in rising to propose the Vote of Thanks to the Forces engaged in the Soudan Expeditions, said: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I have the honour to move the series of Resolutions which I have placed on the Paper, proposing that the thanks of this House be given to Her Majesty's Forces by sea and land, in return for their gallantry and conduct in the late Campaigns in the Soudan. Sir, I hope, and I think, it will not be felt that the period of the Session at which these Resolutions are moved in any way detracts from their character or from their value. It seems to me a not unfitting close to the work of a Session and of a Parliament that we should endeavour to express our gratitude to those who have worked and fought so well for their country in those distant climes, and our sympathies and our admiration for those who have lost their lives in those services. Sir, I trust that these Resolutions may meet, not merely with the cordial, but with the unanimous, assent of the House of Commons. It seems to me that, if we owe it to Her Majesty's Forces to pass them, we owe it even more to ourselves not to mar the gracefulness of our action by allowing Party differences on political subjects to intrude in a Vote which is of quite a different character. Sir, we have carefully excluded from the terms of these Resolutions anything that can raise a discussion as to the policy which dictated these Expeditions to the Soudan, or as to any political subject connected with them; and nothing, I trust, in the remarks which I am about to address to the House will in any way depart from that example. It seems to me that all we have to consider on this occasion is the conduct and the gallantry of Her Majesty's Forces in doing their duty to their country, and our own duty in expressing our appreciation of the services they have rendered. Now, Sir, I am afraid that it will not be possible for me, in the outline which I shall venture to sketch of the operations which have been undertaken and carried through, to give either a sufficient history of the facts, or anything like a due acknowledgment of the merits of individuals. The facts have spoken, and will long speak, for themselves; and with regard to the merits of individuals, we have felt it so impossible to name even a fractional part of those who ought to be named in a Resolution of this kind, and so invidious to select, that we have purposely confined ourselves to those who have occupied the highest positions only in the work that has been done. Sir, I would also ask the House, if I do not particularize the services that have been rendered by the different branches of Her Majesty's Forces, to attribute it to its true cause—namely, that the Navy, the Army, the Marines, and all the branches of the Forces engaged performed those duties with so much harmony and unity that I think they ought to be considered and spoken of together. The two Expeditions, to Suakin in February, 1884, and to Khartoum in the autumn of last year, had this in common—that both of them aimed at the relief of a beleaguered garrison, and neither of them succeeded in its object. But in neither case can it be said for a moment that the Expedition to Suakin in 1884 or the Expedition to Khartoum last autumn failed through any want of skill or ability on the part of the Generals commanding, or of courage and discipline on the part of our soldiers. Generals and soldiers alike faced and conquered all the difficulties, and all the enemies that were opposed to them; but there was one enemy with which they could not deal, and that, Sir, was Time. Time alone was the reason why each of those Expeditions failed to accomplish its object. Yet, Sir, I do not think, as I have said, that anyone will say that either of these Expeditions was a failure. Take the story, in the first place, of the first Expedition to Suakin. The orders for the Expedition to Suakin in 1884 were received by General Stephenson on the 12th of February. By the 28th of February a force of 4,500 men had actually disembarked at Trinkitat; the battle of El Teb was fought, and Tokar, the object of the Expedition, was reached on the 1st of March. Three days later the force returned, bringing back about 700 of the survivors of the garrison and inhabitants of Tokar. The battle of Tamai was fought on the 13th of March, and the Expedition was concluded on the 28th. The military result of that Expedition was that the power of Osman Digna was effectually crippled for a time by the two severe blows struck at him by the Expedition; and to do more than this was not in the power of the General or the gallant force entrusted with the Expedition. Take, again, the second Suakin Expedition. On the 8th of February last it was decided to open up the Suakin-Berber route, and to make a railway to Berber. On the 13th of March a force of nearly 11,000 officers and men were assembled at Suakin, and during the following month the important positions of Tamai, Handoub, and Otuo were successfully occupied. The railway was laid and finished for a considerable portion of the distance from Suakin to which the advance of our Forces reached. By the time the Force was withdrawn it is not too much to say that the power of Osman Digna had been absolutely crushed, and a position obtained from which there was every prospect of securing the goodwill and confidence of some of the most important Arab tribes had it been desired to pursue the undertaking. All this was not obtained without arduous efforts, and the calling forth of the best qualities of our officers and men, who, in the Eastern Soudan, as in the Desert march to Khartoum, met and conquered the fanatical bravery of a vigilant and indefatigable foe simply by their superior discipline and cool resourceful courage. But they had to contend in both cases with enemies worse than any foe with whom they fought in actual combat—with constant exposure and monotonous toil, with long and fatiguing marches under a burning sun, and, especially at Suakin, with a most trying—I might say a most deadly—climate. All these evils they surmounted with a patient endurance and uncomplaining heroism, which have been, perhaps, the finest characteristics of British soldiers whenever and wherever they have been tried. I will venture to say that among all the proud records of the British Army none will be found in which these qualities have been more completely displayed than in the operations round Suakin and Tamai. Let me turn for a few moments to the Nile Expedition. I do not think that our pride in that glorious march—that fighting march—to Metammeh and back over the Nile Desert, or in those stirring records of the voyage to Khartoum and back—which include deeds worthy of the heroic age—ought to dim our recollection or prevent our acknowledgment of the exceptional difficulties of organization and transport which had to be encountered in the Nile Expedition, or the way in which those difficulties were overcome. For more than 500 miles of river, cataract, and desert, the whole system of transport for men, material, supplies, and stores, including medical stores, which were never better supplied in any Expedition which has left this country—had to be organized. Whaleboats had to be forced up 190 miles of most turbulent and dangerous water; camels had to be taken across long stretches of waterless desert by soldiers who knew nothing of the management of boats or of the camels which they had to ride. Yet all this was successfully done with hardly any loss of life, and with a willing cheeriness which insured the success of those most difficult operations. I do not believe that in any Expedition which ever left this country was everything that tends to the efficiency and health of the troops more completely cared for than it was in this Nile Expedition. When the Force was directed to withdraw down the Nile the withdrawal was effected at the hottest period of the year, when the river was lowest and in the most difficult condition to navigate, with the loss of only a single life. Not only that, but 14,000 refugees from Dongola were sent down in safety and in comfort; and I do not think that stronger testimony could be given than the recital of these facts to the remarkable ability with which the operations were planned, and the skill with which they were carried out. I should like, however, for a few minutes, to advert to a distinguishing feature of these Campaigns, which has proved—first to ourselves, and then to the whole world—what the real resources of the British Empire are. There never was a Force of the size of those engaged in these Expeditions composed of men from more different latitudes—British, Indian, Egyptian, Soudanese, Kroomen; and last, but by no means least, it will always be remembered there were Canadians and Australians. No doubt these latter were few in number; but it is not their number, but the fact of their presence there, which has made this Expedition memorable; for they have shown—conclusively shown—to the world that strong and deep loyalty which is the real bond of union between this country and her Colonies, and that, at the faintest idea of danger, our Colonists will rally around the Mother Country, and fight with her soldiers and sailors wherever they may be required. Nothing can be stronger than the testimony borne by General Graham to the spirit of good-fellowship, as he described it, existing between the Australian and the Canadian and the British troops, and to the strong determination which animated them all to preserve untarnished the ancient reputation of the British Army. Sir, so long as these feelings exist and increase—as I believe they will increase—I am sure that in no emergency in which this country may find itself need there be any fear of the result. I am convinced that if we only treat our Colonies rightly, we have in them a fund of strength which would enable us at any great crisis to face even the nations of the world. One word in conclusion as to the last paragraph of this Resolution. We ask the House in that paragraph to record their admiration of the distinguished valour, devotion, and conduct of General Gordon, General Stewart, General Earle, and all those other officers and men who have perished during the Campaign in the Soudan in the service of their country, and their deep sympathy with their relatives and friends. I can attempt to add nothing to the eloquent tribute which, only a few days ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) rendered to the memory of General Gordon. This only I will say—that I think the character, life, and deeds of General Gordon will ever be remembered in this country. But it was a strange and a sad coincidence that the Commanders both of the Nile and the Desert Columns of the Nile Expedition should have fallen at the head of their troops. Each was a Commander such as the country cannot afford to lose. The rapidity of General Stewart's rise in his Profession gave promise of the highest distinction had he been spared to us; and the singular charm of his character was such as not only to drive away the shafts of envy, but to endear him to all his comrades. General Earle was not less successful in gaining, not only the thorough confidence, but the personal liking, of the soldiers under his command. I venture to say that no two men were ever more really and truly sorrowed for by the troops they loft behind; and I know nothing which has a stronger title than this on the part of the soldier to our admiration and regret. I will not detain the House longer. If these Nile Expeditions did not rescue General Gordon or relieve Khartoum, I think they at least succeeded in one way. They showed the world that we could send from this country an Expedition of considerable importance, under very great difficulties, completely furnished in all respects, to the most distant regions, led by able and successful Generals, backed by officers of singular ability, and composed of men of whom I will only say that I believe "they could go anywhere and do anything." They have done their work for the time; and they have shown themselves capable of doing similar work—perhaps at a more crucial moment—so as to win credit for themselves and safety for their country. It is for us now to acknowledge what they have done, and to do our duty—I will not say to them, but to ourselves—by according to thorn, I hope without a dissentient voice, that which every soldier and sailor looks upon as his best and highest reward—the thanks and approbation of his country, voted by the people's Representatives in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great satisfaction to me to be permitted by the courtesy of the House, as I trust I may be, to associate myself and my Colleagues in the late Government in the proceedings in which the House is now engaged; and, Sir, the able, eloquent, and lucid statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in moving these Resolutions has rendered my task an extremely easy one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the laudable precedent of past times, has carefully abstained from entering into any discussion of the political considerations connected with these Expeditions. I think that precedent is a laudable one; because it appears to me that it is extremely desirable, in addition to those honours and rewards which it is in the power of Her Majesty, on the advice of her responsible Ministers, to bestow upon our gallant soldiers and sailors for deeds of this character, that the appreciation of their countrymen should be convoyed to them through the method of a Vote of Thanks of both Houses of Parliament. It is extremely desirable that such thanks should be voted to them totally irrespective of any opinion which the House may form, or any Party in the House may form, of the policy which actuated the operations, and altogether irrespective of any results that may have been achieved. We cannot expect our soldiers and sailors to be more indifferent than anyone among us can be to the success or failure of the operations in which they are engaged. But, Sir, whether successful or not, it is due on our part to them to recognize the spirit and the qualities displayed by them utterly irrespective of what the results accom- plished may be. It is, above all, our duty on the present occasion, when there is some sense of failure and some sense of inadequate results for the sacrifices made, that we should do what lies in our power to mitigate that sense of disappointment, and to bring forward clearly and strongly to those engaged in our Service that we, one and all, recognize that, if failure there has been, that failure has not been due to any shortcomings on the part of the officers who designed those operations, or on the part of the men who carried them out to their end. Well, Sir, it is, I think, a satisfactory circumstance that almost one of the very last acts in which Parliament is to be engaged during the present Session will be one in which we shall, I hope, be able to be practically unanimous. The present Session and the present Parliament have not been wanting in subjects on which there has been sharp debate among us, nor has there been wanting energy in the way in which our controversies have been conducted; but it is a satisfactory consideration that almost the very last proceeding in which we shall be engaged is one in which Party differences will disappear, and in which we shall be unanimously engaged in rendering a necessary and just tribute to the services of our gallant soldiers and sailors. The only regret I experience is that the proceedings in which we are now engaged take place at so late a period of the Session as to render it impossible for a larger number of Members on both sides of the House to be associated with us in this act. Sir, I am glad it has been possible for the Government to include in the Vote of Thanks which we are now considering the operations which were conducted at Suakin in the spring of last year. The House may remember that on several occasions I was asked—the late Government were asked—whether it was their intention last year to propose a Vote of Thanks to those soldiers and sailors who had been engaged in those operations. I can assure the House it was from no spirit of disparagement to the services either of the troops or of their Commanders in that Campaign that the Government, after much consideration, came to the conclusion that it was not in accordance with the usual precedents to move a Vote of Thanks on that occasion. We carefully examined the precedents that appeared to boar upon the subject; and although the question was not by any means free from doubt, we came reluctantly to the conclusion that to ask Parliament to agree to a Vote of Thanks on that occasion would be to give some extension to the practice which had up to that time prevailed, and might possibly tend to diminish in some degree the just value attached to the recognition of the deeds of our soldiers and sailors by both Houses of Parliament. It is certainly most appropriate on this occasion, on a Vote mainly relating to larger and more extended operations which have since been carried on, to place the question of our appreciation of their services beyond all doubt, and to do what is in our power to repair the omission, if omission there be, by expressing our appreciation of the services of the troops engaged in Suakin last year as fully as of those engaged in the present year both there and on the Nile. After the full and clear expressions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite unnecessary for me to enter in detail into the operations of the Campaigns or of the gallant deeds performed. I would only advert to one or two principal features incident to those Campaigns. As to the Suakin Campaign, it has been marked, as far as I am aware, by incidents which have been more or less common to many Campaigns which have been undertaken by our troops in various parts of the world, and especially in India and Africa. The troops engaged in the neighbourhood of Suakin have been exposed, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to great toil and to great hardship under a climate which is especially trying to inhabitants of Northern regions. They have had to work hard and to fight hard under a burning sun, and frequently with an insufficient supply of that greatest necessary of life—water. These are incidents which have been common, as I have said, to many Campaigns in which our troops have been engaged; but the Suakin Campaign has, in my opinion, been marked in a very high degree by those incidents. They have also had, under these trying circumstances, to fight an enemy superior—greatly superior—in numbers; and if inferior in discipline and organization, or in knowledge of the arts of war, that inferiority has been amply compensated by the determined and fanatical bravery which animated them. The Nile Expedition has been marked by incidents which, so far as I am aware, have not had any complete precedent on any former occasion. The ascent of the Nile for a distance of 1,500 miles from what was practically the base of the Expedition at Alexandria, by means which had to be improvised for the occasion, and means which depended altogether on the troops themselves for their efficiency, is, in my belief, a precedent altogether new in our military annals. The conception and execution of that operation will form a new chapter in our military history. In my opinion, great credit is due to Lord Wolseley for the courage and self-reliance with which he formed the plan of that operation, and for the manner in which he staked his great military reputation on the success of measures which were hitherto untried, and of which we had no knowledge. And not less credit is due to the soldiers and sailors who were engaged in that Expedition for the manner in which they undertook new and untried duties, and for the perseverance and resolution with which they grappled with and encountered all the difficulties and hardships which were entailed upon them. It is said—and I do not know whether upon absolutely good authority, but I believe on sufficient authority—that the conduct of our troops in the Nile Expedition has excited the enthusiastic approval of a great military authority—no less than that of Count Moltke, of the German Army. It is said that Count Moltke, in speaking on the subject to a distinguished Englishman, made use of expressions to this effect. He is reported to have said that our troops on the Nile were heroes, not soldiers; that our British Cavalry had become Infantry; our Infantry had turned into sailors, and our sailors into Mounted Infantry. In short, the handiness of the troops and their powers of endurance have excited the admiration of one who is justly considered to be the leading military authority in Europe. Not less remarkable an incident of the Nile Expedition was the march, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, of the Column across the Bayuda Desert. That Column—cut off from its base, dependent upon itself and on its slender means of transport for every necessary of life, including, to a great extent, the greatest necessary of life to all—namely, water—committed itself to the passage of a Desert which was almost unexplored. Little was known of the difficulties which would have to be encountered, except that the Column would be met undoubtedly by an enemy, the numbers of whom it was difficult to estimate, and of whom nothing could be accurately foretold, except that it would probably fight with the same determined courage as had been previously evinced by the tribes of the Eastern Soudan. That movement has been criticized for its rashness; but success in war is not to be accomplished solely by the exercise of prudence or judgment. There are occasions on which it is necessary for the most prudent and most skilful General to run risks and dangers, and trust something to the valour, determination, and endurance of his troops. In my opinion, the wisdom of this movement has been amply proved, not only by the success with which it was accomplished, but also by the proof, which was almost immediately afterwards afforded, of the urgent necessity for a movement of this kind. I cannot upon this occasion, and I think the House cannot, withhold its sympathy and admiration of the small body of men who, under the leadership of Sir Charles Wilson, supplemented that march across the Desert by the perilous and romantic Expedition up the river to Khartoum. This would not be the occasion upon which it would be fitting that I should enter upon any matter of controversy whatever. I am aware that criticism has been levelled at what was alleged to have been a slight delay on the part of Sir Charles Wilson in embarking on that Expedition. I think it is only due to that gallant officer—and I can express my own opinion without committing any other Member of the House—to say that in the Paper which has been laid before Parliament Sir Charles Wilson has justified himself from any imputation of that kind. Whatever opinions there may be in the minds of some hon. Members on that point, there are none, I believe, who will withhold a tribute of admiration to the coolness and courage with which that Expedition, when it did set out, was undertaken. There are none who will withhold their sympathy from Sir Charles Wilson and his gallant companions in the bitter disappointment which they must have experienced on their arrival before Khartoum only to find that it was in the hands of the enemy; there are none who will withhold their admiration of the manner in which the extraordinary perils of the return of that Expedition were encountered; and I am sure there are none who will withhold their admiration from that most gallant feat of arms performed by Lord Charles Beresford, and by the soldiers and sailors under his command, in rescuing Sir Charles Wilson and his companions from a position of almost unparalleled and unexampled danger. I have no doubt that in the selection of the names of officers who have been specially mentioned in the Resolution before the House the precedents of former occasions have been strictly adhered to. There are many who, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will regret the omissions in the list of names which the adherence to precedent has entailed. As to the names which are mentioned, I will only detain the House with a very few observations. Of Lord Wolseley I have already spoken. I believe that this is the first Expedition with which that gallant officer has been associated which has not ended in the most complete success, and in which the results aimed at have not been fully achieved; but I believe that the reputation of Lord Wolseley will not have suffered in any degree from his association with this enterprize; and that the confidence that he has hitherto so justly inspired in those who have had the honour and privilege of serving under and with him has not, in the slightest degree, been diminished by the part which he has taken in this Expedition. It is extremely gratifying to me to have this opportunity of expressing, on my own behalf, and on behalf of the late Government, our sense of the obligations under which we stand with regard to General Sir Frederick Stephenson. The manner in which that gallant officer accepted the position confided to him, and the untiring manner in which he worked to secure the success of the Expedition, which naturally it would have been his greatest desire personally to have commanded, is worthy, in my opinion, of the highest commendation of this House. In the conduct which Sir Frederick Stephenson has pursued, it appears to me that he has set an example of duty and of uncomplaining discipline which are worthy of the highest admiration. I will not attempt, by repetition, to weaken the effect of those numerous and eloquent tributes which have been paid to the memory of General Gordon. This is not the occasion upon which it would be fitting for me to speak of the great moral qualities of that hero. It is enough for me to say upon this occasion that the records—unfortunately imperfect records—of the siege and defence of Khartoum by General Gordon and his devoted band of followers will for ever secure for it a most prominent place in the history of those heroic actions which have so frequently been performed by individual Englishmen. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of General Earle and of Sir Herbert Stewart. I have already had an opportunity—and I will only repeat what I said then—of expressing my deep sense of the loss which Her Majesty's Service has sustained by the death of those gallant officers. They were officers who were conspicuous not only by the possession of great military qualities, but also in the most pre-eminent degree by the manner in which they had succeeded in securing the confidence, and not only the confidence, but the affection of all those who had the honour and privilege of serving under them; and I believe there are no two officers of the British Army who ever met with a more glorious death, or who in that glorious death were more sincerely mourned by their country and their comrades. I should like on this occasion to add an expression of my deep regret at the singularly unfortunate fate of another officer not mentioned in the Vote—that of Colonel Stewart, the companion of General Gordon. It was not his fate to die at the head of victorious troops. His rather was the sad fate of falling a victim to the treacherous assassin; but not less so has he fallen doing his duty to his Sovereign and his country, as those officers have done whose happier fate enabled them to perish in the hour of victory and in the midst of their admiring countrymen. There are others whose names I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been glad to have been able to include in this expression of Vote of Thanks. There was Sir Redvers Buller, Chief of the Staff of Lord Wolseley. The merits of Sir Redvers Buller have been amply and fully and generously acknowledged by his Chief. The services which he rendered in the conduct of the retreat from Gubat across the Bayuda Desert were, in my opinion, not less conspicuous, not less worthy of record and of the best thanks of this House, than those which were performed by his illustrious comrade and friend Sir Herbert Stewart in his advance across that Desert. Nor would the House, I am sure, but for precedent, withhold its thanks from General Brackenbury, who succeeded General Earle, on whom it devolved to conduct the scarcely less difficult and arduous retirement down the rapids of the Nile from the advanced post which that force had occupied. Sir, there are other officers whom I regret that a strict adherence to precedent makes it impossible to include in this expression of our thanks. The services of the Indian, the Australian, and the Canadian Contingents have, I am glad to see, been recognized in the Resolution now before us; but it would have been satisfactory to all of us, I am sure, if it had been in accordance with established precedent, that the names of General Hudson, who commanded the Indian Contingent; of Colonel Denison, who commanded the Canadian Voyageurs; and of Colonel Richardson, who commanded the New South Wales Contingent, could also have been included in this Resolution. In my opinion, it is impossible to overestimate the good conduct of all these Contingents. A portion of the Indian Contingent especially has had the opportunity of rendering, in company with British troops, most gallant and most conspicuous services; and I have been informed by officers who were present on the occasion that nothing could exceed, not only the courage, but also the steadiness, the firmness, and the soldier-like qualities which were displayed by the Sikh regiments on the occasion of the attack on M'Neill's zereba—a coolness, steadiness, and courage which did much to avert the great and imminent danger which at one time threatened the whole of that force. Sir, I think that we ought not to omit on this occasion, without entering into any details, to notice the credit that is due to those officers connected with the Departments at home, to whose exertions so much of the credit of the admirable preparations which have been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was due. It is admitted, I believe, on all hands, that the commissariat, the transport, and the medical arrangements were made with a completeness and a perfection which have certainly never been surpassed, and which, I believe, have never, on any previous occasion, been equalled. To the officers of the Departments at home, on whom the duty devolved of purchasing and sending out supplies, and to the officers of Departments in the field, on whom devolved the duty of distributing and making use of them for the benefit of the troops, in my opinion, the greatest possible credit is due. I believe that the perfection of the medical arrangements in this Campaign has been the cause of mitigating, to a great extent, the unavoidable sufferings which must be endured by our soldiers on all occasions of this kind, and that on no previous occasion has the devotion to duty which has been shown by the medical officers of every rank been exceeded. Well, Sir, I shall not detain the House longer. In conclusion, I will only say that these Campaigns, though they have failed to achieve that complete success, or to achieve those permanent and definite results which alone can fully compensate the country for the sacrifices which it has been called upon to make, and which alone can reconcile the country to the unavoidable horrors and miseries of war, have done credit to the Military and Naval Forces of the British Crown. They have proved that the ancient courage of our soldiers and sailors has in no degree deteriorated. These Campaigns have also proved that their intelligence, their resource, and the knowledge of their profession, possessed both by officers and men, have considerably increased. They have proved also how wide and varied are the military resources of the British Crown; and that for all the purposes of war, as well as for the purposes of peace, the British Empire is not only a name but a reality. Wide as are the responsibilities of an extended Empire, and the responsibilities which our extended interests impose upon us, these Campaigns have proved that we can count upon the willing and effective support of all the citizens of the British Empire, and all the subjects of the British Crown, in every quarter of the globe.

said, that, in fulfilment of a promise given last evening by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he would, as an Amendment, move to omit the latter part of Clause 3, in order to insert the words "at a fair market price." The effect of the Amendment would be that the Local Authorities would have to pay for the land at its current value, the arbitrators having no power to take into consideration the purposes for which it was to be used.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had very fairly met the objections of the minority on the subject.

said, that, on the contrary, he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have surrendered in this matter to a minority, which, however well-meaning and respectable it might be—and it undoubtedly was both—was still an insignificant minority of the House. He was an admirer of the Bill, thinking it a very good one, and he was glad that it had been extended to Scotland. He had no wish in any way to obstruct it; but he must say he deeply regretted that more favour had not been shown to the poor of London, who were very inadequately provided for. By the operation of the Amendment these prison sites would not be devoted to the benefit of the poor of London, unless Local Authorities competed with the rich for the purchase of land. Had the Bill stood as originally introduced, it would have been an important step towards the "municipalization" of the land.

said, he would suggest that a similar Amendment should be made in a later clause relating to Municipal Corporations, who, in justice to ratepayers, ought not to part with land at less than "a fair market price."

said, the power given in that case was only a permissive one, and Town Councils might be trusted to exercise their powers properly. The difference in the case of London was that it was the Treasury, and not a representative Body, that had to part with the land.

said, he could not consent to the Amendment; but he would consent to the Proviso being amended by the substitution of £3 for £1.

said, he would impress upon the House the necessity and importance of disagreeing with the Lords in their Amendment. In another Bill the number of signatures required was 20.

said, that the number 12 was inserted in the Bill with the unanimous assent of the Commons; and if the objection was pressed they were not prepared to agree with the Lords in reducing the number to "six."

in rising to move that the House do disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, giving the landlord more than one month, instead of one month, to petition against a scheme for the erection of cottages, said, it would enable a landlord to obstruct indefinitely any scheme. He would not press his objection, however, if the Government promised that they would get the Local Government Board to make a regulation against undue time being given to petition. It would remain entirely at their discretion, and he should be satisfied with an assurance that they would not permit any unreasonable delay, seeing that it was of the essence of the Bill that it should be promptly carried into effect.

said, he would promise that the Local Government Board would issue such regulations. The matter, as the hon. Gentleman had said, would be entirely under their control, and he did not think there was any intention that the time should be unduly extended.

in rising to move that the House do disagree with the Lords in this Amendment in reference to the compulsory purchase of cottages in a good state of repair, said, the effect of the Amendment would be that while the Board of Guardians could purchase a house in a bad state of repair, and allot half an acre of land to it, they would have no power to do the same with respect to a cottage in a good state of repair. The result would be that the labourer in a bad cottage at the present moment would soon be better off than a labourer now occupying a good cottage.

said, that the Government must support the Lords' Amendment in this case. They could not give the Sanitary Authority power to purchase compulsorily cottages in a good state of repair.

pressed upon the Government the necessity of disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment.

supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).

said, he also thought the Government should reject the Amendment made by the Lords.

said, he thought the difficulty which presented itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, regarding houses in good repair, would be met by enabling the Guardians to purchase "by agreement" houses in a good state of repair.

said, that the Government would accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) to add the words "by agreement" to the Amendment of the Lords.

said, that would not meet the difficulty, as there was no power given under the Act to enable the Guardians to add the half-acre of land to a cottage in good repair purchased "by agreement."

said, they would accept the addition of the words "by agree- ment," if the Government would consent to add—

"And may purchase and allot to any occupant of any such existing cottage half an acre of land."

said, there would be no objection to the proposal if the half-an-acre of land, as well as the cottage in good repair, were purchased by agreement.

said, they would accept that as the best they could get.

in rising to move that the House do not agree with this Amendment, making the area of chargeability of any scheme as fixed by the Guardians to be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, said, the Boards of Guardians were composed half of elected representatives and half of ex officios, practically appointed by the Crown; and he did not see why the House of Lords should object to such a body having the power to fix the area of chargeability as they thought proper. If the Boards of Guardians had not this power, the effect would be disastrous on the prospect of working the Bill. That was shown conclusively in the Tullamore Union, where a scheme of 50 cottages fell through, because the Local Government Board insisted that the area of charge should be the electoral division, the smallest area possible, instead of the dispensary district as fixed by the Guardians. It was most unreasonable that full discretion in the matter should not be left to the Sanitary Authorities.

said, he would point out that the landlord party had the majority in most of the Unions; and therefore there could not possibly be any objection, from that point of view, of giving this power to the Guardians. The Local Government Board, in these matters, generally acted on the advice of their Inspectors. Now, he supposed one of the most inefficient men in Ireland was Colonel Spaight, the Chief of those Inspectors. ["Oh, oh!"] If a person looked the whole country through, they could not find a more inefficient man. His evidence before the House of Lords showed that, and yet it was to such men, played-out Militiamen and played-out military men, that they were going to entrust this power, instead of to the elected representatives of the ratepayers and those representing the landlords, who knew the requirements of the different localities.

said, he hoped that the Government would not give way on this point, and would adhere to the Lords' Amendment.

said, that if the choice of the area of charge was to be left to anyone, he did not see any harm in the Local Government Board having power to confirm or reverse the decision of the Guardians. He should prefer that the area of charge was the whole Union.

said, it was impossible for the Government to agree with the Lords' Amendment. What had been done in the matter in that House was the result of a long discussion. It was suggested that, for the purposes of this Act, there should be a national rate; and then it was suggested that there should be a Union rate. The Government could not agree to those proposals, and after a long discussion the House felt that a fair solution of the question would be to leave the matter to the discretion of the Sanitary Authority.

said, that he supposed it was useless for him to discuss the matter after the decision of the Government as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished, however, to deny the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that the elected Guardians were generally in a hopeless minority. Such was not the fact.

asked whether the Government could now state the names of the three Assistant Commissioners to be appointed under the Act? The Chief Commissioners (Lord Justice Fitz Gibbon and the Right Hon. John Naish, ex-Lord Chancellor) were named in the Bill.

said, he hoped that it was not true Dr. Mahaffy was to be appointed Secretary of the Commission, for it was hardly an office he could fill with satisfaction. No person respected more than they did Dr. Mahaffy's abilities; he was a man of high attainments, and a credit to his country; but he was a gentleman who entertained strong opinions upon the matters dealt with in this Bill.

said, there was no foundation for the rumour referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Of course, Dr. Mahaffy was a man very well qualified for this office; but he was certainly not a gentleman who would be likely to be appointed Secretary of a Commission of this kind, for the simple reason that his position in the literary world placed him far above it. Indeed, the idea had never been suggested that he should. As to the Assistant Commissioners, he (Mr. Holmes) was afraid the Government were not in a position to give the names of the Assistant Commissioners at present, for this reason—that they had not yet communicated with the gentlemen who were eligible for the offices. However, the Bill provided, and care would be taken, that the three gentlemen who would be appointed would be well qualified in educational matters. He thought the House would trust the Government that proper appointments would be made.

said, he proposed to omit the words in the clause having reference to an Incorporated Society, there being no such society in Ireland to which the description in the clause would apply. The draftsman appeared to have adopted the words from a Scotch Act passed a few years ago; but they were not applicable to Ireland.

said, he thought this would be a convenient time for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the Committee how the new Board would work. As the clause stood in the Bill there were to be three Commissioners, who had equal responsibilities and equal powers; but this clause was to be struck out, and the new Board was to consist of five Members, of whom two were to be Judicial Commissioners, the other three being called Assistant Commissioners. The Right Hon. Gerald FitzGibbon was certainly a gentleman of great experience in the work of education, and one of the Commission upon whose Report the Bill was founded; and, with Ex-Lord Chancellor Naish, he had no reason for doubting that in any jurisdiction they might exercise under this Act they would pay considerable regard to the interest of the Catholic people of Ireland, so long forgotten or neglected in regard to the educational endowments of their country. In no hostile spirit did he comment on these appointments. As to the Assistant Comsioners, it was inconvenient not to have their names, because a scheme of this character would altogether depend upon the persons who were appointed to work it, and his appreciation of the scheme might be favourably affected if he knew the men who would carry it out. How was the work to be divided between the Judicial Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners? The Judicial Commissioners were to sign every scheme submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, but the others were not to do so; therefore, as to the functions of the Assistant Commissioners, he was left somewhat in the dark; but he supposed they would do something in the preparatory work. But there was a curious and novel line of cleavage between them. It appeared that the Judicial Commissioners, by certificate to the Lord Lieutenant, might override the opinion of the Assistant Commissioners. It was essential, he thought, to have some explanation on this point. Then he observed that the Judicial Commissioners were not to be subject to any personal liability for costs or otherwise in respect of anything done or omitted by them as Commissioners. They would receive no salary—that he supposed was because they had no responsibility, and then there was a curious difference in the tenure of office of the Judicial Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners, the former holding office during good behaviour, the Assistant Commissioners during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. What was the meaning of that difference? He thought the Assistant Commissioners should have as good a tenure of office as their Judicial Colleagues.

I may ask the hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more regular to raise this discussion on the new clause which touches all these points?

said, technically it might be so; but he had mentioned thorn now, and it would save explanation again. The only other observation he had to make was in regard to the power of the Treasury to assign the salaries to the Assistant Commissioners and others. The Treasury were apt, he thought, to starve Irish salaries, and it would be better to have the salaries fixed in the Bill.

said, the questions put to him were perfectly reasonable, even if they were not strictly regular, and he thought the Committee would allow him to reply. It would enable them to understand the nature of the changes made in the Bill. As the Bill originally stood, and as it was passed by the House of Lords, there were to be three Commissioners, who would be bound to give their entire time to the discharge of their duties under the Bill. It seemed to the Government, on consideration, that if this arrangement were adhered to, it would be hardly possible to obtain the services of the class of men required for the purpose of framing schemes for the management of endowments in a satisfactory manner. First-rate men could not be obtained, because they were invariably engaged in other affairs; and having regard to the fact that it was a temporary Commission, coming to an end in two years, it would be impossible to secure the services of the class of men required if the original clause were adhered to. It was quite right there should be a certain proportion of paid officials on the Board; but if those gentlemen were allowed to conduct scholastic and educational work, giving a portion of their time to work under the Bill, then he believed they could get the men they desired to have as Assistant Commissioners. The object of the distinction between the Judicial Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners he would explain. According to the original plan of the Bill, every scheme was subject to the revision of the Court of Chancery upon application of any person affected; and that, of course, would throw considerable expense on the Board, the matter being argued by counsel on either side in long and elaborate discussion. On the whole, the Government did not think that would be a satisfactory way of arranging matters. They thought it better to have the decision of distinguished men of legal experience and knowledge of educational wants, who would not be required to give up their whole time, and through them, in the first instance, schemes would be presented. The two unpaid Judicial Commissioners would take the place of the Court of Chancery; by signing their names they would give their sanction; and in the new clause it would be provided that no scheme should be brought before the Lord Lieutenant in Council for approval without the signatures of the two Judicial Commissioners. The division of labour between the two classes of Commissioners would amount to this—the scheme, so far as it dealt with educational matters, would be prepared by the Assistant Commissioners; it would then be brought before the Judicial Commissioners, who would look at it as lawyers having regard to the interests of all classes, and they, being gentlemen of high educational endowments, would be enabled to revise, in any material respect, the schemes submitted to them; then, on their high authority, and with their signatures as proof of their sanction, the scheme would be brought before the notice of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. That was how the Commission would work, and would show why, in the new clause, two classes of Commissioners were provided. He was not in a position to give the names of the Assistant Commissioners; but he thought the names of the Judicial Commissioners would indicate the lines upon which the appointments would be made. He regretted that he could not give the names. For his not doing so there were two causes—first, the difficulty of communicating with fit and proper persons within the short time the Government had had for the purpose; and, secondly, the illness of the Viceroy for the last day or two; but he trusted the names would be made known in a very short time. As to the responsibilities that were not to attach to the Judicial Commissioners, he thought it better that the words should apply to the whole body of Commissioners. With regard to the tenure of office of the Assistant Commissioners, it was usual in offices of that character, and he did not like to set a different precedent. Of course, having regard to the high position of the Judicial Commissioners, they ought not to be liable to removal at a moment's notice by the Lord Lieutenant.

said, he had no doubt the Government would do their best to make the Act work well. He hoped they would avoid imitating the appointments made under the Intermediate Education Act, or grafting on any paid official from that Board to this new Board. They were gentlemen whose conduct had been frequently questioned in that House, not so scrupulously as was intended, but several questions had been asked. He trusted they would take nobody officially connected with the Education Board, like Mr. Crouch and others; to do so would only give rise to additional discontent.

said, if it was the usual course for Assistant Commissioners to hold office during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant he did not object; but had it been consonant with usage he should have preferred that all should hold office during good behaviour.

said, he did not quite understand why the word should be struck out. There was no intention to divert endowments from their purpose.

said, the word was no doubt uselessly introduced.

said, the word was technically correct according to the original reading of the clause, which provided for the transfer of elementary education endowments to the Commissioners of National Education; but on consideration the Government did not think that was desirable; and the only provision now proposed was that such endowments should be subject to the inspection of the National Board.

said, while he was willing to allow theg Commissioners of National Education in such cases the power of inspection, the words "inspection and control" conferred too much power. "Control" should be omitted.

said, this clause dealt with investments, and it was natural those would be made through the Bank of Ireland. Though he was not raising objection upon this point now, it was right it should be understood that in future any Government Bills coming before the House and dealing with investments would be closely criticized, and, if necessary, opposed; and this institution must sooner or later pass under considerable changes, and it would be well, until those were effected, to use some other medium not so likely soon to form the subject of stringent inquiry and discussion.

said, the object of this clause, apart from the reference to Industrial Museums and Libraries, was, as far as possible, to keep endowments to localities; but, on consideration, he thought that thereby the action of the Commission would be unduly restricted, and an endowment, however valuable in itself, might be deprived of its full value. As to Industrial Museums and Libraries, however valuable as adjuncts, they were not educational institutions in the ordinary sense of the term.

said, he did not think "applicable" was quite the right word to use. Money used in one direction for many years might from use be applicable. "Provided," or "intended exclusively," would be better.

asked what was the meaning of the words "other charitable uses," where any part of an educational endowment within the meaning of the Act was applied to other purposes? Was it held that education was a charitable purpose?

said, it had been held so again and again.

said, he would direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the language of line 32—

"But this provision shall not prevent them (the Governing Body) from continuing any works begun before the passing of this Act, or from doing anything necessary for the repair or maintenance of buildings or residences existing at the passing of this Act."

said, it would have a most unsatisfactory result to omit these words. As soon as the Act became law no new work would be commenced; but if the work was actually begun it would be a most unsatisfactory thing to leave it unfinished. Besides, the Governing Body would be liable for breaches of contract.

said, then perhaps the words "under contract" after "begun" might be inserted.

said, suppose a house had been half built under contract or not, it would be a most unsatisfactory thing that the house should not be allowed to be finished.

said, but suppose they had just dug out the foundations of an expensive building of which the Commissioners could not approve, was it best to allow the Governing Body to go on spending hundreds of pounds in a way the Commissioners did not approve?

said, he thought the Governing Bodies might be left to their discretion so far.

said, this seemed to him to weaken the effect of the clause unnecessarily. The clause provided that the benefits of the Act should be extended, as far as possible, to both sexes; and the words of the clause followed those of the Scotch Act, which did not contain the words now proposed to be inserted, and which he thought not in any way necessary. The provision for an equitable arrangement as far as possible under local circumstances between the sexes was all that was necessary.

said, he would join in the protest against the limitation which the insertion of the words in the clause would seem to imply.

said, he did not think they would very much matter. If the endowment did not provide the means, necessarily the arrangement could not be made.

said, if the words were unimportant then they should be omitted. He could understand that they might be construed so as to be very objectionable.

said, he thought the language of this clause was a little too strong. It provided for the dismissal at pleasure of every officer or teacher under the Governing Body, and he thought the words "at pleasure" might be omitted. Let the power of summary dismissal remain; but let the officer or teacher have the right to appeal to a Court of Law should he feel aggrieved.

said, there was another point in connection with the power of dismissal; he did not see why, in preparing schemes, the Commissioners should not have power of compensating those whose interests would be affected.

said, there was a clause in the Bill providing for that.

said, he would point out that lower down in the 17th clause there was a provision for the appointment of a public Inspector—as to which he would have something to say later on—what he had to suggest now was that the wording of the clause—

"Every teacher and officer in the endowed school or schools"

said, Clause 16 dealt with a different subject-matter to Clause 17. The officers referred to under Clause 16 were the officers of the Governing Body. The Commissioners would not have the power of dismissal in themselves; they would merely make and arrange the scheme which the Governing Body would carry out. The Inspector, under Clause 17, would be an officer appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and liable to dismissal by him.

said, he did not move the first of his Amendments on the Paper to this clause.

thought it would be well to give the power of appointing Inspectors to the Commissioners of National Education as well as to the Lord Lieutenant.

said, the objection to that was that it would not be well to give the power to temporary Commissioners, who would cease to hold office at the end of three years.

said, that if those words were left out there would be no security in the Bill in regard to the remuneration of these Inspectors, or for the presentation of Reports to the public authorities.

after all, did not think there was any objection to the words, and would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland moved his Amendment to this clause he wished to ask him whether he thought that one Commissioner would be sufficient to hold these local public inquiries concerning the subject-matter of schemes? Would it not be better to say "two or more?"

said, he had no objection to that. He would move to leave out the words "one or two," and insert "two or more."

wished to know whether, after the scheme was drawn up, the Sub-Commissioners had no further concern with it?

said, he did not think that at all. The Assistant Commissioners would assist until the matter was completed.

could not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to leave out this and the next clause.

said, that these clauses were very proper ones under the original scheme; but having appointed two Head Commissioners it seemed to him that it would embarrass the authorities without necessity if they put them to the expense of these additional appeals from two of the most eminent Judges in Ireland.

said, he should have thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman had got all the appeals he wanted in the Labourers' Act.

moved, in page 12, line 13, to leave out from "Act" to "shall," in line 15, and insert—

"Shall be part of the expenses incurred under this Act, and any cost properly and necessarily incurred by any governing body under this Act."

said, he saw the words "Dublin Gazette" in the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to leave out. It appeared to him that by means of this Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting to slide the expenses of The Dublin Gazette into the expenses under this Act. The words should be left as they were.

moved in page 13, line 23, to leave out "seven," and insert "eight." The object of this was to extend the duration of the powers of making and approving of a scheme under this Act from 1887 to 1888.

wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he had fully considered this matter; and whether he thought that three years would be sufficient to complete all the operations under this Act?

said, he thought that the 31st of December, 1888, would give them quite sufficient time, because there was a provision in the Bill that if a scheme was commenced by that date, but not carried out, it might even then be completed.

said, that perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say something further as to the tenure of the office of the Assistant Commissioners, and perhaps, also, there would be no objection to his mentioning the minimum salary which would be paid to those Assistant Commissioners. It was very important that the three Assistant Commissioners under this Act should be high officials, and it was impossible for them to perform those difficult and important duties without they were in receipt of an efficient salary; and, therefore, it would be as well if the Government could mention the minimum salary. They did not like to be left in the dark on this matter.

pointed out that in the clause he had moved the tenure of office of the Commissioners was dealt with by leaving the matter subject to the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. With regard to the other point, he would point out that they had already completed Supply; and, besides that, in order to mention the salary in the Bill, it would be necessary to recommit it, and they could not do that at that late period of the Session. As far as the Irish Executive were concerned, they would urge on the Treasury the necessity of giving good salaries.

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say what salaries the Irish Government intended to give?

said, that was impossible, for they could only make a representation to the Treasury.

said, that then what would happen was this—that they would go about trying to get men at low salaries. He hoped they would not deal with this matter in an ungenerous spirit.

said, the Government had no such desire.

said, it was quite impossible for him to make any statement on the subject, except that the Treasury would be pleased to consider any recommendation made by the Irish Government.

said, he did not think the Preamble was sufficiently comprehensive. It spoke of the desirability of giving a chance to boys and girls of promise; but he would move to strike out all the words after the word "Ireland," and insert "by applying them to the more general benefit of the people."

said, it appeared to him that there was no great virtue in Preambles; and he would move to leave out all the words after the word "Ireland."

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept his words?

No, Sir; I cannot accept them.

wished to call attention to an omission in the Amendment proposed that afternoon, which might turn out to be an important matter.

asked the hon. and gallant Member to confer with him before Report, and he would consider the matter.

suggested that they might take the Report now.

was afraid they could not do so in consequence of the Money Clauses.

in moving that the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, that he must confess he could not see why it was made, for the effect would be the same, whether it were in the Bill or not. The Amendment provided that any rights which the officers had should not be affected by the Bill, and they would not be affected in any case.

said, he thought the Amendment was ill-considered, ill-drawn, and absurd. The Bill was merely a Pension Bill; yet this Amendment declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the right and title of officers to salary should not be affected. Had the right hon. Gentleman noticed that word "salary?" The Irish Medical Officers' Association, which said nothing while the Bill was passing through the House, when the Bill had gone up to the Lords went furtively to the noble Marquess in charge of it, and induced him to introduce this clause. He had a communication from the Poor Law officers stating that the Medical Officers' Association had no authority whatever to proceed in this matter.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had laid his finger on an evil practice, and that was the system under which they were tied in discussing Lords' Amendments by the fact of the Speaker being in the Chair. If this went on much longer, it would be necessary, in the threatened New Rules, to provide that the Lords' Amendments should be considered in a Committee and a Report stage. It was very unfair that when Members of that House agreed to a certain course, and the Lords put in an Amendment, that they, the Commons, should be throttled by having to discuss the Lords' Amendments with the Speaker in the Chair.