I object, Sir, to the Oath being administered to the hon. Member for Northampton.

I rise to a point of Order.

I protest against the hon. Gentleman being sworn. ["Order!"]

I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that the House is now engaged in the administration of the Oath of Allegiance to Members of the House. It will be the duty of the Clerk to administer the Oath to hon. Members as they come up one by one; but if the hon. Member for Portsmouth has any objection to offer now will be the time.

I beg to oppose the administration of the Oath to the hon. Member for Northampton.

In that case it is my duty to call upon the hon. Member for Northampton for the present to withdraw.

I rose to Order, and my object was to ask you, Sir, whe- ther an hon. Member, having presented himself at the Table for the purpose of taking the Oath, it is competent for an hon. Member to interfere?

The House is now engaged in carrying out one of its primary duties in securing that every Member on taking his seat in this House is called upon to take the Oath of Allegiance. A Member of this House has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath in the usual form. I am bound to say that I know of no instance where, a Member having offered to take the Oath in the usual form, any interposition has been allowed by the House to his doing so. Yet, if the hon. Member for Portsmouth rises in his place and has any observations to offer upon the matter, I may not consider it my duty to interpose. At the same time, I am not prepared to say, without hearing the hon. Member, and what the terms of his Motion are, whether it is a Motion which ought properly to be put to this House.

I beg to assure the House—["Move, move!"] I shall conclude with a Motion. I beg to assure the House that I have no intention of raising this point as a Party question, nor am I at all an advocate for what may be called religious intolerance. But I think, Sir, there are certain circumstances which disqualify the hon. Member for Northampton from taking his seat in this House, and I will proceed as shortly as possible to lay my reasons before the House. I think there has been a certain amount of undue haste in the manner in which this matter has been brought forward. The hon. Member himself has not acted in a manner which is entirely conformable with the precedents of this House. In the first instance he asked to make an Affirmation, and a Committee was then appointed to inquire into his right to do so; and it is only after the Report of that Committee against his pretensions that the hon. Gentleman comes forward to take the Oath. I think it is rather fortunate for the hon. Member himself that the Committee so decided, because I do not think that a Resolution of the Committee or even of the House would relieve him from the legal penalties to which he would have been liable had he taken his seat with an Affirmation. Under the Act of 1866, any Member taking his seat in this House, and not belonging to certain sects or denominations, is liable to penalties recoverable in the Court of Westminster, and his seat is to be declared vacant. That cannot be set aside by any Resolution of this House. The hon. Member is a professed Atheist—-and by the Common Law of England an Atheist is not entitled to take an oath. I do not believe the hon. Member himself denies that he is an Atheist; but I have procured certain works that are published by the Free Thought Publishing Company, and among them I find a pamphlet entitled, A Plea for Atheism, written by the hon. Gentleman, and advertised and sold under his name. At the beginning of the pamphlet are these words—"It is as a propagandist of Atheism that I pen this essay." Some years ago it was found necessary, not so much for conscience as for public convenience, that evidence in Courts of Justice should be received which would otherwise be set aside because the witness had declared himself an Atheist. The great work on the Law of Evidence I believe is that of Mr. Pitt Taylor. Mr. Pitt Taylor says—

"The wisdom of requiring witnesses to be sworn, excepting under very special circumstances, cannot well be disputed; for, although the ordinary definition of an oath—namely, 'a religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth— may be open to comment, since the design of the oath is not to call the attention of God to man, but the attention of man to God; not to call upon Him to punish the wrongdoer, but on the witness to remember that He will assuredly do so; still it must be admitted that by thus laying hold of the conscience of the witness the law best insures the utterance of truth. But as the administration of an oath supposes that the witness feels a moral and religious accountability to a Supreme Being, who will justly punish perjury and from whom no secrets are hid, persons insensible to the obligations of an oath ought not to be sworn, as in their case it is a meaningless formality."

It is perfectly clear, from the letter written by the hon. Gentleman which appears in the newspapers to-day, that he regards the taking of the Oath as a proceeding of a meaningless character, and he says that it will be so much the worse for those who have forced him to repeat words which convey to his mind no clear and definite meaning. When a certain change was made in the law relating to the giving of evidence in Courts of Justice, there was a penalty inflicted on those who gave false evidence under an affirmation, and that penalty was substituted to some extent for the want of conscience; but that is not the case in regard to an affirmation or an oath of obligation where no penalty is attached to the breach of it. When the hon. Member tells the House that he has been admitted to make an affirmation in Courts of Justice, he must know that such an affirmation could only be administered to a witness objecting to take an oath when the presiding Judge was satisfied that the oath would not be binding on the witness's conscience. The hon. Member has, indeed, declared that no oath would be binding on his conscience. Therefore, it may be fairly asked, is the House to allow that formality now to be gone through which the hon. Member himself avows will be a mere formality, and nothing more? It might be urged that there would be no practical danger from allowing the administration of the Oath to the hon. Gentleman. The form of the Oath is—

"I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs, and successors, according to law."

The hon. Member has infringed the stipulations of that Oath even before he has taken it, because in a book published by the Company with which the hon. Gentleman was connected, and called The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick, which is certainly not couched in terms complimentary to the dynasty, I find it stated that certain acts can be performed in this country to the detriment of the Throne without the consent of the Crown. It says—

"The object of the present essay is to submit reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union, so far as the succession to the Throne is concerned, after the abdication or demise of the present Monarch."

I will not trouble the House by quoting the entire paragraph; but it says—

"It is further submitted that Parliament has full and uncontrollable authority to make any enactment and to repeal any enactment heretofore made, even if such new statute or the repeal of any old statute should in truth change the constitution of the Empire or modify the character and powers of either Parliamentary Chamber."

It goes on to add that Parliament "has the undoubted right to withhold the Crown from Albert Edward Prince of Wales." Now, I cannot see how a Gentleman professing the views set forth in that work can take the Oath of Allegiance. He can only do it if he looked on the Oath as an empty form which did not bind his conscience. Parliament has very wisely made a relaxation of the rule in favour of the members of different creeds and sects; but all those sects have a common standard of morality, a conscience, and a general belief in some divinity or other. What we have now before us is the distinct negation of anything like perpetual morality, or conscience, or the existence of a God. And, as I believe that a person holding these views cannot be allowed to take the Oath in this House, I beg to move my Resolution.

I rise, Sir, to second the Motion, and I do so in order that I may inform the House that I hold in my hand a Petition most influentially signed by merchants and bankers, and others in the City of London, praying that no step be taken to allow any alteration of the law and custom of this Realm for the purpose of enabling one who denies the existence of a God to sit in Parliament. That is the feeling of my constituents, and I cordially concur with them in entreating this House not to admit an Atheist within its walls.

You, Sir, have put from the Chair the Motion which has been made and seconded; and you having thereby expressed your judgment that it is a Motion that can be entertained, we have to consider in what manner it is best to deal with it. Now, Sir, the first consideration which occurs to my mind, and one which is of the greatest weight, is this—that the matter on which we have been invited to proceed is one, in the strictest sense, of a judicial character. I wish the House to bear in mind what these words import, and whether, if I am accurate in that statement, I am not warranted in proceeding to the next proposition which I would respectfully submit, and it is to the fact that there is considerable danger, when we view the nature of the topics which may be imported into this discussion, that if we proceed with the debate in this House it will be found very difficult to handle it in a manner strictly and properly judicial. I take, Sir, the few words which fell from the Seconder of the Motion. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for saying that it appeared to me that he had not considered with sufficiently rigorous care the nature of the Motion which he was seconding, because he thought fit to make the staple of his speech the presentation of a Petition which advances the proposition—in which it may probably be that many will concur—that it is not desirable that persons passing as Atheists should be Members of this House? But, Sir, that question is not a judicial question—it is a political and a Constitutional question of the greatest delicacy and importance. The hon. Gentleman introduces, I think erroneously and mistakenly, that political and Constitutional question into a discussion which, if I am right, is in the strictest sense of a judicial character. I might, perhaps, also draw another illustration from the speech of the Mover. The Mover, I think, was perfectly warranted by the terms of his Motion in referring to evidence which he thought necessary and sufficient to show that the description he gave of Mr. Bradlaugh's religious opinions—those opinions forming the ground of his objection—was a true description. But I must own that if this be a judicial handling of a judicial matter, I do not see what relevancy there was to the subject-matter in hand in that portion of his speech which referred to the political opinions of Mr. Bradlaugh. If I understood him rightly he wishes the House to understand that Mr. Bradlaugh was not in a condition to fulfil loyally the obligations of a subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Fresh evidence, I am bound to say, I find in support of the proposition that I have laid down and the proposition that I intend to make in the cheers which hail and accept the announcement that the hon. Member for Portsmouth has argued that Mr. Bradlangh was politically not in a condition to fulfil his duty. That subject-matter, however important in itself, however delicate, however invidious when raised with respect to a particular Member of the House, does not enter into the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and forms no part whatever of the evidence by which we ought to be guided in passing our judgment on that Motion. Why have I said that this question is one which is strictly judicial? There are many questions debated in this House with respect to which the epithet "judicial" is used, not without force, but, at the same time, with more or less of laxity. But, in this instance, if I am right, that epithet is applicable to the subject-matter of this discussion in the very strictest sense of which it is susceptible, for that in which we are engaged is the consideration of the fulfilment of statutory duty. It is not in consequence of any regulation enforced by the authority of this House— of a single branch of the Legislature, however complete that authority may be over the Members of this House, that the hon. Member for Northampton presents himself to take an Oath at the Table. He presents himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to take the Oath in order that he may fulfil the duty with which, as we are given to understand in a regular and formal manner, his constituents have intrusted him. That statutory obligation imposed upon the hon. Gentleman primâ facie imports a statutory right on the part of the hon. Gentleman. I am not now arguing against the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I am only pointing out the extreme delicacy of the ground on which the House stands, because it is dealing with statutory subject-matter, and its Resolutions are liable to be called in question and handled by Courts of Justice quite irrespective of what this House may think. Sir, the hon. Member himself has justly reminded us with reference to another part of the subject that it was fortunate for the hon. Member for Northampton that he had not succeeded in obtaining the administration of an Affirmation at the Table, for if he had succeeded in obtaining it he would have been liable to be prosecuted in a Court of Justice for sitting and voting in this House without having fulfilled the obligations imposed upon him by law. I apprehend that is a perfectly true and warrantable observation; and it is just as true, on the other hand, which the hon. Member does not seem to have perceived, that if the hon. Member who just now came to the Table for the purpose of taking the Oath did not fulfil the duty imposed upon him by statute, but did take the Oath, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth seems to think, in a manner not acquitting him of that duty, he would still be open to these very prosecutions in a Court of Justice, and the law would have provided a remedy against the evil which the hon. Member seeks to secure by Resolution of this House. Now, Sir, as I understand the principal contention of the hon. Gentleman, it would come to this—that, inasmuch as there is a practice in the Courts of Justice by which, in any given circumstances, a Judge makes inquiry regarding the competency of a witness to deliver his testimony under the sanction of an oath, or in such other form as the law may permit or prescribe, so he appears to think that when a Member of Parliament presents himself at the Table of the House with the intention of fulfilling that statutory duty, it is within the power of the House to intercept that hon. Member.

No, Sir, I did not say that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not imply it. This is a very special case. The hon. Member for Northampton raised the question himself by asking to be allowed to make an Affirmation.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Everything that he says is entirely consistent with what has fallen from me. I represented him with the utmost accuracy. I did not intend to charge upon the hon. Member—or rather to assert, for there is no question of charging—that he has affirmed indiscriminately, and on all occasions, that the House is in a condition so to interfere and so to interpose and prevent the observance of the Oath by any Member; but the hon. Member conceives that, under certain circumstances, it is open to the House to make an inquiry, and for that purpose to intercept a Member when he presents himself to discharge what he conceives to be a statutory duty. That is, I think, a true representation of what the hon. Gentleman said. If that be so, what I have to observe is that it appears to me clear what course the House ought to pursue As the Motion has been made we must take some course with regard to it. The case raised is one of the utmost novelty and nicety. I believe it is a case absolutely new. There have been cases when Members of this House have themselves raised the difficulty. Members of this House belonging to the Society of Friends have in other days declined to take the Oath prescribed by law, and demanded the substitution of an Affirmation; but there is no parallel between their predicament and that of the hon. Member for Northampton. In the same way, other Gentlemen professing the Jewish faith — Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons—have come to the Table here and declared their incompetency to take the Oath as it was tendered to them. In one of these instances the House, I think, appointed a Committee to consider what course should be taken, and whether it would not be possible to separate a portion of that Oath from the rest, so as not to affect what formed part of the body of the Oath. I think I am strictly accurate in saying that, so far as we know, the hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table with the intention of doing at the Table neither more nor less than exactly that which the statute prescribes. Then, the question that presents itself is new, and I think I may also say it is a very delicate one. Oaths in the Courts of Justice are not precisely on a parallel with the Oath taken in this House. I cannot assume it as self-evident that the power possessed by Judges belongs to Members of this House; and the intervention of the House in every instance has arisen solely and simply out of the fact that the Member presenting himself was not ready to do that which the Member for Northampton is ready to do to-day—namely, to comply exactly with the forms and proceedings prescribed. Well, then, in these circumstances, I am happy to think that we appear to have a mode of proceeding open to us which is safer and surer than the prosecution of an inquiry of this kind depending entirely upon the law of the land, and where the House moves at every step in danger of having its proceedings questioned. Considering especially the extreme gravity, and delicacy, and importance of the matter at issue, and that there is such great danger of our deviating from the path of merely judicial investigation in order to express, it may be, wise or unwise opinions, but which seem scarcely to have a place in what ought to be a dry, dispassionate, and perfectly impartial inquiry, I have merely endeavoured to point out the difficulties which lie in our way, and I have not in the slightest degree expressed an opinion bearing upon the merits of the case; but I fall back upon precedent, and I find that in all cases it has been the wise practice of the House to refer the consideration of the matter to a Select Committee. That was the course taken a few days ago when the hon. Gentleman presented himself and claimed to affirm—most justly taken, and in strict conformity with precedent — because then there was a precedent strictly applicable to the case. Now, there is no precedent for proceeding in the case of a Member willing to fulfil the statutory duty as it is understood and administered by the officers of this House; but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, and as the House entertains it, it becomes a question fit for our consideration, and, under these circumstances, I cannot doubt that by far the wisest course will be again to refer to a Select Committee the question which has now arisen—one perfectly now and perfectly distinct from the question which was raised a very short time ago. I will read to the House the terms of the Motion I propose to make, and which I think will meet with very wide and general approval—

"That it be referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion to the House whether the House has any right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution to pre-vent a duly elected Member, who is willing to take the Oath prescribed by the Acts 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, from doing so; and, if they are of opinion that the House has such right, further to report on what grounds it is competent to the House to prevent such Member from taking the Oath."

That, I believe, will open the whole field of inquiry; and I beg, therefore, to move it as an Amendment.

said, that this was an extremely painful question, and he did not think there was any hon. Member on either side of the House who would not be glad to be relieved of the necessity of considering it at all. He admitted with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the question was a difficult and delicate one. But if his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) required any justification for the course which ho had taken, it would be found in the proposal which had been made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had carefully abstained from expressing an opinion on one side or the other, but proposed to refer the question to a Select Committee; but he had done so in a manner which would leave very little discretion to that Committee in dealing with it. The right hon. Gentleman's words had ignored altogether the substance of the case they were now considering, and presented it as an abstract question, with every condition stated that would insure a particular finding; it ignored every special fact which had occurred before their eyes, and the facts which every one of them knew surrounded the case of the hon. Member for Northampton. It was not his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth who had voluntarily obtruded on the attention of the House this painful and delicate question. On the hon. Member for Northampton must rest the responsibility of bringing this painful and disagreeable topic before the House. It might well have happened that, had the hon. Member presented himself in the crowd of Members who took the Oath a short time ago, he might have taken the Oath without any observation; but he deliberately elected to obtrude himself on the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman had a right to his own private opinions, but must accept the grave responsibility of them; he had, however, shifted upon the House a large part of the responsibility for those opinions by taking them into his confidence by the action he had adopted. When ho had come to the Table, and had had placed before him the very simple, clear, and unambiguous obligation containing the Oath, when he had been tendered a Book which they all revered, ho had refused to accept the obligation or to take the Oath, and had then, in cautious and guarded language, claimed the right to make an Affirmation. By that claim he must stand or fall in the House of Commons. That claim was referred to a Committee, which decided against it; and, in his opinion, speaking with all deference to those Members of the Committee who differed from the majority—and no one could have a higher respect for the Law Officers of the Crown who were in the minority than ho had—very justly so decided. He thought that decision was entirely right. The Government had acquiesced in the decision of that Committee and did not seek to question it, and it must now be taken to form part of the admitted law of that House. Could they now ignore the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton had so recently declined to take the Oath and appealed to another sanction? Could they allow him to ignore all that and to come up as if nothing had happened? He desired to state the question as far as possible in a manner free from personal or disagreeable topics, in the spirit which had been so well described by the Leader of that House, in a judicial spirit. But he wished to direct the attention of the House to what had occurred; and after what had occurred he did not think that the course which had been adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth was an unreasonable one. He admitted that the hon. Member for Northampton was, primâ facie entitled to come to the House and ask to discharge the mandate which had been intrusted to him by his constituents, and that no unreasonable delay should be placed in his way. His constituents had elected him as their Member, and ho was entitled to have the question speedily settled; but, at the same time, they must see that the hon. Member was not allowed to do violence by his attitude to the conscience of the House of Commons, nor should they permit any violence to their usages, or wrenching of their Rules and practice, to suit the delicate workings of the hon. Member's conscience. On the 3rd of May the hon. Member did not take the Oath. He did not make that solemn appeal which was usually made by Members; but he did refer to something, and he rested his case on the Act of 1869. That Act contained words which had become familiar to Members of the House during the course of that debate. It set forth that—

"If any person called to give evidence should object to take an oath, such person shall, if the presiding Judge is satisfied that the taking of an oath would have no binding effect on his conscience, make the following promise."

The hon. Member had claimed the benefit of that Act in the presence and hearing of the House, and had thus announced that an oath would have no binding effect on his conscience. Could they now, with full knowledge of all these circumstances, allow the hon. Member to take that Oath which he had declared to have no binding effect upon his conscience? They had all the materials before them for an almost immediate decision. Let them suppose that the hon. Member, when presented with the Book, had said—"I regard this Book as one which contains no sanction binding on me. You call it the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; I do not regard him as my Lord and Saviour. The first words of the Book are, 'The generation of Jesus Christ;' I do not believe in Jesus Christ. The last words in the Book are, 'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.' I do not believe in that grace; I do not believe in that Jesus Christ." Supposing the hon. Member had said this, speaking with all respect, and merely expressing his own belief, and had said that he regarded the Oath as an empty unmeaning form, but that, as he was not allowed to affirm, he was willing to take it, in order to take his seat, what would then have been the feeling and action of the House? But was not that the very substance of what had occurred?" Would there not have been a thrill of horror and indignation through the House, and would not the unanimous conscience of the House have declined to allow itself to be so openly outraged? The hon. Member had published a manifesto in that morning's paper which he assumed was intended to contain a moderate statement of the argument by which the hon. Member sought admission to the House. He did not desire to say anything offensive to the hon. Member; but what were the words with which he described the Oath which ho refused to take the other day? The hon. Member said—"It includes words of an idle and meaningless character, "referring, presumably, to the closing words;" it would be an act of hypocrisy voluntarily to take this form;" "the words of the Oath I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear and definite meaning," and the hon. Member alluded to the final sanction as "a meaningless addendum to a promise." With these facts before them, could any hon. Member think that this was a case in which, without grave consideration and immense caution, an oath should be allowed to be taken in the way the hon. Member sought to take it? Immense caution was required before allowing an oath to be lightly taken; and yet no objection on this occasion had come from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Some thought that identical conditions should exist for the taking of oaths in Courts of Justices and in the Houses of Parliament. But he would point out that the cases were different in their nature, because a person who, either by promise, or affirmation, or oath, took upon himself to speak the truth in a Court of Justice was liable, in case of a violation of his word, to certain penalties which would not be applied in Parliamentary life. Some persons thought that no oath whatever should be necessary before a man commenced his Parliamentary career. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister dissented from this proposition, and denied that he would ever be a party to the proposal that the necessity for Oaths should be removed, for in 1854 the right hon. Gentleman, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said—

"I know there are some Gentlemen here who think we should come to the discharge of our duties without any oath. I do not happen to be one of that opinion. I revere the principle of the oath. I think it tends to maintain that serious, reverential temper with which men ought to address themselves to solemn duties; but I say this, if you want to gain the real and substantial objects of the oath, you ought to frame it in a manner that should adapt it to those objects. Our oaths ought to be brief, ought to be simple. They ought to be the same for all—they ought to go directly to the point; they ought to be divested of all needless and useless words in order that the words we use by solemn sanction in the presence of God may be used with a sense of the presence of God, and in a temper which befits men doing a solemn act."[3 Hansard, cxxxiii. 900.]

Those were eloquent and impressive words, and yet they were asked now to allow a man to take an Oath "in the presence of God," but "without a sense of the presence of God." Was not that a very grave and momentous issue? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, though he did not commit himself to any final opinion, appeared to suggest that where a statutable duty was imposed a correlative right was conferred. That was true, no doubt, in a general sense; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all Courts of Justice had an inherent control and jurisdiction over their own proceedings and forms; and he held that when one of the most solemn Forms of the House was about to be outraged and treated in a way which a great many Members would regard as a kind of blasphemy, it could not be suggested that there was not an inherent power in that great Assembly to interfere and prevent such an occurrence taking place. How did they commence their proceedings? By prayers, which were heard every day with respect and reverence. What were the closing words of the gracious Speech from the Throne delivered to them on the previous day? They were words which asked for the blessing of God upon their labours. Again, the closing words of the Address to Her Majesty proclaimed their trust that the blessing of God might attend their labours. The subject before the House was a very difficult and painful one; and though he had listened with extreme attention and respect to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, his difficulties were not removed by anything which the right hon. Gentleman had said. It was obvious that the case was beset with many difficulties; but plainly, and after deliberation, he could say that the hon. Member for Portsmouth was quite justified in his action, and that it would be abhorrent to the consciences and feelings of a vast majority on both sides of the House if they were to find that an hon. Member added to their ranks had taken an Oath which bound their consciences by the solemnity and reverence of its sanction, but which was to him only an idle and unmeaning form.

said, there were some few words wanting from the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend—namely, the words which would have informed the House what course in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion ought to be taken on that occasion. He looked upon the able and eloquent speech of his right hon and learned Friend as a speech in support of the Amendment of the Prime Minister. His right hon. and learned Friend agreed with the Prime Minister that the subject was one requiring the greatest caution and gravest consideration, and yet suggested that the judicial functions of the House should be exercised by the House constituted as it then was. This being the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend, how discordant to his ears must have been the cheers which greeted his speech, for they were hardly sounds which should issue from a body exorcising judicial functions. He was relieved in great measure from performing the duty of discussing the question before the House in relation to the legal rights of the hon. Member for Northampton because ho supported the Amendment of the Prime Minister, which suggested that the discussion of those rights should not be entered into in detail in the House, and which asked for full consideration of the rights in question under circumstances in which a speaker would not be cheered when explaining in eloquent language his general views. Unless they were seeking to deprive the hon. Member for Northampton of the rights to which he was entitled, why should they refuse that kind of inquiry which, in the House of Commons, most nearly approached judicial form? His right hon. and learned Friend opposite said that the right of the hon. Member for Northampton to a seat in the House depended upon whether he could secure his seat without violating the conscience of the House. Well, the right of the hon. Member to sit did not depend upon, any such consideration.

explained that he had referred to outraging the conscience of the House in its forms.

said, he would not discuss words with the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought the words "violence to the conscience of the House" caught his ears. But the House must recollect that these forms were not the Forms of the House, but of the Legislature, and sanctioned by Parliament, and it was not for them to consider that shifting quantity, the conscience of the House, dependent upon whether the majority was sitting on one side of the House or the other. The question was whether, in refusing admission to the hon. Member for Northampton, they were not depriving him of his right, or that of the constituency which sent him to represent them. "What were the grounds, he would ask, on which it was alleged that the hon. Member was not entitled to take his seat? His right hon. and learned Friend admitted that if he complied with the Forms of the House he was entitled to take his seat. How did the hon. Member for Portsmouth seek to deprive him of that right? By going beyond what had occurred in the House and adducing hearsay evidence culled from books of the authenticity of which there was no proof. ["Oh, oh!"] It was clear, from that expression of dissent, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now seeking to exercise judicial functions. They wished, upon common notoriety, to try the hon. Member at the Table of the House, and to sentence him to virtual expulsion for being an Atheist, a sentence which could not be revoked except by a vote of the House. And where, he would ask, was the authority for saying that an Atheist could not sit in that House? It might be right or wrong that he should not be permitted to do so; but he would not enter into that question, because it was not within the terms of the Motion, and yet the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Portsmouth proceeded upon that proposition, and so also had one half of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. If it was right that they should be excluded, then let a Motion be brought forward to that effect; but let not the Oath, which was never intended as a religious test, but was imposed for a different object, be taken advantage of for doing improperly what might be properly done if the question was raised with a sense of the responsibility attaching to it. Ho felt that he ought not to continue the legal argument at that moment; and it was somewhat strange, he thought, to have such an argument addressed by his right hon. and learned Friend to such an Assembly. He was not, at the same time, going to dispute that it was well that the question should be discussed; and what was asked for was that it should be considered in the most general terms, which would include the particular circumstances of the case before the House, by a Committee properly constituted. ["No, no!"] If the terms of reference were not deemed to be general enough, any suggestion on that point would be listened to and fully considered by those who ought to guide the House. If that were done, could anybody, he would ask, fairly contend that the right course to adopt was not to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, which his right hon. Friend beside him suggested every one must regard as being worthy of the gravest consideration?

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in commenting on the powerful and, as I think, very convincing speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), observed that there was one thing wanting in it, and that was that he had said nothing to indicate the course which he would advise the House to adopt. I must say that, having listened to that speech, it did not seem to me that there was very much difficulty in understanding what that course was. I understood that speech to be in favour of the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the course which will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend and by others will be to vote against the Amendment, and in favour of the original Resolution. The observations of the hon. and learned Attorney General appear to me to place the matter in this light. The question before us is, Shall we decide upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth now, or shall we refer the matter to a Committee, and allow that Committee to report before we come to any decision? I do not understand that the ultimate decision can rest with any Committee that may be appointed. I understand that in a matter of this kind the House will not part with its authority, in coming to a decision, to any Committee, however able and important that Committee may be. Ultimately, we must be the body ourselves to decide upon this question. It seems to mo that really we are in. a position to come to a resolution upon the facts before us, and I fail to see in what way the deliberations of a Committee are to assist us in dealing with it. The proposal that a question of this importance should be referred to a Committee, coming from the Government and made by the Leader of the House himself, of course, naturally commands attention and respect; but I must be allowed to say that the circumstances under which that proposal has been made, and the manner in which it has been made, considerably diminish the respect which ought to be given to such a proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman had, upon the receipt of the Report of the Committee, or at any subsequent time, given Notice that, having considered this question on behalf of the House which ho loads, he had come to the conclusion that it was necessary that inquiry should be made, and had he recommended the House, in the first instance, to take this stop of the appointing such a Commit-tee, we should naturally have listened with respect to the proposal, and given such attention as we could to the arguments in favour of it. But it must be within the observation of everybody that the Government took no action whatever in this matter; and that, although they have now proposed the appointment of a Committee, they have made that proposal as an Amendment to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, and that rather, as it were, in the nature of a plea in bar of that proceeding. And not only is that the case, but when exception is taken to the manner and form of this proposal for a Committee, we are told by the hon. and learned Attorney General they are quite prepared to re-consider the form of the Committee which they proposed to appoint; to reconsider the instructions and directions to be given to that Committee. And I say, if that in so, this is not a proposal which comes to us with the weight which would have attached to it if it had been an original proposal.

Sir, what I said was that any suggestion that came from the front Bench opposite to make the Reference wider would be duly considered.

I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood that, and I thought that was the substance of what I was suggesting. But I say you must consider this as being a matter which the House must ultimately determine, and upon which, it seems to mo, the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) shows we have absolutely sufficient power to come to a decision now. What is the case? What is the very element of it? An hon. Gentleman has come forward under circumstances which we need not now repeat, and has given the House very clearly to understand that if he takes a solemn Oath at the Table of this House he does so declaring that it is a meaningless and idle form; and we are asked whether we, who recognize an Oath as a solemn and religious act, are prepared to admit that such an action should take place with our consent and approbation. We do not raise any question whether there is anything irrelevant in the course which the hon. Member proposes to take from his point of view; but I do think, looking at it from our point of view, that making ourselves parties, as we shall do if we permit him to take the Oath, to that proceeding, we incur a great responsibility, and one which I think this House should be slow to accept in the eyes of the country. It seems to me that the course which the House ought to take, and certainly the course which I myself and others will take, will be to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; but whether any further steps should be taken in consequence of that is a matter upon which I will not now enter. But with regard to the issue now raised by my hon. Friend, it seems to me that, taking the view we do of the sacredness of the Oath, we cannot make ourselves parties to its being taken in a manner and under circumstances which render it a really ridiculous and unworthy proceeding.

said, that as the Colleague of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) in the representation of Northampton, he thought it right to state that his hon. Friend was selected by the majority of the constituency solely on account of his political views. They did not occupy themselves with his religious convictions, because they were under the impression that they were giving him political rather than theological functions to fulfil in that House. A proposal had been made by the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred to a Committee. It certainly did appear to him (Mr. Labouchere) somewhat strange that a Member who had been duly elected to that House should be told that ho could not take his seat because he was forbidden to make an Affirmation on account of his not being a Quaker or a Moravian, and because he was forbidden from taking the Oath on account of certain speculative religious opinions which he had professed. [An hon. MEMBER: Irreligious.] But that appeared to be the view of many Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and he should be perfectly ready to discuss that view; but as the Prime Minister had very rightly said, the matter was a judicial one, and it would be far better, in his humble opinion, that it should be referred to a Committee of the House to look at it in its judicial aspect rather than that there should be an acrimonious theological discussion in that House. When, however, it was referred to a Committee, he thought he had got a right to ask in the name of his constituents that that Committee should decide it as speedily as possible. Should the Committee decide that the hon. Gentleman was not to be allowed to take the Oath, it would then become, if not his duty, the duty of some other hon. Gentleman, to bring in a Bill to enable his Colleague to make an Affirmation, in order that his constituents might enjoy the right which the Constitution gave them of being represented by two Members in that House.

said, a great effort had been made to narrow the issue before them to a simple judicial one; but he ventured to think, with all submission to the legal authorities, that there was another aspect to this question. The House had always reserved to itself the right to decide whether the conduct of a particular Member was such as to make him a fit person to exercise legislative functions; and it had even gone so far as to suspend or expel certain Members. Now, the question before them on the present occasion was whether the hon. Member for Northampton was a fit and proper person to sit in that House. They had heard a great deal about the rights of constituencies, and he should be sorry to infringe upon them in the slightest degree. The question had been put on its present footing entirely by the action of the hon. Member himself. In the letter which the hon. Member had sent to the papers, and which he, no doubt, published as a manifesto of his views for the information of hon. Members in that House—for there was not the slightest pretence that the document was a forgery—he declared that a man who voluntarily took an oath which was not binding upon his conscience committed an act of hypocrisy. The hon. Member, to do him justice, had sought to avoid taking an Oath to which he attached no sacred character; but, believing it to be forced upon him, he had at length expressed his willingness to take it. Well, if the House allowed him, under those circumstances, to take the Oath, it would itself, in his (Earl Percy's) opinion, incur the guilt of an act of hypocrisy. He was not now discussing the question whether Atheists ought or ought not to be admitted to that House as a matter of principle, though the present difficulty was, perhaps, only a necessary consequence of the past action of the House in so modifying the conditions of admission as to receive professors of every form of religious belief. He should be sorry, indeed, to see that House erected into a tribunal of conscience. But ho held that they could not, with a proper sense of self-respect, allow an hon. Member to take an Oath which, by his own declaration, would have no binding effect upon his conscience. He did not think that under the circumstances the House would be usurping a function which it ought not to discharge if it were to decide that it could not admit the hon. Member. The real truth of the matter was that the hon. Gentleman came to the House and declared that he intended to take God's name in vain. That was a course which the conscience of the House could not allow. He certainly could not do so; and he would, therefore, vote for the Motion. He was sorry for the electors of Northampton if they were deprived of the services of one of their Representatives, because the hon. Gentleman was recommended to them by his hon. Colleague, whose religious opinions were well known; and he was further recommended by another hon. Gentleman, whose Christian principles were at least as well known, and who came from a distant part of the country to show his zeal—

rose to Order. He wanted to know whether the noble Lord was in Order in referring to the conduct of hon. Gentlemen who had recommended the hon. Member for Northampton, when the question under discussion was as to the fitness of the hon. Member to take the Oath?

The remarks of the noble Lord, so far as they reached me, appeared to be quite relevant.

said, they were informed that day that the hon. Member for Northampton was elected on political and not on religious grounds. If that was the case it was an additional reason why they should be very guarded how they received the hon. Member on the footing on which he sought to be admitted, because his present position was wholly unforeseen by his constituents, who would now, he trusted, repudiate him. Ho thought the issue before the House was a very great one. He must protest against any idea that this was a Party movement. If they were, as a House of Commons, to have any religious faith and a conscience, without which he did not think they were fit to legislate for a great Christian country, they were bound to protest against the admission of the hon. Member on the ground that he had put forward, and also to protest against slipping out of the question by the course recommended to the House.

Sir, there seems to me to be one thing we are all unanimous about, and that is that the question before the House is one of some difficulty and of supreme delicacy. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) agrees entirely in that with my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. I think all persons who have any authority in this House now, or in times past have had, recommended Parliament to discuss questions of this kind, so difficult and delicate, with as little temper as possible, and with regard not to their own particular feeling or to particular points in connection with it, but with regard to what is absolutely just and according to law. Now, with us on this side, so far, the question has been treated purely as one of a judicial character. Those who have heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, however favourable a view they take of it, must, I think, admit that there were introduced' into that speech things which had nothing whatever to do with the law, and did not at all treat this question as one of a judicial character. Probably we are all, or nearly all, agreed in deploring the views with regard to the Christian faith and with regard to the character or the existence of the Supreme Being, which are understood to be held by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). Now, if there is one thing more than another that we are required to do by the Christian faith, by its precepts, by our regard to the character of the Supreme Being, it is that we should do as far as we know that which is perfectly just with regard to one of our fellow-Members of this House. We—I speak for my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, the hon. and learned Attorney General, and myself—we discuss this question simply as a question of right and a question of law, and not with reference to our religious views. We know that many hon. Members on the other side of the House probably would, and those who represented that Party in past times would, have excluded all the Catholic Members of the House on grounds which to them appeared very strong, and we know also that they would have excluded all the Members of the small Society with which I am connected. When Mr. Pease came to the Table of this House, after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, what did the House do? He said, "I cannot take the Oath," and further than that, "I cannot take the Affirmation in the words of the Oath." Well, the matter was referred to a Committee, and the Committee recommended to the House not only that in his case the Oath should be dispensed with, but that he should be allowed to make an Affirmation, and that an essential portion of the Oath should be left out of the Affirmation. The House by its vote admitted him to sit among its Members; and some time afterwards, I do not recollect how long, the law was altered so as to admit those of his sect, and of two or three other sects, whose names are familiar to us all. The House there proceeded in a manner which should recommend itself to all persons in the country and to all persons in the House whose minds are not distorted by what I may call strong religious feeling and fanaticism, or what amounts to what I may call religious passion. I know that when a thing is passed some 30 or 40 years ago we can look back upon it with cooler minds than when the facts are transpiring before us. The noble Lord who has spoken said he should be sorry to see anything in the shape of an Inquisition established by Parliament; but unless you take care what you are doing in this case you will endeavour, by a vote of this House, to establish an Inquisition. And if you are entitled to obstruct what I call the right of a Member of the House to take his seat on account of his religious belief, because it happens to be the belief or no belief ho has openly professed, what reason is there that any Member of the House—I will not mention the name, but a very distinguished name will occur to the mind of many Members—what objection would there be, if that Gentleman was now in the House, that he should be asked the question which the hon. Member for Portsmouth would put, and that if he did not answer the question in the way the hon. Member thinks he should answer it, you should then be at liberty to object to his taking his seat amongst us. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken. I want to call attention to the position in which he stands in this matter. The other night he agreed to the appointment of a Committee. So I understand from what appeared in the Papers. The question was this—whether an hon. Gentleman coming to this Table should be compelled to take the Oath, or whether he should be permitted to make an Affirmation. Some people think Affirmations are no good, and that Oaths are a great good. I do not think there is much good in either of them. But there is one thing I believe most profoundly, that there is nothing among mankind that has more tended to destroy truthfulness than the forcing of men to take an oath. Well, but the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer judged, to my mind, very wisely. He said, This is a question of law, and the House is not competent to decide upon a question of law of this kind. It is not a question of voting; it is a question of statute law; and, therefore, he agreed to a Motion from this side of the House that it would be desirable that the House should divest itself of this matter, and not try to assume a judicial function, but should refer the matter to a Committee, which should carefully inquire into it. I was on that Committee. I was one of the minority. There were four eminent lawyers on one side, and three or four on the other. The question was very delicate, as the House well saw, and perhaps difficult to determine; but the question being referred to the Committee, the Committee decided, and by a majority of one vote, which was furnished from this side of the House, that the hon. Member for Northampton could not, according to law, make an Affirmation. Are you now to turn your backs upon that argument of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to questions of law? Are you to say that it was necessary for a Committee to determine what was the law in that case, but that tonight, when it is a question whether a Member duly elected can take his seat unless he agrees with all the things you have put into the Oath which you require him to take; that you will decide by a multitudinous vote of the House that you will have no legal opinion, no reference to a Committee of judicious and eminent Members, selected from both sides, but will dare to come to a decision, though it may be absolutely contrary to the statute law which you yourselves have been parties heretofore in making? It appears to me the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is inconsistent to an amazing degree, because, if it was right the other night to agree to a Committee to determine whether a Member could take an Affirmation instead of an Oath, surely it is fair to ask that the House should agree to a Committee with the view of ascertaining whether, according to law —and that is the question—the hon. Member for Northampton may be allowed to take an Oath at this Table. Now, I have no right to speak of the hon. Member for Northampton. I think it never happened to mo more than once to address to him a single sentence, or to hoar any expression from him. I never saw him, to my knowledge, but once before he appeared in this House; but ho is returned hero by a largo constituency, and by a large majority, to whom his religious opinions were as well known as they are now to us. All the means that men could take—that the hon. Member for Portsmouth would have taken—to explain, and, if possible, to exaggerate what we call the sorrowful parts of Mr. Brad-laugh's views, were taken to make the whole of the electors of Northampton fully cognisant of his views. And yet ho was elected, and he comes to this House; and without a Committee, without any legal inquiry, without any calm consideration and examination, you are asked to shut him out from this House because the Oath which you ask him to take is not, in a certain portion of it, binding on his conscience. Now, I have no doubt whatever, though I have no authority to say so, that the Oath as it stands is binding on the conscience of the hon. Member for Northampton in the sense that an Affirmation would be binding on his conscience, that the words of the Oath, so far as they are a promise, are words which would be binding upon him, but that their binding character is not increased by the reference to the Supreme Being, of whose existence, unhappily, as we all think—such is the constitution of his mind, and such has been the constitution of many eminent minds of whom we all have heard—he is not able to form that distinct opinion and belief which we, who I think are more happy, have been able to do. Therefore, if he were to come to the Table and take the Oath as it is, and as he proposes to take it, I have no doubt that it would be binding on his conscience as my simple Affirmation is binding on mine; because in my Affirmation there is no reference to the Deity. I make a promise. My word is as good, and taken to be as good, as your Oath. And that is declared by an irrevocable Act of Parliament. And if Mr. Brad-laugh take this Oath, as ho proposed to take it, I have no doubt that, though the last words of the Oath have no binding effect upon him, yet his sense of honour and his conscience would make that declaration as binding on him as my Affirmation is on me and as your Oath is on you. The question is—What should the House do? I think it would have been much better if we had not opened the inquisition of which the hon. Member opposite spoke; but having opened it, clearly, if we can put ourselves forward six or 12 months, we should be able to discover that we should be very much wiser to take some mode of deliberate or careful examination be-fore the House shall come to any definite conclusion upon a question which, on that Bench and on this, is declared to be one of the most delicate, and, perhaps, one of the most difficult, that has ever been submitted to Parliament with regard to the rights of any of its Members. If you take the course which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin seem to recommend, you will launch yourselves immediately into a sea of troubles. You recollect the case of Wilkes. You know to what degree of humiliation the Crown and Parliament were brought by the conduct of Parliament in that case; and now, if you take the advice of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, supported by the converted opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said before, you launch yourselves on a sea of trouble. You come into conflict with a great constituency. I know not whether you will declare the seat vacant; but if you do, I need not tell you that it would soon be filled again, and that the contest and the difficulty would again be presented to you. Would it not be better now that you should take the advice of the First Minister of the Crown, whose experience has extended over so many years, whose devotion to the Christian faith is at least not less than that of any Gentleman opposite, and whose anxiety to support the dignity of the Crown and the honour and the influence and the dignity of Parliament cannot be called in question by anyone in this House or in this country. Would it not be better to take the advice which ho has tendered to the House, which will allow you a fair op- portunity for calm consideration and for a wise and a righteous judgment? I think the House of Commons will stand badly with the whole nation and with history if it should determine, on the case before us, to shut the door irrevocably against the hon. Member for Northampton, to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and to reject what I think is the statesmanlike and judicious course which has been suggested to us by the First Minister of the Crown.

thought the subject which had been brought forward was one of the most important that had been mentioned in Parliament for many years, and one which the House ought to determine for itself, instead of relegating it to any Committee which might be appointed. The charge of inconsistency brought against his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) was unfounded. The point the other night was one of law, which very properly was referred to a Committee; but the present question was altogether different. It had nothing to do with judicial or legal rights at all; but it was whether a Member should be allowed to take an Oath which he himself had openly declared would have no binding effect on his conscience. They had it on record that the hon. Member for Northampton declared in a Court of Law that he did not believe in the Deity or in a future state of rewards and punishments; and that being so, the House was in a position at once to come to the conclusion that he ought not to be permitted to take the Oath. Her Majesty's Government ought, however, to have taken that responsibility upon themselves, and not to have thrown it upon the shoulders of their opponents.

rose to throw out a suggestion towards the solution of the difficult and delicate subject, as it had been properly described, under consideration—the only solution, in his opinion, which he believed to be practicable, and towards which he was quite sure the discussion tended. If the vote which he was about to give turned upon the question whether or not the hon. Member for Northampton should be permitted to go to the Table and take the Oath, to which ho had openly declared he attached no value, he, for one, should decline to sanction his doing so. But that was not the question, and he said so because he thought that so long as the House required its Members to declare their allegiance to the Crown under the sanction of an Oath, it ipso facto constituted itself the guardian of that outward decency and respect, at all events, with which such a solemn ceremony should be regarded. But his opinion was, and had long been, tending in the direction indicated in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that the time had come when they ought to consider, as he was sure they would yet consider, whether their allegiance to the Crown was at all strengthened by that form, whether a simple Affirmation, which every Member should take, would not be equally satisfactory. There was all the difference in the world between taking an oath to keep a certain promise and taking an oath in a Court of Justice with regard to a matter of fact, of which the person who took the oath was possibly the only witness. Substantially, they had no oath in the most solemn transaction which any one of them could perform — namely, the making of what was called the marriage vow. The obligation of that vow was not contracted under any form of oath; and he was of opinion that if a Member of that House was guilty of breaking the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, ho would be liable to be prosecuted in a Court of Justice, not for perjury, but for treason, or sedition, or some offence of that kind. He thought, therefore, it would be apparent to everyone that the analogy of an oath in a Court of Justice did not hold with regard to a promise of the character they made in that House; and he would vote for the appointment of the Committee simply and solely in the hope that its deliberations would tend to that conclusion, by which alone he believed the question could be settled in a manner at once honourable and satisfactory to them all.

said, he was afraid he could not admit that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) to substitute a promise for an oath would entirely meet the delicacy of such a situation as the present. As an Irish Catholic, he always listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and ho had not listened with any displeasure to his reminder that it was the Liberal Party which had emancipated the consciences of Catholics; hut ho certainly thought there was something more than poetic justice in the Act, for if ho read history aright the penal laws were the work of Whig Parliaments. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the introduction of heated terms into the discussion; hut as ho had heard the right hon. Gentleman use words such as fanaticism and the like, he gladly concluded that the vigour of youth still burnt under the snows of his venerated and honoured age. In venturing to interpose in the former discussion, he thought ho was entitled to protest against the seemingly evasive manner in which the question was attempted to be met. It was, indeed, a difficult and delicate question, not only for the hon. Member for Northampton and the interesting electors of Northampton, but for the party which would evidently desire to get out of the difficulty by a side door. He entertained a sincere admiration for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; but he confessed that at times he felt that the resources of the right hon. Gentleman's mind enabled him to draw distinctions sometimes too fine for ordinary individuals, and on other occasions to ignore broad facts which struck the sense of almost all the rest of the world. In looking to the terms of the proposed Committee suggested to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, he could not but think that they distinctly ignored some broad facts which were patent to most of them. The question before the House was not as to the case of a man, sceptic, or Atheist, who came up and took the regulation Oath, considering it a merely idle and meaningless formality, but who did not obtrude his infidelity upon the House; it was that of a man who did so, and by doing so imposed upon the Legislature a corresponding duty. When the elected of Northampton claimed to make an Affirmation he gave the House references, and they were entitled to follow those references. The hon. Member referred the House to the Law Courts, before which on several questions, more or less savoury, he was required to appear. They were, then, entitled to go to the Law Courts, and to learn the ground on which he claimed the right to make an affirmation; and the 'ground was that an oath was not binding on his conscience, as he did not believe in God or in the sanctions of morality, and that, at any rate, his word would be quite equal to his oath under any circumstances. The House had resorted to the records of the Law Courts on other occasions. He had referred before now to the case of the county of Tipperary and its election of the eminent Nationalist, John Mitchel, by an overwhelming majority. The House, nevertheless, went to the records of the Law Courts, according to which he had been convicted of felony, and very little regard was shown for the position in which the electors of Tipperary were placed. In this case, the House had similar rights and equal duties. He would not venture to prejudge the ultimate decision of Parliament when this question was brought fairly before it; but he protested against any attempt to keep the real question from coming before the House. He had great respect for a special Committee; ho had listened with the greatest interest to the Attorney General's description of the peculiar sanctity attaching to a special Committee, on which the legal element would be largely represented. Even with regard to the proceedings of the late Committee on another branch of the subject, it was a matter of public remark that those intensely legal consciences seemed to be largely following in the groove of well-known political convictions. With his opinions, he would have much more confidence in the result of a special Committee on this subject proposed by the present Government with the apprehensions which actuated them if, with a good majority on the Committee, the return of Mr. Bradlaugh had been previously secured. This was a most grave and difficult question; it was one of serious responsibility, which concerned the House on all sides. It was easy to say that a Gentleman had been returned by a constituency; but still the Government had said nothing to justify the belief that a wish expressed by an overwhelming majority of the Irish constituencies would be received forthwith as having the force of law by the united Liberal Party. Were they to suppose that any person pursuing any occupation, possessing any kind of reputation, getting in for a constituency, under any auspices, was forthwith entitled in all cases to come into that House, even when he declared that the Forms of the House were an idle and meaningless mockery? Suppose that a man of unevitable notoriety, who went round the country preaching the most subversive and the most disgusting doctrines, dubious as his trade and calling were, felt it necessary, as more honest traffickers did, to obtain a larger advertisement; and suppose it occurred to that man, while still maintaining his pretences and audacity before his customers, that it would be a useful advertisement for that sort of business to be able to affix to his name the honourable designation of a Member of this Imperial Parliament upon the title-page of some vile and abominable pamphlet that was sold in the bye-ways and lanes of our great cities, that was addressed not only to the mature judgment of men and women, but was thrust by nameless agents into the hands of youths and maidens of tender years, that inculcated practices of the foulest debauchery upon the youngest and most susceptible minds, that, appealing to the community at largo, would reduce Christian, Jewish, and human wedlock and human love to something lower than the union of beast and beast; and suppose it occurred to this man that ho would be able to obtain that advertisement by writing in some paper of large circulation that he would only consider the Forms of the House as a meaningless mockery. This was what was involved in the casuistry of the responsible Government of a Christian people that such an open announcement of a most immoral course was to pass muster in that House with the oaths and solemn affirmations of honourable men. The subject was one which demanded at least the most mature and deliberate consideration. The Amendment submitted bore all the traces of a keen forensic mind engaged in turning corners; and in so grave a matter it ought to have been printed and placed in their hands, so that they might have had full time to consider it and propose Amendments. He felt strongly on the point; he felt sure his interference would not be resented by any Member; and for the reasons he had given he concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion, remarking that the hon. Member who had moved it had had a good deal of experience in moving adjournments; but he thought on the present occasion his experience and his judgment had guided him rightly. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been able beforehand to place this Resolution on the Order Books of the House it would have been far more convenient, for there could be no doubt that when the Resolution and Amendment were in print various Amendments would suggest themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, which would lead to an important debate. He thought that, under these circumstances, the best course to pursue would be to adjourn this debate, in order that the subject might be fully considered.

I do not believe it would have been competent for the hon. Member for Portsmouth to have communicated his intentions to the House, and naturally it would have been still less competent for me to have given Notice of mine. Her Majesty's Government had no intention of interfering with the regular and usual course of proceeding; but the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman, a subject of the utmost gravity, has undoubtedly come before us for consideration. I regret there should be any indisposition to take the first step of dealing with the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; yet I cannot deny the force of the arguments of hon. Members who desire further to consider the precise bearing of the subject, and, although it is an inconvenience, I will not take upon myself the responsibility of resisting the proposed adjournment. My desire is to obtain a careful consideration of all the steps we take, for the House may be in considerable danger if it takes a false stop; and, therefore, I shall not oppose the Motion for adjournment.

agreed that an adjournment was desirable; but he hoped the debate might be resumed at the earliest opportunity.

desired to ask a question, not that he had any doubt on the subject, but in order to satisfy the minds of others; and it was whether, in the present position of the question, the hon. Member for Northampton would be admissible to take the Oath until the debate was concluded?

I certainly should think it my duty to object to the hon. Member for Northampton taking the Oath until the debate is concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for India, What measures Her Majesty's Government intend adopting for the purpose of bringing about a speedy termination of the War in Afghanistan; further, if he will be good enough to inform the House what number of troops, British and Native, are now engaged in the War; and, also, the approximate cost of the Campaign down to the present time?

With the permission of the House, I will answer the two latter Questions of my hon. Friend first. He asks me what number of troops, British and Native, are now engaged in the war? It would be evidently undesirable that I should give any detailed account of the distribution of the Forces now employed in Afghanistan; but I do not think there can be any harm in stating, generally, that the force, including the reserves, now employed in warlike operations in Afghanistan, including also the garrison at Peshawur, which usually amounts to 5,000 men, numbers altogether nearly 60,000 British and Native troops. As to the expense down to the present time, I am afraid if I were to give the House any information of any value I should have to enter into longer details than is usual in answer to a Question. However, it may be convenient that the House should know at the earliest possible moment what is, according to our present information, the approximate cost of the war down to the present time. The cost of the whole military operations in 1878-9, according to the actual accounts, was £676,380; in 1879-80, according to the regular Estimate prepared in February last, the cost was —in India, £3,033,400; in England, £174,480, making a total of £3,207,880. In 1880-81, according to information we have received in a telegram dated 20th April, it is estimated the cost this year will be as follows: — In India, for February and March, for sums not brought into the account until the present year, £750,000 per month, that would be £1,500,000; for April and May, £500,000 per month. That brings it up to the present time as a total of £2,500,000, and adding £20,000 spent in England, the whole cost up to the present time for the present year would be £2,520,000. The total cost, therefore, from 1878 down to the present time amounts to £6,404,260. The telegram of April 20 does not, however, state whether the expenditure before February will fall into the New Year's accounts. In a private letter the arrears have been estimated at £2,250,000, which would involve an addition of £750,000, making a total cost for the whole war of £7,154,260, of which that of the present campaign would be £4,477,880. This is exclusive of the outlay on the frontier railways, determined upon after the outbreak of September, 1879, which is estimated for 1879-80 at £1,324,426, and for 1880-81 at £2,040,000—total, £3,364,426. As to the measures Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt to bring the war in Afghanistan to a termination, that is a question to which it would be impossible fur mo to give a complete answer within the limits usually allowed to answers in this House. I can only state that Lord Ripon has gone out with full instructions and full knowledge of the intentions and wishes of Her Majesty's Government. It is the intention and anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to bring the warlike operations in Afghanistan and the occupation of any part of Afghanistan to a close at the earliest possible moment. Negotiations are and have for some time been in progress with the object of inducing the Sirdars and people of Afghanistan to elect for themselves a Ruler at Cabul, whose authority may have some prospect of permanence and continuance. It is hoped that if such a Ruler can be found, the evacuation of Afghanistan and the termination of military operations may commence very speedily; and it is, I need not assure the House, the most anxious desire of the Government and of the Governor General that these proceedings should be brought to a close with as little delay as possible.

I bog leave to ask the honourable Member for Donegal, in reference to a Question which has stood in his name for three weeks upon the Notice Paper, imputing to a Peer, contrary to the privileges of this House, an improper interference with the Parliamentary Voters upon his estates, If it is now his intention to ask that Question, which runs as follows:—

"To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if it is true that, since the General Election, the Duke of Abercorn has issued notices to quit upon the tenants of his estates in Donegal;"

and, if so, when he proposes to ask it?

In answer to the Question of the noble Lord I wish to take this opportunity of stating that when I gave Notice of the Question considerable excitement existed in Donegal and the neighbouring counties, from notices to quit, which were described in the Press as "wholesale," and about which there was a widespread belief that such notices would be general, and were consequent upon the result of the late General Election. Hence I was informed that it was very desirable that some public statement should be made by which the true facts might come to light, and by which the general anxiety should be relieved, and I knew of no better plan than by applying to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. From inquiries that have since been made, I find that the notices to quit were only in certain districts on the noble Duke's estate —26 or 27 being served in the village of St. Johnstone—and I think it only just and fair to the noble Duke to state that those evictions do not appear to have had the slightest connection with the result of the General Election. Under these circumstances, as the noble Lord has given me an opportunity to make this statement, I do not intend to pursue the question further.

As this is a personal question I wish, with the permission of the House, to add one or two words. The Question of the hon. Gentleman has attracted a great deal of notice in the North of Ireland; and in consequence of that Question a number of articles of a scurrilous nature have appeared, attributing all sorts of motives to the Duke of Abercorn, and charging him with giving wholesale notices to quit. His tenants number between 300 and 400, and it is needless for me to say that no notice of any kind whatever was issued on the Duke of Abercorn's tenants in consequence of the result of the General Election. His agent in this matter, who has had the management of this estate for 34 years, says there has not been a single eviction in any part of it during that time. In St. Johnstone certain improvements were desired by the tenants in the shape of cattle and corn markets, &c, and to carry out these and other improvements notices to quit were served on persons occupying for the most part tumbledown cottages. Not one of the occupiers was entitled to a vote through that occupation, and only two were qualified through other occupations, and their qualifications were in no wise interfered with. I would only add that if the hon. Member in future wishes— ["Order!"]—I only venture to suggest — ["Order!"]

The House is always indulgent in any matter of personal explanation; but the noble Lord is not entitled to make any reflection on the hon. Member.

If anybody wished to obtain any information concerning the management of the Duke of Abercorn's estate, he would be more likely to obtain it from primary than secondary sources.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made towards securing the rectification of the Greco-Turkish frontier under the Berlin Treaty; and what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to that question?

Papers were laid on the Table yesterday, and will be distributed immediately, showing the point which the negotiations on this subject had reached when the late Government left Office. The direct negotiations between the Turkish and Greek Governments having led to no result, the Powers agreed in March last, on the proposal of Lord Salisbury, that an International Commission should be appointed to examine the Frontier on the spot, whose decision should be by a majority and should be conclusive. This Commission has not been appointed owing to difficulties raised by the Porte; but Her Majesty's Government have invited the concert of the Powers to bring the whole question to an early solution.

asked Mr. Solicitor General, If he intends to bring in a Bill to abolish actions at law for Breach of Promise of Marriage?

, in reply, said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would at once understand that it was not now in his power to introduce a Bill amending the law in this respect unless it be one determined upon by Her Majesty's Government; and he was not aware that the subject to which the Question referred had been at all under their consideration. He did not think, with the pressing matters occupying their attention, any Bill on the subject would be introduced this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Protestant Bishops and Clergy in India will have to take orders and directions from the Marquess of Ripon, who is a Roman Catholic?

I have not been able to ascertain that the Protestant Bishops and Clergy in India will have to take orders and directions from the Governor General on any matters connected with their spiritual functions. It is true that certain directions and orders have to he given by the Government in regard to matters of administration; but it may be some consolation to the hon. and gallant Member to know that they cannot be given by the Governor General alone, but will have to be given by the Governor General in Council.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House at whose request troops were sent from Manchester to Whitwell, in Derbyshire, on the occasion of the recent Election for East Bet-ford; whether it is usual to send troops into the neighbourhood of a polling-place on the day of Election without a requisition from the magistrates, or a declaration from the chief constable that the civil force at his disposal is insufficient to preserve order, and that he cannot be responsible for the peace; and, whether, under these circumstances, it is intended to charge the district or the county with the expense of moving the troops and maintaining them at Whitwell for several days?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that if he will move for the Papers they shall be presented. They will show more clearly than can be shown in a verbal reply under what circumstances troops were sent from Manchester to Whitwell on the occasion in question. As to the second Question, I may say that it is not usual to send troops to the neighbourhood of polling-places without a requisition from the magistrates or other local civil authority. As to the third Question, it is not intended to make any charge against the district or county.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is true that his predecessor, having on the 9th March last requested the Town Council of Southport to furnish a list of names representing "an equality of political opinions" from which he might select gentlemen to be placed upon a Commission of the Peace for that borough, received the names of eight Liberals and eight Conservatives, and on April 14th sent the Commission, bearing the names of eleven Conservatives and four Liberals; only one of the Conservatives named by the Council being selected, and the four Liberals being the Mayor and three gentlemen who were already in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Lancaster?

The statement made by my hon. Friend, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is, I believe, perfectly correct. I make no comment upon it whatsoever, except that I think I am justified in stating that the appointments have created great surprise and great disappointment in the borough of Southport.

Early in March I was made aware by the Home Office that it was intended to make Southport a borough under the Municipal Corporations Act. The usual letter was sent to the Town Council of Southport requesting them to send a list of those persons whom they desired to be made magistrates, from which the Chancellor of the Duchy might select certain names. The names were sent in about a fortnight later, but only such a number as would suffice for the population of the town; and the politics of the 14 persons whose names were sent in were not stated. I made it my business to get information from other sources, and from gentlemen possessing ample local knowledge, and in whom I have the utmost confidence; and the result was that on the 14th of April I signed a Commission appointing 14 gentlemen, five of whom were among the number sent in by the Town Council. The practice observed in the Southport case is according to all precedent. Since I learned that this Question was to be asked by the hon. Member for Salford, I made it my business to institute fresh inquiries, and I am satisfied that my appointments were most excellent, and I am confident that every name will bear the closest inspection.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Letter of the Austrian Ambassador to him, his reply to which has been furnished to the Members of the House?

I have given readily whatever information was in my power by the publication of my own letter, but I am not master of the letters of the Austrian Ambassador; and I have not received from the Austrian Ambassador any intimation of his desire that those letters should be made public. As far as I know his view, he does not consider them of such a nature as to require or warrant that step. I believe that in my letter I recited textually and accurately the parts that are material.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if ho has made any application to the Austrian Ambassador as to whether ho has any objection to his letter being published along with the answer?

No, Sir; I have made no such application. I believe, however, the matter has been before the Austrian Ambassador; and, if ho in any way had wished for the publication of his letter, he would have had no difficulty in making his will known to me. I should certainly not feel justified in exercising any pressure in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present condition of affairs between Turkey and Montenegro as far as concerns the rectification of the Frontiers of those Countries upon the lines laid down by the Treaty of Berlin?

An International Commission met last year and dealt with the boundary from the sea by the Scutari Lake up to the vicinity of Gussinje. This portion of the Frontier was settled as far as was practicable, but could not be finally determined until the question of an exchange of territory, which was started while the Commission was at work, should be arranged. An agreement under which the inland district of Gussinje-Plava is left to Turkey in exchange for the district of Kuni Kraina, known as the Corti compromise, was signed at Constantinople on the 12th of April; and a Protocol sanctioning this modification of the Treaty was signed by the Ambassadors at Constantinople on the 18th of April. The Porte proceeded on the 22nd to evacuate the positions to be ceded under this agreement; but before they could be taken possession of by the Montenegrins they were occupied by an Albanian force. The Montenegrins have made no attempt to take the positions by force, and negotiations are now going on which, it is hoped, may lead to a peaceful solution of this difficulty. The International Commission met according to agreement on the 1st instant; but the Prince of Montenegro has refused to allow his Commissioner to take part in the proceedings until the Albanian difficulty is settled, and the Commission has not yet resumed its labours.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in view of the grave errors discovered in the Financial Statement of the Government of India, he proposes to make any statement as to the actual financial position of India, and the amount and nature of the aid, if any, to be given by England towards defraying the cost of the Afghan War; and, if so, whether he can indicate any date when it is probable that such statement may be made?

asked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true that a very serious error has been made in estimating the expenses of the War in Afghanistan; that the Indian Financial Statement of the year, instead of showing a surplus, as was represented, will exhibit a very heavy deficit; if he is in a position to inform the House what the true figures are, when the mistake was discovered in India, and on what date information was received of it by the Government at home; and, if he can further state what is the estimated monthly cost of the present campaign?

It is a fact that the Viceroy has telegraphed from India to the effect that the cost of the Afghan War has been seriously under-estimated; and it is now stated that the charge for that war for the year 1880-81 will probably exceed the Estimate by about £4,000,000. In that case, the anticipated surplus of £417,000 will be turned into a deficit of nearly £3,000,000. The present monthly expenditure is estimated at £500,000. I am asked at what date these facts became known to the Home Government? The addition of £3,500,000 or £4,000,000 to the Estimates was announced in a telegram of the 20th of April as likely if the war continued for six months on the present scale; but a telegram of the 23rd of March had led to the belief that some excess was anticipated beyond the Estimates, and one of the 8th of April spoke of the outlay for the war as very alarming, and as far exceeding the Estimates. The communications that have passed between the Government of India and the Government at home have been, up to the present time, chiefly carried on by telegraph, although my Predecessor had already forwarded two important despatches to the Government of India on the subject. I expect that by the 26th of this month a despatch of an explanatory character will be received from the Government of India, and as soon as that despatch is received I propose to lay all the Papers that I possess upon the Table; and I hope the House will not be disposed to enter into any detailed discussion of this question until we are in possession of that information. I have received a telegram during the last day or two which leads me to believe that a further despatch—the receipt of which we cannot expect until the 10th of June—will contain further explanations, which the Government of India consider necessary. Under these circumstances, it will probably not be possible for me to make any statement as to the financial position of India until that despatch has been received; but I do not think it would be right to delay the production of the Papers any further than till the receipt of the despatch which we expect on the 26th of May. I trust, however, that the House will be willing to postpone any formal discussion of this important question until the fullest information has been received from the Government of India.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill for the purpose of filling the Six Seats now vacant in this House; and, if so, when?

This Question has not been under the consideration of the Government since they came into Office; but I venture to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely unlikely we shall make any proposal on the subject during the present Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the office held by the late Lord Hampton is still vacant; and, if so, whether effect will now be given to the repeated expressions of opinion in this House by abolishing the office?

Her Majesty's Government have considered the subject of this Question, and they have arrived at the conclusion that, in the existing state of affairs on the one hand, it is not desirable to abolish the office held by the late Lord Hampton; on the other hand, that the nature of the duties attaching to that office are not such as would warrant them in asking Parliament to vote a salary for the holder of it. Consequently, they have made arrangements which they are satisfied will secure the perfectly efficient discharge of the duties of the office. It is proposed—indeed, it has already been arranged—that Lord Enfield should become the head of the Commission in succession to Lord Hampton.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to transfer the administra tion of Cyprus from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, in accordance with the views expressed by Earl Granville on 21st March 1879?

The Government have decided that a transfer of the administration of Cyprus shall be made from the Foreign to the Colonial Office; but there are some questions pending which had better be treated by the Foreign Office before the transfer is finally made. My noble Friend the Secretary of State hopes that the transfer may be accomplished before October, when the Estimates have to be prepared.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to continue Sir Bartle Frere in his post as Governor of the Cape Colonies?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Sir Bartle Frere is now engaged in work of an entirely different kind from that on which he was engaged when the events occurred which led to the debate of March, 1879. Some time after that debate Sir Garnet Wolseley was appointed High Commissioner for Natal, the Transvaal, and all the adjoining territories north and south of those Colonies, including, of course, Zululand. His powers are continued to Sir George Colley, who was appointed by the late Government, and who will proceed to South Africa on the 28th. As regards the Cape Colony, Her Majesty's Government think it expedient that Sir Bartle Frere should remain for the present for the purpose of the work on which he is now specially engaged—namely, the promotion of a confederation of the South African Colonies.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, to be good enough to inform the House the nature of the instructions issued to the commanders of the vessels ordered to cruize in search of Her Majesty's missing Training Ship "Atalanta;" and, if the Commander of the North American Squadron has been requested to cruize in the course of the Gulf Stream, between the islands of Bermuda and Newfoundland, and, as far as practicable, all navigable approaches in the neighbourhood of the St. Lawrence; also, how Her Majesty's Ship "Atalanta" was ballasted, and if any and what proportion of the ballast consisted of moveable fresh water tanks?

As soon as the late Board of Admiralty became alarmed about the safety of the Atalanta, they despatched the Salamis on the 13th of April from Gibraltar, with instructions to proceed to the Azores, and to inquire among the Islands of that group for any trace of the missing ship. On the same day the Channel Fleet started for the same destination, with orders to cruise from the Azores homeward to Bantry Bay on the track of vessels coming from Bermuda. The Squadron left Fayal, after receiving a report of the fruitless search of the Salamis on the 25th of February. Whenever the state of the weather permitted, the ships were placed in line abreast in extended order, and a good look-out was kept; but not the slightest trace of anything belonging to the Atalanta was found. The Fleet arrived at Berehaven on the 9th of May. On the 5th of May the Blanche was instructed to sail from Bermuda, and to cruise to the northward and eastward of the banks of Newfoundland. The French and Danish Governments were also requested to obtain any information from their cruises off Iceland and the Farce Islands. In the meantime, however, information of a very full character had gradually been accumulating at the Admiralty, obtained from the logs of vessels arriving in England and ports in the North of Europe, as to the state of the weather on the track of the Atalanta in February last. No less than 42 such logs have been examined, and they all show that between the 11th and 16th of February terrific gales occurred over a great extent of that part of the Atlantic. The various positions of these vessels on the 11th and 12th of February have been marked on a chart, giving also the state of the weather reported; and they show very distinctly the range of these gales. The vessel most nearly on the track of the Atalanta was the Norwegian barque Caspaei, on a voyage from New Orleans to Falmouth. This vessel was in the longitude of Bermuda, and at no great distance, on the 3rd of February, three days after the Atalanta sailed from that Island. On the 12th she met with a most terrific gale, the worst her master had ever encountered. She was thrown on her beam ends, and remained in this position for 19 hours, and was only saved from sinking by the bouyancy of her cargo. Her master significantly reported that many ships wore in sight at the commencement of the gale, and were unable to lay to on account of its suddenness. We may fairly assume that the Atalanta had the same wind and weather as the Norwegian barque, and on the 12th of February she must have been about 300 miles to the eastward of the barque, and exposed to the same terrific gale. Had the Atalanta, been simply dismasted by the gale she could have rigged jury masts; and as we now know with certainty from the logs of the various vessels I have referred to, it is certain she must have been driven, even under the smallest amount of canvas, to the entrance of the channel by the end of February. Had she drifted about as a helpless wreck, she must still have been driven to the eastward, and must have passed over a part of the ocean which we know from various ships' logs was covered with shipping in the months of February and March, and could not have escaped observation. From the known state of the winds we are also justified in saying that she could not have drifted to the northward beyond the usual track of vessels on the Atlantic. The Blanche, however, is still searching for traces of her to the northward and eastward of the banks of Newfoundland. I may add here that the Admiralty have received from Lloyd's a list of 18 vessels which sailed from various ports in North America in January and February, and which are now missing and supposed to have foundered in the gales I have referred to. After a most careful consideration of all the facts thus brought under their notice, the Admiralty have come to the conclusion, which I state to the House with the deepest regret and the greatest sympathy for the relatives of those on board the Atalanta, that there is no longer any ground whatever for hope of the safety of the Atalanta or of her gallant officers and men. It is quite possible some small trace of the vessel may yet be picked up by the numerous vessels that pass over her track; and, with a view of encouraging search, the Admiralty have offered a reward of £200 to anybody who may find and report to the Admiralty any such trace. On Monday, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), I will state to the House the nature of the inquiry which it is proposed to hold on the Atalanta, and I hope to be able to give the names of those who will serve on the inquiry. I will also to-morrow place in the Library a copy of the chart to which I have referred. I think a careful examination of it must justify the conclusions to which the Admiralty have so unwillingly come. At the date of the last report from the Atalanta, December 31, 1878, she had on board 40½ tons of iron ballast and about 2½ tons of cement. She would carry 109 tons of water in iron tanks, which weighed from 24 to 25 tons. These tanks were firmly fixed in the hold, and each tank could be filled up with salt water when the fresh water had been expended.

further inquired whether the Papers included any survey which was made of the ship?

No doubt the Committee of Inquiry will investigate that among other matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will) grant a Select Committee, as promised by the late President, to inquire into the proposed Regulations for Lights for Fishing Vessels, and the objections urged against them by the fishing interest?

, in reply, said, the Regulations referred to had been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and had been the subject of negotiation with other maritime nations, by whom they were approved. It appeared, however, that his Predecessor, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), not only promised a Committee to consider the objections taken to the Regulations by some of the fishermen, but also arranged that the operation of the Regulations should be postponed till the year 1881. In these circumstances the proposed Committee would not delay the operation of the Regulations; and, at the same time, it was desirable that the fishermen should feel assured that their objections had been fairly considered. Therefore, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade would move the appointment of the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is proposed to take immediate steps for the repeal of the Vernacular Press Act, India; and whether it is proposed to take immediate steps for the repeal of the Licences Tax, India?

I cannot give' any other' answer to the hon. Member than this—that those two important questions will have the immediate consideration of Lord Ripon on his arrival in India. Until he has had an opportunity of consulting his Council and forming his own judgment on the matter, I think it would be premature for the Government to come to any conclusion as to the repeal either of the Licences Tax or the Vernacular Press Act. I can only say that the whole matter will receive consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the cession to Montenegro, under the Treaty of Berlin, of certain Albanian districts inhabited by Mahomedan tribes has been found hitherto impracticable owing to the objections of the population to be transferred to the Government of Prince Nikita, which they declared to be hostile to their race and religion; whether he is aware that in place of these Mahomedan districts it is now proposed to compensate the Montenegrin Prince by the cession of territories inhabited by various tribes of Catholic Albanians and others, who equally declare the Government of the Slave-Greek, Prince Nikita, to be hostile to their race and religion; whether Her Majesty's Government is not pledged to secure equal respect for the nationality and religion of all the inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula; and, whether he will assure the House that no cession or transfer of territory will be permitted to Montenegro which would do violence to the national and religious convictions of any section of the Albanian population—equally with Mahomedans and others?

, in reply, said, the subject was one of extreme importance, and was, at the present moment, the subject of repeated telegraphic communications between all the Powers. It would, therefore, be difficult for him to go into any details on the Questions asked by the hon. Member, and he must ask the hon. Member to excuse him from doing so. It was proposed to hand over some Catholic Albanians to Montenegro. At the same time, there were already a considerable number of Montenegrin subjects who were Catholics of the same race, and who were living on friendly terms with the other Montenegrin subjects. The reported compromise was agreed to by all the Powers of Europe before the present Government came into Office, and it had become equally binding on all the Powers that signed the Treaty of Berlin. The present Government, therefore, found themselves under the same obligations in regard to that point as they were under in regard to the other portions of that Treaty. In view of the difficulties which had arisen, Her Majesty's Government felt that they could only act in this matter in strict concert with the other Powers; and, at the present time, they were in concert with those Powers.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the name of the official at the India Office who, "before the late Government had resigned," communicated to the Right honourable Gentleman the Postmaster General information as to the telegram from India received by Lord Cranbrook: and, if not, whether he will make enquiry into the matter?

I have ascertained that the information which was the subject of the telegram was not received from any official. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) informs me that he found that the telegram had been the subject of common conversation in Society, and that the information, whatever it was, appeared to be in possession of a great many persons. I have not thought it necessary to make any inquiry in the India Office as to the source of the information.

On Tuesday I shall ask the noble Lord, Whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent confidential communications between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in England becoming matters of common Club gossip?

said, he did not desire to call attention to any particular passage in the Queen's gracious Speech; But he wished to put one or two questions to the Prime Minister, referring chiefly to the subject of Mr. Goschen's Mission to the Porte. In passing, he might say he had no intention of criticizing the expediency of the step thus taken; on the contrary, he saw a strong reason for the Government thus acting, especially when he remembered the attacks which the right hon. Gentleman had made on Sir Henry Layard when at Constantinople. That being so, he put his questions to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope of being reassured by him on one or two points which some of the utterances of the Prime Minister in the country seemed to render somewhat doubtful, and more particularly in reference to his criticisms upon Sir Henry Layard. It would appear, in the first place, that the object of Mr. Goschen's Mission was to induce the Porte to accept and carry into effect the Berlin Treaty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the Prime Minister a Question as to the nature of the pressure which was to be put upon the Porte; and the right hon. Gentleman was reported in The Times to have answered thus—

"With respect to the use of force, to "which reference was made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he may rest assured that Her Majesty's Government are a great deal too conscious of the gravity of all the principles and of all the results involved in such an idea to come to any conclusion of that kind, or to entertain any question of that kind, except when they are in the fullest possession of all the circumstances."

He understood from that reply that no immediate exercise of force was contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, but he could not conclude absolutely from it that they did not intend immediately to use a threat of force; and his ground for saying that was not the speech made by the Prime Minister last night, but the statements which had been made by that right hon. Gentleman at various times in regard to the policy which ought to be pursued towards Turkey. Those who had studied the right hon. Gentleman's utterances would know that he thought that in 1876 a solution of the Eastern Question might have been arrived at had the English Government, in concert with Europe, threatened Turkey with force unless she adopted certain reforms; and he had entertained the idea that if such a threat had been used the exercise of force would have been unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman imagined that in 1876 the Porte could have been coerced without difficulty and without danger of actual resort to force, he must hold that view still more strongly now, with Turkey in her present position. He had, therefore, listened with some alarm to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he saw in it a certain possibility that, although Her Majesty's Government did not intend to use force, they had no objection to threaten force, being under the firm conviction that the threat would never require to be carried into execution. That was the first question with regard to which he wished to have his anxiety allayed. But, further, he understood that Mr. Goschen was to deal with two subjects relating to Asia Minor. The first thing which had to be remedied was thus described by the Prime Minister—

"We do not desire to see foreign influences established in Turkey; we desire only to see the obligations of Turkey carefully and faithfully fulfilled under the sanction of European authority; but the separate foreign influence of this or of that Power we regard as a sure source of jealousy, disunion, or even of more acute mischief."

It appeared, then, that Mr. Goschen was, in the first place, to prevent or stop separate interference in the affairs of Turkey, and especially with respect to Turkey in Asia. He could, therefore, hardly believe that the Government did not intend greatly to modify, if not altogether to destroy, the Anglo-Turkish Convention. By that Convention the Turks were pledged to reform Asia Minor; we wore pledged, if they reformed it, to defend Asia Minor from Russia; and Cyprus was also given over to this country under the Convention. These three different provisions the present Prime Minister had, at various times, attacked in the country; but the two which he had attacked most violently were the cession of Cyprus and the defence of Asia Minor. When, therefore, he found the right hon. Gentleman directing his new special Ambassador at Constantinople to abrogate or modify the one provision of the Anglo-Turkish Convention which he had least criticized, he could not but believe that it was intended also to modify the others. If every provision except that by which we acquired Cyprus was to be modified, we might be left in the position of having obtained from the Turks what Gentlemen on his side of the House thought a valuable acquisition, and of having given nothing to them in return. Again, the Prime Minister said—

"There is also another impression, which lies deep in the minds of Ottoman statesmen, and which we are anxious to remove—the impression, namely, that England is disposed to trespass on Turkey's rights of sovereignty in Asia."

Therefore, we might be placed in this curious position—that Mr. Goschen would go to Constantinople to re-assure the Turks on the subject of their possessions in Asia Minor by telling them that we should no longer defend them from the only Power by which they were ever likely to be invaded. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had taught them that the statements which he made while an irresponsible candidate were not to be taken too literally when in Office; and, in a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday, he seemed to directly contradict the opinions he more than once expressed before large and popular audiences. But though he admitted that they ought not to regard these utterances as authoritative illus- trations of policy now that the right hon. Gentleman was in Office, he could not altogether ignore them; and therefore it was that he asked the right hon. Gentleman to re-assure them on the points to which attention had been called.

Apart from the questions which my hon. Friend put to me, there are a few remarks of his on which I offer an observation. In the first place, he said he was not surprised at the despatch of a special Ambassador to Turkey, when he recollected the attacks more than once made by me on the present Ambassador, Sir Henry Layard. He did not specify those attacks; he did not give me any means of reference to them. I should wish to know when and how those attacks were made. I do not wish to refer to a matter in which I have been, unfortunately, involved in a rather marked manner with Sir Henry Layard; but most certainly I am not aware that on any occasion I made any attack of that kind on Sir Henry Layard.

said, if he were asked to specify what he had in his mind he would state that he referred to an assertion more than once made by the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Henry Elliot and Sir Henry Layard induced the Porte to believe that England would support them in case of war, though all the official communications of Sir Henry Layard pointed to an opposite direction.

I do not hold or adopt at all the language which my hon. Friend attributes to me; and I should be obliged if, when he charges me with making an attack on anyone, he will more carefully and accurately specify what I have done. I do not consider that what I did was to make an attack on Sir Henry Layard. I had referred to, and commented upon, a passage in a despatch of Sir Henry Layard —I am now obliged to refer to it from memory—in which he conveys to the world his own most conscientious belief that England has interests of so vital a character in the maintenance of the Turkish Empire that ultimate interference on behalf of Turkey would be a necessity of her position. I believe I refer with substantial accuracy to that passage of the despatch. If I do not, I shall gladly make correction at any future time; but the citation of a despatch from an Ambassador is not to be considered an attack upon him. Secondly, my hon. Friend at the close of his speech cited me as claiming what I conceive to be a most dangerous licence —a licence which he has treated with greater tenderness than it deserves. It was a claim that statements made in Opposition were not to be taken too literally when the persons who made them had come into Office. I think I see the nature of the error into which ho has fallen. What I have said is this —that there are things which may properly be said, may becomingly be said —nay, which it may be a positive duty to say, when the person is not a Minister, and particularly neither a Minister nor a Leader of the Party, which, at the same time, would not be becoming or proper to say if he were in a position of responsibility. With regard to my statements in Mid Lothian, my hon. Friend is perfectly free to quote them to whatever extent he pleases, and ho will never find me disposed to shelter myself behind such a claim as he has kindly ascribed to me. There was another matter broached before he referred to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He stated that I had ridiculed the idea that if a threat of coercion had been delivered to Turkey by united Europe in 1876, Turkey would have resisted the threat of force so used. I think that is a little beyond the mark. I do not recollect to have ridiculed that idea, or thought it ridiculous to hold it. I did undoubtedly hold the opinion that Turkey would have yielded to the threat; and I supported that opinion by saying that there had never been an instance in which Europe had been united with respect to Turkey when Turkey had not acted in accordance with the wishes of Europe. To that extent I go, and no further. But, as my hon. Friend has drawn from that supposed idea the impression that Her Majesty's Government were about to use threats to Turkey, relying on their calculation that those threats were never to be executed, and that, consequently, they might use threats with levity, without the intention to act on them, I assure him I hold no practice more culpable on the part of a Government—if, indeed, it has ever been pursued—than that of resorting lightly to menaces, and pledging the honour of the country to those menaces, without the intention to carry them into execution. Then with respect to the supposed instructions of my right hon. Friend Mr. Goschen, I should wish to explain what I think was a misapprehension, perhaps not unnaturally growing out of my speech to which reference was made. My hon. Friend stated truly that I stated that in the view of the present Government it is not desirable to encourage, either on our own part or on behalf of any other Power, the exercise of separate and solo influences in Turkey upon the Turkish question. We look upon the concert of Europe, the united influence of Europe, as the main, perhaps the sole, instrument by which there is a prospect of obtaining beneficial results; and, consequently, we look with jealousy upon the attempt to set up separate influences in Turkey, apart from the influence of Europe united and at large. I laid down that principle, not with special reference to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, but with regard to the general policy in connection with the Turkish Empire. With regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, any general principle that may be laid down by the present Government, or any Member of it, must necessarily be understood to be subject to the obligations — whatever those obligations may be, and upon them I pronounce no opinion at present—which may grow out of positive and definite contracts already made by a responsible Government on the part of the country, and binding on us in honour, whatever we may have thought of the policy that led to the conclusion of those contracts. There was one other point in regard to which I cannot admit the accuracy of my hon. Friend's description of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He says England has undertaken to defend Asia Minor and to reform Asia Minor. One statement is a great deal more than the truth, and the other a great deal less. We have not undertaken to defend Asia Minor. We have not undertaken to defend any part of Asia Minor; but we have undertaken, subject to a provision, to defend a particular Frontier against a particular Power; and with regard to the undertaking to reform Asia Minor, it is not to reform Asia Minor, but to reform Syria, Arabia, and Egypt—the whole of the Turkish Empire.

denied that he had said England had undertaken to reform Asia Minor.

Now, my hon. Friend supposes that there is, on the part of the Government, an intention concealed from the House, which intention has, at the same time, been conveyed in the shape of instructions to Mr. Goschen, to abrogate or modify that Convention. I think I may say that Mr. Goschen carried with him no special instructions on that subject. We have not received, as yet, some most important Reports which are in course of preparation with regard to Asiatic Turkey; and undoubtedly as respects our course under the Anglo-Turkish Convention, it is not in our power to arrive at such accurate and minute information as would lead us at present to the formation of any definite and precise view of the course we should take. I think I may not go too far in saying this—that, as we greatly objected to the conclusion in secret of Conventions of very great importance binding this country in a most vital manner, and in a manner which might be most onerous, without any prior knowledge on the part of this country or of Parliament, and as we do not think that method of using the Treaty power of the Crown is, on the whole, advantageous, whatever course we may think it right hereafter to take with regard to any of the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, our desire will be to ascertain or assure ourselves, before taking that course, that we are not about to do anything strange and foreign to the intentions and knowledge of the people of this country; but we should desire to the very utmost degree possible to associate Parliament and the nation with whatever course we may think proper to propose. The hon. Member may, therefore, rely upon it that any policy we may recommend with respect to engagements that were formed by the legitimate authorities of the country, and which we acknowledge to be in force, will be a policy most maturely considered by us, and I hope a policy not involving merely ideas or wishes of our own considered as a section of politicians, but such as will be congenial to the general views and convictions of the country.

said, he had no intention of troubling the House with allu- sions to the various topics in the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech; but he wished to notice one or two points to which little or no reference had been made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. His right hon. Friend had referred to two questions in relation to the Treaty of Berlin, one of which he described as critical, and the other as urgent. The critical point was the one relating to the new Frontier between Turkey and Greece, as indicated at the Berlin Congress. Now, whatever might be thought by other hon. Members, he held that the question having been once raised, and Greece encouraged, not only by this country, but by other European Powers, to hope for the rectification of her Frontier, it would be most unfair and improper if the efforts of the countries in question on her behalf were not to correspond with the words of their Plenipotentiaries. He went even further, and believed that it would conduce to the welfare of Turkey herself if the purely Greek populations that had for a long time sought union with the Kingdom of Greece were by European sanction to be united with that country. He hoped, as did vast numbers of people in this country and in the other countries of Europe, that the question to which he had referred might be settled in the way indicated by the Congress of Berlin, and that European Turkey might for the future be free of all danger of disturbance. The question which his right hon. Friend had described as one of great urgency was of far more serious character. A proposition had been made for the delimitation of the Frontier between Turkey and Montenegro, the effect of which, if carried out, would be to hand over certain populations—Maho-medan and Christian—to Montenegro; and he understood from the guarded Answer given that evening by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a Question relating to the subject, that the influence of our Government, in concert with that of other Powers, was about to be exerted for the purpose of effecting the transfer. Well, a European concert on Eastern questions was about the most difficult and delicate matter that any Ministry could possibly try to bring about. In his recollection, many efforts had been made to establish such a concert; but not one had ever succeeded. If, however, the Governments of Europe, in concert, should hand over to the semi-savages of Montenegro the warlike Christian and Mahomedan populations of Albania, they would repeat the error which concerted Europe committed in 1815, when the Roman Catholics of Belgium were handed over to the Government of the Protestant Kingdom of Holland. He would recommend his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to weigh well every step that might be taken which should identify the name of England with action of that kind. They had always professed to promote freedom, and to endeavour to bring about a state of things that should cause the populations with whom he was immediately concerned to fulfil their national destiny; and to ask that a warlike race, composed of Mahomedans and Christians, should be cast into the arms of a people whom they abhorred—to use the force of arms to compel them to accept so hateful a connection would be a most unwise proceeding on our part. It seemed to him that we ought to know whether, in our endeavours to establish a European concert on the subject to which he was referring, the Government contemplated advocating force in order to compel certain populations to accept the rule of Montenegro. Turning to another matter, he said that there was a question of great delicacy pending between Roumania and the Bulgarian Government. The question of the delimitation of Frontier between Roumania and Bulgaria had received the attention of two International Commissions. The opinions of the Russian official alone interfered with the unanimity of the first of these Commissions. The second Commission reported in almost identical terms with the first, the Russian Commissioner alone, as before, dissenting. Now, he wished to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any effect was to be given to the decision of those Commissions or not. There was no country more deserving of sympathy or more entitled to credit than Roumania for the part she had taken during, and since, the Russo-Turkish War; and, considering the wrong she suffered by the cession of Bessarabia, it was doubly our duty to see that she obtained her rights. An allusion had been made in the Queen's Speech to the ap- pointment of a special Ambassador to Constantinople. No great importance should be attached to that word. He had been present more than once in foreign countries to which special Ambassadors had been sent, and had remarked that such 'arrivals only led to points of disputed precedence with the Ambassador already on the ground. Having had an intimate personal friendship for many years with Sir Henry Layard, having entered Parliament at the same time, and combated together with him on many momentous questions, he was anxious to state what was due to his character. Whatever differences there might be as to his policy, a more able and devoted public servant could not be found. He was a man of unsurpassed energy and of great courage, who had never acted in opposition to the Government he served, but, on the contrary, always faithfully obeyed his instructions. A great compliment was paid to these high qualities by the late Government, who, although opposed to them in all their political views, selected him as the Ambassador of this country at Constantinople. Sir Henry Layard had been called a Philo-Turk; but that conveyed a wrong impression. With his immense knowledge of the country he was able to appreciate the many great qualities of the Ottoman people; but no man was better acquainted with the defects of Ottoman government, and no man ever made those defects known in plainer language to the Ottoman Government. He did this repeatedly in conversations with the Ottoman authorities, and in personal interviews with the Sultan himself. It was due to Sir Henry Layard, now that he was about to retire from one of the most difficult of posts, that his great services should be brought before the people of this country.

, after listening attentively to the various speeches which had been delivered from the Treasury Bench, confessed to having some doubts as to whether the present Administration could not be most fittingly described as the "Government of Recantations." Those doubts had not been lessened by the observations which had just fallen from the Prime Minister. It was often difficult to follow the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman; but it would appear, from the observations which had fallen from him that evening, the Government had not yet made up their minds at all with regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. This was the more remarkable because the right hon. Gentleman in his Mid Lothian campaign denounced the three main propositions of that Convention. Nay, he even went further, and denounced it as a whole in language of exceptional vigour, for he spoke of it as an "insane Convention." The right hon. Gentleman had said that his Mid Lothian speeches might still be taken as expressing literally his present opinions; and it certainly was a remarkable occurrence that an able, powerful, and wise Administration could not make up its mind whether or not to uphold an "insane Convention." The Government had, however, made up its mind not to renew the Peace Preservation Act in Ireland. Considering the present state of that country; considering the state of things that prevailed there not many months ago, and the speeches which were uttered by some hon. Members of that House, it was, to say the least of it, a great responsibility. Lest it should be said he exaggerated the serious condition of that country, he would adduce the evidence of a witness whose friendship for Ireland no one would dispute. In a remarkable and recent speech he found this passage—

"The revolt is really against the proprietors; hut it is also against the tenants. If a tenant pays rent, he comes under the condemnation of his brother tenants; and if a tenant he evicted and a farm vacant, and some other farmer enters upon the occupation of that farm, his peace, and even his life, are in danger."

The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the same speech to which he was referring, said—

"Now, what is the position of things in that country? This, I think, will meet with no contest whatsoever—that there is in Ireland at this moment an amount of discontent, of suffering, and of what we call disloyalty, which is not to he found in any other portion of the United Kingdom.…In the West of Ireland, in the Province of Connaught, you find there is something like a general social revolt. Rents are refused to be paid even by tenants who could pay them, and this course is recommended and encouraged by multitudes of persons. If evictions take place, if notices are given to tenants who do not pay their rents that they will he ejected from their farms, the officers who serve the processes are met by crowds of men and women prepared to hoot them, to condemn them, and in some cases actually by force to resist them,"

That was the language not of an enemy or opponent. It was spoken by a right hon. Member of the last Liberal Government and right hon. Member of this—the trusted friend and ally of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). That was a description of Ireland at the present time, and the House had a right to know on what grounds the Government felt itself justified in dispensing with the Peace Preservation Act. A proposition had been made to suspend by law the power of eviction for two years; and he was far from satisfied with the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given to that suggestion. His language appeared to him (Mr. Chaplin) to give rise to the impression that he was prepared to entertain and consider the arguments which might be adduced in favour of such a proposition. If an impression was allowed to go forth in Ireland that the Government was prepared to entertain such a proposition, it would lead to disastrous consequences; and he could not believe that an English Administration would do anything of the kind.

remarked, that some very important questions had been raised in the Address, and he had ventured to express an opinion upon some of them; and he might say that one very important branch of the subject which the House was called upon to entertain was the question of India, and he hoped and trusted that the question raised by the unforseen deficit in the Indian Exchequer would be considered on both sides of the House without any intervention of a Party spirit. He had great respect for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), now the Postmaster General, who had so well and ably defended the interests of India in Parliament, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) had recognized his well-meaning attempt to draw certain Party profit out of it. He was satisfied the question of Indian finance was a question that equally concerned both sides of the House, and that its deplorable condition was the result of the administration of Indian affairs. Both sides of the House felt their responsibility, and he was sure he could appeal with confidence to his fellow-Members below the Gangway in opposition, in seeing that the discussion of Indian finance would be conducted not only with a view of examining into the best way of obtaining a large profit, but also of ascertaining the cause of the serious and growing discontent and misery pervading tens of millions of the agricultural classes of India. The House had no conception of the wasting misery, which would disgrace a Turkish Province, and which was laying waste the Provinces of India. He hoard with pleasure that day the Question addressed to the Administration of the country by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn)—always true to his principles, whether sitting on the Opposition or on the Ministerial side of the House. He heard also with the greatest pleasure the Question addressed to the Government to know whether it would continue to retain the services of Sir Bartle Frere, who was held responsible by the late Government for letting them into errors they did not hesitate to deplore. Sir Bartle Frere was condemned by the then Opposition—now the present Government—of being the provoking cause of the shocking bloodshed in South Africa. He had no desire to say hard words of Sir Bartle Frere, but there were natural prejudices against the man, who was naturally associated with great suffering. There was blood upon the administration of Sir Bartle Frere, and it was due to the very conscience of Great Britain and Ireland that that man should be removed as early as possible from a scene which, through his misfortune, if not his fault, had been deluged with the blood of the innocent populations. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had asked a Question with regard to the condition of Roumelia, and he was well satisfied with the frank and open answer of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he believed there would be no more grievous mistake committed than if, in their zeal for the freedom of the Slav and the Greek, they were to shut their eyes to the claim of the Albanian. However, the thing he sought to bring out was brought out in the Answer of the hon. Baronet, and that was that early steps would be taken to remedy the mistakes which had been made by Her Majesty's late Government in regard to other branches of foreign policy, particularly concerning Albania. The Plenipotentiaries had ceded to the Prince of Montenegro a quantity of land round Scutari, the most fertile in North Albania, inhabited by Catholic Albanians, and he trusted that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had often shown his sympathy with suffering nationalities, would see that the arrangement—a most unjust and oppressive one—would not be carried out. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had raised a very important question with regard to Irish affairs, with respect to the agrarian condition of Ireland, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) thanked the hon. Member for the weight which he attached to this question. It was true the hon. Member did not discuss it from the point of view which he (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say was just to the people of Ireland; but at that particular time credit was due to every Member of that House who, whether in a hostile or friendly spirit, approached the Irish question with a due idea of its overwhelming gravity. Her Majesty's Government had proposed not to renew the Peace Preservation Act, and he thanked them for the spirit which had doubtless actuated them in making that concession, though, at the same time, he wished to be allowed to observe that the most of the Coercion Code had been practically repealed by the Predecessors of the present Government. To tell the truth, there was not much left of the Peace Preservation Act after the emendation which the recent Government were induced to make. One provision of the Act was directed against the free distribution of arms, and another provision provided that in cases of murder or apparent murder attributed to agrarian motives, the grand jury might charge the inhabitants of the district where the murder took place with compensation to the relatives of the murdered persons. On the subject of agrarian outrages, he ventured to think that the prohibition of firearms had very little to do with the commission of agrarian assassination. He thought in cases where an assassination had taken place, it would be found that the blunderbuss, or the pistol, or the rifle which did to death the victim, or otherwise the unpopular landlord or agent, had in very few cases passed the examination of the examining magistrates. When a murder was to be committed, he did not think the most careful examination would prevent the smuggling of arms in small quantities required to commit these occasional assassinations. With regard to the second provision—namely, that which permitted the grand juries to levy compensation on districts, to be applied to the families of the persons alleged to be murdered for agrarian causes, he thought that that provision, so far from being in any way a provision for the preservation of the peace, only served to spread and exaggerate existing discontent, as the assassin had in all probability been brought from a great distance, and thus the really guilty persons did not suffer. But Her Majesty's Government had informed the House that they were prepared to enforce with firmness the existing law. He was one of those men who said out of the House what he would say in it, and he ventured to say, on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, that if the Government were resolved to enforce with vigour the existing law against offenders, while they refused to take into consideration the miserably distressed condition of the country, then the Judges of Assize would have heavy work on their hands; and, further, he said that the offenders would possess the enthusiastic sympathy of the Irish race throughout the world. It would be perfectly impossible for the Irish peasantry to pay their contract rents for many a day to come; but the contract rents could be extorted by law, and the tenants could be cast out on the road side by law. If many of the landlords of Ireland used their legal rights to extort their contract rents, then there would be bad work in Ireland this year. Furthermore, he said, and he was not afraid to say it, that in any resistance which a desperate people might be driven to have recourse to, owing to the neglect of the responsible Government to meet the facts of the situation, it was the Government ten times more than the people that would be responsible for the consequences. It was all very easy to talk about the sacredness of contract, but there were many other things sacred as well, and human life was sacred too, and when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire denounced as confiscation the proposal to suspend the right of ejectment for two years, he (Mr. O'Donnell) did not attach much value to the word confiscation when used by the hereditary and habitual defenders of the rights of property. But was it confiscation to tell a landlord that he must not enforce his contract rent at a season of great distress? Why, it was a principle recognized by the law of the land. In the case of estate after estate the Courts of Equity had ordered the rents to be lowered much below the contract rent; and were the Government going to support by the law a landlord who held to his contract rent like a Shylock claiming Christian blood, when the Courts held that to do so would be inequitable? If the Government continued to arm the landlords of Ireland— proverbially so zealous as to the rights of property—and thus enabled them to exact their contract rents, then, he said, insurrection in Bosnia or Bulgaria was never so blessed as the insurrection of the Irish peasantry, armed he cared not whether with firearms or with scythes in defence of their homes. He spoke in no spirit of bravado, and he hoped he had sympathizers on both sides of the House when he appealed to every Liberal principle for justice to those Irish cultivators. He sat among the ranks of the Imperial Party, who were foremost in proposing a Vote of Thanks to Imperial soldiers for victories; and surely he should not appeal to hard or insensible hearts when he said he expected that they who recognized the valour of our soldiers would not be willing agents in bringing misery and desolation to the already hardly-tried homes of the Irish soldiers. The non-renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, the introduction of electoral equality in boroughs as between England and Ireland, and similar concessions, had nothing to do with the settlement of such pressing Irish difficulties as the inability of the contract tenants of Ireland to pay anything like their contract debts. It was all very well to talk about these men having entered into bargains with their eyes open, to say that if farms were over-rented it was the result of mad competition. It was not by an Imperial Parliament and a British Government which had robbed Ireland of its native Legislature that such a plea should be advanced. If the Irish people were reduced to this scramble for a miserable livelihood, it was partly because in many eases the best land had been taken from the Irish people to supply bullocks for the English market. If the Irish people were reduced to this condition, that there were no manufactures in the land, and that even their fisheries and other industries had withered under Imperial misgovernment, it did not lie with the Imperial Parliament to twit the Irish peasantry with their scramble for the means of subsistence left them by Imperial legislation. Any general attempt of the Irish landlords to extort from the so-called contract tenants of Ireland the full amount of their contract rents or anything like it in this time of fearful distress, would only lead to disgraceful and dreadful scenes that might bring sorrow and mourning to hundreds of Irish homes, would cover with disgrace the Imperial Legislature, and would awaken—he said it in warning and not in menace—a flame in the breasts of Irishmen in America; and a conflagration begun in America might reach much further than was at present open to the ken of English Statesmen.

said, he should not have thought it necessary to say anything at all, on the present occasion, if it were not probable that the last speech would be fully reported and read in Ireland. He understood the hon. Member, in the strength of his sympathy with the distress of the Irish peasantry, to say that, under certain circumstances, the sympathy of this country ought to go with them in the resistance to the law.

I beg pardon of the right hon. Gentleman. Might I venture to say unamended law?

said, they must always take the law as it stood; resistance to the unamended law would also constitute resistance to the law, and therefore he was right in saying resistance to the law. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the indignation which he should feel, and the people of Ireland should feel, in ease the Irish landlords were not considerate during the present distress would be great, and he went further, and said the people of America would feel indignant if the Irish tenant did not receive considerate treatment. It was quite sufficient, however, if they confined their views of the matter to what the people of Great Britain and Ireland might think. If it were necessary for the Government to enforce the laws, he must really tell the hon. Member that, having himself the strongest possible sympathy with the people of Ireland, he did not think any Government, of either side or any Party, could for a moment admit the notion that the law was not to be obeyed. He trusted that what the hon. Member appeared to foresee in the way of calamity to Ireland would not happen. He had no proof himself that there was any desire on the part of the landlords of Ireland to take advantage of the present distressed condition of the tenantry to enforce their rents, and he should deeply lament it if that should be the case. He should consider that harsh conduct on their part at any time, and more especially in a season of distress like the present, would call for the moral reprobation of the people of these Islands. But he must beg the hon. Gentleman and those who sat with him to remember the responsible position of the Executive Government. If the existing law were allowed to be disobeyed in one case, it would be disobeyed in many cases, if not in all. It was impossible even for those who were very anxious to reform the laws to allow them to be trampled under foot and to be defied. An illustration was furnished by the case of a process server, serving processes under circumstances of which he knew nothing, who had been stopped and searched and robbed of a number of processes, those for debt being ten times the number of those for rent. That showed that, if the Government were to allow the recovery of rent to be defied, it would soon be impossible to recover any debt at all. The hon. Member spoke of the sacred-ness of human life—a subject which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been compelled to think of anxiously ever since he took his responsible office, for the chief difficulty, or the only really questionable thing involved in the non-renewal of the Peace Preservation Act was the abandonment of the clauses relating to arms licences. He came to the conclusion that they might be abandoned, and he remained at that conclusion; but he was sure that the Government and himself would be showing an utter disregard of human life if they were to allow the process servers to go about, carrying out the law as it stood, with the possibility of resistance, without such a force as would make that resistance almost impossible. He must state that he should feel it his duty, and he was sure his Colleagues would feel it to be their duty, to show in the clearest possible manner that they took the side neither of landlords nor of tenants in these unfortunate circumstances; to lose no opportunity of advising landlords, if it should be necessary, to show moderation and forbearance in consideration of the distress; and, in addition to that, while claiming moral influence with the people of Ireland on account of their wish to amend the law, to make it clear that after all they were an Executive for the administration of the law; and if he saw reason to believe that the law was likely to be disobeyed, he should feel, out of regard to human life, for the life of those who had to execute the law, and with regard also to those who unfortunately might have been encouraged to resist the law, that the kindest and most merciful thing he could do—the only thing the Government had a right to do—would be to accompany the officers with such force as to make resistance almost impossible. He did not look forward to any of these scenes happening, and he saw great reason to hope for some diminution of the distress. There had been very great and keen distress; but in some cases the accounts of it might have been exaggerated, and there might have been instances of imposition, as there always were when there was great distress. It was most likely to be keenly felt in the month or two preceding harvest, when the resources of the small tenantry were becoming exhausted. The permanent officials of the Department had worked with great intelligence, in no way sparing themselves, and he believed the arrangements made earlier in the year, in the provision of relief works, would meet the pressure between now and harvest and to some extent compensate for the exhaustion of the charitable funds. The permanent officers had determined to direct that the Inspectors should watch with the greatest care the most distressed Unions, so that the Guardians might be encouraged, and even obliged, to give out-door relief if necessary. Many of the small ratepayers were very much distressed, and it was determined that the order for their relief should be accompanied by the offer of a loan, the early payment of which it would be unreasonable to expect. He trusted they would be blessed with a better havest. There was already some relief in a greater demand for employment in England. Every landlord in Ireland who had not got his rent paid, and was considering whether he should put the law into action or not by serving ejectment processes, should, he thought, pause; and if his words could reach such a man he would most earnestly beg him to wait until after the next harvest, and this for his own sake as much as for the good of the country. He would go further—he had no right to appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan and those who sat by his side; but he would entreat them by all the sympathy they had for their poor fellow-countrymen to exercise their influence in favour of peace and order for the next few months. The hon. Member spoke of the Government getting the law obeyed while they were neglecting the miseries of the people. That was not true.

said, he had the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He had put the case strictly in a hypothetical form; and he said if the Government neglected the miseries of the people while the landlords exercised the full vigour of the law, then the Government would be responsible for the recurrence of evils. He fully recognized the excellent spirit of the right hon. Gentleman.

was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that remark. He could only say that he and his Colleagues would be unworthy to occupy the position they did if they could be justly accused of neglecting the miseries of the people. The Government would not neglect their duty; but he was sorry they had not been in the position they held long enough to be able to frame a measure which might meet the difficulties of Ireland at the present moment, and show the amount of preparation which would obtain the approval of the country. But if the Government could not bring forward any measure until next year, he asked that the difficulties of the position should not be made greater by scenes of disorder in the meantime. Would they let their hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches be in a position to taunt them with having given up the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act with regard to arms? Without the slightest feeling of antagonism to any past Government, he was firmly impressed with the conviction that the distress existing in Ireland, whether exaggerated or not, was of that severity that it was a lesson and a warning to the Imperial Parliament of this country, and that no Government ought to he content without doing its utmost, as much as the law could possibly do, to make the distress almost impossible to occur again. In what he had said he had only spoken what he had felt, and he gratefully acknowledged the general marks of approval with which what he said had been greeted. He had no intention of returning to the debate of last night. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had complained that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not spoken with sufficient clearness about the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) of an ad interim Bill. It was quite true he had not pointed out all the objections he had, for they were various, to such a measure. Neither did he wish to give the impression that he would be able to support such a Bill; but in the present state of Ireland, in the present state of its representation, it would ill become him and the Government not to give a fair, full, and considerate hearing to any proposal that might he brought forward.

said, that all the evils of the Irish peasant were laid at the door of the landlord; but he (Mr. Macartney), as one of them, had no doubt that Ireland contained good and bad landlords; and the vast majority of them were as long-suffering and patient with their tenantry, as gentle-hearted and forbearing to those in distress, as any landlords could be. Like the peasantry of the country, they had one great fault in past generations — the want of thrift and due consideration in regard to their expenditure, and they suffered accordingly. Landlords suffered from non-payment of their rents, and tenants suffered from the over-indulgence of being allowed to fall into arrears and from the extravagance of their landlords. But customs were altering, and both parties were now looking after the pounds, shillings, and pence like their Saxon brethren. It was said, if the Government did not intervene, the peasantry would become the victims of their tyrant landlords, and next winter there would be disturbances and bloodshed. Where were the ejectments to come from? In the North of Ireland there was hardly an ejectment this year or last. They never were so few. There were, no doubt, an immense number of civil bills; small traders, having given enormous credits, got alarmed, they seized everything, and nothing was left for the landlords. They had to forbear. In 1878 some tenants of his own, who resided 60 miles from where he lived, came over as a deputation to him, asking what deduction ho was going to give from their rents owing to the two bad seasons. They said they saw by the newspapers that the English landlords were giving reductions of at least 10 per cent. He showed that they had received a reduction of 12½ per cent since 1847; that from that year to 1854 they had received 25 per cent, and he had given instructions to his agent to report to him any case of distress, and abstain from enforcing payment of the rent. This year they made another application, which was signed by seven names. He referred to his rental list, and found that, of these seven persecuted men, none owed less than two years' rent, and three of them owed three-and-a-half years' rent. He, therefore, could pay very little attention to their remonstrance. A great many cases of that kind, he believed, had occurred in different parts of the country, and yet if he were to attempt to enforce a year's rent he should be considered a barbarian. He hoped, as the right hon. Gentleman had asked, that landlords would show forbearance and patience; but it must be remembered that landlords had to pay as well as to receive, and if they did not receive they could not pay. They had many of them extremely heavy mortgages to keep down, and the banks were not very willing to extend accommodation in times like these. If the Government maintained a firm hand, and were able by the ordinary law to preserve life and property, he hoped the evils predicted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan would not take place.

wished to say a few words with reference to that portion of Her Majesty's Speech which referred to the Treaty of Berlin. He would throw no reflections on Sir Henry Layard, whom he had known for many years, and to whoso public services he was prepared to pay the highest tribute of respect. It was important not only that the clauses of the Treaty of Berlin should be effective in writing, they must be carried out in practice. There were three points which were most essential —the first related to the rectification of the Montenegrin Frontier, the second to the Greek Frontier, and the third was the 23rd Article of the Treaty. With regard to the Albanian Frontier, it was difficult to ascertain what was genuine and what was spurious Albanian nationality. From the information he had received, he was led to believe that a good deal of what was called Albanian nationality was spurious. It was factitious, and inspired from Constantinople. It was essential that there should be a development of what was truly national in the people, that they might one day take the place of the Turkish Empire. When the Roman Empire disappeared, what saved the world was the municipal institutions which were put forth. Let those institutions be developed, and good service would be done; but to try to maintain the semblance of a Turkish Empire was a real waste of power. It was desirable that the truth should be let in on Constantinople as soon as possible. Let it be known that, while no hand of a British statesman would be put forth to topple the Turkish Empire over, so neither would any hand be put forth to impart to it an artificial existence when it was no longer able to assert itself. In his opinion, it was not the upholding of the position of the Sultan, but the independence of the Balkan Peninsula, that was of essential interest to this country.

said, that, in rising to address the House on the subject of foreign affairs, and to reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he wished, in the first place, to point out that there was one question raised by those hon. Gentlemen which was of peculiar delicacy. He alluded to the question of the Albanian Frontier. The hon. Member for Rochester, before he touched on this delicate and serious question, said, with regard to the Greek Frontier, that it would be unfair towards Greece if, after having been encouraged as she had been by the reception of her claims by the Powers of Europe, she should find those Powers unable or unwilling to act up to the promises which they had made. Now, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) hoped that the Powers of Europe were neither unable nor unwilling to act up to those promises; and he entirely concurred in the remark made by his hon. Friend that it was in the interest of the Turkish Empire itself that those promises should be performed. His own impression, derived from the latest information, was that there was every prospect of the Greek Frontier question being settled, and speedily settled, in the manner contemplated by the Protocol drawn up at Berlin. With regard to the Albanian question and that of the Frontier of Montenegro, he was not able to add anything to the replies he had made in the early part of the evening to the Questions of the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He pointed out that, though there was a difficulty in obtaining an absolute concert of the European Powers on a question in which several of them were specially interested, nevertheless all the Powers had agreed on what was known as the "Corti compromise," which he had described to the House. The hon. Member for Rochester pointed out the extreme difficulty of inducing Austria, Italy, and other Powers exactly to agree to any plans with respect to the arrangement of the Montenegrin Frontier. But he would point out that the compromise suggested or proposed by Count Corti was agreed to by all the Powers of Europe. His hon. Friend spoke of the difficulty of handing over Catholic populations to Montenegro. But he must again point out, what he had pointed out in the early part of the evening, that the Prince of Montenegro already possessed, and possessed on that very Frontier, a considerable number of Catholic subjects exactly similar to those whom it was proposed to annex. His hon. Friend had spoken of the Albanian nationality. Nobody would for a moment deny that there was such a nationality, and that it deserved to be considered by the Powers of Europe. But there was a great deal in the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that there was a tendency to exaggeration with respect to that nationality. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire pointed out last year that a claim had been set up to the town of Janina which could not be maintained. Another claim had been set up with regard to geographical limits; but that claim ought to be very carefully examined before accepting the statements put forth on behalf of the Turkish Government, because in the early part of the Albanian movement the Turkish Government made itself responsible for those statements. Of late, however, the Turkish Government had found itself altogether unable to control this movement, and now, no doubt, it had entirely escaped the control of the Porte. The hon. Member for Dungarvan spoke of the claims of the Roman Catholics of Albania. But he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must point out that, though the British Government was always anxious to respect the religious opinions of all others, yet there were Catholic Powers which cordially agreed to recommend the very compromise which the hon. Member denounced. Without expressing any opinion of his own with regard to the nature of the compromise which was agreed upon before the present Government came into power, he could not but think that if it were damaging to the interests of the Catholic people it was very probable that such Powers as Austria and Prance would have raised objections to it. It might be said that the Government of France at present did not possess the confidence of Catholics. But everyone knew that in her foreign policy France had always taken a great interest in everything that concerned the Catholic Church. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire alluded to what was called the Arab Tabia question, and his hon. Friend pointed out that no one had mentioned it of late. It was singular that that question had not been referred to, because it had been commented on at some length in the newspapers, and had been the subject of negotiations between the Powers. That question, however, if not actually solved as yet, was on the brink of a satisfactory solution, and the Roumanian Envoy, M. Bratiano, who had come over to settle it, had found his work all but done before he reached our shores. The Roumanian Government had expressed itself satisfied at the conclusion of these very difficult negotiations. His hon. Friend had asked whether the fortresses had been demolished in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin? He could only say that they were in process of demolition, and that repeated inquiries had been made on the subject by the Powers, to whom answer had been given that the difficulty of the work of demolition was due only to the expense, and that that reason alone had delayed the action of the small Principalities. However, as the work was proceeding, the Berlin Treaty was substantially being observed. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had criticized the appointment of Mr. Goschen to Constantinople, and had doubted the wisdom of sending thither a special Ambassador. With reference to that appointment, the phrase "Special Ambassador" was not that which was actually made use of. In sending Mr. Goschen to the Porte he was described as Ambassador Extraordinary. There was, however, as he would admit, no great difference between the two; and he might point out that the mission of Sir Henry Layard when he first went to Constantinople was precisely the same as that now undertaken by Mr. Goschen. At that time Sir Henry Elliot was on leave, but continued to hold the post of Ambassador for nine months after the appointment of Sir Henry Layard, so that at one time there were two Ambassadors to the same Court—one on leave, and the other sent specially. Again, precisely the same course had been taken by the Government of France, and he was glad to know that Mr. Goschen would be able to act harmoniously with the special French Envoy. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had very justly praised Sir Henry Layard for his unsurpassed energy and ability, and, in saying that Sir Henry Layard was not very strongly pro-Turkish in his sympathies, had only stated a well-known fact. His despatches showed that his patience had become exhausted, particularly as he was well aware that the inability of Turkey to execute reforms seemed highly dangerous to her future existence. Sir Henry Layard had, in fact, pointed out in strong terms how great a risk Turkey incurred by the refusal to reform her administration. Sir Henry Layard had to some extent exhausted his influence at Constantinople, and he himself would no doubt be disposed to think that a new man of great ability and courage coming to Constantinople would have considerable advantages in pressing the will of united Europe on the consideration of the Porte. His hon. Friend had specially spoken of the great importance of the reforms specified in the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin. Now those reforms were not in the same position as those which concerned Armenia, as they were to be supervised by the European Commission at Constantinople. It was hardly possible to exaggerate the importance attaching to the duties of that Commission, and the Government would never be a party to any attempts to minimize them. The Commission, as had been pointed out last July by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), had to exercise more control with regard to the other Provinces than towards Eastern Roumelia, because the Porte had the right of keeping troops in them at all times, so as to make itself respected. He believed that all hon. Members would feel confidence in his noble Friend who had been sent to represent the Government on that Commission (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice), and who had, indeed, on one occasion made a speech to the House which served as an admirable text-book of the proceedings of the Commission. He believed that the execution of the reforms agreed to in the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, the accomplishment of reforms in Armenia, and of the will of Europe with regard to Montenegro, would, if loyally executed by the Porte, place the Turkish Empire in a safer and stronger position than it had occupied for many years.

called attention to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which related to South Africa, and observed that he was not surprised at the way in which the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had commended the expressions it contained, seeing that the Prime Minister had distinctly accepted the South African policy of the late Government. This evening the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of withdrawing Sir Bartle Frere, whose presence in the Colony was necessary for the purpose of pursuing the policy which the Government had now adopted as their own. Therefore both the Agent of the late Government and the policy he pursued had been adopted—an Agent whom the Members of the present Administration condemned when they were sitting on the other side of the House, and whose policy the late Government excused on the ground that he had exceeded his orders, but that his presence in South Africa was so necessary that he could not be withdrawn. The present Government now adopted the same policy. That struck him as a very extraordinary position of affairs, and he regretted that the doctrine of accepted facts had not been expressed earlier, as its revelation might probably have influenced the language of some candidates at the General Election and also the votes of some of the electors. But, of course, we must take the thing as it stood, and study it as a curious problem in political history. The Motion brought forward at the beginning of last year by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) concluded with an expression of regret that Sir Bartle Frere had not been recalled. That Motion was also made in identical terms in the other House, and he believed all the 14 Members of the present Cabinet voted in one or the other House in favour of it. Moreover, most of the Members of the present Cabinet then expressed their reasons, which were to a great extent independent of the particular action which had occurred. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for India insisted that Sir Bartle Frere ought to be recalled because of the very bad example which would be given to our Colonial service if a Colonial Governor were allowed to remain at his post after he had shown flagrant disregard of his instructions. That, of course, was as good a reason now as then. For his own part, he should at all times be reluctant to interfere with the administration of a Colony to which we had given responsible self-government; but self-government in a Colony was always modified by the individuality of the Governor who represented the Home Government in the Colony. The individuality of Sir Bartle Frere in the Cape Colony was most marked in its effect soon after he arrived there. Sir Bartle Frere, the Cape Par- liament not being in Session, ventured on the extraordinary step of dismissing the Minister who had until then possessed the confidence of that Parliament. When the Cape Parliament again assembled in Session, it accepted the dismissal of the late Minister, and accepted the appointment of the new Minister who had been called into power. This circumstance showed the enormous influence which Sir Bartle Frere's individuality exercised in the Colony. It was the sending of Sir Bartle Frere to the Cape which changed the majority in the Cape Parliament itself. It was the sending out of this "apostle of extension and advance" that rallied round him those people at the Capo who were ready for adventure and movement, and who were ready to run the risks and to accept the chances of extension of frontier and annexation of territory. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies knew perfectly well that there was a great deal of difficulty lying before them in the future. If they withdrew Sir Bartle Frere, the difficulty of the future would disappear, because Sir Bartle Frere's policy would have been abandoned. In keeping Sir Bartle Frere in the Cape Colony, Her Majesty's Government made his policy their own. It was said that he was to be kept there in order that he might promote Confederation, and because he had no longer anything to do with Zulu-land or the Transvaal. These statements were not quite consistent with one another, as it was impossible that Confederation could be promoted without having to do with Zululand and the Transvaal. It was a matter of great regret that the present Government should keep this Confederation scheme going. He should have thought they would have found that Confederation was a mere fancy of a Colonial Minister who thought he could transfer to South Africa a scheme of policy which had been most successful in North America, without paying attention to the dissimilarity of the facts in North America and in South Africa. In North America you had people coming to ask for Confederation; whereas in South Africa no people asked for, but refused Confederation. If there was any feeling in these Colonies in favour of Confederation, if they were ripe for it, did not the House think that any Governor could accomplish what the needs of these Colonies would demand? The whole scheme of Confederation had no relation to the facts of the Colonies which the Government wished to confederate. He should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had to say about Sir Bartle Frere and Confederation. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the late Government upon having sent out Sir Bartle Frere as the very best man that could go. Last year the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman had so changed, that he said the late Government ought to have known that Sir Bartle Frere would have his own way. Perhaps he had a third opinion now; but these changes were puzzling to plain people. The people of the Transvaal had many virtues, and, no doubt, they had many faults. They were a very simple-minded people, and they would certainly be very much puzzled when they read the paragraph in the Royal Speech with regard to South Africa. The last thing he heard from the Transvaal was that a meeting of Boers passed certain resolutions and a vote of thanks to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, and to other Members of Parliament who had denounced the annexation of the Transvaal, and advocated the restoration of the liberties of the Boers. And he found that in the Cape Colony Dutch people had got up a large Address to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, inspired by remarks he made in Mid Lothian; and he (Mr. Courtney) wondered what would be the feeling of these people when, in the course of a few weeks, they read this paragraph in the Royal Speech and the report of the declaration which the Prime Minister made last night. They would remember how the Prime Minister denounced the annexation of a territory inhabited by a population including some 8,000 male adults, of whom 6,600 signed a protest against annexation. The Boers said—"Here is a great statesman who has taken up our cause, and he may be trusted to help us to regain our independence." That was the feeling which animated them in sending that Address to the right hon. Gentleman. But now they heard something very different from the Royal Speech, and also orally from the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Royal Speech spoke of the diversified population of the Transvaal, and that language must be traced to the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who appeared to have been much struck with the claims upon us of the Natives of that Province. Now, the late Government had expressly repudiated having been actuated at all by a consideration of the interests of the Native population of the Transvaal, but rested the annexation simply on the ground of self-defence. They annexed that country, not because of the sufferings of the Natives, but because its independence was a danger to ourselves. But now that annexation was to be maintained on totally different grounds. The Boers would not be able to understand all that; they were too simple; their minds did not move in such a complex fashion as to comprehend the change which seemed to have occurred. They would ask why it happened that their wrongs, which were made so much of a few months ago, were not even recognized now. And he confessed that he did not know what good answer could be given to that question. There was another point to which he might incidentally call attention. When the Transvaal was annexed, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, the agent in doing it, issued a proclamation containing many statements and promises. He was also at the time in communication with Mr. Burgers, the President of the Transvaal, up to the date of its annexation; and Mr. Burgers produced to him a paper of questions respecting the conditions of the annexation. Sir Theophilus Shepstone answered those questions with as much care as possible, desiring to commit himself as little as he could. But those who read the Proclamation of Annexation, with the conditions attached to it, and also the questions with the answers given, would agree with him at least as far as this—that there was great ground for saying that the Commissioner who annexed the Transvaal did it with the promise and on the condition that the autonomy of the Transvaal should be preserved, with an independent Legislature of its own. Soon afterwards, while the troubles were going on in the Transvaal, our Administrator issued certain police orders which were questioned before the Law Courts there, and the High Judge of the Transvaal delivered a judgment as to the validity of those orders in connection with the conditions on which the Transvaal had been annexed. Many months ago he had asked the right hon. Baronet the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to lay a copy of that judgment on the Table, and he had promised to do so; but it had not yet been produced. The High Judge laid down in his judgment that the Proclamation of Annexation contained within it a condition irrevocably granting to the Transvaal the maintenance of the representative institutions and the autonomy it possessed. The late Government had, however, issued Letters Patent from the Crown depriving the Transvaal altogether of its representative Government. Now, when the Colony of New Grenada was taken by us from the French in the last century, in the act of capitulation promises were made that its liberties should be respected, and that the people should be governed on the same conditions as the other Colonies of Great Britain in the West Indies, and that a representative assembly should, as soon as convenient, be called. Before any such assembly had been called, the Administration there, by an act of its own, made an alteration in the Customs duties of the Island. The validity of that proceeding was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and Lord Mansfield gave the unanimous judgment of that tribunal, which decided that since New Grenada had been taken over under capitulations, promising representative institutions and the same liberties and franchises as were enjoyed by the other West India Colonies of the King, that was an irrevocable abdication of the power of the King, and thereafter no alteration could be made in the constitution of Grenada except by Act of Parliament. It would be a question hereafter whether the issue of Letters Patent he had referred to was not altogether void. There was another difficulty with regard to the design mentioned in the Royal Speech to "extend to the European settlers institutions based on large and liberal principles of self-government," that the moment representative institutions were established, they would pass a unanimous vote repudiating the Imperial authority. If that, then, were the probable condition of the future, he was at a loss to understand the retirement of the Prime Minister from his declarations on this subject in his Mid Lothian campaign. He (Mr. Courtney) was addressing a House which contained a larger number of new Members than any newly elected Parliament since the first Reform Act; and he would ask those new Members whether in their election addresses and speeches—free as they were from all complicity with the last Parliament, or recollections of having been led into the wrong Lobby —they did not denounce the conduct of the late Government in South Africa, and whether they did not feel great embarrassment now they were in this House to find that the grounds to which they appealed for the confidence of the electors was taken away from them by the action of the present Government? They were now asked to support in Parliament that which they condemned and denounced in the country; and their position would be one of extreme embarrassment when they went to make their annual address, unless they could throw a convenient veil of forget fulness over all they had said at the General Election. But more serious than that was what remained. Very few thoughtful Liberals could see the result of the last three elections without great anxiety and concern. He did not like to see these big turn-over majorities; they were unpleasant; they showed great instability in the public mind: but he asked whether they could expect any other result, if they made an appeal to the people on one ground—that of the policy of the existing Government being bad—and, having got into power, forgot all their pledges, and deserted that ground? In 1874 the constituencies deserted the Liberal Party, because they thought the Liberal Government was not acting up to, and was not true to, its principles; and if they had another General Election within the next few years, and if the public found that they had not done in Parliament that which they promised before getting into power, they would find the popular wave which had now borne them to power would leave them stranded high and dry. If so, they would not be able to complain of the mobility of the popular sentiment. The Prime Minister last night lamented that the old Constitutional practice of the existing Ministry meeting a new Parlia- ment and taking a vote on their policy was abandoned, and he (Mr. Courtney) was beginning to share that regret. If the Government had not exercised an act of premature resignation, and had met Parliament, there would have been some necessity for a repetition here of the speeches on the hustings; and as those statements would then be made from one side of the House to the other, it would be difficult to forget, the audience being exactly the same, on the right side of the Speaker what had been said -in Opposition. He was very sorry to have to speak in this way. [Laughter.] He did not understand that laugh. It was no comfort for him to find the old bad policy persisted in.

said, that he would first deal with the question of Confederation. He would admit that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had always been consistent in himself upon the point; but he would remind the hon. Member that for many years the Confederation of South Africa had been an object of desire to statesmen. He would not rake up the embers of controversy by inquiring whether that object had always been pursued wisely; but, whether or not that was so, in the year 1877 Parliament, by very large majorities, affirmed that Confederation was a desirable object, and passed the South Africa Act. After passing the South Africa Act, a considerable period elapsed, which was filled up by the disastrous events which had called so much recent attention to South Africa; but, in the month of June last, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies invited, through the Governor, the attention of the Cape Ministers and Parliament to the subject. A good deal of correspondence followed; but eventually, in the month of January in this year, the Ministers of the Cape Colony themselves proposed that a Conference should be assembled to consider and report upon the practicability of the union of the South African Colonies; and, further, they broached a plan by which they suggested it should be carried out. The late Secretary of State replied, in the month of March, accepting the proposal. That, then, was the position in which the present Government found this matter when it acceded to Office; and it would be seen at a glance that whatever difficulties there might be in the way of Confederation, it could not be said that if we held our hand and adopted an expectative treatment we could be accused of forcing Confederation upon an unwilling1 Colony, especially when the proposal came from the Colony itself, which suggested the means by which Confederation could be brought about. There were forces in the Cape Colony itself which made against, as well as forces which made in favour of Confederation; but Her Majesty's Government certainly did not go in any way beyond what was right and wise if they took no step which could in any way frustrate, or expose to the risk of being frustrated, the project of a Confederation. They wished it well, and awaited events in all hopefulness. With regard to Sir Bartle Frere, they were blamed, and blamed by some of their own friends, for not recalling him; but those who blamed them had not sufficiently clearly before their minds the state of affairs in South Africa. Sir Bartle Frere was no longer exercising those powers in the exercise of which he committed, as those who sat on that side of the House believed, very grave errors. Sir Bartle Frere was exercising other and much less extensive powers, powers in the exercise of which he might, no doubt, commit errors, as all men might, but in which he could by no possibility commit the kind of errors which were attributed to him in the debates of last year. Sir Bartle Frere was engaged in work of an essentially pacific sort, and in work which both sides of the House, with very few exceptions, desired to see accomplished—the union of South Africa in a Confederation by the wish and on the initiative of South Africa. His efforts might fail, though many in South Africa who disliked his Zulu policy were sanguine about the result. The proposed Conference might never meet, or having met, might lead to no settlement; but there was at least a fair chance that the Conference might succeed, and they would indeed be taking a grave responsibility upon themselves if, by removing Sir Bartle Frere at this moment, they sacrificed, as they undoubtedly would sacrifice, this reasonable chance of early Confederation. Besides, what would be gained by the recall of Sir Bartle Frere at this moment? It might be replied that it would emphasise our condemnation of the Zulu War. Well, he thought the condemnation of that war by the Liberal Party and the vast majority of the electorate needed no emphasising. But it was said Sir Bartle Frere deserved to be punished. To that he answered that the object of punishment in civilized States was not vengeance on an individual, but the prevention of mischief; and if the mischief could be effectually prevented without punishment, then punishment was, in Bentham's words, "mere misery in waste." Nor should he be at all prepared to admit that the unhappy Zulu War was so completely the act of Sir Bartle Frere that his recall would be an act of what is called poetical justice. The Zulu War would never have taken place if Sir Bartle Frere had not seen that the doctrines of his school in India, the so-called "forward school," were in favour with some very powerful persons at home, and were supported by a certain amount of noisy opinion. The Zulu War was a mere bastard slip of the Afghan policy; and he thought the justice which had overtaken the authors of that policy at the late Elections was sufficiently poetical to be a warning to all future Governors and Ministers. Sir Bartle Frere had at various periods of his life done very good service to the State in several capacities; and he (Mr. Grant Duff) did not think he was over-sanguine in hoping that, under the auspices of the present Cabinet, whose tendencies were assuredly not in the direction of the faults which were with justice attributed to Sir Bartle Frere's policy in reference to the North-West Frontier of India and Zululand, he might yet do very good service. Coming next to the Transvaal, hon. Members would not, he thought, expect him to go into the question whether that country should or should not have been annexed. The present Government had, of course, to deal with things as it found them, and it found the Transvaal part of the Dominions of Her Majesty. The only question for it to determine was whether it should or should not reverse the policy of its Predecessors as to that country? That policy, however, had been accepted by Parliament and sanctioned by the advice of various prominent politicians on both sides. Nor could they in any way replace the state of things which existed before annexation. That state of things was bad, very bad; but, deplorable as by his own showing was the position of President Burgers in the beginning of 1877, the Government could not re-create in Boer hands even as strong a Government as that over which he presided. What the Boers disliked was, not so much a foreign government, as any government which attempted to exercise authority at all. Supposing the Government were to give back the Transvaal, not only would all the old difficulties revive, but to them would be added the danger of a civil war between English settlers and the Boers. It must be remembered that though the latter were the more numerous, the former were more concentrated and more able to act together. They would, it was highly probable, if the strong hand of the British Government were now removed, refuse to accept Boer ascendency without a struggle, and they would be joined by desperadoes of all sorts from the neighbouring countries. That was not a pleasant prospect, and he would be a rash man who would be responsible for bringing it about. They should remember also that the English settlers would be backed by the moneyed interests throughout South Africa, in so far as it was concerned with the Transvaal. All the merchants who did business with that country, all the persons who had their means invested in landed property there, including probably many of the Boers themselves, would tremble for their fortunes if the country were left to Boer rule. Then, nothing that had occurred would prevent troubles rising once more between the Boers and the Zulus; and though the Zulus were far weaker than they were formerly, yet they were not weak enough to submit for an indefinite time to aggression on the part of the Boers, and such aggression would be inevitable. Further, the Government had to consider the position of those Boers who had been throughout partisans of the English, and whose interests must not be entirely overlooked. The determination of the Government of this country not to give up the Transvaal had been so often and so distinctly asserted, by so many different authorities, in so many different ways, that it would be difficult to recede, even if the old Government could be set up. And there were other things to be considered. There was the feeling of the vast mass of the Native inhabitants of the Trans- vaal, who outnumbered the Boors by much more than 20 to 1, of whom there were, indeed, something like 800,000. It was quite impossible that after what had passed they should be quietly handed back to Boer rule. To do so would be to invite commotion, and would not be just in itself. It must not be forgotten that the Transvaal was a country nearly as large as France; and it was certainly a strong thing to assert that the will of even a considerable majority of the 34,000 Boers, for that was their number, all told, men, women, and children, should be final as to the future of so vast a territory. Under the very difficult circumstances of the case, the plan which seemed likely best to conciliate the interests at once of the Boers, the Natives, and the English population, was that the Transvaal should receive, and receive with promptitude as a portion of a Confederation, the largest possible measure of local liberties that could be granted, and that was the direction in which Her Majesty's present Advisers meant to move both in the Transvaal and in Natal. The Government wished, in short, so far as what had passed would permit, to take up the question of Confederation, so far as it affected the Transvaal, just where President Burgers left it in the remarkable speech which he delivered before annexation, pointing out to his countrymen that their only way out of the frightful calamities in which they were involved was a frank and honourable union with the English. He did not pretend to say that the course which Her Majesty's Government had determined to take would necessarily bring early prosperity to the Transvaal; but he thought there was a reasonable hope that agitation would gradually die out when it was clearly seen that to return to the old state of things was impossible, and the last accounts which had been received were certainly good. The revenue was coming in far better than it did, and altogether matters wore a more cheerful aspect. The hon. Member for Liskeard raised a further question about the validity of the Letters Patent issued with reference to the Transvaal. Ho was, of course, quite at liberty to do so, and it was right that the attention of the House should be called to the subject; but it concerned the late Secretary of State more than the present, and he supposed that, although they might discuss such a question, no authoritative decision could possibly be given upon it, unless it were regularly raised and formally decided by a competent legal tribunal. As at present advised, the Government believed that the high legal authorities who were consulted by their Predecessors were right, and that the Letters Patent were perfectly valid.

said, that the time of the House had been so much taken up at an earlier period in the evening by the discussion of other topics that but little time had been left for the consideration of what was evidently a most important question. Prom the able and conscientious speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard, it was obvious that a new view of the subject had been presented to the House, and upon the questions raised many hon. Members would wish to have the opportunity of speaking. He hoped that the House would not regard him as an obstructive if he asked that a little time might be given for the consideration of the questions raised. He did not think that the debate could be properly concluded on that occasion; and therefore, in order that the great questions before the House might be adequately considered at a future period, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that if there were a disposition on the part of any considerable number of Members to have the debate adjourned in order that further consideration might be given to the subject, the Government would not desire to stand in the way of that feeling. He had not, however, during the course of the evening, been able to observe that there was any great disposition on the part of any section of the House to enter into a much fuller discussion of this subject than had already taken place. The hon. Member who had moved the adjournment of the debate had expressed himself desirous of hearing more upon the subject raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard. It appeared to him that if there were any disposition on the part of the House generally to hear more upon that subject on the present occasion, there would be some manifestation of that feeling. He had not, however, observed any great disposition to pursue the discussion; and he did not think that, under those circumstances, the Government should assent to the adjournment of the debate.

said, that when the hon. Member for Liskeard rose to address the House, four or five hon. Members on the same side also rose. The noble Lord said that he had not observed any great disposition to continue the discussion of this matter. In his opinion, there was a very considerable desire on the part of many Gentlemen who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard. to hear a reply of a somewhat more convincing character than that given by the Under Secretary. There had been a good many recantations on the part of Her Majesty's Government during the short time since the House had re-assembled. When he remembered a speech made upon the very spot on which he was now standing by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, attacking Sir Bartle Frere, and when he remembered the language in which he denounced the conduct of Sir Bartle Frere, he must say that of all the recantations made by Her Majesty's Government this one was by far the greatest, and required a more ample and detailed explanation. He hoped that the noble Lord would not refuse the request of his hon. Friend that the debate should be adjourned. It was then past 12 o'clock, and there was a great deal of Business before the House. The questions to be discussed on the Report of the Address were of so important a character that he trusted the adjournment would be agreed to.

said that, in his opinion, the statements of the hon. Member for Liskeard were deserving of a very serious reply, and they certainly were deserving of a more serious answer than had been already given by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. He did not think that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was either sufficiently full or sufficiently satisfactory. At the same time, even if the debate were adjourned, the Prime Minister would not have an opportunity of speaking, as he had already spoken on the question. That being so, he did not see any reason why the debate should not be concluded then.