asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If "Mr. Tuke's Committee" obtained money from the Treasury for the purpose of emigrating families from portions of Ireland; if, instead of emigrating families, the Committee in question emigrated from one parish alone, viz. Ballinakill, county Galway, in the year 1883–4, thirty-eight unmarried persons not attached to any family, in addition to many others who were not bonâ fide members of the families sent off; if one Alexander M'Donnell, aged 24, sent to America three years ago by Mr. Tuke, returned twelve months since, was sent again to America on 26th April 1884; if others were sent who were well able to live at home; what check had the Treasury that the money given to Mr. Tuke and his Committee should not be misapplied; if he is aware that about twenty of the persons sent to America from this parish alone by Mr. Tuke have returned to Ireland; and, if the Government will insist that the money given to Mr. Tuke be returned to the Treasury?

Mr. Tuke's Committee did obtain from the Treasury grants for emigrating families. In addition to, and instead of emigrating families, the Committee, as authorized by the Rules, assisted a limited number of single persons to emigrate. The proportion in Ballinakill was one single person to one family. In all cases single persons went with their friends. Mr. Tuke did not send Alexander M'Donnell to America three years ago. I am unable, from want of access to this year's papers, to state whether this man was sent to America on the 26th of April, 1884. No grants were obtained for any who were able to live at home. All grants were made up on the production of lists of names, and of particulars relating to the emigrants prescribed by the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board. The lists were supervised and sent to the Treasury by the Local Government Board. Mr. Tuke is not aware that 20 persons have returned as stated. If so, it might be at their own cost, as none have been returned by the American authorities. In the opinion of the Government, Mr. Tuke has been actuated by motives of the greatest benevolence.

asked what guarantee had the Treasury that Mr. Tuke would not misappropriate the funds he obtained from the Treasury for family emigration by applying it to the emigration of individuals?

said, the Rules which affected the emigration of single individuals were followed.

asked, was not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in almost every instance in which Mr. Tuke emigrated families he also emigrated individuals?

said, he had no information at all upon the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If, some years ago, the parish priest of Kingstown received a certain salary for allowing the use of his church and religious services to the Catholic sailors and Coastguardsmen stationed at Kingstown; if this salary was paid only upon one occasion, and why it has been discontinued; how much arrears of pay is now due to the reverend gentleman; and, when does the Admiralty purpose paying him?

No fixed salary has ever been paid to the parish priest at Kingstown; but, in 1877, a capitation allowance for his services was paid to him under the usual Regulations. This allowance is payable so long as the number of Roman Catholic seamen of the Navy attending his church is not less than 25. I do not find that since the year in question any claim has been made by this clergyman; but if he can show that for any year since then there has been present a number entitling him to the allowance it will be paid.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that 34 men and seven officers from Her Majesty's ship Belleisle attended the service last Sunday, and that this was only a fair average; and whether, on the application of the parish priest, this capitation grant would be renewed?

I have already stated that if the clergyman makes application for the allowance, which he has not done either for this or any previous year, and is able to prove, which I dare say he may, that the proper number was present at the station, the allowance will be given.

asked whether the Admiralty officers, who ought to be in possession of the information, would relieve the clergyman of the onus of proving the numbers by themselves supplying them?

If it appears that there was the proper number present, he will at once get the allowance. But he must make application.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he will consult the Land Commission as to whether they should prepare an index to the Reports of the Rent Reductions, giving the landlords' names alphabetically, and the amount by which each had been reduced, and also the reductions by counties, on the cases up to the present?

An index would, no doubt, afford useful information; but I am informed that the Land Commission could not undertake the task without a large addition to their staff, and that, even with such an addition, it would take several months to complete.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that the examination papers for the intermediate examinations held in June 1884 were drawn up and printed several months before the date of these examinations; whether the requirements of the examination would be sufficiently met by giving the examination papers to the printers three weeks before the date of the examinations; what precautions are taken by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education to prevent masters and students from becoming surreptitiously possessed of these papers before the examinations; and, is he aware that at the late Queen's College Commission a Belfast Professor (Queen's College) stated that he was in a position to prove that the examination papers of the Royal University had on a late occasion come into the hands of candidates before the examination?

It is not the fact that the examination papers for the examinations of June, 1884, were drawn up and printed several months be- fore the date of the examinations. They were sent to the printer as close to the examination as was possible to allow of their use. Three weeks would not be a sufficient time to allow. Ample precautions are taken to prevent those papers being got hold of before the examination. It would be inexpedient to divulge the means employed, as it would tend to defeat the precautions taken. I am not aware of such a statement being made as is mentioned in the last paragraph.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that for the two years preceding last May the High Constable for the barony of Ballinahinch, county Galway, Mr. H. Smyth never made an appearance in the Island of Boffin, or demanded county cess in that place; whether, in consequence of such neglect on his part, an arrear of cess accumulated which the poor people of the island could not possibly pay at once; whether those people were led to believe that the money would be taken from them by instalments, and whether they paid £50 of it when Mr. Smyth first came without a police escort to demand it; whether Mr. Smyth, with a gunboat and a force of police, came to the Island unexpectedly on the 6th of May, and immediately proceeded to distrain the sheep and cattle of the people for the balance of the money, thereby causing great excitement in the island, endangering the peace, causing injury to the cattle, and putting the tenantry to much trouble and cost; and, whether the Government will inquire into the proceedings which took place in the island?

It is not the fact that Mr. Smyth never made his appearance in the Island of Boffin, or demanded county cess for the two years preceding May, 1884. In March, 1883, he was on the island with two constables, and served his notices; but he and his boatmen were assaulted with stones and threatened. In August, 1883, a gunboat and party of constables were detailed to protect him; but as the order was countermanded he did not go till the 10th of September, 1883, when he re- ceived about £52, and a fortnight after he paid another visit, and received £12. A gunboat and party were detailed to protect him in March, 1884; but this expedition was abandoned, owing to stress of weather, and he was not able to go then until May, 1884. It was not through any default of his the arrears accrued, and he did not lead the people to believe the money would be taken by instalments. He did, on the 6th of May, 1884, land with a force of police and made several seizures, and during his stay of a week levied about £70. The peace was not endangered, as he had a sufficient force with him; and I am informed no cattle were injured. Any cost incurred was the legal costs incidental to a distress when such was made. The only proceedings taken were the necessary ones in discharge of the collector's duty.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Michael Flahavan and Roger Kelly were summoned to the Glin Petty Sessions on the 24th of July for being drunk and disorderly; whether the summonses issued by the police and charges entered in the Sessions Book were for being drunk and disorderly; whether the police proved the offence in both cases, and whether the police sergeants stated that Kelly was most disorderly as well as drunk; whether Flahavan was fined two shillings and sixpence, and Kelly ten shillings, by Captain Hatchell, R.M.; whether Daniel M'Coy, a member of the late Land League, and of the National League, was sentenced on the same day to a month's imprisonment for the same offence by Captain Hatchell, without the option of a fine, as is usual, and without examining M'Coy's witnesses; whether the answer given on the 4th of August that Flahavan and Kelly were summoned and fined for simple drunkenness is correct; and, whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to commute said imprisonment to a fine or to remit or reduce same under the circumstances?

The summons and charge entered against Michael Flahavan was for being drunk and dis- orderly. The summons against Roger Kelly was for being drunk. The police proved the offence in both cases. The police sergeant did not state that Kelly was most disorderly as well as drunk. Flahavan was fined 2s. 6d., it being his first offence; Kelly 10s., it being his third offence. Daniel M'Coy was summoned for being drunk and disorderly while in charge of a mule and trap, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. The same sentence was imposed upon another person for a like offence in a case immediately preceding. M'Coy did not tender any witness for examination. He had been twice previously convicted of assault, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment in each case, and had been twice previously convicted of drunkenness. It did not in any way appear that he was a member of the Land or National League. It is open to M'Coy to apply to the Lord Lieutenant to commute the sentence, and His Excellency will consider any facts stated.

was understood to deny that M'Coy had been in prison.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When Lord Northbrook's Commission can be laid upon the Table?

As stated by the Prime Minister yesterday, the Commission of the Earl of Northbrook will be laid before Parliament; but as it is not yet made out, and has not received the formal approval of Her Majesty, it cannot be laid on the Table at present.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Why, seeing that according to his Budget speech he anticipated larger applications for the 2½ than for the 2¾ per cent. stock, the third section of the National Debt Conversion Act provides that the portion of Stock to be redeemed at one time after 1905 shall not be less than £5,000,000 in the case of the 2½ per cent. Stock, and not less than £14,000,000 in the case of 2¾ per cent. Stock?

If the hon. Member refers to the 3rd sub-section of the 1st section of the National Debt Conversion Act, he will see that it provides exactly the reverse of what his Question implies—namely, that the portion of Stock to be redeemed at one time after 1905 shall not be less than £5,000,000 in the case of Two-and-Three-Quarter per Cent Stock, and not less than £14,000,000 in the case of Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact, as stated through Router's Agency, in the following terms:—

"That the British Ambassador to Italy has been instructed by Earl Granville to thank the Italian Government officially for the support which the British proposals received from the Italian Delegate at the late Conference, and to declare that the British Government highly appreciate the attitude of Italy at the Conference as indicating an enlightened solicitude for the prosperity of Egypt;"

whether, inasmuch as Turkey was the only other Power which, according to the Prime Minister and to Papers presented to Parliament, gave its support to the British proposals, similar instructions have been sent to the British Ambassador at Constantinople officially to thank the Ottoman Government, and to declare that the British Government highly appreciate the attitude of Turkey at the Conference as indicating an enlightened solicitude for the prosperity of Egypt; and, whether, following the precedent of 1873, set by the Administration of that day, after the Geneva Conference on the Alabama claims, Her Majesty's Government propose to make any provision for presenting another piece of plate to the Italian Delegate for his enlightened services?

As I stated yesterday, the British Ambassadors in Italy and Turkey have been instructed to express the thanks of Her Majesty's Government to the Italian Government, and to the Porte, for the cordial support given by the Representatives of those countries at the Conference to the views laid before them by Her Majesty's Government. The terms used are not precisely those on the Paper. They are "enlightened interest," not "enlightened solicitude;" but I do not take any exception to the general terms. In regard to the concluding paragraph, the precedent of 1873 is in no manner applicable. The circumstances are quite different, and there is no intention of following that precedent.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If fishermen of Portstewart, county Londonderry, have made complaints to inspectors that they are prohibited from fishing for salmon in the sea off that coast by persons claiming several fisheries, and, although they have paid licence duty, the persons claiming such several fisheries will not give any information as to the bounds of their fisheries, so as to enable these people to exercise their rights without trespassing on private rights; and, if he will direct the Inspectors of Fisheries to hold a sworn inquiry into the matter, under the powers given to them by the Fishery Acts, and report the whole circumstances to the Government, accompanied with such suggestions as they may deem necessary to prevent acts of gross injustice and hardship being perpetrated?

Complaints of the nature referred to were made by the fishermen at a recent inquiry. The Inspectors of Fisheries state that they are prepared to hold an inquiry if asked. I shall communicate with them on the subject.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What are the reasons which justified the removal of Captain Dunne from the Governorship of Castlebar Gaol; whether Captain Dunne's removal to Nenagh Prison from Castlebar was founded on the use of water which he had several times reported as insufficient and impure; whether Nenagh Prison was closed six months after Captain Dunne's appointment; whether several vacancies have since occurred in the prison service, without his receiving an appointment; whether the Government have given up all idea of offering Captain Dunne further employment; and, whether the sum of £100 awarded to him by the Treasury can in any way be considered an adequate recompense for his loss of public employment?

Unfortunately, the Papers are with the Prisons Commission, and I have not had time to obtain a full Report. The immediate cause of Captain Dunne's removal from Castlebar was the opening by him of a long-disused well without the knowledge of the medical officer, which led to an outbreak of fever. Nenagh Prison was closed some short time after Captain Dunne's appointment. I am not aware of any vacancies having since occurred in the prison service. The tendency is rather to a diminution of vacancies. I cannot hold out any hope of his being re-employed in the service. He would have been entitled, in the usual course, to two months' pay, £36; but the Treasury awarded him £100 as a gratuity. They expressed an opinion, at the time, that they would not be justified in increasing it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any progress has yet been made towards settling the longstanding difficulties between Her Majesty's Commissioner at the Cape and Umquikela, Paramount Chief of the Pondos?

, in reply, said, he was sorry to say that not much progress had yet been made towards settling the difficulties. A Memorial on behalf of Umquikela was sent to the Colonial Secretary in May last; and, according to the well-known rule, it was referred to Her Majesty's Commissioner at the Cape, from whom they were waiting a further communication.

asked the Postmaster General, Why second- class clerks on the female clerical staff in Dublin are allowed salaries from £55 to £70 instead of from £65 to £80, as in London, though the programme put forth by the Civil Service Commissioners offers the higher scale?

, in reply, said, that with respect to the programme of the Civil Service Commissioners the scale of salaries applied only to the female clerks in London. The scale of salaries for the second class female clerks in Dublin had been raised some time ago from £40 rising to £60 to £55 rising to £70. Whenever there was a vacancy in the female staff in Dublin he always had numerous applications from clerks in London to be transferred to Dublin.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. Owens, architect to the Irish Board of Works, was for many years director and chairman of the National Discount Company of Ireland, Limited; whether that Company is now being compulsorily wound up; whether he is aware that charges of falsification of the accounts have been made against the directors past and present; whether his attention has been drawn to the affidavits filed by Charles Cummins, public accountant, in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, paragraph 5 of which is as follows:—

"That, from the beginning to the end, the said accounts were, as I believe, wilfully prepared and issued in an illusory and misleading form, so as to conceal from the shareholders and the public the true state of affairs and position of the Company, and that such state of affairs must have been fully within the cognizance of the directors for the time being;"

and portion of paragraph 22, as follows:—

"I believe that had the facts within the knowledge of the directors at the close of the year 1874 been honestly made known, the concern would then have been wound up, or such alteration in the management would have taken place as would have saved the shareholders the enormous loss to which they have been now subjected by reason of the suppressions and mis-statements put forth by the directors and auditors as aforesaid;"

whether in 1874, and for some years before and after, Mr. Owens was one of the auditors and chairman of the Company; whether this is the same Mr. Owens who recently valued for the Treasury the Friendly Brothers' Club in Dublin, which has been or is about to be purchased for £7,000 for Post Office purposes; whether he will now inquire of the principal house agents in Dublin whether for years they had that Club for sale at about one half the price at which it has been valued by Mr. Owens, and which is about being paid by the public; and, if he can say when Parliament will be asked to ratify this transaction?

, in reply, said, that his attention was called to these statements yesterday evening by the hon. Member himself. He immediately wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Works for an explanation, and it would not surprise hon. Members to hear that he had not yet had a reply. It was impossible that in the interval any reply could have been received except by telegraph. He had also directed inquiries to be made in regard to the Friendly Brothers' Club.

intimated that on the first opportunity he would again bring the subject to the notice of the House.

asked, was it not the fact that Mr. Owens' conduct was brought before the House of Commons 12 months ago?

replied that that was in relation to another matter.

asked if it was not upon precisely the same subject, and if the hon. Gentleman himself did not reply to the charges made?

said, he thought that the discussion had reference to some Building Society.

Mr. Owens does not belong to any other Company; one is quite enough.

asked whether, before this bad bargain was concluded, the Secretary to the Treasury would not inquire whether the value put upon these premises was double their real value?

I am not aware how the bargain stands. I am under the impression that, so far as the Government is concerned, they are committed to the contract. However, the matter will be considered.

If it is shown that a fraudulent bargain has been made, will the Government then proceed with this discreditable business?

said, that the Government were liable for a contract entered into by one of their agents.

But in case corrupt collusion is shown, is it not within the right of the Government in that case to set aside the bargain?

That is a hypothetical case, and I guarded myself against that supposition in my first answer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the deliberate violation of the Laws for the protection of aboriginal Natives in Western Australia in the pearl fisheries of that Colony, and that, in consequence, more stringent measures are needed to protect the Natives against kidnapping and other cruelties; whether his attention has been called to the dreadful mortality among the Natives confined in the prison at Rottnest; and, what steps have been taken to put an end to the state of things which there exists?

, in reply, said, that the attention of the Colonial Office had been called to some cases which looked very much like kidnapping on the Western Coast of Australia. The Governor paid a visit to those fisheries, and had sent in a Report. They expected him shortly in England, when they could confer with him as to the best course to be adopted to prevent such a state of things. It was quite true that there had been a good deal of overcrowding in the prison at Rottnest; but it had arisen from temporary causes, and he hoped would not occur again.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington concerning the safety of Mr. Alfred Sheldon?

The latest despatch received from Mr. West on the subject arrived in England on the 6th instant, from which it appears that the authorities of Kansas City have, so far, exerted themselves in vain to discover Mr. Alfred Sheldon, and that the search for him is still being vigorously prosecuted. The correspondence on the subject will be communicated confidentially to Mr. Sheldon's brother in. England.

said, he had a letter from Mr. Sheldon's brother, who resided in Salford, in which it was stated that that gentleman had received many letters from Kansas City, which intimated that not a single step had been taken to recover his brother, or bring the guilty parties to justice. Mr. Sheldon's brother did not blame Her Majesty's Government.

I can only say that the statement in the letter is quite opposite to the information which has been received; but I should be glad if my hon. Friend would communicate that document to me, and I will pay every attention to it.

I will do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether a reply has been received from the Canadian Government as to the transit of cattle from Wyoming to this Country?

, in reply, said, the answer had not yet been received. They hoped, however, that it would soon be forthcoming.

asked what were the points which the Government had referred to the Government of Canada?

said, the statements of the recent deputation were submitted to the Canadian Government, and their views asked thereupon. Obviously it was necessary to have the co-operation of the Canadian Government, the basis of the proposals being that animals from Wyoming should pass through Canada and be shipped from Canadian ports.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the prefix "Royal" is to be omitted from the Army Medical Department, notwithstanding the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee that it should be constituted a Royal Corps?

The recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee referred to in the hon. Member's Question was not a very strong one, and may, perhaps, be regarded rather in the light of a suggestion. Looking at the position of other Military Departments which have not this distinction, I do not think it desirable to act upon the suggestion of the Committee.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Boards of Guardians are entitled to use the powers conferred on them by the Act 12 and 13 Vic. c. 103, as regards persons willing to emigrate and as regards the expenditure of £10 upon the emigration of such persons, without the consent of the Local Government Board?

, in reply, said, that the consent of the Local Government Board was required before the Boards of Guardians could exercise the powers referred to.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a new scale of sheriffs' fees is being arranged by the Irish Judges; and, whether it is true that the fees are being increased?

, in reply, said, that he had not time to get the information on this subject; but he would inquire into it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will supply the Library of the House with Copies of the Commercial Reports of the Consuls and Ministers of the United States of America, many of which are of a most important character?

Her Majesty's Minister at Washington will be instructed to forward a copy of these Reports to the Librarian of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the statements in The Times of August the 5th, regarding the Boer attack upon Usibepu, and the ruin of several British subjects thereby, are correct; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to preserve the Zulu people from the horrible oppression to which the Native population of the Transvaal have been subjected by the Boers?

, in reply, said, that Mr. Dodd was one of the men referred to in the Question. He was one of the White men who had taken service under Usibepu, and the other British subjects alluded to were men who for weal or woe had thrown themselves into the lot of Usibepu, and if ruin had occurred to them they had only themselves to blame. As to the second Question, he had nothing further to add to what he had previously stated in regard to the obligation of protecting the Reserve. They did not recognize any obligation to interfere at present between the Zulus and the Boers they had invited into their country.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the verbatim Reports of the trial of the Crown witnesses in the Salem case, contained in the Madras papers just received, and particularly to the full-length Reports of the Judge's sentences in The Hindu of the 14th, 16th, and 18th July; and, whether, as these Crown witnesses have been convicted of perjury, two having confessed that they were tortured so by the police that they had to give evidence for the Crown, he will order the release of the Salem prisoners now transported, and will direct that an inquiry be held into the behaviour of the magistracy and police in this case?

I have seen the reports of the trials to which the hon. Member refers; but I have no information on the subject beyond what may be derived from the newspapers. As these cases are being fully inquired into by the Government of Madras, it does not appear to be necessary that the Secretary of State should issue any orders at the present time.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that there are in Ireland many Acting Examining Officers of Her Majesty's Customs at the outports, who have been doing the duties of Examining Officers for a period ranging from ten to fourteen years, and whose case has been brought under the notice of the House in February and in May last; and, whether, in any cases, those gentlemen have been kept back from promotion because they brought their grievances under the notice of this House?

There are only five or six men so situated. I do not think they are all stationed in Ireland; and I am sure that the action of the Board of Customs towards them has not been influenced by the fact that some over-zealous friends have attempted to bring Parliamentary influence to bear on their behalf.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether the sum of £600, taken under Sub-head G, Vote 15, of the Army Estimates, and stated in the Vote to be a grant in Aid of certain Institutions, is the sum which Her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to contribute to the funds of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society?

The sum of £600 is the amount which the War Office estimates will be contributed to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society during the present financial year. Our intention is to assist those charitable societies which undertake to aid discharged soldiers in obtaining employment by grants not exceeding £2 in each case; provided that the military prisoner be well reported upon by the Governor of the prison in which he has been confined, and is likely to benefit by the privilege. I may add that this arrangement will be an amplification of the system now in operation in military prisons of allowing prisoners of good conduct to make their own clothing and bedding out of materials supplied by the Clothing Department in place of shot drill, as a reward for good conduct.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is in the power of the Government to take any action against the Honourable H. O. C. Prittie, Manager of the National School, in order to compel him to recompense Miss Sarah P. Quinn, of Cloughjordan, for her losses as National School Teacher occasioned by his negligence?

, in reply, said, it was not in the power of the Government to compel Mr. Prittie to recompense Miss Quinn; the matter appeared to be one between Mr. Prittie and Miss Quinn.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he had any information regarding the Mullingar Labourers' Scheme? The scheme was coupled with the Limerick scheme, which was opposed; and he desired to know if the labourers of Mullingar would suffer in consequence?

, in reply, said, he would make inquiries into the subject; but he had no reason to believe that the Mullingar scheme would be affected by the opposition to the Limerick scheme.

said, that some time ago a Question was asked regarding the arbitrary increase of Income Tax, amounting to double and treble what it was in previous years, imposed by Mr. Turner, Income Tax Collector in Tralee, on traders there. Since then the Tralee Town Commissioners had passed a Resolution on the subject. He would like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether he had made any inquiries into the subject?

, in reply, said, that complaints of this nature came not only from Tralee, but from all parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member would indicate to him any particular cases where the collector acted arbitrarily and unreasonably he would inquire into them.

When the Income Tax has been raised in an evidently reckless manner on a whole district, does not the onus of inquiry lie with the hon. Gentleman who has the official facts?

No, Sir; it is necessary that some definite statement should be presented.

said, that he had received a telegram from Cleator Moor, stating that Mr. Ennis, President of the National League, Cleator Moor, who was the principal witness, who stated that Constable Hamil urged the Orangemen to fire on the Nationalists, had been arrested. He had not time to communicate with the Home Secretary on the matter and give him private Notice of a Question; but he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make close inquiries into the circumstances attending the arrest.

If the hon. Member will forward to me any statement that he may have received, I will take care that inquiries are made.

I have not had time to give the Solicitor General for Ireland Notice; but perhaps he would be able to answer my Question without Notice. It is, Whether a Circular has been issued to the following effect:—

I never heard of the Circular before, and I have had no opportunity of inquiring into it.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries; and in case he discovers that it was issued, will he intimate his opinion of it?

I will make inquiries.

Might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the matters of a delicate nature in regard to which Mr. Jenkinson was called to London have yet been satisfactorily settled?

In view of the fact that the temperature has greatly lowered from, what it was last night, and also of the facts that the afternoon is very early, that the Opposition have attended in great numbers, and that the attendance of the Liberal Party is scanty, the House will, perhaps, allow me to make a few short remarks on the general contents of this Bill before it finally passes from the control of the House of Commons. The first remark I am anxious to make is in connection with the enormous growth of the Expenditure of the country. This is a subject in which Her Majesty's Government ought to be particularly interested, but in which it is perfectly clear from their action they have taken very little interest indeed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) will observe what, perhaps, he has not noticed before, that the total appropriation of grants out of the Consolidated Fund amounts to £56,000,000, and I think he will find that is an increase of about £5,000,000 over the appropriation from I the Consolidated Fund in the last year of Office of the late Government. Some of that increase may naturally be necessary, but I am certain that the whole increase is not necessary; and I think it is a subject for comment that the four years of Office of the present Government have been marked by a regular increase in the Public Expenditure, and also by a variety of extremely insincere statements and promises from Her Majesty's Government as to the necessity of reducing the Expenditure and as to the necessity of Parliamentary inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, two Sessions ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), distinctly promised a Parliamentary inquiry into the Public Expenditure of this country; but, like all the promises of the Government, it was made only to be broken, and it has been completely evaded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given no opportunity to Parliament to make a thoroughly exhaustive inquiry into the financial condition of the country; but he has contented himself with informing the House of Commons that he had himself occupied the Recess in going through the Expenditure of the various Public Departments. That is a statement which the House is perfectly unable to examine. The right hon. Gentleman may have been so occupied; but his occupation may have been extremely easy and light. What I want to impress on the House of Commons, and particularly on those outside the walls of Parliament, who take more interest in the subject than Members of the Liberal Party, is that there will be no possibility of checking the regular and rapid growth of the Public Expenditure until the Government of the day allow every single Department spending money to be brought under the rigid examination of a Select Committee of this House. I am certain that until that course is adopted, and until the Government are prepared, if necessary, to set aside a whole Session for financial reorganization by the method I have suggested, the House of Commons will exercise not the smallest or slightest control over the Expenditure, and, unless something is done before long, the Expenditure will be something like £100,000,000 a-year. I regret that I am unable to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his tenure of Office, in the character of the steward of the finances of this country. He has been almost as unsuccessful as he was at the War Office and the Admiralty. The finances of the country, as a whole, are in a disorganized state, and the various measures the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward, from time to time, to case and remedy the state of things, are celebrated only by the fact that they have not passed into law. I will particularly invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take advantage, if he can, of this eleventh hour to make some explanation to the House of his conduct with regard to his measure for debasing the gold coins of this country. The proposal, which was apparently made seriously by him, was to issue from the Mint gold coins of the present nominal value, but of a debased manufacture. That proposal was received with hooting and a shout of laughter by the entire country, the moment it was produced at the Table; and I think it is really almost a case of Ministerial indecency, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having made such a proposal, I suppose with the consent of his Colleagues, and the suggestion having been scouted indignantly by the whole commercial and financial community, with the exception of a few interested bankers, who happen to have on their hands a considerable stock of light half-sovereigns—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have given the House some explanation of the reasons for which it was brought forward and for which it was withdrawn. The fact will remain, however, that his tenure of Office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is now drawing to a close, will be marked by a measure for debasing the gold coinage, and by the successful protest of the public against that most nefarious transaction appearing on the Statute Book. It will not, perhaps, be pleasing to the House that I should make any remarks on the general failure of the Government to carry into law any single one of the legislative proposals they made at the beginning of the Session. It would be unnecessary, as well as being inconvenient, to do so, because I imagine that the public outside, as well as the Members of this House, have all along been aware that every one of those proposals were never seriously made. No one will suppose that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary of State for the Home Department was serious in producing the Bill for the Government of London. One has only to remember the facts to see that he was indulging in one of his more than usually elaborate jokes. He made two speeches of great length and great humour on the proposal, and then being met by some slight opposition—an opposition confined to the Lord Mayor and a few Friends who usually dine with the Lord Mayor—he immediately threw up the proposal, refusing to proceed with it any further. I do not think that until the present Government came into Office, the House has ever been treated in that way by Ministers of the Grown. When legislative proposals have hither to been brought forward, they have been introduced with a serious desire to pass them into law. If the action of the right hon. Gentleman had stood by itself, it might not have tempted one to have made any invidious comment upon it; but, as it is, there was also another measure which evidently was not intended seriously, but which was intended for far worse purposes than any which marked the right hon. Gentleman's measure. I mean the Merchant Shipping Bill. It is perfectly evident that it was never seriously the intention of the Government to press the proposal on Parliament, but that it was a device simply of the lowest, the meanest, the most wretched, and most miserable electioneering character, got up by that ill-famed circle in Birmingham, who assist in Ministerial elections, for the purpose of promoting, if possible, some kind of pseudo-sympathy in the Liberal ranks on behalf of the merchant seamen of this country. If the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) with respect to the merchant seamen of this country and the risks they run were true, he is evidently in this dilemma—that the action of the Government in dropping the measure is simply flagitious in the highest degree. A large proportion of the loss of life which may take place during the coming autumn and winter, owing to the conduct of the Government in dropping this Bill, may be laid directly at the door of the President of the Board of Trade, or else the inference arises that his statements were utterly inaccurate from beginning to end, in which case he is branded as a Minister who, for the chance of an electioneering advantage, does not hesitate to damage and injure one of the most important, if not the most important, industry of the country. I think the public will look to and hold the Government responsible for, and will free the Opposition from, any responsibility for the total waste of a whole Session of Parliament without a single thing being done which can, directly or indirectly, advance the prosperity of this country in the smallest degree. There has been an irrecoverable waste of time, seeing that this is almost the final Session of a Government that came in on the cry of legislative economy. I hope that the Government will not attempt to make any explanation of the fact, because it must be obvious to them that whereas, as a general rule, explanations are dangerous, in this case they would be absolutely fatal. I pass from the general subject to one or two of the details included in the Bill now before the House. I will invite the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain, with a little more detail than he did a short time ago, the action of the Foreign Office in suppressing the Commission under which Lord Northbrook is about to proceed to Egypt, by which it will not be laid on the Table of the House until too late to be of any service. It is a most transparent and ridiculous evasion to say that the Commission is not ready, and that the Foreign Office has not yet composed its terms. Lord Northbrook's journey to Egypt has been decided on by the Government for several days. It is perfectly well known by the Government what Lord Northbrook's title is to be, and in what form the Commission is to be couched. I am afraid it is only of a piece with the general suppression of all information relating to the foreign policy of this country, that documents which could so easily be produced should be suppressed, and kept back from Parliament until some period when they will be of no use for the purpose of discussion. In regard to the noble Lord's appointment, I will make one remark that has not as yet been made. The Public Service of this country has hitherto been uniformly free from the least connection with the commercial and financial private enterprizes of the City of London or of the great commercial centres of the country, and up to the time of the present Government the Foreign Office has been scrupulously fair in this respect. Now I do hold, as a general statement of public policy, and without making any particular charge, that the appointment of Lord Northbrook is a departure from that sound general rule. There is no use whatever in concealing from the House or the public that Lord Northbrook is closely connected with the great financial house of Baring. If Lord Northbrook had gone out by himself, the objection I am making might seem to be strained, though I should still consider the appointment to be bad; but when I recollect that Lord Northbrook is going out in company with Sir Evelyn Baring, and that, therefore, two members of the great house of Baring are to be intrusted, as far as I can make out, with the sole disposal and almost unlimited control of England's political and financial interests in Egypt, I say that the appointment ought never to have been made, that members of that house ought to have been excluded, because of the fact that they are members of that financial house who are being intrusted with those duties. I should like to point out, in this connection, that there literally would be no difference whatever in sending out two members of the house of Rothschild to sending out two members of the house of Baring. The two are almost equal in greatness and in their great pecuniary interests in the East; and it stands to reason, that if Her Majesty's Government had proposed—supposing a member of the house of Rothschild, by circumstances and his public position, fitted to undertake the task—to send out such a member, there would have been a great cry of displeasure from the House of Commons and the country. But there would have been no difference between the position of Rothschild and Baring; and I hold that this mission of the two Barings to Egypt with the immense powers which have been intrusted to them, and knowing the enormous interest which the house of Baring has in the East, is a departure from that sound and scrupulous care, which, until the days of the present Government, has always been observed by Administrations to keep separate public interest from private enterprize. I do not wish to make any remark with regard to the general Mission of Lord Northbrook, nor do I wish to say anything with respect to the Vote of Credit for General Gordon, further than to say that the proceedings of the Government are obviously insincere, that they are not in the least connected with the good of the country, or with the future good of Egypt. They are simply two transparent electioneering devices. The process which the Government has gone through is very analogous to that which is gone through on the Turf, and if the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had not left the House, he would be able to illustrate more easily than I can the process to which I allude. When a person owns a horse in a race on which he has invested a considerable sum of money, and is afraid of one or two other horses in the same race, it is not unusual for him to invest a small sum on each of the others, in order that, if his own horse is beaten, he may save himself from total loss or from ruin. This process is called "hedging." That, I believe, is a process not unknown on the Turf; and it is, as I have said, exactly analogous to the process which Her Majesty's Government have adopted in regard to their general position in this country. They have placed an enormous stake on the question of Parliamentary Reform—in fact, they have staked their whole existence on that question, and on whatever success may attach to them on the agitation for the abolition of the House of Lords. That is their principal stake; but the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, perhaps, thought it might be well before Parliament separated to "hedge," and it occurred, therefore, to the Prime Minister and his Colleagues to "hedge" on General Gordon and also on the general condition of Egypt. They, therefore, place a small sum of money on General Gordon—£300,000—but for the purposes of "hedging" they might as well have placed 3d., and they also place a small stake on the general condition of Egypt in the shape of one of their own Colleagues. That is the policy to which a Liberal Ministry condescends. Merely for the purpose of preventing the Opposition from drawing the attention of the country forcibly and effectively to the position of Egypt and General Gordon, it has resorted to these two extremely unworthy and low and mischievous manœuvres. Turning now to another question, I have no doubt the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), whom I am glad to see is in his place, will be glad of an opportunity of explaining to the House the position of Mr. Mackenzie in Bechuanaland. This matter is worthy the attention of the House, for it will recollect that when the Colonial Office informed Parliament that the original Convention with the Boers had broken down, and a new Convention was necessary, one of the guarantees which the Government gave to Parliament, that the interests of the Native tribes should be effectively and vigorously looked after by a Representative of the British Government—a guarantee which prevented any violent criticism of their policy—was the appointment of Mr. Mackenzie. It was known that he was a strong and vigorous philanthropist, devoted to the cause of the Native tribes, if anything, hostile to the Boer interest, well acquainted with their criminal and wicked modes of procedure, and that he would, as Representative of Great Britain on the borders of Bechuanaland and the Transvaal, exercise a decided Protectorate over the Native tribes. But now, in that appointment, we are enabled to detect the extreme insincerity, the utterly humbugging character of every step which Her Majesty's Government take for evading Parliamentary discussions, by a bogus appointment of this nature. The moment that Parliamentary discussion is evaded, the moment when the appointment appears likely to produce the effects which those who receive the news of the appointment expect from it, it is cancelled, and any inconveniences which may be likely to arise to the Government are removed. We read in the newspapers, the other day, that Mr. Mackenzie had been removed from Bechuanaland. No doubt, we shall be told that it is a mere temporary removal, and that he has simply been sent down to confer with Sir Hercules Robinson at the Cape, and that, in process of time, he will return. If the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies should say so, I know that he will be saying what the Colonial Department told him; and while I would not, for a moment, disbelieve the statements of the hon. Gentleman, yet I would take the liberty of disbelieving entirely the collective statements of the Colonial Department. I am certain that Mr. Mackenzie has been permanently removed, and that the only and great guarantee we have in this House that the interest and safety of the Native tribes shall be looked after has gone. No doubt, some cipher will be set up in Mr. Mackenzie's place, who will be a convenient instrument for allowing the Boers to work their entire will upon the unfortunate Natives of Bechuanaland. In referring to these subjects now, I am only casting bread on the waters, to which, when the House meets again in October, we shall, no doubt, be able to refer. But they are subjects which the Government must be aware are engaging the attention of the country as well as of the Opposition; and if the Government think that, in October, they are going to rivet the attention of Parliament to their proposals for enfranchising 2,000,000 of persons, they are making a very grievous and a very fatal mistake. Finally, I want merely to allude to a matter to which, by some very questionable manœuvres on the part of the Government, I was prevented from alluding the other night. I wish now to refer to the state of Ireland, and the forces, civil and military, which the Government still maintain in that country in order to preserve the peace. The Government took an immense Vote the other night for the Constabulary in Ireland, a Vote larger by some £600,000 or £700,000 than was thought necessary in the time of their Predecessors; and when I drew attention to the fact that in view of this large increase it was very essential that the Representatives of the Irish Government should make some statement, no reply was made from the Ministerial Bench, and the Prime Minister interrupted the business by his statement on Egypt and the Conference. It was promised that the Report of the Vote should be taken at a reasonable hour on Monday; but, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Court- ney), who treats with the utmost disregard all pledges of that kind, brought on the Vote, and prevented my asking for some information. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) showed that the force of police was kept at a maximum while crime had fallen to a minimum; and what we want to know is, why, if the state of Ireland has really improved, this large demand has been made? If, on the other hand, the returns of crimes are fallacious, if the diminution of out rages is not to be relied on, if there is still seething among the Irish people criminal tendencies of a dangerous nature, then we want that statement made to the House from the Treasury Bench, and in an official manner. I will point out why we should have an authoritative statement of the condition of Ireland from the Treasury Bench. The great Crimes Act, which was passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which, I believe, was entirely due to his genius, and which has been successful in restoring a semblance of order, draws to a close in the latter part of next year; and the question whether it is to be renewed, or not, must come up in the early part of the Session of 1885. It is, I contend, then, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government to prepare the House of Commons, by previous statements, as to the condition of Ireland for the great problem as to whether the Act is to be renewed or not. It is altogether wrong that we should be left under the impression that crime is diminishing in Ireland, and that bonâ fide genuine order has been restored, while we see that a far larger expenditure is being incurred on the Police Establishment for the preservation of order in Ireland than we have spent before. It is wrong that Ireland should be left under the impression that Ireland is quiet, and that then in the early part of 1885 the Secretary of State for the Home Department should come down to the House and in his grandest and most imposing manner should demand a renewal of that Act. Or, perhaps, he or the Prime Minister might state to the House that the renewal is not necessary, without the House of Commons being in a position to judge as to the judiciousness of the policy to be pursued by the Government. I think I am justified in putting these interrogatories to the Government, and in making these general criticisms, both by the general features of this Parliamentary Session, and on account of the extremely bad character which Her Majesty's Ministers, as a collective Government, enjoy. I feel that Members of the Opposition cannot allow the Session to close without expressing once more their entire distrust of the policy pursued by the Government, whether at home or abroad, and calling upon the Government once more to explain to the House what course their policy is likely to take in the future.

Sir, I came down to the House prepared to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) on the subject of foreign affairs, being under the impression that that hon. Gentleman apparently had not exhausted all his repertoire last night, and that he, perhaps, intended to give us a second edition of his speech; but, instead of the hon. Member for Eye, we have listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), of which we, of course, had no Notice whatever. And possibly it is because we have had no Notice that the noble Lord commenced his speech by complaining of the thinness of the Benches on his own side. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said the other side.] Yes; but he alluded to his own side also, and, considering that when the noble Lord spoke there was no one on the Front Opposition Bench, and only one Member on the Back Benches, the sarcasm was well understood by the House. The noble Lord has given us a speech of some duration, from which it is quite evident that he thinks that the mantle of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Beaconsfield—at any rate, of Lord Beaconsfield in his earlier years—has fallen upon his shoulders; and, therefore, the noble Lord claims the right to make the House acquainted with his idea of the progress of Public Business during the Session. Now, Lord Lyndhurst always did that in the House of Lords, I think, after full Notice; and, certainly, the speeches of Lord Beaconsfield were always highly prepared, and for them the Benches where he sat were ready with much applause. Indeed, the cri- ticisms I used to hear from him on the work of the Session when I was a young Member of this House, were delivered to a full audience, and amid the cheers of the supporters of those statesmen; whilst to-day I noticed—however much I may appreciate the cheers of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—that the noble Lord's speech had for its chorus only that particular cheer. [Mr. WARTON. pointing to other hon. Members: No, no!] Then, if there was another cheer, it must have been like the "No" to the third reading of the Franchise Bill—inaudible. The noble Lord commenced by singling me out for attack with reference, not only to the Business of the Session, but also to my whole public career. He was very severe on what I had done both at the Admiralty, where I was 14 and 15 years ago, and at the War Office; but I noticed that, severe as his language was, he took very great care not to allude to any facts or any circumstances to which I could reply. This is the sort of argument which you meet with in some third-rate newspapers, and it is very much in accordance with the practice of the noble Lord. But, at the same time, I should have been very glad if he had given me something to which I could have replied. If he had done so, I should have answered him, and I hope with success; but not having done so, it would be altogether out of place if I defended myself without knowing what is the attack. The fact is, the noble Lord is extremely skilful in one mode of attack—that is to say, in calling names and using violent epithets. I took down some of them, and will read them to the House—"Ministerial indecencies," "nefarious transactions," "devices of the lowest and meanest character," "conduct flagitious to the highest degree," "transparent and ridiculous evasions," "obvious insincerity," "most unworthy manœuvres," "extreme insincerity." Now, that I characterized the other day, and I repeat it, as the favourite way of the noble Lord, to which we are perfectly accustomed both in and out of this House; but if the noble Lord wishes to emulate Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Beaconsfield, will he allow me to say that that was not their style of attacking their opponents? The weapon of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Beaconsfield was in each case a very sharp and telling weapon; but it did not consist of violent language and calling names. They might have used an occasional epithet which has remained—and the beauty of that kind of attack is that a particular epithet may remain; but, without meaning it in an offensive sense, I may say that they did not indulge in this sort of vulgar abuse. If the noble Lord will allow me to give him a little advice on matters of this kind, I should recommend him to give up this style of abuse, which really does not remain, and which hurts nobody, and attack us for our acts in some particular matter, and then leave his attack and our answer to the judgment of Parliament and of the country. In the few things which the noble Lord did say to us he showed great inaccuracy, which a little care would have enabled him to avoid. He said that, two years ago, I promised that there should be a Committee of this House to inquire into Expenditure. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Several Committees.] And the noble Lord further said that I had not carried out that promise. Now, in the first place, let me tell him that it was not I who made the promise, but the Prime Minister, and that the promise was made not two years ago, but one year ago. In the discussion last year on the Budget, my right hon. Friend said that if it was the express wish of the House that a Committee or Committees should be appointed to inquire into Expenditure, that was a wish which he shared. What happened? We waited for the expression of some such wish, but heard of none, either on the part of the independent Members of the House, or on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote); and, therefore, the suggestion of the Prime Minister naturally fell to the ground. What I subsequently undertook to do, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and the Heads of the Departments, was to make an exhaustive inquiry into the Expenditure of each of the spending Departments, I stated at the beginning of the Session that I had, during the last Recess, inquired into the Expenditure of half the Civil Departments, and I also stated that I hoped to complete the inquiry during the next Recess; and that if the House then desired to adopt a Committee of its own, to go through the whole of the Expenditure, we should not only accept it, but should consider it a very judicious proposal. I repeat that now. I further stated that the result of the inquiry which I proposed to make would appear in the Estimates of the various Departments, and it has appeared. But let me remind hon. Members that, although there are, from time to time, suggestions in this House in favour of economy, the great mass of the suggestions on the subject of Expenditure are to increase it. It is the Treasury which is unpopular in the Departments, and, I am sorry to say, in this House, because it is perpetually fighting the battle of economy; and, if we had now the sort of support which the House of Commons used to give the Treasury in keeping down Expenditure, I can only say that we should be most glad of it. The suggestions to increase Expenditure are as 20 to 1 of those to reduce it. If this House can see its way to revise the Public Expenditure, there is no one who will more rejoice to receive that assistance than I shall, however much the noble Lord may think fit to depreciate the fact. The noble Lord has referred to the large increase which has taken place in the Expenditure since 1880, and said I had not explained the reason for it. But I made a most careful explanation of that increase in my Budget Speech not only this year, but also last year, and I went very much into detail in order, on the one hand, that those who are interested in questions of economy might see the direction of increasing Expenditure; and, on the other, that those who, like the noble Lord, are anxious, for political motives, to attack the Government in respect to their Expenditure, should be able to see clearly what is the cause of the increase in the last few years. I have pointed out that, first of all, almost the whole of the increasing Military and Naval Expenditure was due to an augmented charge for the Iron-clad Fleet and its armament. I once more submit that fact to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are constantly complaining that we do not spend enough money in that direction. They left the Iron-clad Fleet in an unsatisfactory and backward condition. ["Oh, oh!"] We found that the building of iron-clad ships had so run down, that it was absolutely necessary to in- crease that Expenditure. On some heads we have doubled it, and the only criticism we have received since is that we have not carried that increase far enough. And so with respect to guns. It fell to us to take Office when the old gun was condemned, and our Predecessors had done nothing towards introducing improved guns beyond, I admit, valuable inquiries. And so it became necessary for us to add largely to the Estimates for Guns, increasing them by several hundred thousand pounds. Again, since 1880, there has also been a large increase in the Vote for Education and the subsidies for local purposes, and in the Post Office and Telegraph Services; and if anyone will take the trouble to add up all these items—I have not got them with me now, not knowing that the noble Lord was going to make this attack—he will find that they will of themselves account for the increase in the Expenditure during the last four or five years. Then the noble Lord proceeded to attack me, because, as he said, my proposals have not been passed into law. I am afraid, if that is to be taken as a serious complaint against a Chancellor of the Exchequer, some of my most distinguished Predecessors sitting on both sides of the House have likewise been subject to severe blame. But, as a matter of fact, is it the case that I have failed to pass my proposals into law? Last year I made two considerable proposals, apart from small matters—one was the measure with reference to the permanent reduction of the National Debt, and the other the settlement of the different questions connected with the Railways as regards the Passenger Duty. Both these passed into law. This year I also made two proposals in my Budget Speech, and these were—first, the measure for reducing the interest on the National Debt, which has since passed into law; and, secondly, the Coinage Bill, which did not come before the House for second reading, because, owing to the failure of the Franchise Bill in the House of Lords, it became necessary to drop some nine or ten Government Bills, among which it was included. ["Oh, oh!"] It was dropped for no other reason, and I will point to the fact that at the time these Bills were dropped, the Coinage Bills stood for second reading the following week. The noble Lord said that I was guilty of gross Ministerial neglect because I did not give an explanation of the Bill. I should have been guilty of such neglect if I had inflicted on the House such explanations of a Bill which had not reached its second reading, or after its withdrawal. Then the noble Lord subjected the Bill to one of those attacks of a violent character which he is in the habit of making. He said that it was scouted with hooting and laughter by the whole commercial community. But will the noble Lord excuse me if I say that, after my original explanation of the Coinage plan, there was another statement put before the House and the public in a letter by the noble Lord, as to the grounds upon which he proposed to oppose it, and if anything was received with hooting and laughter it was the letter of the noble Lord. His arguments, at any rate, were universally received with hooting and laughter. I suppose it was my taking no notice of his letter that has hurt the noble Lord's feelings. But the House will agree with me, that I should have been doing a very extraordinary thing if I had taken the trouble to refute the statements of the noble Lord—statements which were received with so much ridicule that they could not have needed any serious refutation. There were, no doubt, objections of a solid character raised to the Bill by authorities who have every right to respect, which I should have been prepared to meet in the course of debate; but these objections were based on totally different grounds to those advanced by the noble Lord. Well, so much for myself and those matters to which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have thought it my duty to refer. But there is another thing which the noble Lord said, calling for remark and reprobation. He said that Lord Northbrook's appointment was ridiculous, and a transparent evasion of our duty; and he went on to say that his ground of objection to Lord Northbrook's appointment was that he was connected with the great house of Baring. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: One of the objections.] I think he afterwards used the words that Lord Northbrook was a member of the house of Baring, and he went on to say that, considering the financial position of that house and the financial interest that house had in the affairs of Egypt, Lord Northbrook ought not to have been sent to Egypt as Her Majesty's Commissioner on the present occasion. If I were going to make use of violent epithets such as those made use of by the noble Lord, my first business would be to apply one to his absence of information as to Lord Northbrook's position and the position of the house of Baring. Lord Northbrook is not, and never has been, a member of the house of Baring.

The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I said Lord Northbrook was a member of the house of Baring; but I did not imply that he was connected with the firm. I only meant to imply that he was a member of the house of Baring in the same way that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is a member of the house of Harcourt.

No; the noble Lord shall not escape in that way. He never said anything about the house of Harcourt. I appeal to the House whether he did not say that Lord Northbrook was a member of the house of Baring in the same way that a Rothchild is a member of the house of Rothschild. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] And then the noble Lord went on to ask, what would be thought if a member of the house of Rothschild were sent out to advise on the affairs of Egypt? I tell the noble Lord that there is no foundation for that statement. Lord Northbrook's position historically is, that he is the son of a most distinguished Member of Parliament, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Francis Baring, and that he has no connection whatever with the commercial house of Baring. Lord Northbrook is as free from fault in that way as the noble Lord would be, if anyone were to throw in his face that he was a member of the house of Churchill. What would the noble Lord have said when Lord Melbourne made Sir Francis Baring Chancellor of the Exchequer? I suppose he would have said that Lord Melbourne had selected as Chancellor of the Exchequer a member of the house of Baring, and that he had no right to do so. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Certainly.] Nobody else said so, or would have dreamed of saying so. Lord North- brook's connection with the house of Baring is, it is true, that he is a member of the highly respectable family of Baring, but with the firm of Baring Brothers, and the commercial transactions of that house, he has no more to do than I have. And I would say further, that if this line of argument is to be adopted with reference to gentlemen connected with great banking houses who are engaged in public affairs, what would the noble Lord have said of a Gentleman who, some years ago, was sent to Egypt by a Tory Government on a most important mission—I allude to that of Mr. Cave. Mr. Cave, a distinguished Member of Parliament and Privy Councillor, in Lord Beaconsfield's Administration, was a banker, an actual member of a banking house; and yet there was not a single word heard from Gentlemen sitting on these Benches as to the propriety of sending out Mr. Cave to Egypt. I might multiply instances, and refer to the cases of Lord Ashburton and Mr. Herries, great banking names, especially the former, whose employment was of such great service to the public. However, I will only say that the attack made by the noble Lord on Lord Northbrook would be utterly unworthy of him, but for the fact that he makes these attacks so frivolously and so frequently that we are accustomed to attach no great importance to them. The other portion of the noble Lord's statements it is not for me to criticize. I have dealt with that portion which concerns myself and the financial business with which I have been directly or indirectly concerned of late; and all I can say is, that when the noble Lord attacks me again I hope he will, in the first place, be a little more moderate in his epithets, and, in the second place, a little more accurate in his facts.

said, he was glad that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had brought Bechuanaland under the consideration of the House, and glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) in his place, as he desired, before the House broke up, to get some more definite information concerning the actual condition of affairs in that country than he had been able as yet to elicit by Questions. He felt that it was somewhat hard upon the hon. Gentleman to be called upon, without Notice, to give this information; but, on the other hand, the House had been placed in an unfortunate position upon this question. They had not got any Papers upon the subject, although a promise was made that such Papers should be presented. It was unnecessary to point out the great inconvenience arising from this delay in presenting Papers until after debate. Only a few days ago a debate took place on Zululand, and a point that he (Sir Henry Holland) raised in the course of that debate was answered, or alleged to be answered, by a sentence in a despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson, which was quoted from Papers that had not then been presented, and which had not even now been delivered to hon. Members. It might be that the sentence quoted was an answer to his point; but he should have liked to have seen the despatch, because, taken with the context, he might have been able to show that the sentence had really a different effect to that put upon it in the debate. And, in addition to not having got any recent Papers—he thought none since Mr. Mackenzie went there—there had been no opportunity of discussing this subject, owing to the joining of the Supplementary Estimate of £30,000 for Bechuanaland to the original Vote in Class V. The debate on Zululand, which was under the same Vote, lasted all day, and the Division was not taken till a quarter to 6, so that discussion on Bechuanaland could not take place. He thought, for these reasons, that the House was fully justified in seeking to have a clear statement from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State as to the actual condition of affairs in Bechuanaland; and he would venture to ask him to answer the following questions:—What steps, if any, had been taken to protect the interests and property of our Native allies, Montsioa and Mankoroane? Had these Chiefs, or either of them, been attacked by the Boers? Had we recognized, or did we propose to recognize, the Boer Republics of Stellaland and Goshen; or had we warned the Boers that we should not allow these Republics to be continued? Had the Boers in these places recognized our protecting authority, or had they disputed it by action? And, lastly, had Mr. Mackenzie been finally recalled, or had he been only sent for to the Cape to confer with Sir Hercules Robinson, and was he afterwards to return? He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would be able to satisfy the House upon these points. Turning to another subject, he could not but regret the absence both of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Secretary to the Treasury, as he desired to suggest to them a change in the mode of dealing with Supply. Owing to the withdrawal of Government Bills—of which the number had been modestly put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at nine or ten, and of which it might certainly be said that nothing in their progress became them so much as their withdrawal—Supply had been more fully debated than usual. But what he desired to suggest to the Government was, that a different arrangement should be made in the mode of bringing on the Classes of Votes in Supply. As it was now, Classes I. and II. were always brought on first; the same points were raised over and over again, year after year, and much time was wasted on comparatively small points, as the wages of charwomen, the expense of cleaning and repairing of public buildings and so forth; while important Foreign, Colonial, and other questions, which were raised under the later Classes, were rushed through at the end of the Session in thin Committees. He would suggest that the Government next year should begin, say, with Class V., and not deal with the earlier Classes until they had completed Classes V., VI., and VII. He should also have wished to have known from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had he been in his place, whether he (Sir Henry Holland) was right in assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had completed his examination of the Expenditure of the different Government Departments; and whether he—that was, the Government—would move for the appointment of the Expenditure Committees to which he had referred, and of which he had approved, or whether it was to be left to a private Member to do so? He thought the Government ought to undertake to move for the appointment of such Committees, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer would do so at the proper time.

said, that in replying to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he utterly repudiated the suggestion that the appointment of Mr. Mackenzie to the office which he held in Bechuanaland was a bogus appointment made to please certain people, and that Mr. Mackenzie was withdrawn as soon as that object had been obtained. If the Colonial Office had been guilty of such conduct, they were very foolish not to postpone the dismissal of Mr. Mackenzie for one week, by which time their alleged action would not be subject to Parliamentary criticism. Mr. Mackenzie owed his appointment, in a great degree, to the recommendation of Sir Hercules Robinson. Everyone who had come in contact with Mr. Mackenzie was impressed by his fitness for the post in many respects; but he was wanting in experience of the administration of public affairs of any importance. If he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was asked why Mr. Mackenzie had been recalled, and whether permanently or not, he could not give the House a confident answer. He had, as yet, no full information as to the recall, the only communication concerning it which had been received by the Colonial Office being contained in a telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson, who announced that he had thought it necessary, "for various reasons," to recall Mr. Mackenzie, in order to confer with him at Cape Town, and that in the meantime he had sent Mr. Rhodes in his place. No doubt, a despatch was on its way to this country giving the reasons for the step that had been taken. Whether the recall would be permanent or not, he was, as he had said, unable at present to say; but as to Mr. Rhodes, whom the noble Lord had described as "an unknown person," he might be unknown to the noble Lord—and, perhaps, was not the worse for that—but he was a gentleman of some distinction, who had always shown himself to be a great sympathizer with the Native races, and who had rendered great public service on the Griqualand West Commission and as a Member of the Legislative Council. He had gone at the invitation of Sir Hercules Robinson, and the Transvaal Government had directed M. Joubert to proceed to the frontier of Bechuanaland to confer with him. With regard to the general state of affairs in Bechuanaland, he was sorry that he was unable to give a very positive or a very clear account, because the Government had been almost without despatches for the last three or four weeks, and had been obliged to depend upon telegrams. It appeared, however, that the Stellalanders had, more or less, accepted the proposals made by Mr. Mackenzie, and were anxious to be annexed to the Cape Colony. During the time that he was Commissioner, Mr. Mackenzie gave them to understand that it was not proposed to confiscate, in a wholesale manner, the land tilled and occupied by the people of Stellaland, and that they would, under the proposed arrangement with the Cape Colony, be at liberty to continue in the occupation of land to which they could show a good title, provided that they respected the rights of the Natives living side by side with them. They were, therefore, somewhat anxious to become annexed to the Cape Colony. There was no conflict between them and Mankoroane; but whether they would remain under the Protectorate of England, or be annexed to the Cape, was still under consideration. The general aspect of affairs was very different when they came to consider the action of the band of freebooters who had made themselves conspicuous in Goshenland. According to the latest telegraphic intelligence, a very serious attack had been made on Montsioa by a body of men living within the Goshen territory. Montsioa's loss had been heavy, two Englishmen being among the killed. The Boers had lost 30 men. It was not clear from the telegram which had reached this country what was the result of the fight; but he gathered at least that the Boers had been driven back and temporarily checked. The supposition was that Mr. Rhodes had been sent out by the High Commissioner to discuss this affair with the authorities of the Transvaal. The Transvaal Government had put out that they would not countenance these acts of the Goshenites, and it was to be hoped that when General Joubert, or whoever was sent by the Transvaal Government, met Mr. Rhodes, some effective means would be taken to prevent further outrages. Her Majesty's Government maintained that if the Transvaal Government did not, as a body, join in the fray, and would abstain from these raids, the police force that was being established, and which he believed was now established, would be quite sufficient to keep order on the border. This unfortunate conflict was, he believed, merely an attempt on the part of freebooters to force a battle before the police force arrived on the spot.

How many are there?

replied, that there were 100 mounted police. With respect to the Bechuana Papers, it was not the intention of the Colonial Office to lay any further Papers on the Table of the House until the Autumn Session.

said, that a promise had been previously made to present the Papers up to the close of the present Session. He hoped now that the Transvaal Government had ratified the Convention, that Her Majesty's Government would press the appointment of a Commissioner on the border.

said, he thought he had not made any such promise; but as he was reminded of it, he would take care that the Papers up to date should be placed before the House before the end of the Session, with regard to the Convention that had been ratified by the Volksraad with certain reservations as to the frontier line.

said, he had been glad to hear the last statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), that the police force would be soon formed, and that with that force he expected to be able to preserve order; but he thought hon. Members would agree with him (Mr. W. E. Forster) that that order would not be preserved unless the police had power to act, and were told to act, as they might see necessity so to do. The Convention, it was said, had been confirmed by the Volksraad; but, looking back at the past, they might be perfectly certain that this second Convention would be a dead letter like the first, unless there was a determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to see that it was observed. The hon. Gentleman said Her Majesty's Government hoped that a Government situated like the Transvaal Government would not sanction that action of these people on the Border, but that was of very little use. A mere statement upon trust that there would be no such sanction was only empty words, and he hoped there would be some declaration on the matter, made in such a manner as to impress everyone in South Africa with a belief that it was intended—a declaration that Her Majesty's Government were determined not to allow this second Convention to follow the suit of the other Convention and be disregarded. From what had fallen from his hon. Friend, he understood that this was the determination of the Government, that the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government some time ago in regard to this Convention remained unchanged, and that what had happened in regard to the recall of Mr. Mackenzie had nothing to do with the general policy of the Government. As to this question of Mr. Mackenzie, he thought it had been left in a very unsatisfactory condition by his hon. Friend, and he would like to ask him if the Government had received any despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson upon this matter since the last answer was communicated to the House? [Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: No.] He was somewhat surprised, if that was so, as to the changed tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this subject. Hitherto the House had been told that Mr. Mackenzie had been sent for with regard to the settling of the frontier. Could the hon. Gentleman state whether or not Mr. Mackenzie had been dismissed?

said, that he had not anticipated this debate, and being, therefore, unprepared for it, he had not in his mind the date of Sir Hercules Robinson's latest despatch; but his impression was that an additional answer to that he had communicated to the House had been received, in which it was stated there were certain reasons that had induced Sir Hercules Robinson to recall Mr. Mackenzie apart from his wish to consult him about the state of affairs.

said, that as Mr. Mackenzie's name had been mentioned, he thought he should say that he entirely agreed with the opinion that had been expressed as to the high character, motives, and general ability of this gentleman, who was appointed at the recommendation of Sir Hercules Robinson. He confessed he was glad when he heard he was appointed, though he had nothing to do with pressing forward his appointment. He thought there were good reasons why he was specially fitted for the appointment; but he could also understand why those whose misdoings it was the purpose of the Government to prevent, should naturally feel interested in trying to get rid of Mr. Mackenzie. He trusted that the fullest consideration would be given to this subject, and that Mr. Mackenzie would not be deserted, unless there was good reason why that should be the case. But, at any rate, they had the assurance that the policy of Her Majesty's Government had not changed, and that whether Mr. Mackenzie remained or not, the Government were determined to make the Convention a living reality, and that they intended to preserve order and peace in Bechuanaland, and to prevent, as far as possible, those Chiefs being sacrificed who had been attacked mainly because they had been our friends and had assisted Her Majesty's Government. There was only one other matter that he wished to allude to. As he (Mr. W. E. Forster) understood, an answer had been given that day by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) to the effect that the Government were determined to preserve peace and order in the Reserve Territory, but could not undertake to protect those Zulus who suffered because they had invited the Boers to come to them. He thought that was an unfortunate reply to the question, because the condition of that part of Zululand could not be summed up in the misfortunes that came to the Zulus, because their Chiefs had asked the Boers to come over. There was a good deal of injustice and robbery happening in Zululand to Zulus whose Chief's had not asked them to come over; and he hoped his hon. Friend would somewhat modify his answer, and explain that it was meant not to imply the general policy of the Government with regard to that territory, because, in that case, it would be a most complete disavowal of all duty and responsibility on our part for the disorganization of this district, which was due not to the Boers having been invited over by any Natives, but to the attacks made upon the unfortunate people by Boers brought over by their enemies. It would be a disavowal of a kind that would not bear examination in point of fact.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W.E. Forster) was very sanguine if he expected this second Convention to be any thing but a dead letter. He (Mr. Ritchie) believed that there had been nothing more disgraceful in the annals of this country than the way in which the Government had sacrificed those Natives who had assisted us in South Africa; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and those who, like him, had declined to support their views by their votes, had, perhaps, done more than any other persons to lend countenance to the action of the Government. The idea that the Zulus had invited the Boers was too absurd for discussion; for it was very well known that the Boers were the prime means of inflicting all these evils on the Natives. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after his sarcastic allusions to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and after condemning the epithets he had used, retreated. He was very severe on the noble Lord, both on the question of the noble Lord's epithets and with reference to the house of Baring.

, resuming, said, he did not propose to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his remarks on the subject of the house of Baring; but the sending out of Lord Northbrook did seem as though there was an intention of the Government to make up a family party. It was said that Lord Beaconsfield, when Mr. Disraeli, had never used such epithets as the noble Lord employed; but the Liberal Party had never so conducted themselves during the time that Mr. Disraeli was alive. In their unsuccessful attempt to secure the friendship of France, the Government had sacrificed that of Germany and Austria, without succeeding in obtaining the goodwill they sought. The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the Prime Minister had made any promise to appoint a Committee to inquire into the Expenditure of the country; he had only said that if the House desired it, such a Committee might be appointed. But if it was advantageous, the Govern- ment ought to take upon itself the appointment, and not leave it to a private Member. He was not prepared to say that the Expenditure of the country was greater than it ought to be; but the fact that it was larger under the present Government than during the period of Office of the late Administration was a complete condemnation of the course they took when they were before the country in countenancing the gross charges of extravagance brought against the Conservatives, and promising to alter it. The Liberal Party were now far more extravagant than the Conservative Party had ever been. With regard to the Navy, the late Government had purchased several ships, which, in his opinion, was a better policy than building them, considering the enormous cost of construction in oar Dockyards. The late Mr. Ward Hunt had described our Fleet as a "phantom Fleet," and had done so with the approval of the independent Members in the House. With regard to stores, also, the late Government left them in a better condition than that in which they had ever been before; whereas, on their coming into Office, it was notorious that the stores had been in a very exhausted condition. Again, in the speeches made on the subject of the Expenditure of the late Government by influential Members of the Liberal Party, it was remarkable to observe the way in which they completely ignored the additional expense which had been imposed on the Government with reference to education. He had no doubt but that the observations which they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were directed not to the House but to the constituencies. With regard to the legislation of the Session, they were already at the 12th of August, and it would be two days more before the Prorogation would take place. That was about the duration of an ordinary Session, and yet what was the record of Business the Government had to show? Why, they were attempting to impose on the country the belief that all their great measures had had to be abandoned, because of the action of the House of Lords with respect to the Franchise Bill. The Government had never really intended to pass the London Government Bill, which had only been brought in in deference to a certain section of their followers. It was the same with other Bills, for no one could for a moment contend that, in any case, there was ever the smallest chance of any one of those measures passing into law. It was a great convenience to the Government to be able to abandon them, and at the same time to be furnished with the cry that the legislative barrenness of the Session was due to the action of the House of Lords in refusing a half-scheme of Reform.

said, he regretted to be obliged to bring a question with regard to Ireland before the House at that period of the Session. However, he had been left without any other alternative, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had thought proper to refuse to grant a Return bearing upon the action of the Government in respect to Mr. Bolton. He was therefore compelled to take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the matter. He had asked for a copy of the Report sent by Vice Chancellor Fry to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland respecting Mr. Bolton's fraud upon his wife; and, also, any Correspondence which had passed between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland upon the subject. He (Mr. O'Brien) had been anxious that the case should be investigated, and that the public should be made aware why the Report of Vice Chancellor Fry had not been acted upon. The charge of fraud had been thoroughly investigated by a high—very high—minded Liberal Lord Chancellor and a Tory Attorney General, and, upon full consideration, they came to the conclusion that no further action should be taken in the matter. He believed, from the information which he had, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been hoodwinked by misleading—for he supposed he should not say fraudulently misleading—representations in reference to Mr. Bolton's conduct. It had been, he believed, represented that the matter had been settled by a friendly compromise, the fact being that Mr. Bolton submitted unconditionally to a decree, branding him with the most shameful frauds, and that it was afterwards that he wrote a number of crawling letters to his wife—the unfortunate woman whom he had tried to strip of every shilling—begging her to write some letter which he might show to his superior to show that the whole thing was a friendly compromise. Now, Mr. Bolton's own evidence, and his correspondence which was produced at Belfast last week, made it pretty clear that there was something very like a conspiracy to deceive the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as to the state of facts. Mr. Bolton, in his letters to his wife, stated that the Attorney General for Ireland, at the time, was a very friendly but a very timid man; and he tried to get his wife to write a letter to the effect that the proceedings were of a friendly character, but she positively refused to state that there was any compromise. But, eventually, upon his statement that he would be driven into the workhouse, she ultimately wrote a dubious sort of letter, stating he had acted in a gentlemanly way, and that there had been negotiations going on for a settlement. It raised a very serious question as to the way that this scandal was hushed up at the time. He thought that, in the interests of fair play and for the sake of the Attorney General for Ireland, whose name had been very conspicuous in the matter, the whole business should be cleared up. It would be a scandal if any difficulty, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had suggested last night, were allowed to interfere with the right of the public to obtain access to this document. He hoped that, even now, the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the Return to be obtained, so that the public should be placed in possession of all the facts of the case.

said, it was true that he had refused to grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The reason why he had done so was because the only documents in the possession of the Irish Government were of a confidential character between Heads of Departments, and embraced Minutes of the Law Officer with regard to a Correspondence with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It had never been the practice, so far as his own knowledge went, to produce in that House any such confidential documents; and he must, therefore, decline to do so now. Another thing was that these documents were not pertaining exclusively to the present Government—they were confidential documents of their Predecessors as well; and, therefore, it would be strange indeed, and contrary to all precedent, to produce the confidential documents of their Predecessors in Office. The documents which Mr. Bolton had produced were not official documents.

Mr. Bolton swears it. I saw the documents with the official marks.

said, he thought that there was some mistake about this. He might have been able to produce copies of his own letters; but he could not produce any letters or documents from the files of the defendants, over which he had no control.

said, he was very much surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had made such a reply to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He (Mr. Callan) noticed, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had added the qualification "as far as his experience went." Fortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman not been long exposed to the contamination of Dublin Castle; for he (Mr. Callan) believed that he never was in Dublin Castle before his present appointment. His sole objection to the production of these documents had been that they were of a confidential character. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman did Lord Justice Fry mark his letters to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland "confidential?" If he did not so mark his letters, he maintained that the Irish Government were guilty of great audacity in coming to the House of Commons and pleading that they were confidential. It was also, he contended, equally audacious to say that a document written by Mr. Justice Fry, with reference to the proceedings in a public Court, were confidential. He could not see why any Member of that House, even the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who was advising the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland not to consent to the production of this document, for the purpose of sheltering this criminal, could say that it was confidential. He believed that no attempt should be made to shield a swindler and a reprobate like George Bolton. The whole thing was a mere pretence and subterfuge on the part of the Government in order to escape the censure of the English Members. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was a Gentleman who was respected by Members of every shade of opinion in the House; and he (Mr. Callan) was very glad, for his sake, that he had not been long exposed to the corrupting, degrading atmosphere of that "sink of iniquity, Dublin Castle." He would challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a gentleman and a member of the Irish Bar, to state to the House that he would give credence to Bolton's oath. He would ask him whether he considered it fair to shelter himself behind the statement that the document belonged to the Conservative Party, when he knew well that if the document was in any way calculated to damage the Conservative Party he would at once produce it? He (Mr. Callan) well knew where the iniquity rested. Earl Spencer and Detective Jenkinson were responsible for what had been done in the matter.

said, he was not surprised at the manner in which the Government had acted in this matter. It was quite in keeping with the attitude which they invariably adopted towards hon. Members on the Benches where he stood. Every allegation that was made by them, however well-founded it might be, with regard to the misconduct of Irish officials, was met by the Government with a flat denial. The subject was one which called for grave and full inquiry; and, upon the most ordinary principles of justice, the Government were bound to grant the Return sought for by his hon. Friend. What they asked the Government for was simply justice; and he had no doubt whatever that if they were to prolong the Sitting, and press the Government, they would get the Return which the hon. Member for Mallow asked for. Mr. George Bolton had been allowed to extract, from the files of Dublin Castle, the portion of the Correspondence which told in his favour. The hon. and learned Gentleman had yet a great deal to learn of the system of brotherhood which existed amongst the officials of Dublin Castle, by which one official helped to shield another from the consequences of iniquity, knowing that if he acted differently it might be brought to his own door. They did not accuse all the officials of being rotten; but they knew there were sufficient of them engaged in infamous transactions to make it their duty, whenever the names of those officials were brought forward in connection with a case, to see that their motives were exposed. He asked the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to say whether he would not make further inquiry into the matter? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman inquire what official permitted Mr. Bolton access to the files in Dublin Castle, and, if he ascertained his name, have him punished; and would he, in justice, allow his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow access to the remainder of the Correspondence, so far as it was not strictly confidential?

said, he would earnestly appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to say that the Government would act impartially in the quarrel between his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and Mr. George Bolton, and that he would not allow the Government to become the partizan of the disreputable party in the quarrel. His hon. Friend only desired to be conceded fair play. The Government ought to undertake an investigation of how Mr. Bolton obtained the documents. They really were making themselves responsible, in a great measure, for vicious and disreputable persons. If, on inquiry, it was found that Mr. Bolton had stolen the documents, he should be prosecuted.

said, he had to complain that, in a remote district of his constituency, in the barony of Upper Land in the Queen's County, a certain sergeant of police, under cover of the Prevention of Crime Act, forced his way, on several occasions, into a private residence at night, and behaved in a rude and offensive manner. On six separate occasions he forced his way into the sleeping apartment occupied by female members of the family. In this way a respectable man, who was a publican, was subjected to persecution from the police sergeant, who was a dissolute ruffian. He had formal evidence that the constable was given to habits of intoxication, and that, on one occasion, he was found lying drunk on the public road. He trusted the Government would grant him a public inquiry. He had also to call attention to the fact that, notwithstanding the peaceable character of the Queen's County, and that its free force was below the proper number, extra police were quartered and charged upon it.

said, that the particular complaint made by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) regarding the apportionment of the free force in the Queen's County was part of the general complaint made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) about a week or 10 days ago. The Government promised to look into the whole matter during the Recess, with a view to its being redistributed. As regarded the other complaint of the hon. Member an inquiry should be made into it. With regard to the demand made by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) as to the use of official Papers during the late trials in Belfast by Mr. Bolton, he thought the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. The hon. Member must have mistaken the character of the Papers produced on the trial.

Mr. Bolton himself swore that he got those Papers from the official file.

said, that might be a mistake in the Report. If, however, the plaintiff in the case had been furnished with documents from the official files, which he did not believe, the person who was a party to that abuse of his official position would receive the treatment which was proper and becoming for such conduct. Even if the paper were given from the official file to Mr. Bolton, it would be only committing a double error now to grant the Papers for which the hon. Member for Mallow had asked.

said, he had intended to move, in accordance with his Notice—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the conduct of Her Majesty's present Minister of Foreign Affairs has strained the relations of England with the French Republic, and has deprived this country of valuable Allies;"

but he did not propose to trouble the House on this occasion with any details on the subject. He considered that the words of his Motion had been justified by events. He wished, however, to place before the country that the Government had made one more conspicuous failure in the Conference, and that this failure was due to mistakes of their foreign policy. They had abandoned the alliance with Germany, and they had endeavoured to patch up with France an alliance which had proved a broken reed. The result of their failure in the Conference was that, while they had in no way conciliated France, they had sot against themselves the dominant influence of Europe—namely, the great German Confederation. With regard to South African matters, our Native Allies had been neglected and unprotected, while a valuable official had been recalled, apparently without any other reason than that he had resisted the attacks of the Boers. He trusted that during the Recess Her Majesty's Government would take some steps to avert the consequences of the errors they had committed, and that some protection which the Convention had failed to give would be afforded to our Native Allies in Zululand.

said, that he had intended to call attention to the interference of the Treasury with the printing of the Indian Accounts, and to the conduct of the Under Secretary of State for India in agreeing to withhold the regular and long-established set of Accounts which for nearly 100 years had been laid before Parliament. Owing, however, to the absence of the Under Secretary of State for India, he would postpone the matter till next Session.

said, he rose to call attention to the subject of Slavery in the Western Pacific. He hoped that, during the Recess, the attention of the Government would be directed to the painful disclosures which had been recently made with regard to the acts of combined piracy and slavery which were committed in the Western Pacific, under the guise of recruiting for free labourers. Over the whole of the Pacific Ocean, and among the most unsophisticated class of the Islanders, there was a most terrible amount of slave traffic going on. A number of ships wont every year, and, by fair means or foul, carried off large numbers of labourers from the South Sea and other groups of Islands to Queensland, where they were kept in practical servitude, the result being that whole Islands, according to the official Reports, were becoming depopulated by it. At the time this country was celebrating the jubilee of the abolition of Slavery in the West Indies, he hoped this insidious and hypocritical form of man-hunting in the Pacific would not be lost sight of, and that the Government would take steps to put an end to the evil.