asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, A.B., T.C.D., who was appointed, on 1st November, 1854, an Inspector of National Schools, Ireland, was, on the 29th January, 1879, after a service of nearly 25 years, during which he frequently secured the strong approval of his official superiors, dismissed from his post, on a charge of making in his journal a false entry relative to a sum of 5s. 6d.; whether the gentlemen appointed by the National Board of Education (Ireland) to investigate this charge arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Fitzgerald was guilty, because of his inability to produce a voucher relative to the item referred to, which he had mislaid, being at the time in ill-health, and suffering from great mental depression; whether, when he subsequently found and produced said voucher, one of the two gentlemen who had originally investigated the charge recommended the Commissioners of National Education to grant a re-investigation of his case; whether he could state at whose instance the re-investigation was refused; and, whether, inasmuch as Mr. Fitzgerald has since (as shown by the Papers relative to his case laid upon the Table of the House on the 30th May, 1886) proved his innocence of the charge made against him, and considering the terrible injury inflicted on Mr. Fitzgerald by his dismissal, whereby he is left in absolute want, he will grant an inquiry into all the facts of the case, and afford Mr. Fitzgerald the opportunity he has so long sought of clearing his character?

said: the hon. Member will find in Parliamentary Paper No. 33 of Session 2, 1886, a full statement of all the circumstances connected with Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald's dismissal. The present Government agree with the decision come to by successive Governments that this is not a case calling for further inquiry.

asked, whether it was not a fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary was one of the deputation which waited on the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), when Chief Secretary, and requested him to grant an inquiry into the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?

said, he was a member of that deputation; but further acquaintance with the case showed him that the question of the voucher was not the one on which the Commissioners had acted.

asked, whether it was not a fact that one of the Inspectors who had originally investigated the charge recommended a re-investigation, and stated he would have given a different decision if further evidence subsequently produced by Mr. Fitzgerald had been before him?

said, he understood that was not so.

asked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that a case had lately turned up in Ireland where an Inspector under the National Board was found to have kept and used a horse and car of his own against the Rules, and charged the Commissioners the cost, and also charged for sleeping in hotels when he slept at home, and yet he was merely transferred from one district to another; and, whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would ask the Board of Commissioners to consider the inequality of punishment between that case and the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?

replied, that the only information he had of the matter was from a communication received from Mr. Fitzgerald himself, who seemed to think that his case ought to be re-opened because somebody else had done something wrong and had not been adequately punished.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Sergeant Instructor of Musketry, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, and of unexceptionable character, having completed 12 years' service, applied to extend his service for nine years further, in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, and was refused; whether Sergeant Henry Gonvyn, of the same battalion, who has been a non-commissioned officer for nearly ten years, has made a similar application; and, whether any decision has been come to thereon?

A non-commissioned officer may be personally of an unexceptionable character, and yet inefficient in the working of a regiment; and before exercising the veto which, under the Army Act and consequent Regulations, he is bound to exercise, the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that it is not for the good of the Service that the two men named in the Question should be re-engaged as sergeants. There is no desire, however, to stop their military career, or to prevent their serving on for pension in a lower capacity.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for holding back the Report of the Irish Lunacy Commissioners; and, why it is not printed earlier in the year?

said: The Inspectors of Lunatics state that there is no reason for holding back their Annual Report, beyond the fact that it is still in the printer's hands. They expect to be in a position to submit it fur presentation next week. I think the hon. Member will find that this is the usual period of the year for the presentation of the Annual Reports of Public Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Lunacy Commissioners do not bring out their Annual Report; and, why the Statistical Summary, in accordance with the promise made last year, was not issued in April?

The Report was presented to the Lord Chancellor on June 27, and copies were laid on the same day on the Table of both Houses. It is now in the hands of the printers, and will shortly be issued. The Commissioners inform me that no formal engagement was entered into on their part as to presenting a Statistical Summary in April; but there will be no difficulty in giving the Summary asked for next year, and a note has been made to that effect.

asked the Postmaster General, What is the limit of age for the admission of pensioners from other Services under the Crown, military or police, to be enrolled in the Service of the Post Office, and to what positions are they generally appointed, and also at what age is the compulsory retirement of such persons enforced; whether, on entering the Post Office Service, pensioners are called upon to sign a contract form in which they declare their age, and waive all claim to compensation or a pension for Service in the Post Office, and by whom is such contract form retained; whether periodical examinations of these contract forms are made with the object of calling upon such pensioners as may have reached the maximum limit of age to resign; and, whether it is usual for pensioners in the Service of the Post Office to hold dual positions and to discharge the duties of one by proxy?

There are two classes of Service in the Post Office which should be kept distinctly in view—the Established Service and the Unestablished Service. Established Service carries a right to pension; admission is by examination; a maximum age is prescribed; and a Civil Service certificate is necessary under the provisions of the Order in Council. Unestablished Service is free from any such restrictions, and candidates may, therefore, accept employment at any age and without examination; but the employment carries with it no pension. A pensioner who wishes to become an established country postman, porter, or lineman has the advantage of an addition of 15 years to the prescribed limit of 30. A pensioner who happens to obtain an established appointment, accompanied by a Civil Service certificate, is eligible for a pension on account of his service in the Post Office. If he is a candidate for an unestablished situation he is required to sign before his engage- ment a printed paper, the object of which is to make him clearly understand the nature of the engagement which he is making. In neither case is there any compulsory retirement on the ground of ago. Pensioners employed at the Post Office do not perform their duties there by proxy.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the inhabitants of Smithsboro', County Monaghan, some time since applied by Memorial to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, requesting him to have the post office in that town created a telegraph office, and offering to guarantee the sum of £30 for the purpose, and also to defray the cost of working for one year, the telegraph service to be withdrawn at the expiration of that time if it were found that it did not pay the Post Office to maintain it; whether the Secretary refused to accede to this request by insisting that a seven years' guarantee should be given, and if there is any precedent for making such a demand; whether he is aware that Smithsboro' is a Provincial trading town of considerable trading importance, and is situated on the main line of Railway between Clones and Belfast, and that the post office is only 25 perches distant from the Railway Station, by which several telegraph lines pass, and consequently that the cost of extension would be but trifling; and, whether he will be good enough to have inquiries instituted as to the creating of Smithsboro' Post Office a telegraph office, and if a guarantee is deemed necessary to accept it for one year?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that about two years ago an application was received for a telegraph office at Smithsboro', and, after some correspondence, it was arranged that two of the residents should enter into a guarantee of £30 a-year for seven years. On a draft agreement, however, being sent for approval, the intending guarantors withdrew from their undertaking —partly on the ground that a reduction had been made in the charge for tele- grams, and partly because, on examining the draft agreement, they found that they would not be credited with the value of messages addressed to Smithsboro'. They were of opinion that the guarantee would prove too onerous; but I cannot find that there was any question as to the period of the guarantee, or any suggestion that the telegraph service should be withdrawn at the end of a year. Guarantees are invariably for seven years, and there is no precedent for a guarantee of one year. A guarantee for seven years is calculated so as to secure to the Department the repayment within the term of the capital expenditure as well as of the working expenses; and it is obvious that if the telegraph office were withdrawn at the end of one year the Department would not secure the repayment of the capital. The neighbouring wires, to which the hon. Member refers, would not be used for the purpose of serving a telegraph office at Smithsboro'. It would be necessary to erect a now wire from Clones. A considerable period having elapsed since the last inquiries were made I shall be very glad to call for further Reports, and I will in due course acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to transfer the Province of Scinde from the Bombay to the Punjaub Government, thus uniting the two Provinces, according to the suggestions made in Blue Book, "Beloochistan, No. 3," published in 1878, which commences with a Despatch from the Marquess of Salisbury, then Secretary of State for India, dated 3rd February, 1876?

the transfer of the Province of Scinde from Bombay to the Punjaub is not at present under the consideration of Government. But the hon. Member's Question will have the effect of drawing the attention of the Government of India to the subject, which will receive the attention which its importance deserves.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who are the salaried officials that are paid for the collection of the Dog Tax in Ireland; whether it is a fact that 350,000 dogs were licensed in Ireland during the past year, yielding a total of £35,164; whether the cost of collection amounted to £31,867 or nearly 90 per cent of the amount collected; and, what is the usual percentage cost for collecting the Dog Tax in England?

said, clerks of Petty Sessions were the officials who collected the Dog Tax in Ireland. 351,644 dogs were licensed in Ireland during the year 1886, yielding a total of £35,164. From this sum £31,993 was deducted, of which £15,814 was for the cost of collection, and the balance, £16,179, was required to meet increased salaries under the Act of 1881.

Is it not a fact that the cost of collection is 90 per cent in Ireland and only 5 per cent in England? Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make the deduction?

Order, order !

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether he would take into his consideration the advisability of altering the existing law so as to permit a portion (say one-half) of the cost of the emigration of pauper children in the Metropolitan District to fall upon the common fund of the district, instead of being borne, as at present, entirely by the Union?

, in reply, said, the matter was one which deserved consideration, and the hon. Gentleman might rely upon careful attention being given to it.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Returns of the acreage of woods and forests in Great Britain could be published along with the Agricultural Returns, so as to show the real acreage which is under cultivation in every way?

, in reply, said, this Question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, considering the want of employment in many manufacturing districts, and the consequent increasing desire of artizans to emigrate, and that the only manual labour which those artizans know is, for the most part, entirely useless in the Colonies, it would be possible, in any scheme providing for technical education, to afford means by which artizans desirous of emigrating might, prior to doing so, obtain some slight rudimentary knowledge in agriculture and other labour likely to be serviceable in the Colonies?

, in reply, said, no measure having for its object the improvement of the industrial training of our workmen would be complete which did not offer some facilities such as those referred to in the Question of the hon. Member; but he thought the chief object of legislation would be to enable English artizans to gain a bettor livelihood in their own country than circumstances now permitted.

asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to the following Circulars issued to all the tenants on the Barcaldine Estate, near Oban, by the proprietrix, Mrs. Ogilvie:—

"I (Archibald MacArthur, senior), now residing in cottage, and having crofts on Barcaldine Estate, do hereby agree to proceed no further with the application which I have made to the Crofters Commission for fixity of tenure, &c. And I further hind myself to make no further application or claim under the Act upon condition that I be allowed to hold and occupy the said cottage and croft and land on the same conditions as heretofore during the remainder of my life, but without power to transmit the same to anyone.

"Dated and signed this day of "May, 1887; "

"Barcaldine, 25th May, 1887.

"Sir,—I beg to intimate to you that, in accordance with the printed regulations of this estate of Barcaldine, I will, upon Martinmas next ensuing, resume possession of all that land in your occupation and rented by you, for the purpose of planting the same. I beg to add that this notice stands without prejudice to the 'notice to quit' received by you in November last;"

Mrs. Ogilvie bought the estates of Barcaldine and Ballachulish, with entry at Martinmas last year, with the intention of farming them herself. Before she got possession, notice to quit was, at her request, given to certain tenants. Five or six of these served notices on her under the Crofters Act; and with all of these, except one, she arranged amicably, giving them money and other compensation, and in some cases employment on the estate, upon which she is executing extensive improvements. In respect of the arrangements made, the tenants signed agreements similar to those described as circulars in the hon. Member's Question. I understand that only one notice to resume land for planting was given by Mrs. Ogilvie. The circumstances do not appear to call for any Act amending the Crofters Act of last year.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the decision just given by the Land Commissioners at Ballymoney, County Antrim, and referred to in The NorthernWhig of the 12th instant, under which it has been held that a tenant who sublets a garden or allotment to a labourer is not "in bonâ fide occupation of his holding," and not entitled, therefore, to the advantages of the Act of 1881; whether this decision of the Sub-Commissioners is based upon a Judgment given in the Superior Courts; and, whether the Government will introduce a clause in the Irish Land Law Bill now before the House to amend the law in this respect?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent decisions of the Land Commission, to the effect that a tenant who has sub-let a labourer's cottage on his holding, and cannot prove express consent from his landlord, is disentitled to have a fair rent fixed under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and, in particular, to the Judgment of Mr. Commissioner Greer, given at Ballymoney on the 11th July instant, in which he stated that he was constrained to dismiss a number of tenants' applications owing to their having allowed the cottages on their holdings, together with small gardens or patches of land for manuring, to be occupied by labourers; whether that interpretation of the Statute was objected to by Mr. Greer's lay colleagues, as being opposed to the general policy of the Land Laws, and to the Ulster tenant right custom, and calculated to deprive the majority of Ulster tenants of the benefits of the Act; and, whether the Government will introduce a clause into the Irish Land Law Bill now before Parliament, to remedy the evils complained of? the hon. Baronet also inquired, whether this decision would not be most injurious to labourers, as it would mean their dismissal by farmers in order to get under the Irish Land Law Act?

, in reply, said, he had not been able to get exact information as to the cases referred to, as the decision had not yet been returned to the Land Commission. His only acquaintance with the decisions referred to was derived from the Questions. If this had been unauthorized sub-letting, it deprived the tenant, under the Act of 1881, which limited the benefits to tenants in occupation, excluded middlemen, and distinctly prohibited sub-letting. But if a tenant sub-let with the consent of his landlord, expressed or implied, he was deemed to be in occupation of the holding, notwithstanding that sub-letting. If hon. Members brought forward Amendments on the subject to the new Irish Land Law Bill the Government would give them the most careful consideration.

mentioned the case of a widow who had occupied a farm of half an acre for 20 years, and who had been deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881 for having in her house a labourer who paid 6d. a week.

intimated that he would put down an Amendment to the Irish Land Law Bill, with a view to amend the law in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether certain persons in Stamford have recently been sent to Leicester Gaol (on refusal to pay a fine), by order of the Borough Magistrates, for holding open-air services in the Market Square of the borough; if it is true that the said persons were dragged from their beds at half-past 5 o'clock in the morning, and taken to Leicester without being allowed to break their fast; and, if it is true they were handcuffed and marched through the streets as common felons?

It is a fact that two persons were recently convicted by the Borough Justices, not for holding open-air services, but for wilfully obstructing the free passage of the highway, and refusing to move away when requested by the police. The police, anticipating disturbance, apprehended the two men between 5 and 6 in the morning, in order that they might take them to Leicester by the 6.40 train. They were not dragged from their beds; in fact, the constables did not enter their bed-rooms. It is true that they were handcuffed. I cannot say whether the sergeant had good reason for anticipating violence, or an attempt at escape; if not, in my opinion, handcuffs ought not to have been used.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, relative to the case of Bertie Wilmot Mainprise, of the Royal Naval School, New Cross, nominated by the Lords of the Admiralty for a Naval Cadetship, and rejected on medical examination in June last, Whether it is in conformity with usage that Mainprise should have undergone the literary examination before the Civil Service Commissioners notwithstanding such medical rejection; whether there are not precedents for re-instating a candidate who has passed the literary examination after such medical rejection; and, on what grounds the Civil Service Commissioners have declined to assign marks to Mainprise, or to publish such marks if assigned, thus concealing the result of the literary examination?

the case of Mr. Mainprise was not in accordance with usual custom. Mr. Mainprise had been rejected as medically unfit; but a request asking for a reversal of this decision having been received at the Admiralty, the usual intimation was not sent to the Civil Service Commissioners pending a final decision. There are no precedents for admitting candidates after medical rejection. The assigning and publication of marks rest altogether with the Civil Service Commissioners. I am unable to say for what purpose they have been withheld on the present occasion.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir John Kirk, Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar, has been recalled?

Sir John Kirk has not been recalled, but has resigned his appointment, and retired from the Service, owing to ill-health, the result of long tropical service. He has received the highest pension applicable to his length of service, which has been valuable and devoted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill is abandoned for this year; and, whether it is his intention, or the intention of the Government, to re-introduce the measure, or a similar measure, next Session?

I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that this measure is so far abandoned that they have ceased to hope for the passing of the measure in the present Session. It is not, so far as I can foresee, the intention of the Government to introduce this or a similar measure next Session; but the Metropolitan Board and the City Corporation will, I am informed, submit to the Legislature a Bill on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a very large part of the Revenues of Upper Burmah under King Theebaw was drawn from leases of the teak forests and monopolies of earth oil and precious stones; whether Memorials have been received by the Government of India from merchants, traders in teak, and foresters in Burmah, in the end of 1885 and beginning of 1886, pointing out the wasteful and objectionable mode adopted by King Theebaw's Government of dealing with the valuable sources of Revenue derived from the teak forests, and praying the Government of India itself to undertake the working of the forests; what answer has been given to those Memorials; and, what course the Government intend to adopt to protect the merchants and traders in Burmah from the evils of the system of monopolies granted by ex-King Theebaw?

I answer the first Question in the affirmative. Memorials have been presented to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah; but the Secretary of State has not received copies of either the Memorials themselves or the replies made to them. He will cause inquiry to be made. The general policy of the Government is to do away with monopolies; but in reference to the teak forests claims have been advanced, based on concessions from King Theebaw, which are now under the examination and consideration of the Government of India.

inquired, what was the number of claimants to the teak forests?

asked for Notice of the Question.

Is it part of the policy of getting rid of monopolies in Burmah that the Indian Government should have been treating with Messrs. Streeter alone?

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade has the power of altering, modifying, or cancelling bye-laws respecting fishing, made by Boards of Conservators, which have been confirmed by the Home Office or Board of Trade?

The Board of Trade has no power to "alter, modify, or cancel bye-laws" made under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts. Under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 71, ss. 39, 40, and 41, such a power is vested in Boards of Conservators, who

"May from time to time, by any new bye-law, revoke, vary, or alter, either in whole or in part, or as to its application to the whole or to any part or parts of the district, any bye-law previously made"

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he can now state definitely when arrangements will be made to give increased mail accommodation to Newtownards, Downpatrick, Ballinahinch, and other towns in the County of Down?

, in reply, said, a correspondence was going on with the Treasury, and he would announce the decision as soon as it was received.

said, if the matter was not settled before the Vote for the Post Office carne on, he would call attention to it.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the Report made by the officer commanding 2nd Dragoons on the collar hides recently issued to the Cavalry at Aldershot referred to one hide only, or to several; and, if so, how many; whether, when re-dressed by Messrs. Ross and Company, after they had been condemned as "worthless," these hides were re-examined, and "passed" as fit for issue, by the same viewer or viewers who passed them as sound and good in the first instance in 1886; and, whether the opinion expressed by the Inspector General of Cavalry in his Report, that—

"Someone ought to be blamed for passing such inferior articles into the Service,"

The text of the Report made by the officer commanding the 2nd Dragoons is as follows:—

"The collar hide issued from Ordnance Store for the repair of saddlery," &c.;

By whom is the investigation being conducted?

The Judge Advocate General has undertaken the task.

Will the inquiry include the question whether the harness which was reported rotten in the Egyptian Campaign came from the same firm as supplied these hides, and whether the deterioration is due to the same causo—adulteration of the leather?

I have not heard.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will authorise the Director of Army Contracts to make an Annual Report to this House, giving a Summary of all Contracts entered into with firms or persons not being themselves manufacturers of the stores supplied by them, the supply of stores by such persons being an exception to the established rule that only actual manufacturers should receive such contracts?

said: No, Sir. The Secretary of State does not consider that such a course would be conducive to the public interest.

Then I beg to give Notice that in Committee of Supply I shall move to reduce the salary of the Director of Contracts.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can inform the House of the progress made by the Land Commissioners in their work connected with the Extraordinary Tithe Act, 1886?

said, that the work of the Land Commission was nearly completed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the filling up of vacancies in the Council of India, regard will be had to the Bombay Presidency being represented like as the other Presidencies are represented in that Council?

Yes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the principal person connected with the syndicate formed by Mr. Streeter, junior, to provide capital to work the Ruby Mines, was recently prosecuted by the Crown under a criminal indictment; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take care that Indian officials grant contracts or permits only to persons of good character and repute?

No. But I have been informed that a Mr. Baird, who was prosecuted for an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act and acquitted, had formerly a small interest in the venture. My answer to the second paragraph is, Yes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why it is that, notwithstanding the departure of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff from Egypt, Ahmed Mouktar Pasha still remains; what is his present official position; and, whether there is any intention that he shall remain in Egypt either as permanent Imperial Commissioner of the Sultan, or in some other capacity; and, if not, how soon he may be expected to leave?

Ghazi Ahmed Mouktar Pasha is a high officer of the Sultan, and is not in any way employed by the Government of Egypt. It rests with the Sultan to recall him at his pleasure; and, as far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, this has not yet been done.

Is there any truth in the rumour that Mouktar Pasha is to leave Alexandria within the next few days?

I have not heard the report.

Any news about Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to-day?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Report has been received, made by Major Western, R.E., to Sir C. C. Scott-Moncrieff, R.E., C.B., K.C.M.G., of the Egyptian Public Works Department, in which it is stated that a depression has been shown to exist in the Desert to the south-west of Cairo, which would probably contain 30,000 million cubic metres of Nile water, with a surface of about 400 square miles, and which, it is said, could be utilized to store Nile water, so as to ultimately redeem an area of 2,300,000 acres of land in Lower Egypt; whether this is the Lake Moeris scheme, with which the name of Mr. Cope Whitehouse has been connected; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Report, together with a map, if any exists, and any observations made by any officers in Her Majesty's Service, tending to show the value of the project?

The Report in question has not been received by Her Majesty's Government. It would naturally be made to the Government of Egypt, and considered by them. I believe that Mr. Cope Whitehouse has taken a deep and long-continued interest in the scheme of filling Lake Moeris or Wady Raian for the irrigation of Upper Egypt. We are not in possession of Reports on the subject from officers of Her Majesty's Service. I have seen the Report of Major Western, and a map of the locality, but, unofficially; and they could not be presented to Parliament until they have been considered by the Government of Egypt.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Metropolitan Police Fund is composed partly of public taxes and partly of Metropolitan rates, and by what authority he is taking a portion of that fund to buy 14,000 Jubilee medals; and, whether be can now state the estimated cost of the medals?

Yes, Sir. The Metropolitan Police Fund is made up in the manner stated in the Question. The medals are given in acknowledgment of extraordinary exertions of the police, and their cost is a charge which, I am advised, I have power, under 10 Geo. IV. c. 24, s. 12, to direct to be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund. The cost of the medals has not yet been settled.

further asked the estimated cost?

replied, that be had bad estimates submitted to him by an officer of the Mint for a certain class of medal, and the medal bad been forwarded to the Chief Commissioner for his approval, which had not yet been obtained. The preliminary estimate was £83 per 1,000 medals.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Police, for their services on Jubilee Day, are to receive one day's extra pay and three days' extra leave; and, whether, in face of this fact, he will make some special acknowledgment, either in money or grant of leave, of the services of the telegraphists who were required for the public convenience to remain on duty during that day?

I have heard that the Metropolitan Police are to receive extra pay and leave for their services on Jubilee Day. As I before stated, the question of giving extra pay or leave to the telegraphists, who were employed on Jubilee Day as on other week days, has been considered by the Government; but it was not considered that their employment on that day justified any such special acknowledgment as that suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take steps to give to Members of Parliament engaged in study in the Library of the House of Commons facilities for learning the course and progress of Business and Debates in this House equal to those enjoyed by their fellow-subjects in other parts of the Empire?

I quite agree that it would be a great convenience for Members engaged in study in the Library—[An hon. MEMBER: And the Smoking Room.]—and also in. the onerous duties of the Smoking Room, if they had constant communication of what was going on in the House. I think seriously it would save time; and I have matured an excellent plan, which I am prepared to carry out whenever I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me the money.

In answer to the First Commissioner of Works— [Cries of "Order !"]

What would be the cost of the plan?

I do not think it is an extravagant cost—£500 the first year, and £400 a-year afterwards to keep up the service.

I beg to give Notice that if any such proposal is brought forward I shall give it my most strenuous opposition.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If be can state whether he is aware that The United Ireland is excluded from the newspapers in the Members' Reading Room; and, will he use his influence for the purpose of providing a few copies for the use of Members in the proper quarter?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I may say that the Serjeant-at-Arms will make arrangements for the paper to be taken in, if he should understand it to be the general wish of the Members of the House that he should do so.

asked, why there were so few copies of The Pall Mall Gazette?

said, it was not in his power to give an answer to a Question like that. It was a matter of detail, and hon. Members had the opportunity of representing their views to the proper officials of the House.

asked, how was the general sense of Members on the question to be ascertained?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of what happened in the House on the 9th of May, he will allow the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Oaths Bill to be taken before midnight?

I am sorry to say that, owing to the present state of Public Business, I am unable to comply with the hon. Member's suggestion and request. It is intended, if we are able to suspend the Government Business in sufficient time, to take the Truck Bill to-night.

said, that, while he admitted the Truck Bill was of wider importance, he would ask whether, in view of what took place when the Oaths Bill was under debate before, the Government did not think he had some claim for facilities being afforded him for getting the decision of the House on that Bill?

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman could complain of any want of disposition on the part of the Government to afford him facilities for the consideration of the questions in which he took an interest; but he was afraid he could enter into no undertaking with respect to that measure.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, in regard to Scotch Questions, To whom Members may address inquiries or Questions in this House, in order to receive answers with the authority of Her Majesty's Government?

The Lord Advocate is the Member of the Government who answers generally all Scotch Questions which may be addressed to the Government; and if from any cause the Lord Advocate fools himself unable to answer a Question of importance, it should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the responsible officer, superior to the Lord Advocate, for any Scotch Questions which may be raised in this House.

Will the First Lord of the Treasury exercise some discretion?

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the powers of the Secretary for Scotland were, by Act of Parliament, vested in the Secretary for Scotland, and could not be delegated to the Lord Advocate, or to the Home Secretary, or any other officer of the Government?

asked, whether the Home Secretary had any official authority over the Lord Advocate?

I must ask hon. Gentlemen to consult the Act of Parliament under which the Office of Secretary for Scotland was constituted. But hon. Gentlemen are very well aware that in the arrangements of the Government one officer or another undertakes special duties; and naturally it falls to the Secretary of State, on any Question which the Lord Advocate cannot answer, to deal with that Question.

Who is the responsible Minister, when the Lord Advocate states it is not his province to answer a particular Question?

I did not say anything of the kind.

Order !

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Bill promised in the Queen's Speech relating to the Office of Secretary for Scotland was ever to be introduced; and whether the Government would postpone the Vote for the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland until that measure had been introduced, and the House knew what the duties of that Office were?

The duties of the Secretary for Scotland are expressed in the Act which exists. I have every reason to believe that the Bill will be introduced; but I am not able to give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman asks me to give, unless it is his desire that the Office of Secretary for Scotland shall altogether be abolished.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will not reconsider what he has said, in reply to the Question about referring Scotch Questions to the Secretary for Scotland; whether it is not a fact that the cause for the Scotch Secretary Act was not this—namely, the confusion which had arisen owing to the arrangement of the Scotch business is the Home Office; whether in that Act all the Scotch powers vested in the Home Secretary, except law and justice, were transferred to the Secretary for Scotland; whether he has not promised, under the new Bill, that these powers will be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland; and whether all those permanent officials in the Home Office who were acquainted with the Scotch business have not been transferred to the Scotch Office; and that, therefore, the Home Secretary is hardly likely to be able to give a satisfactory answer to Scotch Questions?

I do not question a single word of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to indicate that ordinary Questions on Scotch business would be dealt with by the Home Secretary. But I understand the contention to have arisen from the fact that the particular Question addressed to the Lord Advocate was a Question which it was not fitting for the Lord Advocate, as a subordinate in the Scotch Office, to reply to, and only such Questions which might be addressed to the Government, as superior to the Secretary for Scotland, would be dealt with by the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, who, having regard to the position he holds in the Government, would be the proper person to reply to such Questions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered in Trinity College, on Tuesday, 12th July, at the declaration of the poll, by the Hon. Richard Alan Parsons, the defeated candidate, in which the following passage occurs:—

"The influences brought against me were very remarkable. My opponent was proposed by one of Her Majesty's Representatives in this country. A remarkable number of the Judges have recorded their votes, and their names have been published in the papers;"

"That he was on the (Irish) Bench for 20 years, and in consequence of a resolution made by all the Irish Judges he had during that period never voted."—[Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 233, p. 1458);

My only acquaintance with the speech referred to is derived from the quotation in the hon. Member's Question, the accuracy of which I do not dispute. My right hon. Friend informs me that, in offering the post of Third Serjeant-at-Law to Mr. Madden, he expressed in his letter his recognition of the learned gentleman's distinction at the Irish Bar, and his sense of the value of the assistance lie might render in the House of Commons should he be returned to Parliament. I am not aware that this letter was published; but it was not private, and there could be no objection to its being referred to by Serjeant Madden and his friends. I have seen the passage in Hansard referred to. I know nothing of the resolution mentioned; but I understand that Judges have always voted at University elections in Ireland as they do in England. I would remind the hon. Member that at the last election for Dublin University both candidates were of the same political views.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it was possible to make any provision to enable Members of former Parliaments to witness the forthcoming Naval Review?

, in reply, said, that he took former Parliaments to mean the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The number of persons not at present connected with public establishments who imagined they had a claim to be present at the Naval Review was very large, and taxed the resources of the Admiralty in providing accommodation for them. If the door were opened which the hon. Member suggested, the Admiralty would be compelled to go outside their Department and charter steamers at a considerable cost to the public purse; and, therefore, he did not see his way to entertain the proposal.

said, he thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if he were to mention that the Navy Estimates would be taken on Monday; and as there would probably be considerable discussion on the shipbuilding policy of the Admiralty, he proposed to take first the Dockyard Vote, No. 6.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could tall the House when it was proposed to take the Army Estimates?

, in reply, said, that he was unable to state when these Estimates would be taken; but he was afraid that they would have to wait for the Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill.

asked, whether the First Lord of the Treasury would take steps to expedite the printing of the Evidence taken before the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, in order that they might be in time for the discussion on the Estimates?

asked, when the Index to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores would be ready?

said, that he was unable to give an answer to the latter Question without Notice; but he would make inquiries. With regard to the other matter, he had to say that the Government were most desirous that the Evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members as early as possible; but, as hon. Members were aware, the printing was carried out under the orders of the authorities of the House.

inquired, Whether the First Lord of the Treasury anticipated that it would be necessary to take a Morning Sitting on Monday or Tuesday in next week?

Not on Monday certainly; and I cannot say anything about Tuesday at present. "Sufficient for the day"—

I wish to take this opportunity of calling attention on this Vote to the present position of the Special Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff and the manner in which the negotiations have been manipulated by Her Majesty's Government, I do not propose to discuss the Convention which is not before us, and with regard to which I may say that it seems doubtful if it will ever be signed.

I would point out to the hon. Member that it is not contemplated to take any money on account of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission.

I wish my right hon. Friend had told me that yesterday.

I said it was impossible then to say what money would be required. I have since found that no money will be asked for under this head, and therefore I doubt if it is in Order to discuss the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff.

I should think it is competent to me to make some observations on this subject, inasmuch as money will be taken under this Vote on account of the Foreign Office; and I shall therefore proceed unless the Chairman thinks I am out of order. On the 7th of March last, we had a debate on the subject of Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission, when a Motion was made to reduce the Estimate for the Mission. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Fergusson) made a speech on the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff and on the Convention; he dilated much on the latter, and upon the favourable prospects held out by the negotiations of the speedy conclusion of the Mission, and he deprecated any interruption of the proceedings by an adverse vote of the Committee. The Vote for Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission was thereupon carried by a considerable majority, and some of us withdrew our opposition upon the strength of the statement made by the Foreign Office through the mouth of my right hon. Friend. It is now four months since the prospect was held out of a very speedy conclusion of this extremely costly Mission During that time the Mission has continued, and I must remind the Committee that we, on this side of the House, and particularly those on this Bench, have abstained in an unusual way from putting any pressure on the Government to disclose what has been passing, and from doing anything that could, in any way, interfere with their endeavours to bring the negotiations to a successful issue. We have had no great faith in the Convention, and never expected a great result from it; but we thought that we ought not to spoil the chance of the Government after the expense that had been incurred; we knew that they were making arrangements for the speedier evacuation of Egypt, we were glad to see the evidence of a better mind on that subject, and therefore we did not interfere. We carried this so far that when 10 days ago the hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) moved the adjournment of the House, we dissuaded him from pressing that Motion, and even voted against it, so desirous were we not to interfere with, whatever chance of success still remained for the Government. Bat what result is there to show for the large sum of money spent through these years, and what becomes of the sanguine hopes held out by my right hon. Friend? I never could understand why the Government were not content to employ the unequalled knowledge and skill of their representatives in Egypt and Constantinople. Can it be supposed that Sir H. Drummond Wolff had more knowledge of the Eastern Question in all its aspects, or was better able to deal with Orientals than Sir William White? The result is just what we expected. Sir H. Drummond Wolff, who was to show so much more aptitude than our Ambassador, and who apparently w as to have supplemented and improved what could have been said by the mouth of Sir William White, does not seem to have reached any substantial result, and so far as the facts have leaked out, I cannot find anything which shows special knowledge on his part, and which might not have been equally well, or better, negotiated by Sir William White. So much for the result of the Mission. But I have something more to say as to the way in which the Government have managed the Mission and with regard to what has taken place during the last three or four weeks. It is now many weeks since the Sultan gave directions to his Ministers to sign the Convention, and it is now three weeks nearly from the day fixed for its ratification. It was then finally fixed for Friday, the 8th of July—that was the last day to be given for the ratification, after which Sir H. Drummond Wolff was forthwith to leave Constantinople. There has been another postponement, and we are unable to learn from the Government what is the precise position of Sir H. Drummond Wolff—whether he has or not absolute orders to leave Constantinople, or whether subsequent steps will be taken. I do not know that we have now any security that, although it was communicated to us that he would leave this week, there may not be some further postponement to next week. I take it from my right hon. Friend's silence that the Convention is not yet ratified; but although I hope, from the language lately used by the Government, that there will not be a postponement after this week, still we have not obtained any security to that effect. Now, I cannot think there can be a position more humiliating than that in which the country is placed. Here is a Convention which has been the outcome of the Mission that has cost a large sum of money, extended over a period of two years, and the importance of which is expressed by the fact that our Special Envoy undertook work that was thought to be too difficult for Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt and Constantinople to perform. This Convention would seem to be more in favour of the Sultan than of this country, and it is certain to give us no further rights and advantages than those which we at present enjoy. It involves, at least, one danger to which Egypt is not now exposed. Now, under these circumstances, is it right that we should stand in this position, waiting on the pleasure of the Turkish Government, and that Her Majesty's Government, in the person of Her Envoy, should be standing under a window serenading the Sultan, and waiting for him to come forward and graciously smile on us? I am astonished at the ignorance of Oriental methods, at the want of sense and tact, and the absence of appreciation of what is due to the credit and honour of this country, which the Government have shown by allowing these negotiations to proceed in the manner I have described. What, then, has resulted from employing a Special Envoy? Just this. That you have been landed in a difficulty which could not have arisen had you negotiated through our Ambassador, because, being permanently stationed at Constantinople he would have simply fixed a day for ratification, and, if he had extended the time, would, anyhow, not have been kept hanging on from week to week, with his trunks half packed, uncertain whether to go or stay. We used to hear of the duty of this country to maintain a spirited foreign policy, and we on these Benches, have been sometimes taunted with not showing a proper sense of what was due to the dignity of the country. I do not think, however, that any Foreign Minister—certainly not Lord Granville, or Lord Rosebery, and I will even say, not Lord Beaconsfield—has ever placed this country in so discreditable, and even ludicrous, a position as that in which it has been, placed by Her Majesty's Government. I attach no great importance to the question whether the Convention is ratified or not; but what I do care about is that these undignified proceedings should cease, that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should return, and that Her Majesty's Government should undertake that they will not, in future, expose us to further slights.

I think when last a conversation was sprung upon us on this subject, that we had no knowledge of the terms of the Convention; but we have since had the main features of it from the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from the Front Bench did so as if, having paid the money, we ought to get a Convention after all. My feeling, however, is that we should not throw good money after bad; we may have thrown away good money, but rather than have a bad Convention I would rather have none at all. I supported, or rather declined actively to oppose, the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, because I supposed that he was a sensible and well-meaning man, and that his views on Oriental questions were not altogether bad, and because it was understood that he went to Egypt to make such military arrangements as would enable us to withdraw our troops from that country; but it does not seem to me that this Convention tends in any way to that effect. I altogether fail to see that it has any effect of the kind. We are pledged to the eyes to withdraw from Egypt as soon as law and order are restored there; whereas, as I understand from the Prime Minister regarding the Convention, we are, under no circumstances, to be called upon to retire for three years. It seems to me that the Convention tends to give us the term of three years, whether law and order are restored or not, during which we are to remain in Egypt; and, therefore, I think there is no advantage to be derived from the Convention. On the other hand, I do not think it can be denied that the terms of the Convention seem to mean a permanent Protectorate, with all the obligations and risks that are inseparable therefrom. Under the Convention in case of disturbance in Egypt, or of any difficulty to fulfil national obligations, I believe we are permitted, or practically bound to undertake the task of restoring order and law, a task which in my opinion would be an onerous one and involve great complication and difficulty with other Powers. There was one phrase used by the Prime Minister which gave me a special dread of this Convention—we were "to return to Egypt to fulfil international obligations." What are they? I am afraid it may be held that the arrangement under which the debts of Egypt are paid is of the nature of international obligation, and that under the guise of international obligation we are undertaking to see that the bondholders are paid. I hope the Government will distinctly inform the Committee that this is not one of the international obligations at which the Convention, according to the language of the Prime Minister, is aimed. The first result of making this Convention would be the permanent alienation of France, and the giving to Russia an opportunity of backing up France in order that the two Powers might be disagreeable to us, and extort concessions from us in other parts of the world. That is what I fear from a Convention of this kind, and having regard to the fact that there has been strong irritation on the part of France for some time past, my strong advice is, that although we have spent a large sum of money on this Mission, we should not try to get anything further, but bring Sir H. Drummond Wolff away at once from Constantinople. It has been stated in the newspapers that the Sultan was going to get something in a pecuniary way by the Convention. There has been no clear answer on that point, and I shall be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no snake in the grass of that sort in this case, because my experience is that Orientals never give away anything without getting something in return; it is possible, therefore, that the Turkish Ministers and officials in constructing this Convention have got some advantage by it, and that perhaps there has been some way arranged in which the Sultan will be able to get a new loan, and in that way lay an additional burden on the people of Egypt.

I hardly understand what the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) intended to gain by a discussion of this question to-day. I acknowledge most sincerely that my hon. Friend and the Opposition generally have behaved with great reticence during the course of the protracted negotiations which have taken place at Constantinople. They have not pressed the Government, and not only that—they have treated them in this matter with that consideration which is generally shown by those who have a due sense of the difficulty of conducting public affairs. Having had previous acquaintance with the difficulty themselves, they know that much harm but no good may be done by premature pressure in matters of this kind. Seeing, however, that on this occasion it is not necessary for the Government to ask a further Vote on account for the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, I scarcely see the necessity of initiating a discussion at this stage, because it cannot have any satisfactory issue, seeing that the House is not in possession of the Papers which will elucidate the proceedings of the Mission. It would, I think, hardly have been suitable that the Papers should have been distributed until the Mission had closed, and until it was certain whether the ratification would take place or not it would have been premature to discuss the matter, because prejudice might thereby be done to the public interest. We have reason to believe that ratification has not taken place, and that Sir H. Drummond Wolff will leave Constantinople to-night. The incident must therefore be considered as so far closed, and I hope the Committee will deem it well to postpone the consideration of the subject until the Papers are in the hands of the House, which I believe will be the case to-morrow or at the latest on Monday. While I think the Committee would gain nothing by entering now into the particulars of the Mission, I cannot however allow some observations that have been made to pass as if no answer could be made to them. My hon. Friend opposite spoke of the humiliating position in which Her Majesty's Government have allowed the country to be placed. I cannot for a moment allow that assertion to remain uncontradicted. It is absolutely without foundation. The only ground for the sense of humiliation under which my hon. Friend labours seems to be that whereas the Convention was signed on behalf of the Porte early in the present month, it has, up to the present, remained unratified, and that our Special Commis- sioner remained at Constantinople. Take the alternative course. Suppose our Commissioner had refused to remain in Constantinople for a day, even when the Sultan had appointed a day for an audience. Would that have been a dignified position for this country to be placed in—that our Special Commissioner should leave hastily and without performing the usual ceremonies on such occasions, and which, in Eastern countries, have great weight, and receive much attention? I submit that it would have been very undignified. A great mistake would have been committed which would have placed us in a false position, because it would have been attaching too much importance to the non-ratification, and out of it a misunderstanding might have arisen. Too much importance should not be attached to the lapse of the Convention. It may perhaps be found to contain more of concession than gain for this country. Nevertheless, I think it will be seen that it was founded on an honest desire to fulfil international engagements, and to make due concessions to other Powers consistently with our own duty. I hope that will be found to be the case; and we say that we have our duty to perform whether the Convention be ratified or not. We should not have increased our desire to occupy a difficult position, and our departure from Egypt would neither have been accelerated nor prolonged beyond the time when our duty should have been performed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has referred to the mention which the Prime Minister made of the leading terms of the Convention. That, I think, shows no desire to keep from the House and the country the nature of the obligations entered into. It would have been impossible for Her Majesty's Government to commit themselves absolutely to a statement as to the final terms of the Convention; but now the whole matter will be made known, so that the conduct of the Government may be judged. There was no increase in the burdens or obligations on the part of this country by the Convention. Our position, therefore, remains where it was before; and I earnestly hope that when hon. Members have had the opportunity of seeing the course of these negotiations, the objects of them, and the manner in which they were sup- ported, they will be of opinion that the dignity or the interests of the country have not been compromised, but rather that they have been faithfully and diligently maintained.

I wish to say that if it were not for the promise of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Papers it would have been my duty to offer a strong remonstrance against this Vote. I trust the Government will take care that we shall have an adequate opportunity, when Sir H. Drummond Wolff returns, of fully discussing this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not touched the gravamen of the charge against the Government. It is that, having Representatives at Cairo and Constantinople, the Government committed themselves to the job of sending out Sir H. Drummond Wolff. I am glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) has taken this opportunity of calling attention to this subject. We make the serious charge against them of putting on the country grievous and heavy charges unnecessarily; and I am perfectly sure that the country will blame them for having sent out Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the East, and for having kept him there so long.

There has been one explanation of the Mission of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to the East which has not been referred to. The Fourth Party had to be provided for, and when the present Government came into Office they made one Member of it Chancellor of the Exchequer, another Chief Secretary for Ireland, the third became Under Secretary for India, and Sir H. Drummond Wolff was sent as Special Commissioner to the Sultan. We have now, at all events, the information that the Convention is of no value whatever; and we know that the Government has paid £14,000 for the employment of a Gentleman who has been of no use whatever.

I think, in giving away the appointments referred to; the Government have shown a strong appreciation of the services of the Fourth Party. I do not complain of Sir H. Drummond Wolff for one moment. He was very able and intelligent in Bulgaria, and I have that appreciation of his intelligence to suppose that if he were offered £4,000 salary and an allowance of £7,000 for expenses he would take it. I do not blame him—I blame the Government. The complaint is not that Sir H. Drummond Wolff was not a good negotiator, but that we had able men in Egypt and in Constantinople also; that it was a matter of negotiation directly at Constantinople with the Sultan and his Government, and that the negotiation ought to have been placed in the hands of our Ambassador there. It is that we complain of, and say that it is simply a waste of public money. I agree that it would be unreasonable to enter now into the details of the subject, because in a few days we shall have the Papers and shall be able to go into the question with the knowledge which they will afford us. The right hon. Gentleman has given a preliminary puff of his Convention and has protested against my hon. Friends on this side speaking of the position of Sir H. Drummond Wolff in Constantinople as being a humiliating one. I think it is a humiliating position. It is not the duty of Her Majesty's Representative to wait day after day on the Sultan. If the Sultan had asked that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should wait for a single day, I could have understood the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary's defence of the proceeding; but Sir H. Drummond Wolff has waited day after day, and anyone acquainted with the way in which matters are treated at the Porte will know that it is always a "fad" with the Sultan to put them off with a pretext about the Bairham, or something of that kind, in order to have a European Minister dangling about him. I say it is not consistent with the dignity of this country that its Representative should be kept waiting day after day for the ratification of the Convention. But whether the Convention is ratified or not, we shall equally complain of the wasteful expenditure and absurd action of sending out a Special Envoy when we had a Representative both at Constantinople and in Egypt who were well qualified in every way to conduct the negotiations.

I am not surprised that the question of this Mission has been brought forward on the present Vote; but I do not propose to prolong the discussion, and I presume it is now at an end. I rise for the purpose of protesting against the Vote being asked for at all. It seems to me strange that when the Government ask for £2,000,000 there should be neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the First Lord of the Treasury, or even the Financial Secretary of the Government on the Treasury Bench. There is at this moment no financial officer of the Government in the House of Commons. We have to Vote a sum of a little over £2,000,000. This is the third Vote on account, and we have scarcely discussed one-fourth of the Civil Service Estimates. We are in the middle of the month of July, and anyone who takes the trouble to estimate the amount of work on the hands of the Government will know perfectly well that there will be little time left for submitting the Votes to the consideration of the Committee. This is a growing system. There are only two instances on record of a third Vote on account being taken in July—one in the exceptional year 1881, when the time of the House was monopolized for a very long time by a Bill of the first magnitude; and the other in 1883, when an opportunity was given of discussing the Civil Service Estimates. But we have not had that opportunity this Session; and if we had had it, this Vote on account would not have been required at all. I doubt whether the Vote is required, because out of £19,000,000 there has already been voted £6,000,000, and therefore until the end of the present month the Government are amply provided with funds, and the same remark applies to the Army and Navy Estimates. Again, the Land. Bill of the Government has not to be taken until next Thursday; and we have, therefore, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, on which the Estimates could be discussed. What is the effect of this system? It simply puts the Government in funds to such an extent that they are able altogether to shirk the duty of bringing the Votes seriatim under the consideration of Parliament; and if this Vote is passed, we shall be in this position, that the Government can put off Supply until the middle of August, when the discussion of the Votes would be a mere empty formality. Now I object altogether to the system of Votes on account, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify them. One such Vote in the Session may be borne; when it comes to a second Vote the system is being abused; but when we are asked for a third Vote on account, I submit that the whole thing is a scandalous abuse of the Rules of Parliament. It results in the passing of money for all the Services in a manner that prevents the adequate discussion of any of the Votes. The remainder of the Votes to be taken would properly occupy three Sittings, and I say that the action of the Government in asking for this further Vote on Account practically leads to a waste of the time of the House. So strong is my feeling on this matter that I feel inclined to move the reduction of the Vote by one-half, in order to compel the Government to come to Parliament as soon as possible, to complete the Votes on the Civil Service Estimates. We have the Navy Estimates to be taken on Monday, but the Army Votes not for some little time yet, because the Report of the Committee is not in the hands of hon. Members. There is sufficient time to discuss the Civil Service Votes seriatim, and I say that the demand for this third Vote on account is therefore an abuse of the forms of this House.

I cannot allow the discussion on the subject of Egypt to close without adding an observation or two which it is my duty to make. The appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff hardly comes up for discussion now for the first time in this House, since it was continued by the late Government deliberately, and was defended by the Prime Minister of the day. But I wish to state first that whatever has been done at Constantinople by Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and whatever has been his attitude in remaining there, has the entire sanction and direction of Her Majesty's Government; and, secondly, that in the course of all his proceedings Sir H. Drummond Wolff has the highest approval of Her Majesty's Government, and has, in their judgment, performed the duties of his high Office with dignity, discretion, and prudence.

I have said nothing to disparage Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and I do not question his abilities. The gravamen of the charge I have made to-day is against the manner in which Her Majesty's Government, have conducted these negotiations, more especially during the last few weeks. I must also protest against the statement that the late Prime Minister defended the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff. That was done neither by the late Prime Minister nor by the Foreign Office under the late Government. We did not recall Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and on the 7th of March I gave the reasons which, in the opinion of the last Liberal Government, made it undesirable, during our short and uncertain tenure of office, to recall him. What the Prime Minister said was that there were reasons why he should not be forthwith recalled, but he neither justified the original appointment nor implied that if he had been in Office at the time he would have appointed Sir H. Drummond Wolff, still less did he suggest that his Mission should be allowed to run on to the length it has reached.

I wish to point out that the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) is not carrying out the provisions of the Crofters Act, and that unless something is done to ensure that it is carried out, and to see that the Crofters Commission does its work when it is wanted to act, a very serious condition of affairs will come into existence. The last information which I had from the Scotch Office was that they had come to some decision in the month of May, but since then nothing has been done. Under the Act there is power to appoint sub-commissioners, assessors, and valuers, in order to get through the work; but that has not been done. The Scotch Office has allowed that most important portion of the Act to remain a dead letter, and the work has been performed in consequence in a very inefficient and expensive manner. You have a Commission of three gentlemen, with very large salaries of £3,000 a-year, doing work which could be easily done by men paid £300 a-year, and which work is in arrear to such an extent that it has given rise to legal proceedings in some cases. I impress on the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the necessity there is for the work to be carried on by responsible officers. Then with regard to the way in which the Treasury are carrying on this Act. It is of no use for Parliament to pass Acts authorizing money to be advanced if the intention of the Act is neutralized by the Treasury. Conditions have been laid down by them which have made it impossible for de- serving men in the Highlands up to the present time to get a single loan under the Act. This is a very serious matter, and I hope it will be taken into consideration by the Government. It is also a matter of complaint that those districts were first visited by the Commissioners where the disturbances occurred, and I express a hope that in future the cases will be taken upon their merits. Matters in the Highlands are getting more and more lawless, and I take this opportunity of impressing on the Government the necessity of seriously turning their mind to this matter, because otherwise, before the Houses are prorogued, there is likely to be a good deal of trouble. I hope to hear from the Representative of the Government now on the Treasury Bench an explanation of the reason why not one loan has been granted under the Crofters Act.

I observe that since my hon. Friend complained of the conduct of the Government in asking for this Vote the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to the House, and I think the Committee will be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will give them the advantage of his clear mind in discussing the matter. My hon. Friend has stated that the Government have enough money to last to the end of the month, and we say that £5,750,000 have already been voted; and we also say that there is money in hand for the Army and Navy. My hon. Friend has pointed out that, as the Irish Land Law Bill will not come forward in Committee till next week, the Committee might have expected that the Government would have waited to see what their fortune was with regard to Supply in the next three Sittings before they came down to ask for this Vote on Account, and I think my hon. Friend has made out a case for this course being pursued which is extremely reasonable. I join most emphatically in the protest of my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) against the absurd and ridiculous system which is growing every year in this House of disposing of Public Expenditure by the method of Votes on Account. I should not mind so much if this House were engaged in useful legislation. The House of Commons has two functions, the function of legislating and the function of granting Supply. If the House were engaged in useful legislation, I should not be so querulous about the taking of a Vote on Account; but this Session it has done nothing but pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland. I certainly do not think a Coercion Bill is useful legislation; on the contrary, I think the time spent upon it as neither more nor less than wasted, and, seeing time wasted, I am disposed to insist that in the matter of Supply the Representatives of the people shall be allowed to hold the strings of the public purse. There was a time when the Representatives of the people had control over the public money. We were sometimes able to procure reductions in the Estimates; but what is the case now? The Public Revenue consists of many score of millions; but it is not the Representatives of the people who spend it or say how it shall be spent, but it is the permanent Heads of the Departments in Whitehall and elsewhere. They put down what Estimates they please, obtain for them the assent of the Minister, and place them before the House in the certainty that, under the present system, they will be able to get all the money they choose to ask for. This is the third time this Session we have had a Vote on Account. We get an evening for the purpose of voting several millions of money; and then at the end of July, or the middle of August, many Votes in Supply are forced through the House in the course of a single Sitting, when perhaps there are not more than a dozen or two wearied Members present. I join, Sir, in the protest made, and I assure you respectfully that the time is coming when that protest will not be confined to the floor of this House. The people are bound to take notice of the conspiracy which evidently exists between the permanent Officials and the Heads of Departments. I object altogether to this Vote on Account; but, having made those general observations, I wish to refer to a specific matter. I notice that the Vote contains an item for upwards of £100,000 for the Customs Department, and the question is one in which my constituents are very directly concerned. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present, because the question I wish to raise has reference to the condition and treatment of the Port of Belfast, as a port for the receipt of Customs. The Port of Belfast does not I receive the same fair and equal treatment it would receive if it were a Scotch or an English port. An instance of this came recently before us. A firm of wine and spirit merchants in Belfast applied to the Customs Authorities for a bonded store. The firm, whose request was refused, is one of some importance, inasmuch as they paid to the Government last year in duties no less than £25,042. Their contribution has been progressive. In 1879 it was £13,000, and it has gone on increasing yearly. Their request for a bonded store—in which not more than £250 a-year was involved—was refused, and they issued a memorandum, laying bare the facts of the case. Their request was then conceded. What I complain of is, that it was necessary to issue a memorandum and invoke public opinion. I think that if that firm had been doing business in Liverpool, Manchester, or Hull, it would not have been necessary to have invoked public opinion in a matter of this kind. Then, again, I want to know whether there is a classification of ports which governs the number of the staff at the ports, and the general facilities afforded by the Department? Belfast in point of contribution to the Customs, is the third port of the British Empire. London is first, Liverpool second, and Belfast third. Out of the total Customs receipt—namely, £20,000,000—Belfast contributed last year no less than £1,630,000, or one-thirteenth part of the whole. Belfast is a very progressive port, because in 1856 the contribution was only £653,000, so that in 30 years the contribution has been trebled. In 1886 it was £120,000 more than in 1885. Belfast is not only a port of great value to the Government as a means of producing Customs, but it is also an extremely progressive port. In Glasgow the collection was only half what it was in Belfast, and in Hull the total contribution last year was smaller than the nett increase which had taken place in Belfast. I simply ask for fair play for Belfast, and I shall insist, so far as it is in my power, that Belfast shall be treated, in relation to its productiveness to the Revenue, as well as if it were on the right side of the Irish Channel, and not on the wrong, according to the view of the Treasury. Now, is there a classification of ports? Are there first, second, and third-class ports? If so, docs Belfast stand in its proper place in proportion to its contribution to the Revenue, and if not, why not? I am led to believe that Belfast stands in the scale lower than it ought to, and that it does not receive in point of staff or general official facilities the same treatment it would receive if it were a Scotch or English port. I have taken up this question, and I assure the Government that, having done so, I shall not suffer it to drop until redress is given. I shall bring it forward on every occasion that presents itself, and I think the Government will find that it will be convenient for themselves to come to a decision promptly. There is one other matter I wish to mention to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is with regard to the granting of the City Charter to Belfast. A Question was lately put in the House upon the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) replied, and I quite concurred in the reply, that the Government did not intend to recommend any such grant in connection with Her Majesty's Jubilee. But the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the question should receive consideration. Now, he has had a fortnight in which to consider the question, and I will ask him for a reply upon the point—if he cannot give it me now perhaps he will be ready to give it me when the Report of the Vote on Account is taken. I do not know that there is much difference between a town and a city; but some people prefer the title of city, and if there is any advantage in a place being called a city, I think the people of Belfast are entitled to have their choice. There are eight cities in Ireland, and Belfast is next to Dublin in point of importance; according to Thom's information, it is the first town of manufacturing importance. I believe there is a strong desire that the title of city should be given to the place. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will not deny that the people of Belfast are numerous—they are 250,000. He will not deny that they are industrious, and that in manufacture and trade and commerce they have made remarkable progress. I believe he will not deny they are very loyal. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who is the director of the consciences of the Government, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who poses as the Government's most candid Friend, recently visited Belfast: and I think they may well be expected to do their best to secure to the people of Belfast the City Charter they desire. It seems absurd that Belfast should be shut out from any City Charter, while Armagh, with 10,000 of a population, is a city; and when Cashell, with a population of 4,000, enjoys the distinction also. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say that, in consideration of the importance of the town, the Government will recommend the Crown to grant to it the title of city. Like civility, a Charter of this kind costs nothing; and, therefore, I think that this Charter might be promptly and gracefully conceded to the town.

With regard to the last question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton)—namely, the granting of a City Charter to Belfast —I will accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to give the answer of the Government upon the Report stage. Now let me deal, in the first place, with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I find no fault whatever in his bringing forward the question of the undesirability of Votes on Account. There is no man in this House who has a greater objection, or more real and solid ground of objection, for a third Vote on Account than the Secretary to the Treasury. A third Vote on Account means that you must have throe discussions, or possible discussions, instead of one, of the same Vote, and therefore I go entirely with the hon. Member in his statement that it is extremely desirable to avoid third Votes on Account if it is possible to do so. Now, Sir, the hon. Member is under the impression that only two previous instances of third Votes on Account have been taken.

No, I did not say that; I said taken so late as the 15th of July.

So late—so early I suppose he means. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR; Early.] I find third Votes on Account were taken in the Estimates 1881–2, 1882–3, 1883–4, and 1886–7; and the only reason why a third Vote on Account was not taken in 1884–5 was because the House was good enough to repose its confidence in the Government, and allow a supply representing two months on the second Vote on Account, which enabled the Government to go on until Supply was completed on the 7th August. The hon. Member for East Donegal stated that we have money enough to serve us until the end of the month. I regret to say that it is not so. I regret to have to point out, as the hon. Member knows quite well, that unless we get the whole of the Votes before all the money we have on hand is spent, we must take a Vote on Account. There is nobody in the House knows better than the hon. Member that if we have money in hand belonging to one Service we cannot transfer it to another—we cannot devote money obtained for one purpose to another purpose. I want the Committee clearly to understand that the first and main reason is because there is now a much closer financial scrutiny over the application of the money which is voted by Parliament than ever there was on former occasions We are asking now for what will serve us for a month. It has been customary on former occasions to ask for a third Vote on Account for five or six weeks. I may also point out the reason why a large sum of money is necessary is that we are coming to the end of the month, and there are considerable payments which have to be made at the early part of August, which necessitates that we should have a large sum at our disposal. Now, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) said something about the present system of presenting the Estimates. There is no desire, certainly on my part, to present a Vote on Account; but it is absolutely impossible, under the present system, to avoid it. I do not propose to discuss the question whether the business which has detained the House has been of sufficient importance or not to warrant our asking for a Vote on Account. All I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, it is with extreme regret that I ask for this Vote, and it must be remembered that we are doing the best we can in regard to Supply. We took a Morning Sitting today, and we propose to take Supply at the Evening Sitting. On Monday we shall put down Naval Estimates, and on Tuesday and Wednesday proceed with the Civil Service Estimates. Even supposing that the progress which the hon. Member for East Donegal hinted at were possible—namely, that the whole of the Votes might be completed in three sittings—even supposing that that were possible, but which I think is extremely doubtful—it would not get us over the difficulty in which we are placed on this occasion. Now, Sir, with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast, as to the manner in which different ports are classified, may I say that it is not only the amount of Revenue which is collected at a particular port which determines the number of the staff which is necessary for that port. The hon. Member knows very well that the Revenue which is collected at the Port of Belfast arises mainly from one particular article, and is collected in large sums. I think he will see that we cannot with fairness classify the different ports simply and solely in relation to the amount of Revenue which is collected at them. Now, I am not aware that there is the smallest desire on the part of the Customs Authorities—indeed, I know the contrary is the fact—to refuse to Belfast any and every facility which is necessary for the carrying on of its trade. The hon. Member says that some friends of his have applied for an additional bonded warehouse. I know the case well. It has been before me on several occasions. Prior to the application to which he refers there came an application from another firm doing a large business in Belfast, and which, in the first instance, was refused by the Customs Authorities in consequence, as they allege, of there being a sufficient amount of bonded accommodation in Belfast. At my urgent solicitation, and after making most searching inquiry into the case, I came to the conclusion that the additional facilities might reasonably be granted, and I over-ruled the Customs Authorities, and the additional store was given to the firm. The hon. Member will easily understand that if the position taken up by the Customs Authorities was sound in the first instance—namely, that there was already sufficient accommodation in Belfast, surely a little hesitation was required in granting the second application of the kind which was made. At all events, the question is under consideration, and the Customs Authorities have been instructed to give the most favourable consideration to the carrying on of the trade of Belfast. I may add, with re- gard to the particular firm mentioned, that during an interview I had with them I pointed out that the growth of the trade in the past proves conclusively that no restrictions which had been put upon them have tended to retard their business. However, the hon. Member will, I think, be willing to accept the assurance I have given him—namely, that the question is under careful consideration, and that we shall afford all the facilities we can to the different ports. The hon. Gentleman has hinted that Irish ports do not receive the same favourable consideration as English and Scotch ports. Upon that point I can assure him that the question whether a port is an English, Irish, or Scotch port never enters into consideration. Each case is decided, as far as it can be, upon the circumstances of the case and the requirements of the trade.

I feel very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for his courteous and attentive reply. His speech, however, affords ample evidence that it is necessary that the departments should be carefully looked after by the Ministers who are responsible for them in this House. The hon. Gentleman has told the Committee that, in regard to the application from Belfast for additional warehouse accommodation, the Board of Customs refused the application until the personal influence of the hon. Gentleman was brought to bear. The exercise of his personal influence induced an opposite result. I have, however, not received information on one point which I raised—namely, whether there is a classification of ports adopted by the Board of Customs. Are there such things as first class, second class, and third class ports, and does the expenditure for staff and the official facilities follow upon the position of the port in the scale? If so, I think Belfast ought to be in the foremost place.

I cannot say now. I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information on Report.

I cannot help thinking that the present bonded store system in Belfast is a most objectionable one. A large number of firms in Belfast have separate bonded stores communicating with their own premises. It seems to me that such a system affords great facilities for defrauding the Revenue. I think that in a place like Belfast the Government should, if possible, own all the bonded stores, and that there should be no communication whatever with private premises. I know that one firm alone have been cheating the Revenue to the extent of £35,000 a-year. I think that the Customs would probably be right in refusing this now bonded store except for one reason, that the multiplication of bonded stores has been carried to a very large extent already. If people wish to extend their trade and compete successfully with older houses they cannot do so unless they get a chance of cheating the Revenue in the way the older firms have been doing. Under these circumstances, I suppose the Government were right; but I should like to impress upon them the necessity of making a thorough reform in the system of bonded stores. The present system is one which cannot be defended; and it is one which ought to be, if possible, reformed. In Dublin we had a case of very large fraud on the part of parties with bonded stores, who also were large dealers in the particular articles. These persons took whisky in bond for outsiders, they gave receipts for the whisky, then sold the whisky, and became bankrupt; and the parties who had lodged the whisky with them were the losers. I do not think people who own bonded stores ought to be dealers in the articles which are bonded. With regard to the question of Votes on Account, I must say, in my opinion, the voting of money on account is an exceedingly improvident way of doing business. When the Votes in Supply are finally brought in, there is not sufficient time to discuss them. The fault really lies with the Government, who ought to arrange their business in a workmanlike manner. The present system of voting money is most unsatisfactory, and it is quite within the power of the Government to alter it if they choose.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that numerous Votes on Account are certainly a most unsatisfactory way of transacting the financial business of the country; and I am persuaded that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not propose them if it were possible to avoid them. But I wish to take this opportunity, as I see that there is a sum on the Vote for the convict prisons of the country, for putting a question to my hon. Friend. I should like to know whether the Government are really proceeding with the Dover Harbour works? The convict prison at Dover was projected for the very purpose of accommodating the convicts who were to carry out the Dover Harbour works; and I should like to ask my hon. Friend if the provision made on this Vote for convict prisons implies that the convict prison at Dover is being erected?

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Baronet any very positive assurance on this question. The position of the Dover Harbour matter may be said to be this—£1,000 was put in the Estimates last year or the year before; and in view of the very earnest desire which the Government had to avoid not only useless expenditure, but every large expenditure, though it might not be useless, and in view of the fact that the House of Commons has really never fully considered the question, the Government decided that, certainly so far as this year was concerned, they would not ask the House for any Vote in respect of Dover Harbour. A certain number of convicts, however, have been removed, and are proceeding to complete the barracks or the prison in which they are to be lodged. The question as to how they shall be disposed of in the future is left over for consideration.

It must be borne in mind that at least £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling must be spent upon the Harbour of Dover, if it is to be made really useful. Unless you treble the size of the harbour, as it is now proposed, and provide for at least 35 feet of water, it is impossible to obtain a harbour of any value. I trust the Government will not take any half and half measures; but, if they construct a harbour at all, construct one in which any war vessel of the largest size can enter. To have a harbour of only 640 acres, as is now proposed, is most absurd, because you could not in such a space accommodate with safety four men-of-war. I think it is far more important that many of our harbours should be improved than that one large harbour should be constructed. The harbour will cost more than is supposed. The Peterhead Harbour was estimated to cost £250,000; but that sum was soon exceeded, being first raised to £250,000, and now put at £750,000, and this harbour will probably cost £1,000,000 before it is completed.

I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for bringing this question before the Committee. It is not only a great waste of time to debate these questions over and over again; but the presentation of Votes on Account is a departure from one of the most important functions of the House of Commons—namely, the controlling of Expenditure. I think the Government are assuming very heavy responsibility when they prevent the Representatives of the people having that control over Expenditure which is one of the most useful purposes they can exercise in the House of Commons. The present system, no doubt, loads to great extravagance. The House is losing its power of controlling Expenditure; and I hope some stop will be put to the system of taking Votes on Account. I should like to have said something in reference to the expenditure upon Sir H. Drummond Wolff's Mission; but I suppose the debate on that point may be said to have closed. I hope that we are now about to see the last of that Mission. It is not only a very expensive Mission, but very inane in its object. I desire to enter a strong protest against the growing practice of taking Votes on Account.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if there are any means of finding out the nature and extent of the export and import trade of the Port of Dublin? Is there any record of the kind at the Dublin Custom House? A Foreign Consul some time ago had occasion to find out something of the kind, but could get no information. It would be interesting to know the amount of Irish manufactures exported, and the amount of foreign imports, whether raw material or manufactured goods. In the event of there being no such record, will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury have such prepared?

I do not think that any separate records are kept of the exports between this country and Ireland. I am not quite sure the matter would be under the care of the Board of Trade; but I will make inquiry, and give the hon. Baronet what information I can in answer to his Question.

There is a Vote here on account of the Metropolitan Police upon which I desire to raise a question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) notice. I observe he left the House a few minutes since, but I presume he will be re-called. The matter to which I desire to invite attention is the proposed expenditure for presenting medals to 14,000 of the Metropolitan Police in respect to their services on Jubilee day. I am in no way opposed to some acknowledgment of services rendered on that day by the police, and I have always advocated a just and even a generous treatment of the rank and file of the Public Services, and although there did appear in the public Press some complaints of misconduct against the police on that day, still I think that those complaints, even if well founded, were quite exceptional, and I believe the conduct of the police on the 21st June was on the whole extremely good; in fact, I might say almost as admirable as the conduct of the people they were supposed to keep in order. Of course, I do not oppose an acknowledgment, and I ask the Committee to bear in mind that apart from the proposed gift of medals it is proposed to give the Metropolitan Police one day's extra pay and three extra days' leave, and this, I think, is a fair—I might say an ample—acknowledgment of the services rendered. At all events, it contrasts very favourably with the treatment by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) of the telegraphists under very similar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, repeatedly pressed by myself and others to make some acknowledgment to the telegraphists who, by the exigencies of the service, were compelled to be on duty on that day, has now definitely declined to make any such acknowledgment whatever. But to the grant of medals I altogether object. In the first place, because it is an unnecessary expense. I have had some difficulty in extracting from the Government a statement of the cost of these medals, but I was informed today the estimated cost was £83 per 1,000, so that the total cost would be about £1,162. Well, I do not know how it may be with consituents of other hon. Members; but certainly I may say, for my own, that they are not in a position to take their share in this expenditure of £1,162, not only, I submit, for a wasteful, but for a ridiculous and even mischievous purpose. This proposal has emanated from Sir Charles Warren, and I desire to speak of Sir Charles Warren with all possible respect as a gallant soldier who deserves well of his county, but on this occasion he has forgotten that he now occupies a civil post, and has introduced his old military ideas into his new sphere of duty. However, I can understand the conduct of Sir Charles Warren in making the suggestion, but I cannot understand or excuse the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman whose whole distinguished career has been spent in civil life in sanctioning the suggestion. Why are medals to be given to the Metropolitan Police for their services on that day? I quite admit they had exceedingly hard, exceedingly onerous duties to perform, and that they underwent many hours fatigue, but there are scores of men in Bethnel Green who every day of their lives undergo as many hours fatigue as did the Police on Jubilee Day. My next objection to this proposal is that it would tend to bring into ridicule and contempt the whole system of conferring medals. Why are medals usually bestowed? Usually, so far as my information goes, after a victory over a foe. Who was the foe vanquished on Jubilee Day? Does Sir Charles Warren plume himself on the fact that the Metropolitan Police gained a victory over the common people? I recognize in this, among other suggestions, a tendency to which on a future occasion I will call attention to introduce into the administration of the Metropolitan Police military ideas against which I, for one, will firmly contend, for I believe the result must inevitably be to undermine that confidence and goodwill that for so many years have happily existed between the Metropolitan Police on the one hand and the public on the other. I move to reduce the amount of the Vote by the estimated cost of the proposed medals which I make out to be £1,162.

I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Pickers-gill) that there is nothing of a military spirit that deserves his criticism in the proposal to give a medal to the police. I think the whole House will be of opinion that the Metropolitan Police on this occasion rendered extremely valuable service. The work was excessively arduous, some of the men were on duty for 30 hours, and all of them for a long time The general feeling of the House was that there should be some gratuity or reward for these arduous services. The hon. Member has blamed the Chief Commissioner for originating the idea of a medal; but I may say the matter arose in conversation, and I rather think the mention of a medal or commemoration of some sort came first from myself, not from the Chief Commissioner. The latter undertook to ascertain the wishes of the Force when I desired to know whether they would prefer to have 1½ days' extra pay, or one day's pay and some object to serve as a memorial of what to the Metropolitan Police and many others was an interesting historical occasion. Sir Charles Warren took pains to ascertain the feeling of the men, and it is, I think, creditable to them that the majority of them said they would prefer to have a gratuity of one day's pay, not 1½ days' pay, and that the money that would have otherwise gone to make up the 1½ days' pay should be spent in providing a medal or some form of commemoration of a great national event. I was obliged to tell the hon. Member more than once that I could not state the exact cost of the medal. We consulted with the officers of the Mint and from them I obtained the estimate I gave to the hon. Gentleman to-day. But the form of the memorial has not yet been settled, the matter is still under consideration.

I understood from the right hon. Gentleman, a few days ago, that the matter did not remain to be considered.

Not in this sense, that it was quite understood the wish of the Force was to have a day's pay and an acknowledgment in the form of a medal; there is no intention of reconsidering that decision. The exact form and character of the memento, whether it should take the shape of a medal at all or a piece of commemorative plate, has not definitely been decided upon; what is decided is that there shall be some object to keep as a memorial of Her Majesty's Jubilee year. Sir Charles Warren thought a medal would be the most appropriate form. The cost is not very large, though the total among a large number of men does naturally mount up. As I have pointed out, this money reward for extraordinary exertions seems fully within the enactment I referred to earlier in the day. If the choice had been left to me, I should have given the whole of the reward in the shape of money; but as the men themselves preferred that it should partly take the form of a commemorative object, and as we are always desirous to consult the wishes of those we wish to gratify in matters of this kind, the determination was come to of which I have spoken. There are minor details to settle. The Force wish that the medal should in some way have the sanction or assent of Her Majesty herself. I have not yet had an opportunity of learning the pleasure of Her Majesty. It would, no doubt, enhance the value of the gift if Her Majesty should graciously approve of the presentation on her behalf. I may mention that the acknowledgment in the form proposed is by no means an act of generosity on my part, for the one and a-half days' pay would probably cost more than the whole sum that will be expended in the manner proposed. The sum set aside in the Metropolitan Police Fund early in the year, in anticipation of such a purpose as this, will cover with an ample margin any cost incurred. I think it will be the general feeling of the House that it would be stingy not to allow more than one day's pay. This particular form of recognition is what the Police Force desire, and there is no military idea whatever implied.

On this subject I would like to ask, are these medals considered tokens of honour, and will the police, with the sanction of Her Majesty, wear them on their uniforms as a mark of honourable distinction, in the same way that soldiers wear those they gain in the field, or will they simply be kept as tokens of Her Majesty's Jubilee?

No decision of any sort has been come to; but it is not, I think, in the contemplation of anybody that the Police should wear them. I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that though many of the men possess war medals, as a matter of fact they never do wear them when on duty, and that for two reasons—first, that to do so would subject the wearer to adverse and ridiculous comment from the irreverent London boy; and, secondly, that in the event of any scuffle in the streets, the medal would be the first thing to be grasped at. There is no reason to suppose that, except, perhaps, on special occasions, the medals would be worn.

I would appeal to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) not to divide the Committee on the question he has raised. There can be no doubt that, with the great number of persons claiming to wear medals and decorations, these have become somewhat common, and it is rather an honourable distinction to be without such.

May I suggest that as a medal is to be struck it might, in addition to the Jubilee, commemorate another proceeding in which the police are concerned, and recall the features of the celebrated Miss Cass.

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not met all my objections, but he has advanced one strong argument why we should accept the proposal, that is that the police themselves have expressed a desire to have a medal rather than another half-day's pay. Of course, I accept that statement, and as I have already said, my object is not to treat the police in any grudging spirit, for I am most anxious they should receive a suitable acknowledgment. Accepting the statement that the police have, by a majority, expressed a desire to have the medal, I withdraw my Motion.

I wish to make an appeal to hon. Members to allow this Vote to be now taken. There is no single item in this Vote on Account that may not be the subject of discussion in Committee when the separate Votes are taken, and any delay that now takes place lessens the time the Committee will have for that discussion. I trust the House will recognize the necessity that is forced upon the Government of taking this Vote to-day, and allow us now to come to a decision.

I am sorry I must make one exception to the appeal in favour of a matter of urgent importance. I see among the Votes included in this Vote on Account, is a Home Office Vote and another for Criminal Prosecutions, and to these I wish to call the attention of the Committee by a Motion for reduction.

This is a Vote that will come on first in considering the separate Votes. The hon. Member will find it the most fitting opportunity when this Vote comes on, probably this afternoon.

Criminal Prosecutions come in Class 3, and according to our rate of progress with Supply we are not likely to reach Class 3 for some weeks, probably the middle of August. Owing to the fact that the Government have refused to give a day for the discussion and redress of the grievances of Welsh tithe payers, the state of feeling is, in Wales, very serious. This has been shown by disturbances in various parts of the country. In some of the disturbances the officers of the law have had the worst of it, in others, ordinary bystanders have suffered at the hands of the police. What did the Government do in the face of this state of affairs? They proceeded to appoint a Commission to make inquiry into the cause of the disturbance when the people were batoned by the police, and they set up prosecutions when the officers were alleged to have been maltreated by the crowd. I would call the attention of the Committee to this—in the case of the trials the Public Prosecutor or the right hon. Gentleman, on his own initiative, changed the place of trial from the Petty Sessional Division where the offence was alleged to have taken place to another Petty Sessional Division 15 or 20 miles distant. The excuse the Government make is that they could not find Court accommodation in the place where the events occurred. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiry I have considerable doubt whether he will find that that is the fact. I think he will find there is ample accommodation for the 31 prisoners, counsel, and witnesses at Cerrig-y-Druidion. At the same time, while making this the ostensible reason, the right hon. Gentleman said it was not expedient that the prosecution itself should take place in the district where the disturbances occurred. Now, it seems to me that this is carrying the Irish method of administering justice into Wales, and further, if the right hon. Gentleman at his own initiative thus changes the place of trial he should accept the logical consequences, and see that the expenses of these men and their witnesses are paid if they are carried from one Court to another, 20 miles off. The next point to which I call attention is that, although the reported offence took place on the 27th May, no word of notice was given to the defendants until the 30th June and 1st July that the trial was to take place 20 miles off, and held on the following Wednesday, after a lapse of three days. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect that justice will be done to these men when they are treated in this way three or four days after they have had notice, before they have had time to consult their solicitors, and before the latter have had time to make up the cases? After this, requests were made for adjournment for a few days, for one reason, because the cases were not made up, and because the wife of one of the defendants died during the course of the preliminary proceedings. I called attention to this by Question, and asked was it in the interests of justice necessary to refuse an adjournment to allow a defendant to make the general arrangements necessary for the burial of his wife? The right hon. Gentleman answered that there was an adjournment in a couple of hours, while, as a matter of fact, this happened on the morning of Thursday, and there was no adjournment until the evening of Friday. I call the attention of the Committee to this fact, and I ask was it decent or fair, in view of the hurried notice and this distressing incident, to rush on the prosecution without a decent adjournment? And now I refer to the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman promised an inquiry into the circumstances and origin of one disturbance, and then, partly at the instance of a Welsh Tory Member, he enlarged the scope of the inquiry, so as to include not only the dis- turbance at Mochdre, but the other disturbances in North Wales. Now, I should say that in the Commissioner to hold such an inquiry two qualifications are especially required, first, that he should be able to understand the language of the people; and, secondly, that the Commissioner or Commissioners should be a man or men who would not merely look at legal technicalities in connection with each disturbance, but who would take a fair and dispassionate view of the whole cause and origin of these disturbances. But the right hon. Gentleman selected the very worst man possible for the appointment. Mr. Bridge was sent some time ago to make inquiry into the Cardiff riots, and the Cardiff people, of all shades of politics, condemned the way in which he whitewashed the police and refused to listen to some 60 witnesses who were ready to come forward. His proceeding gave satisfaction to no one, and his Report showed that he was actuated by the idea that his duty was to defend the police and the authorities. Secondly, this Commissioner has no idea, I imagine, of the habits and language of the people, and does not understand what they say, In the third place, although this inquiry was promised a month ago, the arrangements are not yet made. The right hon. Gentleman promised to appoint a secretary who understands Welsh; but, as yet, we have no information upon that point. Neither have we heard that a shorthand writer is appointed to take notes of the evidence; in fact, the whole thing hangs fire. Now, if the Government wish to further inflame the state of public feeling in Wales, they can do it by backing up the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the authorities of Christchurch by taking the stock of farmers at dead of night; they can enstrange the sympathies of the Welsh people, and provoke further disturbance, by rushing the prosecutions, on the one hand, and delaying inquiry on the other. In view of the action of the Government, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000.

I believe I can answer the hon. Gentleman. He finds fault with the conduct of the prosecution. Now, while I have not a word to say as to the persons charged, I think the hon. Member will admit that it is quite fitting there should be a prosecution. The men, 31 in number, are charged with complicity in a riot. They do not all live in the same part of the country; their places of abode are far apart; and I am informed that no place of trial could be selected to which some of them would not have to travel—I will not say all of them, so far as the distance between Cerrig-y-Druidion and Ruthin—but, at any rate, a considerable distance.

Not one of them?

I am giving the information I have received. I am informed that the Court House at Cerrig-y-Druidion is totally inadequate for the accommodation of not only the 31 defendants, but the magistrates, witnesses, counsel, and others who have to take more or less part in the proceedings. The hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Ellis) said it was very hard on the defendants that they should be put to this expense, and I very much sympathize with that part of the hon. Gentleman's demand, for it is rather hard on the defendants themselves that, if put to extra cost by having to go to Ruthin, that extra cost should not be met. I sympathize with the hon. Gentleman on that point; but the only allowance which can be made, and which will be made, is for their witnesses. By Statute, the magistrate who takes the depositions can give a certificate upon which the costs of any witnesses will be defrayed; but the law does not allow either the magistrates or the Treasury to defray the costs of the defendants themselves. Then he renewed the grievance which he presented the other day, and thought the answer which I then gave was unsatisfactory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will grant me the indulgence of listening to what I have to say. An inquiry was granted for the Friday, and it would have been extremely unreasonable to have adjourned then and there without doing anything on the morning of that Friday, it being necessary to have the defendants present. Everybody had come at considerable expense to themselves and to the county, and so the proceedings were continued on that Friday so as not to waste a day, and in the afternoon the magistrates adjourned the case until the Tuesday following, on purpose to enable the poor men to obtain advice upon the Monday, Surely that does not call for any severe comment. Then the hon. Member finds great fault with the inquiry which has been instituted by this House. He finds great fault with the selection of the Commissioner, Mr. Bridge; but I am bound to say it was having read his Report on the Cardiff riots which suggested Mr. Bridge to my mind; for, so far from whitewashing the police, he blames them with great discrimination, judgment, and moderation. I thought that Report was remarkably able, temperate, fair, and impartial; and it induced me to think, with the representations it contained, that Mr. Bridge was a man who would act justly, and who was completely outside all the passionate feelings which had been aroused on both sides.

Did the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence?

I read a great part of it, and I read the whole of Mr. Bridge's Report, which showed him to be a man thoroughly competent to conduct the inquiry by training, experience, abilities, and the fairness of his mind. I think I could hardly have picked out a better selection to decide on local disputes. Then it is said I should have put somebody on the Commission who understood Welsh. I had great difficulty in finding a competent Welsh scholar who would do good service otherwise. I inquired in all directions, and I had great difficulty, but I ultimately fixed on a gentleman—Professor Rhys—the first Welsh scholar of the day, and Professor of Celtic in Oxford University, and he is not only an accomplished Welsh scholar, but a thorough Welshman in birth and sympathies. He is a Liberal in politics, I am told, though I do not care what his politics are—he is an admirable Welsh scholar, the first of the day, a perfect master of the language, and a man of thorough intellect and character. Being so perfectly associated by birth, language, training, and sympathies with the Welsh people, I felt sure he would prove a useful adjunct to the Commission, and a man clearly above all suspicion, for he has lived long enough out of the world of Welsh ideas not to be suspected of partizanship. He is a man who could not be suspected or accused of partizanship either on one side or on the other. I myself had no object or purpose in the matter other than to get a tribunal which would deal as fairly and impartially with this inquiry as any tribunal could.

I quite concur with the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that it is inconvenient to bring on discussions of this kind on such an occasion as this. But my hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had no choice in the matter. If he had not brought the subject on for discussion now, he could not have done it for the next fortnight or three weeks. I gladly recognize the spirit of the reply of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Matthews); but, on one point, he is entirely wrong in his facts. Now, where do nine-tenths of these defendants live? They could walk easily enough to the Court at Cerrig-y-Druidion; but they are 19 or 20 miles away from Ruthin, and for a considerable part of that distance there is no railway, and, as far as I know, no coach, no omnibus, no public conveyance whatever to enable them to get there. What is the result? These poor men, most of them quite unable to afford to hire a conveyance—these poor men were obliged to walk a distance of somewhere about 40 miles, because the case could not be tried in the Petty Sessional Division close to their home. I think that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will inquire, he will find something behind what appears—something which he has not yet discovered, and which will give him the real reason why the case was removed from the one Petty Sessional Division to the other. If my information be correct, there are four Justices who reside in this district of Cerrig-y-Druidion, only two of whom would have been required to deal with the case. Why did they not deal with it then? Simply because one of them is, for some reason or other, disliked by the other three, and they will not sit with him. Therefore it was that these poor men had to walk 40 miles, because three of the magistrates would not sit with, the fourth. My information is very definite and very complete upon the point. The right hon. Gentleman has not said a single word about one little matter. The riots took place on the 27th of May, but no proceedings whatsoever were taken until the 27th of June—a month afterwards. And now one word as to Mr. Bridge. I know nothing whatever of him except that he has inquired into the case of the Cardiff riots; but I do hear from all sides a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed at his decision. Still, I am bound to say that if I were in the Home Secretary's place I would not put a police magistrate to try policemen—it is not exactly the right thing to do. A man whom I suggested to the Home Secretary—I will not mention his name, but he is a man who is highly respected, as well as familiar with the Welsh language—would have been a more proper person to conduct the inquiry. As to Professor Rhys, I know very well that he is a most competent Welsh scholar, probably the best in the world; a better man for the post could not be found; and as regards him I thought the right hon. Gentleman's reply on Tuesday was satisfactory. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that the proceedings are to be commenced at once, because these matters lead to a great deal of irritation, and the sooner they are disposed of the better.

I must say, Mr. Courtney, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) seemed to me to make out a bad case. What occurred was this—these unfortunate men were subjected first to a very heavy penalty; and I think that was quite unfair, and that the parties responsible for dragging men to or 20 miles from the place of the riots to the Petty Sessional District outside acted very unfairly for many reasons. Remember that the money penalty was only a small part of the penalty suffered. They probably had some legal friend in the district in which they lived—someone in whom they had confidence—and yet they are taken away a specially long distance, quite out of his reach. Although the right hon. Gentleman says the magistrate may certify for the costs of the witnesses for the defence, the defendants are taken away to magistrates who are partizans against the people, and who would probably refuse costs, and throw such difficulties in the way that the defendants' witnesses would probably never get paid at all. The proper thing for the Government to do, instead of putting the Public Prosecutor in motion against them, would be to say that these people had suffered sufficiently already, and that nothing more should be done against them. As to Mr. Bridge, he may be all very well, but the fact is that he does not know Welsh, and he would have to hear the evidence of the witnesses through an interpreter, who would practically be against the prisoners; and the result would be that Mr. Bridge, however well disposed to do justice, would not get a fair statement of the facts, and would, therefore, not be able to come to an unbiassed and honest decision. I think the hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Ellis) did well to invite attention to this Vote; and I hope the Committee will mark their sense of the conduct of the prosecution by disallowing the Vote.