asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the salary due to the late schoolmaster of Stranagomis National School, District 13, county Tyrone, has been withheld from him; what cause has been assigned for withholding it; has the late manager opposed the payment, and given any reason founded upon the rules of the Board for such opposition; is the teacher's salary for the quarter ending September 30th 1883 legally due to him; if so, will it be paid; and, if it be not paid, what remedy has the teacher?

The salary is withheld in this ease because the teacher, after his resignation, locked up the school-room, which is parochial property, and has refused to give up possession of it. He has been repeatedly warned by the Commissioners that his salary cannot be paid until he gives up possession of the room.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it is a fact that head constable Egan, of Portadown, upon the 10th instant, telegraphed to Armagh for extra police to be sent to Portadown, without consulting the resident magistrate of Portadown or the district inspector of constabulary?

It appears that in the temporary absence of the District Inspector, the head constable, who was acting for him, telegraphed for extra police assistance. He did not obtain the advice of the Resident Magistrate, though he endeavoured to do so. An unexpected disturbance had arisen in the town, and the head constable was quite justified in the course he took.

asked the Secretary of State for tie Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report that certain assessors in Scotland are acting under the belief that Crofters paying under £10 of yearly rent are occupiers of land merely, and not householders within the meaning of the Act, and consequently do not intend to enter such persons on the roll of voters; and, whether an interpretation of the statute, such as that referred to, is not erroneous?

in reply, said, this was a matter to be disposed of by the Sheriff in the Registration Court. If anyone was erroneously omitted from the assessor's list of voters, he could claim to be entered or retained upon the roll, and the Sheriff had power to put the mistake of the assessor right. In regard to the latter part of the Question, he was advised by the Lord Advocate that it was simply hypothetical, and he was, therefore, not obliged to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstance of a party of men, including several estate officials, violently driving thirty-three head of cattle, with fifteen children, many of tender age, who were tending them off a grazing near South Shawbost, in the Island of Lewes, on the 21st April 1885, into a pound constructed of stone walls 0 to 8 feet high, belonging to the tenant of Dalbeg; whether the children were so impounded for several hours, and when released by their relatives forcing the gate, found in a state of alarm and great exhaustion; and, whether any investigation was made by the Procurator Fiscal; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry now to be made?

in reply, said, he had received a telegram from the Procurator Fiscal at Stornoway in reference to this Question. It was to the effect that some Shawbost crofters last winter demolished a fence separating their grazing from a tacksman's farm, and, contrary to the tacksman's remonstrances, placed their cattle upon ground which had been in his occupancy for many years. In April last, 33 head of cattle were penfolded, but the children who were herding the cattle were not interfered with. The children followed the cattle of their own accord. At night the owner of the cattle and others forcibly released the cattle from the pen-fold. The Procurator Fiscal went onto say that the case was reported by him to the Crown Counsel, who directed that no further proceedings should be taken. The tacksman sued the crofters in the Small-Debt Court, and obtained decrees for trespass money and damage to grazing; but no complaint was ever made to the Procurator Fiscal on behalf of the children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the present unsatisfactory condition of the Fellowship of Porters of the City of London, and in particular of the facts following, viz.:— That, in spite of a new Act of Common Council passed in 1884, the expenses of the management of the body are out of all proportion to its resources; that the capital funds are being reduced owing to the relatively largo amount of the annual expenditure; that the state of the accounts has caused the greatest dissatisfaction to members of the body; that, by a recent decision in a court of Law, the bye-laws of the Society have been held to be invalid; and that the Court of Common Council have been more than once petitioned with a view to thorough reform of the Fellowship, but without avail; and, if he will consider whether some means may be taken to remedy these abuses, and a full and impartial inquiry instituted into the state of the body?

in reply, said, the matter was now receiving the attention of one of the Corporation committees, to which it had been referred on the petition of the porters themselves. No doubt, owing to the altered times and circumstances, the state of things was not what it might have been expected to be; but the Corporation had no control over the Fellowship, which, managed its own affairs. He was informed that the last two allegations in the Question were inaccurate.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the present depressed condition of Indian trade and difficulty in regard to Indian finance, he has given a Government guarantee to a third through line of Railway from the North West Provinces to Bombay, which will compete with two Government lines already in existence, and will connect with and feed a guaranteed line (the Great Indian Peninsular) which has taken the lead in resisting the cheapening of the rates for the carriage of Indian produce to the sea coast?

The Question of the hon. Gentleman contains assumptions and inferences to which I cannot reply within the limits of a Question, but which I content myself by generally traversing. The actual fact is this. The line to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is the Indian Midland Railway, of which the Secretary of State in Council has sanctioned the construction, giving the promoters a Government guarantee of 4 per cent. This course has been adopted by the Secretary of State in Council principally in consequence of the urgent and reiterated advice of the Viceroy and Government of India.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government now propose to remove the hut and police from Kilmoon, near Lisdoonvarna, county Clare; and, if he is aware that no outrages have occurred in the district for a very considerable time, and that there is no apparent necessity for the retention of this constabulary post?

It is contemplated to remove this hut in about a month's time, should the state of the locality continue peaceful.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the average value of the notes issued by the Bank of Ireland is more than a million less than that authorised by the Act of 1845; and that the average issued by the Provincial Bank is about one-quarter of a million less than is authorised by the same Act; while the average of the Belfast Banking Company is £100,000, of the Ulster Banking Company over £200,000, the Northern Banking Company about £100,000, and of the National Bank is £300,000 more than is authorised by the Act of 1845, against which these four latter Banks are required by law to keep gold in their vaults; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will take into consideration the propriety of amending the Act of 1845 so as to bring the authorised issue more into proportion with the actual issue used by the public of notes of each Irish Bank, and so as to give to the Banks which have not now authority to issue notes power to do so under proper restrictions and safeguards?

Without endorsing completely the figures of the hon. Member, I am aware that there is a considerable varia- tion in the if sues of the privileged banks in Ireland, the two tanks named by him issuing less, the others issuing more, than the unsecured circulation permitted to them by Sir Robert Peel's Act; but I am not prepared upon this fact alone to disturb the arrangement made by Sir Robert Peel, which has, on the whole, worked satisfactorily for a period of 40 years. The matter is, of course, one of very great importance and difficulty, and if the present arrangements were disturbed other questions would be raised beyond that which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any objection to retaining the names of retired Warrant Officers on the Navy List, in the same way as those of other Officers?

There would be no objection to this proposal being adopted for warrant officers retired in future; but it could not be made retrospective without a great deal of difficulty, and therefore I think it would be advisable to leave the Navy List as it is.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inform the House whether, in the Orders in Council confirming the presentments of Grand Juries for baronial guarantees under "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, lfc83," the provisions required by the 10th Clause (sub-section;3) of the Act, with respect to the inspection of the works, have been inserted; if he will state how many Tramways and light Railways are in course of construction under the Act referred to; and, if any inspections have so far been made; and, if so, whether the reports of the inspectors will be submitted to Parliament?

The Rules of the Privy Council under the Tramways Act make due provision for the inspection of the works by the County Surveyor, a copy of whose Report must be sent to the Board of Works. The Board inform me that they have not yet re ceived any such Reports, and until they do, or until they have before them the accounts which the Act requires them to be furnished with, they have no means of knowing what lines are in course of construction.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the discount of two shillings on each £10 of postage stamps, formerly enjoyed by the stamp distributors in Dublin has been discontinued; whether the discount on bill stamps, which used to be ten pence on each £1 sterling, is now only four shillings on each £10; and, if so, whether he is aware that these facts, in conjunction with the fact that the Inland Revenue Department has undertaken the sale of law stationary' at the Four Courts, Dublin, at a mere shade over cost price, constitute grievances amongst the stamp distributors upon which they have petitioned the Postmaster General; and, whether he will consider the desirability of removing or mitigating those grievances?

The noble Lord has asked me to answer this Question. The discount on postage stamps has been discontinued for some years throughout the United Kingdom, and that on bill stamps was reduced as stated from the beginning of 1878. These changes were made in pursuance of a general policy of saving for the Revenue the amount of such discounts wherever this can be done without inconvenience to the public. The sale of unstamped forms at the Four Courts was undertaken for the convenience of the public and the Legal Profession, as was explained by my Predecessor on the 5th of March last. I can hold out no hope that these arrangements will be departed from.

asked, Whether the costs, charges, and expenses of the Solicitors and Surveyors employed by the Ecclesiastical and Church Estates Commissioners, and whether charged against the Commissioners or other parties concerned in the Church Estates, are submitted for taxation to the proper officers of the Supreme Court?

in reply, said, he had received a Memorandum from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to the effect that from 1842 to 1867 the bills of costs and charges to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to solicitors were taxed by one of the Masters in Queen's Bench; but in 1867 he refused to undertake the duty, as it was not covered by the official salary. Up to 1873 they were taxed by an officer of the Court, and since that time by Mr. Bush Cooper.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not advise the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay solicitor and surveyor by salary?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, The reason why the copying clerks in the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland are paid much less for their services in writing and comparing than their brethren in the several Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and are otherwise placed in a much worse position by the non-allowance of service-pay which is granted to the copyists in the several Divisions of the High Court upon a graduated scale according to the length of service; and, will he make inquiry into the matter, and, if is satisfactorily proved their grievances do exist, will he take steps to redress them?

The copying clerks of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland are paid on a scale suggested by the Judge of that Court in 1874, under which they can earn about £100 a-year. The fees paid by the public for the copying do not quite cover the amount thus paid to the copyists. In the Supreme Court the fees, being on a higher scale, are sufficient to meet the cost of the copyists on a higher scale of remuneration. The Treasury have already suggested to the Lord Chancellor that the fees for copying in the Bankruptcy Court should be increased; and they would be prepared to concur in any order in this sense made by him under the Bankruptcy Act of 1872. It would then be possible to consider whether the pay of the copyists ought to be increased.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. Brown, the defeated candidate for county Down, which was published in The Daily News of the 14th instant, that—

"It is a fact that in the polling districts of Newry, Castlewellan, Downpatrick", Killkeel, and Rathfriland, there was a majority for Lord Arthur Hill of no less than 649 votes;"

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reply to this Question. The Rules under the Ballot Act provide that before the Returning Officer counts the votes he shall, in the presence of the candidates' agents, count the number of papers in each ballot box, and that while this is being done he shall keep the papers with their faces upwards. I think that in doing this it would be impossible to know the number of votes given in any particular polling-district for the respective candidates, but a quick-eyed agent would probably be able to form a pretty accurate opinion as to which candidate had a majority, especially if such majority were large. I may add that I have been informed by my hon. Friend the elected Member that he knows nothing of the figures given by Mr. Brown, and that he believes that his statement does not rest on any adequate foundation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would not issue some sort of Circular to prevent what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just said was easy—namely, that agents standing near a box could see whether there was a majority for or against a candidate in any district?

in reply, said, he would inquire into the matter; but the Question ought to be addressed to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.

asked whether the sharp-eyed agent referred to, who might form a guess as to which candidate had the majority, was outside or inside the booth; if the latter, whether he was not sworn to secrecy, and whether the disclosure of his guess would not be an offence under the Act?

said, the agent was authorized to be in the booth. As far as regarded the disclosure, he rather thought that the offence under the Act was the disclosure of the vote given by a particular voter.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Governor General of India communicated a despatch to the India Office on the age at which candidates for the Civil Service of India are admitted for competition in England; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, no despatch had been received from the Governor General of India exclusively confined to the subject; bat despatches dated the 1st of October, 1882, and the 12th of September, 1881, had been received at the India Office, in which this subject was incidentally touched upon. He should be very glad to lay those on the Table, together with a selection of the opinions of local officials. He could not pledge himself to lay all the opinions in their entirety upon the Table, as some were confidential. He agreed that the subject was one of much interest and importance.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state the terms of the Royal Commission on Trade Depression, and the names of the Commissioners?

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would include Ireland in the scope of the Commission, or grant a separate Commission?

I must ask the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to give me Notice of that Question. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), I have to inform him that the terms of the Royal Commission are "to inquire into the extent, nature, and probable causes of the depression now or recently existing in various branches of trade and industry." My noble Friend Lord Iddesleigh, the Chairman of the Commission, proposes to lay a Memorandum before the Commissioners at the first meeting, which u ill indicate the scope and manner of inquiry at greater length, and that Memorandum will be laid before Parliament. As to the composition of the Commission I cannot yet give a decided answer. It would not be well, I think, to state some of the names only. Some difficulties have arisen in the matter— delay winch is not duo to us; but I shall communicate the full list of names as soon as I can.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many officers and men have been invalided or sent to hospital from H.M.S. Cruiser during the last twelve months, suffering from typhoid or enteric fever; whether there is any reason to believe that the sanitary condition of that ship is unsatisfactory; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject from the Naval authorities at Malta?

in reply, said, only one case of fever had occurred. A Report had been called for and received, and it showed that, so far from there being any reason to suppose that the condition of the Cruiser was unsatisfactory, the ease was quite the reverse.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that, by the recent establishment of Assizes at Birmingham in addition to the usual Assizes at Warwick, very heavy additional expenses have fallen on the Sheriff of Warwick- shire and his officials. That the two last Assizes at Birmingham lasted together 20 days, and occasioned additional expenses to the sheriff of about £400, which have been disallowed by the Treasury. That the establishment of these new Assizes (while the Bar of the Midland and Oxford Circuits is united at Birmingham) attracts at Birmingham many additional civil causes which would otherwise have been tried in Staffordshire and Worcestershire, thereby shortening the Assizes for those counties, and lessening the claims made on the Treasury by their sheriffs in respect thereof; and, whether Her Majesty's Government cannot grant to the Sheriff of Warwickshire, in respect of the Assizes at Birmingham, similar allowances to those granted in respect to the extra gaol deliveries at Warwick in the spring and autumn?

in reply, said, no doubt additional expenses were incurred by the Sheriff of Warwickshire by the Assizes which were now held at Birmingham; but the Treasury could not take this into consideration without opening up the whole subject of allowances to Sheriffs in respect of Assizes. Upon the desirability of doing this he, at the present moment, expressed no opinion.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether extra pay will be granted to the men who have been serving on board the torpedo boats engaged in the Evolutionary Squadron?

The duties performed by the officers and men employed on board the torpedo boats during the recent cruise of the Evolutionary Squadron were undoubtedly of an arduous and trying nature, and in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty confer a strong claim to extra pay. It is, therefore, proposed to grant the same extra pay to the officers and men in question as was granted last year on the recommendation of the Duke of Edinburgh for the exercises carried out at Portland.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table the terms of reference under which the departmental inquiry into Dockyard Expenditure is to be made?

There has been a good deal of misapprehension concerning this Committee, which was appointed by my Predecessor, though I have nominated the Chairman. The terms are to inquire into direct or incidental and establishment charges at Her Majesty's Dockyards, especially as to re-classification of items, and securing the economical expenditure tinder these items; the arrangements under which Dockyard expenditure is apportioned to ships; the nature of expenditure other than that charged direct to ships in the expense accounts; the present distribution of these charges to ships, and what are termed national charges; what system of accounts can be most advantageously adopted to insure these charges being subjected to effective supervision and local financial audit; and whether the payment by the Government of India of 10 per cent on the value of supplies to the Indian troopships is sufficient. The object of the Committee is not to investigate and report generally upon Dockyard management and expenditure, but to re-classify and simplify certain details connected with the expenditure with a view of subjecting them to effective supervision and audit.

asked whether the terms of the reference would include an inquiry into the wages of the Dockyard employés?

said, no such inquiry would be made by the Committee; but it was one of the functions of the Admiralty to look into such grievances, and any Memorials properly drawn up would receive their attention.

They do not.

They will.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has official knowledge that his predecessor in office intended that the Egyptian Guaranteed Loan should be bought out by the Bank of England and by public tender; why, seeing that the premium at which the Loan now stands shows that this would have caused a saving to the Egyptians of above £200,000, this arrangement has been altered; what is the commission paid to the issuing houses; whether any arrangement has been come to assigning a portion of the issue to Messrs. Rothschild and a portion to Mr. Bleichroeder of Berlin; whether he will see that, in order to preclude any advantage being given to the issuing houses and to their friends and clients in the allotment of the Loan, care will be taken to insure that all applicants for allotments below a fixed figure receive allotments in full should the number of such applicants not exceed the total to be allotted, and that, should such applications not cover the total amount required, other applicants shall each receive an equal amount of the Loan, provided that allotments distributed in this manner cover the total amount required; and, whether he will cause a list of the applicants for allotment, the amount for which each of them applied, and the amount of the Loan which has been allotted to each of them, together with their places of abode, their places of business, if any, and their professions or occupations, to be sent to the Treasury, in order that this list may be submitted to this House, should it decide that it is advisable?

I am informed that my Predecessor in Office intended that the Egyptian Guaranteed Loan should be brought out by the Bank of England, and by public tender. I very much doubt whether this arrangement would have caused the saving stated by the hon. Member; but it has been altered mainly in consequence of questions of an International character having arisen with respect to the issue of what I must remind him is a loan depending on an International Guarantee. The commission to be paid to Messrs. N. M. Rothschild, who are the agents for the issue of the loan in London, is £500 per £1,000,000, and reasonable incidental expenses. MM. de Rothschild Frères are agents for the issue of one-third of the loan in Paris, and Herr Bleichröder is agent for the issue of one-third of the loan in Berlin. The allotment will, I presume, be made according to the usual practice observed in such cases. I do not see upon what grounds I could call upon them to pursue the course indicated by the hon. Member, or to furnish a list of the applicants, especially in view of the fact already mentioned, that two-thirds of the loan is offered for subscription in foreign capitals.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £500 per £1,000,000 to be paid to Messrs. Rothschild includes the brokers' commission; whether there is any arrangement by which Messrs. Rothschild have a right to take £15,000,000 of the loan at the price of issue, 95½; whether there is any further arrangement by which that firm have a right to be paid the £1,000,000 sterling which they have advanced at this 95½—thereby giving them a profit, taking the present premium, of £20,000 upon the original £1,000,000 advanced, and £40,000 if they choose to exercise their option as to the other £2,000,000?

I must ask the hon. Member to put these Questions on the Paper?

Perhaps it will be more convenient if I call attention to the matter, and ask further Questions on the Appropriation Bill.

I think it would be well that the House should be in full possession of the facts. There has, of course, been a Correspondence on the subject between Her Majesty's Government and Messrs. Rothschild, and that Correspondence will be laid on the Table and printed as soon as possible.

Will that Correspondence be in the hands of hon. Members in time for them to call attention to the matter on the Appropriation Bill?

I will do my best to have it ready in time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Edlin, Q.C, has yet returned from his Continental tour; and, if not, when he may be expected; at what date he was granted leave of absence; for what period he was granted leave of absence; by whom he was granted leave of absence; and, on what ground he was granted leave of absence?

Mr. Edlin had been given leave of absence by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was the only person competent to grant it. The leave was given on the date of the completion of the business of the Sessions which were held on June 4. Mr. Edlin has not had any leave since the autumn of 1883.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the first part of the Question.

He has returned.

asked the honourable Member for county Cavan, Whether he will withdraw his notice of opposition to the Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) Bill, so as to allow that measure to be discussed?

in reply, said, he had never known a case in which there was so much anxiety to have a Bill defeated as in regard to this particular Bill; and he did not feel disposed to withdraw his Notice of opposition, and thus assist Sir George Colthurst, who was a nephew of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County, to rob the ratepayers.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will authorise the Local Government Board to sever the connection between the Galway and Arran Island dispensaries in accordance with the unanimous and frequently-expressed opinion of the Galway Board of Guardians in favour of this change; whether the result of the amalgamation is, that Galway is compelled to pay £70 a-year towards the expenses of the Arran Dispensary, amounting to almost to shillings in the pound of the entire expenditure of the Arran Dispensary; and, if, when the amalgamation was originally agreed to by the Galway Board of Guardians, at the suggestion of the Local Government Board, any Intimation was conveyed that it would result in such a heavy addition to the already heavily burdened taxpayers of the Galway Union?

I do not see any reason to alter the decision arrived at in this matter. It appears that the amalgamation of the two districts involves upon Galway an additional rate of about 1½d. in the pound, which, however, is more apparent than real, as the Government recoup half of the medical officer's salary, and half the cost of medicines; while the creation of a separate district for Arran would, by reason of the small valuation of the island, impose on it a burden that it could not reasonably be expected to bear. I am informed that the probable financial results of the change were not discussed with the Galway Guardians when the amalgamation was effected.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a circular has been issued, dated 6th July, by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, containing a list of proposed changes in the intermediate examinations for girls, and stating that the proposed changes will be taken into consideration early in November next; whether he is aware that, with a view to drawing up the rules and programme for 1887, it is necessary that a determination should be come to on this matter before the end of the present year; whether he is aware that the proposed changes involve the sanction of a different standard for girls and boys instead of the common standard at present existing; whether he is aware that similar proposals have been repeatedly made or circulated of late years by the Intermediate Education Commissioners, and whether such alteration, if carried into effect, would prevent women in many cases from being properly prepared so as to avail themselves of the facilities afforded them by the Royal University of Ireland by Act of Parliament; and, whether, in consideration of the facts of the case, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to withhold his sanction from such a change in the standard?

The Board of Intermediate Education have issued a Circular inviting an expression of opinion from persons engaged in the education of girls as to certain proposed changes in their programme of examinations. These changes, if adopted, would, it appears, come up for the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant next year, and would come into operation the year after. Their effect would appear to be that, while girls would still be able to compete in the same programme with boys, they would have the option of being examined in a course restricted to girls alone. It would obviously be premature for me to give such advice as that suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

asked the honourable Member for Stockport, Whether be will remove the block which he has placed against the Factory Acts (Extension to Shops) Bill, and allow the House to consider in Committee a Bill to which thousands of young persons are looking with intense interest?

in reply, said, though the question was put to him in a sensational manner, calculated to put pressure upon him, he could not waive any means in his power to secure full publicity and discussion before the passing of such a measure.

In consequence of the answer of the hon. and learned Member, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give me any facility for bringing on this Bill? There are only one or two Amendments of a purely verbal character; and though it relates to young persons who have no vote, that very fact will, I am sure, be admitted in itself to constitute a claim on the kind consideration of the House.

Whatever may be the merits of the Bill, I can express no opinion upon it; but if I gave the hon. Member the promise he asks for I should be subjected to similar requests from many other hon. Members. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot make any promise.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the ravages of the cholera in Spain, and of the fact that there are large imports of fruit from Spain, during the latter end of August and in September, which are packed in sawdust, it is intended to take any steps to ensure that cholera germs will not. by these means, be introduced into this Country?

English ports that are in frequent communication with Spain have received much recent attention from the Board's Medical Department. Hitherto we have no experience of cholera ever having been conveyed in the manner suggested; but, if indications of its possible transport by such moans should be observed, the Board will not fail to convey to local sanitary authorities such cautions as may be requisite.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, under the Secretary for Scotland Bill, to transfer the permanent staff of the Education Office, who at present transact the business of Scottish Education, to the office of the new Minister?

I think it is rather premature to give any opinion on this subject until we have heard the discussion on the Bill on the question of education.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will be prepared to extend the Housing of the Working Classes Bill to Ireland?

in reply, said, the Bill was not a Government Bill, and it was not in his charge, but in the charge of the Home Secretary.

said, the hon. Member would remember that the Commission which inquired into this matter, and on which he (Mr. Gray) took so important a part, did not inquire into the rural districts of Ireland. He did not know whether the Question of the hon. Member applied to towns.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Railway is being pushed forward in the direction of Candahar, and for what length and to within what distance of Cadahar it has already been authorised; and, what, if any, further length is contemplated?

The continuation of the railway from Quetta has been sanctioned to extend 30 miles in a northwesterly direction to a place called Shebo. I have no knowledge of any further intention to continue the railway beyond that point at present; but I may tell the hon. Member that a very large accumulation of railway material is being concentrated at Quetta, so that if commercial and political interests should appear at any time to be favourable the line might be continued without any great delay in the direction of Candahar.

Will the noble Lord give any assurance that the House will be consulted before any sanction is given to extending the Quetta Railway beyond Shebo—that is, beyond the railway sanctioned in the Government of India's despatch of September the 22nd, 1884?

I am afraid I cannot make that promise. There is not the slightest probability of the railway being completed to Shebo at the earliest before 1886, and as to what may happen in 1887 I cannot tell the hon. Member.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, with reference to his reply of 13th instant, and in view of the fact that the Lords of the Council are now advised that Local Authorities have not the power, under existing Orders of Council, to compel the cleansing and disinfecting of premises used by dealers in swine, he will move their Lordships to issue an Order of Council to enable Local Authorities to deal effectively with such premises, and thus prevent the spread of disease?

My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension in saying that the Lords of the Council are advised that Local Authorities have not the power to compel the disinfection of premises used by dealers in swine under the existing Orders in Council. That is a statement which applies solely to promises which are not connected in any way with markets, or sale-yards, or places of that kind. Where they are so connected the Local Authorities have ample powers under the existing Orders already. I should be very glad to go further, and to meet the views of the hon. Member if I could. But it appears to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to define who is and who is not a dealer in swine, and I do not see at present how his object can be attained without requiring private owners, however healthy their animals, to disinfect their premises all over the country; and that is a course which it appears to me would not be expedient.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the present market value of French Three per Cents, is about 80 per cent.; whether that of Russian Four per Cents. is about 80; whether that of Italian Five per Cents, is about 99; whether that of English Three per Cents. is about par; whether the New Egyptian Three per Cent. Loan is to be brought out at 95½ per cent.; whether this issue price is determined, not by the National credit standard of any Foreign State, but by that of England; whether it is England that is ultimately responsible for the payment of the dividends and capital; and, whether the additional interest acquired in Egypt by England in consequence of her guarantee will be weakened by the nominal share taken in it by Foreign Powers, or his hand rendered less free in dealing with Egyptian reforms?

The prices quoted by the hon. Member are no doubt correct. I cannot undertake to say how far the issue price of the new Egyptian Loan is determined by the credit standard of England. Various other circumstances must be considered as elements in the determination of such price. The responsibility of England is the same as that of the other guaranteeing Powers, except Russia—namely, a joint and several guarantee for the regular payment of the annuity of £315,000 required for the purpose of the loan. The question of the effect of a joint guarantee on the interests of England in Egypt involves matter of opinion rather than of fact. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know my opinions on the subject he will find them expressed in the debate of last spring; but this country being pledged to the Convention, of course it was our duty to carry it out.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a re-assuring answer as to the effect of the joint guarantee upon the freedom of the hands of England in carrying out reforms.

I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table the Correspondence with foreign Governments on this subject?

I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great interest taken in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, he will make that Bill the first Order after the Report of Supply?

I am afraid that I find myself in a difficult position in this matter. Twice, at least, I have given a distinct promise to the House, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General, that the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill should follow the Report of Supply. I do not think that I can fairly depart from that promise.

I quite recognize the desire to proceed at once with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; but the difficulty I have felt in postponing the Telegraph Bill until next week is that there may be but few Members left in the House to discuss it. I would suggest, however, that the Government should put the Telegraph Bill down as the second Order for to- morrow, and that if the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is not concluded by 12 o'clock Progress should be reported.

No, Sir; I cannot agree to that suggestion. It might be that the House would be in the middle of a discussion on important points in the Bill, and we should have to report Progress in order to proceed with the other measure. There is a universal feeling that, at any rate, the Telegraph Bill should not be used to delay the progress of the other Bill; and if the House is willing to consent to it I should suggest that we should proceed with the Committee on the Telegraph Bill to-night, on the understanding that whatever happens it should not be continued, say, beyond 9 o'clock.

I should like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, When he proposes to bring in the Indian Budget? If the noble Lord cannot answer me I will put the Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I should be greatly obliged to the right hon. Baronet if he will obtain that information for me from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am afraid I cannot answer the appeal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Divisional Officer of Coastguards in Dundalk, when visiting the stations in his district, compels the Coastguards to groom and attend his horse; and, whether, on the occasion of these official visits, he is in the habit of raising religious controversies with the Catholic coastguards under his command?

in reply, said, he had received a communication from the Divisional Officer of Coastguards in Dundalk altogether denying the allegation contained in the Question of the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any further information with regard to the course of Business, especially with regard to the taking of Saturday Sittings?

I have made some inquiries as to the taking of Saturday Sittings; but I find that the objections are so considerable that I cannot promise to take them. I cannot make any further statement as to the progress of Business until we see our way more clearly.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the returning officer in the recent bye election at Eye has charged £131 10s. 4d. for the official costs of taking 808 votes, or an average of nearly 3s. 4d. per vote; whether he is aware that this charge averages per vote a larger amount than has been charged at any previous election since the passing of the Act limiting the expense of returning officers; and whether the charge is legal?

in reply, said, he believed the amount charged by the Returning Officer was accurately stated in the Question; but he would remind the hon. Member that all these charges were fixed by the Schedule in the Returning Officers Bill, 1876. The question whether the charges were legal depended on whether the items were in accordance with the Schedule, and he had no means of arriving at what these items were.

said, he had only looked at the Schedule summarily; but he would obtain the information, add up the items, and see if they were in accordance with the Schedule.

said, that before this Estimate was adopted by the House he wished to declare emphatically that in his opinion, and in the opinion of those who from their election were concerned in the affairs of Ireland, the Department of National Education did not merit the confidence reposed in it, and did not use the power in its hands, either intelligently in furtherance of public education, or fairly in the interests of the teachers themselves. They had good and sufficient reasons for entertaining this opinion, some of which were stated yesterday. There were others which could not be outlined within the compass of an ordinary debate. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had yesterday excused himself from expressing an opinion on the subject, as he had not had time to examine into the question. He would, however, ask the Head of the Government what they were going to do during the Recess? He would ask them, would they specially investigate the constitution, rights, and methods of the Department in Ireland? He would inform them that one of the first claims of the Irish Party was a demand for the abolition of this Department, and the establishment in its place of some Board more reasonable in its constitution and more satisfactory in its effects. In order that the Government should be in the position next year to deal with the subject from information obtained during the coming winter, he believed that a thorough investigation should be made into the working of the present Board of Education; and he would undertake to transmit to the Government a Memorandum setting forth the grounds upon which he and his Friends held that that Department, as now constituted, ought not to be invested with the great trust involved in the primary education of the country.

said, he wished to draw attention to one point upon which he claimed that they were entitled to the consideration of the Government—namely, the grievance of Irish National School teachers. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had hold them very fairly that he was not very well acquainted with the subject; but it was one with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acquainted. In Committee the previous day there had been nobody on the Front Opposition Bench to speak on the subject on behalf of the late Government, as all its Mem- bers were conspicuous by their absence. He believed that it was admitted by all sections of the House that the Irish schoolmasters were wretchedly paid, as were also the schoolmistresses; and he believed that he was justified in asking the Government to provide some remedy for them in the next Parliament.

said, that the opinions as to the inadequacy of the pay of the teachers were not confined by any means to the Benches opposite. In Committee in this House, and otherwise, Members sitting on his side of the House, over and over again, had stated their belief that the condition of these poor teachers was pitiable in the extreme. The subject was one which, as a matter of common justice, demanded the earnest attention of the Government.

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman replied he wished to say a very few words. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in his remarks with regard to the Education Department, voiced the opinions of every single Member from Ireland. It would be rather too much for them to have to state all the causes of complaint which they had against that Department. It was a Department which had distinguished itself by two leading characteristics—secrecy and despotism. There was one point upon which he believed they would have to ask either the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them an immediate assurance. The inspectorships of schools in Ireland had been one of the highest and most valuable prizes which were open to the teachers under the competitive system. He had received recently a letter informing him that the Board of Education proposed to abolish the competitive system for those valuable appointments, and to substitute a system of nomination, thereby doing a great and flagrant injustice to the great mass of the Irish teachers. He believed that such a step should, before being carried into effect, be submitted to the judgment of the House. He would warn the Government that were such a retrograde and revolutionary change made it would, on very many occasions, form the subject of discussion in the House.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, had known something of the subject of education in Ireland, and he regretted that he had not held the Office for a greater length of time, as he believed that if he had he would have modified a great blot which was presented in the case of the National system of education in Ireland. These schools cost the country £36,000 a-year, and out of this only £3,000 was devoted to the benefit of the students. He also complained that some of the schools in Ireland which were intended for poor children were entirely occupied by the children of the upper classes, who sometimes drove to and from the schools in carriages. He believed that the funds devoted to the National Schools should be used for the purpose of converting them into Technical Schools, for the purpose of teaching the children how to be able to engage in various industries.

said, the Model Schools had done a great deal of good in Ireland, and he believed that it would be a very great pity if they should be abolished.

said, he had received deputations on many different occasions from the teachers complaining of the smallness of their pay. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to making some improvement in their position.

said, there was a consensus of opinion in favour of a now Irish law with respect to the Model Schools and of the subject of education in Ireland.

Sir, I think there is no disposition on the part of the House to resume at any great length the debate of yesterday. I can only express my regret that as the Government are not now in a position to deal with the question of Irish education, I am not able to make any very definite reply to hon. Members; but I can thoroughly endorse the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary yesterday. Though, as a matter of fact, we are perfectly aware of the inadequacy of the pay of the National teachers, I would remind the House that there are other points to be considered beyond increasing the pay of the teachers. There is the question where the money is to come from, and the further question whether, if we increase their pay, we ought not also to take some security that they shall be better able to perform their duties. These matters, as hon. Members must admit, require very careful consideration by the Government and the House of Commons. A Bill was introduced this year by the late Government which dealt to some extent with these matters; and I can only repeat that the whole question, and not only the teachers' remuneration, will receive the most serious consideration of the Government, and we shall endeavour to make some proposal in regard to it in the next Session of Parliament. If the Memorandum mentioned by the hon. Member for Sligo, with regard to the manner in which the National Board of Education performed its duty, should be received by my right hon. Friend, that Memorandum will also receive our most careful attention.

asked for an answer to his question with regard to the subject of Inspectorships.

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) had given the House some information on this subject yesterday; but he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give them much more before the House rose. The action of the Boers in the defence of their country, which led to the fight at Majuba Hill, would go down to posterity as a great action; but he hoped that action would not prejudicially influence Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had praised both Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson; but he (Sir George Campbell) held it was totally impossible for the Government to approve of the course pursued by both, for nothing could be more diametrically opposed than the opinions of Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson. For his own part, he thought that Sir Hercules Robinson could be relied upon as a "canny" administrator, whereas Sir Charles Warren had been guilty of great indiscretion. Passing, however, from that matter, it was his opinion that after the Government of this country had taken on themselves so much responsibility in regard to the affairs of Zululand, and wrought so much evil there, they ought now to do some good, and for that purpose should take Zululand under our own protection. There was also a good deal to be said in favour of establishing a great South African Dominion, if the taxpayers of this country were willing to find the men and money required for the purpose. Such a scheme, if put forward by any Government, would deserve every attention. He could see no signs of any settled policy in South Africa having been adopted either by the late or the present Government. They had simply drifted along, though no doubt the present Government were right in interfering as little as possible until they had laid down the lines of a firm and settled policy. If the Government were prepared to act in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Charles Warren a great deal of good night be effected, but much expenditure would be incurred. The Government must seriously consider whether they were prepared to establish a great Dominion in Central Africa. Whatever their determination might be he trusted that they would adhere to a settled policy, and would discontinue the practice of temporizing.

said, that at that late period of the Session every minute of time was precious, and he would not detain the House for many moments; but seeing that the discussion of yesterday in Committee upon this Vote was confined within very narrow limits of time, and that the subject was a very important one, he hoped he might now be allowed to make a few observations, especially with reference to what was the main question for the moment—namely, whether the administration of the Bechuanaland Protectorate should be transferred to the Cape Colony, or be retained by the Imperial Government. Hon. Members had expressed alarm and dissatisfaction at this extension of Imperial responsibilities; and he did not pretend to think that a Protectorate in the heart of South Africa, far away from the coast, was a light matter. He admitted it to be a very serious undertaking; but the thing was done now, and it was too late to draw back. To recede now, to abandon Natives whose claims to our protection had been formally recognized, to suffer extensive territories to relapse into the anarchy and bloodshed from which Sir Charles Warren was sent to extricate them, to waste all the fruits of his Expedition, to repeat, in short, on a smaller scale, the tragic fiascos of the Soudan, would not only cover us with the merited scorn and derision of the world, but would also add another instance—perhaps the most flagrant on record—to that long series of vacillations and contradictions of Imperial policy which all knew and confessed to have been the direct curse of South Africa. He would remind hon. Members who objected to this Protectorate that it had been founded, so to speak, under the auspices of a Prime Minister than whom no statesman had ever been more keenly sensible of the burden of Empire, and of a Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, of all the men that ever presided over that Office, was probably the most averse to accept fresh responsibilities, and the least impulsive or adventurous. Surely, then, there must have been reasons of extreme cogency for its establishment. He might, however, be told that it was the wish of Her Majesty's late Government that the Cape Colony should undertake the management of the Protectorate without delay; and that, undoubtedly, was their wish on the 28th of May last, as was evident from Lord Derby's despatch of that date. But if that were the wish and aim of the late Government throughout their Bechuanaland proceedings, they certainly made a most singular selection of officers when they sent out, first Mr. Mackenzie, and then Sir Charles Warren; singular, because both those gentlemen were known to hold definite and decided opinions about the proper methods of administering Native territories. Seven or eight years ago they were in Bechuanaland together; they had exchanged ideas, and worked out schemes of administration, and the vital essence of their schemes was Imperial, rather than Colonial, control. Moreover, both those gentlemen had submitted their schemes to the Colonial Office before they left England; and seeing that Lord Derby had approved the policy distinctly sketched in Sir Charles Warren's Memorandum of the 29th of October last—a policy whose foundation stone was Imperial control—it would be no surprise to him (Mr. Wodehouse) to learn that Sir Charles Warren had been a good deal disappointed by Lord Derby's subsequent action. If Lord Derby dis- sented from the policy indicated in the Memorandum, why did he not say so at the time, rather than let Sir Charles Warren go out to South Africa with misconceptions in his mind? And he (Mr. Wodehouse) could not but think that the unhappy differences which had arisen between Sir Charles Warren and Sir Hercules Robinson were, in large measure, due to the ambiguous attitude of the late Secretary of State upon the fundamental question of Imperial or Colonial control. He hoped that the present Secretary of State would take warning, and make up his mind on this point with as little delay as possible, because until it was settled nothing would go right. For his own part, he had not the slightest faith in the capacity of the Cape Colony—even if it had the will, which he greatly doubted—to govern the Protectorate properly. The Colony had failed miserably in the far easier task of governing Basutoland. While under the Imperial Government the Basutos had not cost us a penny of money, nor an hour of anxiety and trouble. They were the best tribe in South Africa, the most peaceable and the most susceptible of civilization; but a few short years of Colonial management had half ruined and wholly demoralized them by drink and fighting; and in that condition they were handed back to the Imperial Government. When, therefore, thousands of Bechuanas and other Natives had actually been invited by Imperial officers to invoke the Queen's protection, he would strongly deprecate a transfer and delegation of responsibility which might prepare for them the fate of the Basutos, or something worse. Besides, he very much doubted whether these Natives would have anything to do with the Protectorate when they were told that they would pass under the control of the Colonial Government. Did anyone suppose that Montsioa and the other Chiefs in his neighbourhood had already forgotten the civilities exchanged at Rooi Grond, in November last, between the Cape Ministers, Mr. Upington and Mr. Sprigg, and the freebooters, including, perhaps, the murderers of Mr. Bethell? He (Mr. Wodehouse) believed that the Chiefs would reject the Protectorate if it were transferred to the Colony; and then, with a bankrupt Transvaal, chaos would reign again in those regions. If the management of the Protectorate were undertaken by the Colony, the very magnitude of the task, and the very weakness of the Colony to execute it, would drive Colonial Ministers into such a Native policy as would shock enlightened opinion at home, and then it would be impossible to resist a demand for the renewed intervention of the Imperial Government. What, for example, was the cardinal point, the sine quâ non condition of the settlement of Bechuanaland which the Cape Ministers had proposed to Her Majesty's Government? It was the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the validity of those Treaties which the freebooters forced on Mankoroane and Montsioa in July and October, 1882. In other words, the Cape Ministers insisted that Her Majesty's Government should formally recognize and sanction the system of filibustering in South Africa. He did not at all undervalue Colonial co-operation; but he believed that all that was best and most enlightened in Colonial opinion, whether it were English or Dutch, would deprecate the transfer of the Protectorate to the Colony, and would be glad to see it administered by the Imperial Government in a spirit of liberality towards White settlers, but with every safeguard for the territorial and other rights of the Native Tribes. It would be a mistake to suppose that all the Dutch farmers were in active sympathy with the freebooters, or actively hostile to the Imperial Government. A certain proportion, no doubt, of the Boers were men of extreme opinion and violent feeling, and these men were wont to come to the front in times of agitation and disturbance; but the majority of the Boers were quiet people, who cared above all things for peace on the Frontier—peace to cultivate their farms and sell their produce. And under a Government that gave them tranquillity to make money they would be loyal and contended. He must now refer to a very important consideration, which probably had more than anything else to do with the establishment of the new Protectorate; he alluded to the German appropriation of Angra Pequena and the adjoining coast. He would not dwell upon the humiliating incidents of the story of Angra Pequena; but whatever wounds had been inflicted on National pride, and whatever detri- ment had been done to National interests in those transactions by procrastination and reluctance to face responsibility, we had at least secured command of the trade routes which met near the capital of the Chief Khame, and we had placed ourselves between the German and the Transvaal Boer. So far, so good; but if the Protectorate were handed over to the Cape Colony, the Frontier relations between Great Britain and Germany in South Africa would virtually be left in charge of a Colonial Ministry, and he (Mr. Wodehouse) would regard that as a most hazardous experiment. A quarrel might arise any day on a question of Customs Duties, or the importation of arms and ammunition, or on the treatment of a roving German trader; and when the quarrel had arisen it would not be open to Her Majesty's Government to shelter themselves behind the Colonial Government. In one of those speeches which Prince Bismarck made last year, and which attracted so much attention, he drew a distinction between the Imperial Government of Great Britain and her Colonial Governments, and it was of the action of the latter that he especially complained; but he added, and rightly added, that it was to the Imperial Government alone that he could look for explanations and redress. He (Mr. Wodehouse) would, therefore, absolutely decline to provide the Colonial Government with opportunities for quarrelling with Prince Bismarck. And now he had one entreaty to address to Her Majesty's Government—namely, to entreat them to take care that the Residents or other officers stationed in the Protectorate should have at their disposal sufficient mounted police or other armed force to insure obedience, and make their authority respected within the limits, and especially on the borders of their jurisdiction. He urged this point, because he knew not how many pages of our South African experiences teemed with warnings of the risks and mischiefs of leaving our officers in helpless positions, when they were inadequately equipped with executive resources. He should have liked, had there been more time, to speak of Zululand; but he would not abuse the patience of the House. He would content himself with saying that the spirit of the observations which he had ventured to make with regard to Bechuanaland was equally applicable to Zululand; and that he, for one, should rejoice if, by a fuller recognition of Imperial responsibilities in that quarter also, Her Majesty's Government were able to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs among a people to whom we had meted very hard measure, and whose present condition was a blot on the name and fame of England.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed most forcibly the arguments in favour of making Bechuanaland a Crown Colony. It had been said that too much prejudice had been shown against the Boers; but he had said before, and he still felt, that if any war waged by this country was a just and righteous war it was that carried on against the Boers. If this country gave up the Cape Colony it would be a great blow to the position of the Colonial Empire; and, therefore, it seemed to him that we must not be too much afraid of being involved in a certain amount of expense, and he thought that money spent there would be very well spent. Of course, if, as had been done in the case of the Cape, one policy were initiated to-day and another tomorrow it must lead the way to great expense, and therefore one policy ought to be settled on and adhered to. At the same time, he thought his right hon. and gallant Friend, having so lately come into Office, had acted very wisely in reserving those questions for his own consideration; but he did hope that the decision he would arrive at would be the course recommended by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) both with regard to Zululand and Bechuanaland. They not only had to look on this question as an Imperial question, but also as a question of humanity; and he hoped the country would not consent to abandon these unfortunate Natives to the tender mercies of their enemies.

said, he would warn the Government not to hurry into an annexation of territory from which the more prominent force of national opinion might compel them to withdraw. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse) always spoke on these subjects with knowledge and experience; but, at the game time, he must dissent from the policy the hon. Member had put forward. The late Government did not adopt this Protectorate over Bechuanaland in the absolute sense that had been inferred. It was quite true they adopted the Protectorate, but it was not done with a view to the assumption of the control of Bechuanaland by the Government of this country, but by the Government of the Cape Colony. That was the policy recorded in the last despatch of Lord Derby, and the question before the present Government was whether they intended to maintain that attitude, or whether they would resolve to maintain the Protectorate in their own hands. He believed that the force of circumstances would sooner or later compel this country to abandon the policy of extending its responsibility with regard to the government of these territories. It was impossible to draw a line beyond which the force of circumstances would not compel them to go. Wherever the line was drawn, there were outside it the same elements of disorder, and a further advance would be necessary, and the prospect of a continuous advance was one of the greatest arguments against an advance at all. A good deal had been said about Sir Charles Warren, and free reference had been made to his differences with Sir Hercules Robinson. Whatever might be said of his success, he declined altogether to recognize his immense virtue in restoring peace in Bechuanaland. Any man could govern in a state of siege. Sir Charles Warren had a large armed force at his command, and he proclaimed something very like martial law. Under those circumstances it was not surprising that he did restore peace; but in restoring it he had irritated the opinion of Cape Colony. In his (Mr. Courtney's) opinion, if the present Government were not prepared to assume the Protectorate of Bechuanaland they would find it necessary to send out someone with a more statesmanlike appreciation of the situation than Sir Charles Warren. The whole of our recent difficulties had been aggravated, if not entirely caused, by the intervention of the Home Government. This had done all the mischief. It had been said that the Cape Government were responsible for the Basuto troubles; but these were really due to the action of Sir Bartle Frere, who forced the Cape Government to carry out a policy which was popular at home, though unpopular at the Cape. The same might be said of our difficulties in Zululand. There never would have been a war, the scheme of government which had been successfully maintained would not have been broken up, and the attempt to set up 13 princelings would never have been made, but for the pressure from home and the advice dictated from home. We were betrayed into errors by want of knowledge of the actual facts, which could only be obtained on the spot. The object which the Lord Mayor had so much at heart—namely, the welfare of the Natives—would be far better secured if intrusted to the heads of the local Government. No doubt there was a higher morality at home in regard to the Natives than there at present existed at the Cape; but we at home were without adequate information and knowledge, and were, as a consequence, constantly led into errors which inflicted on the Natives far greater evils than if matters were left to the control of the local authority. For instance, our action towards Montsioa, however well-intentioned, had produced adversity for him and the Natives on the borders of the Transvaal far greater than if we had never interfered at all. If the present Government were to adopt the policy of their Predecessors and establish a Protectorate over Bechuanaland, they would, in the present state of public opinion, possibly meet with approval. That, however, would not last long, the Cape Government would soon re-assert its claims, and the confusion that would attend on our rule would compel us to withdraw from Bechuanaland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had said, we had been lying uneasily on one side, and then turning uneasily on to the other. For many years a policy of increasing our responsibility had prevailed. It was reversed in 1876, but was again revived. In 1880 the issue before the country was that of withdrawal from responsibility, and that withdrawal from responsibility was approved by public opinion. He was not sure that that issue would be determined in the same way now if placed before the country; but he believed that in the long run the balance of public opinion would be definitely against the increase of responsibility. In a recent despatch the Secretary of State stated that public opinion approved of the course pursued by Sir Charles Warren. Those who sat on the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench should consider what public opinion was. Public opinion was a great force to which it was necessary to bow, although it seemed to hurry us now in one direction and then in another; perhaps on many subjects it might be necessary to let it flow over us; but there were questions as to which it ought to be the ambition of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Ministerial and Front Opposition Benches to create a public opinion—for public opinion on these subjects depended upon what they said and what they did—and to maintain it in its proper course, instead of giving way to that which so constantly caused our humiliation. In the present case, public opinion seemed to be evidenced by the fact that some hysterical newspaper screamed out that Sir Charles Warren was the saviour of the world. He hoped that an attempt would be made to guide public opinion rightly on the subject of South Africa, and to follow the course which that correct public opinion pointed out.

said, he did not desire to enter into the general subject raised by this Vote; but he wished to express his gratification at the statement made by the Colonial Secretary that the Estimate made by the late Government of £675,000 for the Bechuanaland Expedition was not likely to be exceeded. He was sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would bear him out in saying that there was no country in regard to which it was more difficult to make an accurate Estimate of the probable expense of an Expedition. He had been told that in regard to the Zulu War, when the present Secretary for the Colonies was Secretary for War, it was found almost impossible to gauge beforehand the expenditure, owing to the distances and the wildness of the country. He was very gratified to hear that the recent Expedition had been successful, and that its cost would be covered by the Estimate that had been made by the late Government in November last. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the military force should be replaced by armed police, he could certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would find abundant facilities in this country for recruiting such a force. At the time it was proposed to send out the Expedition those who were charged with the duty of raising it were literally besieged by men who were anxious to join, and there were also numbers of officers who were desirous to be of service to their country in the matter. He considered that the policy which had been indicated of reducing the force at present under Sir Charles Warren and substituting for it a kind of Frontier Police Force was a right policy to pursue.

in contradiction of what had been said by the Lord Mayor, said, that he had had occasion to meet an officer who was in charge of the Natives during the Transvaal and Zulu War. He had been told by that officer in the strongest terms that our interference between the Boers and the Natives had been productive of much misery to the latter, and that, if we had but left them alone, they would have taken better care of themselves than we took of them, and would have settled many of their quarrels among themselves.

said, he believed that if we had left the Zulus to themselves they would have gone to war with the Boers, and would have shown themselves the stronger party of the two. This country went to war with them, and conquered them; and now they were in a defenceless state, and in a much worse position than when we found them. The Boers violated every Treaty into which they entered, and no confidence could be placed in any Treaty which they made. The most terrible cruelties had been committed by the Boers on the Natives, and some of the atrocities which had been perpetrated were so great that it was almost impossible that they could have been committed by such a partially civilized race. He believed, however, that both parties had made a mistake with regard to the Transvaal. When the Transvaal was annexed, he believed that the state of things existing was very bad indeed. The Transvaal Government was known to be almost insolvent, and at the present time it was well known that the Government had become bankrupt. The greatest dissatisfaction existed at that time, and the people of the Transvaal were in favour of their country being annexed by England. Opinions differed I in regard to the propriety of annexing the Transvaal. At the time when the subject was under discussion, he consulted a man who knew more of the condition of South Africa than, perhaps, any man then living—he referred to the late Dr. Moffat. The rev. gentleman told him of the terrible atrocities which he had seen in that country, and he stated that it was impossible for him to describe the pleasure he felt when he heard that the Government were about to annex the Transvaal. Another mistake which had been made had consisted in the patching up of a peace. He believed that tin's country did it from the best of motives, and in the anxiety to avoid the shedding of blood. What had been the result? To this day the people of the Transvaal believed that they had defeated the British Army, and that they could do so again. A good deal had been said with regard to the extension of our territory in this region. Although he was averse from the extension of territory if the desire was simply to extend our Dominions, he believed it was a commendable proceeding if such extension of territory was taken in defence of our own interests, and in defence of our position in the country. He was glad that the trade route had been secured; the loss of it would have been a great calamity not only to the interests of South Africa, but to our own. He did not believe that the annexation of those territories, although at the outset costing a good deal of money, would become a permanent source of expense to the ratepayers of this country—on the contrary, he believed it would conduce to the greater development of the trade of this country. We had incurred responsibilities in South Africa, and we had given pledges to the people which, he believed, we were in duty and in honour bound to fulfil. He trusted that the Government would not allow themselves to be influenced by motives and arguments brought forward with the intention of lessening their responsibilities in this respect. He hoped we would be prudent and circumspect, and he believed that justice and humanity and every right feeling induced us not to violate the pledges we had given, but that they induced us to do our best to carry them out,

said, the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) had spoken of the Natives and the Boers, and he recommended a policy that they should have been allowed to fight out the question between themselves. Without wholly agreeing with the remarks of the hon. Member, he should be incurring some blame if he did not at this stage make some comments on the subject before them. He must, however, ask the House to allow him to limit himself to that which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had rightly called a negative statement. At this period of the negotiations, at the time when the Expedition in South Africa had, to a certain extent, terminated its primary duties, when there were other important matters on which negotiations were going on, and when important information reached them from day to day, he hoped that it was making no undue demand on the patience of the House to ask that they might be allowed time to consider the general aspect of affairs in South Africa, and to endeavour to arrive at that calm and dispassionate view of the situation, which would enable them, if possible, to mark out some line of procedure which would afford some guarantee that their future proceedings there, by whomsoever conducted, should not be characterized by that vacillation which had been found fault with by so many hon. Members. He did not desire now to go into the past, nor, for obvious reasons, would he enter on the field to which he had been invited, and discuss how far the various acts of the late Government, as connected with South Africa, were entirely consistent with themselves, or even with the statements of some of their principal Members. As to that he thought it bettor to "let the dead past bury its dead." He now desired to look forward and to view the situation as it lay in front of them, and to endeavour, further, to take such a course as might, on the one hand, allow them to afford all due protection to those who were subject to their dominion, and, on the other hand, as might leave to be determined, under convenient circumstances, those other details of administration and government upon which, at the present moment, he felt himself unable to pronounce an opinion. In regard to not going back upon the past, he would make one exception in consequence of a remark that fell from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). The hon. Member spoke of Zululand, and he charged a good deal of that which happened to the Home Government. So far from its having been the case that the Home Government was answerable for what took place in the Zulu War, he wished distinctly to enter his protest against any such statement, and to say that, as far as he was aware, not only was that not the case, but that diametrically the opposite was the fact; for the Home Government being opposed to any advance into Zululand, that advance was made before they knew it was intended.

explained that he did not attribute it to the direct action of the Home Government, but to the emissaries they sent out. ["No, no!"]

said, he accepted the correction of the hon. Gentleman; but he had not understood him in that sense, nor did it appear that the House had. The hon. Member had told them further about the vacillation that had existed, of the desire for the extension of territory shown at one time, and the desire for retrenchment and economy evinced at another; and, although the country in 1880 pronounced against the extension of their responsibilities, yet the very Government which strongly denounced that policy of the extension of their responsibilities incurred at a later period larger responsibilities than any that they had undertaken before. Now, he ventured to claim, not on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the country, time for the Government to consider carefully those great problems. They had undertaken the maintenance of order and of safety among the subjects of the Queen. They did not share the view of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who thought that Montsioa would perhaps have been able to conduct his own affairs, and that if no interference had taken place on his part and on that of the other Chiefs by the Government, he would have been in a better position. Well, he supposed that the hon. Member must have forgotten a good deal that appeared in the Blue Books. For himself he thought it was more than open to doubt whether, if that course had been taken, Montsioa would even have been in existence at present. That was a policy the advocacy of which was left almost exclusively to the hon. Member for Liskeard, who, however, had the courage of his opinions, and was always ready to express them. In conclusion, he did not know that he had any further remarks to make on the subject, except to say that if hon. Gentlemen speaking in many cases with further knowledge than he could pretend to possess so disagreed on all questions as they had done in that debate, surely there was much to be said in favour of the course which the Government intended to pursue—namely, to examine carefully into those great questions, to obtain the best information they could, and to act on it, he hoped, without fear on the one hand and without prejudice on the other; and acting in that spirit they hoped to fulfil the duties which they owed to the country in respect both to the Colonial Government and to those with whom the Colonial Government was concerned.

said, he desired to call the attention of the Postmaster General again to the condition of the mail service between Dublin and the West of Ireland. That service was conducted at only about one-half the speed which was attained over the general mail service in every part of England and Scotland—in fact, it was the worst in the Kingdom, and the reason was that the Midland Great Western Railway Company, which carried the mails, only received half the remuneration given to the other Railway Companies in Ireland for carrying the mails. The reason given for refusing to place this Company in the same position as the other Companies was that the returns for the service were not sufficient to warrant the increase; but the Province of Con-naught was the object of special legislation for the relief of distress there, and he thought it was plain from that that, in this important matter of the transmission of the mails, its very poverty ought to be an additional reason why the public Revenue should be applied to give it a helping hand. Somebody must lose, and he did not think it was fair to ask the Railway Company to lose. The Railway Company were willing to give an improved service at the lowest rate that would not involve loss to the shareholders; and he did not see why, under those circumstances, such a Department as the Post Office, which made an immense profit, should not give an efficient service without expecting the Railway Company to lose by it. Would it be believed that the whole question in dispute in this important matter was a small sum of £3,000 a-year, and because of the refusal of the Post Office authorities to spend that sum, the people of the West of Ireland were left with a mail service which was a scandal to modern times. Only the other Session the Government agreed to a mail contract for the West Indies which would involve a loss of £49,000 a-year, and he did not see why such a sum should be spent on a distant Dependency whilst the claims of 1,000,000 of people in a Province of what was called the Sister Country were disregarded. He appealed to the noble Lord to do the Province of Connaught justice in this matter. If the present Government hesitated to give a pledge on this subject, Irish Members, who next year would be much stronger in the House, would make it their business to retaliate upon the Department, to prove that this gross disregard of the interests of a whole Province would no longer be tolerated.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the danger to which the public in the Metropolis was exposed by the Parcel Post vans and the mail carts being unprovided with lamps at night. Several accidents had already occurred.

said, he wished to enter his protest against the continued use of the plural number in the title of the "Parcels Post," pointing out that in the case of the book post such an inaccuracy, as he regarded it, was not committed. He also thought that some alteration of the scale for the Parcel Post was desirable, the unit of 1 lb. being very inconvenient. As it was, 1 lb. or more of any article would just weigh over the scale by reason of the package in which it was wrapped. He would further suggest the desirability of a system of insurance for small parcels.

desired to call attention to a grievance increased of late by the introduction of official Post Parcel carts. In these carts the drivers were often seated under a hood or cover, so that they could only see straight forward; and he suggested that provision should be made for so seating the drivers that they could see freely to the right and left, and avoid the danger of coming unawares with other vehicles, or driving over pedestrians at the crossings of the streets.

said, he had really nothing to say against the statement made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He believed it was a statement of facts; but whether he could say that he agreed with the conclusion drawn from these facts was a matter which he thought, perhaps, had bettor stand over for the present. When he came into Office, he found that his Predecessor had gone closely and impartially into the question, feeling honestly anxious to do what he could for the Province of Connaught in the matter; and he himself since did not see his way to go beyond the offer which his Predecessor had made. The hon. Member for Sligo now, however, pointed out that Connaught was a neglected Province; that the Legislature, recognizing this view, had given relief and assistance to the Province; and that the present Government, recognizing these facts, might apply to Connaught a more generous and liberal rule than usually enforced by the Post Office. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect him suddenly to give any answer upon that question as now raised; but he would say this to the hon. Gentleman, that he would promise carefully to reconsider the whole question, and see whether terms and arrangements might not be come to between the Railway Company and the Post Office. Beyond that he did not think it would be right for him to go now; but he would promise the hon. Gentleman that at least he would do that. With regard to the question of giving lights to the mail carts, he would, now that his attention had been drawn to the matter, see whether an alteration could be made in the desired direction; and with reference to the suggestion that the limit of weight in the Parcels Post system should be raised, the matter was under consideration, and he hoped that ere long the grievance complained of would be remedied.

said, he thought the answer of the Postmaster General was satisfactory as far as it went. He did not speak there on behalf of the Railway Company. He spoke in the interests of his constituents, who did not care about the railway, and on whom the present mail service pressed very hardly. He wished to inform the noble Lord that before the Session closed the hon. Member for Sligo would put a a Question on this matter, and he trusted by that time he would have made up his mind upon it.

Sir, as the Committee last night were good enough to allow me to take this Vote without discussion, I then promised I would explain it at this stage. I will endeavour to do so as briefly as possible. This is a Vote for £500, part of a sum of £4,000, to defray the expense of erecting a statue at Trafalgar Square, Charing Cross, to the memory of the late General Gordon. The House will remember that about a fortnight ago a Question was asked in this House by the Lord Mayor of London as to whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a Vote for this purpose? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the Government believed that it would be in accordance with a very general feeling, both in this House and in the country, that such a memorial should be raised to General Gordon, and that, when there had been time to consider the question of the position and the precise character of the memorial, he should be prepared to propose the necessary Vote to the House, and my right hon. Friend immediately directed me, as Chief Commissioner of Works, to inquire into the subject. I have lost no time in doing so, and I have been favoured with many valuable and interesting suggestions from various quarters, for which I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks; but I feel I am especially indebted to the kindness of three of our most distinguished living artists—Sir Frederick Leighton, Sir John Millais, and Mr. Watts—whom I particularly consulted. I hope to be able to take advantage on almost every point of the most valuable advice which they were good enough to give me; but there is one respect in which I am sorry that I am not able to give effect to their opinion, but to which I desire for one moment to refer. These three distinguished artists were unanimously of opinion that this memorial should take the form of an allegorical group of sculpture rather than of a simple statue, and, no doubt, there is much to be said in favour of that suggestion; but, on the whole, after careful consideration and consultation with many persons whose opinions on such subjects are entitled to great weight, I have come to the conclusion that it is a statue reproducing as nearly as may be the man—General Gordon—that the people of this country at the present time, and for all time to come, will most desire to have among them. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed in one sentence to express my own entire concurrence in the opinion of the three eminent artists to whom I have referred, that this great and wealthy Metropolis is lamentably deficient in works of Art sculpture, except so far as regards statues, and I am afraid some of them are not very good. There is enough of young and rising talent, as they assure me, in the Art of sculpture in this City well able to adorn our public places with worthy works of genius of the kind that they suggested should be produced on the present occasion. I must, however, speaking for Her Majesty's Office of Works, say that, in view of the many demands that we are obliged to make upon the Treasury for public buildings and other expenses, we really could not have the face to apply to the Treasury to give us anything for these groups of sculpture for the purpose of generally beautifying this City; and I may add that I have not a doubt, if we did make such an appeal, what the nature of the answer would be. But I fully recognize how great would be the improvement which a few really well-executed groups of statuary would be to London; and, if I may venture to say so, I think London is rich enough to indulge itself with such a luxury. At any rate, I throw out the suggestion for consideration merely on my own responsibility as a Member of this House; and I have only to add that if the public wishes for it, and will spontaneously find the money for such a purpose, I should be delighted to undertake to find ad- mirable sites; and if they wish it, and will trust me with the choice. I will find, besides, artists to whom I believe can be safely confided such a high and noble task. And now, as to the statue of Gordon, for which I am asking this Vote, it is not necessary, nor would time permit me, to speak at any length. Certainly, I shall not say one word that can awaken oven an echo of the stormy controversies which have lately raged over the romantic adventures and melancholy death of the late General Gordon; for I hope, and I feel sure, that the Vote I am now asking for will be given with absolute unanimity. Whatever any of us may think of his views upon political and other public questions, there can be no doubt that the character and career of General Gordon had seized on the imagination not only of his own countrymen, but also of foreign nations, as practically illustrating many of the greatest and noblest qualities of Englishmen—of the kind of Englishmen who have made England what she is. His fame is the common property of all English-speaking people, and must for ever remain their proud inheritance. It is impossible for us at this time to say what kind of reward General Gordon himself would wish to have desired. Modest as he was brave, gentle as he was gallant, probably he cared as little as any man for the ordinary houours and the usual rewards which even brave and distinguished soldiers are proud to wear upon their breasts. Although we know that during the siege of Khartoum he endeavoured to encourage his followers through the dangerous vigils and the terrible monotony of that long trial by distributing among them such decorations as it was possible for them in their straitened circumstances to produce, still I do not think that he himself was a man who set much store by that kind of distinction. But no one can now doubt that all through the immortal siege his own mind ever and again went back to his own country beyond the desert and beyond the seas, and that his thoughts were constantly at home while "the last sad hours of valour's task moved slowly by." All that is over now—

"The soldier's hope, the patriot's zeal,

For ever gone, for ever crost.

Oh! who shall say what heroes feel

When all but life and honour's lost?"

said, that the House of Commons, in encouraging English sculptors, had a right to expect the fullest benefit from the money expended. While agreeing with the idea of a statue to General Gordon, he must say he had never heard of such a sum as £4,000 being taken without one word being said to the House as to the form the memorial should take. The work of erecting this statue was no ordinary matter; and he therefore thought that some right hon. Gentleman upon the opposite Bench ought to give the House some information as to the intentions of the Government as to the site in the first instance, the material, and the mode in which they hoped to obtain the best work of Art under the circumstances. If it were simply to be left to the Board of Works as a matter of taste, he should protest against the Vote. In any case, he trusted the work would be given to a native artist.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of depreciating General Gordon's character, for they all knew he was one of the bravest of men, and that also he had absolutely no fear of death. What he wanted to ask the House was, what great services to the State or to the world had General Gordon done that should make the House of Commons vote money for a statue of him, for he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) supposed that statues were not voted to men simply because they were good and honourable? It was true that General Gordon had heroic qualities; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) himself did not think that General Gordon did any good to the State while at Khartoum. ["Oh!"] In the first place, when he was sent out to the Soudan his orders were to set the Natives free; he was ordered to come away from Khartoum, but he disobeyed orders and remained, and instead of setting them free he spent his time in fighting against and trying to coerce the Soudanese, a people described by the late Prime Minister as rightly struggling to be free. Then, again, General Gordon had at one time destroyed the irrigation works on the river, an act of war which would not have been permitted by a Mahommedan Power. He did not think Gordon's actions were creditable to this country; and we had got not honour, but disgrace, from this Khartoum business. General Gordon, in his opinion, cost this country millions of money, and he believed if Gordon were alive now he would be the first person to object to money being spent for this purpose.

said, he entirely agreed with what the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had said. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought when they were asked to vote money for a statue to General Gordon, they ought to have some more distinct statement from the Government as to why they should pass the Vote. It must be remembered that General Gordon came before them as one who went to Khartoum for the specific purpose of making peace. No doubt he fought very gallantly; but he fought in a cause which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, was a wrong one. In that manner he did not carry out the instructions or intentions of those who sent him out. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh, oh!" but if they looked at Gordon's diaries they would find that he railed against his Government, and the instructions they gave him. As he understood, they were asked to vote this money on account of what Gordon did at Khartoum. Well, he objected to what Gordon did at Khartoum, and, therefore, he was opposed to the granting of this money.

said, that if the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken (Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Labouchere) divided the House on the question, they might possibly find a brace of Tellers; but they would find no one else to follow them into the Lobby. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wanted to know why they were asked to vote £500? His right hon. Friend had not stated what he was going to do with that particular sum. General Gordon was essentially a British hero. He went to Khar- toum and Egypt, and sacrificed his life to British interests; and, therefore, he hoped his right hon. Friend would select a British sculptor to carry out the work of his statue. No doubt General Gordon was also a great hero; but they ought to know how this £4,000 was to be expended. In that country, as well as in any other, he contended that where public works had to be carried out, British artists should be employed in preference to foreigners; for there was no doubt whatever that they would prove themselves worthy of the patronage bestowed upon them. He hoped his observations would receive the consideration of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. He objected to trusting this matter to the Board of Works, which, in many ways, had shown its incapacity for dealing with questions of Art. Let them look, for instance, at Hyde Park Corner, where the Board had removed the Triumphal Arch, and set it in a hole where it now stood, on an inclined plane, a disgrace to the Department and to the Metropolis.

said, he could not fail to enter his protest against the manner in which Ministers came to the House, asking for a specific sum for some public work, and, without affording the House any particulars of the object for which the Vote was required, expecting the House to grant it without demur.

said, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would perceive, on looking at the Estimates which were laid upon the Table yesterday, that the particulars of the Vote for providing a statue to General Gordon at Charing Cross were duly given. This Vote of £500 was merely asked for as a preliminary step, so as to obtain the sanction of the House to the proposed statue, and so as to enable him to enter into negotiations with regard to it, so far as related to the selection of an able sculptor to carry it out. It was not usual to state the names before the negotiations were actually commenced, and, indeed, he could not now state who the artist would be; but he could say that the statue would be of bronze, and would be placed at Charing Cross.

asked whether it would be an equestrian statue?

said, it would not.

said, he hoped the Committee would approve of the principle of the Amendment he was about to move. It was as follows:—

In page 1, after line 9, insert the following sub-section:—"(1) Procures, or by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward, endeavours to procure any woman or girl not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful connexion, either within or without the Queen's dominions, with any other person or persons; or."

said, the clause was one directed against the offence of procuring. He took it that the object of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elton) was to prevent anyone procuring or endeavouring to procure, under the circumstances he had specified, any woman or girl to become a common prostitute. He, therefore, intended to support the Amendment, which sought to prevent a girl taking the first step towards an immoral life.

said, he did not wish to be considered a critic of the Bill or of any Amendment which would strengthen it; but he thought the Committee would agree with him that they must be very careful in what they did. The Committee must look at the effect of this Amendment. They would observe that there was no limit as to age whatever, and that the Amendment was so drawn that any person who carried a message from a woman to a woman might be liable to two years' imprisonment. Let him put another case in which the Amendment would apply. Suppose a man married abroad his deceased wife's sister. Any cohabitation between them in this country would be an unlawful connection. He had known a woman in such a position consult a professional man as to whether she should remain in the man's house. The advice given was that, under the circumstances, she should. It might be contended that the person who gave such advice would be liable to two years' imprisonment, if this Amendment became law. Now, there was an Amendment standing on the next page, in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), which, if it could be discussed and slightly altered, would get rid of the objection he (Sir Henry James) had pointed out. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. J. Stuart's) Amendment was to insert—

"Procures, or endeavours to procure, any girl under the age of twenty-one years, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful carnal intercourse with any other person, either within or without the Queen's dominions."

asked what was meant by "endeavours to procure?" The law did not know "an endeavour;" but it did know "an attempt," and an attempt to commit a crime was punishable. If they adopted the word "attempt," the term would be thoroughly understood. How were they going to define "endeavour?" He earnestly asked the repositories of legal science in the House to protect them against this sort of legislation.

said, that this was a highly penal clause, and, therefore, the Committee should be very careful what they did. It appeared to him the clause itself, as well as this particular Amendment, required the most grave consideration. It w7as quite clear that the Amendment, if not the clause, involved the greatest difficulty of judicial construction. Those who had to deal with cases under the clause would have to consider what was the meaning of "procuring," what was the meaning of "persistent persuasion," and what was the meaning of "other importunity," and what was the meaning of "by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward." There was no doubt there would be conflicting opinions as to the meaning of all these phrases; and in the case of a law of this kind it was most essential to avoid conflicting decisions. He confessed he disliked the words "procures or endeavours to procure." the clause might be open to the construction that the very seduction of a woman led her into prostitution. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) undoubtedly mitigated to some extent the severity of the clause, because it confined the operation of the clause to cases of women under 21 years of age. To apply the clause to women of all ages was simply ridiculous. But even the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney would require very serious attention when it came before the Committee. He hoped the present Amendment would be withdrawn with a view to the consideration of that hon. Member's Amendment, which he (Mr. Gregory) considered much preferable to the subsection under notice as it stood.

said, he thought it would be very convenient to discuss the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) together. He would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) and the Committee generally of what the object of both these Amendments was. The object was to prevent any attempts to get a woman or girl to have unlawful connection with any other person. The Amendments were aimed at the horrible and ghastly trade of procuring, and had nothing to do with any vice between man and woman. That being so, let them consider for a moment whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General was right in the view he took of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He (the Attorney General) ventured to think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not right in the view he took. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) proposed the adoption of the words "procures or endeavours to procure." There was no limit to the endeavouring to procure. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Twenty-one years of age.] He quite admitted the question of age was one the Committee should consider; but he was, for the moment, dealing with the governing words "procures or endeavours to procure." He wished to keep that point distinct from the question of age. It was said, and, no doubt, said very truly, that there might be some such case as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General put—a case of a man marrying his deceased wife's sister, and some sort of persuasion being used. That, however, was a very uncommon case. It. was not an exceptional case for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; but it was very exceptional for there to be persistent persuasion or importunity of some other person to get the man and woman to marry. He did not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not be right in using the case as an argument for limiting the age to which the clause should apply; but he did not think it was a case to be used as an argument in dealing with the other parts of the clause—namely, "persistent persuasion or other importunity." The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had complained of the elasticity of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Somerset. He had said the words of the Amendment would necessitate legal construction; of course they would, and with regard to their meaning there might be differences of opinion. The elasticity of the Amendment was just what was wanted. It must be a question of fact, it must be a question for the jury under the direction of the Judge; but he thought it was desirable to adopt some words which would make it clear to the tribunal that what was intended to be aimed at was the persistent endeavour to get a woman or girl to have illicit connection with some man. He, therefore, asked whether it would not be prudent to insert in the clause some such words as the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset suggested? In any case, he hoped the spirit of the Amendment would be adopted, so that the clause might really point at the evil they desired to cope with. He had no particular view on the question of age; that was a question which had better be raised by those who had more experience on the subject than he himself had.

said, there seemed to be little or no difference in the Committee as to the object of this Amendment—namely, that it was to prevent the trade of procuring. But he confessed it was rather dangerous to go into details as to the method of procuring, as they would do if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elton). It appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) raised the question in what might be called the neatest form, though he agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) that they should say "attempts" instead of "endeavours." The clause would then read—" Procures or attempts to procure any girl, not being a common prostitute; "and then he should like to put in the words which had been suggested by an hon. Gentleman opposite," or of known immoral character, "for the clause was clearly not meant to apply to a woman who had been in the keeping of one man and then passed into the keeping of another man. He thought that if they took the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney as a basis, and altered it in the way he had suggested, they would come to a satisfactory conclusion.

said, he entirely sympathized with the view taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), as to the meaning of the clause. As the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, the object of the clause was to strike a blow at the trade of the procurer or procuress. He believed the whole of the Committee were agreed as to that object; but it appeared to him that this clause, while having that very laudable and desirable object, really lost that object in one point of view and went far beyond it in another point of view. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) ought to have moved his Amendment on Clause 3. Clause 2 was directed at a different class of offences, and Clause 2 was that clause which dealt with the trade of procuring. If they adopted this Amendment on this clause, the effect of Clause 3 would be weakened. That, however, was a more objection of form, and one which could easily be got over. But he should like to ask the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset what he meant by "any other person or persons?" Did he mean any person or persons other than the procurer; or, did he mean any other person or persons other than the girl or woman? [Mr. ELTON: Other than the procurer.] Then that would lead to a remarkable state of things. A man might seduce a girl and yet not be liable to punishment; but if he assisted a friend to seduce the girl, and persuaded the girl to submit herself to his friend's desire, he would be liable to two years' imprisonment. It seemed to him that in the desire of the Committee, in which he absolutely and entirely shared, to put down the trade of the procurer, there was a danger of introducing into the Bill the most illogical and absurd anomalies.

said, it was expressly intended that this Amendment should not deal with the offence of seduction; that offence was dealt with in another part of the Bill. This Amendment was only intended to deal with procuring for other people.

said, he wished to point out to the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Elton) that the word "procures" covered the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity, or by offer or holding out of reward or hope of reward." These words, therefore, were quite unnecessary. "Procures or attempts to procure," would, no doubt, be better, and would meet the whole case.

said, he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) to a point which appeared to have escaped consideration. The Amendment, as well as the Bill itself, referred to offences which were to be committed within or without the Queen's Dominions. He would like to ask whether, in case a foreigner who procured a foreigner hi a foreign country without the intervention of a British subject came to this country, he would be chargeable with misdemeanour? This Bill was very carelessly drawn; he did not suppose that a more carelessly drawn Bill was ever presented to a Committee for consideration. He had heard that one of the causes was that the Bill was interfered with by the Bishops in the other house. Now, if it were the fact that a foreigner, procuring a woman or girl abroad, would be liable, on coming to this country, to be imprisoned for two years with hard labour, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could foresee that there might be intervention by Foreigu Governments, and that a great deal of inconvenience might result. He would be glad if the Law Officers of the Crown, would afford the Committee some explanation upon this point, and consent to introduce words which would relieve any ambiguity on the subject. Having said so much on the question, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General whether he would introduce here a limitation as to age, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), because, if he did not, there would be a vast amount of difficulty?

said, he trusted that, after the opinions which, had been expressed, there would be no difficulty in settling this sub-section. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton) to adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and which were perfectly clear.

said, there was a reason for adhering to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset (Mr. Elton). He quite agreed that "attempts" would be a better word than "endeavours;" but it seemed to those who supported the Amendment that they ought to indicate the class of attempts they desired to make an offence. He should also be willing to adopt 21 years as the limit of age, and also the words "or of immoral character."

said, it was perfectly clear, from the little discussion they had had, that there was great difference of opinion on this point amongst the eminent lawyers of the house. Some were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), and others in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for "West Somerset (Mr. Elton): opinion seemed to sway backwards between the two Amendments. He was astonished the hon. and learned Member for West Somerset had adopted the word "endeavours," because the word was not known to the English law. He was still more astonished that it should be proposed to accept the words "or of known immoral character." The word "known" might be taken in the sense of being known to the person who committed the offence, and the criminal might therefore escape. Although he objected strongly to the Bill, he thought it was his duty, when the clauses came up for consideration, to make them as perfect for their object as possible. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that the words "by persistent persuasion or other importunity" made the sub-section more vigorous. He was inclined to think that they were words of limitation. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): No.] He was sory to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had compared the Amendment with that of the hon. Member for Hackney, and he was inclined to think that though the words looked grand, they were words of limitation, tending to weaken instead of to strengthen the clause.

said, he hoped the Committee would not waste time by proposing verbal Amendments to the Amendment before the Committee. He would propose to leave out "endeavours" and insert "attempt," and also to insert after the words "woman or girl" the words "under twenty-one years of age."

said, he had been struck with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir "William Harcourt), which had been corroborated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), with regard to the inconvenience of putting the clause into the Bill. It was only too probable that these words would give rise to much discussion between Judges and juries. He would, therefore, propose to amend the Amendment by leaving out all the words from "by persistent persuasion" down to "reward."

said, he had listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and he thought that the Committee ought to adopt the Amendment of the sub-section which he had proposed to move. Although he (Sir William Harcourt) had pointed out an objection to the words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Elton), he thought if they were to go on with the Bill they ought not to continue to propose verbal Amendments like this to that Amendment.

said, he wished to point out that this was not a question of verbally amending the subsection; it was a question of very substantial importance. It was a question of the expediency of narrowing the operation of the Bill, which would be the effect of allowing these ill-advised words to remain within the Amendment. The effect of these words, which were new to lawyers, had been pointed out— namely, that they would cause difficulty of interpretation. He did not believe in the filthy fables of The Pall Mall Gazette; but he and his hon. Friends desired, if the Bill was to operate at all, that it should operate on all the forms of vice which could be interfered with. Hon. Members would observe that it was proposed to repeal the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. He did not believe that the procuration of young girls was done in the way indicated by the Amendment—that was to say, by habitual importunity upon them. Probably, the most usual way was when a young girl was met at a railway station by a woman who told her that she—the woman—kept a lodging house; and the girl by mere false pretences found herself in some place of vicious resort. If the Committee adopted the clause and did not strike out the words relating to the 49th section of 24 & 25 Vict., they would leave that offence unprovided for. The Act provided that—"Whosoever shall by means of false pretences, &c, &c, shall be guilty of misdemeanour." He agreed with the right bon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) that this clause would be most effective, if it contained the words "procured or attempts to procure;" and inasmuch as no one objected to those words, he hoped the Committee would agree that this was not a matter of triviality, but of importance.

said, Her Majesty Government were willing to take the larger view of the question, and strike out the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).

said, there would be some difficulty in using the word "endeavours" instead of "attempts." The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elton) could not, he believed, use the word "endeavours," because it was not in the Bill.

said, he wished to point out that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke") was mistaken in supposing that the Bill loft the offence of using false pretences undealt with.

said, he objected to the word "girl."

said, in that case, the only thing to be done would be to put in the word "female" instead.

said, he objected to the word "female." It was much better to keep to the old phraseology, and let the word "girl" remain.

said, that the clause, as amended, was not free from ambiguity. It might be questioned whether the restriction of the age referred to "woman" or to "girl" only.

said, the words "immoral character" only tended to weaken the clause, and he should move to substitute the words "known immoral character."

said, he wished to know whether the words "unlawful connection" were to stand part of the sub-section? They were of doubtful meaning, and the act had been described differently under various Acts of Parliament. He suggested that the expression used in the Amendment should be made to agree either with the Bill or with previous Acts of Parliament.

said, he had no objection; but the two expressions seemed to him to be the same in effect.

said, they did not, in that part of the House, hear all that was said on the Treasury Bench. He had understood the Home Secretary to move the words "or of known immoral character." He was at a loss to see how they could adopt those words in the Act. Who could say that a person was a known immoral character? Some modification of the phrase ought, in his opinion, to be made; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who took so much interest in the Bill, would give his attention to the point before the Report stage came on. The expression might be popular, but it was not legal.

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 10, leave out "procures or," said, before the Committee of which he had the honour of being a Member, and which sat to take into consideration the Contagious Diseases Acts, three witnesses were introduced to prove that there was no definition of the term "common prostitute." Those witnesses were men of great learning; and the Committee were told, over and over again, that the term "common prostitute" was not to be found in any Act of Parliament that they had been able to discover. One witness said that a common prostitute was a woman who was known to go about the streets, earning money in a certain way. Under the circumstances, he would do everything to prevent procuration; but unless they knew what common prostitution was, it seemed to him they were introducing into the Act what was absolute nonsense. How could a person procure anyone, whether woman or girl, to do these separate acts — it would be necessary to follow her about, day after day, inducing her to follow this avocation? He would point out the great carelessness which had been exhibited by the framers of the Act in leaving it undecided what a prostitute was; and he would ask whether it was not possible settle this matter for good and all, so that when the discussion progressed, they might know what a prostitute was? It was not his intention to divide the Committee, although he looked on this part of the Bill as pure nonsense. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to define what was a common prostitute?

said, he wished to know what was the Question before the Committee?

The Question before the Committee is to omit Sub-section 1 of Clause 2—or all but the three first words. It is to omit, after the word "endeavours," in line 10, all the words down to the word "to," in line 13. The Question, however, has been put in such a way as to enable the hon. Member to move his Amendment.

said, it would save a great deal of time if they were to leave out this sub-section altogether. It was already punishable for anyone to procure a woman to have unlawful connection; they went further, and said it was unlawful for a woman to be a common prostitute. Surely what had been already done included this sub-section.

said, he had an Amendment of no insignificance to propose to this clause, which would come in after line 12; and he wished to have the ruling of the Chairman whether, if the present Amendment were put, his Amendment would be excluded from consideration?

I have said that I will so put the Question as to enable the hon. Member to propose his Amendment. His competence to move the Amendment depends upon the manner in which the Question is put. It is proposed to leave out all the words after the word "endeavours," in line 10, to the word "to," inline 13. The Question is, that the words "procures or" stand part of the Clause.

said, he had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to define the term "common prostitute," and in common courtesy he was entitled to a reply. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen would perhaps allow him to ask a question. He had pointed out why the term, as it at present stood, was objectionable. Unless something was done in the direction he had indicated, the magistrates before whom these people might be brought would have a difficulty in deciding who was a common prostitute and who was not. He asked the Government to settle the point for ever in the Bill.

No words are needed to define the term "common prostitute."

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in line 10, after the word "girl," the words "under the age of twenty-one years." He presumed the Government accepted it?

Whoso name is it in?

In that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). I would, however, move it myself if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not.

said, he hoped those words would not be inserted. The object of the clause was to prevent a trade in prostitution within or without the Queen's Dominions. The clause, therefore, ought to be universal, applying to females over as well as under the age of 21 years. He hoped no indication would be shown in the clause of a desire to restrict its operation.

said, these words had been inserted in the sub-section previously dealing with, the trade in prostitution. This was just the same thing. ["No, no!"] "Well, that was his opinion, and it was open to hon. Members to go to a division on the matter. The object of the Bill was to protect young girls—all the outcry had been for that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knew perfectly well; and to say that they would punish any person who procured or endeavoured to procure a woman of 30, 40, 50, or goodness knew what ago, to become either within or without the Queen's Dominions a common prostitute, appeared to him to be perfectly absurd. He must press the Amendment.

said, he had another Amendment to move to the subsection, and whether or not the Committee would agree to it he did not know. The object of the following sub-section was to punish anyone who procured

"Or endeavoured to procure a woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, with intent that she might become an inmate of a brothel either within or without the Queen's dominions."

said, the hon. Gentleman's object was to make a distinction between the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions, and cases occurring without those Dominions the hon. Gentleman wished to limit the operation of the clause in cases occurring within Her Majesty's Dominions to procuration affecting girls of under 21 years of age. Well, the Committee had already decided the point against the hon. Member, having refused to limit the action of the clause in cases occurring within the Queen's Dominions to girls under the age of 21.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I understood we had reached the Amendment on the next page.

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

I do.