to the proposed transfer of the extra Colonial Native territory from the direct control of the Crown to that of the Colony?

No, Sir; we have received no communication of that sort from the Cape Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the Reports concerning the state of affairs in the Western Pacific which they have received from Deputy Commissioner Romilly during the last twelve months?

The Reports we have received from Mr. Romilly during the last 12 months have been but few; but they shall be laid on the Table immediately.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the rapid increase of population, and the consequent overstocked condition of the labour market in the Metropolis and elsewhere, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of reviving the Department of Emigration, established by Earl Russell in 1840, but discontinued in 1877?

The Department of Emigration, to which the hon. Member refers, was established when our principal Colonies were without responsible Government, when their public lands were still held by the Imperial Government, who, out of the proceeds of sales, conducted emigration from home, and when the administration of the Passenger Acts—now transferred to the Board of Trade—rested with, the Colonial Office. Owing to the change of circumstances in all the foregoing respects, such a Department would now have nothing to do; and Her Majesty's Government would be unwilling in any way to interfere with the successful Emigration Agencies of the Colonial Governments.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Colonial Governments are extremely anxious that a union for the purposes of emigration should be made with the Government over here, so as to facilitate emigration?

Certain proposals of that sort have from time to time been made; but nothing bearing on the Question of the hon. Member.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Towns Commissioners, in towns under 6,000 inhabitants, can legally strike a rate divisible between landlord and tenant for supplying such town with water, and for other sanitary purposes, upon their being appointed an Urban Sanitary Authority by the Local Government Board, under the seventh section of "The Public Health Act, 1878," as if the same was done by the Board of Guardians as Rural Sanitary Authority?

Town Commissioners of towns having less than 6,000 inhabitants who are made an Urban Sanitary Authority under the special powers conferred by the 7th section of the Public Health Act, 1878, must pay the expenses referred to out of a borough or town rate, or the borough fund, and not, as in the case of a small authority, out of poor rate divisible between landlord and tenant.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the committee appointed to investigate the accounts of Mr. J. D. Elliott, rate collector to the Blackrock Township Commission, have yet made any report to the Commission; and, if so, whether he can state the purport of the report; whether the Commission has made any, and, if so, what reply to the letter recently addressed to them by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, inquiring whether the realisation of Mr. Elliott's securities had been resorted to because of any defalcation in his accounts with the Commission; whether the Irish Local Government Board has yet come to any decision as to the continued employment of that department; and, if no such decision has been arrived at, whether an undertaking will be given that it will be come to and announced before the House is asked to vote the Estimate for the Salaries and Expenses of the Irish Local Government Board?

I learn from the Secretary to the Commissioners of Blackrock Township that it is hoped that the final Report of the Special Committee will be ready and submitted for consideration at the next meeting of the Commissioners—on the 23rd instant—and that the Commissioners have deferred replying to the letter addressed to them by desire of the Lord Lieutenant. Until the Local Government Board have authentic information in regard to the alleged defalcation by Mr. Elliott, they are not in a position to determine whether or not he should be continued in the Poor Law service. They are fully alive to the importance of not retaining in any office of trust under them any person who might be proved to have misapplied funds intrusted to his charge in other capacities.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the alarming sanitary condition of the River Thames; whether he is aware that, in addition to the sewage of the Metropolis being poured into it in a crude condition at Barking and Crossness, there are over one hundred sewer outfalls sending sewage into the river above London; and, what steps, if any, the Local Government Board propose to take to prevent danger arising to the public health?

The Board are aware of the representations which have been made with regard to the sanitary condition of the Thames. With respect to the sewage of the Metropolis poured in at Barking and Crossness, I may refer to the reply given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) on Friday last. We are informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the whole of the sewage is now completely deodorized before being discharged into the river, and that this deodorization will be continued during the dry and hot weather, and that special attention is being given to the flushing of the sewers. With respect to the sewer outfalls above London, there is no doubt that in the district of the Lower Thames Main Sewerage Board there are a large number of sewers discharging into the Thames without any purification of the sewage. The House are aware that a scheme of main sewerage and sewage purification was proposed by the Joint Sewerage Board, and that a Provisional Order for the purchase of land required for the scheme was submitted this Session for the confirmation of Parliament. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee have not yet made their Report; but it is understood they have determined to accept the grave responsibility of reporting altogether against the Bill. If so, the difficulties which will result will be of a most serious character; but I must await the Report of the Committee before expressing my opinion.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had observed that the Engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works stated that one of the causes of the condition of the river was the diminution of the amount of the land-water owing to the quantity taken by the Water Companies above Teddington Lock; and that, consequently, the sewage was not so diluted as it used to be, and it did not amalgamate with salt water?

said, that as the river was so low this year he was having it measured at various points by Mr. Harrison, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, and in a short time he should be more fully aware than at present of the effect of the abstraction of this land-water.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the election of a Poor Law guardian for Shillelagh Union was declared void, as the result of an inquiry held in June 1883; whether, on that occasion, the Local Government Board considered that the returning officer did not take sufficient trouble to inform himself, and "cautioned him that he must discharge his duties with more care in future;" whether it is the fact that the same returning officer in the elections this year received a greater number of votes in favour of the Conservative candidates for Tinahely and Ballinglen than he should have done; whether he is aware that, at the counting of votes for the new elections rendered necessary by the conduct of the returning officer, that officer refused to allow professional assistance to Mr. E. J. Byrne, the popular candidate, and when Mr. Byrne's solicitor appeared adjourned the proceedings, although he handed in a written protest against the adjournment, offering to withdraw from the Board room if the business was proceeded with; and, what course he, as Chairman of the Local Government Board, will take in the matter?

So far as this Question relates to the election of 1883, and to the original election in the present year, I have already more than once answered it, and explained that although there was some error on the part of the Returning Officer, there was no reason to doubt that he acted in good faith. With regard to the adjournment of the casting up of the votes at the recent supplemental election, the facts are that a solicitor attended on behalf of the candidate on one side, and the opposing candidate applied for an adjournment to afford him time to procure legal assistance also. The Returning Officer complied with this application, because he considered that professional representation on one side only would be calculated to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duty. In adopting this course the Returning Officer exercised a discretion which is vested in him by the rules governing such elections, and the Local Government Board see no reason to think that he exercised it unfairly.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been directed to the following words in The Pall Mall Gazette of July 9th 1884, describing the object of the agitation set on foot by the Birmingham Caucus and kindred Liberal Associations:—

"Our immediate duty is to organise the intimidation of the House of Lords. That is the fact in all its naked brutality, and we hope it will be taken to heart by every Liberal in the three Kingdoms;"

In consequence of the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Lord, I have referred to The Pall Mall Gazette of Wednesday last; and although, of course, the words put by the noble Lord in turned commas are correctly quoted, I do not find them so immediately connected with the agitation said to be set on foot by any Association as the position they occupy in the Question would cause most persons to think. Apart from the construction put on the words by the noble Lord, it is not for me to express any opinion whether the writer has chosen the most happy words he could in order to express his meaning. Certainly it is due to the writer to say that the words ought to be read with the context, and not separated and isolated as they appeared in the Question. If I am to express my opinion—and I suppose the noble Lord wishes me to do so—whether there has been any offence against the law committed by writing those words in connection with the context, it does not appear to me that a prosecution of the writer could lead to any practical or satisfactory result. If the noble Lord will refer to the same journal of this evening he will see an explanation of the words, which, I am sure, will be so satisfactory to him that he will be anxious to relieve me from the further consideration of this question.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my Question. I wish to know whether an agitation, the object of which is to organize an intimidation in order to prevent certain persons from performing duties legally intrusted to them, is not an illegal combination?

It is only an act of courtesy to answer the noble Lord. But this Question is, in one sense, a hypothetical Question; it depends entirely upon the sense in which the word "intimidation" is used—whether it is used in the sense of physical violence to overawe either House of Parliament. Such might be alleged to be an offence. But if it should happen to be used in reply to a challenge from a distinguished person, that no action shall be taken in legislation until "great and violent public pressure" is placed upon Parliament, then it may be an answer to such an invitation, and would not cause the person who accepted it to be guilty of any criminal offence.

I wish to give Notice that on Thursday next I will ask the Prime Minister, if we are to understand from the answer of the Attorney General that his Government, which put Irish Members of Parliament in prison for using language which was supposed to be of an intimidatory character, are disposed to aid and abet the use of similar language in England when it is likely to promote their own ends?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has the Government yet heard whether General Gordon has received either of the Government Despatches of 23rd April or 18th May; has the Government recently made any effort to communicate with General Gordon; what is the date of the last despatch sent to General Gordon, and of the last Despatch received from him; and, what is the present position of General Gordon?

No, Sir; I have already, on several previous occasions, stated in this House that the last despatch to General Gordon was dated from London on the 17th of May, while that received from him bore date the 10th of April. Her Majesty's Government have not yet heard whether General Gordon has received the despatches to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and it is impossible to state exactly what his present position is. Every possible endeavour by means of messengers has been made to communicate with him; and I have already informed the House of the steps which have been taken with that object. Certain other attempts have also been made to communicate; but it is not desirable to enter into details. A report has reached Wady Halfa to the effect that M. Cuzzi had proceeded to Khartoum after the fall of Berber, and that General Gordon was making constant sallies.

Has the noble Lord any news respecting Dongola?

I have nothing to add to the statement I made the other day—that the news from Dongola is dated the 10th of June.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the number of new titles which have been placed in the year 1883, upon the Register in the Office of Land Registry, for which a Vote of £5,442 is demanded in the Civil Service Estimates?

A full Return of the transactions in the Land Registry for the years 1882 and 1883 was presented on the 8th, on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. In answer to the specific Question of my hon. Friend, I am informed by the Registrar that 272 new titles have been placed upon the Register in 1883.

asked whether the Government intended going on this year with the Middlesex Land Registry Bill?

I am afraid it is rather late to think about making further progress with the Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph, appearing in The Standard of the 11th July:—

"The Basutos have attacked and burned Thaban-Chu, which was a mission station within the borders of the Free State;"

My hon. Friend's Question seems to imply an at- tack by Basutos invading the Orange Free State from British territory. I think he will find on further inquiry that it is a case of inter-tribal quarrel within the Free State. As to the second Question, the British Resident has a police force with which to maintain order; and though the President of the Orange Free State has, from time to time, made representations to Her Majesty's Government, there is no reason to believe that he complains of the manner in which Her Majesty's Government are carrying out the obligations devolving on them.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1883 will be circulated; and, whether he can take any steps to insure the earlier publication of these Reports?

The Report will be laid on the Table before the Prorogation; but as the Returns upon which it is based are only due on the 1st of June, and a large number of them are always in arrear, it is impossible to expedite materially the publication of the Report and Appendix.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to make any payment, as extra pay or gratuity or war batta, to the troops engaged in the recent operations in the Eastern Soudan; and, if so, when the Estimate for the purpose will be submitted to the House?

The gratuity has already been issued to the troops employed in the operations around Suakin. I cannot yet state whether a Supplementary Estimate will be required for this and other extraordinary expenditure arising from the state of affairs in Egypt and the Soudan.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Crown sent up a bill to the Grand Jury of the county of West- meath, at the present Assizes, against Colonel Digby; and, whether the Grand Jury threw out this bill; and, if so, whether the Crown will now proceed against Colonel Digby by information in the Court of Queen's Bench?

It is the fact that the Crown sent up a bill to the Grand Jury of the county of Westmeath against Colonel Digby, and it was thrown out. A proceeding by an ex officio information would be inapplicable to such a case as referred to in the Question and without precedent.

asked whether the circumstances of the case were not without precedent; whether it was not the fact that two local magistrates refused to receive information against Colonel Digby, who was a member of that local Bench; and, whether, in view of these novel circumstances, the Attorney General would take proceedings?

The ordinary proceedings have been adopted, and there is no ground for an exceptional course.

Are we to understand that, if the local magistrates refuse informations for theft the law is completely paralyzed?

What is the Attorney General for?

This failure of justice has arisen with regard to one case. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is not evidence that in a second case Colonel Digby attempted to cheat the Land Commission; whether there is not a third case in which he actually did succeed in cheating them, and did receive the money; and, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will not now proceed in regard to these cases?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury, or the Bank of England as their agents, have yet issued, or are contemplating the issue of a Circular to holders of Consols and other Government Stocks, drawing their attention to the proposals for a scheme of conversion; and, if not yet issued, whether he will be so good as to inform the House when he is likely to do so?

Yes, Sir; it is contemplated, as my hon. Friend rightly anticipates, to issue a notice to holders of Consols and other Three per Cent Government Stocks, in pursuance of the National Debt Conversion Act. I had originally hoped that we might name a day in August as the last on which Stocks might be converted; but I have determined to defer this for a few weeks. Full notice of the day finally fixed will be given.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, consequent upon the abandonment of the Land Purchase Bill, the Government are prepared to submit to the House any proposal to deal with the arrears of work in the Appeal Court of the Irish Land Commission?

No, Sir; we do not intend to submit to the House any proposal, except that we shall ask the House to enable the Government to appoint a fourth Commissioner in place of Lord Monck, whose appointment expires in August.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in the Constabulary Lists issued on the 1st of January and 1st of July in each year, the circumstances under which officers, during preceding six months, have ceased to be members of the force are duly recorded; why this rule has not been adhered to in the case of James Ellis French; and, why it is not stated in the List last published, whether he has been dismissed, compelled to retire without pension, or superannuated?

The Constabulary List is not a publication for which the Government or the Constabulary Authorities are responsible. It is a private undertaking, and has no official character beyond this—that its proprietor has the permission or authority of the Inspector General to publish it for the convenience of the Force. He is under no obligation to publish all or any portion of it. With regard, however, to what the hon. Member regards as an omission, there is no objection to state that the explanation is that County Inspector French was discharged on medical certificate of unfitness for further service, and with an intimation that the question of pension would pend, and that as this question was still undecided when The Constabulary List for July was sent to press, the compiler thought it better to postpone the insertion of the case.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is aware that the tapestry at Hampton Court of "The Triumph of Time" is part of a set representing the "Six Triumphs," written by Petrarch, of which three others were secured most fortunately last year by the South Kensington Museum; whether it would not be desirable that this very valuable and interesting national possession should no longer be allowed to hang, and rot with decay, on the walls of the withdrawing room of the Palace; and if he can give an assurance that it shall at once be cleaned and restored?

, in reply, said, these tapestries were not the property of the nation, but of the Sovereign, and were under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain, who was considering the question of their repair.

The right hon. Gentleman gave me a similar answer a year and a-half ago. I may inform him that, whether the question of the repair of these tapestries is under consideration or not, they are now hanging and rotting on the walls at Hampton Court to no public advantage.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the present state of public Business, he adheres to his recently-expressed intention to introduce a Bill for the suspension of writs in the constituencies in which a Royal Commission has reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed; and, in such case, up to what date he proposes to suspend those writs?

, in reply, said, that the Bill would be introduced in the usual way. The hon. Member could obtain information on the subject if he referred to the legislation of the last three Sessions.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state, with reference to the counting of votes in the new election for the Tinahely division of Shillelagh Union, consequent on the annulling by the Local Government Board of the previous election, in which a number of Conservative votes were received by the Clerk of the Union in excess of the legal number; on what grounds the returning officer adjourned the inquiry, as no one objected to its being proceeded with, either on the part of Mr. Haydon, the popular candidate, or his opponent?

I have already, in reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet), explained the circumstances in which the adjournment of the casting up of the votes in the election for Tinahely division took place.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Harnai line of Railway is being made out of revenue, and that it is reported that it will not be completed for five years to the Amram range; and, if so, whether the advantage of this extension of the frontier Railway system is not rendered nugatory by such leisurely and protracted construction?

Yes, Sir; it is intended to charge the cost of the Harnai line to Revenue; but I know of no report "that it will not be completed for five years to the Amram range." Indeed, as the Government of India inform us that measures have been taken for as speedy a prosecution of the work as the nature of the country and the trying changes of climate will permit, we expect that there will be no time lost in completing the line to Quettah as rapidly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Secretary for Scotland Bill, which had reached the stage of Third Reading in "another place," and was, in its new form (so far as is generally known), unlikely to meet with opposition in the House of Commons, was made the earliest victim in the "slaughter of the innocents;" and, by what interpretation that Bill was reckoned among contentious business, which, for causes understood only by Her Majesty's Government, it was determined to withdraw?

I am very glad to welcome—for I think the first time—the support of the hon. Member to this Bill. I value his posthumous affection; but I would have valued it more when the Bill was alive. I regret, like the hon. Member himself, that this Bill has come to a premature end; but it shared the fate of many other little Bills which we thought it was necessary to sacrifice in order to promote a measure to which we attach great importance.

I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any effort was made to ascertain the feeling of this House as to the Bill; and, if not, how it is reasonable any blame for its abandonment should be laid at the door of "another place," where the Bill was to be read a third time?

It is not my object to attach blame to anybody, but to state the cause why the Bill was withdrawn.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is aware that the Turkish Government is compelling all British vessels trading between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (although not communicating with the shore) to perform quarantine at Smyrna; and, whether, in conjunction with other Maritime Powers, he will endeavour to secure the appointment of an International Commission, for the purpose of mitigating unnecessary quarantine regulations?

I conclude the hon. Member is correct, for in a telegram received to-day from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, His Excellency states that passenger and cargo ships from French Mediterranean ports must undergo quarantine at Smyrna, Beyrout, or Tripoli. Passenger ships from the Black Sea or the Adriatic are also subjected to quarantine. There is no information as to the other Mediterranean ports. The details of the Turkish quarantine arrangements will appear in the next London Gazette. As regards an International Commission on Quarantine, it is open to doubt whether such a proposal would at present be advantageous or possible.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that intelligence has been received of the death of another of the crew of the Nisero, that others are suffering from fever, and that the whole require addional clothing; and, when he anticipates being able definitely to inform the House the result of the negotiations with the Dutch Government for the purpose of promoting active measures in order to obtain the immediate release of the men still alive?

The latest news of the crew is dated the 4th instant, in a telegram from C. Buhlor, dated July 11. Four deaths are reported; but the epidemic is said to have ceased, and the remainder of the crew were well. Medicines have been supplied by the Commander of Her Majesty's ship Pegasus, who has made arrangements for the transmission of letters fortnightly. The reply of the Netherlands Government to the last proposal of Her Majesty's Government is expected on Wednesday, and further Papers will be laid on the Table.

Will the noble Lord say what the arrangements are which have been made with the Netherlands Government for the release of the men?

Until the answer of the Netherlands Government, to which I have just alluded, is received, I cannot make any statement; but directly that answer has been received the Papers will be laid before the House, and they will show the full state of the case.

said, he would put another Question on Thursday on this subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Stack, T.C. Listowel (county Kerry), who has been recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace for that town, is the same person who, in the month of November last, not only attended, but presided over a public meeting held in a graveyard near Listowel, for the purpose of commemorating the anniversary of the execution of the Fenians, Allen, Larken, and O'Brien; and, whether that meeting had been proclaimed by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant; and, if this new magistrate, in his capacity as chairman, on the said occasion unveiled a stone cross to the memory of those "Manchester martyrs?"

Before the Question is answered, I should like to ask is it not the fact that the noble Lord in whose name the Question stands (Lord Arthur Hill), and a number of his friends who hold the Commission of the Peace, lately waited on the Lord Lieutenant and told him to his teeth that they refused to comply with his suggestion with regard to counter Orange demonstrations, and that they would stand upon their right to hold these meetings at the same time and place as the Nationalists?

I should also like to ask the Chief Secretary, whether the noble Lord is not the same noble Lord who went to shopkeepers in Belfast, previous to the recent visit of the Lord Lieutenant, and requested them to take down the flags which they had put up to welcome His Excellency?

, in reply, said, he must take these Questions separately, and with Notice. Mr. John Stack, the Chairman of the Town Commissioners of Listowel, was, on their application, selected as Town Justice under the Towns Improvement Act on the 7th of June. The Lord Chancellor was entirely unaware of any of the allegations contained in the Question. It was right to say, in relation to those allegations, that on reference to the Constabulary Reports made to the Government at the time, it would appear that no meeting was held in violation of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation, and that no speeches were delivered. A few persons, about a dozen in number, did, on the morning of the 25th of November last, quietly unveil the cross. But as to this and every other matter connected therewith, the Lord Chancellor would make inquiry.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he is aware that the Sanitary Committee of Hackney are proceeding to visit the Elementary Schools, to inspect the children, with a view to vaccination; and, whether the Education Department, or the managers, have any authority by Law, without the consent of the parents, to allow such a proceeding?

On inquiry at the Local Government Board, Dr. Buchanan had furnished the following statement:—

"I have examined, as a Medical Inspector of Her Majesty's Privy Council, tens of thousands of children in public and private elementary schools. My custom was to inform the master or mistress of my object—namely, to get information as to the efficiency of the local vaccination—and to ask if they had any objection to my examining the arms of the children and noting the vaccine scars. I never but once met with any refusal, either in London or the country. Having examined the children's arms (usually to their great amusement), I gave a list of the unvaccinated to the master, and asked him to call the attention of the children's parents to the fact that they were not protected against small-pox."

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Admiralty or War Office, in compelling efficient public servants to retire because they have reached sixty years, are authorised to do so by any Statute or Resolution of this House?

My hon. and learned Friend should have addressed this Question to the Secretary of State for War, or the Secretary to the Admiralty, rather than to me, as the duty of the Treasury in these matters is to award the pension of an officer reported to them by the Head of his Department as retiring from the Service. But to save time I have made inquiries on this subject, and I am not aware of any Statute or Resolution of this House which would prevent the Heads of either of these Departments from acting as my hon. and learned Friend's Question implies that they have acted in the case of a public servant holding office during the pleasure of the Crown.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what has been the result of the correspondence between the Irish Local Government Board and the Newtownards Board of Guardians with respect to the religious instruction of Catholic children who are inmates of the Newtownards Workhouse; whether it is the fact that there is no Catholic guardian, either ex-officio or elected, on the Newtownards Board; whether, in consequence of a resolution adopted by the Board on the 5th of April last, the Catholic children are sent daily into the schoolyard, where they spend the time in idleness, while the rest of the children are receiving religious instruction; whether the schoolmaster and schoolmistress superintend the morning and night prayers of the Protestant children, give them religious instruction every day, and direct their religious exercises on Sundays, while there is no instructor appointed for the Catholic children, and if these latter every night are put outside the dormitory while the rest of the children are engaged in prayer; whether the Presbyterian chaplain is allowed to interrupt the secular business of the school for the purpose of religious instruction, whereby an hour of secular instruction is lost to the Catholic children; whether it has been the practice of the guardians to send Catholic orphans into the employment of persons of other religious creeds, and that numerous cases of proselytism have resulted; whether the salary of the Catholic chaplain is much less than that of either of the other chaplains; whether the guardians have refused to furnish requisites for Catholic religious worship in the workhouse; and, whether the Local Government Board will use their power to equalise the salaries of the chaplains, and take measures to secure due decency of Catholic worship, and such religious instruction and protection of conscience for Catholic children as are extended to children of other denominations?

, in reply, said, the Board of Guardians had declined to make any additional arrangements for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic children in the workhouse. They stated the Roman Catholic chaplain was afforded the same facilities as the chaplains of other persuasions; that the number of Roman Catholic children is very small; and that some few years ago the chaplain's salary was increased, partly because he was required to attend to religious instruction. Under these circumstances, there were no grounds for further correspondence with the Guardians on this matter. There was no Catholic Guardian on the Board; no Roman Catholic had offered himself for re-election for some years past. The resolution referred to was that if the Roman Catholic chaplain did not feel it necessary to be present during the half-hour for religious instruction the children of that persuasion should not be required to be present. It was not the case that there was a distinction made in regard to religious instruction of the children either on week-days or Sunday. The schoolmistress and master did nothing but read a portion of Scripture daily under the rules of the National Board without note or comment. With regard to the alleged interruption of secular instruction by the visits of the Presbyterian chaplain, he attended for an hour once a-fortuight, and this was compensated for by an additional hour's secular instruction in the evening. He had been furnished with a list of the Roman Catholic children sent to the employment of persons of other religious creeds since 1871. There were eight cases in all. The facts did not appear to warrant the statement as to alleged cases of proselytizing. The Board of Guardians said that in a population in which the large majority of employers of labour were Protestants they could not maintain healthy young persons in the workhouse simply because masters could not be found of their own religious persuasion; but they invariably obtained from these masters promises to send them regularly to Sunday school or places of worship. This was a matter in which the Local Government Board had no power to control the Guardians, even although they might consider the action of the Guardians as not in all cases judicious. The salary of the Catholic chaplain was less than the salaries of the other chaplains; but the number of inmates he attended was also very much less, and much less than the difference between their respective salaries in proportion. There appeared to be a dispute of long standing as to the supply of requisites for Catholic worship. So long ago as 1859 the then Poor Law Commissioners issued a sealed order on the subject; but the Guardians refused to comply with it, and on application to the Court of Queen's Bench a mandamus was obtained. The Local Government Board did not consider it necessary to equalize the salaries of the chaplains.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If members of the Constabulary Force in the county of Sligo recently compelled Mrs. Gannon, an aged woman, whose two sons are lying in Sligo Gaol awaiting trial on a charge of conspiracy, to leave her home, and go with them to the town of Tubbercurry, and there submit to a secret interrogation with reference to her sons; and, whether this course was taken in regard to Mrs. Gannon with the sanction or knowledge of the higher authorities?

During the holding of an inquiry under Section 16 of the Prevention of Crime Act, Mrs. Gannon was examined with reference to the firing at and wounding of Sub-Inspector Doherty, which occurred about two years ago, and to the fact that after the firing a man from Tubbercurry went to her house to remove firearms there-from. Mrs. Gannon was not compelled by the police, but was merely served with a summons in the usual way. She is a strong, hale woman, and declined the offer of a car from her house to Tubbercurry, a distance of three miles, saying that she preferred to walk. In summoning this and other witnesses, the Resident Magistrate exercised the jurisdiction expressly conferred upon him by Section 16 of the Act.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When he proposed to make his annual Financial Statement?

As soon as I can get an opportunity.

said, he very much regretted the position of this Bill along with that of many other measures; but it was an independent Member's Bill, and the Government could not interfere with these measures except under very peculiar circumstances. He did not think there were any circumstances existing at the present moment which would justify the Government in offering exceptional facilities for the passing of this particular independent Member's Bill, and they must leave the matter in the hands of the House.

I wish to put a Question to Mr. Speaker upon a point of Order in reference to the Orders of the Day. I observe that the first line upon the Orders which relates to Supply is printed in italics, and, as there is no number opposite to it, it appears to be rather in the nature of a suggestion. The first Order in the ordinary type is the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill; and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether that Bill does not stand, at this moment, as the first Order upon the Paper?

According to the usual understanding, and, I may say, the uniform practice of the House for the last 20 years, the form has been adopted as it now stands upon the Paper.

Then, Sir, I will ask you, further, whether the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill does not stand as the first Order?

The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) appears to be under some misapprehension. Supply will be the first Order immediately it is resolved that Committee of Supply shall be set up.

Yes, Sir, that is the point I am coming to. It will be the first Order; but at the present moment I submit that it is not the first Order, and, that being so, I will ask you whether the Standing Order of November, 1882, does or does not at present apply—I mean the Standing Order which says that when Supply stands as the first Order on Mondays and Thursdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without any Question put?

The same course which the hon. Gentleman is finding fault with was adopted on Monday last.

I am not finding fault with anything.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Has any day been fixed by the Plenipotentiaries to resume the business of the Conference?

The "Commission," consisting of the Financial Experts of the several Powers, over whose deliberations I have been requested to preside, is still sitting; and until the business which that Commission has in hand is completed, it will be impossible to say when the Conference will meet.

I will ask the Question again on Thursday. I will also ask the Prime Minister, whether it is intended to keep Parliament sitting until the Conference has concluded its labours?

I would ask the President of the Local Government Board a Question of which I have not been able to give him private Notice—namely, Whether with regard to several cases of cholera reported in London in the last Returns to the Registrar General the doctors refused to certify that they were cases of the ordinary type; and if there was any reason to believe that they were cases of Asiatic cholera?

I do not know about doctors refusing to certify. If there had been such refusal, no doubt I should have been at once informed. There has not been reported any case of the Asiatic type in London, or in any part of England.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he had observed as the first Order of the Day on Wednesday a Bill for the security of life and property at sea, drawn on lines entirely different from those of the Bill of the President of the Board of Trade, and how it happened that the Government had lost all interest in the subject?

I have not observed that the Bill to which the hon. Member refers is the first Order of the Day on Wednesday, and the reason that I have not observed it is that it is not so. The first Order for next Wednesday is one with respect to which I may say that if it came on it would be morally certain to occupy the whole of the Sitting—I mean the Bill relating to compulsory vaccination.

I beg to move "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."

A question of very great importance and of considerable interest to the House was raised a short time ago by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). We all know that Supply became a dropped Order on Friday, owing to the fact that the House was counted out. That, however, was the fault of the Government, who might have kept a House, if they had chosen to do so. The Standing Order of November, 1882, only applies to a case where Supply is the first Order; and, clearly, that is not the case on the present occasion. Supply is not the first Order, and it can only be put as the first Order by this Motion. Seeing that a Motion is made to place Supply as the first Order, it is evident that at the present moment Supply cannot be the first Order. The matter would be still further accentuated by a Division being taken against the Motion; but I presume there is no intention of taking a Division. But what I would impress upon the Government is, that while we assent to the Motion, we are fully aware that there is other Business, and very important Business, on the Paper, and that tomorrow we shall expect from them a definite statement as to what they propose to do with the important Irish Business which still remains on the Paper. I need only refer to the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, which the Government have already given a guarantee to press forward. If so, I want to know whether it is to be at a Saturday Sitting, or how the Prime Minister proposes to manage it?

I should like to make one or two observations on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to point out to the Government the extreme inconvenience of allowing the Order for Supply on Friday to become, as it too frequently does, a dropped Order. I am certain that considerable progress might have been made with Supply on Friday evening if the Members of the Government had made any exertion whatever to keep a House. But, unfortunately, in order to get rid of some inconvenient subject which happens to be on the Notice Paper, they are in the habit of allowing the House to be counted out. I think there is nothing more detrimental to the progress of Public Business than these constant "Counts-out," because when a Motion is down upon the Paper, and is discussed and decided upon by the House, it is done with for the Session; whereas, if the House is counted out, and no opportunity is afforded for taking it on Friday, the discussion usually takes place upon the Estimates themselves, and no time whatever is saved. I may give, as an illustration, the important Motion which was put down for a Friday, some time ago, by my hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), in reference to the present state of Zululand. The House was counted out before that Mo- tion could be brought on, and, although it may not have been counted out at the instance of the Government, the Members of the Government made no effort to keep a House. In that case there was a distinct loss and a waste of valuable time, because, instead of the question being discussed then, the question of Zululand will now be discussed upon the Estimate itself, and probably will delay Supply for an entire night. The same thing happened again on Friday last. The Government, by neglecting to keep a House, prevented private Members from having an opportunity of bringing important questions forward which must be discussed at some time or other. The Motion for Supply became a dropped Order, and the House is experiencing the inconvenience at this moment. As to the precedent which has been established to-day, I may remark that you, Sir, have allowed the Motion "that the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply" to be debated. I am now making the second speech which has been delivered on that Motion. Therefore, there is a clear precedent for debating the Motion that Supply shall be made the first Order of the Day, and I assume that, as the Motion itself can be debated, an Amendment can be moved upon it. Therefore, by being compelled to put down the Motion "that the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply," the Government are really laying themselves open to any Amendment which any hon. Member may choose to move. I suppose that it would be perfectly competent for me, or any other Member, to bring forward a Motion now on the subject of Zululand or any other subject it might be considered desirable to discuss on the proposal that Supply be again set up.

I cannot allow that a general debate of that kind would be permissible. According to the practice of the House, it has been the custom, at any rate since 1866, to allow this Motion to be put as a purely formal Motion for the purpose of setting up Supply.

I was not intending to take any such course. I am only pointing out the inconvenience which might arise from taking such a course for the purpose of urging on the Government not to allow the Motion for Supply to become a dropped Order on Fridays. I do not know that you, Sir, have ruled that such a Motion would be out of Order. It is perfectly obvious that this Motion is capable of being debated, and I assume that some Amendment would be in Order which would give rise to a debate. Friday is now to be the only opportunity left to private Members for moving Amendments on the Motion for going into Supply; and if the Government become lax in the matter, the only effect of their laxity will be to deprive private Members of Friday nights, which I feel might be profitably preserved for the discussion of private Members' Motions. At present it appears to be the practice to count out, if there happens to be a question on the Paper that is likely to prove disagreeable to the Government, in order that such question may be got rid of. But questions constantly arise which, whether or not they can be discussed on a Friday night, must be discussed in some form or other.

I do not think the protest should come from one side of the House only. I think that both sides have good reason to complain that on Friday nights the Government make no efforts whatever to keep a House, or, at any rate, to prevent it being counted out at so early an hour. It is most unusual, when the House meets at 4 o'clock, that it should be counted out on the first Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. On Friday last I had the honour of bringing forward a Motion which interests a considerable number of Members on this side of the House—more, perhaps, than on the other side—and I certainly was surprised that the Government took no steps whatever in order to keep a House, seeing the early hour at which it was counted out. I think it is only right to make a protest against this unfortunate practice, on this side of the House as well as the other.

With reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that no steps were taken by the Government to prevent the House from being counted out on Friday night, I must say that every possible step was taken by those who usually serve under my command. But on Friday night, when the House has been sitting until very late hours during the rest of the week, it is found almost impossible, sometimes short of using physical force, to keep Members in the House. Every possible effort was made by us on Friday night to keep a House; but I regret to say that the stream was so strong against us that we were obliged to give way. Indeed, we were almost carried away with it.

On the point of Order which has been raised, I think, Sir, the House entirely concurs with you as to the practice which previous to the passing of the new Standing Orders in November, 1882, prevailed. As you have properly said, when this Motion was made it was assented to as a matter of course; but the form in which it was put was to enable a debate to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister now asks the House immediately to resolve into Committee of Supply, and the Motion is made for the purpose of setting aside Amendments to the Motion for going into Committee, so that a debate might take place with you, Sir, in the Chair in the same way as if the Motion was the ordinary one for going into Committee of Supply, and the original Motion had not fallen through from unforseen circumstances. That was the practice up to 1882, and I think, Sir, that you have quite correctly seated that the Motion was made as a matter of course, and simply took the place of the old Motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The Motion stood practically on all fours with the original Motion. As we all know, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister can draw exceedingly subtle distinctions in matters of this kind; but I think it will be generally admttted that practically the two Motions were on all fours. The new Standing Order passed in November, 1882, provided that when the Committee of Supply stood as the first Order of the Day, Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair without any Question put. The point now taken by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is, that Supply does not stand as the first Order of the Day on this occasion, and that therefore the new Standing Order does not apply, but that a preliminary debate may take place. I understand that there is no intention of raising a discussion now, but that the right has been waived. That I quite understand; but in case it should be necessary on any future occasion to take advantage of the Stand- ing Order, I wish to draw attention to the fact that prior to 1882 it was the immemorial practice for a debate to take place on the Motion that "this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply," and that practice was in no way affected by the passing of the new Standing Order.

I wish to corroborate what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). I gathered from you, Sir, that you stated the Motion was purely a formal Motion, and that it had been so regarded for many years. Now, it has been my fortune since I have been a Member of the House to have heard it debated over and over again. It has been the invariable practice, when the Government has wished to set up Supply after an Amendment had been carried against the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, to move "that this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply," thereby giving the hon. Member who had the next Motion upon the Paper the right to raise a fresh debate. Now, I think it most important that, as this discussion has taken place, the reasons for it should be placed on record—namely, that a "Count-out" having taken place on Friday night, and the Order of the Day for Committee of Supply having become a dropped Order, the usual rule does not now apply. It is perfectly clear that this is so, because you, Sir, have now allowed a prolonged debate to take place on the Motion "that this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply," so that it is evidently a Motion that can be debated. And if a Motion can be debated, then, by the immemorial practice of the House, an Amendment can be moved to it, and therefore I apprehend that, unless the Motion be at once assented to, it can be debated even on a Monday, and an Amendment moved to it. In consequence of what has taken place this evening, whenever, in future, a "Count-out" occurs on a Friday, and it becomes necessary to set up Supply on a Monday, it will be competent, I presume, not only for a debate to arise, but for an Amendment to the Motion to be moved.

I think, Sir, the discussion which has taken place suggests, in view of the possibility of having "Counts-out" on Friday and debates on the Motion for setting up Supply on Monday, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should include the whole of Friday in the Resolution he proposes to move tomorrow, as well as Tuesday and Wednesday. The Government would then have possession of the entire day, and there would be no fear of the House being counted out. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that that is the view which is entertained by all hon. Members on this side of the House.

In regard to the practice of the House, I believe that for the last 18 years, at least, the Motion for setting up Supply has been agreed to without debate.

Upon the point of Order may I ask if it has not been perfectly competent for any hon. Member to set forth his reasons why any one of the Orders of the Day is more worthy of consideration than Supply itself?

That would be quite an unusual course for the House to take. It has been so generally recognized that the Motion for setting up Supply is for the convenience of the House at large, that, as I said before, as a general rule, there has been no preliminary debate upon it.

I should like to be allowed to give my recollection in regard to Motions of a similar character to the one now before the House. The practice, previous to 1882, was that the proposals to set up Supply on Monday by a Motion such as that which has now been proposed by the Prime Minister were not debated; but I will tell the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) what took place. Supply was set up and then all the Motions which stood on the Paper for going into Committee of Supply were discussed, so that although the formal Motion "that this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply" was not debated, the reason was because it was understood that it would be followed by the ordinary Motion for Committee of Supply upon which private Members had then the right of bringing forward such Amendments as they had placed upon the Paper. The circumstances have been altered since, and we now know that the Motion "that this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply" may lead to a debate which may be of inconvenience to the Public Service. I should, therefore, feel inclined to support the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that under the extraordinary circumstances of the present Session, private Members would be glad to give up their right of proposing Motions on going into Committee of Supply on Friday; and I am satisfied that if the Government were to ask that Friday night as well as Tuesday and Wednesday should be appropriated to Government Business, the majority of private Members would be willing to give way in their favour, so that on every day in the week the Government should have an opportunity of going at once into Committee of Supply.

I can only go so far with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) as to express a hope that on this occasion hon. Members will not take advantage of the Motion of the Prime Minister to bring about an interminable debate. On the point of Order, it appears to me that the operation of the new Rule when it is necessary to set up Supply on Monday has brought about a novel state of circumstances. It has been the immemorial privilege of the House to discuss preliminary Resolutions on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and, therefore, the effect of the new Rule ought to be construed strictly. The Government, whenever they allow the House to be counted out on Friday, propose this Motion on Monday as a matter of right; but they ought not to be in a position to take advantage of their own wrong. If we were to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member opposite we should still further curtail the privilege of private Members. Therefore, whenever the House is counted out on Friday, it should be the duty of the Government to set up Supply again on Monday, and it cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as the first Order within the meaning of the new Rule.

I am not prepared to admit that the Government are responsible for the "Count-out" on Friday. What the right hon. Gentleman seems inclined to recommend is that now, at a time when the House is ex- tremely anxious to go forward with Business, we should mark our sense of the wrongful conduct of the Government by imposing something upon them which may lead to inconvenience. I must add my recollection to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). I think he is perfectly correct in the account he has given of the practice of the House as to setting up Supply. I think, Sir, your statement in the Chair requires no confirmation from me; but another hon. Member having confirmed it, I am bound to say that the view which has been expressed is in entire conformity with my own. As to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), although there is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of taking Friday, still I wish to observe that it has never been the practice for the Government to ask for Friday nights. I should, therefore, be very sorry to depart from the recognized practice.

The right hon. Gentleman says the Government are very anxious to get on with Business; but I am afraid, bearing in mind the way in which they have mismanaged their opportunities in the course of the present Session, that it would not do much to expedite Business if we were to hand over Friday nights to them.

I think the hon. Member has already spoken in the course of the debate.

No, Sir, I only addressed you on a point of Order. I merely addressed a question to the Chair, and did not address the House. I was calling the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that he was anxious to get on with Business. Now, my observation of the mode in which Business maybe best expedited is not to hand over the whole of the time of the House to the Government, because the Government appear hitherto to have mismanaged their opportunities. For some time they have taken possession of the days usually appropriated to private Members, on the ground that on those days "Counts-out" occurred. But how can the Government monopoly be defended when they allow such "Counts-out" to take place as that which occurred on Friday evening? The noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), with so many persons under his command, tells us that he was unable to keep a House for effective Supply. Yet we are now asked to take Supply when there is much more important matter on the Notice Paper. The third Order, for instance, is the Medical Act Amendment Bill. We have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of that Bill (Mr. Mundella) that he will not proceed with it after 11 o'clock, and I think the only chance of making progress with it is to take it on some such occasion as to-day, when it might easily have been reached at a reasonable hour. But, unfortunately, the "Count-out" on Friday, among other inconveniences, resulted in the dropping of a number of blocks which were then on the Paper. Order No. 25 is the Ulster Canal Bill, to which I, for one, am strongly opposed. In consequence of the "Count-out" I have been unable to renew my block, and the Bill now stands on the Paper without anything to prevent it from being taken at any hour of the night or morning. That is another result of the conduct of the Government at the last Sitting of the House. What I wish to obtain from the Government is an assurance that they do not intend to proceed with such Bills as the Ulster Canal Bill and the Tyrone Navigation Bill, which were blocked last week, but which, by reason of the "Count-out" on Friday, now appear on the Paper without a block against them. If the House agrees to allow the Government to go into Supply without further delay, the Government might reasonably give an assurance that they will not go on with any of the Bills which had blocks against them on Friday.

I have once had the misfortune this Session to be counted out on a Friday night—when I proposed to bring under the Notice of the House the state of affairs in Zululand. I was therefore glad to hear the Prime Minister state that he intends to adhere to the present arrangement in regard to Friday Sittings, and that private Members will still have a chance of bringing Motions forward. With a view, principally, of saving time, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can arrange to take Class V., Vote 7, on which the question of Zululand is raised, at the beginning of some evening? That would save a separate discussion upon Zululand upon a Motion of which I have given Notice. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the question is one of very great importance.

I will see what can be done to comply with the request of the hon. Baronet.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) as to the "Count-out" on Friday, I believe there were only 27 Members in the House at the time it happened, and that there were only two or three Members on the Treasury Bench. I myself was in the Lobby before the "Count-out" happened, endeavouring to induce a number of Gentlemen to stay, but they told me they had not been asked to stay. I think that, considering the importance of the question proposed to be brought under the notice of the House, Her Majesty's Government might have been fairly expected to keep a House.

It is true that in times past the present Motion used not to be debated; but in view of the alteration of the proceedings of the House by the 21st Standing Order, passed in November, 1882, the Motion at present under the consideration of the House partakes of a considerably wider character than it formerly did, because, as the consequence of the adoption of the Motion by the House, you, Sir, would at once leave the Chair, without any hon. Member being entitled to propose any preliminary Resolution. That is distinctly laid down by the 21st Standing Order. It therefore becomes a very much more important Motion than it used to be in the days when, according to the practice of the House, no debate took place upon it. In those days Motions upon going into Supply were not interfered with by the passing of a Resolution similar to that which we are now considering, but, after it was agreed to, it was competent for hon. Members to bring them on in the usual course. Private Members did not lose their right; whereas, if the present Motion is adopted, the Government will be at liberty to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair without debate, and the House will at once proceed to discuss the Estimates. Consequently, I think it may fairly become a subject for inquiry by private Members — perhaps it is not exactly a matter of inquiry by Her Majesty's Government—as to how far they may expect the Government, in the future proceedings of the House, to facilitate private Members in the passage of certain Bills which have already received a second reading. The Prime Minister has given Notice that he will to-morrow move to take for the Government the only remaining days of the week except Friday, and to make the 21st Standing Order apply to them. The consequence, in regard to private Members, will be that they will be entirely shut out from forwarding the stages of Bills which stand in their name on any day except Friday. I do not propose, at the present moment, to discuss the nature and bearing of the Prime Minister's Resolution; but I merely take this opportunity of saying that, when the right hon. Gentleman moves that Motion, I shall certainly urge upon him very strongly the fairness and justice of affording us some little portion of the time of the House in order to enable us to pass the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill through Committee. It is a Bill which is highly approved of by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and it will remove a great deal of hard work from the Local Government Board. I may further remind the Government that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has practically pledged himself to endeavour to pass it into law in the course of the present Session. I have merely referred to the subject now, not with the view of opposing the present Motion, but to give Notice that I shall certainly press very strongly on the attention of the Government to-morrow, when the Motion of the Prime Minister is brought forward, the desirability of giving a few minutes of the Government time for the purpose of taking the Committee stage of the Bill to which I have referred.

I am unable to say anything in reply to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary happens to be away; but I can say a word in reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) in reference to the Ulster Canal Bill. I should be unwilling to take advantage of the removal of the block against that Bill, considering that it has only been removed in consequence of the "Count-out" on Friday. But what I propose to do is to hear anything the hon. Member may have to say this evening, and if I find there is any serious objection to go on with the Bill, it will not be persisted in. I hope we may be able to come to an understanding as to what the objection of the hon. Gentleman is, either to-night or any other night he likes, so that we may know what he wants.

I should like to ask the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) a question as to the interesting statement which he has made to the House in the course of this discussion. He gave us to understand that tremendous efforts were made by the Government to keep a House on Friday last; and I think it would be useful to know who the Members of the Government were to whom he has referred?

said, he was glad to see the Home Secretary present. He wanted to know whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to certain articles which had appeared in The Freeman's Journal and other Irish newspapers concerning a lady who was said to be a female emissary sent over by the Home Office to that country? He wished to know if that lady was still in the service of the Home Department?

was sorry to say that he was not as conversant with the Irish papers as, perhaps, he ought to be. He had read a good many of them, and he had seen in them a number of extraordinary statements, most of which he found to be inaccurate, He had not, however, seen the statement to which the hon. Member referred. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that he had no emissary whatever, and, above all, no female emissary. That was the only answer he could give to the hon. Member.

remarked, that a telegram to this person from the Home Office was in the possession of a friend of his.

All that I can say is that I know nothing about it.

believed it was within his right to call the attention of the Committee, in some detail, upon this Vote, to Her Majesty's foreign policy. He did not, however, propose to go into full details at that moment, as he had no desire to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to the want of information which had been displayed in both Houses, but especially in that House, on the part of Her Majesty's Foreign Office; and he should be obliged to refer to various matters with which the Foreign Office had recently had to deal. He did not wish to be understood to blame the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the course he had pursued in that House. He believed the noble Lord was suffering from the company into which he had been thrown. He was satisfied the noble Lord would be disposed to give more accurate information if he were in a position to do so; but, of course, the noble Lord, in these matters, acted under the direction of the Cabinet, and especially of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was not a Member of that House. Therefore, any remarks he had to make in reference to want of information would apply more particularly to the Cabinet and to the Secretary of State, than to the noble Lord. The first point to which he would refer was the extraordinary want of information possessed by the Government with regard to the critical position of affairs in Egypt. He had endeavoured, over and over again, to obtain some information as to the progress and the movements of the Mahdi. It was quite clear, from all the independent testimony that came to this country, that the position of Egypt was extremely critical, and that at the close of the Ramadan, which he believed would last about a fortnight longer, everybody in that country expected a serious disturbance.

rose to Order. The Vote related to the salaries of the officials in the Foreign. Office; and he submitted that the hon. Member was out of Order in raising upon that Vote a general question as to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that before the Chairman gave a ruling upon that point, he wished to call attention to the statement he had made—that he was not going to enter into details, although it was entirely within his right to do so; but he was endeavouring to point out the special cases in which the Foreign Office had failed to afford information. He proposed to conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.

It is very difficult to say where a limit should be put to a discussion upon a Vote which involves the salary of the Secretary of State; but I may point out to the hon. Member that, by the long practice of the House, the convenience of the House would be best consulted by not importing into the consideration of the Foreign Office Vote questions which involve the foreign policy of the Government.

wished to point out, on the point of Order, that on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland it was the custom to raise the whole question of the policy of the Irish Government. He wished to know if the Irish Members were to be stopped and prevented from entering into that discussion when the Vote for the Chief Secretary was reached?

The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) is in possession of the Committee, and may continue his remarks. When I think the hon. Member is out of Order, I will stop him.

said, he was surprised at the interruption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who had himself been distinguished by raising discursive discussions upon almost every question for many years. He believed he was entirely within his right in entering upon a discussion of the Egyptian Question upon this Vote. But, without entering into details, he merely desired to point out, in general terms, the critical condition of Egypt, and to show how little information they were able to get from the Government. Before he was interrupted by the hon. Member, he was proceeding to point out how the movements of the Mahdi had extended, and how an invasion of Lower Egypt was expected by persons of the very highest authority on the spot, both English and Egyptian. The Government had been asked for information over and over again in reference to Berber, Dongola, and Assouan; but the House could obtain no reliable information whatever. It was said that if Dongola fell, there must be an invasion of Egypt; and yet the Government were unable to state what the position of affairs was. Although they had agents only 200 miles away, at Wady-Halfa, and although this uncertainty had been going on for two months, Ministers had been unable to obtain any information as to the position of Dongola—whether the Mudir was faithful or not, or whether the Mahdi had obtained possession of the place or not—notwithstanding the fact that very valuable British lives were at stake. There were a dozen British officers scattered over the deserts, and there were no reliable troops until Assouan was reached. At that place, he believed, there was an entire battalion; but it might find itself suddenly surrounded and overwhelmed. So imperfect was the information of the Foreign Office with regard to Egypt that they did not know what was taking place at Dongola. He would have thought that they could have sent spies in order to find out the position of affairs there. [Laughter.] Hon. Members did not understand the importance of this, and he did not very much care for the ridicule they attempted to cast upon him, because the time would undoubtedly come when the importance of these places would be fully demonstrated—the importance of other places had been demonstrated in the past. He only raised the question now to urge on the Foreign Office the importance of obtaining reliable information in regard to this dangerous fanatical movement, which was now spreading onwards towards Egypt, and which, in the opinion of many, if not of all, well-informed persons in that country, might cause our small garrisons there, before very many weeks elapsed, to be fighting for their lives. There was another point from which he thought the House suffered owing to the want of information—a question which had been raised by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke), who was not, however, at that moment, in his place to deal with it—namely, what was going to happen with regard to the police arrangements in Egypt, and how far the old system was to be resorted to? He would now go to another part of the world, in which the interests of this country, although not so great as those in Egypt, were really very considerable. He had asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the House some reliable information in regard to what was going on in Madagascar; but he found it impossible to obtain accurate intelligence as to what was going on in that remote Island, although it was well known that there were large British interests at stake. Their trade, which had been destroyed by the French operations, amounted to nearly £1,000,000 a-year, and many of Her Majesty's subjects had suffered grievous injury. A considerable sum of money had been voted by the French Assembly for the conquest of the Island. He had received many complaints from private individuals and others, showing how their interests had been neglected. They were told that a Consul General had been sent out to Madagascar last February or March. The noble Lord said he had no information, and yet the newspapers that morning informed the public that large reinforcements had been sent to the Island, which were about to march on different points. They knew what would happen when that took place. The French hold, once gained, would never be relaxed. It must be remembered that the people of Madagascar were our friends; that they had been largely Christianized; and that we carried on a considerable trade with them which amounted to atleast £150,000 per annum, but which would be permanently destroyed. Under these circumstances, it was lamentable that they were unable to obtain any information from the Foreign Office with reference to Madagascar. If he went to another part of the world—namely, China, he was equally unable to obtain information. He found, from the statements in the public newspapers, that war between China and France was imminent, and if war did break out it must necessarily cause great injury to British commerce and British trade. When they asked if any mediation was being undertaken, they were told that Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt at mediation, and that they did not believe they would succeed if they did. No one would deny that the interests of this country were largely concerned in China. He believed there was no barbarous or semi-barbarous country in which their interests were greater than in China; and yet, in the face of so injurious a prospect as that of war between France and China, the Foreign Office was unable to give the House any information. They heard, on good authority, that the unfortunate encounter between the Chinese and the French troops arose out of a misunderstanding occasioned by want of notice on the part of the French General to the Chinese Commander at Lang-son; but surely that afforded a ground for the Representatives of the Foreign Office to offer mediation. Yet, because Her Majesty's Ministers were embarrassed by these unfortunate diplomatic failures elsewhere, they dared not stand up against French aggression upon China. That was the third allegation he made against the Foreign Office. The last point he would mention had reference to the financial proposals which had been laid before the Powers of Europe who were taking part in the Conference. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in his place, because the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State might not feel himself entitled to give information without the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, however, a point on which Parliament ought no longer to be kept in the dark. On the 28th of June, proposals, in reference to Egypt, were made on the part of Her Majesty's Government by the Foreign Secretary of a grave financial character to the European Powers. It was understood that the House would be put in the possession of the whole case in regard to the proposals before they were submitted to the Conference, and yet the very point on which the House had a right to have the fullest, the earliest, and the most ample information was the only point now withheld from them. The proposals had been communicated to the Powers of Europe 16 days ago, and yet no information in regard to them had been conveyed either to this or the other House of Parliament. He held that that was a remarkable dereliction of duty on the part of the Ministers of the Crown. He submitted that the House of Commons had an absolute right to know the financial proposals submitted by the Foreign Office to the European Powers as soon as the European Powers received them, if not sooner. Certainly, they ought to have them submitted to the consideration of the House, and to the consideration of public opinion, some time before the debate upon those proposals, which was expected, took place. They were told that it was disrespectful to the Powers to reveal those proposals to the House before they had been considered in the Conference, yet it was not thought disrespectful to submit the proposals for the neutralization of Egypt, for the withdrawal of their troops, and in favour of a Multiple Control. At the time of the bombardment of Alexandria, they were told that it would be disrespectful to the Powers to land 1,500 men to catch Arabi Pasha; but it was not considered disrespectful to cause the destruction of Alexandria, and to fight the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Although it was held to be disrespectful to the European Powers to submit the financial proposals to the House of Commons before they were considered by the Conference, it was not held to be disrespectful to submit all the other proposals before they had been adopted by the Powers. He hoped that hon. Members would admit that he had kept within the four corners of his promise, and that he had only briefly discussed matters of grave importance, in respect of which information had been withheld from the House. In order to mark his sense of the unjustifiable secrecy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and the want of information and general knowledge of which he complained in the Foreign Office, together with the neglect of the interests of the country by Her Majesty's Government, largely due to their astonishing ignorance of what was taking place abroad, he moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

said, that, of course, he did not wish to dispute the right of the hon. Member to raise a general discussion of this kind. It might show to the country that hon. Members were doing their duty in criticizing the efficiency of the Foreign Office. It was the right of any Member, before voting money, to ask questions, or to raise objections, on the ground of the alleged inefficiency of any particular Department. But, at the same time, on a Vote of this kind it was not desirable to enter into general questions of foreign policy simply because the salary of the Foreign Secretary was included in the Vote, because he ventured to say that it was utterly impossible for any Minister to make a reply. If the hon. Gentleman was proposing to reduce the Vote because he disapproved of the foreign policy of the Government, it was hardly a sufficient ground; but he understood the hon. Member to say that he objected to the Vote because the Government were inefficient apart from their general administration of foreign affairs. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied because the Government seemed always to be behindhand in obtaining information. Now, that had been the case during the whole of his (Mr. Rylands's) experience of Parliament. He had invariably found that the Foreign Office was always the last to know anything about foreign matters, although they were communicated to other nations, notwithstanding that they had a most lavishly expensive system for putting themselves in communication with foreign countries, with a view of obtaining information. He had always contended, and he contended now, that the amount of money this country spent on the Foreign Department was altogether in excess of any advantage they derived from that Department. The whole of the expenditure of the Foreign Office was conducted on the most lavish scale. The officials were all very highly paid; and not only so, but he thought it would be found on inquiry that the total number of them might be permanently reduced. There were two or three items in the Vote which had always been objected to. He saw an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Lowther) look at him, probably because the hon. Member remembered the old controversy in regard to the charge for Foreign Office messengers. He found in the present Vote an item of £6,780 for Foreign Office messengers, in addition to which the country was called upon to pay £10,000 or £11,000 annually for travelling expenses. He did not hesitate to say that this country paid three times as much for Foreign Office messengers, or messengers connected with the Foreign Department, as any other first-class Power in the world. There could be no doubt about it. The Foreign Office messengers of the other Great Powers had nothing like the salaries which were paid to those of this country, nor were there as many of them as we employed for the purposes of the Foreign Office. He believed a large amount of the expenditure would be saved, if, under the great advantages they now possessed in the Postal and Telegraph system, they reduced, not only the number of Foreign Office messengers, but the salaries and expenditure charged in this account. The appointment of Foreign Office messengers had always stood upon an objectionable footing. Gentlemen were appointed who had some claim upon the official persons connected with the country, or with the Foreign Office—perhaps half-pay officers, or other gentlemen—the object being to place them in a comfortable position. They travelled through Europe under the most luxurious circumstances, from which they derived a handsome income in addition to their pay, and they had provision made for their travelling expenses on a very liberal scale, far different from what was done in other countries. He ventured further to say that the necessity for the employment of these gentlemen was much less now than it was a few years ago. Before the telegraphic system came into operation there was a greater necessity for communicating by direct means between the Foreign Office or Downing Street and their Embassies abroad; but under the new state of circumstances the services of some of these gentlemen might be advantageously dispensed with. He sincerely hoped that the old traditions and the antiquated forms of the Foreign Office would be to some extent done away with. He did not believe there was any Department of the State which was so antiquated in its ideas as the Foreign Office. He believed that telegrams would do the work much better than these Foreign Office messengers. At present, the latter occupied themselves in conveying despatches, which anybody who read the Blue Books would see took up a considerable amount of the attention of the Government officials, and led to a considerable amount of expenditure. What he wanted to see was that the Foreign Office should get rid of these old forms, which only tended to increase expenditure and occupy time, and that they should devote themselves to the acquisition of a more businesslike style, which would place them in a position to obtain better information abroad. He could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) to reduce the Vote by the sum of £10,000.

said, the hon. Member was mistaken; he only proposed to reduce it by £1,000.

said, he would vote a reduction of £1,000 as a protest. He had no objection to that at all, because he considered that the Vote was altogether excessive, and beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the Foreign Office. There was another point he desired to mention—namely, the continued charge of £300 a-year paid to the Secretary of State for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had been in hopes, when the late change took place in the Permanent Secretaryship, that this item would have been got rid of. The sum formerly paid to Lord Hammond was £500, and it was paid, without the knowledge of Parliament, out of the Secret Service money. The fact, however, was ascertained from a former Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the sum of £500 was paid to Lord Hammond, and that it came out of the Secret Service Fund itself. It was then arranged, as he understood, that, while it would be continued to the then holder of the Office, there would be a reduction when Lord Hammond's successor was appointed, with a view to the ultimate removal of the charge. When Lord Hammond ceased to be Permanent Under Secretary, the amount that was paid to his successor was reduced to £300 a-year; but he felt that to be an excessive amount, considering the duties the Permanent Under Secretary had to perform in connection with this service. He thought the Committee was entitled to have some information upon the subject; and he regretted to see that, although there had been another change in the office of Permanent Secretary, Her Majesty's Government had not got rid of the charge altogether.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in his attack upon the salaries of the officials connected with the Foreign Office, because he considered it useless and a waste of time. The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, every year, attacked the salaries of the Foreign Office officials; but, as far as he could make out, they never took any steps to inquire into the working of the Office, or even to ask for a Committee of Inquiry into it. He (Sir Henry Holland), as an old official, protested against these general attacks on the salaries of the gentlemen who performed these duties, unless they were followed up by a distinct proceeding—such as asking for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the system. He agreed, however, in the views of the hon. Member as to the last item to which he had referred; and he had intended to put a question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the payment of this sum of £300 for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had understood that Lord Hammond, who was Permanent Under Secretary before Lord Tenterden, had received this sum out of the Secret Service Fund, partly in consideration of his long and able services, but that the payment was to be discontinued on the retirement of Lord Hammond. He could not understand why there should be a claim of this kind put forward by the Foreign Office, and why, if any duties were to be performed in connection with the Secret Service Fund, they were not discharged without any special payment, as they were at the Home and Colonial Offices. The Assistant Secretary of the Colonial Office received no additional pay because he had to manage this fund; and he (Sir Henry Holland) could not for the life of him see why the Foreign Office Secretary should get this sum when it was not paid in connection with any other Department.

said, there was one observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) which he confessed he had listened to with very great interest. The hon. Member said that the unfortunate difficulty between France and China had arisen from want of Notice. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had often expressed an opinion that a great number of unfortunate encounters which took place between the hon. Member and himself arose from want of notice. In this particular case he was inclined to think the Committee would not be willing to enter into all the topics which the hon. Member had raised. It would only lead the Committee into a prolonged discussion which it would not be convenient to enter into. He would remind the hon. Member, in regard to his complaint of want of information, that he would find on inquiry that there had been very few Sessions of Parliament in which such an amount of information had been given to the House by the Foreign Office in the shape of Blue Books. He would also remind the hon. Member that he had undertaken to lay on the Table, next week, Papers on one of the subjects to which the hon. Member had alluded—namely, Egypt. In regard to the Conference, the hon. Member himself had pointed out that it would be almost impossible to expect from him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any statement while the Conference was still sitting.

said, he only wished to know what the financial proposals were.

said, the financial proposals were part of the matters now before the Confer- ence. The hon. Member complained of want of information in regard to Madagascar. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had over and over again stated to the House that the Foreign Office, since last year, had taken special means to obtain full and accurate information in respect of that Island by sending out a gentleman of great ability as Consul, and by appointing Vice Consuls in different parts of the Island; and, although he did not give any pledge, he thought it would be possible at an early date to lay Reports on the Table which would give the House further information. The hon. Member also complained of the want of information in regard to China. He had already alluded to what was happening between the French and the Chinese, and he confessed that in his view—and he had always understood that that view was generally held in the Housa—the information laid before Parliament by the Foreign Office in regard to the transactions between this country and Foreign Powers ought to be such as directly affected this country. The Foreign Office was not a Department for what might be called the mere collection of news. Information was placed by the Foreign Office before Parliament when it became evident that it was necessary to inform Parliament as to what was going on. It was also necessary that the information should be of an authentic character, and not made in a haphazard fashion from day to day—simply containing the news with which the public was at present admirably supplied by the newspapers. He thought that if the Foreign Office were to take up any new attitude in the relations between France and China, they would be justly incurring blame, and, to use the expression of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), would be guilty of "a fussy intermeddling with other people's affairs when there was no necessity for it." Certain events had arisen between the French and the Chinese—whether they had arisen from want of notice or not he did not know—and if the time came when the relation between those Powers assumed such proportions as to render it necessary that information should be laid before Parliament, such information would be produced; but that moment had not yet arrived, and it was the hope of Her Majesty's Government that arrange- ments would be made between France and China which might prevent the breaking out of further hostilities, or any necessity for the intervention of this country. He would remind the hon. Member that it was only on Friday last that he had said that an arrangement was made last year by the Powers, under which neutrals were to be protected.

asked if the arrangement included France?

was understood to reply in the negative. The arrangement was for the protection of neutrals, and was actually in force. He wished to say before he sat down a few words in answer to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He thought his hon. Friend had forgotten that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had, on a former occasion, taken an active part in securing the appointment of a Committee for inquiring into the condition of the Diplomatic Service. Although those who occupied the Office he now held were sometimes adverse to such inquiries, as taking up a good deal of time, he was glad to acknowledge, nevertheless, that this inquiry had been of great use. He believed his hon. Friend had succeeded in bringing out a considerable amount of useful information; and if it had enabled the Foreign Office from time to time to touch various matters which they had previously found it difficult to deal with, it was because they had the advantage of public opinion in support of the changes they had introduced. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in saying that no changes had been made as the result of that inquiry. In consequence of the inquiry, various changes had been made from time to time, and last year he had been subjected to complaints for some of the reductions which had been made. When the Diplomatic Vote came on, hon. Members would see for themselves that the Estimates this year had been reduced, and he was making careful inquiry with a view to further reductions in the same direction. He would remind his hon. Friend that the very point he had touched upon—namely, the Foreign Office messengers—had been considered, and that a reduction was going on at that moment. No further appointments would be made until the number of messengers receiving the higher salaries had been reduced to four. That was an arrangement decided upon three or four years ago, and was gradually being brought into operation; but it could only be carried out as vacancies occurred. In regard to the question of Secret Service money, the Committee would be aware that in the past there had been a great deal of discussion upon the salary paid to the Permanent Under Secretary in respect of this fund. He was inclined to think the arrangement was that the existing state of things was to terminate on the retirement of Lord Hammond, when there was to be a reduction; and, as a matter of fact, upon the retirement of Lord Hammond the payment was reduced from £500 to £300 a-year. The reasons for retaining the salary were explained on the 24th of July, 1871, by the present Prime Minister, who said—

"Secret Service money constitutes a completely distinct and special fund, and the administration of it is necessarily a duty, not only of very high responsibility, but also of considerable labour, because it is necessarily kept in the hands of a very high and confidential person, who cannot receive in the administration of it the kind and degree of assistance which he receives in the discharge of the ordinary duties of his Office. For these reasons, it has been for a long time held in the Foreign Office that a special allowance ought to be made to the Permanent Under Secretary for this difficult, responsible, and laborious duty."—(3 Hansard, [208] 161–2.)

asked if the same conditions prevailed now?

said, he thought they did to the same extent; the duties of the Foreign Office were very often of a grave and difficult character, and this had been the position of things. At the same time, he was inclined to think that the change, brought about, to a great extent, by the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), was a very wise change, and the public were under a great obligation to his hon. Friend for having called attention to the question. The hon. Member was really the father of the arrangement which had since been carried out.

wished to say a word by way of personal explanation. He did not entertain the opinion that no change had been made, and he did not intend to use language which might convey that impression. He was quite aware that changes had been made within the last few years which were all in the right direction; but he should like to see more of them carried out.

remarked, that if the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) went to a Division, he (Mr. MacIver) would vote for the reduction the hon. Member suggested, but not upon any of the grounds which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He thought the public servants of the Foreign Office, like other permanent officials, were seldom over-paid for the important duties they had to perform. His complaint against the Foreign Office was rather of a different kind. He found that, under the guidance of the present Administration, it had been a most unsuccessful Foreign Office. He did not blame the noble Lord who represented the Office in that House. He was sure the noble Lord did his best, and, perhaps, he had rather a rough time of it; but he did blame the Foreign Office for their inaction in regard to such matters as the crew of the Nisero. He blamed them for not having obtained the release of these men at a time when they might have done so much more easily than now. He blamed them for not having been able to fulfil their promises in regard to the commercial arrangements with Spain. His real complaint, however, had reference to the policy of the Foreign Office as administered by Her Majesty's present Advisers, and he thought their policy would completely justify the Committee in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) for the reduction of the Vote. He did not blame the noble Lord or the Government for any deficiency—so far as quantity was concerned—of information, because, as regards Blue Books, there were plenty of them, and there was an abundant supply of printed matter. But what he did complain of was that most of the so-called Foreign Office information, as given in the Blue Books, was of a misleading and confusing character. He had himself been referred to Blue Books in regard to statements said to be contained in them, which, as a matter of fact, were not contained in them. There were plenty of Blue Books of one kind and another, but it was quite a mistake to suppose that they necessarily contained the information which the Foreign Office ought to give. He contended that hon. Members representing important constituencies, when they put reasonable questions to the Government, ought to be able to obtain the information they wanted. For these reasons he should support the Motion which had been made for the reduction of the Vote.

said, he had no doubt that, if the Conservatives had been in power, all the terrible things of which hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of would not have happened; but he thought that a great deal more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office than the Committee were now called upon to vote. He had risen, however, to call the attention of the noble Lord to a statement which had fallen from him with respect to Foreign Office messengers. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) complained that too much money was spent upon those Foreign Office messengers. The noble Lord replied that the salaries of some of the Queen's Home Service messengers were about to be reduced; but he had always observed, no matter whether a Liberal or Conservative Ministry was in power, that if anybody's salary was to be reduced, it was not the men who had large salaries, but those who had small ones. If hon. Members would look into the Estimates, they would find that Her Majesty's Foreign Office messengers—namely, those who were required to go abroad—received £400 a-year, whereas the Home messengers received only from £200 to £250. The House complained that too much money was spent upon these messengers; whereupon the Government said—"Let us reduce the salaries of some of them; but we will reduce the salaries of those who receive £200 and £250 a-year, and leave the men with £400 alone." Very often these gentlemen were sent abroad—at a very large cost to the country, for no practical object whatever. They went on a certain route, and the business was made up for them as they went. He had had the honour to serve at one time under Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople. Now, Sir Henry Bulwer was always ill; and on one occasion he remembered making a calculation that a box of pills, Sir Henry was anxious to obtain, and which was sent out by a Foreign Office messenger, cost the country from £200 to £300. Probably the pills did Sir Henry good, and pills were much more useful than a good deal of the stuff sent out by the Foreign Office. Perhaps the noble Lord would not condescend to answer that point; but he would get up and tell them that telegrams cost so much, and that unless they employed these Foreign Office messengers they would have otherwise to send cipher telegrams on a very large amount of their business. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) was in the Diplomatic Service for 10 years, and he had spent a good deal of his time in ciphering and deciphering telegrams; and he did not remember half-a-dozen of them that any man, woman, or child in the whole world would have taken the trouble to decipher for any information they could have derived from them. The cost of telegrams, therefore, was no excuse. These messengers were sent out by particular routes, and at particular times. He had known them sometimes arrive with nothing more than a letter from Her Majesty to her relatives in Germany. Of course, Her Majesty's relatives received the letters that were sent out in that way; but surely it was absurd to send a man from this country to Germany for the simple purpose of carrying some formal letter. He hoped the noble Lord would look into the matter. He quite admitted that the Foreign Office was at present acting economically in regard to the Diplomatic Service; but he thought there was a good opportunity for reducing the number of Foreign Office messengers, and the number of their journeys. £10,000 spent on journeys was really too large a sum.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in his statement that if the Conservative Party had been in power more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office. That was directly contrary to all the facts of the case. It was well known that within the last few years the Liberal Government had expended £5,000,000 more than the late Conservative Government, not upon the Foreign Office, but altogether. The noble Lord excused the want of information supplied to the country by the Foreign Office by an appeal to the large quantity of Blue Books which were furnished. But no one who had examined the Blue Books issued by the Foreign Office this year and last year would find in them any excuse for a want of general information, for a more extraordinarily confused and misleading collection of miscellaneous information, for the most part wholly beside any point upon which they might have been useful, he had never seen issued by any Department, public or otherwise. An immense quantity of Correspondence had been published; but it contained very little information of value. Nevertheless, in spite of the suppression of an immense amount of information which ought to have appeared in the Blue Books, it had been possible to establish a strong case against the Government out of their own Blue Books. The noble Lord told them he had given them the best information he could in regard to the affairs of Madagascar. He would remind the noble Lord that he had somewhat jeered hon. Members for calling attention to statements which had appeared in the newspapers. It was not a habit of his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) to do so; but he must say that the information which had appeared in the newspapers during the last four years had, when carefully sorted, been very accurate. Very often it had been made use of for the purpose of obtaining information from Ministers; and, although Ministers had ridiculed the information, and denied its accuracy, they had generally admitted it to be correct in the end, the denial of the Foreign Office being the only thing that was inaccurate. That had been established in a dozen cases. He was not satisfied with the reasons the noble Lord had given for the absence of information in regard to the financial proposals now before the European Powers. The noble Lord said it was not possible to do so in the absence of the Prime Minister.

I said that it was undesirable to give it while the Conference was sitting.

said, it was to the latter reason that he took exception. If the noble Lord would recall to mind what had recently happened with regard to the Conference, he would remember that information had been given to the House upon three out of the four great matters submitted to it—namely, the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt, the neutralization of Egypt, and information in regard to the Debt Commission. The noble Lord, nevertheless, considered it unreasonable to expect the Government to give the House information as to the financial proposals, which were the very essence of the deliberations of the Conference. He proposed to ask a question of the Government shortly, in order to obtain more information. Before he sat down he would venture to express a hope that the Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain accurate information with regard to the state of affairs at Dongola. That was a point to which the noble Lord had not referred in his answer at all. It was a point which ought to be pressed upon the Government; and before Vote 5 came on for discussion, full and accurate information ought to be placed before the House.

said, he thought the Committee had a right to expect full information from the noble Lord with regard to the Foreign Office messengers. Nobody would object to their employment, or to incur any expense for the objects of diplomacy in averting a great war, or on any occasion of that sort; but the impression currently entertained was, that these messengers were despatched at fixed intervals to different European capitals whether they had anything to say or not, and whether they had any despatch of importance to carry out or not. The question was not whether important despatches were sent out as occasion required, but whether those Foreign Office messengers made their journeys at fixed intervals—once a fortnight or once a month. That was a point upon which the noble Lord might give the Committee some information. The impression was that on the recurrence of particular periods each messenger departed on his round. It was supposed that by the time he went he had a bag-full of despatches on the different questions which were always arising between the various European Governments. If there were any occasion of importance there could be no objection to these messengers being despatched so as to make it perfectly sure that the despatches would reach their destination; but what was complained of was that an old-fashioned and antiquated system was kept up which was of no practical use in the present day, when they had the telegraph and the postal arrangements and many other facilities for sending news. The question was, did they really require these messengers to be sent off at periodical intervals; and he would ask the noble Lord whether or not it was the fact that Foreign Office messengers were despatched at regular fixed intervals to the principal European capitals?

said, it was not necessary to answer in detail the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The fact in regard to these Foreign Office messengers was this—there were certain circuits to the principal capitals of Europe—namely, Paris, Constantinople, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, and the messengers were sent at fixed intervals according to a rota. It had been stated that these messengers were sent when there was no occasion for employing them; but he was bound to say that during the last two years he did not think there had been any period when it had not been necessary to employ the services of these messengers. After the discussion which had taken place he would promise that the matter should be carefully inquired into, and if it was found that any reduction could be made an attempt would be made to effect it. He wished now to correct the misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) appeared to labour in regard to the information contained in the newspapers of this country. Everyone at the Foreign Office was under great obligation to the newspapers for the information they supplied; but it was one thing to read the information which appeared in the newspapers and to attach credence and value to it, and quite another thing for the Secretary of State to come down to the House and give that information to hon. Members. The Government were obliged to be exceedingly careful, and they could not, the moment they saw a report, or a rumour, which it might be perfectly right to insert in a newspaper in the largest type, come down to the House of Commons and repeat that information until they became certain of its accuracy.

said, he thought the Committee would like to have a little fuller information as to the messenger question before proceeding to a vote. Was the messenger sent every fortnight to St. Petersburg, or was he the same person as the messenger who went to Berlin, or were there two separate messengers sent once a fortnight—one to Berlin and one to St. Petersburgh, passing over much of the same ground?