of making a statement in regard to this hostility -a kind of personal hostility-on the part of the Government towards the Emperor of Russia," whereupon you rose and said— and on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his Motion. In support of this disclaimer, I would ask leave to refer to the circumstances, which I think will show that, though your ruling me out of Order must be held to be right, and to which neither on the first nor the second occasion did I make the slightest comment or objection, yet neither on the first occasion nor the second could I be reasonably supposed to be aware that I was out of Order, still less that I was disregarding the authority of the Chair. On the first occasion I was speaking on a Motion for Adjournment, and you said, Sir, that the Question raised by me related to a matter on which I had "I am compelled to call the hon. Member to Order a second time, and to pronounce him as having again disregarded the authority of the Chair." Again, Sir, I respectfully submit that although your ruling was and is open to no comment of objection, either then or now, yet your words imply an intentional and deliberate disregard of your authority. The circumstances show that it was All that I did was to ask permission to wholly unintentional and unavoidable. twice previously put a Question in the make a statement, thus showing that, House, and that upon a third occasion, strong as was my desire to make such when I desired to put a Question to the statement, I awaited your permission to do so. same effect, you ruled me out of Order, You, Sir, not only withheld that and you added that I was again repeat-Order for asking it. Whether upon permission, but declared me to be out of ing this breach of Order in attempting Motion of the Chancellor of the ExcheI felt it to be my duty to call attention quer I was, or was not, entitled to speak, to a Motion which may come on herenot presume now to speak; but on this after. That is a question on which I do matter of personal explanation, I trust I have not exceeded the privilege usually exercised by hon. Members in thus disclaiming any intention to disregard your not, in fact, have entertained any such authority, and giving reasons why I could to raise that Question before the House. The Question to which I understood you to refer as having been twice put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether Her Majesty's Government had not separated itself from the other Powers of Europe. I submit with confidence that I could not have anticipated your ruling, Sir, on that point. I had put that Question twice, without receiving any definite reply, and I was stating that fact upon the Motion for Adjournment. In reference to your remark that on a third occasion I put the Question, and was ruled out of Order, I was not aware of that fact, otherwise than that a Question which I intended to put to the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon), which had been printed in the Proceedings of this House, and as to which I had received a letter from the noble Lord, was without my knowledge withdrawn from the Paper. That Question was not the same as my Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as the noble Lord having stated that other European Powers had concurred with Her Majesty's Government in their views as to Russia, I proposed to ask what Powers had so concurred, other than that of the Vatican. Thus called to Order for the first time, I rose again, and asked whether I might be permitted to express my views in the form of a statement in the following words: "Then I will not put the Question, but I will, if I am permitted to do so, take this opportunity Mr. Whalley intention. PARLIAMENT-PRIVILEGE-SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE. the WITHDRAWAL OF AN OFFENSIVE WORD. MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by the indulgence of the House I may be allowed to mention a matter of which I have given formal Notice for Monday-I allude to the subject which I mentioned the other day as one of Privilege. I have this morning received a letter from the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), which in my judgment, and, I hope, in the judgment of the House, will render it unnecessary to attach any more serious importance to the subject than that of the hon. and gallant Member having made a statement which he withdraws. Perhaps I may be allowed to read the note which I have received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman to me. "Logie Elphinstone, August 9. "Dear Sir,-I am indebted to a friend for pointing out a copy of a letter published in a local paper which, it appears, you have addressed The original has not reached me; but I lose no time in thanking you for your kindness and courtesy in deferring action upon the Notice you have given in order to suit my convenience. As the matter has assumed the aspect of a breach of Privilege, I have sent a letter to a friend, who will read it to the House, in which I withdraw the word ruffians,' and I express my regret that I should have applied it to Members of the House." I wish, Sir, to say that, having received this note, so frank and so honourable to the hon. and gallant Member himself, I instantly decided, with your permission, not to proceed with my formal Notice of Motion, and I can say on my own behalf-and though I am not authorized to speak for the hon. Gentlemen around me I am quite sure I may say on theirs -that they most frankly accept the gentlemanlike apology which has been tendered by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, whether I ought not to read a letter which has been addressed to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, with a request that I would read it in the House. He says "Logie Elphinstone, August 9. "My dear Sir Stafford Northcote,-I understand that Mr. Sullivan has given Notice that he will call attention on Friday next to certain passages in a speech I made at the meeting of the Garioch Farmers' Club last Saturday. I also hear that Mr. Speaker has ruled that the word ruffian' which I made use of on that my occasion is a breach of the privileges of the House. This being so, I beg you will offer apology to Mr. Speaker and the House for this infringement of its Rules, and I beg that the House will permit me to withdraw the offensive expression, which, on consideration, I regret having made use of or applied to Members of the House. I remain, yours very faithfully, "J. D. H. ELPHINSTONE." ORDERS OF THE DAY. 19066 TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL. (Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.) [BILL 204.] CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING. Order for Consideration, as amended, read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."-(Mr. Sclater-Booth.) DR. CAMERON, who had a Notice on the Paper to move that the Bill be taken into Consideration that day three months, said, that he did not consider it advisable, after the previous evening's discussion, to occupy the time of the House; but he would take the opportunity of the Motion being on the Paper to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that in future Sessions if the Roads and Bridges question should not be settled, a number of Scotch Members would oppose this Bill in the most determined manner, and protest against the continuance of every Scotch Act included in it, without proper investigation. He would also like to lay before the right hon. Gentleman one suggestion with regard to next year's Roads and Bridges Bill. A modification should be made on the measure, so far as the optional time for the duration of turnpikes was concerned. Ten years was far too long a period. By fighting the expiring Acts, Scotch Members themselves, without the aid of the Government, could succeed in abolishing tolls long before the date in the Roads and Bridges Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reduce the time allowed for carrying out the Act to something like a reasonable period. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might address the House on the subject, if he wished, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice pro formá. MR. M'LAREN seconded the Motion. the word "now," and at the end of the Amendment proposed, to leave out Question to add the words " upon this day three months."-(Dr. Cameron.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am glad my hon. Friend has taken the course he has in only moving his Amendment pro formd, and I can assure him of this -which I hope will satisfy him as to the intentions of the Government-that it would be quite impossible for the Scotch turnpikes to be continued year by year on the footing on which they have remained for the last few years. am not at all sorry to have the opportunity of giving a warning to all parties concerned, that they must not expect that the Bill will be continued for the I those residing in the county of Limerick, where he alleged no people in the world were treated with greater severity, and of Mr. Kinkaird, an extensive land. agent, to the same effect. He reminded the House that the Devon Commission sat in 1843, and examined 200 witnesses; that that Commission described the agricultural labourers as "badly fed, badly clothed, and badly housed," and yet nothing was done to effect an improvement from that hour to the present. The House had allowed 16 years to elapse future. Some settlement must be arrived at. If by any misfortune, which I do not at the present moment anticipate, legislation should be prevented in the course of another year, all these Turnpike Acts will have to be continued only after the greatest possible investigation and a proper understanding upon them. The expiring English Turnpike Acts are subjected to minute inquiry in each particular case. There is no reason why the Scotch Acts should not be treated in the same way. The Bills will not be continued in the way they have-namely, between 1844 and 1860-bebeen done, as a matter of course. I look upon this Bill as practically a temporary Act, because it is the intention of the Government to press forward the Roads and Bridges Bill another year. I hope the statement I have just made will be satisfactory. MR. E. JENKINS asked, what reply the right hon. Gentleman had to make as to the hon. Member for Glasgow's suggestion concerning the 10 years? MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I will consider the subject. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA- fore they took any action on the Report of the Devon Commission. They shortly afterwards, by the hands of Sir William Somerville, Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought in a Bill, and passed an Act by which grants might be made to Irish landlords for the improvement of the labourers' dwellings on their properties; but that concession was hampered with so many restrictions by the Board of Works in Ireland that the Act virtually became a dead letter. After the passing of that Act, Mr. Henry Coulter, who was regarded as an unimpeached and an unimpeachable authority, was sent as a special commissioner for Saunders's News Letter, a Conservative journal, and one of the oldest in the United Kingdom, to investigate the whole subject, and he said that he never saw more wretched, miserable hovels; that the windows were generally without glass, but stuffed with straw, and on the whole constituted a picture of the utmost wretchedness and poverty. So things remained until the introduction of the Land Act in 1870, into which a clause was introduced which would have the effect of giving some relief, but it was struck out by the House of Lords. The then Chief Secretary for Ireland, AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' DWELLnow Lord Carlingford, promised to bring INGS (IRELAND).-OBSERVATIONS. in a Bill during the following Session to MR. CALLAN rose to call attention to remedy the evil thus created, but he was the condition and state of the Dwellings removed to another office, and succeeded of the Agricultural Labourers in Ireland, by the noble Marquess now the Leader and the obstruction to and difficulties of the Opposition. In 1872 that noble placed in the way of carrying out loans Lord promised to bring in a Bill to imfor purposes authorized by the Legisla- prove the Labourers' Dwellings in Ireture by the Board of Public Works, Ireland, but he did not do so. The hon. land. The hon. Member read extracts Member continued to read numerous from evidence given by Mr. William O'Reilly, father of the hon. Member for Longford, describing the wretched dwellings of the labourers in the county of Louth, from that of Mr. Smith as to (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Dyke.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Mr. Assheton Cross extracts to show that there was a large class of persons in Ireland who were badly fed, clothed, and housed, and he complained that, notwithstanding the numerous promises which successive Go vernments had made on the subject, no | endless inquiries into the condition legislative steps had been taken to improve the miserable condition of those unfortunate people. One writer-a Government official--said the habitations -he could not call them houses-were a disgrace to Christianity and a civilized community; and the whole of the evidence showed that the condition of the agricultural labourers was deteriorating, instead of improving, and this was due to a great entent to the miserable cabins in which they had to live. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), the Chief Secretary for Ireland last Session made a statement which led many hon. Members to believe that steps would be taken to remedy the state of the dwellings, but the condition of those habitations were as bad now as at the date when the Report of the Devon Commission was made. Nothing would give so much satisfaction in Ireland as the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of labourers' dwellings, and to devise a remedy on the subject, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not object to the issue of such a Commission. of labourers' dwellings by persons in various positions, and the hon. Member had quoted from the Reports of Commissioners and Inspectors of various dates. He was not of opinion that the result of any such inquiry as that proposed would supply any more information than had been collected, or would be likely to lead to any valuable suggestions. There were two modes in which at present they endeavoured to promote the erection or improvement of labourers' dwellings in Ireland. In the first place, they did so under the Sanitary Laws. The Public Health Acts had been referred to, and, as the House knew, he had proposed the consolidation of these Acts, adding, at the same time, some fresh provisions, to vest in local authorities in rural districts powers, with regard to houses unfit for human habitation, now exercised by town authorities. He was sorry to say that he had not been successful in carrying this measure through; but no facts had been brought under his notice to show that the power of the town authorities in this matter had been unfairly exercised. In some instances, perhaps, they had not interfered where SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH ad- they might have done so with benefit; mitted the great importance of the sub- and the evidence lately given before the ject which the hon. Member for Dundalk Local Government and Taxation in Ire(Mr. Callan) had brought under the atten- land Committee caused him to believe tion of the House; but he was sure that that if the powers vested in the sanitary hon. Member would himself be prepared authorities were more exercised great adto admit its difficulties, for he had vantage would be conferred not only in made no suggestion for improving the respect of labourers' dwellings, but also present system, or removing the evils of of the general health of the localities. which he complained. The condition of The other means by which Parliament labourers' dwellings in Ireland was, no had endeavoured to promote improvedoubt, far from satisfactory. He (Sir ment was by an Act which applied to Michael Hicks-Beach) was, however, Ireland alone, and not to England and justified in repeating the observations Scotland. By that Act landlords could he made last year, that during the last obtain loans on favourable terms for the few years there had been improvements erection of labourers' dwellings. These in Ireland as in other parts of the King-loans were repayable in 22 years by an dom. In many parts of the country, as he had himself seen, mud huts had been replaced by comfortable cottages, built not merely for ornamental lodges or model farms, but for really practical purposes. The hon. Member had suggested that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject, or that the Commission upon the amalgamation of Unions and Workhouses should be empowered to extend the scope of their inquiry in this direction; but there had already been annual payment of 6 per cent. The hon. Member for Dundalk said that that Act had failed, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) agreed it had not been so successful as might be desired, but still it had been utilized to a great extent. The last Report of the Board of Works gave the full number of these loans sanctioned since the passing of the Act as 345, the sum lent being £197,090. That was not a very large total amount; but it was of importance to the subject with which they were dealing, to point out that during the last year £32,100 | old one was condemned and demolished. had been granted out of the total, which He should say that, on the whole, he was was a marked progress as compared satisfied with the assurance that a Comwith former years. The hon. Mem-mittee of the Board of Works would ber had spoken of obstacles thrown in go into the question of labourers' the way of loans by the Board of Works. dwellings. If their precise character were brought under the notice of the Government, in RUSSIA AND TURKEY-THE WAR TION OF CONSTANTINOPLE. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. MR. MONK said, he regretted very much that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declined to answer his Question with reference to the supposition whether, in the event of the occupation of Constantinople by the Russians, it was probable that the friendly relations between England and Russia would be disturbed, made it necessary that he should trespass for a few minutes on the attention of the House. He understood that, in consequence of an agreement come to by the two Front benches, there was to be no debate on the Eastern Question before the Prorogation of Par quiry should be made into them, for he BRITISH INTERESTS - THE OCCUPAwas anxious to make the Act as valuable as possible. His hon. Friend, who had lately been promoted to a high post (Mr. W. H. Smith), undertook that an inquiry should be directed into the organization and working of the Board of Works; and, of course, it would come within the scope of that inquiry to ascertain in what way the powers of the Board of Works under the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Acts had been exercised. He felt sure that any difficulties the hon. Member for Dundalk brought under notice, or any change that could be made consistently with security for the erection of proper dwellings and the repayment of the loans, would be considered. He did not see in what other way, besides these two methods to which he had referred, the House could pro-liament. mote the erection of labourers' dwellings in Ireland. It could do no more than stimulate and assist that private action to which the subject must mainly be left, and enable the local authorities to prohibit the use of bad dwellings. It was not alone in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, that they were met in this matter by the great practical difficulty that the rent which labourers could afford to pay would not cover the cost of erecting good cottages. To meet the difficulty, the Act was passed to enable landlords to build cottages more cheaply, and it did meet the difficulty to some extent. More than that Government could not do; but if the hon. Member would bring to his notice the precise nature of the obstacles alluded to, he would do all in his power to promote the proper action of the law. DR. WARD said, that the Sanitary Acts had been to a great degree inoperative, principally because when dwellings were demolished for sanitary purposes the owners did not replace them by others. As the Chief Secretary desired suggestions, he would propose that in any amendment of the Sanitary Laws the local authority should have the authority to erect a new dwelling when an Sir Michael Hicks-Beach He regretted that decision very much, but he and others acquiesced in it. He thought, however, that he was entitled to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which was very closely connected with the despatches of Lord Derby and Prince Gortchakoff in May last. That question was- -Whether Her Majesty's Government would consider the temporary occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops so far inconsistent with British interests as to disturb the relations of amity between England and Russia? He thought he was justified in putting that Question, because Prince Gortchakoff in his letter of May 30 to Lord Derby, said that the acquisition of Constantinople was excluded from the views of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, and that being the case, it would be satisfactory to the House and the country to know whether Her Majesty's Government, having received that assurance, had that confidence in the Emperor's words that they would not think it necessary to interfere or risk any breach of neutrality, if the Army of the Emperor, by force of circumstances, or by the fortunes of war, were to take possession temporarily of Constantinople. He had not the slightest desire to take any step |