MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; my right hon. and learned Friend will make such a statement as will, I hope, convey such a preliminary knowledge to Members of Parliament in general. for Scotland-and especially the Lord | Home Secretary on the Motion for the Advocate-have been engaged in con- introduction of the Bill? sidering the arrangements to be proposed. Apart from that, I think it will be enough to say in answer to the third Question that there has been no cause of delay except that which is a cause of universal delay-namely, the crowded state of Public Business. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will move on Thursday for leave to bring in a Bill which will contain the proposals of the Government on this subject. MR. DALRYMPLE said, that he had not received an answer to his Question from the Prime Minister. MR. GLADSTONE: I thought, Sir, I had answered the Question of the hon. Gentleman when I said there had been no cause of delay excepting the pressure of Business. The word she has quoted of mine had reference to the immediate intentions of the Government, and had no reference to their permanent intention. They were used in answer to an inquiry as to whether any further change was about to be made at once, and were intended to mean that no further change was contemplated at once. MR. DALRYMPLE: I quoted the words for the purpose of leading up to the Question on the Paper, and there was no reference whatever in my Question to delay. MR. GLADSTONE: I see also the hon. Member asked what will be the functions and arrangements under the new plan "And whether there is any reason for abandoning the custom which had grown up through many years of leaving to the Lord Advocate not only the legal but also the lay or general business of Scotland?" The hon. Gentleman assumes that is to be done, and asks me the reasons for it. That evidently is a matter that will form the substance of the statement which my right hon. Friend will be ready to make when he submits his proposal to the House on Thursday, and I thought the hon. Gentleman would have fully understood that from the answer I made. SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: May I ask whether, considering the curiosity that exists in the minds of people North of the Tweed as to the Business which will be done by the new Scotch Department, a statement will be made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Before the Army Estimates or afterwards? MR. GLADSTONE: No, no; after the Army Estimates. SOUTH AFRICA-THE TRANSVAALTHE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give us the promised information respecting the Special Commissioner to the Transvaal, and state whether the instructions to the Special Commissioner and the despatch with respect to Basutoland will be laid upon the Table of the House? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, when this subject was last mentioned, I stated that since Her Majesty's Government had adopted the decision to advise the despatch of a Commissioner to South Africa, a circumstance had occurred, the nature of which I would explain to-day. It is this. It was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as the right hon. Baronet rightly supposes, to despatch a Special Commissioner to South Africa, and his instructions would have been produced. But almost before I spoke last in this House upon the subject, the Government received a telegram from South Africa, which met or anticipated our proposal, I cannot say which. Whether this message was despatched before any news of our proposal, or intimation of it, had gone out to South Africa or not I cannot say. But it contained a proposal on the part of the Transvaal Government to send representatives here-and probably either the President or Vice President of the Transvaal Government— for the purpose of considering this very same subject. Her Majesty's Government, on reviewing the whole matter, were inclined to think that, in view of all the interests concerned, this, probably, would be the more suitable and the more convenient mode of handling the question. They, therefore, have signified, by recent telegram from the Secretary of State to the officer administering the government of the Cape, that he may inform the Transvaal Government I am giving the substance and not the precise words of the message-that | to South Africa, accepting the proposal, Her Majesty's Government will be quite and we shall propose that it be arranged satisfied to inquire into the working of with all possible despatch. We shall the Convention as it has been tested by be desirous of getting the Commissioners experience, and to receive a deputation here-not only before the present Sesfrom the Transvaal Government, in- sion is terminated, but while it is still cluding the President or the Vice Presi- in full vigour. We shall do our best to dent, in London, at a convenient time that effect, but I cannot say precisely; for that purpose. I think that is, per- and indeed I ought to state that, unforhaps, all the information I have now tunately, there will be a delay of a few to give the right hon. Gentleman. Of days, owing to some accident to the course, no question of instructions arises cable which causes an interruption to under these circumstances, it being in the communication with the Cape. It the recollection of the House that when is hoped, however, that this delay will the Convention was framed the Govern- not be more than three days, but we ment said that, in their opinion, it would cannot say very positively. require to have a term of working in order to ascertain how far it was satisfactory, and they were now perfectly prepared without any foregone conclusion to consider the various provisions of the Convention in the light of the experience which has been afforded. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether the despatch relating to Basutoland will be produced; but with reference to what he has now said, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the deputation is expected to arrive, and whether he will give the precise terms of the telegram received from the Transvaal Government? MR. GLADSTONE: I did not understand the Basutoland despatch to be included in the Question. There was a previous answer given on that subject, which was, I think, that we were not prepared to produce the despatch at the present time, considering that it involved matters of communication with others who were largely independent of us, and there were matters to be considered in the interest of this country, and we did not think the position of this country would be strengthened by producing that despatch at length at this moment. I am not aware of any reason at the present moment why the telegram containing the proposal of the Transvaal Government should not be laid on the Table, and-unless I find that there is any reason, which I do not at present anticipate, why it should not be produced-I will produce it. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: When is the deputation expected? MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say, at the present time, when the deputation will arrive. We have telegraphed out Mr. Gladstone PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. MR. GLADSTONE: I may state, Sir, with reference to the Business of the House, that it is proposed to take the Army Estimates on Thursday next; and I am in a condition to say, as I have ascertained from the authorities, that the Business of the House now permits us to commence, as usual about this time of the year, our regular and principal duties at a quarter-past, instead of halfpast 4 o'clock. It will be requisite on Thursday next also to take certain Votes in Supply to put the Admiralty Department in funds; and we propose on that evening to take the Non-Effective Votes. We shall propose an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and I shall probably be able to name. the day by next Thursday. MR. FLETCHER asked the Secretary of State for War what Votes would be taken on the Army Estimates on Thursday, and whether the Medical and NonEffective Votes would be taken? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, that he found that the Votes that stood next on the Estimates were Votes that would probably cause a considerable amount of discussion, though they were for a comparatively small amount of money. Should the discussion be prolonged, he feared they would scarcely have sufficient funds for the Public Service; therefore he thought the most convenient course on Thursday would be to ask the Committee to proceed to the Commissariat Estimates, and from that point to go through as much of the remaining Estimates as they were able to discuss. He should not propose to | casion when the Army Estimates were take the Medical Vote on Thursday, and under discussion an opportunity would the other Votes he should endeavour to be afforded for discussing the Reserve obtain at as early a day as possible. Vote. The Non-Effective Votes would be taken as they reached them. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, that the noble Lord had stated that he intended to put off the first few Votes of the Army Estimates because they were likely to invite discussion. He wished, therefore, to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering the very serious condition of the Army at the present time, he would name a day on which the House might have a discussion on the Vote for the Reserve? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have said that we shall name as early a day as possible for the discussion of the remaining Votes. I think, however, the hon. and gallant Member must have forgotten that we have already had a discussion of very considerable length with respect to recruiting in the Army, and that the intentions of the Government have been announced. I do not think it would be for the convenience of the Public Service that there should be any further discussion. I quite admit, however, that a convenient opportunity should be afforded for the Medical and Reserve Votes. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he had asked the noble Lord privately when this Vote would come on, and he told him distinctly it would come on on Thursday. It was a matter of very great moment to this country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to care an atom what became of the Army. [Cries of Order!"] MR. SPEAKER said, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that he was not at liberty to debate the subject. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he must press the Prime Minister for an answer as to whether they could not have some assurance that the discussion should take place within a reasonable time? COLONEL ALEXANDER said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he begged to remind the noble Marquess that in the answer he gave to the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) on the 1st of June, he distinctly stated that upon the next oc MR. GLADSTONE said, that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War had already indicated that an early day would be afforded for the discussion. MR. W. H. SMITH said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that on Thursday he would make an announcement as to the day on which the Naval Estimates would be taken, and he would also like to ask him if he would, at the same time, be able to say when he would take the Vote for the Irish Land Commission, on which there would probably be considerable discussion ? MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that on Thursday or Friday he hoped to be able to fix a day for the Naval Estimates. With regard to the Vote for the Land Commission, they should have regard to the possibility of discussion upon it; but he did not think he should be able to fix the date so soon as Thursday or Friday. MR. GORST asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he would undertake that the Vote for the Transvaal Commissioner would not be brought forward until he had announced the intention of the Government on the subject? MR. GLADSTONE said, the best answer he could give at the present stage of affairs would be to say they would consult the general convenience of the House with regard to taking this Vote. He thought they ought first to endeavour to obtain information as to the period of the arrival of the Transvaal Commissioners in this country. THE SUEZ CANAL-A PARALLEL CANAL. MR.W.M.TORRENS asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have authorised any person or persons to propose any, and, if any, what arrangement to the Suez Canal Company, or to any person or persons representing, or purporting to represent, that Company with reference to meeting the complaints of the British shipowners, as expressed to Her Majesty's Government at their interview with Lord Granville last month? MR. CARTWRIGHT asked the Under | ments, a trial will be allowed to each of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the competing exhibitors? Whether the statement reported to have been made by M. de Lesseps is correct, that perfect harmony exists between the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government and the Suez Canal Company for the erection of a new parallel Company? MR. GLADSTONE: The Government, Sir, through their representative Commissioners, the members of the Board of the Suez Canal Company, have entered pretty largely into what I may call a comparison of views with regard to all the questions which this important subject embraces. That, of course, has gone on at Paris with M. de Lesseps and the other Directors of the Company. There is a great harmony of view on particular points that have been opened; but there are other points of great importance also, especially concerning the amount and time for reduction of rates in the Canal, with regard to which unity of view has not yet been arrived at. It would not be expedient, in our opinion, that we should make any public statement at the present time. The state of affairs we have reached does not permit it. The House will remember that on a former occasion I expressed a great desire on the part of the Government to MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed, Sir, by the Secretary to the Lighthouse Illuminants' Committee that it is not true that such a suggestion as the hon. Member refers to was made by Sir James Douglass. The Question is altogether founded on a misapprehension of facts. What has been under the consideration of the Committee is the order in which the experiments should be made, and the Committee have decided that they would commence by comparative tests with two centres of light, going on afterwards, if necessary, to similar tests with three or more tiers of light. POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) MR. M'COAN asked, Whether the Government would facilitate the progress of the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, which, with an Amendment on Clause 4, had received general acceptance, although it had been blocked by the hon. Members for Bridport and Roscommon? MR. TREVELYAN said, the Government would place the Amendment on the Paper, so that it might be printed in Thursday's Papers. As to the progress of the Bill, he only saw one block -that of the hon. and learned Member have the assistance which could be rendered to us by the information and ex- for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The Governperience of the commercial community ment were anxious to facilitate the probefore we arrived at any binding agree.gress of the Bill, but preference must ment on the subject; and I am able to be given to the Irish Labourers' Bill. say that, before we do arrive at any such agreement, we shall be prepared to make a full public announcement of our views to Parliament. LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS' COM MITTEE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. BARON HENRY DE WORMS asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it be true that, at the suggestion of Sir James Douglass, one of the competing exhibitors before the Lighthouse Committee, Mr. Wigham, another exhibitor, has been restrained from using more than two tiers of super posed lenses; whether the reason alleged for this was that the present experiments are tentative; whether the Board of Trade has not provided the money for final and not tentative experiments; and, whether, before the close of the experi ORDER OF THE DAY. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COR. (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Bill considered in Committee. Clause 5 (Punishment of person convicted on indictment of corrupt practices.) MR. BIGGAR moved to insert, in page 2, line 31, before the word "per sonation," the words "undue influence or." It seemed to him that the great evil which ran all through the Bill, so far as he could see, was the very slight distinction which was drawn between very great offences and very venial ones. Undue influence and treating seemed to be regarded by the Bill in very much the same light as personation and bribery. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."-(Mr. Biggar.) MR. LEWIS wished to draw the attention of the Committee, in a very few words, to the very great alteration which was made by this clause. At the present time, if a man was guilty of bribery he was subject to one punishment; if guilty of treating, to another; and if guilty of the exercise of undue influence to another. The difference between the three was considerable. But now it was proposed, by this clause, to put all three offences into the same scale; and, although his own Amendment was not now before the Committee, he just wished, by way of illustration, to point out the very great alteration that was made in this section with reference to treating. At the present time, treating, when done by strangers, and not by the candidate, was a very small offence, and was punishable only with a fine; but it was now proposed to include it in the wide definition of corrupt practices, all of which practices were to be subjected to one maximum of punishment. He would not now refer to the very heavy character of that punishment, as he should have a few words to offer on the subject when they came to deal with the question of hard labour; but what he wanted to draw attention to was the importance of keeping a distinction between things that were essentially different, such as treating, undue influence, and bribery. He would not now say what he should have to say when his own Amendment came to be discussed; but he was speaking in the sense of his own Amendment. It was important to follow out what the Attorney General had already done in previous matters, so as to recognize the distinction that existed between the several classes of corrupt practices. MR. RYLANDS said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend, believing that the adoption of such a principle would only weaken the hands of a candidate who was anxious to put a stop to these practices. The effect of arming the law with a severe punishment for such offences would, he hoped, tend to make men more careful as to how they indulged in such practices; and that would strengthen the hands of candidates who really desired to carry on elections in a pure and satisfactory manner. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he thought a distinction ought to be made in the case of treating; but he was glad to see a levelling up of the punishment for bribery, as one year's imprisonment for wholesale bribery was a great deal too little. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he was anxious to add a word, as the Attorney General was going to resist this Amendment. He quite sympathized with the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). The Attorney General had, unfortunately, in spite of the very strong protests of the Irish Members, still left spiritual influence as one of the matters which would invalidate an election; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been rather astonished to find that some of the most pronounced Ministerial journals in the country had taken up the view advocated by the Irish Members, and had opposed the view maintained by the Government. However, the point for which the Irish Members contended would be much better raised upon a subsequent Amendment; and he would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan not to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the present proposal. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) wished to point out that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that the two offences dealt with would go without any punishment at all. He did not think that two such corrupt practices should be left out of the category altogether. MR. BIGGAR said, that in response to the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) he would not take a division upon the Amendment; but he still felt strongly, in spite of the observations of the Attorney General, that these four separate offences should not be included in the same category. The Amendment might, [Ninth Night.] |