Sir, I gave Notice yesterday that upon this Motion being made I would put a Question to the Government, and ask them to state to the House as fully as they feel themselves capable of doing, and without inconvenience to the Public Service, what is the position of negotiations with regard to the Afghan Frontier? I am quite aware that in delicate negotiations such as these, and in the delicate state of circumstances which prevails at this moment, we must be extremely careful not to put Questions or to make observations likely to seriously embarrass the Government; and I am most reluctant to do anything that would have that effect. At the same time, I would point out to the noble Lord that when this House is adjourning for eight or 10 days, and when there will be no regular opportunity of correcting any statement that may get abroad which may be of a mischievous character, and which may be very readily answered and safely disposed of in this House, there are dangers which it is desirable for us to reduce to a minimum by giving such explanations as can be given. Everyone in this House is well aware what the nature of our anxiety is in regard to the position and advance of Russia upon the Afghan Frontier. We know that for many years the advances of Russia from one point to another in Central Asia have been the subject both of uneasiness in England and still more, I think, of uneasiness in India. Of course such a move as that which has lately taken place in the advance to Merv, and the subsequent advance still nearer to the Afghan Frontier, has been of a character which must necessarily give occasion for anxiety; and when it is stated that that advance has gone actually beyond the Frontier, we say that it gives natural ground for anxiety, for rumours and reports which may lead to the very evils we are anxious to avoid. It is not so much what the feeling may be in this country as the feeling that may circulate among the Natives of India and the Indian population. If there is an idea allowed to get abroad among them that England is not firm in this matter, it may lead to serious consequences. I apprehend, as the Prime Minister stated some time ago, that there is but one real English policy in this matter, that we are all of one opinion—whatever may have been said in the past as to the former movements of Russia-—that we must stand by the Ruler of Afghanistan. But I am quite aware with regard to the details of the negotiations that we must be very cautious in the matter, and that we must not endeavour to spread alarm which is the object we have to take away. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us yesterday that there was every hope of a satisfactory settlement. He mentioned that there was a despatch now on its way from St. Petersburg of which we apparently have imperfect information. I do not know whether he has received any information with regard to that despatch, or what the nature of it is, or the conditions upon which the Russian Government may be willing to carry through the arrangement, which I understand they still adhere to, of laying down a boundary by the action of Boundary Commissioners on the spot. I think it would be satisfactory if we could be told whether such proceedings were in contemplation, whether we are substantially agreed that those inquiries which are to lead to the delimitation of the Frontier are really to take place, and any other in- formation which the Government can give with regard to the attitude of the Powers on this matter, and the state of the negotiations, will, I am sure, be of a very interesting and valuable character.

Sir, I entirely share the feeling expressed by my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he said that it was a matter of regret to him and to Her Majesty's Government generally to be obliged constantly to repeat, in answer to inquiries, perhaps not unreasonable in themselves, an answer which, from its constant repetition, might almost be considered to be stereotyed and discourteous. While sharing that feeling, I also may add that it would be far more satisfactory to us, if we thought it was in our power consistently with our duty to the country in regard to those great interests with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman says there is such general agreement in all parts of the House, if we were in a position to make a full statement to the House. We feel very deeply indeed the great responsibility that rests upon us in connection with negotiations of this character of taking measures we think necessary in the circumstances. We feel that responsibility would not certainly be taken away from us, but it would be greatly lightened if we could take the House fully into our confidence, and state the exact position of the negotiations and the exact character of the measures we have under consideration; but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not using any mere conventional phrase, or that I am simply endeavouring to stave off discussion which might be considered inconvenient to the Government, when I do repeat that we must deprecate, and deprecate in the strongest terms, any attempt on the part of hon. Members to induce us to enter into any detailed statement, and a necessarily incomplete statement, as to the progress of these negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what he knows from his experience of the inconvenience, under any circumstances, of attempting to enter into details respecting pending negotiations, when a full and complete statement cannot be made. That is an observation which I think is true respecting almost any difficult subject of negotiation; but cer- tainly, Sir, the character of the negotiations which are at present going on is such as to render that ordinary inconvenience very much greater. At present, as the House is aware, not only matters of fact and of policy are at issue, but there are also at issue questions respecting which there is the very strongest and most sensitive feeling both in this country and in Russia. Public opinion both here and in India—as the right hon. Gentleman has said—is justly sensitive upon anything which may appear to affect the security of our Indian Frontier or the maintenance of the engagements which we have entered into with our Ally, the Ameer of Afghanistan. And, although public opinion in Russia may not have such free means of expression as it has here, the House is perfectly aware that there exists in Russia a very strong military opinion—an opinion which, not unnaturally, is somewhat disposed towards strong and perhaps aggressive measures, and which is perpetually striving to thwart and counteract the diplomatic action which is endeavouring to bring the question at issue to a satisfactory settlement. Well, on the spot, on the scene of these transactions, we know that the Russian troops, the Afghan troops, and our own officers, who are acting as the advisers of the Ameer's Government, and the object of whose mission is to come to an arrangement respecting the disputed question of the Afghan Frontier—we know that they are all at the present moment in very close proximity; we know that they are in positions where an unfortunate accident or misunderstanding might lead to some occurrence, perhaps to some collision, which would greatly decrease the chances of a satisfactory settlement. Further, Sir, we hear in this country of certain movements of Russian troops. We ourselves also have thought it necessary, as has been communicated to the House, to make certain military preparations which we consider that the circumstances of the case demand. These military preparations on our part have not been made with any intention of their being a menace to Russia for the purpose of influencing the friendly negotiations at present in progress. But if we were to attempt to enter into a detailed statement or discussion on these matters, I cannot but feel that it is too probable that some unguarded word—which none of us possibly, and I myself certainly, could not feel perfectly certain to be able to avoid—might convert these military measures which we are taking, and which have in themselves no character of menace, into something that might be supposed to bear that character. But that is not all. It is not merely a question between the Russian Government and ourselves. There is a third party interested—perhaps interested even more than ourselves—and that is our Ally, the Ameer of Afghanistan. As we have repeatedly stated, in reply to Questions, we have entered into certain engagements with the Ameer, but they are engagements which are made on certain conditions. At this very moment the Ameer of Afghanistan is in communication and consultation with the Viceroy of India. And one of the subjects of those communications is a strict definition and a full understanding of those conditions upon which our support depends. Instructions—full instructions—have been given to Lord Dufferin in this matter. We know that those instructions are, in the opinion of Lord Dufferin, instructions which are sufficient for his guidance in the conduct of his interview with the Ameer. But it certainly would, in my opinion, be most inconvenint, most prejudicial to the interests of the Public Service, that anything in the shape of a statement as to the nature of these instructions should be made in this House, and should form the subject of discussion in this House, and should reach the ears or the knowledge of the Ameer, distorted, perhaps, by a colour which might be given to them by such a discussion. Well, under all these circumstances, it appears to me that however great the temptation might be—however anxious we are not to appear discourteous to the House—I should be altogether failing in my duty if I were to attempt to add to, or extend, the declarations which have already been made on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have already stated that as to the position of affairs on the spot we have received assurances from the Russian Government that their troops will not advance beyond the positions which they at present hold except under certain extraordinary circumstances which they define. They have also given us assurances that the most stringent orders have been issued to their officers to avoid any collision with the Afghan troops. As has also been stated, instructions have been issued to our officers to give similar advice to the officers of the Ameer of Afghanistan. The House has also been told that we have advised the Ameer not to withdraw his forces from the position which they now occupy. These are measures of a purely temporary character, and which have been adopted by the two Governments with the view, if possible, of preventing any unfortunate occurrence or any collision between the parties. They have nothing to do, as has been stated by the Prime Minister, with the negotiations that are being simultaneously conducted by the two Governments with regard to what we hope will be the permanent delimitation of the Afghan Frontier. As to that permanent delimitation, the negotiations, as was stated yesterday, are still in progress, and we have sent and we have received several communications as to points upon which, in the opinion of the Russian Government, it is necessary to have a preliminary understanding before the Commission of Delimitation meets and commences its labours. The last of these communications, as was stated yesterday, is on its way. We do not know—the Ambassador has not informed us—what are the exact contents of that communication; but he has said that from the communications which he has had with the Russian Minister he has reason to believe that it is, at all events, of a conciliatory and friendly character, and that it contains an expression of opinion on the part of the Russian Government that the speedy meeting of the Boundary Commission will be of advantage, and will tend to allay the excitement here, in Russia, and Afghanistan. We have not the means, even if it were desirable, of adding anything to the statement on this subject which was made yesterday, and I am sure that the House would not desire that we should attempt to foreshadow the nature or character of a communication which we have not yet ourselves received. I hope that in these circumstances the House will not be disposed to enter into any lengthy or detailed discussion on the subject. I would deprecate, not only such careless or hasty expressions as have been depre- cated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself, but I would deprecate, if the House would allow me to do so, any discussion on the question at all. It is not merely a careless or a hasty expression that is capable of doing harm. If explanations are asked for on the one side of this question, it is only natural and reasonable that they should be asked for on the other; and if we were to attempt—if we thought we could attempt without injury to the Public Service—to give more definite and detailed answers to Questions, such as have been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett), we should also be equally bound to give detailed and definite replies to other Questions put by hon. Members who may take a more favourable view of the character of the Russian claims. We cannot possibly give a satisfactory reply to Questions of that sort, unless it were in our power to enter into the whole case. It is not in our power at the present moment to enter fully into the whole case; and under these circumstances I am of opinion, and the Government are of opinion, that no good purpose could be served, but that, on the contrary, there would be very great risk of mischief being unintentionally done if we were to attempt in any degree to extend the declarations which have been made to the House on this subject.

said, that he had no desire to run counter to the recommendation given to the House by the noble Lord in regard to the very critical and delicate negotiations to which the noble Lord had adverted, and in the few remarks he was about to make to the House he should avoid in any way trespassing upon delicate ground; but he thought there was one matter of scarcely less importance than the negotiations to which the noble Lord referred which the House would do well to consider for a moment. He wished to refer to the state of our relations with other countries than Russia. As to the state of our relations with Russia he would not then say a word; but during the last few days the House was aware that numerous Questions had been asked and statements had appeared in the ordinary channels of information respecting our relations with the Turkish Empire. A Question had been put to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of a plain and specific nature, which had simply invited an affirmative or negative reply, with respect to a report, certainly of a very extraordinary character, which had been going the rounds of the journals in this country and on the Continent of Europe—namely, a Question asked by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) with reference to menaces alleged to have been addressed by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Representative of the Ottoman Empire in this country. What was the answer of the noble Lord?

The Question was only given Notice of yesterday, and I stated in reply to it that I could not answer at a few hears' Notice.

observed that, full Notice having been given of the hon. Member's intention to ask the Question, the noble Lord had the opportunity, of which he doubtless availed himself, or, at all events, should have availed himself, of communicating with the Foreign Secretary. But the noble Lord had come down to the House and in the face of the whole of Europe declined to give the emphatic negative which the country at large expected to be given to this extraordinary report. Every rational person would no doubt put on the answer of the noble Lord the construction that there was a great deal of substantial truth in the suggestions contained in the Question. With regard to a most important point of our relations with the Russian Empire, he thought that this country at large was not disposed to feel any undue alarm at the possibility of having to face serious complications abroad, though, of course, there was a natural desire for the maintenance of peace. But under what circumstances were they now to surrender, on the eve of the adjournment, their opportunities of ascertaining what was passing with regard to our foreign relations during the Easter Recess? What assurances had they that Her Majesty's Government were using their utmost exertions towards establishing and maintaining friendly relations with the other Powers of Europe? Of course, he did not wish to bind the Government to any indiscreet, mischievous, and un states man like utterances which might have been let drop by any of them under circumstances of greater freedom and less responsibility. Nor did he wish to revive in the public mind memories which they would all gladly obliterate from their recollection. They could not, however, forget that five years ago this country was on terms of complete amity and accord with the Central Powers of Europe, with the Empires of Germany and Austria, as well as Turkey. They could not forget that at that time for partizan purposes grave and serious injury had been inflicted on our national interests, and our relations with those two Empires had become seriously strained instead of being friendly. In the case of one of those Empires an apology—not, perhaps, unduly endowed with dignity—for the moment, at any rate, allayed some of the most pernicious consequences which might have arisen from those very unstatesmanlike utterances. But what had been the case with regard to the Turkish Empire? They had never heard of any apology, abject or otherwise, offered for the expressions freely used with regard to one of the most ancient Allies of Her Majesty's Government. They had never heard withdrawn expressions which could not have failed to cause the most acute dissatisfaction in the ruling circles of the Turkish Empire. If they had felt that even at the present moment, guided by the light of painful experience, Her Majesty's Government had turned over a new leaf, and were prepared to cultivate those old cordial and friendly relations which had for many generations subsisted between the British and the Turkish Governments, he would be the last to raise the question now. But they had it deliberately on record that the Representative of the Foreign Office had declined to give a plain answer to a simple and plain question as to whether the most discourteous, most illegal, and absolutely indefensible menaces had been uttered to the Representative of a friendly Power. They were aware that certain Members, at any rate, in Her Majesty's Councils were of opinion that the Sultan would do well to clear out of some of the most fertile Provinces over which he ruled. It would be well, however, that when Her Majesty's Government were dealing with foreign affairs of the utmost gravity they should make it clear that those utterances of former times, followed as they had been by most unfriendly and gratuitous acts, would no longer hamper their diplomatic action, or stand in the way of the restoration and maintenance of cordial and friendly relations with the Ottoman Empire. The noble Lord would perhaps Bay that the Turkish Government had been treated with courtesy throughout these negotiations; but they knew that the lawful Sovereign of Egypt had been treated with scant courtesy in respect to that portion of his Dominions, which constituted an integral portion of the Ottoman Empire, and that the opinions of the Sultan and his Advisers had been treated with uniform contempt throughout the arrangements with regard to Egypt. He would like the Government to assure the House that they would make a serious endeavour to cultivate friendly relations with the Sultan of Turkey, and also with the Rulers of the German and Austrian Empires—that they had, in fact, at last returned to the old national policy of this country, and had abandoned once for all those unstates-manlike and mischievous lines to which he had referred. At the present time, when the public mind was not unnaturally exercised on the subject of our foreign relations, it would be desirable that some emphatic contradiction should be given to such mischievous reports as those to which their attention had been called, and that the Government should give some assurances as to the line which they would adopt.

remarked that they had been told by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War that preliminary negotiations were going on with regard to the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier. But they had been told that many months ago; they had been led to believe that before Sir Peter Lumsden had left this country these preliminary negotiations had been ended, and that definite instructions had been given to him and agreed to by the Russian Government. He thought that some indication should now be given as to how it was that there were still preliminary negotiations going on when they had been led to believe that these had been settled last summer. There was every reason for impatience on the subject, because of the delay which had taken place. What the country wished to know was that the Government in- tended to be firm on this occasion and not give way at all. It was not a question of a compromise of any kind; they knew that much of this territory in which Russia was at the present time had always been recognized by every successive Viceroy of India, by every Ameer of Afghanistan, as well as by Her Majesty's Government, as Afghan territory. Why, then, was there any necessity for any compromise? If the Government were firm, there was much more likely to be peace; if Russia once saw that there was any chance of compromise, or that we were falling back from what we had said in previous negotiations, there was much more likely to be war. They ought also to consider the effect which a policy of retrogression might have in Afghanistan. Everyone on both sides of the House had a firm confidence in the wisdom and tact of Lord Dufferin. He believed that next to Lord Mayo he would prove the best Viceroy India had ever had, and they were quite prepared to leave matters in his hands if Her Majesty's Government were not going to trammel him with telegrams from Downing Street. The noble Lord had said that full instructions had been sent to the Viceroy; but they did not want full instructions sent out to him. The duty of Her Majesty's Government was to impress both on the Viceroy and the Ameer the enormous importance of this question, and their determination at all hazards to keep the Ameer thoroughly on our side. If there was any flinching we would lose the friendship of the Ameer, and they knew very well in whose hands he would speedily be found. It was not a question as to whether Russia should possess herself of a village, or a particular hill, but what the effect of such annexation would be on the Afghans. He, therefore, hoped the Government would maintain a bold, clear, and consistent policy with regard to Russia in Afghanistan.

said, that before the House adjourned for the Easter Recess he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words with regard to the troops in the Soudan. It appeared, from what was stated yesterday by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, that the Force lately under Lord Wolseley on the Upper Nile, weakened and worn out by privation and hardship, would be forced to wait from now to September, enduring the scorching heat of the Desert as best it might. Every one knew that enforced idleness in an unhealthy climate, after a very hard campaign, was fatal to British troops; and it would be peculiarly fatal to our troops on the Nile, enfeebled as they were by bad food, bad water, and bad air—without boots, without clothing, and without shelter, and, worse than all, depressed by the failure of all their hopes—a failure for which, not they, but Her Majesty's Government, were solely and directly responsible. According to the Medical Authorities, we must expect 40 per cent of the Force on the Nile to be invalided during the hot season, and the rest would be quite unfit for hard work in the autumn. The other Force at Suakin was for the most part composed of young soldiers, many of whom had never been out of England before. The hard work, made so much harder by the loss of many hundreds of camels, was beginning to tell upon them. A correspondent said, on Saturday last—"The troops are much overworked, and many of them are tired out." Sickness and sunstroke had already made their appearance among them, and this was only the end of March. What would be their condition at the end of May? What they wanted to know, and what they had a right to know before the House adjourned, was this—what was the object of all these sacrifices? What had we gained, and what were we likely to gain, by them? The one main object of the Nile Relief Expedition had passed away for ever. The last hope of the rescue of General Gordon passed away while the Prime Minister was arguing as to whether Gordon was surrounded, or only hemmed in. We had, indeed, gained one thing; we had gained the undying hatred of the Soudanese, whose women and children were fighting against us with the same savage ferocity as the men; but, apart from that, every life and every sixpence had been simply thrown away—thrown away as absolutely as the stores tossed into the Nile at Jubat. And now, in order that the Government might gain a character for consistency, and turn the attention of the country from their failure on the Nile, they had committed us to a war of extermination on the shores of the Red Sea. Thousands of Arabs and hundreds of British lives were to be sacrificed under the pretence of opening up the road to Berber—the very same road that was opened last year by General Graham after two bloody battles, and then deliberately abandoned again by the Government to Osman Digna. Another 10,000 or 12,000 Arabs were now again to be slaughtered on exactly the same pretext. This was a monstrous state of things; and it seemed that the oceans of blood shed by the Prime Minister had made him callous. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, who did not desert Gordon, or betray the Egyptian garrisons, had no quarrel with those poor Arabs who had thrown away their lives with such devoted heroism; and a heavy responsibility rested on them if they sat still and connived at the insane and murderous policy of the Government. Khartoum and the Mahdi were out of the question till next autumn. Whatever the Government might say, they knew perfectly well that a railway to Berber was beyond the range of human possibility within the next two years; and while they were squandering blood and treasure in the Soudan, they were throwing away this country's interests in Egypt in the House of Commons—throwing them away to fatten English Jews and foreign bondholders. While our armies were locked up in the Soudan, decimated by fever, or wasted in fruitless fighting, Russia was advancing. The Prime Minister had all along been playing Russia's game. By sending out the Brigade of Guards to Suakin, the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to expose the apparent military weakness of England—thank Heaven it was only apparent!—and encourage Russia to take advantage of our supposed un-readiness for war. The life of every British officer and soldier wasted in the African Desert was so much gain to Russia. Our national interests and our honour pointed the same way. The danger to the Empire was not at Khartoum or at Suakin, but on the borders of Afghanistan. We ought to concentrate our resources in the defence of our Indian Empire against Russian aggression, instead of wasting our strength in a war without an object, which was a disgrace to civilization, and unworthy of the English nation.

said, he rose to call attention to the question of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal. They had been promised a Bill on the subject, and they had been disappointed, although the House had admitted that such a tribunal was necessary in the interests of justice, and for the redemption from slavery and suffering of a number of persons who, although found guilty, were innocent. As so large a proportion of death sentences were commuted to penal servitude for life, it was fair to infer that there was a doubt in the cases, and yet not sufficient doubt to justify the Secretary of State in setting the prisoners at liberty. If a Court of Appeal existed, some of the prisoners would have the opportunity of proving their innocence if they could. In the cases in which death sentences were commuted to penal servitude for less than life, there must have been even more doubt than in the other cases. In 194 cases of death sentences commuted to penal servitude for life, and 15 cases of commutation for fixed terms, there was the strongest evidence of doubt, calling for further investigation. The fear that if the Court existed there would be an inordinate number of appeals was met by the fact that, out of 572,000 convictions by magistrates in a year, there were only 151 appeals; and as in these cases appeal was now much easier and less costly than it would be in the proposed Court of Appeal, it might be inferred that similarly the sense of guilt in heavier cases would operate to keep down the number of useless appeals. A number of cases had occurred in which men sentenced to penal servitude had afterwards established their innocence. He would mention the case of Galley, of the two farmers, and of a man who was wrongfully convicted twice. Casualties of this kind were more frequent than was supposed. He could give many, with names and result, did time permit. There wore two men wrongfully convicted in what was called the Dudd's Hillcase, who owed their vindication to the accidental meeting of one of them in prison with a prisoner, who confessed that he and another man committed the crime of which the innocent men had been convicted, yet the evidence seemed so clear at the time that the Judge expressed surprise that they should protest their innocence in the face of it. There was the Durham murder case, in which two men were wrongfully convicted. There was also the Penge murder case, where four persons were sentenced to death; one was pardoned immediately as innocent, and the others suffered imprisonment, and one of them, Patrick Staunton, died in prison of consumption. He maintained that all such cases demonstrated that there were so many cases in which the Home Secretary had interfered that there was every necessity for a Court of Appeal. It was his duty to trouble the Home Office in many cases, for all of which he did not answer; but, without answering for them, he could safely say that many of them did call for inquiry. Without wishing to trespass unduly upon the time of the House, he might say the refusal of the demand for this Court rendered it necessary, in cases like those of Penge and Spennymoor, that the House of Commons should be made more and more a Court of Appeal; and this in it self was one of the strongest reasons why the Government should take the matter up. Either the men were innocent, or there were circumstances of such doubt in the case as to show the necessity for a Court of that kind.

If my hon. and learned Friend had confined himself to the first quarter of an hour of his speech I should have been able entirely to agree with him. But the last half-hour of his speech, in which he entered into particular cases, was, I think, unfortunate. So far as he thinks that a Court of Criminal Appeal should be created I altogether agree with him. No one could be more happy to be relieved of the responsibility which falls upon a Secretary of State of considering cases which have been decided by a Judge and jury than I should be. No doubt the Court is anxious to be just, and the intention of those who administer the Criminal Law is upright; but, fallible as human judgment is, cases must occur in which there may be a failure of justice, and any means of redressing such possible errors I should be most happy to promote. My hon. and learned Friend is in this matter really persuading those who are already convinced. But when he goes into an elaborate discussion of particular criminal cases, expresses a decided opinion upon them, and affirms that they bear out his contention, then I must say that I entirely dissent from my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend has a most humane disposition, and I am willing to admit that there are some cases in which there is a miscarriage of justice; but I do not believe that the great majority of criminal convictions are unfounded. Now, what possible good can come from recalling the Staunton case? My hon. and learned Friend has, to my knowledge, put that case most incompletely and inaccurately. It is one which has exercised the minds of judicial men. It has been before successive Secretaries of State, Law Officers, and Lord Chancellors; and my hon. and learned Friend, I venture to say, stands alone in his opinion with regard to it. There is no Court of Criminal Appeal which could come to the conclusion at which my hon. and learned Friend has arrived. And how can an ex parte statement like that which my hon. and learned Friend has made be of any service in the vindication of justice? There was no man in the House who had notice of his intention to bring the case forward, so that he might refresh his mind as to the facts. While regretting the course which my hon. and learned Friend has taken with regard to this particular case, I will repeat what I have already said, that on the general question I entirely agree with him. I am happy to think that in this country crime of a serious character is rapidly decreasing. That is one of the most satisfactory features of' the time. The sentences of penal servitude are less than one-half what they used to be some 20 or 25 years ago, and this, in itself, is satisfactory. There is, I think, a disposition on the part of those who administer the Criminal Law to mitigate its severity. I believe that the time has arrived when it may be more considerably done—when the sentences may be less severe and less protracted, with equal security to life and property in this country. I have never failed to express that opinion, and upon proper occasions I always like to act upon it. My hon. and learned Friend has re- ferred to many cases in which men wore condemned to death and the sentences afterwards commuted, and has rather illogically concluded either that the men deserved to die, or that they ought to be released as innocent. That is not so. A doubt may have arisen; and in no case of doubt will a Secretary of State allow the sentence of death to be executed. That is all I need say on the subject which my hon. and learned Friend brought before the House; but there are one or two questions to which I would refer before sitting down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) made an attack upon my noble Friend on the subject of Turkey, and demanded whether or not we were eager to cultivate friendly relations with Turkey, and with Austria and Germany. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, I can inform him that we are ex-tromely desirous of cultivating friendly relations with Turkey; but I do not think that to rip up what occurred on former occasions would be likely to conduce to that object. Therefore, I must respectfully decline to enter further into those matters. And with regard to Germany and Austria, who can doubt that the Government of England desires to cultivate the most friendly relations with those Powers? Then there was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk (Colonel Dawnay), who uttered a great denunciation of the war proceeding in the Soudan, and spoke of the horrors attending it. I regret the continuance of that war as much as he does; but I do not exactly know the conclusion at which the hon. and gallant Member wished to arrive. Was his speech preliminary to a Motion to with-draw the British Forces from the Soudan? As far as I could understand his speech, it had no other moral, and no other conclusion could be drawn from it, than that we should retire at once from the Soudan. If these are the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is rather singular that they have not been expressed in a more definite form. I should like to have asked the hon. and gallant Member, if he had been present, whether he voted the other night with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) upon his Amendment on the Vote of Censure, for it was a speech for the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle; but if he recorded his vote against the hon. Member for Newcastle I do not understand his speech. Then the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), in regard to the Afghan difficulty, would reject anything like compromise, for he said that the boundaries of Afghanistan were very well known, and he urged us to stand up for them. But I understand that a Commission has been appointed for the delimitation of the boundaries of Afghanistan; and therefore I do not know that the boundaries are so perfectly well-defined and understood as the hon. Member supposes. If such were the case, for what purpose was it that Envoys were sent from England on the one side, and from Russia on the other, to define the boundaries which, according to the hon. Member, have been already established?

observed, that the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) for having brought the important question of criminal appeal under their consideration. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had long devoted his attention to this subject, and he was greatly disappointed at what had happened in respect of it two years ago. At the beginning of the Session of 1882 a measure for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal was announced in the Speech from the Throne; and the Attorney General introduced a Bill embodying its provisions, which underwent an elaborate discussion extending over three months in Grand Committee. Yet the Bill was allowed to drop, after all the labour and pains devoted to it, and from that time to the present day they had heard nothing more on the subject. It was a monstrous anomaly that in this 19th century the Home Secretary should stand up and say that he was in favour of criminal appeal, and yet not have the courage to utilize the services of the Law Officers to push forward a measure dealing with the subject. What was the use of the right hon. Gentleman holding high Office and having a powerful majority behind him if he was not able to pass a measure to protect innocence, and remedy a grave defect in the Criminal Law? He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had twice introduced Bills on this subject. In the first he limited the appeal to capital cases and sentences of penal servitude for life, and in the second he limited the appeal to capital cases only. He had been unable to carry either of these Bills, and he had refrained from pressing them more energetically, relying on the promise of the Attorney General in 1882 that Her Majesty's Government fully intended immediate legislation on the subject. He was at a loss to understand the policy of the Government on this question. It could not be said that legislation was not required, for many cases—he might instance those of Perryman and Nicholson among the more recent—had arisen from time to time showing that an appeal would rescue innocent persons from punishment to which they were unjustly condemned. Nobody could defend the absurdity that a man whose innocence was established beyond all doubt should have to go to the Home Secretary and appeal to the Prerogative of mercy for pardon for a crime he had never committed. He considered that it was a disgrace to the Government, with its powerful majority, that it had not long since remedied what was universally admitted to be a most serious defect in the Criminal Law of England.

I should like, with the permission of the House, to make one or two remarks with reference to the war in the Soudan, as the subject is one which deeply interests the country. There is a very strong feeling that this miserable and bloody war ought to be put an end to; and, if I am not mistaken, this feeling will, within a very short time, find loud expression throughout the land. Whatever Members of the Government may say on the subject, it must be admitted that the object of the Soudan Expedition has entirely changed. It was originally of a humane character, and secured a considerable amount of support, so long as its purpose was confined to the rescue of that brave man, General Gordon. But it is vain to deny that since the death of Gordon the object of the Expedition has entirely changed. It is now either a war of vengeance, or it is a war of conquest. It is impossible for anyone to conceive what its object can be, unless we put one or other of those interpretations upon it. I feel most strongly that the action we are taking against the Soudanese is in entire contradiction to all the assurances and pledges that have been given by the Government to this House since the beginning of the Egyptian Campaign. We are all familiar with the declaration that the Soudan was to be left to its own inhabitants, who were a brave people and entitled to be free. Yet this country is now engaged in the odious task of making war against a people who are struggling for their freedom. As this is the only opportunity I have had of raising my voice upon the subject, I feel it my duty to protest against the continuance of this utterly fruitless and barren war. I defy anyone to give a reasonable explanation of the Expedition in which the country is engaged. We can all see with perfect plainness that the attempt to subdue the Arabs can only lead to great loss of life to them and to ourselves; and the time is now fast approaching when, owing to the climate, Englishmen can scarcely live in the Soudan. The Expedition to Suakin stands entirely condemned on every ground; and I do not believe any Member of the Government will now venture to say that he considers it possible to make the railway to Berber, at any rate not without great sacrifices. What I would ask the Government to do on this occasion is to consider whether it is not possible, at a very early date, to withdraw the Suakin Expedition altogether? Soon the climate will oblige you to withdraw; and what is the use of going on fighting battle after battle—shedding blood and making yourselves detested by the people, when the excessive heat will soon compel us to quit the country? It has been said that it is necessary to show our superiority over the Arabs; but we have substantially done that already in the battles that have taken place. According to the news to-day the enemy is not likely to make a stand again, and to go on following them up for the next few months would be a senseless proceeding, and would be attended with heavy losses on our side. I hope the Government will reconsider the whole situation, and will give orders for the withdrawal of the troops at an early date altogether from Suakin; and I would go further, and say that the same reasons which apply to withdrawal from Suakin apply with equal force to the withdrawal of General Wolseley's Army from its present advanced position. We made a mistake in declaring that it was our intention to go to Khartoum; it is still worse persevering in the error. The task is all but impossible, and would involve sacrifices far greater than those which the country has hitherto made. It is better to admit that we have done wrong than to persevere in a mistake; and I would therefore press upon the Government to consider whether it would not now be the wisest course to withdraw the Army of General Wolseley to the proper frontier of Egypt. We may be told that that, under present circumstances, is an impossibility; but I greatly doubt whether it is. We see in the papers to-day that General Wolseley is expected to be at Cairo on the 13th of April, so that he must be able to make the journey in 14 days. If that be so, I do not see how there can be any physical impossibility in withdrawing the Army also; and that would save the shocking loss of life that must take place if an Army remains in those unhealthy regions during the summer. But it is said that it is necessary to smash the Mahdi, because otherwise there will be danger of an attack by his forces upon Egypt Proper. If the Mahdi chooses to come to Egypt we should have the support of the nation in resisting him, because as long as we are in Egypt everyone will admit that it is our duty to defend the country. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether we shall ever see the Mahdi in Egypt at all. Many things may happen that we cannot at present even conjecture before an invasion of Egypt by the Mahdi could take place. Why, then, should we go on with this miserable, wretched war, in order to provide against a contingency which may never arise? We are certainly indulging in accusations against the French on account of their wars of ambition, and everyone condemns the war now being carried on by them in China; but our war in the Soudan is not one degree less defensible. It is a more useless contest than any in which France is engaged in any part of the world. It may be thought by some that the safety of General Wolseley's Army requires the continuance of the operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin, and for a considerable time many of us were influenced by that belief. But, as far as I am able to judge, I cannot see that there is any practical connection between the two positions, which are divided by a vast expanse of desert 600 miles in extent. I speak with no desire to throw any difficulty in the way of the Government. No one recognizes more than I do the enormous difficulties they have to cope with all over the world; but I am urging that which I believe to be strongly in their own interests and in the interests of the country. They have not yet, perhaps, sufficiently felt the pressure of public opinion out-of-doors upon this question; and I wish on this occasion to give expression to a very widespread feeling, which I am sure will in the course of the summer grow into a most formidable agitation if it is not met by concession on the part of the Government.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to certain facts connected with the case of Mr. John Boyle O'Reilly, of Boston, who 19 years ago was convicted of treason in Dublin, and sentenced to penal servitude for 20 years. At that time Mr. O'Reilly had hardly, he might say, reached the years of manhood. The time of Mr. O'Reilly's trial was a time of great suffering and political excitement, and of many political trials in Ireland; and he was one of a large number of Irishmen who were tried upon a similar charge and sentenced to like terms of penal servitude. Those who were sentenced then might be divided into two classes—those who were civilians, and those who were members of the British Army. Not only had every civilian sentenced at that time been released, but also those who, like Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, were members of the British Army had since been set at liberty. In the case of some of the civilians, their release from penal servitude was accompanied by the condition that they should exile themselves from the Queen's Dominions; and he would be curious to hear the Home Secretary say whether the Government now thought the course pursued, in compelling the civilian prisoners whom they released to leave the Queen's Dominions and place themselves in permanent exile, had been a course, which, decided by the result of time, was either a wise or expedient one? It was very curious that the members of the British Army who 20 years ago were tried for treason, convicted, and sentenced, were released many years since without the condition of exile being attached to their release. Some of them returned to their native country. One of them, Sergeant M'Carthy, died there, and one at least he knew was now living in Ireland. Whatever else might be alleged, it could not be said that there was any moral distinction between the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly and those members of the British Army tried, convicted, and sentenced to the same time. There was, however, one point of difference. When Mr. Boyle O'Reilly had endured some part of his sentence of penal servitude, he escaped from the penal settlement in Australia. His escape was accomplished under circumstances of daring which attracted very general sympathy. [Laughter.]The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) smiled; but he (Mr. Sexton) thought if the right hon. Gentleman was placed in a similar situation he would try to escape himself. Mr. O'Reilly made his way to the Coast of Australia with the help of some devoted friends; he put out to sea in an open boat, floated alone upon the surface of the ocean for three days and three nights, then had the good fortune to be taken on board an American ship, and under the shelter of the American flag he made good his escape to the United States. With regard to the smile of the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Sexton) asked whether it was not a universal principle that a man suffering a sentence of penal servitude would make an effort to escape? If by any conceivable turn of fortune the Home Secretary came to suffer penal servitude himself, would he not make an attempt to escape? He (the Home Secretary) might have shown as much ingenuity as Mr. Boyle O'Reilly; but it was doubtful whether he would have shown as much courage.

I should have been shot by the sentries.

If Mr. Boyle O'Reilly was shot they would not have been considering his case. The point was that his guilt was not increased by his effort to escape. Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, whom he had the pleasure to meet lately at Boston, was a gentleman of very high personal qualities, and of the rarest intellectual gifts; and during the years of his residence in America he had made such good use of his powers that he now filled the position of co-proprietor with the Archbishop of Boston and some other prelates of the most important journals in the United States. Mr. O'Reilly was one of the most influential men in the State of Massachusetts and one of the most honoured citizens in the United States, and might long ago have occupied a seat in Congress if he could have spared from his literary labours and the duties of journalism the time to devote himself to public life in that capacity. He (Mr. Sexton) might go so far as to say that one of the English gentlemen who met him lately in Boston, who lately occupied the position of Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of that House (Sir Lyon Playfair), was so impressed with the personal qualities and gifts of Mr. O'Reilly that he was one of the gentlemen who pressed upon the British Government the propriety and the duty of extending to Mr. Boyle O'Reilly the terms freely given to the men convicted under similar conditions. In December last the Irish residents of the City of Ottawa, intending to hold a celebration on St. Patrick's Day, invited Mr. Boyle O'Reilly to join them. The celebration of St. Patrick's Day was held in so much respect that it was the custom for the Parliament of the Dominion to adjourn on St. Patrick's Day, so as to allow the Members of Parliament of Irish birth or sympathy to attend the celebration. Mr. O'Reilly replied to the invitation that did not feel himself at liberty to accept it, in consequence of the uncertainty which he felt of what the action of the British Government might be towards him. He put himself into communication with the American Secretary on the matter; and such was the sense entertained by the American Secretary of the position of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly that he put himself into communication with the American Minister in London, who had an interview with Lord Granville, and, on the part of his Government, put the matter before the Queen's Minister in due form. At this stage the matter dropped for some time, and he (Mr. Sexton) received a letter from Mr. O'Reilly informing him what had been done and asking his advice. He (Mr. Sexton) conceived that the case was one in which the Government would have no hesitation in granting the request. The interest of the Government so clearly lay in wiping out any violent or vindictive memories of the time of Mr. O'Reilly's trial, that he had no doubt that the case was one in which there was no necessity for diplomatic circumlocution; and he advised Mr. O'Reilly to address himself directly to the Home Secretary if the application to the American Minister did not immediately result in a satisfactory decision. The interview of the American Minister with Lord Granville took place on January 9, and on the 29th Lord Granville's decision was communicated to those concerned. Lord Granville wrote—"Your request is one that cannot safely be granted." Mr. O'Reilly was a public politician in America who freely and frankly expressed in the Press and on the platform his opinions on the Irish political question, and on any other question that came within the range of his duty, and his public position alone would surely be a sufficient security for his conduct. The first error the Government committed in the matter was that, through vindictiveness against a man because he happened, nearly 20 years ago, to escape from their custody, they had refused a request made in true diplomatic form by the Minister of a great Government with which they claimed to be on friendly terms. He was bound to describe that as a gross diplomatic error. Mr. Lowell, the American Minister, in his letter to the American Secretary, said—

"The British Government do not feel justified in allowing Mr. O'Reilly to visit British Dominions.

Whereas the Foreign Secretary appeared to believe that the safety of the Realm was concerned with the question of whether Mr. O'Reilly went to Canada, the American Minister appeared to think that Lord Granville thought there was some moral objection. What was the language of the Home Secretary himself? He wrote on the 29th of January to Mr. Boyle O'Reilly's application, saying that he had already re- ceived a like application from the American Minister, and had replied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he could not accede to his request. Here it was not a question of the safety of the Realm or of moral justification, but merely the word of the right hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, what was happening in America in the interval between Mr. O'Reilly's application and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? The Irish residents of Montreal gave an invitation to Mr. O'Reilly to visit them, and Mr. O'Reilly replied that he would be unable to go in consequence of the action of the British Government. Thereupon, the Irish residents sent a deputation to the Government of Canada at Ottawa; and upon their return made a public report to Sir Alexander Campbell, the Minister of Justice, and Sir John Macdonald, the Premier, and they saw no reason why Mr. O'Reilly should not visit Canada. Did the right hon. Gentleman know more about Canada than its Premier and its Minister of Justice? One Government decided in one way and the other in a different way. Which decision was right? A Constitutional question of the gravest import was involved. If a Canadian Government allowed a man to visit the Dominion, did the Home Secretary mean to say that the Home Government could interfere? Then, again, the Prerogative of the Crown in. England was the Prerogative of mercy The Crown sometimes interfered for the purpose of releasing a man; but it was new to him (Mr. Sexton) that the Crown should interfere to imprison a man whom the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had determined not to molest.

I have never heard anything at all from Canada on the subject.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman betrayed an indifferent knowledge of the Correspondence of his own Department. Here was a letter signed "Godfrey Lushington," and dated the 29th January, which said that the Home Secretary had received an application, but could not accede to the request.

I could not give him leave to go to Canada.

But the right hon. Gentleman has assumed to himself the right to refuse leave. His (Mr. Sexton's) object was not to appeal on behalf of Mr. O'Reilly, who would probably never repeat his request—indeed, it was doubtful if he would now accept the permission if it were offered to him. He (Mr. Sexton) wished to protest against the course which the Home Secretary had pursued, and to point out to the Government that they wore exposing themselves to ridicule and contempt throughout America. They were worse than the Bourbons, for they learned nothing, forgot nothing, and forgave nothing. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman for his decision on the Constitutional question.

said, this case was extremely simple. The hon. Member seemed to think that Mr. O'Reilly, of whom he (Sir William Harcourt) had never heard before his case was brought before him, had been dealt with in some exceptional way. This was not so. O'Reilly had come before him as a man who had escaped from prison—who had, in fact, committed the offence known as prison breach. That was a new offence altogether from that for which he was primarily convicted. If a man had been lucky enough to make good his escape from prison in his own country, he surely could not expect to come back again rejoicing. It was not because O'Reilly was an Irishman that he had been thus treated; but the case was judged upon the bare ground of prison discipline, and if an exception were made in the case of this man, and he were dealt with differently, there would be no security for prison discipline. The hon. Member had said he (Sir William Harcourt) had interfered with the Government of Canada. What he had said was that, as far as he was concerned, he could give no leave to this man to go to Canada; and he assured the hon. Member that his decision was based upon no political grounds. The man had been dealt with like an ordinary prisoner who had broken the prison bars, who was a defaulter, and could not be a subject for the mercy of the Crown. In his answer to O'Reilly, he had spoken for himself alone, and had not attempted to interfere with the Government of Canada. O'Reilly might be a very much respected and distinguished person; but that would not prevent him from being dealt with, in regard to his offence, as any other prisoner.

Is the discretion of the Canadian Government final as regards Canada?

said, he supposed the Canadian Government would regard the man as a man under an unremitted sentence; and the question of how they should deal with him was, he imagined, for them to consider.

said, that in politics there was nothing so good in the long run as a forgiving temper; but the Home Secretary, after an interval of 20 years since the conviction of Mr. O'Reilly, could only speak of that gentleman's case in so far as it concerned "prison discipline." The hon. and learned Member for Stockport, in bringing forward his plea for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal, had not supported his arguments by reference to any Irish cases, though there were many that would have served his purpose much better than those English ones of which he had availed himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone back to some very ancient cases; but he need not have looked further than a case which was only six or 12 months old—namely, that of Bryan Kilmartin. He might have pointed out as an argument for his Court of Appeal that, though this man was quite innocent of the offence with which he was charged, he was allowed by the Lord Lieutenant to remain under an atrocious and undeserved stigma. It was the treatment of Irish political prisoners which was largely responsible for the maintenance of that temper between the two races, which was such a constant cause of alarm. The Home Secretary had said that he knew nothing of Mr. O'Reilly. Well, the right hon. Gentleman was the only educated man in the House who did not know that gentleman. [Ministerial laughter.] He heard derisive cheers; but right hon. Gentlemen opposite should recollect the proviso that he had made. He had said the right hon. Gentleman was the only "educated" man. Mr. O'Reilly was one of the best known, most respected, and eminent citizens of the United States. If anything were needed to prove that statement, it would be found in the fact that he had been offered the post of Laureate. He Mr. T. P. O'Connor) complained of Mr. O'Reilly being constantly referred to as "O'Reilly." It was the tone of insolence, of arrogance, of mean and snobbish contemptuousness, which in a great measure accounted for the acrimony which unfortunately characterized Irish discussions in that House. The Home Secretary would live in history; but what would be thought of him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) if he were constantly to describe the right hon. Gentleman as "Harcourt," or as "William Harcourt," or as "the man Historicus?" Then, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on prison breach, he complained again of that style of speech. Would the Ambassador of the United States interest himself on behalf of a common burglar? This was a diplomatic question in which a great Government addressed another great Government, and the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to reduce it to the contemptible proportions of a Common Law matter was really not worthy of him. In conclusion, he said it would do no harm to any great Government to show that it could forget and forgive offences. As a Colleague of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would ask the Home Secretary to remember that but for men like John Boyle O'Reilly, Liberal Governments would not have had the glory of passing measures for the benefit of Ireland. If the application should be renewed, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have learned to have some regard for the feelings of Irishmen, and some admiration for those who had done and suffered in their country's cause. These sentiments animated all Governments and all peoples, except in the single melancholy instance of the demeanour of England towards Ireland.

said, he was one of the unfortunate and, he supposed, uneducated people who had not happened to hear of that distinguished man, Mr. O'Reilly. He desired to express his entire approval of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), and to assure the Government that there was in the country a strong feeling that our position in the Soudan was a most unfortunate and unjustifiable one. Everyone agreed that it was wrong to kill these poor unfortunate Arabs without some reason. The reports in this morning's papers to the effect that Osman Digna was retreating, and that another Mahdi had arisen, gave him a gleam of hope; and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would have the opportunity of procuring a peaceful settlement without delay. He could not understand the object of the fighting at Suakin, unless it was to prepare the way for the railway; but the railway could not be finished, at any rate, for a year or more, and how that was to enable us to carry on our campaign in the next summer, autumn, and winter he was at a loss to understand; but if we could not make the railway in time, what was the use of making it at all? If we made it we should have to maintain and guard it. We must not go away and leave it to be broken up. But why should we force ourselves on these people? General Gordon could not now be rescued, and the Slave Trade could not be abolished; and what possible object was there to fight for? As for defending Egypt, it could be much better defended on the Egyptian side of the Desert than on the other side where we now were. Another consideration which should be borne in mind was the great waste of power entailed by dividing our Forces, to have one Expedition at Suakin and another on the Nile, while at the same time war was threatening in other districts, without any really adequate object to be gained by such a division. It should also be remembered that the carrying on of a war of this kind encouraged a spirit for war in the country. It was being carried on in defiance of the principles of Christianity which they professed, and they were doing their best to destroy a people with whom they had no quarrel, and who were justified in defending their own country. Notwithstanding this, however, we continued on in this ill-defined course, and in keeping a vast number of our men in a dangerous position and in a miserable climate without, so far as he could make out, any object whatever. They could not go on as they were now doing, and they must give up a position which was inconsistent and not to be justified. This feeling was growing among all classes of Her Ma- jesty's subjects. Even the Opposition, which originally urged the Government to undertake these military operations, were now becoming disgusted. He appealed to the Government not to imagine that this was the idea of a few sentimental people; it was a widespread feeling of a vast number of their supporters throughout the country, and among classes of people whose opinion was well worth attending to. He implored the Government to lose no opportunity of getting themselves out of this situation, for which he admitted they were not wholly responsible. A great part of the difficulties of the Government had been inherited from their Predecessors; but he protested against any further needless slaughter of the people in the Soudan.

protested that it was incorrect to say that the Opposition had urged the Government to this war. They had urged the Government to relieve the garrisons in the Soudan, and that steps should be taken to succour General Gordon at a time when it could have been done with a small effort; they protested against the withdrawal of General Graham's Force when he could have opened the Berber road, and the war, which had since assumed such sanguinary proportions, could have been nipped in the bud. But to say that the Opposition were responsible because the Government, by their delay, vacillation, and cowardice, had given up all their opportunities, and now found themselves confronted by worse difficulties even than war and bloodshed, was most unjust and inconsistent. He had no doubt that the hon. Member (Mr. W. Fowler) had supported the Government on many occasions in each one of their blunders, and now he turned round and threw it in their teeth. There was, however, one phrase in the speech of the hon. Member with which he concurred—the undefined purpose of this slaughter. So far as the slaughter was purposeless and undefined, he joined in the hon. Member's condemnation of it. If General Graham's Expedition were to relieve Kassala and its thousands of people, or to put down the Slave Trade, he would say that it was a worthy object to attain; but the present policy of the Government, as explained to the House, was undefined, and until Parliament was told what the objects of the Government were, hon. Members had a right to denounce the slaughter now going on in the Soudan as most wanton and indefensible. In regard to the Afghan boundary question, he felt that the appeal of the noble Marquess that there should be no debate on our relations with Russia came with great force from him. He felt that his plea for silence was not a mere pretext, such as the House was accustomed to hear from Ministers, but that there must be some reason for it. The noble Lord, however, contrasted the bearing of the Front Opposition Bench by implication with that of hon. Members on the Opposition side, and had mentioned his name and the character of the Questions he had addressed to the Government. The Question referred to was simply a request for information, as to whether important positions in Afghanistan which had been occupied by the Russian Forces were or were not deemed by the Government to be part of Afghanistan? He had practically asked the same Question throughout. He ventured to say that there was a great misconception on the part of the Government and of hon. Members in the House with regard to the effect produced in Russia by debates in the House. The Government treated Russia as if it was a country like Franco or the United States, in which every statement made in Parliament was at once reported and excited public feeling. The Government ought to be aware that not an item of news was published in the Russian Press without the direct interference of the Press Censor. If any aggravating or imprudent statement in Parliament was published in Russia it could only be done with the consent of the authorities, and with the object of exciting public feeling; but nothing that could be said in the British Parliament would increase the difficulties of the position. The most certain way, however, of preserving peace was to convince the Government of Russia that all parties in this country were united—[Mr. O'KELLY: No, no!]—he was speaking of Great Britain—in their determination to maintain the integrity of Afghanistan. [Mr. O'KELLY: No, no!]

I must ask the hon. Member to abstain from making these indecorous observations and exclamations.

continuing, said, that such union as he had indicated, together with a declaration of our determination to uphold our pledges to the Ameer in face of the Russian aggression, and that no weakness on the part of any British Government would be tolerated by any section of the people, would be the most effective. The debate which made these propositions perfectly clear would be the surest guarantee of peace. Another point to be considered was the effect of withdrawal on the Ameer of Afghanistan. It was of primary importance, in regard to our position as to Afghanistan and to the Ameer, that there should not be the slightest sign of shrinking on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The Ameer was quite capable of judging whether England was in earnest or not; and if he were once convinced that our Government were really firm in their resolve to resist aggression, we might fairly count upon his friendship and support; but if the unfortunate policy of 1873 were pursued in the slightest degree, we should assuredly again drive the Ameer into the arms of Russia; and such laches would be most disastrous. In connection with the recent advances of Russia in Central Asia, the abandonment of Candahar by Her Majesty's Government some years ago had had a most disastrous result, He hoped that no hon. Member would be led away on that subject by any mistaken idea as to the amount of benefit to mankind which was said to have been produced by the Russian conquests in Central Asia. We had the safety and the prosperity of the 250,000,000 of people in India to look after. The security of the greatest Possession of the British Crown—a Possession that was more necessary for the trade and wealth of this country than any other Possession of our Empire—was at stake in that matter. He had the greatest distrust of the civilizing mission of Russia in Central Asia; and if he had time for the purpose he could demonstrate that the pleas often advanced on that score were to a large extent unfounded. He regarded it, however, as most unfortunate that the House was now unable to get some more definite statement from the Government. He regretted that the House had failed to obtain more definite information from Her Majesty's Government; but recognizing, as he did, the courtesy of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, as contrasted with the behaviour of other Ministers, he refrained from raising the question further on the present occasion. The position of this country was now very serious.; They had evidence that certain demands which Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to make had either been withdrawn or had "lapsed," and that a so-called "agreement" had been made which gave us no practical security, and which left Russia at liberty to revoke the arrangement at any moment when she chose to allege that "extraordinary reasons" had arisen. The construction of the railway from the Caspian was being hurried on, and it might be finished to Sarakhs at any moment. They knew that Russia was increasing her Forces in those regions, while the unfavourable season was coming on for the sending of reinforcements on our side. He, therefore, protested against the delay that had taken place on the part of the Government in regard to accurate information both as to facts and as to policy. He believed that their weakness and procrastination were in-creasing the dangers of the situation and tending to precipitate war; and if that result should unhappily ensue—although he should deeply regret it—and his appeals and warnings should prove to be correct, he should at least believe that he had discharged his duty—[Ironical cheers]—as a humble Member of the House of Commons. Hon. Members who indulged in such cheers would remember that every warning that had been given from that side of the House as to the movements of Russia had come true; and that the action of the Conservative Party was taken in the interest and for the maintenance of our Indian Empire.

said, that he could not see the situation in the same light as the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). He failed to observe any danger in the advance of Russia, and believed it would be better for both countries and the world at large if the frontiers of England and of Russia in Asia marched together. With reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), as to the war in the Soudan, he regretted that the action of those hon. Members in that House did not correspond a little more closely with their profession. Why did not those hon. Members and their friends tell the Government that if they did not stop the horrible, cruel, and wanton bloodshed in these petty wars, they would turn them out of Office? He regarded this Government and the Prime Minister as so guilty with respect to the unfortunate Soudanese that if there was a Motion to surrender the Prime Minister to the Soudanese women he would vote for it. Some time ago a few men who, in an out-of-the-way corner in Dublin, attacked Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, were denounced as murderers and scoundrels, and held up to the execration of mankind. Other men, however, seated in a quiet room in London, armed tens of thousands of their fellow men, and sent them out to the Soudan to put to death men whom they had never seen, and with whom they had no cause of quarrel; and these men were said to be Christian Ministers and vindicators of the resources of civilization. He would ask what, from the calm point of view of morality and justice, was the difference between the conduct of the Prime Minister and that of "Skin the Goat," in Dublin, when assisting in carrying out the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish? Common sense was shocked and the conscience sickened at the professions of Christianity and civilization made in that House, as contrasted with this revolting conduct, of which it was difficult to speak in Parliamentary language.

said, he wished to draw attention to the prohibition by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of a public meeting which was to have been held on the 18th of February at Burroughtown, in Wexford. The result of that prohibition had been to increase the feeling of hatred towards the Government of the Castle. The county was a remarkably peaceful and Constitutional one, and there had been no crime or outrage of any kind committed in the district. The only reason assigned for suppressing the meeting was that the placard calling it together had been somewhat hotly worded, though, in his opinion, it was not more so than the character of the case had required. The conduct of the Government in thus in- terfering with the liberty of the people was most infamous. He wished also to complain of the manner in which the Government had treated Mr. John Boyle O'Reilly by refusing him permission to revisit Ireland. Such an act of tyranny would serve to embitter the feeling of the Irish race in America against England.

said, that meetings were prohibited on two grounds—either that the meetings would lead to a breach of the peace, or that they would lead to a fresh outbreak of outrages or intimidation. In this case there had been no apprehension of a breach of the peace; but the meeting was prohibited because it was feared the placard would lead to an outbreak of outrages.

But we never had any outrages.

The placard convening the meeting was of the most mischievous character. It denounced the payment of rent of any kind under any terms whatever; and, having regard to that fact, there was no course open to the Lord Lieutenant but to proclaim the meeting.

The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.

Of course, it is very hard to get fair play here.

said, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had entirely misled the House regarding the character of the placard referred to. There was a single reference in the placard to rent, and that reference did not amount to anything more than the opinion that had been expressed more than once by the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). It simply referred to rent in very general terms, and did not denounce the payment of rent under any circumstances whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, he would not say deliberately, but he did undoubtedly misrepresent the character of the placard. If the placard was illegal, surely they had a Crimes Act in Ireland; and why did they not prosecute those who issued it? The placard, on the contrary, was perfectly legal and perfectly justifiable; and if occasion demanded it such placards would be issued again.

said, before the Motion for Adjournment was put he would like to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether there was to be any compensation given to the five men in the Craughwell murder case, who were discharged within the last few weeks after being kept in prison for two years and a half without trial? He would like also to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would be able to give any undertaking that this system of long imprisonment without trial in Ireland would not be persisted in? If these cases were the cases of five respectable Englishmen, who were kept in gaol for two years and a half without trial on a fearful charge, and then dismissed without a shilling of compensation, and without the slightest apology, and with only a third-class ticket to their native towns, he would like to see the English Minister who would stand up in that House and defend it. This grievance had occurred not merely in the Craughwell cases, but had happened in the Ballyforan case and the cases of the Tubbercurry prisoners, and was constantly occurring. Only last week Baron Dowse felt obliged to refer to the subject of prolonged imprisonment without trial in far stronger terms than he (Mr. O'Brien) had at his command. In these cases the men were torn away from their homes, shut up in solitary cells, and subjected to all sorts of subterranean intimidation. Of course, it was impressed upon them that with a Green Street jury, whether they were innocent or guilty, the inevitable result would be that they would be sent to the gallows or penal servitude. If they were broken down by this system, a trial took place and a conviction was had, and it was another feather in the cap of Earl Spencer. If, however, the men could not be bribed or intimidated they remained in prison in solitary confinement from Assizes to Assizes, and in a large number of cases from year to year. In the Ballyforan case one man named Kennedy hung himself in his cell after an interview with Mr. George Bolton, and a man named Nolan became insane. In the Craughwell murder case five men were kept for two years and a half without trial, subject to this fearful system of torture; and then they were dismissed under the cowardly system of nolle prosequi, their health ruined, their business destroyed, and even their reputations under as dark a cloud, because the Crown, after all this punishment, would not admit their innocence, but sent them away branded with the imputation that they had simply escaped because the Government had not been able to lay their hands upon sufficient evidence to clinch the case against them. They were not even afforded an opportunity of establishing their innocence by being permitted to take their trial before a jury. Their acquittal would in that case have been rather an awkward testimony against the régime of Earl Spencer, and the blood and iron policy which he upheld. He believed that the Irish Members had a right to demand that there should be some understanding from the Government that this system should come to an end. These men, in addition to being dragged from their homes and subjected to a regular system of torture, were afterwards compelled to undergo a second system of police persecution. Mr. Fitzgerald, of Cork, after having been cruelly wronged, was, after a trial, triumphantly acquitted even by a Green Street jury, but was never since able to stir out without being dogged by detectives. Indeed, so far had this gone that when he called upon the representative of The Freeman's Journal in London to complain of the way he was followed, the detective who was watching him actually knocked at the door, forced his way upstairs, and asked Mr. Fitzgerald to come away, as he would die of cold outside. This might excite smiles from the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; but he assured them that it was a serious matter for those whose business and reputation were at stake to be followed about the world by a pair of policemen. He called upon the Solicitor General to give an undertaking that the efforts to ruin men by such a system of espionage would not be continued.

said, he wished to explain that he had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot). If the hon. Member had been under the impression that there would not be a Sitting that was not his (Lord Richard Grosvenor's) fault.

expressed his surprise that no apology had been made on the part of the Government for the acts to which his hon. Friend had drawn attention. They had heard a good deal about the endeavours of the Government to establish a just and stable Government in Egypt. No Government that had existed in Egypt had been half so unjust or tyrannical as that which now existed in Ireland. If the Government was not prepared to give these men compensation, at least they ought to have the decency to put them upon their trial in order to establish their innocence, and to show their fellow-countrymen that the charge on which they had been imprisoned was without foundation. He complained strongly of the treatment to which untried prisoners were subjected, and announced his intention of again calling attention to the case of Myles Joyce.

said, that in the Craughwell murder case five men were arraigned at the Assizes; but on the first occasion their trial was postponed for the production of a witness who was supposed to be in America. On the next occasion one man was convicted and sentenced to death, and at another trial at the next Assizes another man was found guilty and also sentenced to death. The Crown then, with what he considered an exercise of clemency, entered a nolle prosequi in the other cases, and it was to these men that it was suggested that there should be compensation given. In the Ballyforan murder case, which had also been referred to, after some delay there was a conviction upon the capital charge in one of the cases, and in the second case the jury disagreed, and the accused were allowed out upon their own recognizances to come up for trial when called upon. He thought he should not be asked to give any opinion about what occurred at the door of The Freeman's Journal office, as he knew nothing about it.

asked, whether one of the prisoners in the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was not a policeman residing out of the district altogether?

admitted that there had been a policeman concerned in the case.