asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the number of emigrants from Ireland during each of the months of January, February, March, and April, 1887?

(who replied) said: The numbers of emigrants from Ireland during the period named appear to have been as follows:—January, 1,678; February, 2,749; March, 7,147; and April, 18,968.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why the Pension Regulations of the Forest Service in India are based on a considerably lower scale than those now obtaining in the Public Works Department; and, if, having regard to the fact that the European officers in both Services are trained in an analogous manner, and that the duties of Foresters involve much hardship, solitude, and exposure, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to remove this distinction?

I find, upon inquiry, that the Questions which the hon. Member has addressed to me are among those which the Government of India has submitted to the Public Service Commission. The attention of that Commission is specially directed to placing Departments, as regards recruitment and future conditions of service, upon a full satisfactory basis. Alleged existing grievances as to conditions of service and retirement in various Departments are being considered from this point of view. The Secretary of State cannot, therefore, express any opinion upon the matter till the Report of the Commission is made.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the very considerable public interest taken in the matter, he will arrange that the proceedings of the "Currency Commission," of which Lord Herschell is Chairman, be public, and that it do not sit with closed doors, as was the case when Mr. Arthur Balfour was Chairman of the Commission; and, whether he will arrange that the proceedings of the Commission, with the evidence already taken before it, be printed and circulated?

The proceedings of Royal Commissions are invariably conducted in private, and it would be contrary to precedent to admit the public The accommodation at the disposal of the Commission would, moreover, be inadequate for such a purpose. I understand that the Commission purpose, at an early date, to make an interim Report to Her Majesty of their proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state why the Wexford Militia are to removed this year from the town of Wexford for their training?

(who replied) said: The 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment will this year be trained at Duncannon Fort instead of Wexford, because there is no suitable rifle range available at the latter place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to take any criminal proceedings against, or otherwise to secure the proper punishment of, Gentleman Cadet Ward, for the culpable negligence by which he shot an errand boy, named William Vicars, at Woolwich, on Saturday, 7th May?

This matter has been somewhat exaggerated. the boy Vicars did not fall down insensible, and his injury if, fortunately, not dangerous. Compensation has been offered and accepted, and the police have withdrawn from interference. Although it has not been deemed necessary to detain Gentleman Cadet Ward in arrest he has been most seriously cautioned as to his future conduct. His behaviour has been hitherto most exemplary, and the recollection of his indescribable folly will be in itself a severe punishment to him.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the great dissatisfaction that exists amongst medical students and the Medical Profession generally at the abolition of relative rank, which dissatisfaction may seriously diminish the number of candidates for the Army Medical Service, he will advise Her Majesty to issue a Warrant conferring honorary rank on all medical officers, and place them at least in as good a position as the officers in the Commissariat, Ordnance, and Pay Departments?

I have said many times that the abolition of relative rank has not in any way altered the position or status of medical officers; and I have no reason to suppose that these officers are desirous of being called by titles so dissociated from the duties of their honourable Profession as those of Colonel, Major, and Captain. These titles are, however, necessary in the case of other Departments, whose officers, unlike those of the Medical Department, do not belong to a recognized Profession.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has ascertained that there is serious dissatisfaction with the limited scope of the inquiry to be conducted by the Select Committee on Loss of Life at Sea; and, whether that scope will be extended to include inquiry into loss of life and property cause by collision, and the prevention of such loss?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Reference to the Select Committee has been enlarged, and now includes almost everything which is not within the scope of the Royal Commission to inquire into Loss of Life at Sea. The question of collisions involves international considerations as to possible modifications of the Rule of the Road at Sea. The advantages which might accrue from any such alterations would have to be carefully weighed against the possible disadvantage of changing Rules which are well known and adopted by all maritime countries, and by seamen in all parts of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps the Government propose to take in connection with the Separation Petition received from the people of North Queensland, advocating the formation of that part of Australia into a new Colony?

I have fixed a day on which to receive and hear the views of the promoters of the separation of North Queensland; but I am advised that Her Majesty's Government can take no step without Imperial legislation, and I must add that such legislation could hardly be resorted to without some prior resolution, in favour of the change, being passed by the Colonial Legislature.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would present the Correspondence which had taken place on the matter?

At present I can see no objection; but I. would rather defer an answer until I have seen the deputation.

asked the Chief Secre- tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to the refusal of Mr. Turner, R.M., to grant an information against Francis Cooke, a bailiff, charged with presenting a loaded revolver at Mr. Veich Simpson, of Drumsna; whether a number of witnesses swore that Francis Cooke and some companions had driven into the village of Drumsna and called out for Mr. Simpson; whether, when Mr. Simpson presented himself, Francis Cooke drew a revolver and presented it at Simpson; whether Mr. Turner, R.M., refused an information against Cooke, on the ground that—

"Though the revolver was produced and flourished by Cooke, to the danger of a crowd of persons near Mr. Dalrymple's door, still as there was no actual proof that he presented it at Simpson, he could not return Cooke for trial;"

and, whether the Government propose to take any further action in the matter?

(who replied) said: The Resident Magistrate reports that he did not refuse information on the ground alleged in the Question, but because there was no evidence to prove the charge. The three witnesses produced by Simpson in support of the charge denied that Cooke had presented the revolver at him or anybody else; and there was, therefore, no ground for returning information.

asked, could no prosecution be taken for drawing a revolver in a crowd because he did not present the revolver at any individual in the crowd?

said, there was no evidence to prove that the man presented the revolver at Simpson, or at anyone at all.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire into the truth of the statement that Cooke did draw his revolver in a crowd?

Will the hon. Gentleman put the Question down?

drew attention to a Return moved for by him showing—

"(1) The Annual Votes for Stores and Munitions of War from 1870–1 to 1886–7, exclusive of Votes of Credit; (2) The amounts allotted out of Votes of Credit and Supplementary Estimates, during the same period, for purchase of Stores and Munitions of War; (3) The a mounts allotted to the Navy out of Annual Votes; and (4) The amounts allotted to the Navy out of Votes of Credit and Supplementary Estimates."

The noble Lord said, that for some unaccountable reason a Notice of opposition had been placed against it by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and he now begged to move that the Motion for the Return be withdrawn and the Order discharged, for the reason that the Secretary of State for War had kindly promised to lay the information before Parliament on his own initiative.

The noble Lord has done all that is necessary in the matter.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there were no less than five Notices of objection to it. The terms in which the objections were expressed were so short and concise that he was unable to gather from them the reasons which actuated the hon. Members in giving those Notices. The only one which condescended to reasons was that of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). He (Sir John Gorst) would answer, as well as he could, such objections as he was able to find. He rather gathered, from a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Swansea, that there was in the hon. Member's mind—and he understood in the minds of some other hon. Members —a doubt as to whether such a Bill was necessary. It was rendered necessary by an old Statute, 53 Geo. III., which was repeated in the now operative Statute, the 3 and 4 Will. IV., c. 75, Clause 79 of which provides—

"That the return to Europe, or the departure from India with the intent to return to Europe, of any Governor General of India, Governor, Member of Council, or Commander-in-Chief, shall he deemed a resignation or voidance of his Office and employment."

Therefore, if His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught left Bombay for the purpose of coming to this country, he would ipso facto lose his appointment. If he had been allowed to leave his appointment, and had then been re-appointed on his return, it would have been regarded by many persons as an improper evasion of the Statute he had just read. There was another objection—that the condition of India might be such that it would not be expedient that the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army should be absent. The Bill did not enact that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught was to come home. The Bill would be permissive; and only provided that the Viceroy of India—who was responsible for the safety of India—might, should he think the circumstances of the time admitted it, grant such leave for three months to enable him to return to this country. He had gathered also that there was a feeling on the part of hon. Members that the Revenues of India might be burdened by the salary of an official not attending to his duties there. That was a misconception, as the effect of the Bill, if enacted, would only be to enable His Royal Highness to return to this country without resigning his command, but would not enable him to draw his salary during his absence.

It is not in the Bill.

said, it was not there because it was not necessary. The section of the Act of Parliament to, which he had already referred, said that—

"If any of the specified officials should leave the Presidency, &c, to which he belonged, the salary and allowances belonging to his Office should not be paid or payable to any agent or person to his use."

The Act would not be disturbed by that Bill if passed; therefore, no part of His Royal Highness's pay or allowances would become payable to him.

What about the pay as Member of the Council?

said, he believed that His Royal Highness received no pay as a Member of the Council; but if he did, that would share the same fate under the Act. He did not think he need at that—or, indeed, at any—stage of the Bill argue the general question as to whether it was desirable that His Royal Highness should be present on such an occasion as the Queen's Jubilee. [Cheers.] He accepted that cheer as showing that the whole House agreed with him in what he had just indicated. He now came to another objection. He understood that the hon. Member for Leicester objected to the Bill as a measure specially relating to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, and not a general Bill dealing with the clause in the Act of 1833. He admitted that there was a strong case for a general repeal of those provisions of the Act of 1833 which were referred to. When that Act was passed the only way a person could come to this country from India or return to India from this country was by sailing ship round the Cape of Good Hope; a passage which would occupy three or four, or even as much as nine months. It might be a very proper provision then; but now when the passage was made—or would be made under the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company—in 16 or 17 days, and had actually been done in 15 days; when it was possible also by means of the electric telegraph to recall an officer to his post at a few hours' notice, the House would see that the reasons which might have influenced Parliament to pass that Act no longer existed, at any rate in anything like the same degree. The fact of the Duke of Connaught desiring to come home for the Queen's Jubilee had, no doubt, raised the question as to whether Parliament ought not now to be asked to repeal that section of the old Act altogether. It had occurred to his mind, however, that if Her Majesty's Government had proceeded in that fashion, hon. Members might have accused the Government of trying to alter the law under cover of a Bill for an apparently different purpose; and although the Government did not often get credit for frankness and candour in their proceedings—[laughter]—he was sure that hon. Members would say that on that occasion, at all events, its procedure had been candid and frank. Therefore, if the Government had proceeded by a general Bill it might have been made matter of objection. But there was a more serious objection to a General Bill than that, and it was that in Indian legislation it was the practice of the Government at home to proceed with extreme caution, and not to tamper with the laws of India without consulting the Indian Government itself. It was a matter which took some time. On such a question the Government of India itself would not proceed rashly; it would refer the question to the provincial Government, and hear the opinion of that Government before it would form or indicate its own opinion to the Secretary of State; and that also would take a considerable amount of time. The course which the Government had adopted, and which he hoped would commend itself to the good judgment of the House, was in this particular case to proceed by special legislation for the purpose of giving statutory authority to the Viceroy of India on his own responsibility to give leave of absence to the Duke of Connaught. Having so dealt with this special case, at more leisure and when the time of Parliament was better able to be devoted to such a question, the Government intended to bring this old Statute under the consideration of Parliament, with a view to ascertaining whether the present law might be altered or not. He hoped the House would consent to that course being adopted, and agree to the second reading of this Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be now road a second time.

in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he had understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) that the Government might have given His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught leave to come home without initiating any special legislation, but that the Government on the whole considered it desirable that this Bill should be passed.

said, that he had said there was nothing to prevent His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught coming home except the fact that by doing so he would have to resign his command, and that if he did so the Government might re-appoint him. The Government did not adopt that course, for the reason that it might be considered an evasion of the Statute.

said, he quite understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said. He was glad to hear that there was no intention at present to repeal the Statute, which he considered a very salutary one. For many reasons he was extremely unwilling to bring forward this Resolution, and he only did so from a sense of duty. [Cries of "Oh!"] He considered it was advisable that those who were opposed to this measure should express their opinions frankly and fairly. There was a very strong feeling outside the House on this point, that there were many exalted personages in this country who received high appointments over the heads of other officers in consequence of their connection with the Throne—appointments which they would not have received otherwise. That was believed to be so, not only in the case of his Royal Highness, but in the case of other personages who had chief commands entrusted to them in this country. That, however, was not the ground on which he now moved the rejection of the Bill. In doing so he wished emphatically to declare to the House that it was not from any want of loyalty to Her Majesty or respect for His Royal Highness, whom he believed to be an estimable person and an excellent officer; but he contended that if these appointments were given to exalted personages they ought to hold them upon the conditions on which other persons held them. His Royal Highness—or whoever else was entrusted with the command in India— enjoyed high pay, great power, a good position, and many great privileges. What he said was this—and he thought a very large proportion of the country agreed with him—that those who had this great power and these great privileges, on account of their relationship to the Throne—which he did not complain of—should take the rough with the smooth — that they should not have all the good things, but should take the disabilities and the inconveniences which attached to the positions with which they were entrusted. That was his chief reason for moving the rejection of this Bill. He was bound to say that the House were asked to grant these special privileges to His Royal Highness at a very unseasonable time. [An hon. MEMBER: The Jubilee.] Mr. Dillywn said he would say nothing about the year of Jubilee; but the political horizon of India was not so satisfactory that just now, of all other times, they should give to his Royal Highness leave to come home to see his respected mother. He almost doubted whether his Royal Highness himself would wish to leave India at this particular crisis. They had troops on the North-West Frontier, where they did not know what might turn up; and in Burmah, again, they had a considerable army. He had now stated, he hoped with all respect to Her Majesty and his Royal Highness, the reasons that had induced him to make this Motion. He repeated that it was a sense of duty only which impelled him to move the rejection of the Bill.

in seconding the Amendment, said, that high places in the Army and the Navy were being filled by exalted personages. He would refer to a few examples. He hoped the House would acquit him of any want of respect or loyalty to the Queen in the course he was taking. In the first place, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge—the Commander-in-Chief—had never served as ensign, lieutenant, captain, major, or lieutenant-colonel. [Cries of "Order!"]

I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet is in Order, and is speaking to the Question before the House, in referring to the names of these Royal personages, who hold appointments in the Army, as he is proceeding to do?

The specific point of this Bill is the question of leave to His Royal Highness the Duke of Con-naught. The hon. Member certainly appears to me to be travelling beyond the question before the House in discussing the position of the members of the Royal Family.

I wish to know, Sir, whether, in discussing this Bill, we shall not be at liberty to consider the practice of appointing to high positions in the Army and the Navy members of the Royal Family?

That would certainly be out of Order.

On the question of Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you, whether you will be good enough to direct the Clerk at the Table to take down that ruling as a precedent?

I shall do nothing of the sort.

said, he brought the other cases forward as an illustration of his argument; but, in accordance with the Speaker's ruling, he should try to avoid them. But there were in the Army and Navy three or four of the highest positions held by exalted persons, and the consequence was that officers of the Army and Navy had been precluded from obtaining these high appointments. [Cries of "No, no!"] He would give as an illustration the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Admiral Sir John Commerell)—one of the most gallant Admirals in the Navy—who found that his prospects of hoisting his flag as Commander of the Mediterranean Squadron were very materially diminshed—

The clause of this Bill—and the only clause—relates to the return of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught without the resignation of his appointment, and the remarks of the hon. Baronet are not pertinent to that.

said, that in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, he merely wished to suggest that an opportunity had occurred when His Royal Highness-finding his Royal duties incompatible with his military duties—might gracefully retire from the post he filled and allow some distinguished military officer to take his place. He would only refer for a moment to the enormous amount of ineffective service both in the Army and Navy in consequence of these positions being held by persons of exalted social rank. Our Army and Navy Estimates now amounted to £31,000,000, and one-sixth of that was for pay, pensions, and retirements, because naval and military officers could see no chance of promotion, or of obtaining these high positions. There were now some 600 or 700 lieutenants in the Royal Navy—

The hon. Member is palpably evading the ruling of the Chair.

Has the hon. Gentleman concluded by seconding the Motion?

said: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

said, he wished to state the reasons which had induced him to put an Amendment to the Bill upon the Paper. He had not done so in any spirit of disloyalty— [laughter]—though some persons might look upon it in that light. He—like the hon. Member for Swansea, Mr. Dillwyn—had acted merely in discharge of a public duty. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it was special legislation, for which there was no necessity, and which did not affect any large section of the community. Although the occasion might be interesting, it could not be contended that it was a public duty for His Royal High- ness to return to England; and he, therefore, protested against the proposed legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India could say that such legislation would be undertaken with regard to Sir Frederick Roberts or Lord Wolseley, there might be some show of reason in proposing it. he thought the opportunity was a convenient one for protesting against His Royal Highness holding such an appointment as that in question. [Cries of "Question!"] He was arguing that if His Royal Highness had not been appointed at all the Bill would not be required, and now that he was appointed it was doubly unnecessary, he should like to know whether the Nation would be called upon to pay His Royal Highness's expenses home, for if the journey were undertaken the Nation, in the circumstances, certainly ought not to be called upon to pay the expense.

said, that, with all due respect to the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was inclined to think that Section 79 of the Statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85 merely provided that the salary of the Commander-in-Chief should cease as a consequence of what the Act declared to be a resignation and avoidance of the office. This Bill said that the departure of His Royal Highness should not be a resignation or avoidance of the office, and he would respectfully submit that if the resignation and avoidance were cleared away ail the consequences attaching thereto would also be cleared away. He would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly state that there was no intention whatever to impose a burden. Even if his contention were not accepted by the Government, he thought it would be desirable to introduce words so as to clear up the legal doubt, and make the point quite clear.

who had placed on the Paper the following Amendment—

"That in the opinion of this House it is unadvisable to pass a Bill for the purpose of conferring special or exceptional privilege on any commanding officer of Her Majesty's Forces, unless when such a measure is required for the due recognition of extraordinary personal services to the nation,"

said, he was as anxious as the most loyal subject of Her Majesty that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should take his share in the rejoicings and ceremonies of this year; but he held that the Bill was unnecessary. His Royal Highness might have resigned and been re-appointed; or, he thought, power would have been found in the Government of India Act, which enabled Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to alter and regulate the terms and conditions of Service under which persons hold their Commissions. But the real point was whether or not it was desirable, for purposes of mere personal convenience, to set the whole legislative machinery of the Empire in motion. This Bill was an illustration of the saying that the British Parliament was like an elephant's trunk, which could pick up a pin or rend an oak. By an act of its omnipotent power it could unite nations or dissolve a marriage between an ill-matched couple; and it had been recently suggested by the editor of an evening paper that its power might be used to declare two persons to be man and wife who had never been legally married. But he maintained that, as a general rule, the Imperial power of the Legislature should only be invoked for purposes affecting the interests of the whole commonwealth. There were, of course, sometimes cases of extraordinary suffering, or gross personal wrong, which did indirectly affect the commonwealth, and create a scandal of sufficient magnitude and public interest to require a special Act of Parliament to deal with it. There was, for instance, a case in which a special Act had been passed for the purpose of securing to a particular family the possession and enjoyment of certain estates that had been wasted by a malignant pretender. And it was suggested by the newspaper previously mentioned that the power of Parliament would be well employed in passing an Act to relieve the misery of an individual caused by the special brutality and villiany of one man, on the ground that such unpunished villiany was a public shame and scandal. He had no doubt, however, that very many hon. Members would object, in such a case, to the power of Parliament being invoked for what would be considered private ends. But if they were right in that objection, how could they support the Bill before them for the mere private convenience of a Royal Prince, who wanted to be relieved of his public responsibilities in order that he might come to England to take a part in family rejoicings? He thought the legislative machinery should not be set in motion for a purely personal object. It would be said that an exception should be made, because this was the case of an illustrious Prince. The fact of His Royal Highness the Duke of Con-naught being a Prince was just the reason for not passing this particular Bill, and making an exception in his favour. Persons of such high station ought to set an example of uncomplaining obedience to the law. The people liked to see persons in exalted stations taking the rough with the smooth, and setting the example of uncomplaining obedience to the law; and nothing endeared exalted persons to the public affection more than such an obedience. It was singular what little sacrifices in persons of high station were looked upon as heroic; for them to face a shower of rain out of good nature was thought almost as much of as for a common soldier to face a shower of grape. This Bill was an abuse of Parliamentary omnipotence. Seeing that popularity could be so easily obtained, he thought that responsibilities ought to be fearlessly accepted, and that for the Government to bring forward a Bill of this kind was unwise in the interest of that loyalty which they desired should be always cherished towards the Throne of this Realm.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) should have felt it his duty to oppose the Bill, because the time of the House would be wasted in a somewhat useless discussion. Nevertheless, he intended to vote with the hon. Member, because he could not but regard the Bill as a piece of class legislation, for which there was no justification. If "Tommy Atkins"—whose interest was quite as dear to him as that of His Royal Highness—with his body covered with wounds received in the service of his country, had desired to return homo to celebrate his father and mother's silver or golden wedding, or on the occasion of domestic affliction, the Government would not have undertaken to introduce such a Bill for his benefit. He was not aware of His Royal Highness having earned any special distinction, and he failed to see what the Duke of Connaught had done to justify such a measure. Had he not been fortunate enough to hare been born Duke of Connaught he would not have been accorded such a privilege. He objected to special legislation of this kind, even when the person concerned was a son of Her Majesty.

said, that the reason this Act was necessary for the Duke of Con-naught was that he was Commander-in-Chief, whereas a private soldier could get leave without an Act of Parliament; but with reference to the argument about "Tommy Atkins," he protested—as one who had been a regimental and staff officer for many years— against the suggestion that the interests of private soldiers were not taken into consideration. On all occasions when there were domestic circumstances in the case of private soldiers requiring leave of absence, the commanding officer strained a point to give them leave.

said, he should like to ask whether that privilege had ever been extended so far that private soldiers had been permitted to return from India for such purposes?

said, similar cases could not arise; but he happened to know there bad been cases where private soldiers had been allowed to return home from India. Of course there was the money difficulty for the passage; but commanding officers did consider the welfare of their men, and would strain a point, if a troop-ship were going home, and there was room for them, to obtain them a passage; whilst this Bill was necessary, because His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught hold the position of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay. He admitted that the Government had made a tactical mistake in calling it the "Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill," and should be glad if it were extended to all Commanders-in-Chief, which would probably have mot the objections of hon. Members opposite. He (General Goldsworthy) had himself been Assistant Adjutant General of the District in the South of Ireland at the same time as His Royal Highness was serving there. It was a long time—[An hon. MEMBER: Six months.]—more than that. His Royal Highness was in command of a battalion and performed his duties to the full satisfaction of the General, and as well as any officer could do. He (General Goldsworthy) himself could also bear testimony to the efficient way in which His Royal Highness performed his duties as an officer, and to the fact that he was never in the habit of taking advantage of his position as a Member of the Royal Family to ask for any special privilege which any other officer might not have asked for. He should support the Bill.

said, the state of the matter was this—that during the last century the voyage to and from India occupied not less than a year, or even a year and a-half. In 1833, when the voyage took nine months, or even a year, it was thought right by Parliament that there should be a distinct prohibition put upon a practice, in former days not very uncommon, under which officers appointed to very high positions in India spent a large amount of time in this country. The Act of Parliament provided that the officers holding certain high appointments in the Military and Civil Services in India—namely, the Governor General, the Governors of the Presidencies, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commanders-in-Chief of the Presidencies, should not be permitted to leave their posts without ipso facto vacating them. But what was the present position of the matter with respect to persons holding high offices, whether civil or military, in distant parts of the world? When he held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty and Secretary for War, it was in his power to give leave of absence to persons holding the highest military and naval positions at greater distances than India. During his tenure of Office at the Admiralty, leave had boon given to the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China, and to the Naval Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific. In the same way leave could be given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Ambassadors, and by the Secretary for the Colonies to Colonial Governors. Only a few years ago it was proposed by a Royal Commission that the Commander-in-Chief of a Presidency should cease to be so designated, and should, for the future, be entitled, "the General commanding in the Presidency of Madras or Bombay." Now, if this proposal had been carried into effect, the officer holding the position filled by His Royal Highness the Duke of Can-naught could have obtained leave of absence from the Secretary of State for War. Under these circumstances, it would be altogether wrong to reject this measure, and for the House to lay down that an officer holding an appointment of that kind ought to be restrained from having leave, if the Governor General and the Secretary of State thought it right that he should have such leave; and more especially when officers holding similar appointments at a greater distance might obtain it. Then the question arose, was it reasonable to maintain a distinction by which one class of officers should be absolutely prohibited from leaving their commands, while others in similar or more important positions should be at liberty to do so. How should they deal with this particular Bill? It seemed to him that the clause in the Act of 1833 was altogether obsolete, and that it would be desirable, at the earliest possible moment, to bring in a Bill in order to repeal the restriction which he had pointed out and enable the Governor General and Secretary of State to grant leave to all the high officials whom he had already named. If the House was of that opinion, the next question they had to consider would be, whether they should pass the present Bill, or let it to be postponed with a view of passing within a short time a Bill repealing those restrictions. Considering the pressure of Business, he thought it would be inexpedient to substitute for this Bill a general measure; and if they received an assurance that the Government would, as soon as possible, bring in a Bill repealing altogether the clause in the Act of 1833, he could not see why the House, under all the circumstance?, should reject the present proposal.

I rise at once in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government will certainly introduce the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. We feel that there is not only no objection to the course indicated, but that very great advantage is to be derived from it in the public interest. There are occasions on which the public interest is greatly served by an opportunity of consulting with officers high in command and holding positions of great responsibility in different parts of the world. In the administration of Departments, I have found great advantage in being able to confer personally with officers who have come straight home from those commands, returning again to them. Therefore, the circumstances being so completely changed from what they were when the Act of 1833 was passed, render it advisable in the public interest that these officers in India should be in a position to be recalled home for a few weeks to confer with the Government, and to obtain that leave which every other officer subordinate to them is entitled to, and does obtain, at the present time. The hon. Member for Northampton has a doubt as to the application of the Act with regard to pay and allowances to His Royal Highness. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are advised that the Act operates to prevent the pay and allowances being given; but, whether it does or not, I will undertake that His Royal Highness shall not draw either pay or allowances during the period of leave. It is hardly necessary that I should refer to the observations which have been made by hon. Gentlemen with regard to this measure. The Government have acted frankly in bringing it forward in the form in which it has been presented to the House; and we have not the slightest doubt that it will be accepted by the House as a reasonable and proper measure under the circumstances. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) referred to the fact that it was only reasonable to suppose that His Royal Highness should return to take part in an event which affords satisfaction to the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that any man who stands in the relation of parent to a family mu3t feel that it is not only reasonable, but most fitting and desirable, that the Family of the Queen should be around her upon an occasion which is one of rejoicing, of satisfaction, and of happiness to the whole of Her Majesty's subjects. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), there is no officer serving Her Majesty under the rank of Commander-in-Chief in India who is entitled to leave under circumstances such. as these who does not get it with pay and allowances, and leave is given in every reasonable case if the exigencies of the Service permit. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to the condition of India and the duties of the Commander-in-Chief. I can say, without any hesitation whatever, that neither His Royal Highness nor the Governor General of India will be any party to the neglect of any duty which falls upon His Royal Highness. If the circumstances of the day are such as to render it at all desirable or necessary that His Royal Highness should remain in India when the time comes for his departure, we may regret the circumstances, but certainly His Royal Highness will not come home. There is, however, no reason to believe, from the events which are happening, that the departure of His Royal Highness will have to be postponed, or that any of the sinister forebodings in which the hon. Member has indulged will be fulfilled. I trust the House will not be put to the trouble of a Division on a question of this kind; and that, although there may be some difference of opinion on the subject, hon. Members will allow a measure of this character to be accepted by the House with that unanimity which is usually extended to proposals of this kind, which in themselves are reasonable and justifiable, and which, I am sure, will be accepted by the country as graceful and fitting under all the circumstances.

said. he did not think this was so exciting a question as some of his hon. Friends around him seemed to think, nor did he consider it to be a matter of high Constitutional policy which need keep them there till 6 o'clock in the morning. The real point was whether the Bill was, on the whole, for the public good. Now, there were three parties to the Bill. First, there was the Duke of Connaught himself; secondly, there were the people of India; and thirdly, there were the people of England. With regard to the Duke of Connaught—[cries of "The Queen!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Some hon. Members opposite said "The Queen!" He begged to assure those hon. Members that it was a most unconstitutional practice to bring the name of the Sovereign into the debates of that House, and whatever might be done on the other side of the House he should scrupulously abstain from doing so. If the Duke of Connaught wanted to come home to the Jubilee, why should he not? It might be a pleasure to His Royal Highness, though, for his part, he should think it would be the greatest pleasure to keep away from such a performance. It appeared to him to be one of the most intolerable of nuisances. However, if His Royal Highness wished to come, and thought it a matter of duty, why should he not? Then there were the people of India. His hon. Friend below him seemed to be greatly alarmed at what might happen in India. But did his hon. Friend really think that the Duke of Connaught's presence in India would do anything to avert any danger which might be impending? That was a most extraordinary idea. There were plenty of officers who might be sent out to take his place. There was, for example, the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith (General Goldsworthy). The third party to be considered were the people of England. It had been solemnly declared from the Front Bench opposite that this step would not cost the people of this country one penny, and it would give them, the great pleasure of bringing the Royal Duke home to be stared at when the Jubilee celebrations took place, and that was an amusement which the English people liked better than any other people in the world. Under these circumstances, he did not see any great objection to this Bill, and so he would vote against his hon. Friend.

said, he did not so much object to the Bill as to the waste of the time of the House of Commons in introducing what he considered to be a totally unnecessary Bill, especially when there were many more important measures waiting to be discussed. He thought it would have been much less invidious if the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of saying that it was a reasonable thing that the Duke should be allowed to come away entirely without pay, and of re-appointing him. There were grave objections to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to introduce a general measure, which would lead to a still further waste of time.

said, that they had seen the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) get up and propose some sort of transaction to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite him. There was one sound rule in that House which he trusted would always be followed, at least in that part of the House where he sat. It was that whenever there was the slightest sign of a bargain or arrangement between the two Front Benches they ought invariably to upset it. He should not be surprised if the general Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were blocked; a strong proof that the proposal was an improper one was that it was necessary to bring in a Bill to give effect to it. Whether it was desirable or undesirable that these great and lucrative places should be given to Royal Princes was open to question; but he thought when any of these places were given to a Royal Prince the holder of it should sink the Prince in the soldier. If any Governor General or Commander-in-Chief, who was not a Royal Prince, wished to come home to see his mother, or if his mother was anxious to see him, would anybody bring in a Bill to enable him to do so? He should say not. [Ministerial cries of "Divide!"] If there was any discussion on a Bill introduced by the Government, there was an immediate cry of Obstruction, and the Leader of the House began to lecture them. They were perpetually told by the right hon. Gentleman that they were obstructing the Coercion Bill—["Order, order! "and "Divide!"]—for which everything else was set aside. ["Divide!"] The action of the Government showed how hollow all their protests were against Obstruction, when they set aside important Business in order to bring forward this Bill. ["Divide!"] If hon. Members opposite persist in their interruptions, he would move the adjournment. He told them that he and his hon. Friends were not going to be crushed down by a Party who tried to break, destroy, and put an end to the debates in the House. ["Order, order!"]

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.

said, that he was about to invoke the Speaker's protection. Important Business was being delayed, and the House was asked to occupy itself with a Bill which was an obsequious and servile Bill, brought in to suit the private convenience of a Royal Prince. He would leave it to the country to judge between the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen on the other side as to who were most anxious that the real and true Business of the country should be proceeded with.

said, that the First Lord of the Treasury had given them an undertaking that the Duke of Connaught would not draw any pay and allowances during his absence from duty. He wished to ask whether there was any objection to insert the words ''without pay and allowances" in the Bill?

That is wholly unnecessary. Surely my undertaking is sufficient.

I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking. But this Bill is a precedent for the general measure now announced.

wished to know whether it was clearly understood that the travelling expenses of the return of the Duke of Connaught to this country and back to India would be defrayed by His Royal Highness or by the Treasury?

said, he must complain of the want of courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman. The question put by the Member for Manchester ought to be answered. He considered that no sufficient reasons had been advanced in support of the Bill. The Chief Secretary for India had drawn attention to the dangers and difficulties that beset India; and was this a time when the Commander-in-Chief should evacuate his post? He thought they had not received the assurances from the Government that they were entitled to receive, and if they obtained those assurances, the Irish Members would agree to the Bill without a Division.

I think, Sir, I may now make an appeal to the House to pass this Bill through its remaining stages—[Cries of "No!" from the Opposition Benches]—if that is in accordance with the general sense of the House. [Renewed cries of "No!"] In dealing with a measure of this character, which is confined and limited, I think it is only reasonable and fitting that the House should expedite its passing, ["No!"] I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.

I appeal to you, Sir, whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to take the remaining stages of the Bill now?

It is perfectly in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to make the Motion, if it is done with the general assent of the House.

Can it be done without the unanimous assent of the House?

The general assent of the House is all that is necessary.

Notice has been given of opposition to the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill.

That is impossible, the period for receiving Notices on that stage not having yet arrived.

I have just handed the Notice in.

I do not think that sufficient general assent has been given. What day does the right hon. Gentleman propose to fix for the Committee?

As the general assent of the House has not been given to the Motion I will put the Committee down for to-morrow.

I should like to know whether it is intended that the Committee shall have power to call for persons, papers, and records?

Certainly.

Sir, in rising to call the attention of the House to the question of Post Office patronage, I feel it necessary to explain that I find myself placed in a position of some little difficulty. I am most anxious to proceed with the Motion which appears in my name on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and I am naturally all the more anxious, because, upon a former occasion, when it was expected that this question might be discussed, it was not reached until a very late hour of the night, and it was the general sense of the House on that occasion that so important a matter should not be proceeded with when there was no possibility of securing for it adequate discussion. In this instance, I have been called upon suddenly to proceed with the Motion, and the difficulty I find myself in is this—owing to the Division which took place a few minutes ago, I was hurriedly summoned into the Division Lobby from the dinner table; but I had understood that there would be some discussion on the Question which has been just put from the Chair on the first Motion upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker-Heaton), for cheapening and facilitating postal communication between all parts of the Empire. Believing that that discussion would take some time, I am obliged to admit that I have not got with me, at the present moment, the notes and papers which I had prepared, and which are necessary to enable me to go on with my Resolution. I have them in my locker. I do not wish hon. Members to suppose for a moment that I have any desire to shirk the matter. I am perfectly willing to deal with the matter as well as I am able without the assistance of my notes, if it is the desire of the House, although I should be in a much better position to do so if the House would allow me first to go to my locker. I only make this statement in order to explain the difficulty of the position in which I find myself placed. Having said this in order to explain the reasons why, under existing circumstances, it will be impossible for me to deal with the question as fully and completely as I should wish, I propose to give a brief and, I am afraid, only an imperfect outline of my complaint. There has been a good deal said in the public Press with regard to certain appointments which have been made by the Postmaster General during the present year. As I understand, the question resolves itself into two branches, the first of which has reference to the transference of certain clerks in a particular department of the Post Office from one class to another. It has been alleged that certain transferences have been made which have not been in accordance with the usual rule which prevails in the Post Office, and not in accordance with the information and advice supplied to the Postmaster General by the permanent heads of the department who are cognizant of the work done by the different clerks, and are, therefore, best able to judge of the propriety of the particular appointments made. It is alleged that the course which the Postmaster General has taken in this matter is not only a novel course, but is so opposed to the regulations which are issued in respect of competition for appointments in the public service relating to the Post Office as to constitute almost a breach of contract between the Post Office and those who have entered the service of the Post Office by moans of public competition. I understand that, in one particular case, a gentleman has been promoted by the Postmaster General on his own responsibility, and against the wishes of the permanent officials of the Post Office, who were best able to judge whether he was the most competent person to be promoted to a higher position. There have been other and extraneous matters imported into the question; but I hope it will be clearly understood that I do not refer to the matter in order to make any personal charge against the Postmaster General. I say so because, in answer to a Question which was put to him, the right hon. Gentleman gave a firm denial to the charges which have been made. The allegation wa3 that, in making these appointments, some regard was had by the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the persons promoted were, in some way or other, connected with him by family ties. The right hon. Gentleman took the earliest opportunity of denying those allegations, and I am glad that it was so. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, in answer to a Question addressed to him by myself, that he had no acquaintance with the gentlemen in regard to whose appointments these stories had been set afoot. That remark, however—that he had no acquaintance with the gentlemen he promoted—only goes to confirm the contention which is made, that he must have been unable to know whether he was appointing the best and most suitable men. The whole gist of the question is, that the right hon. Gentleman appointed persons in the teeth of the direct opposition of the permanent officials, who were the persons best qualified to judge of the fitness of the gentlemen promoted. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he made these appointments without knowing anything about the individuals, or the work they had been doing, we are certainly justified in our contention that it would have boon much better if he had followed the practice which had previously prevailed. Another important point which I wish to raise is, that the right hon. Gentleman, in making appointments to Provincial post master ships, has on various occasions made alterations in the amount of salaries, with the view of keeping these offices as a part of the political patronage of the Government of the day. I have had cases placed before me which fully bear oat that allegation—cases in which the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the salary below £120, which is the amount beyond which the political patronage of the Post Office cannot be exercised in England; and in other cases below £100, which is the amount beyond which the political patronage of the Treasury cannot be exercised in Ireland and Scotland. I am not prepared to contend that it is solely with a view of indulging in political patronage, and for the sake of giving these appointments to the supporters of the Government, that these reductions have been made; but the fact remains that, in some cases, they have had the effect of making the offices to which they are attached a part of the political patronage of the Government; and there is this remarkable coincidence—that where these reductions of salary have been made appointments of a Tory rather than of a Liberal or Radical complexion had taken place apparently as a consequence. The conclusion is, therefore, forced upon the public mind that the reductions have been made with the express purpose and intention of keeping these appointments in the hands of the Government of the day, and of turning them into political and Party appointments. If my contention is right, I have good reasons for bringing the matter before the House, and for complaining that such a state of things should exist, because I look upon it as introducing into our system of administration some of the worst features of the American Civil Service system, which have always been presented to us on this side of the Atlantic in the most odious light. Whenever anything is said of political corruption in America, the allegation is always coupled with a reference to the fact that whenever a change of Government is made in the United States every petty official through-out the country is changed at once. That is a system which we rightly regard as a mischievous system; and if I had no other ground, I should feel it my duty to resist any attempt on the part of a Minister in this country to introduce a system which could have the most remote resemblance to that mischievous example. I am not saying that this is so; but an impression has got hold of the mind of the public that it is so, and the facts which have been brought to light go a long way towards bearing out that impression. What we desire is that these appointments should be given to the most fit and proper persons. In appointing a postmaster in a country district, what is wanted is to secure the services of a person who has sufficient time at his disposal to enable him to discharge the duties properly, whose fitness is admitted, and whose character is above suspicion. If the appointments are to be given to the friends of this Party or of that, just as a Liberal or Tory Government happens to be in power, it will be impossible to prevent jobbery and scandal. I look upon this as the strongest part of my case; and I propose to make the Resolution I will venture to place before the House sufficiently wide to deal with the question not merely as a personal question relating to the administration of the Post Office by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), but in such a form as to place on record that this House desires to see all these appointments kept carefully clear from Party jobbery. I do not use that expression as relating to one Party more than another; but I apply it to all Parties. What I desire is that these appointments should be kept clear altogether from Party influence, and that there should be some general principle laid down in regard to the administration of the Civil Service generally, and especially in regard to the Post Office. The Post Office is an institution which we have always regarded with pride. We have seen it attain gigantic dimensions; and it is one of the few paying institutions with which the Government have any connection. I hope it will long continue to be well administered; but I am afraid that if we once allow the minor appointments in the Post Office to be drawn into the whirlpool of Party strife, the result will be that the high character for efficiency which it has hitherto enjoyed will speedily vanish, and we shall have to regret the innovations which have apparently been introduced for the first time by the present Administration. In reference to the question of appointing partizans to these humble positions, I will only quote one case which has been brought to my notice. I refer to Appledore. A complaint has been laid before me by persons who say that the postmastership has been given to a particular individual who had been promised the post, even before a vacancy, by the secretary of the Tory local organization or society. That fact proves, to a great extent, the proposition I have advanced that there is a tendency in these days to place these appointments in the hands of persons connected with the Party in power, and that they are given as a piece of political patronage. I think the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General would do well to signalize his holding of the Office by doing all he can to remove these appointments from the atmosphere of politics and Party influences. The Resolution I propose to place before the House is—

"That is is desirable, in the interests of the efficiency of the Post Office, that the present system of Post Office patronage, so far as it depends upon Party influence, should cease."

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to move any Resolution inasmuch as he has given no Notice of it. The Order of the House is that a Resolution must be in the hands of Members, and due Notice must be given of it. The hon. Member cannot spring, so to speak, a Resolution upon the House.

I am sorry if I have transgressed the Orders of the House; but your ruling, Sir, relieves me of a difficulty. I have called attention to the matter as I was bound to do, and, having done so, I will leave the matter in the hands of the House without moving any Resolution at all. I will only apologize to the House, not so much for having sprung a Resolution upon hon. Members, because I did not intend to do anything of the kind, and I was not aware that it was necessary to do more than give Notice of my Motion in the form I have done; but for having acquitted myself in a very feeble way in consequence of having the matter rather sprung upon myself, owing to the circumstance which I have already mentioned.

in supporting the contention of the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare), said, that persons who had been connected with the Post Office assured him, from their knowledge, that there had been cases since the right hon. Gentleman obtained control of the Department which tended to the well-founded belief that patronage in the Post Office was not exercised solely in the interest of the public, but very largely for Party ends. That remark applied specially to the appointment of medical officers. It was alleged that there was a decided tendency to fill these posts with gentlemen of Conservative principles. In that way, great political influence might from time to time be exercised. With regard to the charge that salaries of £120 in England had been reduced to £119, and of £100 in Scotland to £99, in order to bring the posts within the sphere of political influence, whether the motive alleged was the right one or not, it at any rate gave grounds for great suspicion, and while he did not mean to say that the Postmaster General wished to make those appointments for political purposes, he thought the House ought to protest against any such thing being done. He hoped the Postmaster General would declare, not only that such things had not been done, but that they would not be done for the future.

said, he would not, at all events, be suspected of an undue leaning towards Her Majesty's present Advisers; but he was bound to state that he had never seen anything to justify the great outcry which had been made a little while ago with regard to the manner in which the present Postmaster General exercised the power entrusted to him. The right hon. Gentleman had a very difficult post to fill, and it appeared that the difficulties in his way had been exceptionally great. Certain appointments had been made, on the right hon. Gentleman's own responsibility, which did not meet with the approval of his subordinates, and something like a public scandal, something like an organized opposition to the Postmaster General by gentlemen who constituted his Staff, had been the result. His (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) own experience of the Civil Service generally was that there was a great deal too much power in the hands of the permanent officials. He believed that, to a large extent, the excessive expenditure in connection with the Civil Service, and also of the Army and Navy, was due to the fact that the permanent Staff had too much power in their hands, and had been able to control the Parliamentary officials who, for some time after they came into office, were necessarily largely at the mercy of the permanent officials; and, after that, were to a great extent broken in to the established lines and modes of thought in the different Departments. The Postmaster General had dared, what few Ministers had dared, to think for himself; and, as a consequence, those who ought to be subordinate and obedient to him had opposed him. For his part, he was glad to see the dignified and firm attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. If Ministers were to be held responsible for the administration of their Departments, they must have the authority which should be concomitant with the responsibility; and it would never do for that House to deprive Ministers of the authority which was necessary to maintain and enforce their responsibility. The result of such interference would be that the permanent officials would have everything in their own hands. If Parliament allowed the higher portion of the permanent Staff to interfere with all parts of the organization, the country would have to pay for it. If we had Ministers responsible to Parliament, let them be held responsible for the expenditure and for every single detail; but, while we did so, let us have the justice to leave them with a free hand.

I am sure the House will condole with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) who has brought forward this subject on his misfortune in having been called in from his dinner, although they will probably have heard with some feeling of satisfaction that the hon. Member had left his papers behind. But I think we must commiserate the hon. Member even in a greater degree upon the misfortune that he has at last been brought to book. These charges have been hanging over for many weeks and months, and what is the position in which the House now finds itself? The hon. Member, who is so anxious to arraign the conduct of a Member of Her Majesty's Government, has had upon the Paper for something like two months a vague charge which he has never thought fit or never found himself able to put in any practical or articulate shape. When at last the hon. Member is called upon to substantiate his charges before the House, he has not even been able—although two months have been allowed to him—to put them in any practical form so that a vote may be taken upon it; and the House is now called upon to deal with this case in the absence of those precious memoranda which the hon. Member has found it convenient to leave elsewhere, and under circumstances in which the House cannot pronounce an opinion upon his statement. I venture to think that it has never before happened, in the history of this House, that a Minister has been called upon to reply to such a charge. I do not know really what the charge is. The hon. Member conies down to the House without materials, and he has failed to place on the Paper any Notice which it is possible to deal with in the form of argument or contradiction. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty to notice the very general statement the hon. Member has made in support of a Motion which he has been precluded from putting to the House in a formal way. The hon. Member has dealt very largely in innuendo. I observe that that is a growing practice among certain classes of politicians in this country—namely, the practice of not making positive and categorical charges, but of insinuating that there may be something in some kind of charge. The hon. Member has talked about the transference of certain clerks. Can the hon. Member offer the slightest shadow of justification for the use of the plural in this case? There never has been any question of more than one particular appointment having been made against the wishes or advice of the permanent officials. Nevertheless, the hon. Member talked about certain clerks as if it were a general practice, insinuating that there has been a general departure from the usual practice of the Post Office in this matter. He has mentioned no name but one. A more unworthy manner of treating such a question as this could not have been adopted. In regard to the whole case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only one person in reference to whom this preposterous mass of insinuation, innuendo, and suggestion has been brought forward. The hon. Gentlemen did not think fit to be present on a former occasion when a Question which stood upon the Paper in his name was reached, and when his accusation could have been properly met.

I think I am entitled to say a word by way of explanation. I did explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General on a former occasion that the only reason why I was not in my place on that occasion was because I had not intended to put the Question that evening. I gave you, Mr. Speaker, Notice of my intention not to put the Question, and I understood that you had marked the Question as one which was not to be put. As the right hon. Gentleman had not the courtesy to send me any reply to my note, but insisted upon answering it, although it was not put, I do not think I am to be blamed for not having been in my place.

The statement made by the hon. Member is exactly what I was going to say myself. When the hon. Member talks of courtesy, I certainly cannot understand what his notion of courtesy is. The hon. Member placed a Notice on the Paper impugning the action of a Member of the Government, when the Question relating to the matter was reached. It is true that at the last moment he sent me a notice which I had no opportunity of replying to, or of acknowledging his note, intimating that it was not his intention to put the Question. That Notice only reached me after I had taken my place in the House on the night in question. No, Sir, in these circumstances, I cannot accept the explanation of the hon. Member as a satisfactory explanation. He has now repeated a matter which I think was sufficiently disposed of on a former occasion, when the hon. Member had an opportunity of bringing his Motion forward and dividing upon it, but did not think proper to do so. I am about to deal with the ease of the one gentleman whose name has been given in connection with these charges. I have already stated in this House, and I will repeat the statement now, that the gentleman to whom reference has been made, and whose promotion has been called in question, was very nearly at the head of his class. As a matter of fact, he was second in his class, and there was no question whatever of the promotion of the gentleman who was first in the class, and who was the only clerk who was senior to him, seeing that he had been passed over upon at least 20 different occasions, and that, in fact, he was regarded as one who could not expect promotion. I believe that every one of the assistant secretaries in the Post Office had been promoted over the head of that gentleman. What was it that I was asked to do? I was asked to promote a gentleman who was much lower down in the class—a gentleman who was third or fourth in the class, and to place him over the heads of his colleagues. This I declined to do. I made inquiries in the office, and I found that the gentleman who was promoted was a meritorious officer who had discharged his duties with adequate ability, and, therefore, I thought there was no reason for promoting over his head, and over the heads of one or two other competent officers, a junior official who could well afford to wait his turn. I acted in the interests of the Public Service, and especially in the interests of the Department itself. The hon. Member still speaking in the plural number, went on to talk about some of the persons whom I had promoted being con- nected with me by family ties of some sort or other. I think I sufficiently exploded the groundlessness of that charge on another occasion. The gentleman who was promoted, although a connection of some relative of mine, was not a relative of my own, and so far from being influenced by considerations of that nature he was personally unknown to me, nor was I, nor am I, acquainted with his political opinions. I hope the House will not consider that it is necessary I should answer that charge further. I come now to a more important question—namely, the question of the appointment of persons upon political grounds to Provincial post masterships to which the hon. Member has referred. It seems to be almost in vain to endeavour to beat into the heads of some politicians a solid and simple fact, and here, again, I have to meet what has already been contradicted, and to state that I have made no reductions in the salaries of provincial postmasters in order to gain patronage for political purposes. The country is, perhaps, not aware, although I think the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) will be aware by this time, that the patronage of the Post Office is administered by the Postmaster General in cases where the salary exceeds £120 a-year in England, and £100 in Scotland and Ireland, and that all the lower appointments are in the gift of the Lords of the Treasury, and not of the Postmaster General. The allegation is that in certain cases I reduced the salaries in order to place the patronage in the hands of the Treasury. Now it is not the fact that I have reduced the salary of any postmaster, either in this country or in Scotland or Ireland, in any single instance, in order to bring the patronage into the hands of the Treasury. Then what does the hon. Gentleman mean by coming here and giving currency to statements which have not a single atom of truth to support them?

There was the Pershore appointment.

Does the hon. Member say that I reduced the salary in that case in order to take the patronage away from the Postmaster General and place it in the hands of the Treasury? Why I find that the salary of the Postmaster at Pershore was £ 80 when I went to the Post Office, and that it has been and he absented himself from his place raised to £110. That is a sample of the sort of facts which have found currency in the mind of the hon. Member. I hold in my hand a list of 35 appointments in which I have raised the salaries, since I have been in Office, above the Treasury limit, thereby bringing them within the patronage of the Postmaster General. I think, therefore, that I am entitled to complain of the loose way in which charges of this kind are preferred. Here are 35 cases in which I have raised the salaries, since I have been in Office, above a Treasury limit, and have placed the appointments in the gift of the Postmaster General—namely, 20 in England, 4 in Scotland, and 11 in Ireland. There are 16 other appointments in connection with which I have raised the salaries, although the salaries themselves have not reached the Treasury limit, and one of those is the Pershore case. In regard to every one of the 16 cases, of which 11 were in England, 4 in Scotland, and 1 in Ireland, I have made a substantial increase in the salary of the postmaster, and, while doing so, I have not thought it necessary or desirable to make a greater increase, because I believe that the increase allowed affords adequate and sufficient recognition of the services of the officer. The House is probably aware that, in regard to the offices in the gift of the Postmaster General, they are filled up by the appointment of persons already in the service of the Department. I think that in all important Post Offices it is exceedingly desirable that the postmaster shall be a person of actual experience and knowledge of the work of the Department. In very large and important towns that course is universally adopted; but in regard to the smaller towns, where the salaries are very small—rarely exceeding £120 or £125 a-year—I confess that I do not think that it is always for the public interests that the postmaster should be an officer who has no other means of livelihood than the £120 a-year that he gets from the Post Office. I am bound to say that in such circumstances, a respectable tradesman, who has a good shop and business, and who is respected and popular in the place in which he lives, is more likely to make an efficient public servant than some poor clerk, brought from a distance, entirely un- connected with the neighbourhood, with a salary of little more than £2 or £2 10s. a-week, who has to fit up the premises with borrowed money, and has, in addition, to have recourse to some guarantee society for a security, thus making a further inroad upon his small salary, and who may be placed under extreme temptations in consequence of the inadequacy of the remuneration he receives to maintain him, and who is forbidden to increase his income by engaging in any other pursuit. I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that it is to the public interest, when we cannot make the salary such as would enable a man fairly to live upon it, and to maintain a position of respectability and responsibility, to leave the appointments as they are—in the gift of the Treasury, who fill them up by persons with a local connection, and who are able to improve their position by other means. My connection with the Post Office has tended to confirm the opinion which I previously entertained, that it is quite possible not to do any really good service to the neighbourhood, or to the men you appoint as postmasters, by an indiscriminate raising of the salaries above the Treasury limit, thus taking them out of the Treasury patronage, because in such places you would put men who have no other means of earning a livelihood in a position which they ought not to occupy in the town in which they live. It is a mistake to suppose that by raising the salaries of those who fill these appointments I secure any additional patronage either for myself or my Party, because no appointments will take place until vacancies arise. Although the Post Office may have obtained no increase of patronage from what has been done, the appointments under the now regulations are left to be filled up on the next vacancy, and probably by the time they arise another Government may be in Office. So far from exercising the patronage entrusted to me in the interests of the Party to which I belong, I have only been guided by two considerations in the matter; first, the convenience of the public; and, secondly, the propriety of recognizing the claims of the present holder of a particular office. There is no doubt that a good deal of inconvenience does arise in the filling up of the very small appointments. I believe they are some- times conferred by the Treasury upon their political friends, and I may say that the very last person who applied to me to appoint a postmaster was the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall himself. I received his letter only a few days ago. I have forwarded his letter to the Treasury in whose gift the appointment is, and not in mine. He also referred to a place called Appledore, the postmastership of which is not in my gift, but in that of the Treasury. I do not know who is the postmaster there, but the name submitted to me by them was, of course, sent down and reported upon to me by the surveyor of the district. The nominations to these appointments are made by the Treasury in the ordinary course, and checked by the permanent Post Office Authorities. I have no interest whatever in these appointments, not even so much as the hon. Member for North-West Cornwall appears to have himself.