Commons Sitting of 13 June 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties, Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Stephen Cave added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Building Societies (No. 3)*.
Committee—Rating (Liability and Value) [146]—R.P.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Notice which stands upon the Paper in his name for Tuesday in reference to the Elementary Education Act?
  MR. DIXONsaid, it was not his intention; but on the second reading of the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, he should move as an Amendment—
  "That no Amendment of this Bill will be satisfactory that does not make attendance of the children at the schools, and the formation of School Boards compulsory throughout England and Wales, and that does not remove the objections generally entertained to the 25th clause of the Elementary Education Act."

  ARMY—THE MILITIA—GENERAL ORDERS, No. 52, 1872.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL CORBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will reconsider the Regulation issued with the General Orders for Militia, No. 52, of 1872, which requires that all officers of Militia who are nominated for commissions in the Line shall have attained the necessary age on May 1st of the year in. which they are recommended, as fixing that particular day is calculated to act unfairly towards those who happen to have been born in one of the months nearly following that date; and, whether it would not be sufficient for the required age to be attained at the time when the officer is recommended?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the question was very fully considered, and it was determined that, as the time at which the Militia regiments are called out varies very much, it would not be fair to fix the time at which the officer might be recommended, and that the only fair way was to fix a day in the course of the training season; the 1st of May was accordingly appointed, and cannot now be altered.

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA—NAVAL REVIEW AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If any arrangements are in contemplation to give the Members of this House an opportunity of witnessing the assemblage of ships at Spithead, on the occasion of the visit of His Majesty the Shah to Portsmouth?
  MR. GOSCHENin reply, said, that no arrangements for special trains, special luncheons, or special ships for the Members of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons, or of any of the large public bodies were in contemplation for the occasion to which the Question referred. Every facility would, however, be given to Members of either House of Parliament who desired to be present at it to witness the review.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked on what day the review would be held?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, there would be an inspection of ships by the Shah on the 23rd instant, and the assemblage of vessels would remain at Portsmouth a certain number of days, in order that the public who might be desirous of witnessing the interesting spectacle might have an opportunity of doing so.
  MR. YORKE: Will no vessels be available for Members of the Houses of Parliament except those for the service of the public generally?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had not said so; but on the contrary, if he knew that a large number of the Members of the Houses of Parliament were anxious to see the review, they would do their best to afford them every possible facility. But the Government did not contemplate any arrangements on the scale of those which were made on the occasion of the Sultan's visit to Portsmouth, when special trains, the splendid vessels belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and other ships, were engaged by the Government for the day, and 2,500 tickets distributed.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he hoped that, as the expense of entertaining Members of the Legislature on the 23rd, would seem to be thrown by the Government on the officers of the ships, no hon. Member of that House would think it right to avail himself of their hospitality.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that would not be the effect of the arrangements they would make.

ARMY—VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether those Adjutants of the Volunteer Force who were Field Officers in the Army when they were appointed, will be recommended for the step of honorary rank on retirement, according to the principle upon which Adjutants who hold the rank of Captain enjoy that privilege?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, an adjutant, of whatever army rank, serves in the Volunteers as Captain. His Volunteer service, therefore, giving him on retirement a step of honorary rank, it gives him the honorary rank of Major. If a field officer of the Army becomes an adjutant of Volunteers, that service can give him no claim to a step of honorary rank for Army service.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL. [BILL 146].
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hibbert.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (Preliminary.)
  Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
  MR. STANSFELD,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 8, after "Ireland," to insert "save as is in this Act otherwise expressly provided," said, it was intended by it, to extend, as far as possible, the provisions of the Bill with respect to the rating of Government property to Scotland and Ireland.
  MR. CRAUFURDthanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for having accepted his (Mr. Craufurd's) suggestion, to extend the operation of the Bill, and and also of the one which followed, to Scotland. He was absent from the House on Wednesday last, when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke upon the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill and he wished

  911
  now to correct a misapprehension under which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to labour—namely, that he (Mr. Craufurd) had intended that his Amendment should apply to the Bills now under discussion. He had done nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he had expressly stated that he did not intend it to apply to them, and if he thought it would have such an effect he would not have proposed it.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was surprised that such a serious Amendment had been so suddenly produced. With reference to a statement made in a former debate, to the effect that the use of the Crown property in the parish of Canongate was larger than all the rest of the parish, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought it was desirable that the Committee should have some information as to the extent of Government property in England and Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would receive from the right hon. Gentleman some statements as to the distribution of Government property in different parts of the country, so that some idea might be formed as to the amount of money that would have to be voted annually for the purpose of paying the rate to be levied on such property.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had misunderstood the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), who spoke only of the area of the parish, and not of its rental. The Crown property referred to was the Queen's Park, let as a grazing farm at about £800 a-year; whereas the rental of the rest of the parish, crowded as it was with houses, must exceed £40,000 he should think, although he had not the figures before him. The effect of the Bill would be to relieve the grazing land of the taxation, while that on the property, to the value of £40,000, would continue to pay the same rates as here to fore.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to know whether the only part of this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated applying to Ireland was Part 2, which related to Government property?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that it was his intention to apply Part 2 only of the Bill to Ireland. He was not prepared to commit himself to a statement of the value of all the Government pro-
  912
  perty in the different areas of the country; but if the hon. Member for North Hants wished to ascertain exactly the distribution, he had better move for a Return on the subject.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Abolition of Exemptions.
  Clause 3 (Extension of Poor Rate Acts to other property.)
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONobserved that the recital of the Poor Law Act was incorrect and should be altered, and with that view, he would move as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after "taxation of," to insert "every inhabitant and of."
  MR. HIBBERTthought there was force in the objection, but that the proposed Amendment would not effect the desired purpose.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made, to insert the words "amongst others," after "taxation of."
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON,with the object of asserting that liability to rating should not be limited to real property, rose to move as an Amendment, the insertion, in line 17, after "said Act," of the words—
  "And further, at the same time, to provide for bringing into contribution, in aid of the various local burdens now levied under the poor rate, income arising from personal property which is now exempt from such contribution."
  He said, it was not his object to get real property exempted; but what he sought to do was to make all other realized property and the wealth of the country share the liability to rating, and to take from it the special exemption which now belonged to it. He complained that the Bill did not touch this part of the question.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that this Bill was the first of several steps which the Government had proposed to take.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister spoke of that as the first step, one might hope that it was the first step in the right direction, and that it would be followed by others. As an authority in favour of the principles of his Amendment, he would first refer to a former Bill of the present Govern-

  913
  ment, which had been described as a Bill of shreds and patches, and which did not get beyond the fringe of the subject, and next to the Resolution recently carried by a majority of 100 on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) which distinctly recognized the hardship and injustice of the taxation of one description of property. So far, however, from doing anything to give effect to that Motion, the Bill made matters worse; and they were so bad, that the country felt they could not be tolerated much longer. In fact, the Bill would afford no relief to towns, which did not contain Government property, mines, or rights of shooting. A Select Committee of the House of Lords, also consisting of 23 Peers, which sat in 1850, reported strongly in favour of the rating of personal property; but no attention had been paid to their Report. The debate of last Tuesday, which came by surprise on the Opposition, was significant in its result, and the conduct of the hon. Member for South Wilts, who had placed a Notice on the Paper for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, and who had abandoned that Notice at the eleventh hour, and was not even present to explain his conduct, reminded him of the sketch which showed the legs of Lord John Russell as he ran round a corner after he had chalked up the words "No Popery." The division, too, on that occasion sufficiently marked the sense of the House; the minority of 30 only showed that the feeling in favour of rating personal property was rapidly growing; and the debate fully effected its object, although the Amendment was defeated. He voted for it chiefly as a protest against the Government Bill not dealing with the question of personal property at all; and the debate with such a division was a more useful result than it would have been to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and so shelve it for the Session. While the Bill, as it stood, unsettled much, it settled nothing. It raised conflicting interests without doing any corresponding good, and there could be no adjustment of local burdens while personal wealth paid no contribution to them. This Amendment would afford an opportunity to the Government to state what their intentions were; and the announcement of those intentions would be welcomed if they were in the
  914
  right direction. As it stood, however, the Bill could not give satisfaction, either here or in the country. He did not think there was any difficulty in the rating of personal property; but, if it were once admitted that justice demanded the rating of personal property, there would be a much greater chance of arriving at a practicable mode of giving effect to the principle. It was not for him to devise the mode of doing it; but, of course, the income from personal property furnished the only means of touching it. He did not see why a man having £20,000 in the Funds should not be taxed equally with the owner of £20,000 in land with regard to the local taxation of his neighbourhood. The late Mr. Crawshay, the Welsh ironmaster, died worth £800,000 in the Funds, which would produce an income of from £28,000 to £30,000 a-year, and yet in respect of that income he did not contribute 6d. towards the burdens of local taxation. It was impossible to justify that while a man with an equal amount of property in land paid 3s. or 4s. in the pound in local rates; for, of course, the man whose income was derived from the Funds had as much interest in the maintenance of law and order, and of police and sanitary arrangements, as the owner of house property and of land. It might be said that the original Act for the creation of funded property exempted that kind of property from taxation. He looked into the Act, and found that the words were—
  "And, moreover, no money so lent upon security of this Act shall be rated or assessed by virtue of this Act.'
  Those words did not, in his opinion, boar the construction which had been put on them by some persons, and referred to the capital and not to the income of funded wealth. The Funds were now made liable to income tax, and if they were further made liable to rates in aid of expenses for local and Imperial purposes, it would be quite consistent with the original Act of William and Mary and with the Act for the imposition of the income tax. If the licences which were locally collected, such as the dog, horse, gun, and carriage licences, were locally allocated, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make personal wealth contribute to supply the deficiency thus

  915
  created in the Imperial Exchequer, it would be a fair way of meeting the difficulty, and would be less liable to objection than taking a lump sum from the Consolidated Fund, part of which was drawn from Ireland and Scotland. He entirely approved the provision in the Bill to exempt stock-in-trade. The class of property which he wished to see taxed was that enormous mass of personal wealth in this country which was free from local burdens, and in conformity with that view, Schedule C and that portion of Schedule D which contributed to Imperial taxation, but not in any degree to local taxation, was the portion which he wished should be made to contribute to the relief of local burdens. He regretted not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his place, because he desired to read an extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, which bore directly on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the exemption of Ireland from income tax, said—
  "Let me remind the Committee what exemption means. It does not mean that we have got a bottomless purse, and that we can dispense exemptions to one man without injuring another; no, Sir, the exemption of one man means the extra taxation of another—and the exemption of one country" (for one country here let them read one class) "means the extra taxation of another."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 1393.]
  Those were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman in 1853, and there could not be a stronger corroboration of the argument which he (Sir George Jenkinson) had ventured to advance. He maintained that the exemption of one class was a gross injustice which ought to be amended without delay. When the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) moved his Resolution last year, it was said that those who supported it, came begging to the House. He denied the accuracy of that expression, unless to demand justice was to beg; but if it was so for whom was he begging? He was not begging for his own class, nor for those who were able to come to that House and ask justice for themselves; he was begging for that class of ratepayers in town and country whose lot in life was one of toil and privation, as against those whose life was one of ease, affluence, and luxury. He, therefore, hoped hon. Gen-
  916
  tlemen opposite would give due consideration to this question, without regarding it as one of party, for it was really a question of the claims of the poorer people of this country upon the enormous mass of wealth which was entirely untouched for the relief of the poor. It was a question which was growing in importance day by day, and if this Parliament would not deal liberally and honourably by it, they would have to answer for their neglect at the general election. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  LORD HENLEYrose to explain why, having voted in the majority last year, he could not give his support to the Amendment. While, as a rule, in favour of taxing personal property, yet in this case he did not see how it could be effected with regard to justice, seeing that the owner of property in the Funds was already taxed as respected the general taxation of this country by the income tax. His object, however, in voting with the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) last year was to show that the subject was one which needed consideration, and that it had not had fair consideration from the Government; but he thought the House had hardly considered it sufficiently to enable them to vote for so strong an Amendment as that being added to a clause in a Bill which, so far as it went, was a good Bill. Whether the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon was keeping silence because he thought the subject was now receiving due consideration he did not know; but he was opposed to the Amendment because it did not touch the main subject, and because it was sufficiently large and important in itself to be a proper question for a Select Committee another Session. The hon. Member for Liverpool had mentioned that the rates in that town were 6s. in the pound; and the immense importance of the subject was forced upon his attention the other day, when in going through the accounts of the town of Northampton he found that the rates there amounted to 7s. 6d. in the pound. Why, a great outcry was made in that House if an additional 1d. upon the income tax was proposed; but in that case the rate fell upon the ratepayers, not by pence, or even by shillings, but by half-crowns. Here were three

  917
  half-crowns which fell upon the people of Northampton, with the exception of those who lived in very small tenements. That was an enormous species of taxation which required the grave attention of every statesman. He held that property in towns should pay such rates as enhanced its value—for instance, rates for paving, lighting, and sewerage; but it was not at all fair that rates for the poor, for justice, and police should be borne by the inhabitants without aid from the State. He thought the House ought not in its present position to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson). They had not sufficiently considered the subject to enable them to vote for such an Amendment, and for his own part he should vote against it.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I rejoice that the hon. Member for North Wilts (Sir George Jenkinson) has called the attention of the House to a subject which has not been fairly considered since the year 1850, when the Committee of the House of Lords reported on local taxation. After all, what is the main intention of the Bill before the House? It is a Bill to abolish exemptions from rating. The Government deserve some credit for their intention of considering the abolition of the exemption of Government property from rating. It may also be right that the House should consider the assessment of woods. There will be some difficulty on that subject; for, on counting the rings in the grain of an oak tree, marking its age, I found 230; so that oak tree must have stood for 230 years, at least; and it will need rather an abstruse calculation to ascertain, how the £12 or £15 that tree, when felled, is worth, ought to have been distributed in the rates over so long a period. There are, however, no limits to the power of calculation, and perhaps that difficulty may be overcome. But there are other difficulties, even in the small adventure of this Bill. It has always been considered unjust to require the royalty of a mine to be assessed as rent, seeing that this royalty represents the sale of a certain portion of the property, from which it is taken, whereas rent only represents the annual return from the land generally, and from the application of capital to the improvement of its surface. I am glad that even these small exemptions are to be dealt
  918
  with by the Committee. But there remains the great exemption altogether untouched—the exemption of the means of those who do not occupy real property, or rather only occupy some insignificant portion of real property, as do lodgers in a house. Now, I hold that the principle of the Act of Elizabeth was just, which enacted, that every man should be rated according to his means, for such national objects as the provision for the relief of the poor and the administration of justice. I quite agree with the noble Lord the Member for Northampton (Lord Henley), that rates levied and expended only for the improvement or lighting of towns, for the immediate convenience of the inhabitants of those towns, ought to be separated from the rates levied for general and national objects, such as the poor rate, the police rate, and the rate for lunatic asylums. It would be unfair, however, to confuse, in dealing with questions of rating, rates which are laid purely for the local convenience of certain towns, for the mere convenience of their inhabitants, with rates levied and expended for national objects; but I cannot consider that the exemption of personal property from contributing towards national objects is in any degree just. I believe the principle of the Act of Elizabeth, that every man should be rated according to his means, to be the true principle of taxation. Well, Sir, it so happens that I have been inquiring in the library of the House whether it contains any account of the taxation and of the local taxation of the United States of America, and I find that the library is destitute of any information on the subject. But the librarian kindly placed in my hand a pamphlet published for private circulation by the Cobden Club, and printed at Manchester, which can only be obtained on application to some member of the Cobden Club. Now, whatever I may think of the conclusion at which the Commissioners of the City of New York have arrived, as shown by that pamphlet—whatever I may think of the opinions of the Cobden Club, they deserve credit for collecting these statistics and this information, and I cannot help feeling that the House of Commons ought to be in possession of the information to which I have alluded with respect to local taxation in the United States. This infor-

  919
  mation is, it appears, at present confined to the members of the Cobden Club. They only have, since 1871, been in possession of detailed information of the manner and extent in which personal property has always been liable to local taxation in the United States. Now, let the House observe the narrow ground on which the question is treated by this Bill. In the United States, by their constitution, the Federal Government cannot, except in cases of emergency, impose direct taxation on property. The privilege and duty of imposing direct taxation for ordinary purposes has been exclusively discharged by the State Governments. That was the original and constitutional form of taxation in this country, and it remains to a certain degree yet in Scotland. And I believe that to be the sound system of taxation; and yet the financial arrangements of this country have been so conducted during the last 22 years that, while in the Customs duties alone, the House has sanctioned the abandonment of £14,000,000 of revenue, during the whole of the same period they have continued the direct taxation, through the property and income tax, in substitution of the indirect taxation in a great measure levied on luxuries, which has been abandoned. In the United States every species of personal property is taxed for State, that is, for local purposes. They tax mortgages, they tax securities, they tax furniture, they tax every kind of moveable property; and, although the members of the Cobden Club disapprove of that system of taxation, in expressing their disapproval they give us the fact, that in every State of the United States, except Pennsylvania, every kind of property, whether real or personal, is taxed, and even in Pennsylvania, personal property is not altogether exempt from local contribution. Here, in England, we have an income tax locally assessed and locally levied; but instead of its produce being applied to local objects, it goes entirely into the Imperial Exchequer. Common sense sanctions the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts. If personal property is locally assessed and locally taxed, why should not some portion of that taxation be locally applied, as it is in the United States, and in several Continental countries? I may be told that this is a difficult and a large
  920
  subject with which the House ought not at present to deal. But I ask, why, then, have the Government entered upon this large and difficult subject if they are not prepared to deal with it properly? Why do they propose to abolish these paltry exemptions from rating—paltry, I say, when compared with the great exemption of personal property—compared with this gigantic exemption, how paltry are the exemptions of game, of the right of sporting, of timber, and even of Government property? If we are to deal with the exemption of any property, from contributing to those national objects, which are accomplished by local taxation, let us, I say, deal with the whole of it; for, unless you consider the subject of exemptions as a whole, the probability is that you will do injustice. Looking to these circumstances, if the Government will not undertake to deal with the whole subject of exemptions from rating, I shall vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he believed the present proposal to be utterly opposed to public feeling. It was for the interest of the owners of real property in every country that they should take upon themselves the burden of taxation and to relieve personal property, to relieve the muscle and brain of the country. It was for the interest of the country that every kind of personal property should be free from rating, because it was from that that the landlords real property resulted. By the Act of Elizabeth, stock-in-trade was allowed to be taxed; but the common sense of the people admitted that it would be madness to impose such a tax on personal property of that description; and though the municipal councils of the country had had the power of taxing stock-in-trade for more than three centuries, it was a power which had never been enforced.
  MR. YORKEthought the Committee were indebted to the hon. Baronet who had moved the Amendment (Sir George Jenkinson), although he could not agree in all its details. He wished also to say that he did not think those were correct who supposed that the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) approved the course which the Government were taking in reference to the subject of local taxation. The large majority of the House

  921
  were, he believed, in favour of having some contributions made from personal property to local taxation; but there were difficulties in doing so, which were not to be met by an octroi or by means of the machinery of the income tax. Various other schemes had been suggested for the purpose, and the subject had been very well treated in a small pamphlet which had been published by Captain Craigie, the substance of which was delivered in the shape of a lecture at the Social Science Congress at Plymouth last year. It referred to a system which prevailed in Scotland with respect to the classification of rates, and by which many of the difficulties connected with the question were seen to be obviated. He looked on the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, that the licences and horse and carriage duty should go to the maintenance of the roads, as a very valuable one; and those who objected to public-houses might also allow the public-house licences to be applied to the relief of the poor, inasmuch as they looked upon those houses as the origin of their misery. Some again, were of opinion that it could be done by utilizing the machinery of the income tax; but he did not agree with this, because the working classes would be allowed to escape altogether. Moreover, he did not himself think it would be desirable to have recourse to the income tax machinery, as that was not at the present time the most popular impost, and it was, moreover, regarded by large numbers of people as temporary in its nature. Many other suggestions had been made; but he considered they could not do better than fall back upon the Resolution carried by a majority of 100 last year. The best possible solution, after all, was that of the hon. Member for South Devon, and if the administration of justice, the expenses of the police and of lunatics were provided for out of Imperial funds, the best solution of the question would probably have been attained. Now, although he did not entirely approve the Amendment, he should vote for it as a protest against the course which the Government had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in answer to a Question which had been put to him last year by the hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. St. Aubyn), stated on the subject of local taxation, that, with-
  922
  out going into detail, the Government, in dealing with the question, would look very much to the following points:—1st, to the introduction of the representative principle into local institutions, where that principle did not already obtain; 2nd, to equality and justice as between landlords and occupiers of the soil; 3rd, to equality as between the various classes of the community, in respect to the aggregate contributions they made to the public burdens; 4th, to the general revising of public ministration, so that no charges should be imposed or maintained which might be avoided or reduced; and lastly, that nothing should be done to weaken the invaluable principles of local self-government and local self-control which were among the main securities of the institutions of the country. He could not see in the Bills before the House what the right hon. Gentleman had done to give effect to those promises, and he wished by his vote to mark his sense of the manner in which the Government had acted in reference to the subject.
  SIR HENRY HOAREfelt himself bound in consistency, as he had supported the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), to vote for the Amendment on the present occasion.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts had done good service in bringing forward the question. He wished, however, before he committed himself by voting upon the Amendment, to understand what was its purport. It declared that personal property which was now exempt from taxation ought to contribute; but if that meant that we were to have an increased income tax, he was not prepared to support it. In the case of burdens imposed by that House for Imperial purposes, and for the general benefit of the country, he thought that the Imperial resources should bear their share; but he was not prepared to vote for an Amendment which might mean something that he did not intend. Under these circumstances, he was unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. DODSONthought that if the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts went to a division, he would show rather the simplicity of the dove than the wisdom of the serpent, because

  923
  such a division would have the effect of weakening the Resolution that was arrived at last year. What appearance would a division on the present occasion present to the public outside. What those who supported the Resolution of last year complained of was, that local burdens fell only on two kinds of property, when they should fall upon all kinds; but how could they complain of the present Bill on that ground when, by assenting to the Budget, they had put it out of the power of the Government that year to give any relief from the contributions of personalty? The present Bill would tax wood, game, and great houses in the country; and hon. Members should be careful how they conveyed to the ratepayers the impression that they wished to prevent property of this kind contributing to local burdens.
  MR. CORRANCEthought the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts had succeeded by his Amendment in introducing a very large issue into a very small Bill; but that he was to be congratulated to this extent, that he had shown many cases amounting to great hardship and injustice with respect to the subject of rating. However, after the admissions which the Government had made, he (Mr. Corrance) should support the Bill, and hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. HIBBERTdrew attention to this—that the Amendment pointed to no means of carrying out the principle which was embodied in it; and that, if the proposition were carried, it would be necessary that they should have something more—like the transfer of the licence duty, for instance—before effect could be given to it. [Sir GEORGE JENKINSON: Yes.] But the hon. Baronet had shown no method by which they could bring personal property to contribute to local rates. In fact, the line suggested by the hon. Baronet for obtaining relief from local taxation did not seem to be favoured by the House generally, who were rather in favour of the mode of relief indicated in the Resolution of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). That was not the first proposal which had been made to rate personal property; but all such attempts had been found ineffectual, and one evidence of
  924
  that was afforded, by the Act passed from year to year, exempting stock-in-trade from rating. It had been expressly decided that money lent upon interest, salaries, and many other kinds of personal property were not subject to rates, and, as Sir George Lewis said, the rate ability of personal property in England, though theoretically sanctioned by law, was practically a new question. In Sunderland, under a local Act, there was power to rate personal property, including shipping; but the difficulty of carrying out the Act was so great, that the authorities had almost ceased to put it in operation, and he believed they would be glad to get rid of this power of rating. Parliament would find the same difficulties in enforcing the Amendment. Many years ago stock-in-trade was rated in a part of the West of England, and the result was, that it drove capital away from the cloth district. It might be said that no such result would follow, if the same law were carried out everywhere. But when and how would it be enforced? Take the case of a grocer. Would the assessment be made when his cellars were full or empty? Or in the case of a wealthy fundholder, having seats in the country and a town residence, where would you assess him? Even with the greatest desire on the part of the House to rate personalty, he believed the difficulties of doing so would be found insuperable. The Government had brought before the House their plan. They said this was only one step in the direction they proposed to take. They meant to deal with the question of local taxation, but first wished to pass the Bills now before the House; and those who desired to support the proposals of the hon. Member for South Devon should help to pass these Bills during the present Session.
  MR. CRAUFURDbegged the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion to a division, because if he did so, he would imperil that which they had at heart. They had obtained very considerable support in the House in the direction of his object; but he was satisfied that if he pressed the Motion to a division on the present occasion, many of his Friends would have to leave the House without voting for it.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he concurred in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd).

  925
  His hon. Friend (Sir George Jenkinson) had done good service in raising what had proved a valuable discussion, but he hoped he would be contented with that result. The Government proposals had made the exemption now attached to personal property more invidious; but he confessed he had never been able to see how personal property was to be assessed, and he certainly was no advocate for rating stock-in-trade. He was inclined to think that the mode which he had proposed for obtaining relief from local taxation was the best mode, and would grow in favour with the House and the country.
  MR. DISRAELIjoined with those who had urged the hon. Member for North Wilts not to divide the Committee. The labours of the hon. Member in impressing upon the House the necessity of determining upon the liability of personal property to local taxation were worthy of all praise, and he entirely agreed that the House must come to some permanent resolution upon the subject; but the mode of enforcing that liability should be left to a responsible Government. An opposition could only suggest the principle they thought best, and illustrate by instances the injustice of not recognizing this principle. The debate had been very advantageous to the general principle which the hon. Member for North Wilts wished to substantiate; and it was only fair to him to remind the Committee that he had distinctly stated he never contemplated the rating of stock-in-trade. He apprehended that the justice of there being some contribution from personal property in some form would soon be recognized by Parliament, and among those who had laboured successfully to accomplish that object the hon. Baronet's right to be considered one would be acknowledged. At the same time, he thought that, for practical purposes, it was inexpedient that the matter should proceed no further on that occasion. A division on the Amendment would be liable to the greatest misconception; and though he agreed that those who favoured the liability of personal property might consistently vote for it without committing themselves to the principle of a formal assessment upon that kind of property, yet he hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with having originated a debate
  926
  which would contribute largely to the formation of a sound policy upon this question.
  MR. STANSFELDjoined in the appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts to withdraw the Amendment. The discussion then about to terminate had been very interesting, but, with regard to the Amendment, the Committee was clearly of opinion that it would be impossible to carry it out immediately, and considering it was admitted that something should be done shortly to redress the grievance complained of, whether by contributions from the Imperial Exchequer or by direct allocation of Imperial taxes to local purposes, nothing would be lost by postponing the consideration of the question. He thought, therefore, the Committee had no alternative but to reject it.
  MR. HENLEYthought that the Committee could not feel surprised at the question being raised, when they recollected the Resolution to which the House had come a year back; and it appeared to him that the Government had rather stimulated the desire to bring the question forward by the way they had dealt with the question of exemptions in their Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, however, proposed that personal property should be rated under the Bill, without indicating the mode by which such an object could be attained. He (Mr. Henley) confessed he was not prepared to follow the hon. Baronet into the wide field into which he had launched, and trusted that he would not divide the Committee upon it.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON,in reply, said, in consequence of the misconstruction which had boon put upon his proposal, he would ask permission to withdraw it. ["No, no!"]
  MR. NEWDEGATEhoped that the Committee would allow the hon. Baronet to withdraw his proposal, the terms of which were wider than they were prepared to accept. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. Newdegate), however, was prepared to accept the principle laid down, because he thought it possible, with the income tax imposed, to render that source of taxation available for local purposes.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, if he were not allowed to withdraw his

  927
  Amendment, he should take the sense of the Committee upon it; but after having assented to the appeals which had been made to him from both sides, a division now upon it would not indicate the feelings of hon. Members in respect to it. ["Divide, divide!"]
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsuggested that it was, at least, unusual to refuse an hon. Member leave to withdraw an Amendment in Committee; but if a division were desired, he suggested it should be taken on the Motion for leave to withdraw.
  MR. STANSFELDexpressed a hope that the Committee would assent to its withdrawal. ["No, no!"]
  LORD JOHN MANNERSappealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House who were desirous of the withdrawal of the Amendment, if a division were forced upon them, to vote for the Amendment, not, as it were, agreeing to the substance of it, but as a protest against the hon. Baronet being prevented from withdrawing it. ["Divide, divide!"]
  SIR GEORGE GREYexpressed a hope that the Committee would allow the hon. Baronet to withdraw his proposal, as it would be very unusual under the circumstances to refuse him liberty to do so. The Rules of the House would not permit such a division as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten).
  COLONEL STUART KNOXmoved that the Chairman report Progress rather than that the Committee should go to a division on the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."—(Colonel Stuart Knox.)
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed surprise that any of his hon. Friends around him should refuse to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSannounced his intention to move that the Chairman leave the Chair if a division were insisted on.
  Motion and Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHmoved, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "or for growing timber," on the ground that we had not too much of it, and that
  928
  trees were not delighted in only by the owner.
  MR. STANSFELDassented. It had not been the intention of the Government that single trees should be rated, but simply that plantations should not be placed on a better footing than land under tillage.
  MR. YORKE,asked whether hedgerow timber would be assessed; in his part of the country hedge-row timber was richer than plantation timber.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that plantations only would be brought in.
  MR. CLARE READpointed out that hedge-row timber depreciated the value of the land, and the assessment committees therefore rated it lower than if the hedge-row had no timber in it. He submitted that the Amendment of which he had given Notice, after Clause 3, would much better meet the object the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) had in view than the proposal he had just made. The Amendment he would propose was to provide a mode of assessing woods, plantations, timber, and game. He contended that the value of the land should be taken in its unimproved and natural condition, whether it had or had not timber upon it. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were simply adopted, the assessment committee would be at liberty to place any value they pleased upon it.
  MR. FLOYERdoubted whether the provision would have the effect expected of it. He therefore thought it desirable that the Committee should know what the Government thought would be the operation of that section of the Bill. Land with timber on it would not let for more, but for less than land without it. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board really meant to assess the land at a higher rate because some future owner or occupier would cut down the timber upon it, he must say so, and lay down the principle on which he intended to insist. If he did not, the matter would be governed by the Act now in force; and any Judge or assessment committee would say there was no possibility of charging anything more on the rateable value of the property because there was timber growing on it, but much less. Its value under the Parochial Assessment Act was what a

  929
  tenant would give for the use of it, whilst the trees were growing on it.
  MR. STANSFELD,in answer to the question whether the Bill proposed to place any higher assessment on wood land than on other lands, said, he did not anticipate any such result. On the contrary, it might well be that land occupied by a wood should be of less annual value than land not so occupied. Therefore, the rating and assessment of the wood was not in addition to the rating of the soil. The object of the Bill was to say that the soil should be rated, although it was covered with wood. It had been urged that it was impossible year by year to rate the occupier of a wood which might not be cut for many years to come. That was no objection to his proposal. That objection could be answered by the existing law and practice of this country. There was no difference in point of principle between saleable underwood and other wood—it was not necessarily cut every year, but might be cut every five, seven, 12, 20, or 30 years; and the experience of the assessment committees and the records of the Courts of Justice showed that there had been no legal or practical difficulty in rating it. He found that beech woods in Buckinghamshire were now rated under a Local Act. The Bill prescribed no new principle of rating, and therefore those beech woods would be rated under the ordinary law. In some instances woods were at present rated to the highway rate, and in others, where the owners had consented, to the poor rate. It might be also that land already in an improved state was planted with wood. He thought the Proviso of his noble Friend behind him (Lord George Cavendish), to the effect that wood land should not be assessed at a higher value than if it were not used for plantation or wood, would be better in its phraseology than other Amendments of which Notice had been given on that matter. Saleable underwood was, according to the present law and practice, rated according to an annual average spread over a whole term. That principle was fully recognized in a judgment of Lord Ellenborough. In that case, the wood was cut down every 21 years, and at the time of the rate the trees were about the middle period of their growth. The question submitted was, whether they were liable to be rated
  930
  every year according to the annual average value, or when they were cut down only. The Judge said it had been urged that the property ought not to be rated until the produce had been severed from the land and supplied the occupier with the means of paying the rate; but the Court was not of opinion that any of the produce must actually be realized, but that the property was at all times rateable according to the improvement in the value or in the rent which might fairly be expected from it. In a more recent case decided in 1867 that principle was not disputed.
  MR. HUNTthought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not appreciate the difference between saleable underwood and other woods. Saleable underwood had an annual letting value, because it might be divided into sections, one section being cut down every year, the proceeds of which would meet the outgoing on the whole of the saleable underwood. But when they came to the question of timber apart from saleable underwood, there the difficulty arose, because it must be left to grow till it arrived at a marketable value, and in the meantime there would be no produce from the proceeds of which to pay the rate or other outgoings. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman had given that practical consideration to the subject which would enable him to assist the House in that matter. How was the tenant-for-life to be dealt with, because he would perhaps have to pay the rates during the whole of his tenancy, without getting a single shilling benefit out of the sale of the timber, which would all accrue to his remainder-man, who had not paid a farthing of rates. He thought that lands growing timber ought to be brought into assessment, but the question was how it could best be done. He thought the Government ought to take the matter into their consideration, and be prepared to lay down the rules and principles on which these lands should be assessed, and not throw the difficulty upon the local authorities.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the case which he had cited disposed of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), because in it, Lord Ellenborough decided that growing timber was to be assessed according to what its value

  931
  Would be for a term of years, and not according to its annual letting value.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYwished to know whether ornamental timber in parks which was of no pecuniary value to the owners was to be rated. He should like the Government to give a definition of ornamental timber.
  MR. BOUVERIEpointed out that, if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was to be accepted, nobody would give anything at all for growing timber on land on which there was neither underwood nor pasture, and consequently no rate whatever could be levied upon it. He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to rate land as bearing growing timber, as well as the underwood on it, because in that case the owner would have to pay double rates for the same property. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to exclude underwood, the exclusion should be expressed as "other than underwood."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that of course he did not propose that the land should be subject to double rates. The property would be rated according to its average annual value over a term of years, and not according to its letting value for a single year.
  MR. PAGETcorroborated the statement of the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), with respect to the mode in which under-woods were cropped.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out that the ease cited by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had nothing to do with the present question, inasmuch as under the Parochial Assessment Act, which had been passed since that judgment of Lord Ellenborough had been pronounced, woodlands were rateable according to their annual letting value, and not according to their average annual value over a term of years. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should strike out of the clause the words "growing timber." To take timber from year to year would be simply absurd.
  MR. STANSFELDunderstood the law at present to be founded on the annual value on the hypothesis of a letting simply from year to year.
  MR. CAWLEYagreed in the law as stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). The correct principle was laid down in the Scotch Act, as quoted by the Secretary to the Local Government Board.
  THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the debate should be confined to the mode in which the land should be assessed.
  MR HIBBERTstated that there was really no difficulty in rating plantations and timber as had been suggested. There had been no difficulty in regard to rating beech woods in Buckinghamshire, which, he believed, were not cut oftener than once in 30 years. A landlord converted a portion of arable into wood land, and thereby turned it out of cultivation. In Northumberland, many landlords consented to the rating of such lands under the denomination of "plantations and woods;" and he did not know that in these cases any great difficulty arose in regard to the rating.
  MR. DISRAELIobserved that they were generally cut every seven years.
  MR. LOPESsaid, that underwoods were held rateable simply because they were reproductive; and there was not the slightest difficulty in applying to them the principle of the Parochial Assessment Act—namely, that of the hypothetical tenant, inasmuch as they were cut at certain fixed periods; but when they came to deal with woods and plantations, which were not reproductive, great difficulty would arise; and what he was anxious to know was how they proposed for the future to rate them. Was it proposed to treat the land as arable? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had correctly laid down the law. Since the passing of the Parochial Assessment Act he had never heard of any other system of rating woodlands than that of assessing their yearly letting value.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that considerable practical difficulty would arise in rating the underwood grown for hop-poles in the county of Kent, or land on which timber was also grown, if the Bill passed in its present form. In Kent hop-poles were cut once in 10 years. The ground was divided into ten portions, and one of these was cut every year. But there were trees growing in the plantations, oak and beech, which

  933
  required the growth of 80 or 100 years; and then the danger arose of a double assessment, one for the timber, the other for the hop-poles.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEalso objected to the clause as it stood.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord behind him (Lord George Cavendish).
  MR. CLARE READthought it would be better simply to repeal the Act of Elizabeth under which underwoods were rateable.
  SIR HENRY HOAREjoined in the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). He thought that woodlands should be rated at agricultural prices, and would point out that it was for the good of the country that woods were grown to protect cattle and crops.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHpointed out that under the Statute of Elizabeth saleable underwoods were rateable as saleable underwoods. If land was to be rated for plantations and for woods, why should not land be also rated for saleable underwood, and the same principle be followed throughout?
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BOUVERIEmoved in page 1, line 22, after "wood" to insert "not being land used for the growth of saleable underwood."
  MR. STANSFELDassented to the Amendment and expressed a hope that it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTobserved that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was now present. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain the case which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had previously quoted.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would give a premium to the growth of timber with underwood.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS—CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ZANZIBAR.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be convenient to the House if the Government would let them know whether the adjourned debate on the Zanzibar Contract would come on on Monday?
  MR. BRUCE: It is the intention of the Government to bring it on on Monday, if the Papers on the subject are printed.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are printed.
  MR. DISRAELI: That being so, are we to understand that the Government will bring on the discussion early?
  MR. BRUCE: The Rating Bill will be first proceeded with. I daresay, however, arrangements may be made for bringing on the Zanzibar Contract at a convenient hour.
  It being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PROTECTORATE OF FIJI.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'ARTHUR,in rising to move—
  "That, as the Chiefs of Fiji and the white residents therein have signified their desire that Great Britain should assume the protectorate or sovereignty of those Islands, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government, in order to put an end to the condition of things now existing in the Group, should take steps to carry into effect one or other of those measures,"
  said, that last year, in bringing this question before the House, he spoke at so much length, that it was not necessary for him now to do more than call attention to the main facts upon which he rested his case. On that occasion he pointed out that the Fiji Islands occupied one of the most important positions in the Pacific; that in the opinion of high naval authorities no better station for our ships of war was to be found in that great highway between America and Australia; that the islands were

  935
  exceedingly fertile, producing all kinds of tropical fruits, and that they were the natural home of the cotton plant, which could be cultivated to almost any extent; and that so long ago as 1859, the principal chiefs offered the country to the Queen, and that that offer was declined on grounds which were now admitted to be untenable. He also pointed out the interest the Colonies took in the question, and, finally, he urged that kidnapping—that monstrous system of slavery which had grown up in the South Sea—could not be extirpated unless Fiji, the great centre of traffic, were placed under the protection of the British flag. The events of the past 12 months had confirmed his belief that the course he recommended was the right one. He complained of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in reference to this question. It was unworthy of a great country to endeavour to shift the responsibility on to other shoulders and to ask the Government of New South Wales to take either the Protectorate or the Sovereignty of these islands. In acknowledging the de facto Government of Fiji also, and the right of British subjects to throw off their allegiance and to form themselves into an independent State, the advisers of the Queen would be admitting a principle at once dangerous and unprecedented and subversive of the interests of Imperial legislation. Such a course, moreover, would be dangerous to the interests of the native population, who would in that way be left to the mercy of mere adventurers. There had recently been laid on the Table of the House an able and statesmanlike Paper in which Sir James Martin put this view most clearly and strongly, urging that the recognition by the Imperial Government of an independent State formed by a mere handful of British subjects in a group of islands numbering 146,000 native inhabitants would be highly inexpedient. Sir James Martin's view was, that Her Majesty's Government would be perfectly justified in at once establishing a Sovereignty or Protectorate in the islands. It would be in the recollection of the House, that last year the ground taken by the Government was, that no official intimation had been given by the authorities of Fiji of a desire to be annexed to Great Britain, and the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the
  936
  Colonies declared that nothing like a formal offer had been made on the part of the islands, that Her Majesty's Government should assume authority over them. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister also said that the Government ought not to be compelled to force the Fiji Islands to become annexed to this country, no evidence of any such desire having been manifested. Now, in 1871 a Memorial had been agreed to by the King, the principal Chiefs, and White residents, praying that the British Government would grant Fiji protection for 10, 15, or 20 years, so that the native Chiefs might have time to create a form of government analogous to that of the Sandwich Islands. The Memorial, which was addressed to Earl Granville, concluded with the following prayer:—"In the event of the Government entertaining this Petition, your Lordships' memorialists pledge themselves to acknowledge all the obligations which the Government deem it wise and necessary to impose." That Memorial was signed by the King, by Mafua, and two others of the principal Chiefs, representing the entire native population of the island. That Memorial was sent to the Foreign Office, and while he exonerated the two right hon. Gentlemen respectively from any desire to lead the House astray, yet the conduct of the Foreign Office was very much to be blamed. A document so important should have received an answer. It was similar conduct on the part of the Foreign Office which offended King Theodore and led to the Abyssinian War, which cost the country several millions of money. Had Theodore's letter been answered, that expedition would not have been necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told the House that Her Majesty's Government would not annex any territory, without a well-understood wish on the part of the people, authenticated by the best means which the case afforded. That statement, coupled with a similar remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, was regarded as a pledge, that if the great majority of the people of Fiji were desirous of annexation, the British Government were prepared to accede to their wishes. Since the Petition sent to the Foreign Office in 1871, the feeling had intensified throughout the whole

  937
  of the islands. Besides the expression of feeling in the Fijian Press in favour of annexation, there was abundance of other evidence which pointed in the same direction. He might refer to the authority of Mr. Thurston, the "Prime Minister of Fiji," who stated that it was his opinion and that of the majority of the settlers, that annexation was a necessity, and that native Government was an impossibility. So strong was the feeling in all the islands in favour of annexation, and in regard to the powerlessness of the native Government to enforce order, that many of the Members of the Legislature unfavourable to annexation had been asked to resign. A Memorial had been got up in Fiji, which was expected to arrive by the last mail, and which was being signed by all the White inhabitants of Fiji. It was from Her Britannic Majesty's subjects and others resident in Fiji, likewise addressed to Earl Granville, and was in favour of annexation to Great Britain. The Memorial dwelt upon the increasing supplies of cotton, the fertility of the soil, the growth of tobacco, and the undeveloped resources of the Fijian Archipelago. The petitioners wont on to state that the friendly feeling frequently expressed by a large section of the aborigines towards Her Majesty's subjects in Fiji, and the regard they entertained for Great Britain and the Queen, indisputably proved the strength of the wide-spread affection of the Fijians for the British people. Further, they stated that the United States had recently taken possession of an island belonging to the Navigator's Group, which, from its proximity to our Australian Colonies and New Zealand, might, under certain complications, be menacing to British commerce in the Pacific Ocean. That was an additional reason why the Fiji Islands should be forthwith included in Her Majesty's dominions. The petitioners also urged the advantages afforded by Fijian waters for the establishment of a permanent naval station, and in connection with it a Vice Admiralty Court, which would be the means of placing the labour trade on a basis of beneficent security. The Petition proved, to quote the language of the Prime Minister, that there existed in Fiji "a well-understood wish for annexation, frequently expressed and authenticated by the best means the case trill afford." Under those circumstances
  938
  he (Mr. M'Arthur) asked Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the implied pledge they gave last year, that on ascertaining the wish of the inhabitants they would be prepared to take this question into consideration with a view to annexation. Turning next to the political aspect of the question, he had no hesitation in expressing his belief that, considering their geographical position, the Fiji Islands were as important to us in the Pacific Ocean as Malta was in the Mediterranean. Captain Washington said in his Report—
  "in looking over the subject, I have been struck by the entire want by Great Britain of any advanced position in the Pacific Ocean. We have valuable possessions on either side, as at Vancouver's Island and Sydney, but not an island or rock on the 7,000 miles of ocean which separates them. We have no island on which to place a coaling station so that we might get fresh supplies."
  Similar opinions had been expressed at the colonial conferences held in Melbourne and Sydney. With regard to the commercial advantages it was obviously important for us to have a station on the great highway between British Columbia and San Francisco on the one side, and Australia on the other. The exports and imports of Fiji had steadily increased, their value being $50,000 in 1869; $90,000 in 1870; upwards of $120,000 in 1871; and upwards of $300,000 in 1872. Moreover, that country, which lately was so deeply degraded by the most dreadful crimes, now contained a population advancing in education, civilization, and Christianity. An official statement, made by Mr. Clarkson, the treasurer of the Government in Fiji, showed that the population of the islands numbered 150,000, of whom about 2,000 were Whites; that there were in the islands 611 chapels, 1,389 schools, with 45,243 scholars, while the number of attendants at public worship was 107,250. He regarded all that as a remarkable fact, in connection with the history of the Fiji Islands; and he felt sure that if they gave those islands a strong Government, capital would flow in, people would resort there, and they would add to the dignity and strength of the Empire. With regard to the philanthropic view of the question, he believed it would be utterly impossible for any Government to put down the slave trade in the Pacific Ocean, unless those islands were placed

  939
  under the protection of the British flag. To show the character of that infamous traffic, he would cite the testimony of Captain Palmer, who stated that on one of the islands slaves were flogged, Cayenne pepper was applied to the wounds, and a toe of one of them was cut off. The Reports of two officers in Her Majesty's service, Captain Palmer and Captain Markham, showed that a traffic in natives, which was really a slave trade, was carried on, natives being torn from their homes and often brutally treated by men calling themselves Englishmen. According to Vice Consul March, girls—sometimes only 13 or 14 years of age—were bartered and sold to planters in the most disgraceful way, the settlers regarding this as a normal and inevitable state of things. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had, it seemed, an Amendment on the Paper, to the effect that any attempt on the part of Great Britain to assume the Protectorate or Sovereignty of the Fiji Islands, by suppressing the de facto Government of Fiji, would be contrary to public policy, and an unjustifiable interference with the rights of an independent people; but he (Mr. M'Arthur) contended that it was unnecessary, from the fact that the existing Government, though more respectable than its predecessor, was not recognized by the majority, either of the White or Black population, ambit was unable to enforce the law, to prevent the slave trade, or to repress scenes of turbulence and bloodshed. A requisition to one of the Representatives, asking him to resign, in order that the country might come under the protection of England, stated that self-government had been a signal failure, that the country was deluged with worthless Treasury notes; and that the price of many articles had doubled; while in complying with the requisition, that Gentleman said he endorsed all its statements. As to the objection that a large expense would be involved in annexation, he denied that it would throw any charge on the Imperial Revenue. The requisite officials would not cost more than £6,000 a-year, and a small Native Force with one or two gunboats at the Governor's disposal would suffice, while the Treasurer, Mr. Clarkson, anticipated a Revenue of not less than £30,000, and believed in two years it would reach £100,000. Considering, moreover, that,
  940
  according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £250,000 had been spent in five years in putting down the East African Slave Trade, and that the men-of-war now stationed in the Pacific were unable to suppress a similar traffic, it would be an economical measure to take possession of Fiji. Colonel (now Major General) Smythe, who, when sent to report on the matter, gave an opinion adverse to annexation, now admitted that it did not apply to the existing circumstances. He stated that the condition of affairs had undergone such a change that he was now of opinion that our best course would be to accept the offer of the Sovereignty of the group which had been made by the Chiefs. He was glad to find that a communication had been made to the Government by the Government of Fiji through Mr. Thurston, in which that gentleman stated that he had been officially authorized by the King to put the question of cession direct to Her Majesty's Government, and if they were willing to entertain it the Fijian Government would make a proposition to them. That Paper the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had promised to lay on the Table of the House in a day or so, and he trusted our Government would duly consider the matter. In concluding his remarks, he (Mr. M'Arthur) wished to make a personal appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Last year the right hon. Gentleman did not express himself as hostile to the spirit of the Resolution; but he deprecated premature or precipitate action before circumstances made the duty of the country perfectly clear. They had waited a whole year, which was surely sufficient time for deliberation. In the space of that year new outrages had taken place. Slave ships had scoured the South Seas in search of their human prey. Slavery practised by Christian Englishmen had fastened its roots more deeply in the soil of Fiji, and the best and most orderly of our countrymen, with the full sympathy of the native chiefs, had again and yet again prayed the mother country to give them the blessing of a stable government based upon just laws. The right hon. Gentleman had filled the office of Colonial Minister. He was therefore no stranger to the traditions of that office, and to the glorious history of our colonial

  941
  dominion. He knew that the Motion accorded with the best of those traditions, and with a just view of both the interests and duty of the nation. Would he then take upon himself the responsibility of a further policy of delay—a policy of ignoble timidity and vacillation—a policy which would perpetuate in the year to come, as it had done in the year that was past, those crimes and outrages which Her Majesty in her Speech from the Throne had so fervently deplored? Our representatives in Fiji and Australia had done their duty, while public opinion both there and at home had urged the Imperial Government to perform its duty. It, therefore, remained for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether he would allow the present state of things to remain, or whether he would realize the legitimate wishes of his countrymen, and by accepting the annexation of Fiji, open out new fields for British commerce and British enterprise, and thus add another to those magnificent colonies in the southern hemisphere which had contributed so largely to the wealth, the prosperity, and the power of the British Empire. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD,in seconding the Resolution, observed that the propositions made to our Government by the inhabitants of Fiji had been for either annexation or a protectorate. He should support the Resolution in the sense of annexation, for he knew what that was, but he could not tell what a protectorate really involved. For his own part, he had no confidence in the present White Government of Fiji, as the Members of it were participators in the slave trade and slave owners. This had been stated from the bench of the Supreme Court in Sydney. He referred to the horrors of the bloodstained ship Carl, and the murders which had been committed on the natives who had been caught and imprisoned in the hold and fired upon; a Member of the Government being the consignee of the cargo, and having actually disposed of the survivors at a commission of 5 per cent. At that moment one-half of the Whites repudiated their authority; so much so, that the Government had been obliged to ask for assistance from Her Majesty's ships to reduce the Whites to obedience. The Premier Woods had
  942
  been dismissed, first of all, from Her Majesty's Navy, and then from the Australian Navy; and another Member, Smith, was the owner of one of the most notorious slave ships the Nukulau. The effect of the policy of treating the Fijian Government as an independent de facto Government had tied the hands of our naval commanders, had weakened the authority of our Consul, and had lowered the dignity of Her Majesty's Representative in New South Wales. The Governor of New South Wales had recognized Woods as Premier, and he had been remonstrated with by his responsible advisers for doing so; and it had been also decided that the jurisdiction of the Australian Courts might be exercised in the case of British subjects who complained of acts of violence if they declined to recognize this Fijian Government and its Courts of Law. He trusted that the exertions made by the Consul March to put down the slave traffic and to bring' to justice those who had been engaged in the recent massacre were appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. Had Mr. Consul March truckled to time de facto Government of Fiji, he might row be a prosperous plantation owner; but he did not. On the contrary, he risked his own life in the endeavour to bring the guilty parties to justice, and in this effort he had succeeded. His acts in that respect had incurred for him the bitter hostility of the Fijian Government, and apparently had brought him into bad odour with our own Government, as he had been transferred to a part of Brazil where two of his predecessors had lost their health. Such a proceeding on the part of the Government was not very likely to encourage British Consuls to interest themselves in putting down the slave traffic. He supported the Resolution, mainly because he believed that annexation was the only way in which this traffic which brought such reproach on the British name could be put a stop to. He did not see with what justice or consistency the English Government could force the Sultan to put down the slave trade at Zanzibar, while they permitted an equally bad slave trade to be carried on in those islands, almost entirely in British ships and by British subjects, when they could effectually suppress it without spending a shilling of money, and with the entire approval of the English people. The native inhabitants had now asked on two separate occasions that

  943
  the Government of the Queen should assume the Protectorate of their territory; the de facto Government had applied to them very recently to the same effect; and under those circumstances the objections urged to the Resolution being thus removed—he trusted Her Majesty's Government would accept and the House adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Chiefs of Fiji and the white residents therein have signified their desire that Great Britain should assume the protectorate or sovereignty of those Islands, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government, in order to put an end to the condition of things now existing in the Group, should take steps to carry into effect one or other of those measures,"—(Mr. M'Arthur,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with every respect for the abilities and character of his hon. Friend who had seconded the Motion (Sir Charles Wingfield), he could not but regret some of the statements he had made. With one portion of his speech he fully concurred—namely, that which referred to the course adopted by Mr. Consul March. That part of the speech he thought he could deal with in a way that would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend, for he might at once dismiss from his mind the apprehension that the services of that gentleman were, by anything they had done, attempted to be at all depreciated by Her Majesty's Government. On account of changing circumstances, it was deemed wise by the Secretary of State that Mr. March should receive another appointment, and he had been removed to another post, which did not greatly differ in point of emolument from that in the Fiji Islands, although the salary was somewhat higher than that he enjoyed there, and it was not necessary to construe the transfer as involving any censure upon Mr. March. As to the other part of the personal matter, he felt a still stronger regret. His hon. Friend had catalogued the Members of the Government of the Fiji Islands, and had described them as men engaged in the slave traffic, as men tainted with crime, and degraded with
  944
  dishonour. ["Hear, hear!"] That he found was cheered; but it was a serious matter that at this end of the world, at the opposite point of the diameter, and in a House where there was no one to meet the charge, they should be set down as men who ought to be standing at the bar of a criminal Court. That was, he repeated, a very serious matter, and not consistent with that equity and fairness which required that they should not enter upon criticisms of that kind upon the character and conduct of gentlemen—or if that term were objectionable—of persons who were not present to defend themselves. It would have been desirable that his hon. Friend, before he so blackened the character of these men in a speech which would go forth to the world, and when weeks and months would elapse before they would have an opportunity of replying, should have given some Notice of his intention, so that some inquiry on the subject might have been made in the country itself to see if there were a unanimity of testimony in support of his statement. Of course, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not say that they were not engaged in the slave trade; but accounts which reached the Government from persons, probably not less trustworthy than those who informed his hon. Friend, were by no means so unfavourable to the character of the persons composing the Government of the Fiji Islands. He meant Naval officers who commanded the ships of Her Majesty in those waters, and they did not find generally in the proceedings of the Fiji Government a disposition to render nugatory the measures for the prevention of the abuses and cruelties of the labour traffic. One of those gentlemen was Mr. Thurston, whom his hon. Friend had by implication severely stigmatized as an accomplice of those men. He sat in the Cabinet; he was Premier, and succeeded another Premier; Premiers were dismissed in that hemisphere as well as in this. Another gentleman was Mr. St. Julian, who filled the office of Vice Consul on behalf of Australia in the Fiji Islands for some time—a person who enjoyed general respect, as he believed was the case also with Mr. Thurston. Far be it from him to assert that every one of those gentlemen was immaculate in the absence of distinct information; but, in the absence of distinctive information,

  945
  he hoped some reserve would be shown in endorsing a sweeping and indiscriminate condemnation of men who had not the opportunity of securing anyone to defend them in that House. He came now to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur), which was a matter requiring great thought and care, and while premising that there was much of abstract opinion contained in it which he was not prepared to adopt, he thought it would be well if he stated where he agreed with, and where he differed from, the hon. Gentleman; but at the outset he would assure him Her Majesty's Government did not propose to treat the matter either in a negative spirit or with indifference. The hon. Gentleman's speech divided itself into three branches—the territorial, the commercial, the philanthropic, and incidentally, the financial. He would not follow him into the territorial part of the question, but he would observe that in his experience there was nothing more popular with the House, or with that portion of the House who felt a lively interest in this class of questions, than speeches tending to incite and encourage the Government towards the annexation of new territory; nothing was easier than to make out a plausible case for appropriations of this kind, and nothing was more acceptable; the hon. Member's heart must have been cheered by the warm expressions of approval which accompanied those portions of his speech in which he insisted on the advantages of enlarging the territory of this country; but, he must add, nothing in the world so much excited the odium, suspicion, and displeasure of the same portion of the House as the manifestation in any other country of a similar disposition. Now, he commended to all the philosophers of the 19th century, and to all practical politicians, the desirability of having one and the same measure of justice for ourselves and for other people. It might be the chill of age which was coming upon him; but he confessed he did not feel that excitement for the acquisition of new territory which animated the hon. Gentleman, especially as, with all the efforts which Parliament made to meet the wants of the territories we already governed, the arrears were accumulating in advance of the most persevering efforts they could make. Simi-
  946
  larly, with respect to commerce, we had, by asserting the principle of liberty in trade, opened the world to the commerce of Great Britain to such a degree that our ingenuity, enterprise, skill, manual power, and machinery were scarcely able to cope with expanding opportunities; and, under those circumstances, he could afford to say he did not feel the great pressure of the argument for securing particular guarantees for our commerce in this distant part of the world. England had mounted so high by the assertion of sound principles of trade, and had felt so greatly the advantages resulting to themselves and the whole world from them, that they did not feel the pressure of the argument which had been used in favour of this country acquiring the commerce of the distant islands of the world. When the hon. Gentleman referred to not allowing Australia to interfere with the commerce of the Fiji Islands, he would ask him whether he knew what was going on in Australia at this time. The hon. Gentleman said it would be of immense importance to us to prevent the commerce of the Fiji Islands with this country being restricted; but the hon. Gentleman should remember what Parliament had been doing this Session. They had passed a measure enabling the Australian Colonies to restrict their commerce by creating differential duties between themselves; and it would be difficult to confine the operation of that measure to those colonies. He now came to what he regarded as by far the most important part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman—namely, that which he had called, in no taunting spirit, the philanthropic part of the speech. As he agreed in the main with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the deplorable nature of some of the occurrences which happened in the region of Fiji, it was not necessary to follow the speech in detail; but he desired to say that both he and his Colleagues felt very strongly the importance of that country taking all proper and reasonable steps in order to put an end to a state of things in which British subjects, removing themselves from the territorial jurisdiction of the Home or Colonial Governments, planted themselves in a region of the earth having no political relation with us, and defiled that region by what was, either avowedly or virtually, a traffic in human

  947
  flesh, with its usual accompaniments of moral degradation and physical cruelty. This country had endeavoured to prevent that traffic in human flesh, and had made it a part of its duty to diminish in that respect the woes of mankind, and therefore the hon. Gentleman would understand that he did not deny that what had taken place in the Fiji Islands was a serious matter and would call for the careful consideration of the Government. He did not deny that the hon. Gentleman was right in basing certain expectations on remarks which fell from himself and his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) in the course of the debate last year, but he desired that those expectations should be well understood. The hon. Gentleman said it was declared or implied in those speeches that, in the event of a clearly-expressed and well-authenticated wish for annexation to England on the part of the White and native populations of Fiji, Her Majesty's Government would proceed to annex the islands. Let him in the first place consider whether, according to the statements of the hon. Gentleman, the condition had at the present moment been fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman said the Government of Fiji had already made an application for annexation, and that there was now on its way to England a Petition to the same effect signed by the natives; but would he say further that in that state of things the case was ripe for the specific step which he called upon the Government to take? He did not think that view could be held, even if the hon. Mover and Seconder of the proposition under discussion possessed a tolerably good opinion of the Government of the islands, which was not however the case, so far, at any rate, as the hon. Seconder of the Motion was concerned. It had been stated further that the Government was entirely powerless, and was not recognized by the majority of the people. If that was so, what weight or authority could attach to its declaration when made the basis of a demand for annexation to the British Crown? How much weight and authority could also be attached to a Petition, which had not yet arrived, emanating from such a Government? In the absence of precise information on the subject, he could not enter into a controversy with regard to it, but he recommended the point to the considera-
  948
  tion of the hon. Gentleman. There had been cases in which the Government of Fiji had struggled successfully in the cause of right and justice; but it might also be that they preserved a little indulgence for their own personal views and predilections. Then, with regard to the Petition which was said to be on its way to this country, it was not as yet known by whom the document was signed, and, in the absence of information on the subject, he did not think the House should be asked to adopt a proposal of so definitive and conclusive a character as that now before the House. The Government would, however, take steps to procure such accurate information as would enable them to cope with the difficulties under which they undertook to investigate a complicated question at the other end of the world. At the commencement of his speech the hon. Gentleman contended that it was a most dangerous doctrine to lay down that British subjects might by withdrawing themselves from the British Empire, throw off their allegiance, become de facto Governments in other lands, and claim to treat with England as independent States. There was a great difficulty in the way of any such admission, but did the hon. Gentleman close his eyes to the difficulty on the other side? Were they, because they admitted the difficulty which had been pointed out, to rush to the extreme of declaring that wherever any body of British subjects, in the use of the personal liberty provided by the law, transported themselves into a foreign land, and became an important community, the British Government was bound to follow, and establish a dominion over them? The hon. Gentleman surely would not make any such monstrous assertion, for if one doctrine was dangerous the other was little short of absurd. Under those circumstances, the Government were taking what appeared to them to be the rational and only real means of making progress in the handling of the question by instituting a responsible and trustworthy inquiry into the facts which bore upon the conduct of the case in all its essential particulars. The hon. Gentleman had studied and learnt much with regard to the question of Fiji, and he (Mr. Gladstone) hardly knew how to express the sentiment with which he heard the statement that a population of about 140,000 natives and some 2,000

  949
  Whites produced 107,000 attendants upon Divine worship.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he made the statement on the authority of Mr. Clarkson, one of the missionaries engaged in the islands.
  MR. GLADSTONEdid not dispute the accuracy of the statement; he only felt surprised to hear that the Fiji Islands furnished a larger proportion of attendants on Divine worship than any country in Christendom. The hon. Gentleman would admit that there were a great many other points connected with this question upon which it was absolutely necessary to obtain further information before any decisive step was taken. He would not say that the experience of New Zealand had been unsatisfactory; but he would say that even in that case, it would have been desirable to have obtained a clearer view beforehand of the responsibilities England was about to undertake, than they actually possessed at the time when the annexation occurred. They ought to have known that they were about to be involved in a charge of about £10,000,000 for military expenditure, and in all the waste and destruction of life and property which the expenditure involved. There was no country in which missionary labour had been so zealous, prolonged, and successful as New Zealand when we annexed it, yet many of the difficulties which had since occurred in New Zealand might have been avoided if the Home Government had had a more careful investigation of the circumstances in New Zealand, before they finally took it upon themselves. Therefore, the Government were desirous—and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would join in that desire—to profit by their past experience, and not to commit the same errors with regard to the territory of Fiji which they had committed with regard to New Zealand. It appeared to them necessary that they should consider a number of points which he would briefly run over, and that there would be a variety of courses open. They did not agree with those who thought that the alternative should be absolutely cast aside, of using the Government actually established in the Fiji Islands as the instrument of governing the country. It was clear that if it could be done, and if the philanthropic measures of the hon. Gentleman could be attained through that
  950
  measure, it was the best measure of attainment. If the Government really warranted the character given of it by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, it would be by no means desirable to make use of that Government; on the other hand if the Fiji Government were shown to be one of tolerable capacity, if it exercised a tolerable amount of authority, and if it had the power of adapting itself to the wants of the people, these would be great recommendations. That Government had, however, one great recommendation in its favour—namely, that it had sprung out of the soil, it had its roots in the soil, it was born upon the spot, and it had made a certain though limited way towards the true character of a Government. The House must not suppose that he meant that it was a Government which they could treat as if it were a recognized Government in a civilized country. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth said, that Her Majesty's Government had recognized the Government of Fiji. They had, however, only recognized it as a de facto Government. His hon. Friend had illustrated his argument by referring to the Government of Spain, our recognition of which, he said, was equivalent to a full and unlimited recognition. If his hon. Friend would ask any of the gentlemen who formed the present Government of Spain, whether our recognition of that as a de facto Government was equivalent to a full international recognition, he would find himself undeceived. Every country drew an important distinction between that mere unofficial recognition of a Government—a thing which existed for the moment and for the necessary transaction of business, and a free and formal recognition of one independent and civilized State on the part of another. Such a recognition might be given to the Fiji Government, but only on certain conditions. It would first be necessary to ascertain that it would be practicable through the means of the Government, and by distinct covenants with it, to obtain practical securities for 'putting down the abuses now complained of. That would be the first question which it would be the duty of the Government to examine. Another method of proceeding which had been recommended and might be taken was to arm the British Representative in the Fiji Islands

  951
  with a personal jurisdiction over British subjects, supported, of course, by adequate means for its enforcement, and arranged, as it must be, with the goodwill of the local authorities. He would not give any opinion as to the preference between one mode or the other at the present time, because a thorough and impartial examination was the duty which the circumstances of the moment imposed upon the Government. The third method of proceeding was, that which his hon. Friend had embodied in his Motion, but which his Seconder had thrown overboard—the assumption of a Protectorate in Fiji. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not venture to throw overboard that method of proceeding; but he thought there was, however, great force in the objection that that would involve the responsibility of annexation. Lastly came the proposal of annexation itself. That was a very large question, involving many consequences deserving of careful consideration, and requiring special examination of its own. For example, if these islands were to be annexed they would present to us, in the most aggravated form, the difficulty arising from marked differences of race, which occurred already in some of our colonial possessions. Where the superior race was very large in numbers, and the less developed and less civilized race were small, the difficulty was little felt. In Porto Rico, for example, although there was a very large number of negroes —now, happily, no longer slaves—yet the number of Whites was extremely large in comparison, and the slave emancipation had been effected without difficulty. Jamaica was not like Porto Rico. The Whites were very small in number in Jamaica compared with the less developed race. There had been a struggle to maintain free institutions from 1834 to 1864. Yet the Imperial Parliament had been reluctantly compelled to give up the attempt, and establish a Government which was no longer founded on the principles of liberty and representation. Fiji contained a population variously computed at 140,000, 160,000, and 200,000. Among the native Blacks were perhaps not more than 2,000 Whites, made up of several nationalities, although Englishmen were in the majority. Among these white settlers were men who were the agents in transactions almost more disgraceful than the avowed
  952
  and open slave trade. How serious then were the political questions which opened to view. Could such a country be governed on the principles of freedom? Were the people to be allowed a share in the Government, and what was the share to be? The contention of the Government, and which he believed that public opinion would approve, was that no final step should be taken until after the Government had obtained the fullest knowledge on this question. With regard to the question of finance, he thought the estimates of his hon. Friend were too sanguine. He (Mr. Gladstone) knew of no country where 140,000 or 160,000 people were governed at an expense of £7,000 a-year. But that was a matter for examination, and another matter for inquiry was the demand likely to be made upon this country for the maintenance of a standing military force in these islands. This was a question not only of expense but of policy. For years past successive Governments in this country had laboured to correct the vicious system of dispersing the Army of England in little knots over the face of the world, to be exhausted in barren and worse than barren conflicts with aboriginal tribes in uncivilized countries. There must be no risk of anything like the recommencement of such a policy here; and it was important therefore to consider by what means the peace of the Fiji Islands was to be maintained. Would a military force be necessary, or could the natives themselves preserve the peace of the islands by something like a civil or a police force? An immense object would be gained, morally and socially, if we could find among the native population the means of maintaining order. The question was one upon which no positive opinion could at present be passed; but what was known as to the character of considerable numbers of the natives did not exclude the hope that their services might be made available, in case it should be the duty of the British Government to provide for the future tranquillity of these islands. No doubt, something must be done to put a stop to the abuses which his hon. Friend had assailed, and that something must be determined by the exercise of the best judgment of the Government. As yet, however, they knew next to nothing about the interior of the Fiji Islands,

  953
  the character of the islanders, or to what extent the authority of the King and of the two Chiefs who had joined him extended in comparison with the entire population. Above all, we knew nothing of that vital question—the tenure and occupation of the land. It was defective knowledge on the subject in New Zealand which involved us in all our difficulties there. We must not again fall into that error, but must ascertain in Fiji how land was held and inherited, and in what way land could be lawfully and peaceably acquired by Europeans. For the purposes of inquiry on these points the Government had secured the services of two trustworthy and competent men. One was a naval officer of distinction, Captain Goodenough, who had just sailed for Wellington, New Zealand, from which point or from Sydney he would take his start in company with his coadjutor in the inquiry. There was no profession the habits of which produced in the minds of those who held command in it greater readiness for practical dealing with affairs than the Navy. Captain Goodenough, moreover, was known for general activity, intelligence, and resources; and to the prospect of his aid in the case, the Government looked with satisfaction. His coadjutor was the brother to our Minister at Madrid (Mr. Consul Layard), who had been appointed Consul at Fiji, and only waited his instructions to proceed by the mail route to Australia, so that in the autumn of this year these two gentlemen would apply themselves to their task and would prosecute it with all the despatch which was compatible with thoroughness of execution. He hoped his hon. Friend would concur in the course taken by the Government, who were sensible of the gravity of the subject and anxious to deal with it to the satisfaction of the House and the country.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was glad to observe that the valuable services of Mr. Consul March were recognized by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether those services had not been very ill requited by his country. It was admitted that Mr. March had rendered great service, and his reward had been to be recalled from Fiji and nominally promoted, but the promo-
  954
  tion was to the pestilential climate of Para, and the inference was that his conduct had not been approved by the Government. Laudatur et alget, and he would submit to the House whether the inference drawn would not be that Mr. March who had rendered such services to humanity had not been recalled because he was disliked by the slave traders of Fiji. He should be one of the last persons to recommend any increase of territory by improper means; but there need be no such means here; and these islands would form a most valuable station for naval purposes, and also for effecting the suppression of the slave trade. He hoped the Government would avail themselves of any opportunity to put an end to that horrible traffic, and that the House would pause before they rejected the Motion.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he would only make a few common-sense remarks in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur). He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in thinking that we were not bound to interfere in cases where English colonists had settled in distant parts of the world. Not a century had elapsed since we took possession of Australia for our own selfish purposes, and now that those purposes were more than served, it would be the most contemptible policy to repudiate the responsibilities arising from our having changed the whole face of a large portion of the globe. It would have been wrong on the part of any Government to ignore the existence of these colonists, but if our own sense of duty did not point out the course which we should pursue, then Foreign Governments would have the right to claim from us the regulation of the proceedings of our subjects who had gone to these islands. There could be no doubt that a trade was carried on which would in olden times have been called a slave trade, and that the Government of Fiji was formed upon slave-trading principles; and that was clearly shown in proceedings which had taken place in Criminal Courts in reference to vessels which had carried on this illegal trade. Last year, it appeared 2,300 Polynesians were introduced into the Fiji Islands, for the return of whom to their homes, bonds for £7,000 were demanded from the planters by the

  955
  Government. This amount was nearly equal to £3 a man, and could it be supposed that so small a penalty would be efficacious in accomplishing its object? The Government of Fiji was not only founded on the slave trade system, but was carrying on a traffic which, if carried on in Arab dhows, would be slave dealing, but which, being conducted through British ships, was called labour traffic. With respect to domestic slavery, last year Thakombau, with the assistance of the White settlers, had surrounded and made prisoners of the whole of the Livoni tribe, whom he afterwards disposed of to different planters. His informant had purchased the labour of men of that tribe for £3 for five years, £3 10 s. for women, and 30 s. for children. So much on the subject of slavery. There were strong reasons for connecting the former Fiji Government with this traffic. It was impossible for the present Government to properly regulate it, as it was not strong enough to do so, and consequently it could not insist on the men being returned to their homes after their term of service had expired. The land in Fiji was also disposed of in a most unsatisfactory way, and he had instances before him in which Members of the Government had played into each other's hands in making the grants, coolly disposing of them in fee simple—a tenure unknown to barbarous nations. If the British nation were to protect the rights of those unfortunate islanders, the only thing to do would be to establish some strong restrictive Government amongst those lawless Whites, otherwise, he believed that the tragedies of New Zealand would be repeated in Fiji. He desired to say, however, that he had not alluded in any way to the regulated coloured traffic which was carried on in Queensland; and in conclusion he hoped that the exertions of Consul March would be so recognized by Her Majesty's Government as to prevent the Fijians from believing that his removal was connected with the displeasure of the Home Government at his conduct.
  MR. EASTWICKthought that the proposal of the Government ought not to be accepted; but before referring to that he wished first to speak of the services of Mr. March. He must remind the House that that gentleman was a most distinguished officer before he went to Fiji. He had, when Vice Consul at
  956
  St. Sebastian, in 1867, performed one of the most gallant exploits ever recorded in saving life at sea. On the night of the 7th of December in that year the French ship Nouveau Caboteur was cast on shore in the Bay of Zurriola during a frightful tempest. The sea was running so high that no one would venture to attempt to swim to the vessel, whereupon Mr. March plunged in alone and brought a rope from the ship to the shore, by which the crew were saved. One of them, however, a lad, lost his hold, fell into the sea, and sank; whereupon Mr. March, though benumbed with cold and exhausted with his former efforts, again plunged in, dived, and. succeeded in bringing the boy to land. For this noble exploit he received the Albert Medal of the First Class, the French Imperial Gold Medal de Sauvetaqe, and the Humane Society's Medal of the First Class. In his endeavours to put down the slave trade at Fiji, his life was more than once exposed to imminent danger, insomuch that the respectable inhabitants of Levuka enrolled themselves in a Volunteer rifle corps to protect him. The life of his child also was attempted by a ruffian, who hurled a huge stone at it, but luckily missed. The same ruffian, encouraged by the support of the so-called Government at Levuka, actually spat in the face of the Consul in public; and received for that brutal outrage at the hands of Consul March the chastisement he deserved. And now, after doing so much to stop the traffic in slaves, Mr. March had been removed in the midst of his useful career. That was a most impolitic step, and the source of triumph and gratification to all the dealers in slaves. It was said by our Government to be done with kind intentions to Mr. March; but the first result was a frightful calamity to him, for both his wife and. child had died on their way home. It was, indeed, a strange kindness to remove a deserving officer and. send him to a pestilential climate, where his last predecessor but one, Mr. Hemans, had not long since died. He trusted the Government would revise their kind intentions, and. bestow on Mr. March a post more suited to his merit. He would come now to the proposal of the Prime Minister, which was simply one for further inquiry. But there had been sufficient inquiry already, and what was wanted now was not in-

  957
  quiry but action. Mr. Pritchard, our first Consul at Levuka, came to England in February, 1859, with a proposal from Thakombau, who called himself King of Fiji, with a proposal to cede the whole group to Her Majesty. In 1860, Colonel Smythe, R.A., was sent out to make inquiry respecting this proposal. He found that Thakombau was only one of the principal Chiefs, and not really King of the group; but that the other Chiefs were also desirous of becoming subjects of the British Crown. Colonel Smythe reported against accepting the cession; but the reasons he gave for this course were so insufficient, so puerile in fact, that they were evidently a mere cloak to conceal the real reason. That reason was that the cession involved a payment of $45,000 to the United States, which it was not in accordance with the dignity of the British Government to make. The claim for this payment arose in 1897, when the United States Consul in giving a salute set fire to the thatch of his house, which was burned to the ground. The natives, under pretence of rendering assistance, carried off some of the Consul's things, worth probably less than £200; but the claim was gradually magnified to $45,000, and Thakombau was so alarmed by the menaces of the United States Government, that he offered to cede the islands to the English provided they would pay the money for him. This would have been unadvisable, and no doubt Colonel Smythe was right in declining to recommend such a step. But things were now altered, and the cession no longer involved disagreeable consequences. It had also become more requisite to assume the government of the group, as in no other way could the objectionable Government which had been set up by Thakombau be put an end to. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Lambeth would not accept the proposal for inquiry, but take the opinion of the House upon it.
  MR. KINNAIRDalso considered that the time for further inquiry had passed, and for this reason, that Her Majesty's Government had urged the Government of Australia to do the very thing which they were now themselves asked to do. The Government ought not, he thought, to leave this duty to any Colonial Government, but to do it themselves. If his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) pressed his Motion
  958
  to a Division, he should certainly support him.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government had not, as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down alleged, discouraged the Australian colonies in their wish to put down the slave trade.
  MR. KINNAIRD: I stated quite the contrary, and that the Government had sought to throw upon the colonies a duty which it ought to undertake itself.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the House was not in possession of the expression on the part of the Fijian Chiefs or the White residents of their desire to be annexed, and that the document before them emanated from the Government, the authority of which hon. Members disputed. He agreed that nothing could be worse than to allow the present state of things in Fiji to continue. Either it would be necessary to have seine distinct understanding with the authorities there, that a state of things which was perfectly intolerable should be put an end to; or that other steps should be taken; but the Government felt that if they desired at that moment that annexation should take place, they had not the slightest information before them as to the disposition of the Fijians, or as to the terms upon which they would consent to be annexed. He hoped the House would agree, therefore, that further information was necessary, and in the meantime they were not indifferent to the state of things which existed, but were taking the best measures they could to deal with it on the spot by their own agents.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEexpressed his surprise at the defence which the Prime Minister had offered of a Government, which consisted of a set of the most unmitigated ruffians in the world.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,on the part of the Foreign Office, begged to corroborate all that had been said in favour of Consul March, and to assure the House on behalf of his noble Friend (Lord Granville), that in transferring Mr. March from Fiji to another position, he did not mean to reflect, in the slightest degree, on the professional services which that gentleman had rendered during the time he held the Consulate of Fiji.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 50: Majority 36.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

THE TICHBORNE CASE—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO, alias TICHBORNE.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND A RETURN.
  MR. WHALLEY,who had given Notice to move—
  "That in the case of 'The Queen v. Castro, alias Tichborne,' 'Copies be produced of the Application to the Lords of the Treasury for aid to the Defendant, and of the Reply thereto; of the Correspondence between Mr. Whalley, M.P., and the Solicitor to the Treasury on the subject of the said prosecution; and for a Return of the sums allowed by the Treasury in respect of Fees to Counsel and other expenses incurred by prisoners in Ireland during the last ten years,"
  said, he would avail himself of that opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary a Question of which he had given him private Notice. He could not give Notice on the Paper, because it arose out of a communication which had been made to him since the House met. The right hon. Gentleman had informed him, that he should oppose the Motion which stood on the Paper, and he knew it was hopeless to expect that against such opposition, he should succeed in obtaining the Returns. The Tichborne prosecution had now proceeded for near 40 days, and it was stated in the report of the proceedings, that the evidence against the defendant would probably occupy the Court for at least three weeks to come. That prosecution was carried on upon the sole responsibility and management of the right hon. Gentleman as he had himself informed Parliament; and whatever else might be in doubt, it was certain that the public expenditure was something enormous, more probably than the cost of all the other public prosecutions for an entire year. Now, he desired to know on what grounds it was that the right hon. Gentleman considered himself justified in subjecting the country to this enormous outlay. The right hon.
  960
  Gentleman was, no doubt, well satisfied that the defendant was not the person he had sworn himself to be, and that he was guilty of the offence of perjury for which he was at present under trial. If anyone should entertain a contrary opinion, whether derived from his own personal knowledge, or from reading the report of the proceedings, he was not at liberty to give public expression to it; the most flagrant of all the forms in which the Court discovered that it was treated with contempt having been declared by the Judges to be the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), that he believed, in spite of the evidence, that the defendant was not guilty. Now, he asked, if that was so, what was the reason for that interminable calling of witnesses? What was the reason for bringing witnesses, at a cost of £500 a-piece, from the end of the earth, when they found in the tattoo-marks, and the evidence of officers and others, conclusive testimony that the defendant was not Tichborne? He considered he was entitled to demand, on the part of the public, at whose cost this extraordinary trial was then going on?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to Order. He submitted that it was a most improper proceeding to criticize matters connected with a trial then going on.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is certainly out of Order, in discussing proceedings that are at this time sub judice.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would, after that ruling, discuss the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and the prosecution. He had often asked before, on what ground it was that the Government, if they found it necessary in the first place to take up the prosecution in relief of the parties directly injured by this imposition, and who could and ought to have exposed and punished it within a month of the man's appearance in this country—if he were an impostor—why, he repeated, having so taken it up, should they ransack the whole world for circumstantial and secondary evidence, when the Judge of the Common Pleas and the jury at whose instance they did not take it up, were satisfied with the half-dozen witnesses who spoke to the tattoo marks? Now, the Government, though repeatedly asked, had never

  961
  given the slightest information on that point, and he considered that every day the trial proceeded justified any Member of that House in demanding again and again such explanation. He now came, however, to the question that still more urgently demanded attention and reply. He had on several occasions urged upon Government the necessity of satisfying the public that the defendant would have a fair trial, and that that could not be unless he was enabled to bring forward such evidence as he might have to offer in his defence, and in support of that appeal he had again placed on the Paper Notice of Motion for certain Returns which bore upon the statements of the right hon. Gentleman and of his Department as to the practice of the Government in respect of the provision for the cost of witnesses, &c., to persons in the position of the defendant.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have again to explain to the hon. Gentleman, that it is entirely out of Order to discuss the proceedings of a trial now at issue in the Court of Queen's Bench.
  MR. WHALLEY: If the Government were advised that the guilt of the defendant was as clear as those witnesses declared it to be, what need existed for all that vast expenditure, and such prolongation of the trial as deranged the administration of justice and was a scandal and a discredit to our judicial procedure? And if the right hon. Gentleman should reply to that, that it was necessary, in order to meet and anticipate the case which the defendant might be enabled to set up in reply, he asked whether every day and every hour and every witness that was called against him, did not strengthen the appeal that he should not be deprived—as he had been by the past course of proceedings, and was more and more so by every hour his trial was prolonged—of the means of offering such defence. The right hon. Gentleman knew, or might know, that above 500 witnesses had already declared on oath that he was Tichborne, but not one of them could be brought before the Court and jury unless he had money for that purpose, and he had none, and the Papers that he had asked to be laid on the Table of that House, and which the right hon. Gentleman refused to produce, went to establish the fact that the Government did know that he had material evidence to bring forward,
  962
  and that he could not do so in consequence of the course which they had taken against him without precedent, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, in its hardship, practical injustice, and cruelty. For that purpose, he repeated, he ventured to put on the Paper a Motion for the Return of expenses voted for murderers and traitors in Ireland—deeper-dyed criminals than the Claimant was alleged to be. Was it without precedent that the public money should be granted for the defence of persons in the position of the Claimant? The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Copies of Correspondence referred to in his Notice.
  MR. GLADSTONErose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was not now criticizing the proceedings of the Government but the conduct of a trial not yet finished.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he would briefly explain why he refused the Returns. In Ireland, in capital cases, it had been the practice for the Government to provide counsel for the prisoners and pay them; but that had never been done in this country.
  MR. SPEAKERhere interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and called attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Peterborough had concluded his address with an inquiry whether a Return would be granted for which he had given Notice that he would move. It was irregular thus to anticipate under cover of a Question on going into Committee of Supply, the discussion of a Motion which was set down for future consideration.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copies ordered, "of the Application to the Lords of the Treasury for aid to the Defendant in the case of Queen v. Castro alias Tichborne, and of the Reply thereto:"
  "And, of the Correspondence between Mr. Whalley, M.P., and the Solicitor to the Treasury, on the subject of the said prosecution."—(Mr. Whalley.)

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to regulate Building Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.