Commons Sitting of 6 September 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS I. — PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 21, 22; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 10 to 12; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 5, 6, 8; CLASS VI. NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES, Votes 1 to 4, 7, 8; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, Votes 1, 2; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Votes I, II.; GLASS I. — PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Vote 7; CLASS IV.
—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; CLASS VII. MISCELLANEOUS.
Resolutions [September 5] reported.
Postponed Resolution [September 2] agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2)* [381] — R.P.; Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) * [327]— R.P.
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous) * [348].

QUESTIONS.

  IMMIGRATION OF DESTITUTE ALIENS, 1886.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he could give a Return of the number of Destitute Aliens who arrived in the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the year 1886?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) () (who replied)said: The Board of Trade are unable to give the number of destitute aliens who arrived in the ports of the United Kingdom in 1886, as the Passenger Acts, 1854 and 1863, under which the Immigration Returns are made to the Board of Trade, do not require the condition of the immigrants to be stated, and do not require Returns to be made of persons coming from places in Europe or on the Coasts of the Mediterranean.

  UNITED STATES—REFUSAL OF DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any inquiry will be made into the cases of nine persons, said to be foreigners, who, with others, have been recently sent back to the United Kingdom by the United States as destitute aliens, in order to ascertain their respective nationalities, and with a view to their being returned by the United Kingdom to their own countries respectively?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (): Of the nine foreigners referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, eight were said to be of German nationality, and one was said to be of Swedish nationality. The Board of Trade have no machinery at their disposal for making the inquiry suggested, or funds at their disposal for dealing with such cases.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS—ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL, HAMMERSMITH.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the scheme under which. St. Paul's School, now situated at Fulham and Hammersmith, can be so modified as to give effect to the recommendation of the Endowed Schools Committee in favour of local control and sympathy being introduced into the management of such schools by allowing the Vestries of Fulham and Hammersmith to be represented on the Governing Body; and, if so, what steps are necessary to secure-this object?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford): Proceedings for the modification of a scheme made—as is that for St. Paul's School—under the provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts, may be taken by the Commissioners either on their own initiative or upon application of the Governors. In view of the fact that the scheme has been recently settled as the result of much deliberation and of full publicity, and that the locality in which the school happens to have been placed upon its removal from St. Paul's Churchyard has no special claim upon the endowment, it is improbable that proceedings will be taken by the Charity Commissioners for the suggested modification of the scheme.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE—ACTING SERGEANTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the number of acting sergeants (i.e. constables performing the duties of sergeants) in the Metropolitan Police Force, and of these how many either are over 35 years of age, or have had more than 10 years' service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that there are 97 acting sergeants in the Metropolitan Police Force, exclusively of the Dockyard Divisions; and of these 90 are either over 35 years of age or have more than 10 years' service,

  REGISTRATION OF VOTES—THE POLLING DISTRICT OF GREAT SANGHALL.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire) (for Mr. BRUNNER) ()asked the President of the Local Government Board, Why the Court of the Revising Barrister for the Polling District of Great Sanghall is held at Chester, outside the Parliamentary Division of which Great Sanghall forms a part, which results in claimants, overseers, and agents having to walk 10, and in some cases 14, miles; and, whether this inconvenience can be removed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) () (who replied)said: I am informed by the Clerk of the Peace that Chester was appointed by the Court of Quarter Sessions as on the whole the most convenient place at which to hold the Revising Barrister's Court, it being the market town of the inhabitants of Great Sanghall and the other townships included in the district,; and also the place where the Petty Sessions for the district are held. Any alteration cannot now be made by Quarter Sessions in time for this year's revision; but the question will be brought j forward and considered by the Justices previously to the revision in 1888.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS, 1883, 1885—LURGAN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a representation, under the Labourers (Ireland); Acts, 1883 and 1885, was made to the Board of Guardians of the Lurgan Union on the 9th June last, suggesting the erection of additional house accommodation in Soldierstown, Aghalee; whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the action of the said Board in reference to this matter; and, whether the Local Government Board took any steps to ascertain whether there was sufficient house accommodation within the meaning of the Labourers' Acts in the said district?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HANMAN) () (who replied)said: The Board of Guardians of Lurgan Union had before them the application referred to, but decided it was not one

  1339
  which could be entertained. The attention of the Local Government Board was called to this case by the applicant. They communicated with the Guardians, who stated that they had refused the application on the ground that in no part of the Union was there any difficulty in obtaining this class of house accommodation, vacant cottier houses being of late years the rule, and not the exception, in the rural portion of the Union. The Local Government Board did not consider it necessary to interfere further in the matter.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS — KILBRIDE DIVISION OF RATHMINES UNION.
  MR. HARRIS () (for Mr. W. J. CORBET) ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the Earl of Wicklow got several schemes for cottages in the Kilbride Division of Rathmines Union thrown out, by undertaking to erect whatever cottages might be required in that Division himself; and, whether he is aware that no cottages have been built by the Earl of Wicklow, in accordance with that undertaking, and that a number of labourers in the Division are consequently unable to obtain house accommodation?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said: The Clerk of Rathdrum Union reports that no scheme was made by the Guardians in regard to building labourers' cottages in the Kilbride Division. Representations had been made for the building of seven cottages in the Division; but an undertaking having been given on behalf of the Earl of Wicklow that he would build whatever cottages were found to be required, the Guardians did not proceed further. The Clerk is aware that the Earl of Wicklow has built a number of labourers' cottages in the Division; but he does not know whether any of them were built subsequent to the undertaking. He is not aware of a number of labourers being unable to obtain house accommodation in the Division. If the hon. Gentleman who puts this Question has any definite information on the subject of the alleged absence of accommoda-
  1340
  tion, and if he will be good enough to communicate it to me, I shall be happy to make further inquiry.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)—BROMLEY LEVEL CROSSING—LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that two more fatal accidents have occurred in the last fortnight at the Bromley Level Crossing on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, making three within a month; and, whether the Government have any power to compel the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway to construct a foot bridge, without delay, at this most dangerous level crossing?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth): Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have been informed of the accidents referred to by the hon. Member. An inquiry into the circumstances attending them has been made by one of the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade; and when his Report has been received I shall be in a position to state what steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CORK AND MACROOM RAILWAY COMPANY—CONTRACT FOR CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Postmaster General, What mails are being, and have been, sent by the Cork and Macroom Railway Company, and whether there is any contract between the Company and the Post Office for the carriage of mails; whether it is a fact that they are booked as parcels; whether the Carriers Act protects all Railway Companies for any loss of parcel above £10, unless the same is insured, and, accordingly, what security is given to the public for the safe transmission and delivery of valuable letters; and, for what reason do the authorities endeavour to avoid paying this Company the legitimate revenue which other lines receive for the carriage of mails; and, if so, can he explain why this Company is not paid by the Post Office in the same manner as other Railway Companies?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (): A few small day mail bags are carried over the Cork and Macroom Railway, and there is no contract for the carriage of mails on this line. In 1885 the Department endeavoured to come to an agreement with the Company for a yearly payment for the conveyance of these mails; but the Company declined the offer made, and the mails are now carried under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1873. A charge at ordinary parcel rates is made by the company and paid by the Department. This practice will continue, unless the Company prefer to go to arbitration. The payments made as above amount to slightly less than the sum the Department offered, and appear to be fair and reasonable. The liability of the Railway Company as regards the safe transmission of these bags is the same which attaches to all Railway Companies in respect to the conveyance of mails. It is true that for a short time parcels were sent in the letter bags; but the practice has been discontinued since March, 1886, and the parcel mails are now sent separately. While it lasted, however, no injury was done to the Company, as the parcels, whether sent separately or otherwise, were duly accounted for to the London Railway Clearing Committee under the Post Office (Parcels) Act. Payments equivalent to parcel rates are accepted voluntarily for similar services in many other cases.

  PUBLIC HEALTH — METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD — THE SOUTH WESTERN HOSPITAL (STOCKWELL).
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the following Resolution, passed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board on Saturday, 27th August: —
  "That, should the Ambulance Committee find it necessary, they be empowered to open the South Western Hospital (Stockwell) for the reception of fever patients; "
  and, that, considering that this Hospital is surrounded by 400 or 500 houses, mostly inhabited by two families, and that there is an isolated hospital at Winchmore Hill quite empty, he will recommend that the latter be used, in-
  1342
  stead of opening the Stockwell Hospital for fever patients?
  MR. ISAACSinquired, whether it was not the fact that the hospital at Winchmore Hill was entirely unfurnished, and that it would cost several thousand pounds to prepare it for the reception of patients?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (): The fact suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Isaacs is undoubtedly correct. My attention has been called to the Resolution referred to. The question whether the South Western Hospital or that at Winchmore Hill should be opened was considered by the managers, who determined by a considerable majority in favour of opening the former. The Winchmore Hill Hospital is not furnished; and it would, therefore, have taken longer than the other hospital to prepare for patients. The matter, however, was one of urgency; and the Committee have already found it necessary to act upon the resolution of the managers and to open the South Western Hospital. No evidence has been adduced to show that during the 17 years which have elapsed since this Hospital was first opened fever has spread from it to the surrounding houses; and, under all the circumstances, I have not thought it necessary to interfere with the decision of the managers on the subject.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)— MR. SHIRLEY'S ESTATE CARRICKMACROSS, CO.MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the tenants on the estate of Mr. Shirley, in the neighbourhood of Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, who were evicted last March, and who retook possession of their houses pending the hearing of their applications to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, have been recently visited by the police, and by them threatened that unless they quitted their homes within two days they would be proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether he can state upon whose authority and under what statute the police so acted; whether it was open to Mr. Shirley to remove these people under the ordinary law; and, whether, in view of the fact that their applications to have

  1343
  a fair rent fixed are listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Land Court in County Monaghan, he will order the police to suspend their action?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said: The Constabulary Authorities report that 14 tenants on the Shirley estate evicted last September, December, and March have been noticed by the police to leave their houses and farms, where possession has been unlawfully re-taken, within the last few days, and in some cases, when found in the houses, they were informed that if they did not leave, they would be prosecuted under the Statute quoted. These instructions were carried out by order of the Divisional Magistrate. Mr. Shirley might have taken proceedings to recover the premises otherwise than by means of the recent Statute. None of these tenants have served notice to have a fair rent fixed; and in the case of seven of them the statutable period for doing so appears to have expired.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY CONTRACTS—CONTRACT FOR SPONGES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the year 1881, the contract for the supply of sponges to the Army was put up to competition, and the price of sponges was, under that contract, 11 d. and 6d. each for Cavalry and Infantry respectively for three years; whether, on the termination of this contract by the contractors, the same contract was in 1882 given, without competition, at the price of 2s. 3d. and 9d. respectively, and for the unusual term of six years; whether it is the fact that the present contractors have received intimation that their contract will be renewed for a further period; whether the sealed patterns, according to which sponges are supplied under the present contract, are the same, and bear the same numbers, as those which supplied the standard for preceding contracts, including that of 1881; and, what is the justification for placing this and other contracts without allowing competition?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE) () (who replied)said: The case of the sponge contract is peculiar. The facts are substantially as stated in the hon.
  1344
  Member's Question; but I should say that the contractor of 1881 was a heavy loser by his contract—although the War Department only partially enforced it— and he terminated his contract at the end of the first year. In 1882 competition was deliberately dispensed with, with the full consent of the then Secretary of State, as a means of breaking down a ring which practically constituted a monopoly against the War Office and deprived competition of all real value. The price agreed upon with Messrs. Cohen in 1882 was somewhat below the average paid to the one firm which had held the contract for 14 years, from 1860 to 1880.
  MR. HANBURYasked, whether it was not a fact that this contract, which was originally granted for the unusual period of six years without any competition whatever, was about to be renewed for a further term, also without any competition?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: Yes; I told my hon. Friend that the facts quoted by him in his Question were substantially correct. The contracts have been renewed on the responsibility of the Director of Contracts.
  MR. HANBURY: For how long?
  MR. NORTHCOTE: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact period; but I will let him know.

  EXCISE — SEIZURE OF TOBACCO ON BOARD THE "CITY OF BRISTOL"AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Edwin Duniam, Chief Officer of the steamship City of Bristol was, at Belfast, on the 1st of June last, sentenced to a month's imprisonment, with the option of a fine, in consequence of the discovery by the Customs officers, in a chain looker of the fore-peak hatch of the ship, of about 20 lbs. of tobacco and cigars; whether the ground of the conviction was that Duniam had the key of the fore-peak hatch; whether it is the fact that the crew had continual access to the hatch, which was used as an ordinary store or lumber room, and whether anyone could enter, without touching the lock, by merely removing a bolt; whether, although Duniam pleaded this state of facts before the Collector of Customs and the magistrate, his request to have certain members of the crew

  1345
  examined on oath was not complied with; whether, protesting his innocence and refusing to pay the tine, he was committed to prison, but released next day, the fine having been paid on his behalf without his consent or knowledge; whether, in consequence of a refusal to refund the sum of £20, paid by the owners of the City of Bristol to clear the ship at Belfast on 31st May, except on condition of the dismissal of Duniam, the owners have dismissed him from their employment, after 20 years of service, though satisfied of his innocence; and, whether the case will be made the subject of inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (): The facts of the case are substantially as stated in the Question, with some exceptions, and the Commissioners of Customs have directed a further inquiry to he made.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS CLERK, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Petty Sessions clerk of the districts of Skreen, Dromore West, and Easky (County Sligo), has been suspended from office; whether his books have been signed by the local Constabulary; what is the nature of the charge against him; and, whether an investigation has been held; and, if so, by whom, and in what manner, and with what result?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said: The Petty Sessions Clerk referred to was suspended and his official books taken possession of by the Constabulary. The charge against the clerk was that he had failed to duly account for the public moneysreceived by him. The Registrar of Potty Sessions Clerks detailed a member of his staff to inquire into the case, who examined the clerk's books, cash balances, and the mode in which his general duties were discharged. The inspection showed that the duties of the clerk were, with the exception of the default which led to his suspension, well discharged, and that his books and cash balances were correct. As the result of this investigation the clerk was severely reprimanded for his default, and warned against a repetition of it. The suspension was then, removed.
  In answer to a further Question,
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the failure of the clerk to pay public money was a failure to pay the money due for the financial quarter ending 31st July, and to furnish an account to the Quarter Sessions. The clerk did not do this until he received notice of suspension. He explained that this was inconsequence of a previous illness; and on going through his books, as he had said, the cash balance was found to be perfectly correct.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL FROM BALLYMOTE.
  MR. GILHOOLY () (for Mr. FLYNN) ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a protest against the removal of the headquarter station of the Royal Irish Constabulary from Ballymote, County Sligo, has been extensively signed by gentry, merchants, and traders of Ballymote and district; whether Ballymote is by much the most populous town in the district, is centrally situate at the junction of four baronies, has 12 important fairs in the year, is the place where the Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions, and Land Sessions are held, and has been a head-quarter Constabulary station since the formation of this force, now some 50 years ago; and, why the head-quarters have been removed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said, the Government had no knowledge of the protest referred to in the Question having been received; but the facts were substantially as stated in the second part of the Question. The head-quarters of the Constabulary had been removed from Ballymote owing to the difficulty experienced in getting a suitable building, or a site for a building, at a reasonable rate. He would make further inquiries as to the protest from the residents.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE PICTURES AT THE NATIONAL GALLERY—REMOVAL OF VARNISH.
  MR. LAFONE () (for Mr. MORGAN HOWARD) (Camberwell, Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If any Report has been received by the Government from

  1347
  the Director of the National Gallery respecting certain successful experiments made by Mr. W. E. Jones, of Melbourne Grove, East Dulwich, in removing, by a new method, the varnishes of pictures at the Gallery; whether it appears by such Report that certain injurious chemicals usually employed in this work have been superseded by Mr. Jones's method, and whether the varnishes of valuable pictures at the Gallery have been thereby removed without the least detriment to the paint, and without the slightest "skinning" of the pictures; whether the Director has expressed his great satisfaction with these experiments; and, whether the Government will recommend the Trustees of the National Gallery to ascertain the secret of the discovery referred to, in order that the National Collection of valuable pictures there may be protected and preserved?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (): I understand that some experiments were made by Mr. Jones in the presence of the Director of the National Gallery, and that they were successful; but the Director does not think it necessary to adopt Mr. Jones's process in lieu of that already in use in the Gallery.

  ITALY—DUTIES ON PIG IRON—CONTINUANCE OF THE GERMAN AND ITALIAN TREATY.
  MR. MASONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Italian Chamber of Deputies has passed a Bill imposing a duty of 8s. per ton upon pig iron, and proposing to levy very heavy duties on manufactured iron; whether the German and Italian Treaty is to be continued, notice of its termination being required by 1st August, 1887; and, whether Great Britain will enjoy the most favoured nation treatment by Convention, and without a Treaty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (): The Italian Parliament has passed a Tariff Bill having effects such as are described in the hon. Member's Question. Her Majesty's Government are not informed if the German-Italian Commercial Treaty has been denounced; but it is probable that it has, as certain Articles in the Tariff Act are
  1348
  inconsistent with it. Great Britain will enjoy the most favoured Nation treatment under its Commercial Treaty with Italy, which continues in force.

  BULGARIA — MISSION OF GENERAL ERNROTH TO SOFIA.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the report is true that the British Ambassador in Constantinople, acting in concert with the Austrian and Italian Ambassadors, have protested in the names of their respective Governments against the Mission of General Ernroth to Sofia; whether the case has been submitted to Germany for arbitration; and, whether that Power has consented to undertake the office?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (): I am not able to give the hon. Member any information on the subject of his Question.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right Gentleman what reason he can allege for not answering the Question, or is there any reason—[" Order ! "]
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is extremely inexpedient to give any information on the subject.
  DR. TANNER: When may I expect to get an answer?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  DR. TANNER: I expect to get an answer, and I shall put the Question down again.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ATTANG—PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, How many men altogether were summoned for taking part in the eviction at Tang on the 17th August; whether all of them will be prosecuted on the double charge preferred in the summonses; whether, since Friday last, additional summonses have been taken out and served; and, whether, in these cases also, it is intended to proceed on two distinct charges arising out of the same transaction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (),in reply, said, that altogether 17 summonses were issued, and were issued the same night. No summonses were taken out after Friday. With re-

  1349
  gard to the latter part of the Question, he had to repeat the answer he made on Friday morning—that answer was that he could not make any statement with regard to the pending prosecutions, further than that if it appeared on the face of the evidence that only one offence had been committed, only one sentence would be imposed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the summons was not served on some of the defendants who lived a great distance from Mullingar until Saturday; and he wished to know, considering the gravity of the charges and the novelty of the proceedings, whether these men would get more than two days to prepare their defence, the cases coming on for hearing to-morrow?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the defence of one defendant would be the same for all the others.
  MR. SEXTON: The defence will involve the summoning of a number of witnesses.

  EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND)—EVICTION ATCAIRN'S ABBRLOUR.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the report in the Edinburgh Evening News is correct, describing the eviction of John Middleton, farmer, of Cairns Aberlour, by a force of labourers and policemen, who, without notice, turned him and his family out, tore off the roof, and demolished the farm house, or left it in flames; whether it is true that Middleton was not in arrears of rent, but the rent had been paid up till the last term; and, whether the Government will consider the desirability of bringing in a measure regulating evictions in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (): My attention was only called to this matter last night, and I am not prepared to give an answer at present.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS (SCOTLAND)— NON-PAYMENT OF RATES.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the large number of crofters disfranchised for non-payment of rates in the Western Highlands and Islands are under £4 a-year rental, and have been disfranchised in consequence of the land-
  1350
  lords not having paid the compounded rates within the appointed time?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (): I have no information in amplification of the answer I gave on the 2nd of September.

  SCOTLAND—THE WESTERN ISLES—LOCHMADDY, UIST.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention had been called to the allegation that there is no church or place of worship at Lochmaddy, the principal town of Uist, and that the landlord of the district refuses to grant a site to the Free Church; and, whether the Government will introduce a measure next Session to compel land to be granted for places of worship where such are required?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (): I have no information on this matter, and it will take some time to obtain it.

  BURIAL ACTS — THE BATTERSEA BURIAL BOARD — THE ROSE HILL CEMETERY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a public meeting convened on Thursday last by the Chairman of the Sutton (Surrey) Local Board, on the requisition of 293 of the principal tradesmen, medical men, and other ratepayers of the town, and to the following Resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority at such meeting—
  " That, in the opinion of this meeting, the offer of the Battersea Burial Board as to Rose Hill Cemetery should he accepted, with the conditions suggested by the Local Board deputation; "
  and, whether, having regard thereto, and to the urgent public necessity of the case to a large Metropolitan constituency, and also to the parish of Sutton, he is now prepared to accede to the application of the Battersea Burial Board for permission to use the Rose Hill site for burial purposes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (): My attention has been called to the fact that a meeting was held on Thursday last. I was not informed by whom the requisi-

  1351
  tion was signed. I daily received conflicting statements on this subject, which I am still considering.

  WAS OFFICE —REGIMENTAL BANDS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  DR. TINDAL ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an Order has been recently issued from the Horse Guards to prevent regimental bands from playing in districts other than those in which the regiments to which they belong is located; whether he is aware that this new Order has prevented the bands of the Guards' regiments from playing in several places where they had undertaken to play; whether this new Regulation has been the subject of complaint from various towns where the Guards' bands had been engaged to play; and, whether the Regulation had his approval?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (): An Order was issued on the 2nd of August under which regimental bands were forbidden to play out of the military district in which their head-quarters were situated, without special permission from the War Office. I believe that the Guards' bands were prevented by this Rule from fulfilling some of their engagements. One case—that of Brighton —has already been brought to my notice by the Judge Advocate General. In others local complaints have been made; and I am bound to say that I think it would have been better if longer notice had been given of the change of practice intended. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the Commander-in-Chief has informed me that he considers the Order advisable on military grounds.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether the same Rule applied to the Royal Artillery Woolwich band?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Rule applies to all bands.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—INTIMIDATION—LISTOWEL PETTY SESSIONS, CO.KERRY.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether three farmers were recently sum-
  1352
  moned before the Listowel Petty Sessions, County Kerry, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for intimidating and preventing the collection of rent; whether, previous to the cases being heard, the three farmers charged waited upon the landlord's agent, and made an ample apology, offering to pay all costs; and, whether, in consequence of this acknowledgment of wrong-doing, all proceedings against them were dropped?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I am glad to be able to answer the entire of the Question in the affirmative.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE (INDIA)—HALF-STAFF ALLOWANCES.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether an executive officer of the Medical Staff in India, who officiated for less than one month as Deputy Surgeon General in the absence of the Deputy Surgeon General on sick leave or furlough, receives no allowances for the period, although he performed the duties in addition to his other duties; whether, in such an instance, the "half-staff" of the appointment reverted to the State; whether the acting officer would be held pecuniarily liable in the event of loss of stores or other mistakes; and, whether officers officiating on the Military (combatant) Staff in a similar way would draw the "half-staff" for broken periods; and, why the difference is made in the case of medical officers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) () (who replied)said: In accordance with the undertaking given by me on the 17th of June, when this Question was first put, a Despatch on the subject was addressed to the Government of India; but no reply has yet been received.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—MAJOR LIDWELL, DROMARD HOUSE,CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the morning of Sunday the 22 ultimo, Major

  1353
  Lid well, of Dromard House, County Tipperary, went, accompanied by other persons, to the farm of one of his tenants, Patrick Stapleton, and, by the use of an explosive, blew up a bridge connecting the farm with the public road; whether, in consequence of the explosion, a woman named Kennedy was struck on the temple by a stone; whether Major Lidwell returned to the place after dark the same evening, and, by another explosion, completed the destruction of the bridge; whether he then proceeded to the house occupied by Mrs. Stapleton and her children, threatened to "blow them and their house into the elements," and also threatened some neighbours who came to the assistance of Mrs. Stapleton, that he would make them suffer; whether Mrs. Stapleton immediately reported the case to the local police, and has been since informed by them that they are awaiting "instructions from the authorities; "whether Major Lidwell adjudicates as a magistrate in the Templemore District; and, what determination has been come to upon the case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () (who replied)said, he regretted he had received no further information on the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: I must take every opportunity that occurs to get an answer to this Question.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am doing all I can to get the particulars, and I intend to take further steps.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND)—REMUNERATION OF UNION CLERKS.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that an opinion has been universally expressed by Boards of Guardians in Ireland that the cost of remunerating clerks of Unions employed in connection with the work of Parliamentary registration should be defrayed out of Imperial funds, instead of, as present, out of local rates; and, whether similar representations have reached him from England; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation dealing with the subject?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): I understand that the Irish Government has received from Boards of Guardians expressions of opinion in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. No similar representations have been made to the Local Government Board in England; and I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of initiating legislation on the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—"BOYCOTTING"IN THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in. reference to the Return giving 21 cases of Boycotting in the Queen's County, Whether he will state the locality in which each of the alleged cases has occurred, with a view to enabling the Representatives of the county to test the accuracy of the Return by personal inquiry?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (), (who replied)said: The Government have already stated to the House that they cannot undertake to give the names of the persons Boycotted, or the particular locality in which they preside.

  POST OFFICE—HOUSE OF COMMONS—RE-DIRECTION OF LETTERS.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to the imperfect way in which the duty of re-directing the letters of Members which are sent, in the first instance, to the House of Commons is at present performed; and, whether he will give instructions that this work shall be more efficiently discharged during the Recess?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKKS) (Cambridge University): The short Notice which the hon. Member has given has prevented me from making so full an inquiry into the matter as I should have desired; but I may, nevertheless, state with confidence that I have no reason to think that the duty of re-directing Members' letters from the House is imperfectly or carelessly performed, but that the contrary is the case. In order to prevent delay, letters which have to be

  1355
  re-directed are not sent to the House, but are dealt with, in the District Post Office by the postal staff of the House, with such assistance as may be necessary; and I am informed that, on an average, 3,000 letters a-day are thus re-directed, the number sometimes exceeding 5,000. The work appears to be done so carefully that I am assured that no written complaint of an error in re-directing has been received during the present Session, and only one personal complaint. This was from the hon. Member himself about a month ago. He was then requested to furnish the covers of the letters stated to have been incorrectly treated, with a view to inquiry; but this he has not done. I may remind the House that there are three other Members whose names are similar to that of the hon. Member, although two of them are not spelt in the same way; and it is, of course, possible that an obscurely-addressed letter may have been sent to the wrong person; but there is no evidence of this.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that two letters addressed to Mr. W. M. M'Arthur, M.P., have been received by me recently, and that I frequently receive letters intended for the Lord Advocate, while he receives letters intended for me; also, that two letters received for me at the House of Commons were sent to the Constitutional Club? Perhaps my experience in this respect may be peculiar.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERstated that on more than one occasion his letters had been re-directed to the Members whose names were next to his above and below in Vacher's Parliamentary Guide.
  MR. RAIKES: I think it is possible that the letters referred to may have been re-directed at some other office, and not by the staff in the House.

  IRELAND — HORSE BREEDING—WINNERS AT THE ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY'S SHOW.
  MR. TUITE () (for Mr. HAYDEN) ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Can he now give the information promised in reference to the places to which the winners of the prizes for sires at the recent Royal Dublin Society's Show will be stationed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (), (who replied)said: An authorized statement on the part of the Royal Dublin Society appeared some time ago in the public Press giving full particulars as to the sires and the head-quarters at which they will be stationed.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—DAY MAILS FROM DRUMSNA.
  MR. TUITE () (for Mr. HAYDEN) ()asked the Postmaster General, Whether Drumsna is a sorting office for Kilmore and Hillotree; whether the day mails from Drumsna for Dublin are forwarded direct from that station; whether the night mails are first sent into Carrick-on-Shannon, passing by the Drumsna Railway Station to Dublin four hours after; and, whether he will so arrange that the night mails will be forwarded direct as the day mails now are, and thus give the people of the three districts named a much longer time within which to write their correspondence?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (): I undertook, on the 1st instant, to have inquiry made in Ireland on the several points embraced in the hon. Member's Question; but there has not been time for a Report to be furnished, or to give to the matter, which involves detail, the consideration which must precede a decision. There shall be no unnecessary delay.

  ADMIRALTY—DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN AT DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  SIR JOHN PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, having reference to the number of men in the Devonport Dockyard being reduced to about the proportion assigned to it of the 18,000 at which the Dockyard establishments are to be maintained, he can now say that preference will be given to the re-employment of those discharged in filling up vacancies as they may arise from deaths, superannuation, or other causes?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (): In the event of any re-entries, preference will be given to such discharged hands as

  1357
  may present themselves for re-employment, provided their qualifications are suitable.
  DR. TANNERasked, what was the average number of reentries per annum owing to the cause mentioned in the Question?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not know that there had been any hitherto, because the tendency in past years had been to increase rather than diminish establishments.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS, &c.}—SHIPS BUILT BY CONTRACT — REFUSAL OF THE" AUSTRALIA "AND OTHERS.
  SIR JOHN PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty declined to take over the Australia on account of defective work; whether the extra cost is to be made good by the contractors or by the Admiralty; whether more than one Survey or Report has been made, in which it is stated that the ship was not built according to specification in many particulars; that the torpedo arrangements were faulty; that the racers had not been fitted with the care necessary for the safe working of the guns; and that the quick firing guns had not been placed on hard wood, in the manner such work is done in the Dockyards, and so forth; whether the Dockyard officials have recommended the retention of a large sum out of the balance remaining unpaid to the contractors; whether the Phaeton and Galatea, the Archer, and other contract-built ships have required alterations and repairs, at heavy cost to the Admiralty; and, whether he will grant a Return of the cost of alterations and repairs of ships built by private firms during the last five or six years, and also lay upon the Table of the House the various Reports made by the officials of the Admiralty or Dockyards on the Australia and other ships handed over by the shipbuilders?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (): The Admiralty have not delined to take over the Australia. The Report of Survey is satisfactory; but some few minor items have been left incomplete, or will require adjustment. The cost of completing these in accordance with the contract will be paid by the contractors. The racers to her guns and the sills to
  1358
  torpedo ports require slight adjustment. The stands for the quick-firing guns have been laid on hard wood; but there is a mistake of about five-eighths of an inch as to the height required. In accordance with the usual practice and with the provisions of the contract, a sum of money has been kept back to cover the cost of any defects or deficiencies that may be discovered. With regard to other contract-built ships, some defects have occurred in the boilers of three of the vessels of the Archer class, which are being made good by the contractors. The defects in the machinery of the Phaeton occurred after the expiration of her 12 months' guarantee from contractors, and were consequently made good at the cost of the Admiralty. The hulls of these ships have been built satisfactorily. The Galatea is still in the contractors' hands at Glasgow. There will be no objection to give the Return relating to the cost of alterations and repairs of ships built by contract. The Reports of Admiralty and Dockyard officers are, however, made for the information of the Admiralty, and are confidential.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY —CHARGE AGAINST THE SERGEANT OF POLICE STATION AT PIKE, BALLINGARRY, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. GILHOOLY () (for Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN) ()asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any Report has been received with reference to the sergeant in charge of the police station at Pike, County of Tipperary, having been drunk on the evening of the 30th June last when absent on duty at Lorrha Petty Sessions; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the fact?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said: No Report of such an occurrence has been received by the County Inspector.
  MR. SEXTON: Whose duty would it be to report to the County Inspector?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The District Inspector.
  MR. SEXTON: And who would report to the District Inspector? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  1359
  inquire whether this occurrence took place?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Inquiries are being made.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I will repeat the Question on Thursday.

  TITHE COMMUTATION ACTS —INCIDENCE OF CHARGE.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, under the Acts for the Commutation of Tithes, the contributions towards compulsory redemption are payable by the occupier, or persons in possession of the land, whether as freeholders, lessees under a beneficial lease, or mortgagee; whether he is aware that tithes are subject to local rates, and that their commutation will deprive Local Authorities of the moans of recovering that source of income; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure to prevent injustice being done to leaseholders and the ratepayers generally, by the present mode of compulsory tithe redemption?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (): Contributions towards the compulsory redemption of tithe rent-charge are, under the Acts for the commutation of tithes, payable by the owners of the lands chargeable therewith—that is, the persons in actual receipt of the rents or profits of the land, whether as freeholders or mortgagees, in possession. In the case of a beneficial lease (on which a rent less than two-thirds the value of the premises is reserved, and of which the term exceeds 14 years) the lessee and lossor are jointly liable according to their respective interests. In regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member, a rent-charge has been substituted for tithes, and this rent-charge is subject to local rates under 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, ss. 69 and 70. When the rent-charge is redeemed the Local Authorities lose the rates upon it; but the rateable value of the property which was subject to the rent-charge is increased when freed from the charge; and, consequently, the rates lost in respect of the rent-charge are practically recouped by the increased sum received from rates on the property. I am not prepared, therefore, to accept the view of the hon. Member that injustice is
  1360
  done either to leaseholders or ratepayers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EAST INDIAREVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUALFINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  In reply to Mr. BRADLAUGH (Northampton),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) ()said: In the event of Supply being closed on Wednesday, the Indian Budget will be taken on Thursday; and in the event of Supply not being closed until Thursday the Indian Budget will be taken on Friday. I hope I may rely on it that the days I have mentioned will be the last days of Supply.
  Subsequently,
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, whether the Indian Budget, when taken, would be the first Order of the Day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be exceedingly happy to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's views in the matter; but he must be aware that I cannot enter into any engagement of the kind. At this period of the Session I must make the arrangements which are best calculated, in my judgment, to promote the convenience of the House.

  IRREGULAR QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN PULESTONrose to put a Question arising out of an answer which had been given with reference to the reduction of men in the Dockyards. He wished to ask, was it not a fact that some 1,200 or 1,300 men a-year were retired by deaths or super annuation—
  MR. SPEAKERinterposing, said: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go back on Questions which have been answered long before. The practice is very inconvenient, and I have already expressed a hope that the House would not sanction it.

  THEATRES—OFFICIAL SURVEYS—BURNING OF THE EXETER THEATRE.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any information whatever which has not been published, relating to the terrible catastrophe which took place at Exeter

  1361
  Theatre last night; and whether, also, considering that this was a new theatre, having been built but very recently, any official surrey was deemed necessary by the Home Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (): No official survey was held by the Home Office, because the Home Office has no authority to hold any survey in the Provinces. This jurisdiction rests entirely with the Justices in Special Session, who may require, as a condition of granting a licence, that a survey of the building shall be made, and certain structural conditions be complied with. With regard to the accident itself, I regret to say that I am informed by telegraph received a few minutes ago that as many as 119 persons are dead; but I am glad to say, as a set-off against that, I am also informed that those who are injured are progressing favourably.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether, in consequence of the frequently-recurring disasters and loss of life in theatres, and other places of public meeting and amusement, steps will be immediately taken to appoint Inspectors by and under the Home Department, whose duty it shall be to inspect all such places of amusement and meeting in Great Britain and Ireland, and who might have immediate power to prevent any performance in such theatres and places as shall not be adequately provided with commodious exit for use in all cases of sudden emergency; and also, whether, bearing in mind the fact that most of the fires in theatres—and notably the calamitous fire which occurred last night in the City of Exeter— originate on the stage, an iron drop-screen shall in future be deemed a necessary appurtenance in every theatre?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I regret to say that it would not be possible to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member without legislation. Outside the Metropolitan area there is no power in any Government Department, or in any Local Authority, to inspect theatres, or to insist on structural alterations, except as a condition of licensing a theatre in the first instance, and possibly under local Acts of Parliament. Within the Metropolitan area the Metropolitan. Board of Works have sufficient powers to enforce
  1362
  the precautions which they may deem necessary; and they have largely acted on those powers. The dreadful calamity which has occurred at Exeter shows the necessity of legislation for Provincial theatres, and the Government will give their attention to the subject.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED BRUTALITY AT BALLINASLOE.
  MR. HARRIS: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can give any information as to the truth or falsehood of the statement in The Daily News of this day, as to the outrage by a constable on Mr. Lewis Ward. The statement is: —
  " A despatch from Ballinasloe states that, on Saturday night, a man named Patrick Barratt was being conveyed to the train en route for Galway, bail having been refused in his case, and a large crowd of the leading inhabitants of the town assembled to escort the prisoner to the station. Barratt a short time ago was evicted. On the departure of the train loud cheers were given for Barratt and the Plan of Campaign, and this appeared to provoke the police, who proceeded to baton every person on the railway platform indiscriminately. The police, in passing through the town subsequently, were hooted by the crowd who had assembled in the streets. Mr. Lewis Ward, a son of Mr. Lewis Ward, builder and contractor, was set upon by Constable Nolan, and his skull was fractured, and his ear almost severed from his head. The young gentleman was borne to his father's house in an insensible condition, and he has had to be left downstairs, as the doctor advised his friends that his removal upstairs might prove fatal. The constable ran away after perpetrating this outrage; but was identified by Mr. Harris, jun. Several gentlemen witnessed the assault, including Messrs. J. S. Smith and Knox, of the National Bank, and Mr. R. F. Walker of The Western News. Mr. Ward, who is in a most precarious condition, is under the care of Dr. Delahunt, who is in constant attendance upon him."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to this statement? The parties concerned are friends of mine, and I shall be very glad to receive any information.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (): I am afraid I have no information to give the hon. Gentleman. He only gave me his Notice as I was entering the House. I have heard nothing of the matter; but if he will put a Notice on the Paper I will inquire about it.
  MR. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the information to-

  1363
  morrow, or will he be likely to have it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may be able, but I cannot guarantee it.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the gravity of this case and also the number of these unprovoked attacks by the police at evictions, and other incidents, and what may happen during the winter, whether he will consider the necessity of issuing instructions to the police to abstain from violence, except in cases where actual violence or obstruction is offered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that the police have used violence, except in cases in which actual violence has been used against them.
  MR. HARRIS: Well, I can read a letter which I have got on the subject, and which leaves no doubt that the Constabulary do so.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! If the hon. Gentleman puts his Question down, on the Paper, it will, no doubt, receive attention.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill was only introduced on the 4th of August, and that it dealt with a very important subject, the Government would withdraw it this Session and re-introduce it early next year?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (): I regret that it is not in my power to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member. The Bill is necessary in order to validate certain arrangements which have been made, and will be made from time to time, by the Treasury in the interests of the Civil servants themselves, and which have been called in question by the Public Accounts Committee. The Bill has, according to the hon. Gentleman's own statement, been before the House five weeks, and has been brought to the notice of almost everyone chiefly concerned, and the Government feel it necessary to press it on the consideration of the House and pass it into law, if we can, in the course of the present Session.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887 — THE PROCLAIMED MEETING IN GLARE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg, Sir, to ask a Question of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) concerning an important Notice which he has put down on the Order Book—
  "To call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government and of certain Members of the House with respect to the proclaimed meeting in the County of Glare, on Sunday the 4th of September; and to move a Resolution."
  I wish to ask the hon. Member for Stock-port whether he will give the House any intimation of the time when he intends to bring that Resolution forward?
  [No reply.]
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Well, as I cannot get any answer from the hon. Member, I will ask a Question of the Government. I beg to ask, whether the Government have made up their minds— as it appears we are not to be allowed to discuss this question—whether they have made up their minds to prosecute the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) for taking part in a proclaimed meeting in Ireland last Sunday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (): I must say that I am taken by surprise. It is not in my power to give an answer to such a question; and even if it were in my power I should not give an answer to such a Question as that which the hon. Baronet has addressed to me. I have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances. It is not within my Department; and, therefore, I am not aware whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury has brought himself within the law or not.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is intended to prosecute any persons who took part in the meeting?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (): It is not the practice, as far as I am aware, for Questions to be asked and Questions to be answered as to the action of the Crown in instituting prosecutions.
  MR. R. T. REID: I beg to ask, whether the Government will give us the instructions which were.

  1365
  issued to the officers in command of the military and police as to the circumstances under which they were or were not to interfere with the meeting?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(): The request which has been made to the Government is not one which I think is usually addressed to the Government, or one which I think it would be in the public interest to answer.
  MR. R. T. REID: Allow me to state my reason for asking the Question. It is obviously illegal to disperse a meeting if that meeting be of a peaceable character, and my object is to learn from the right hon. Gentlemen whether the military and police are commissioned to interfere with peaceable meetings in Ireland, or only when they became otherwise than peaceable?
  [No reply.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £441,500 (including a Supplementary sum of £256,000), to complete the sum for Disturnpiked and Main Roads, England and Wales.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to ask the Government a question in reference to this Supplementary sum of £256,000. It seems to me to be part of a sum of £450,000 supplied in the beginning of the year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the highways generally. It would appear that there is a sum of £50,000 given to Ireland, though it is not a gift to Ireland in the ordinary sense of the word, but simply an equivalent—and not a very large one—for the sum of £450,000 allocated this year to England and Scotland in respect of highways. The £50,000 given to Ireland is to be devoted to a variety of purposes, one of them being the breeding of horses; but I understand that more than that sum will be taken from the county cess towards this grant.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that
    1366
    the question he is raising is not relevant to the present Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The grant is given to relieve the highway rates in England, and I want to know what equivalent sum is to be given to Ireland as against this £450,000? For all I know there I may be another item in the Votes dealing with the turnpike rates in England, and undoubtedly the Irish people have to contribute to the cost out of the county cess. Therefore, what I wish to know is, whether this is really the only sum which appears in the Votes, or whether there is any corresponding sum for Ireland?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (): The £50,000 which has been granted to Ireland is in consideration of the extra grant which this year has been given to England and Scotland in respect of highways.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Is there any other sum?
    MR. GOSCHEN: It has no reference to the ordinary grant, but is in respect of the additional grant given this year which appears in the Supplementary Estimate. It is given in order that Ireland may have her fair share this year of the special grant.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I do not clearly understand how the matter stands. Are there two sums given for highways?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): No.
    COLONEL NOLAN: There is no other sum beyond this £450,000.
    MR. RITCHIE: No.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £60,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £35,000), to complete the sum for Diaturnpiked and other Roads, Scotland.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am not going to quarrel with the amount of money proposed to be given to Scotland; but I would point out that while £60,000 is given to Scotland in consideration of the proportion of her contribution to the Imperial rates, only £50,000 is given to Ireland. In one sense I am sorry, and in another I am glad, that Scotland is so well off that she is able to contribute more to the Imperial Revenue than Ireland; but I cannot understand, if the population of the two countries is taken

    1367
    into consideration, why Scotland should receive £60,000, and Ireland only £50,000.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £213,392, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: I regret that I am unable to see upon the Treasury Bench either of the Members who represent the Scotch Office—neither the Lord Advocate nor the Scotch Lord of the Treasury. [The LORD ADVOCATE here entered the House.] I regret that I feel myself compelled to take up a few minutes of the time of the House at this late period of the Session in order that I may bring under the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate a question which affects one of the local school boards in Caithness, the county which I represent. If the Vote had been brought on earlier I should like to have said something about the present condition of education in the Highlands, where the school rates only run from 2s. to 2s. 6d. in the pound in consequence of the local school boards having been compelled to build palatial schoolhouses where they were really not wanted. I have no wish to move the reduction of the salary of the Inspector, because I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with me that the withholding of the grant in the case I am about to call attention to is an unjust act, and will direct the money which has been unlawfully and unjustly withheld by the Education Department to be paid over, and that the Government will not allow the school board, which is supported out of the rates, to continue an unequal fight with the Education Department, which is supported by taxes. The Inspector recommended in the case of the Highland School at Latheron a few window blinds, and some illustrations of natural history might be supplied with advantage. When the school board expected to receive their grant their attention was called to this recommendation, and "my Lords" stopped one tenth of the grant because it had not been complied with. When the school board were made acquainted with the stoppage they wrote to "my Lords" asking what it was they wanted, and especially to inform them what kind of natural history illustrations the Inspector required; but "my Lords" refused to tell them.
    1368
    They told the board to ask the Inspector; but the Inspector, on being appealed to, said he was unable to instruct them. They put up a blind to the only window at which the sun could enter; but the blind they put up did not satisfy the Inspector, and because the window blind of a small Highland school does not suit the Inspector again the grant is stopped. Twice, then, the grant has been stopped upon a recommendation which, the Inspector says he has no power to define, and in regard to which "my Lords" refuse to give any information whatever. I maintain that the grant has been illegally withheld. The board put up one blind, which is all that is necessary, and to put up more would prejudicially affect the ventilation of the school. So far as the natural history illustrations are concerned, there is in a town in the neighbourhood with 1,000 inhabitants a big school where secondary education is taught. This is only an elementary school; but the Inspector requires in the small elementary school exactly the same natural history illustrations as are provided in the school for secondary education. The result is that the school board have been compelled to provide these illustrations; but I hold that the act of the Education Department was unjust, and I will go further and say that it was illegal. The section under which "my Lords" have acted is the 32nd of the Scotch Education Code, which allows a reduction of the grant or a fine if the Inspector reports that there are faults in the instruction, discipline, or registration, or overcrowding in the class rooms, if after six months' notice there has been a failure to remedy any defect which the Inspector has pointed out which seriously interferes with the efficiency of the school, or if the managers have failed to provide proper books and maps for the carrying on of elementary instruction. Now, these natural history illustrations have no connection with elementary instruction, and by compelling the school board to obtain them "my Lords" have gone beyond the limits of the law. It would appear, in this case, that the Inspector has been animated by pique against the school board, and "my Lords" distinctly refused to say what they wanted. Whenever they have stated what they wanted their wishes have been complied with, whether the things provided were con-

    1369
    sidered to be necessary or not. The question I wish to put to the Lord Advocate is whether he considers that the action of "my Lords" has been justifiable or in accordance with the law?
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: The Lord Advocate went minutely through the heads of this Vote when he introduced it the other day, and I must congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the successful work which has been done by the Scotch Education Department. The Vote has been of a most interesting nature for the last live or six years, inasmuch as it has been an experiment as to the result of separating the education of Scotland from that of England, the system of centralization which had previously been carried on not having been attended with the most satisfactory results for a considerable period of years. Viewed in that light the Report of the Department is a gratifying one. We have the Report now in our hands, and I am sure that hon. Members must have been much interested not only by the statement which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but by those which are contained in the Report. In the part of the country in which I am most interested myself— namely, the Highlands—there has been difficulty in regard to the attendance, and I know that in that respect greater difficulty has been experienced by the Scotch Education Department than in any other part of the country. The root of the difficulty lies in the fact that the country has hitherto allowed private persons—owners of land—to interfere with the distribution of the population in the Highlands; and the consequence is that the population is now so widely scattered in some places, and the conditions which prevail are of such a character, as to put serious difficulties in the way of the rates, and to prevent the maintenance of proper schools except at very great expense. I am willing to acknowledge that what are called the attendance grants are on a liberal scale; but there are some anomalies, which arise from circumstances I have already called the attention of the Lord Advocate to. For instance, there is an invidious distinction drawn between teachers who are graduates of a Scotch University and those who are not. In certain specified districts any school
    1370
    taught by a University graduate can get a grant of 10 s. for certain subjects; whereas teachers who are not University graduates can only get a grant of 6s. Only the other day there was a meeting of Scotch teachers and members of school boards at Oban to take into consideration principally the working of the Scotch Code as applied to the Highlands, and that meeting came to the conclusion, that the distinction between graduates and non-graduates is invidious and unjust, and that the grant should be paid for good results irrespective of such distinctions. I think that when the Education Department comes to think over the matter that should be the test by which the payment of grants should be made. The question should not be considered whether they have been obtained by University graduates or non-University graduates. I can understand the desire of the Government to get the most highly qualified teachers they can obtain; but I can scarcely conceive why teachers who do not happen to have had an opportunity of educating themselves at a Scotch University should be placed at a disadvantage. At the same time, I hope the Government will be able to see their way not to the taking away of the increased grant from University graduates, but to extending it to all teachers who can show the same results in the district to which this rule applies. There is another point which I should like to bring under the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that is the teaching of Gaelic in the Highland schools. I know quite well that the sympathies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are in that direction, and I should like to see it properly dealt with. I have never advocated it on purely sentimental but upon utilitarian grounds. It is distinctly stated in the Report that the Education Department is willing to recognize the importance of teaching Gaelic, because it would facilitate the teaching of English. There is something else which would make it a very valuable adjunct to the teaching of the young—namely, that it would be a means of enabling grants to be earned in connection with specific subjects, and of earning them in places where such, grants are a great desideratum. Therefore, upon utilitarian grounds, I think

    1371
    the teaching of Gaelic ought to be encouraged. I am not going to attempt to prove why, in the Highlands, Gaelic should be taught any more than in England the English language should be taught. What I complain of is that Her Majesty's Ministers have not encouraged the teaching of the Highland language in the same way as they have encouraged the giving of instruction in other subjects. As far back as the year 1875 there was a Minute of the Scotch Education Department admitting the necessity for doing this. The Minute stated that in certain specified Highland counties Gaelic might be taught as a specific subject, provided it was taught on a scheme to be approved by Her Majesty's Inspectors. Such a scheme was drawn up, but it never got beyond the proof stage. Too much was demanded, and the consequence was that no more was heard of the scheme. In a subsequent Minute it was stated that a scheme for instruction in Gaelic had been drawn up by the Inspectors and submitted to the Department, which had it under its consideration. On page 248 of the Blue Book hon. Members will find what one of the Inspectors says on the subject. I think it bears out what I have stated. The Inspector says that a few schools offered to teach Gaelic as a specific subject; but the pupils only numbered 39. He adds that the conditions of the examination were of an unsatisfactory nature, and that no curriculum was prescribed. I think it is not too much to ask that the Scotch Education Department should put the matter upon a proper footing. This Inspector says, further, that he has never seen a graduated scheme, or had an interview with any school manager on the subject, but that he has not, on that account, refused to examine the pupils, although he adds that he probably ought to have done so. Nor, he says, has he declined to examine any work submitted to him. My complaint is that Her Majesty' s Inspector should be placed in such a position. There ought to be a graduated scheme by which to examine the pupils, the same as in any other language, and in the case I have mentioned the Inspector was obliged to put his feelings against his duty as an officer of the Education Department. Then, again, the Inspector of the district should be an Inspector qualified by his knowledge of the
    1372
    language to examine the pupils; and if the Department are of opinion that they cannot draw up a sufficiently good scheme there is a Professor of Celtic in the University of Edinburgh, and a number of teachers with a knowledge of the Highland language who would, I have no doubt, be glad to give their aid in this direction. I sincerely trust that the present state of matters will not be allowed any longer to exist, and I urge upon the Department the necessity of doing something, because it would afford a means whereby the least populated districts of Scotland may be able to earn a fait share of the grant. In that way it would be of great service to the school boards, and would do much to advance the intelligence of the children. Another effect it would have is that it would lead to the development of the national spirit of the people of the Highlands, which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself would be glad to see. On the whole, I have to congratulate the Scotch Education Department upon the good work they have done since their separation from the English Department. I see that there are some references in the Report to secondary education, and that the Scotch Education Department goes as far as to provide inspection for secondary schools in Scotland. I do not know that the mere inspection of secondary schools will do much good without some means of providing secondary education being supplied; but it has been pointed out by a gentleman who is a high official authority in Scotland that the secondary schools in Scotland are doing admirable work—such as the High School of Glasgow and the Glasgow Academy. I hope that the Scotch Education Department will be able shortly to deal with secondary education in a better way than now; but I know that under circumstances of difficulty the Glasgow Academy is doing very good work. I know that there are great difficulties in the way, but I think that if my suggestions are acted upon a great deal may be done to further the cause of education in Scotland; and I hope that, judging from the public spirit shown by the Department of late years, they will continue to advance, and that all these points will be given effect to.
    MR. CALDWELL: In the Report of the Commit-

    1373
    tee of the Council on Education reference is made to the subject of school attendance, and their Lordships state that there is reason to believe that many boards in Scotland are not carrying out the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Act as effectively as they might. The Report adds that Her Majesty's Inspectors have also been of that opinion for a great number of years. We have had the same complaint detailed in the Scotch Education Department year after year, yet we have not discovered that the Department has ever made any representation to any school board on the subject, or has taken any steps against a school board for not complying with the Compulsory Clauses of the Act. The excuse is that it is undesirable to interfere with the action of the local boards in these matters; but it must be remembered that while the school boards in this matter have the interests of the ratepayers to look after primarily, yet, on the other hand, they get from Parliament over £500,000 for the purpose of endowing education in Scotland; and Parliament, in voting that large sum of money, necessarily looks to the Scotch Education Department as the authority to see that the Act is being carried out, and that compulsory education is being enforced throughout Scotland in the terms of the Act. If they tell us that they do not desire to interfere with the local boards, the result is that Parliament votes the money, and there is nobody taking the interest necessary to see that the work is being properly done. If the Scotch Education Department is not able to do the work, it should see that some other Department is constituted which would; and if the Scotch Education Department have no powers, they should have come to Parliament and asked for powers. The assertion of the Education Department that they have no powers is not an argument which should be held to justify their inaction. It only shows the necessity of a reform of the Department itself, seeing that this is a very important part of their duty that compulsory attendance is not enforced by a single authority; and although there have been repeated complaints, there is nothing to show that the Scotch Education Department have done anything in the matter. Another matter which I desire to bring under the notice of the Lord Advocate is that the
    1374
    Department has not carried out the spirit of the Act of 1872. When that Act was brought in it was on the footing that board schools were to provide for the deficiency of school accommodation. It was not intended to supersede the existing schools, but simply to be supplementary. Now, in 1872, it was found that the non-State-aided schools in Scotland took in a-half of the whole school attendance, while, at present, not one-seventh of the children attending the schools in Scotland are in non-State-aided schools. The result is that non-State-aided schools have been practically suppressed by one-half, and the children have been transferred to the State-aided schools. But the Department compare the numbers in 1872 with the present numbers, and say that the progress made is 125 per cent, while there really is little increase of attendance, but merely a transfer of attendance from non-State-aided to State-aided schools. According to the Census of 1871, there were 543,000 children above five years of age receiving State education in Scotland. Sixteen years have now elapsed, and, allowing for the ratio of the increase of the population during that period at 1·3 per cent per annum, we should have a total, in the present year, of 634,000 children above the age of five years receiving education in Scotland. But what is the result, according to the Report of the Scotch Education Department? It appears that there are only 614,000 children above the age of five years receiving education in the State-aided schools. How many are receiving education in the non-State-aided schools we are not told. That important fact is carefully concealed from us; probably about one-seventh, although we are told that year by year the attendance in the non-State-aided schools has been going down in Scotland. According to the estimate of the Department, there are at the present moment in schools of all kinds 714,000 children above five years of age receiving education in Scotland, 614,000 of whom, although the number ought to be 634,000, ought to have been there if we had never had any Education Act in operation at all. The increase in attendance since the Act of 1871 has really been only 80,000 in a total of 714,000 children over five years of age, instead of the increase of 125 per cent for which the Education Department

    1375
    takes credit. Then another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Lord Advocate is the lowering of the standard of education in Scotland. According to the Act, the standard of education in Scotland was not to be lowered. The standard of education in the elementary schools was not to be lowered; and the education given in the parish schools was to lead directly to the Universities. But we now find it acknowledged for the first time in the present Report of the Department that there is good ground for holding that the fears of those who thought the standard of education in Scotland would be lowered were well-founded. Here, then, is a direct acknowledgment on the part of the Department of what has long been suspected. But why has the acknowledgment been so long delayed? It will be seen that the children are examined in a great number of specific subjects; but the instruction is of the most flimsy character, and the Department now acknowledge that the whole thing is a perfect sham. The lowering of the standard is entirely the fault of the Department, who give 2s. for the specific subjects in the first stage, and give the same rate in the second and third stages; and the teacher, who is teaching Latin, French, mathematics, and Greek, gets no more for teaching these high subjects than for teaching the commonest subjects for which the grant is given. In the common subjects he may have 50 in a class, whereas in the higher subjects he may not have more than five or six. The result is that he concentrates his attention on the simple subjects, for which he has large classes, and neglects the higher subjects, for which he only has a few pupils, and over which he would have to spend more time and earn less money. If you wish to encourage the higher education, why not give 2s. for the first stage, 4s. for the second—where the work is more difficult and the scholars fewer—and 6s. for the third stage? In that way the Department would encourage higher education, to a certain extent; whereas, by the method actually adopted in giving grants of equal amount for elementary subjects, they have practically banished the teaching of higher subjects out of the Scotch schools. Then, again, there is the provision that every child must put in 250
    1376
    attendances at one school in the school year before he can be examined or pass in any particular standard of examination. See how that works. Take the last election in Glasgow for the Bridgeton Division. In that case it was found that out of 10,000 voters in the Division, 2,000 had changed their residence during the year. The time of removal is Whitsuntide, and the time of the school board examinations is the winter—about January; so that when a parent removes from one district of Glasgow to another it is impossible for the child to make 250 attendances before the examinations, either at the school in the district he is leaving, or in the school in the district to which he removes. Consequently, he is unable to pass that year. The child who ought that year to pass Standard III. is thus kept back for a whole year; for the teacher in the school to which he is removed, finding that he has not passed Standard III., naturally puts him into the lower and easier Standard, so as to pass. What is the result? The result to the working classes is that a boy finds himself unable to pass Standard V. when he is 13 years of age, even though he has been regularly at school. When he reaches 13 years of age, he is found to be either in Standard III. or IV., and, consequently, he is unable to go to work, and this is entirely owing to the absurd regulation of the Scotch Education Department that there must have been 250 attendances in one school in order to entitle him to pass a particular Standard. I hold that if a child is able to pass an examination, it should make no difference where he has obtained his education, or whether he has put in his attendance at one school or at three. The result is that we find in Scotland, notwithstanding the efficient school board system which exists there, that however much smaller the percentage of passes is in Standard V. than it ought to be, it is simply owing to the changing habits of the population, and to the child not having been able, in consequence, to pass through a Standard once a-year, however qualified he may be to do so. There is another matter which has been referred to by one of the Representatives of the Highlands, and that is the absurd provision for attendance in the schools in the specified Highland parishes. The school rates have been

    1377
    brought up as high as 5s. or 6s. in the pound upon the rental value, and the school accommodation provided is double what is absolutely required. The Highland parishes are burdened with enormous local rates; and hon. Members will be aware that one of the recommendations of the Crofters Commission was that some relief should be given to these Highland parishes. But the Education Department have put in an absurd provision, requiring that the grant shall only be given where an average attendance of 80 per cent can be shown. The very districts that most require this help are those which are not able to give the 80 per cent necessary to earn the grant. How is it possible, in these sparsely populated districts, to secure so large an attendance? An average attendance of 80 per cent of the children on the roll is a far higher percentage than is proposed in the case of towns. Before imposing such a condition the Department ought to have considered the character of those different localities, the distances the children have to travel, and various other matters. Every school should be judged upon its own merits as to whether it has fairly complied with the provisions of the Education Code, whether there are peculiar circumstances, and whether the teachers can be shown to have done their best to comply with the provisions of the Code. There is another point in connection with these Highland schools—namely, that in order to obtain the full grant, the teacher must be a University graduate. That is to say, that if the teacher is a University graduate he gets a higher grant than another teacher who is not. Now, that I consider to be most unfair. Having appointed a teacher who may have been working in a school for a considerable number of years, are you to dismiss that teacher and appoint a University graduate, in order to secure the full amount of the grant which is intended to be given for the relief of the Highland parishes? In my opinion it is a most absurd contention, and I altogether fail to see why the Department should insist that in order to get the grant the teacher must be a graduate. A man may be a University graduate, and still not be a good teacher and instructor of youth. I hold that the Education Department should be compelled to take results by examination, and that
    1378
    they have no right to impose a restriction of this kind. Teachers appointed prior to 1872 cannot be dismissed by the school boards, and, therefore, you are refusing them these grants simply because they are unable to comply with the conditions you impose, and which are most unreasonable conditions. A demand is made by the Education Department in regard to school fees. They say that in those districts where the attendance is worst the school fees are hardly recovered at all. That argument, I think, goes completely against them. It means that where there is a bad attendance the people are poor. Parents will not send their children to school if they have not the money to pay the fees, and the poorer a man is the more he is tempted to keep his child at home. Therefore the very poverty of the people tells against them, and it is because they are not able to pay the school fees that they do not send their children to school. But if the school fees were abolished, the parents, feeling that they would be free from any persecution on the part of the school board, would have greater reason for sending their children to school. With regard to Dr. Ker, the Chief Inspector of Schools in the Glasgow district, he receives £900 a-year, on condition of devoting his whole time to the duties of his appointment. The Lord Advocate informed the House yesterday, in answer to a Question, that Dr. Ker also undertakes certain other duties, but that he does so in his holiday time. I was very much surprised to find the Lord Advocate, although he is merely the mouthpiece of the Scotch Education Department in this matter, taking up such a position. Why does Parliament give Dr. Ker £900 a-year and certain holidays? The holidays are given with a view of recruiting him and re-invigorating his health, so that the country shall have the benefit of freshness and vigour when he returns to his duty. Is it fair, then, if the country pays a man for taking a holiday, that he should, in defiance of that, employ his time in another way, and not as a holiday, and make a profit out of the matter? I say that it is unfair that a man getting such a large salary as £900 a-year, together with holidays, at the expense of the country, should be allowed to go away and deprive other people of work who are more needful and quite

    1379
    as capable as he is of performing the work. I am astonished that the Scottish Department should have come before Parliament to vindicate a servant of the Department for availing himself of his holidays in order to perform work of this kind, when he must know very well that the object of the holidays is to reinvigorate him for other work. Dr. Ker is one of the Examiners for the Scottish board schools; but he has been inspecting other schools, and depriving other persons of emoluments which they would otherwise have received. I hold that the course Dr. Ker has pursued is altogether inconsistent with the independent position he ought to occupy as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and that he should, at all times, be able to inspect the schools he is directed to inspect by the Education Department without fear or favour. Then, again, he is inspecting schools which he is also required to inspect for the Department — his own schools, in fact—and I maintain that this work ought to be done by an Inspector who has nothing at all to do with the elementary teaching the children receive. It is improper, in my view, that the same Inspector should examine the pupils for bursaries who has conducted the examination in regard to elementary education. If the two things are inquired into by two different Inspectors the work of the school is practically overhauled, and we have the advantage of an independent criticism on the part of a stranger as to whether the school work has been rightly performed or not. With regard to the Education Department itself, I think I have shown to a certain extent that there is need for reform. The Education Department of Scotland is really nothing but the permanent Secretary to the Department. He is the head and soul of the whole affair. It is all very well to send out letters signed by "My Lords," but, after all, it is simply the work of the permanent Secretary. When we take into consideration that we are giving upwards of £500,000 for purposes of education in Scotland, I think there ought to be a large representation of this House on the board in order to see that the money is properly applied. There ought to be a board composed of men to a considerable extent chosen from this House—men who
    1380
    remain in contact with the people, whom the people can approach, and who would take care that the grievances of the people will be considered. At present we receive an official non possumus to every request and suggestion that we make. It was complained that Dr. Ker was receiving £900 a-year for doing certain work in connection with education, and that he was not doing it. The answer we got was merely a defence of the conduct of the individual. The Lord Advocate and the other Heads of the Department are nothing more than mere instruments in the hands of the permanent officials. The permanent officials write down the answers to all Questions that are put in Parliament, and the Lord Advocate comes down here and reads them. If we are to have anything like a vigorous administration, we must get rid of the influence of the permanent officials and the non possumus which meets us at every step. We ought to have a Head of and an organisation in the Department which will be able to control the official element, and to give due consideration to the different matters brought before it, without being liable to be told at every corner that the work is being done for the officials and not for the country.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I know the great amount of attention which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) has paid to this subject, and he has said many things with which I have much sympathy. But I cannot agree with all he has advanced, nor do I think he has been altogether fair in the amount of blame he has thrown upon the Scotch Education Department. As to the constitution of that Department, it does not become me to say anything, except that I feel sure that the Members of the Privy Council who constitute the Scotch Education Department are not men who are likely to be such mere dummies in the hands of the permanent officials as my hon. Friend seems to think. There is one thing, however, which we may be sure of, and that is they are acting now, and will act in the future, under very vigilant criticism on the part of my hon. Friend and others. My hon. Friend spoke of the Department as having done something like injustice or injury to the schools that were not State-aided. But I think my hon.

    1381
    Friend has been misled in his argument on that subject. No doubt, there are now in Scotland a comparatively small number of schools that are not State-aided; but the true explanation of that fact is, that there is no reason why any good school should not be State-inspected and State-aided. The aid that the State gives to a school does not interfere with the independence of the managers in anything that is worth maintaining. It leaves the school perfectly free in all that is important, and, at the same time, it insures that there is a thorough inspection by eminently qualified men. I know that after the passing of the Education Act many of the schools that before were not aided and not inspected fell out of the list by their managers surrendering them—not that they were obliged to do so, but that they felt there was no longer any reason for maintaining these schools, considering the provision that was made by the Education Act for others. It must be remembered, too, that the schools established under the Education Act were very much better schools than most of those that had existed before. Since the Education Act has come into operation we have had a very much better style of school. I think there is not much to regret in the disappearance of the great majority of the schools that were not State-aided, I think there are some points in this Report of the Scottish Education Department to which the attention of the Committee should be directed. There is one very startling fact and no explanation has been given of it, and that is the decrease in the night schools. The decrease is very remarkable. During the last six years they have diminished in number from 277 to 166. The average attendance has diminished from 14,297 to 8,759; and the numbers presented for inspection have decreased from 14,809 to 8,120. No explanation is given of this extraordinary decrease, but I believe, to some extent, it is due to the fact that in the early years of the present system a larger number of young children were sent to night schools than are sent now. For such scholars no grant is given, grants only given being in respect of the higher Standards. It is in the higher Standards that these schools are most required. The Report states that a wider range of instruction is now given in the evening
    1382
    schools; and this, it is hoped, will tend to popularise them. This, I believe, is already carried out to a considerable extent. It is in large cities mostly that these night schools are wanted. In Glasgow, which has the largest population of any town in Scotland, there has not been anything like a marked decrease in the evening schools. In that city the evening schools are at present attended by a very large number of pupils, both young and old. In fact, last year the number on the roll in evening schools was upwards of 9,000, In ordinary classes there were upwards of 4,300, and in advanced classes 4,680. About 1,000 of these were men over 21 years of age, and I presume they do not come within the statistics of the Education Department, but belong rather to the Science and Art Department. These evening classes are, no doubt, of immense use in large communities. As example, I may state that in the night schools of Glasgow the presentations in Standard VI. have increased of late years from 268 in 1880 to 803 last winter. The Report complains of the school attendance; and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox has referred to the subject. I think, however, the Department are a little too severe. They seem not to be satisfied unless every child of what is called school ago is to be found at school, and they bring forward this rather startling charge against the condition of education in Scotland, that there are 100,000 children too few at school. There are 624,000 on the registers, and the Department say there ought to be 100,000 more. I think that the Department there go a great deal too far. In the Report the result of attendance is stated as follows, that of every 100 children of school age 79 are on the register, and 61 are in daily attendance. Now, the principal explanation why the attendance and the number on the register is so very much, short of the number of children of school age is that the Scottish people are not accustomed to send very young children to school, and in many parts of Scotland it is a sheer impossibility. In large towns it is advantageous that little children should go to school, provided there are infant schools for them. We are rather behind in Scotland in the matter of infant schools. We have not infant schools to the same extent as in Eng-

    1383
    land. But outside the large towns it is almost impossible—is not desirable — that very young children should be sent to school. In country places I do not think little children lose much by not going to school very early. It is stated in the Report, and stated as a matter of regret, that only 38 per cent of children between five and six years of age are on the register of any school. I think, taking into account all the circumstances, that 38 per cent is not a very bad proportion. But one fact is mentioned in the Report, which is undeniably an unfavourable one, and that is that so many schools are not provided with suitable teachers for the young children. It appears that of 88,000 children under seven years of age there are 48,000, or more than one-half of them, taught by male teachers—teachers, as the Report says, obviously unsuited for such work. Another reason why attendance at schools does not come up to the full standard, is that children are removed to work before they have reached the limit of school age. That is to say, they have passed the Fifth Standard, when it is no longer obligatory on their parents or guardians to keep them at school. It is a matter to be regretted that children should pass off to work at so early an age as they do. The normal age is 12 for the Fifth Standard, but a sharp child can pass at 11, and it is a deplorable thing that a child of that age should be sent by its parents or guardians to work.
    MR. CALDWELL: They cannot be sent to a factory under the Factory Acts under 13 years of age.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: But they can get other work. At any rate, they need no longer be kept at school; and the fact in many cases is that when this stage has been reached the parents think it is no longer necessary to have their children at school. My hon. Friend has spoken of the desirableness of putting the screw on school boards in regard to enforcing more firmly the Compulsory Clauses of the Act. It may be necessary to do something in that direction; but I think it is desirable to adopt a milder method than compulsion, where it can be applied. Such a method has been adopted with very great success by the School Board of Glasgow They have offered prizes
    1384
    as an inducement to regular attendance, accompanied with good conduct, and a regular passing of the Standards suited to the stage and progress of the pupils in the school. The result of this prize scheme—and the plan has been in operation for some years—is highly satisfactory. A prize is given to every child in Standard III. and under, who has been in regular attendance with the exception of eight days, and in the higher Standards a margin of only four days is given. In Glasgow, last year, with an average attendance of 42,459, the number who gained the prizes was 13,863. That is to say, nearly one-third of the average attendance secured prizes for regular attendance, satisfactory progress, and good conduct. The prizes for 400 complete attendances were nearly 8,000, and for 370 attendances 5,896. The prizes are small books, and the cost is only about 6d. a scholar, but with this very small expenditure a great end has been gained in encouraging better attendance. There is one important feature of the New Code which is noticed in the Report, and which, I think, ought to be regarded with satisfaction by all interested in education, and that is the new system of dispensing with individual examination in the lower Standards. All under Standard III. are subjected to what is called collective examination; and I think there is a general hope that as this system may be found to work well and to give greater freedom, with much less pressure in the schools, it may be extended higher than the Third Standard. There has been considerable improvement in the numbers under specific subjects. I regret that in one respect there has been a going back on the part of the Department. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will attribute this to the fault of the present Department, but it is a misfortune that what was supposed to be a point gained some years ago has been lost, in the matter of schools being restricted to the 9d. a-week limit of fees. In many of the schools there is a better education given—that is to say, the higher subjects are more attended to—and the scholars attending are quite willing and able to pay higher fees, and it is desirable to have higher fees—so as not to undersell other schools. But after having for a very short time

    1385
    the liberty to charge higher fees, it was found that there was some difficulty about it, and the old restriction was reimposed. Reference has been made to the examination of secondary schools. That work has only now begun. It has been long of beginning. We had under the Act of 1878 the power, with the consent of the Treasury, to institute the examination, and school boards which had higher schools under their charge have been all along pressing for that examination. It has now been given for the last two years, and this year we have the first Report of a general kind. Thirty-eight of these schools appear to have been examined last year, and the report of their condition is by no means satisfactory. It is not satisfactory—not because the teachers are not doing their best, but because the conditions under which the schools are worked are such as to place them under great disadvantage. There is no doubt that something must be done for the secondary schools in Scotland; but I think, in the meantime, that something must be found in the form of private and voluntary benefactions. These have been given, in many cases, with the very best results. In Dundee, for instance, great assistance has been given to the High School by one or two gentlemen, and the school is now in an excellent condition. The higher schools throughout Scotland have certainly a claim upon the liberality of those who are interested in the promotion of the higher education. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate mentioned one very encouraging fact at the beginning of his statement, which I think is an answer to the desponding views some people seem to entertain with respect to the condition of education in Scotland. He said that the rate of grant earned in Scotland this year is higher than that of last year, which again was greater than that of the year before. It was 18 s. two years ago, last year it was 18 s. 5½d., and I gather from my right hon. Friend that this year it is expected to roach 18 s. 11 d.
    MR. HUNTER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) or the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) into the important subjects they have brought be-
    1386
    fore the Committee. I am afraid that at this period of the Session the occasion is hardly propitious, I will not say for an exhaustive, but even for an adequate discussion of this subject, and therefore I will content myself with calling attention to a matter which is comparatively small, but is not without importance. I refer to the relations between the Inspectors of Schools and the Assistant Inspectors. The Inspectors receive good salaries, beginning at £400 and rising to a maximum of £800. Sometime ago it was found that the work was increasing, and Assistant Inspectors were appointed, with salaries rising by small increments from £150 to £300 a-year. But lam afraid there was one difficulty the Department did not foresee—namely, that the gentlemen capable of being Assistant Inspectors are not capable of being full Inspectors. I consider that it is not possible to draw a line of demarcation between the work done by the Inspectors and the work done by the Assistant Inspectors. The result of the present arrangement is that we have a number of men who are perfectly fit to be Inspectors, but who are paid on a very low scale. That is not the worst of it. The Assistant Inspectors are necessarily under the orders of the Inspectors, and there are no sufficiently definite instructions to Inspectors to determine what work should be done by the Inspectors and the Assistant Inspectors respectively. It therefore amounts to this, that an Inspector is provided with an assistant over whom he has complete control, and whom he can make do as much or as little work as he likes. That is a position of matters that is calculated to give rise to serious evils. Human nature, after all, is human nature, and if you provide one man with another to do his work for him there is a natural tendency for the Inspector to make his assistant do as much of the work as possible, and there is a complaint, which I know to be in some cases not unfounded, that some Inspectors, at all events, have been throwing a great deal too much work on the Assistant Inspectors. I may point out that the death rate among Assistant Inspectors during the last three or four years is higher than among the Inspectors. I believe it would be a more satisfactory arrangement if, when an Inspector finds the work too heavy, an additional Inspector, instead of an assistant, were ap-

    1387
    pointed. I do not wish to allude to any particular oases; but I think this is a matter that requires the consideration of the Scottish Education Department, and I hope the Lord Advocate will be in a position to give the Committee some assurance that the question will be seriously looked into with a view to a better arrangement being made next year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: When last the question of Scotch Education was under consideration in this House, the English Education Vote was then taken, which occupied so much of the time allowed on Saturday, as to leave only 35 minutes for the Scotch debate. This time was spent in the Lord Advocate reading for 10 minutes the useful Memorandum prepared by the Education. Department, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) employed 18 minutes in setting forth his enlightening views on education. There was thus left only five or six minutes before the Saturday debate closed, and this was used in the debate about the adjournment. Being disappointed in not being able to express my views, and not expecting another opportunity such as we now have, I placed my views before the Secretary of the Scotch Education Department, and I shall only now briefly refer thereto, in the belief that the points I touched upon will be taken up in the next year's Scotch Education Report; and as we cannot possibly expect at this late time of the year that public attention will be directed to the debate today, I strongly recommend my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox Division to lay before the Scotch Education Department the heads of the excellent and useful speech which he has just delivered. By that course he will be certain to receive information on the various obscure points he has raised, and draw the attention of the Department to the valuable suggestions he has made. I shall briefly, therefore, now mention the points to which I wish to draw attention. I consider that great advantage will be gained by the School Inspectors being better trained in the way of inspecting the Scotch children. No doubt, the training of English Universities is a guarantee of the Inspector's fitness in some degree; but I am informed that a
    1388
    further training is of vital importance to Scotch schools, by having the Inspectors trained to extract from, often, the apparently, dull children the sound information which qualified teachers have been able to give. Then as regards the teachers themselves, I believe it would be an immense benefit if they were encouraged to keep pace with the progress which teaching is making. I believe that a month spent at a Central Training College, where teachers could be instructed how to teach, would do much to further the progress of education in Scotland. I may also call attention to the disadvantage which children labour under, in having to reckon the 250 attendances at one school. The changes of residence on the part of the parents necessarily force the children to change the school. It would, however, be easy for the teacher to send to the teacher of the new school a report of the progress and of the attendances of the child. There is also a question of importance to poor parents in having to provide a new set of school books for the new school consequent on the books of the old school not being used in the new school. I do not advocate uniformity of books for all schools. That would be too much of the Chinese method; but the books in use in the schools in a district might all be of a uniform kind. From all I can make out, a complete set of books for each child cost nearly £1. This in itself is a sum of importance to a poor man with a number of children, which labouring men of Scotland usually have. I also advocate careful consideration being given to the question of school fees—I believe it would be beneficial to make free education in Scotland. The last point which I wish to raise, and to which I call the serious attention of the Lord Advocate, is the accusation made in the former debate by the right hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). In accounting for the largely increased earnings of scholars in Scotch schools as contrasted with the earnings of English scholars, he stated that the Scotch excess was due to the laxness of Scotch examinations. The report of his speech in The Times, though, not quite so strong as in the words of the speech I heard delivered, is sufficiently strong to bear out the imputation, that the Scotch scholars are less strictly examined than

    1389
    those of England. I therefore strongly advocate a careful inquiry being made as to the correctness of the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman, who, by his former position as the Head of the Education Department of Great Britain, by his zeal and devotion to the education of the country, is an educational authority of great weight. I may conclude by urging the Lord Advocate to bring under the notice of the Scotch Education Department the many useful and important suggestions which have been made in the course of this debate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (): The speeches we have heard to-night raise a number of very useful suggestions for the consideration of the Scottish Education Department. With reference to the objection of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) to the shortness of the statement I made the other day, at least I can congratulate myself upon this, that my hon. and gallant Friend evidently thinks it was a very efficient statement, from an educational point of view, because he is under the impression that it had been drawn up by some official in the Education Department. I hope it will please my hon. and gallant Friend to know that the statement was drawn up by myself, and embodied my own views. I am not in the habit of having my speeches prepared for me by other persons. In regard to the shortness of time it took to deliver it, I am not sure that the statement was any the less clear on that account. I am inclined to think many of the speeches made in this House would gain in clearness as well as in other respects if people would stick to their notes, instead of wandering into disquisitions upon other matters little relevant to the subject under discussion. I think my statement was a very complete one, and I have not heard any objection to it. I propose now to take up in succession the different matters that have been brought forward by my hon. Friends. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has called attention to the very large expense incurred a good many years ago in the erection of political schools in the North of Scotland. I dare say the hon. Member will get a good many people to agree with him in
    1390
    that; but I think the hon. Member will also agree with me that that is a thing that cannot now be cured. The establishment that has been built cannot be turned into money, but must be used and held there. The hon. Member has also referred to one or two incidental circumstances that I think are hardly suitable for discussion in this House. One of them is, that at one school the grant has been withheld because the school board did not carry out the direction of the Inspector to have a blind put upon a window. That is very small matter; but if it is the fact that a blind was necessary to prevent the children being blinded, and if it is true that the school board was obstructive in regard to matters of that kind, the gentle hint conveyed by the grant being withheld for some time will probably not be disregarded. It appears that on more than one occasion the Inspector had found the children exposed to the sun, which was blazing in their eyes—a most improper thing, and a moat dangerous thing for their sight, as everybody knows—and, consequently, the grant has been withheld. I do not know whether or not there may have been faults on both sides; but, at all events, there is the Inspector's explanation of the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) has made some valuable observations on the question of teaching Gaelic in the Highland schools. I am very much afraid there are two great difficulties in connection with the teaching of Gaelic. In the first place, we cannot get those who are going out into life as teachers to trouble themselves much about Gaelic, and we cannot be much surprised at that when we consider that teachers are so crammed with other subjects that they have little time to devote to the study of a language which they would find of little aid to them, either at the time, or afterwards. It would be a great mistake to attempt to teach Gaelic in the same scientific way as other languages. What is wanted is rather the sort of acquaintance with the vernacular which is picked up by the children from their elders in most Highland cottages, and sufficient instruction to enable them to read the Bible in Gaelic. To attempt to teach Gaelic as a grammatical language, or by means of grammatical treatises, would

    1391
    be the height of folly. But I am afraid the first difficulty I have mentioned is the real one—that we cannot get young people who are taking up teaching as a profession to give sufficient attention to the subject. That is a difficulty that I fear cannot be met by the Education Department. It can only be met by the people themselves taking an interest in the matter, and doing what they can to secure that the subject is adequately taught. In regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) on the question of secondary education, I can only say this, that I do not think secondary education has been promoted or stimulated by the passing of the Act of 1872, or any subsequent Act. The whole tendency of the system of compulsory education is to divorce secondary education from elementary education, and to prevent that gradual flow of teaching that used to obtain in the old parish schools of Scotland, and which was so valuable for all classes of the community. I am afraid we may come to a state of things in which the higher classes living in the outlying districts of the country would be unable to get from the teachers of the district that secondary education which they used to get from the parish schools, and also that the masters of board schools will not be stimulated to give the extra time—for it only is in extra time that it can be done—to those of their elder pupils who have the taste and time for higher education. There are great difficulties in the matter, and I do not think they would be at all met by a certain number of shillings being given for particular branches of education. The only way in which you can have this done is for the schoolmaster to make it one of his highest ambitions, not only to educate the children under his charge up to a particular low Standard, but also, while not neglecting that duty, and doing it efficiently, to give some of his time—leisure time, it may be—to higher education among those of his pupils who have the time, the talent, and the health to undertake it. I do not see how it can be done by attempting once more to graft secondary education on the existing compulsory system, and attempting to make it a means of stimulating secondary education within the school itself. With regard to the secondary schools, I think
    1392
    they are doing now what is the only thing they can do, looking to the divorce which has taken place between elementary and secondary education within the schoolroom. They are doing what they can to encourage the secondary schools that exist, and to stimulate them to greater exertions and greater success. That is an experiment that has been, up to a certain point, successful, and I trust in the future that it will be more successful still. The hon. Member for St. Rollox has also referred to the attendance in elementary schools, which is, no doubt, to a certain extent, defective. That it is not so defective as in some other places. I think that at a time when we are able to show substantially increased results, and especially in the most difficult districts, the hon. Member's words may be taken, not so much as words of condemnation, as a stimulus to us to do better if we can. No doubt, there has been a great improvement in Returns, and the Department have the matter thoroughly before them, and are thoroughly impressed with the importance of it. If they have been able to secure improved results in some of the most difficult districts, they may hope to do still more in the other parts of the country. I sympathize with my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) in the opinion he has expressed that to hope to reach a very high percentage of attendance in the case of very young children is not a thing that any Department can look forward to. We might introduce any compulsory system we please, and exercise the powers of the law by inflicting imprisonment; but if we began to imprison large numbers of parents we should have exactly the same thing as we have had in connection with vaccination. We should have a public outcry against it. We must not press a law of this kind too far, above all, in the case of extremely young children. I sympathize with my hon. Friend when he says that in Scotland, at all events, it was not the practice in times past to send the children too young to school. I am not sure that education has not often been begun too soon by fixing one age at which a child ought to go to school. We would not do it with regard to any animal that we had to train. There are many children who are more fit to be educated at five than others

    1393
    at six, and I am very much afraid that our insisting on a hard-and-fast line would result in injury as well as failure. In that, of course, I am only expressing my own opinion, and I am bound to say that a contrary opinion prevails in the country—namely, that every child of a fixed age should be compelled to go to school. As to the non-State-aided schools being crushed out, that was the natural tendency of the Act of 1872, because when people felt that they were paying rates to provide education for the whole nation they were indisposed to put their hands in their pockets and pay for the education of their children in other schools, when they could receive a highly efficient education in the board schools, under the best monitory and other arrangements. My hon. Friend complained that the Department have concealed the facts as to the condition of the attendance in the non-State-aided schools. I think that arises from the fact that they are very carefully concealed from us. There is a great tendency on the part of the non-State-aided schools to avoid publicity.
    MR. CALDWELL: What I said was that in regard to the City of Glasgow the School Board have given a complete statement of the annual attendance, and I asked why the Department should not do the same thing?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: That takes the ground away from my hon. Friend's complaint, if it does not altogether remove it, because he has the figures, so far as Glasgow is concerned. My hon. Friend spoke of the number of children in attendance, and said it was not what it ought to be. There is a great deal of truth in that, and speaking generally upon the question I may say that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to bring the attendance up to what it ought to be. I can only say that in this respect we are progressing. Another matter referred to by my hon. Friend at the beginning of his speech was the lowering of the Standard and the schools not being feeders of the University. With regard to that I can only say that it is the real defect of the compulsory system of our elementary education, which does not tend to promote in the elementary schools the progress of higher education. A complaint has been made about the arrangement
    1394
    of the Department, by which the attendance of the child at school must be an attendance at the same school in order to obtain the grant. The matter has been fully represented to the Education Department, and is now under their consideration. That is a matter of great importance; but I believe it has been represented to the Education Department, and is now receiving careful consideration. A complaint was also made by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division with reference to placing on the additional grant which is given to the sparsely populated parts of the country the condition that they must show 80 per cent of attendance before they can receive that additional grant. I think the hon. Member would not have been so severe if he had known the actual result which has followed from the system. It has had the effect of stimulating larger attendance, and of giving to those sparsely populated districts an additional grant to the extent of £3,000 during the last school period. I think that is a very satisfactory result. Possibly the percentage may have been placed too high; but the population, instead of being a moving population, is a population always on the spot, and if a child once begins to attend school regularly there is no reason why he should not continue to do so. And so far as the children themselves are concerned, they are strong and healthy and are capable of using more exertion in reaching school than children who live in the large towns. The main point, however, is that 80 per cent has been reached, and these schools have increased the grant by £3,000. My hon. Friend also entered on the great question of the abolition of school fees. I will not enter upon the discussion of that question at the present time. It does not affect Scotland alone, but is a general question, about which there is a strong and vehement difference of opinion. Therefore, it would not be wise to refer to it now. The question of Dr. Ker has also been brought up. I admit to my hon. Friend that the information on which I answered the Question yesterday was derived from officials of the Department. My answer was not argumentative, but was simply as to certain matters of fact in reference to which I could get the information in no other way than from

    1395
    officials of the Department. My own opinion is that it would be unfortunate if a gentleman who is in a distinguished position as regards education should be so restricted in his holidays as not to be allowed to devote part of his time to doing some efficient work which does not interfere with his official duties. I do not suppose that Dr. Ker, the Inspector, spends the whole of his holidays in doing other work. Like a sensible man, he gives some of his time to reasonable recreation; but I do not blame him for devoting some of his holidays to a higher class of work. It is complained against the Scottish Education Department that it consists of the permanent Secretary to the Department. I hope hon. Members will not believe that important matters are not discussed by the officials, and that they have not a legitimate and proper influence on the Department; and if my hon. Friends would convey to me their ideas on different matters, they will find that that is a very good way of influencing the officials of the Department. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell) expressed his regret at the diminution of the night schools in Glasgow and other parts of the country. There can be no doubt that these night schools are decreasing; but at this period, 15 years after the passing of the Education Act of 1872, just what we might expect to find is occurring, because when we have got the system of elementary education well established in the country, the result must necessarily be that a great many more children are getting their elementary education in their young days, It is not so necessary now for young people to attend night schools, because the great mass of the population have received their training and education in the elementary schools before reaching an age when people generally attend these night schools. Therefore, I think the diminution in the number of persons attending night schools is not an unmixed evil. I think it is to be accounted for, to some extent, by the fact that the education given in these night schools is becoming a higher education, which necessarily catches a much smaller proportion of the population than elementary education would do. I think it is a marked want that we did not get a sufficient number of efficiently
    1396
    trained female teachers for the very young children in infant classes. Everyone acknowledges that the influence of a woman on very young children with regard to their manners, morals, and education, is much more efficient and effective than that of a man. For one man who has the capacity for dealing with children of tender age, there are dozens of women who have it. I think it is a defect in our elementary system that we do not train young females for this special work. I suspect that the teachers that are chosen for teaching very young children are chosen simply because they are believed to know a great many things, without any test of their capacity for that sympathetic mode of dealing with young people by which alone they can be led happily into the first course of their education. If we endeavour in our Training Colleges to find out the young women who are best suited to this work, I believe it would be a happy thing for ourselves, a happy thing for the children, and a still happier thing for the community. There is only one other subject I desire to refer to, and it has reference to the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for the Edinburgh University. With regard to the question about the nine-penny limit of fees, we got great advantages from the belief that we have the power to charge a higher fee in the State-aided schools; but it has now turned out that, for technical reasons, we have not that power. It is just one of those instances that has so often happened in this House. A clause was put in the Act, at the instance of the late Mr. Duncan M'Laren, but in such a fashion that it has not proved effective. With regard to the question of Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors, I can assure my hon. Friends that it will receive careful consideration. The hon. Member has also spoken about the number of books and the expense of the books which are used in the schools, and there I am bound to say that I rather agree with him. I think the expense and number of books is a great disadvantage, and that the number of books is especially so; and I believe it would be more for the advantage of the children themselves if we were to have a system under which there were fewer books used and more instruction given by teachers in the schools, and less learning

    1397
    of lessons at home. That, I think, would be greatly to the advantage of the elementary education, and contribute as well to the future health of the population. Then my hon. Friend has remarked that we get our extra grants in Scotland by insufficient inspection; but I think we can answer that by pointing to the work done by Scotchmen in after life whether they are as well educated as Englishmen or not. I have now only to thank the Members of the Committee for the kindness with which they have received my statement, and to assure them that the questions which have been raised in the course of this discussion will receive the earnest consideration of the Department.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I Only want to ask one question—namely, who is the Head of the Scotch Education Department? We know very well that the Committee of Council for Education in Scotland contains some very eminent men; but I wish to know whether the Board is a dummy board or not—whether the Secretary for Scotland, in his own person, is the sole Board, or whether the eminent men whom I have referred to as being on the Committee of Education are members of the Board? We have on the Committee Sir Francis Sandford, a man of Scotch breeding, and a man of immense knowledge. We have, also, the Lord Advocate himself, a most able Scotchman, and I am sure that those who have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that he has vindicated himself of the charge of having acquired this knowledge of the Education Department from books; the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown in his speech to-day great knowledge of the subject, and great sympathy with the questions that have been raised; and I want to know whether Sir Francis Sandford, the Lord Advocate, and the other able members of the Committee of the Council for Education are, as I have said, dummy members, or whether they take an active part in the management of Scotch Education— or is it the case that the only real Head of the Board of Education for Scotland is the Scotch Secretary himself, aided and abetted by the President of the Council?
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Before the Question is put from the Chair, I should
    1398
    like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that he has taken no note of what I said with regard to the results obtained by undergraduates as compared with those by graduate teachers. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks on the subject of instruction in Gaelic, and now that we have it conceded as a specific subject, I hope it will have a fair chance. It has been said that although it has been conceded the subject has not been taken up; but I wish it to be put in the Schedule with the other subjects, and then if we see that it fails, there will be no reason for raising further arguments on the subject.
    DR. CLARK: I am not altogether satisfied with the reply of the Lord Advocate as to the action of the Department in the case of the school board in my own locality. It is one of those inaccurate replies that Departments usually give. I have some correspondence here between the school board and myself regarding it, and I have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall bring the matter forward again rather than have £100 taken off the salaries. I wish to refer to a subject which last year I pressed on the attention of the Secretary for Scotland — namely, the very great grievance that the undergraduates in Scotland have with reference to their grant. You take these men, you educate them and give them a certificate that they are perfectly qualified to teach everything that is required to be taught in the elementary schools; and there is another class of men whom you do not examine and know nothing about so far as their qualifications are concerned. The latter are appointed as teachers, the class of subjects is the same, and the results are obtained by the same Examiners; and you give to the men you know all about 4s., and to those you know nothing about you give 10 s. No doubt, there are some managers who prefer to take a man with a degree; but the effect of the present system is that the men who take your certificates are being shunted out and graduates are taking their places. I say you are acting unfairly towards a class of men whom you have yourselves certified to be efficient, and hence their complaint. Increase your own men's qualifications if you like, but I say that you

    1399
    ought to give them the same rights as graduates. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that he will alter this arrangement next year, otherwise I shall be obliged to divide against the Vote.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, I may say that I have referred to a very valuable work, Whitaker's Almanack, and I am happy to assure him that the members of the Scotch Education Department are not "dummy" members. I find that the Board consists of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary for Scotland, the Secretary for the Home Department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Sir Francis Sandford, and myself. I have been at several meetings, and four members have always been present; Sir Francis Sandford and myself were there, and I have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Home Department present. The Board does not meet only in Council; it considers every question. With regard to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend with reference to the teaching of Gaelic, I had already taken a note of it, and it will not be lost sight of.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,018, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for Grants to Scottish Universities."
    MR. HUNTER: I regret that the Secretary to the Treasury is not present on this occasion, because I have to make one or two remarks which I am sure will be grateful to his ears as custodian of the public purse. I have to refer to the sums paid at the Scotch Universities for assistants of Professors. Now, there is no part of the money voted by Parliament to Scotch Universities which is more beneficially applied than that which goes for the payment of the Professoriate. But when some classes in the Universities become very large, enormous salaries, comparatively speaking, are obtained by fees from the students in those classes, and it seems to me that when the question
    1400
    of Scotch Universities comes up, the Treasury should consider the propriety of making the grant depend on the total amount which the Professors get. Take the case of Professors who receive £1,000 a-year and over. I find there are no fewer than 10 Chairs in Scotch Universities which return over £1,000 a-year to the Professors. This sum is largely in excess of the usual pay of Scotch Professors, and £100 is granted by Parliament to each of those 10 Professors for assistants. I venture to think that when the emoluments of a Professor exceed £1,000, he might very well provide the necessary assistance out of the excessive fees which he gets. That would give £1,000, which would be sufficient to endow five new Chairs at £200 each. I think that £200 would be found to be sufficient for the endowment of some Chairs which are urgently wanted in the Scotch Universities. Having called attention to this subject on the ground of usefulness and economy I wish to say a few words with regard to another possible reduction of this Vote. I refer to the sums voted for the Theological Chairs in the Scotch Universities. I have often felt that when Scotchmen have appealed to the Exchequer for Grants in Aid of Scotch Universities, there was one weak point in their case, because the English Nonconformists might turn round and say that before any additional money is given to Scotch Universities, the money already given should be applied to proper University purposes, and not to the endowment of denominational education. The amount voted by Parliament is not in itself large, but it amounts to one-seventeenth part of the entire Vote for Scotch Universities, and the other item which I have referred to is not an inappreciable amount. The reason why I think that Parliament should not grant any money for Theological Chairs in the Scotch Universities is that in. the course of events the Scotch Theological Chairs have ceased to be what we may call open Chairs, and they are practically used for the training of young persons of one Presbyterian denomination. The authorities of the Free Church require that all ministers of their bodies shall be educated at the Theological Colleges, which they themselves provide by voluntary subscriptions. The members of the United Presbyterian Church also

    1401
    proviades the necessary training for their ministers, and the result of this is that the Scotch Theological Chairs are practically confined to the preparation of candidates for the Established Church. It seems to me, holding as I do the principle of equality, with regard to religious endowments, that the present system is inconsistent with the principle of equality. There are some persons in Scotland who entertain the view that, although at the present time these Chairs are practically confined to candidates for the ministry of the Established Church, some possible changes may take place, and that at some future time the Theological Chairs may be available for the teaching of all ministers in Scotland as was the case before 1843. It does not seem to me that events are tending in that direction at the present time; and, that being so, I wish to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000 in order that there may be an opportunity of dividing on and testing the principle involved, and I do so on the grounds both of economy and equality.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £11,018, be granted for the said Services."—-(Mr. Hunter.)
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: There are two points referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) in connection with this Vote, one of which is the emoluments of assistants and Professors. That is a matter which, of course, has already come under consideration in the proposals for University legislation, but I will point out this—that in proposing to make the Professor pay the sum voted by Parliament for an assistant, my hon. Friend ought to keep in mind that as regards a great many, if not all, of these assistants, the Professor could not keep them on the sum voted by Parliament In most cases £100 a-year to get the sort of man capable of being a really efficient assistant for these important classes is not enough; and not only is that so, but the Professors are also in this position, that although they get £100 to provide one assistant, which is not sufficient for the purpose, they have further to provide for assistance out of their own pockets, because, with only one assistant, they cannot possibly carry out the work of their Chairs. Then with regard to the Professors of Divinity
    1402
    and cognate subjects, I think my hon. Friend has done all he intended to do by bringing up this matter on the present occasion. It is a matter which cannot be properly discussed at the present moment. The question is a large and important one, and must also, to some extent, come up on the question of University legislation, and I am therefore not prepared at the present moment to enter into it. My hon. Friend has made his protest against the application of this money; but, at the same time, he is aware that it is the actual position of things at present, and we are not at this time in a position to alter it. The matter, notwithstanding the fact that I am not prepared to enter upon it now, is one that will certainly have to be considered; but I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me for going into it on the present occasion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I quite feel that it is impossible at the present time to deal with the whole question of the Divinity Professors at the Scotch Universities, although it is one which I think we shall have to deal with at a future day. But I want to say a word on the special case of St. Andrews. The Professors' case is that their incomes are almost at starvation point. It seems to me, quite apart from the general question of whether we ought to have a State-supported Church, that it is great folly that the Professor in Arts and Science should be starving while we keep up so liberally the Professors in the Divinity and Medical Departments, in which you have scarcely more students than Professors. It seems to me that there is not that demand for ministers of the Established Church of Scotland which would justify the keeping up of the divinity classes in the four Universities. My own opinion is that, unless an arrangement can be made with Dundee instead of enlarging the medical schools at St. Andrew's University, the proper course would be to abolish both Divinity and Medical Schools, and apply the money voted for them to the purpose of raising the status of the Professors in Arts and Sciences in respect of salary.
    MR. HUNTER: I do not at all object to the tone in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has met me on this question. I am perfectly aware that we are not in a position to find a satisfactory solution

    1403
    of the question on the discussion of the Vote before the Committee; but, at the same time, the only way in which we can formally raise the question in the House is by taking a Division on the Vote, and accordingly I shall do so on the present occasion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 105: Majority 74. — (Div. List, No. 456.) [7.25 P.M.]
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £1,300, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c, Scotland.
    MR. MASON: There is an item in this Vote for the Board of Manufacturers about which I should like to receive from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate some information. We in Scotland do not know much about this Board, and I should be glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman why the Board of Manufacturers exists, and what it is they do, so that we may understand on what the money now asked for is spent. I think the whole Vote requires some explanation.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: This money is voted in connection with a number of institutions in Edinburgh for national purposes concerned with manufactures and arts. The Board of Manufacturers has under its charge large art collections and the School of Design, and there are buildings to be kept up, such as the National Gallery and the new National Portrait Gallery, the funds of which are provided by a private benefactor, while the maintenance is taken over by the State. There are, also, various matters connected with the School of Art and Design, and Science and Art Department. I will give one instance. The present staff sanctioned by the Treasury consists of a certain number of officials—a head master, assistant master, female teachers and curators, involving expenditure to the amount of £1,190 per annum, Then there are the expenses of the National Gallery and of the Museum of Antiquities; and there are prizes and various other things. The Board is working very efficiently, and having been a member of it for many years, I am able to say that it is very actively carried on, and is doing extremely good work.
    MR. MASON: I think there is no necessity to press this inquiry any further, being satisfied with the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,416, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under ' The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.' "
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: In order to get some information, I intend to move the reduction of the Vote by several items which it includes. I shall first move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the amount under Sub-Head A for half charge for the steamer on the West Coast of Africa, because it is the only way in which we can get to know what is going on in that part of the world. I want some information as to the nature of our proceedings on the West Coast of Africa. We have had a number of Blue Books which, in one sense, give too much information, and in another sense too little; but it is rather hard to get at the true gist of our proceedings in Africa. We have had statements made in the press and by the Chamber of Commerce in London and elsewhere, complaining very much that we do not annex the interior districts of Africa, or bring them under control so that our trade there may be extended. It is noticeable that those who impress on Her Majesty's Government the necessity of undertaking this work, do so, not so much for the purpose of keeping alive the Natives as for the purpose of trading with them. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have been strongly pressed to establish dominion on the West Coast of Africa. I should like to know what operations are in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government, and whether they have in view the protection of the lives of the Natives or the promotion of trade by bringing

  1405
  under control large tracts in the interior of Africa. I should, also, like to be told something of the position of the Royal Niger Company to which a charter has been granted for the purpose of enabling them to establish large dominions in the interior of the Continent. I know it would be out of Order to go into this subject in detail; but the Vote being for the West African Steamer, I think we may ask to be told, in the fewest possible words, whether we are establishing dominions in Africa by means of a Chartered Company or otherwise?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A — West Coast of Africa Steamer—be reduced by the sum of £1,500."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (): I understand that the hon. Gentleman opposite has moved the reduction of this Vote, not as really desiring to reduce the charge on account of the West Coast Steamer, but simply for the purpose of raising the question of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in Africa. I am very glad to be able to give some comfort to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I, myself, although I think I should have heard of these rumours if there had been any foundation for them, have not heard anything of the kind, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government in the nature of extension of dominion on the West Coast of Africa. The Government sufficiently appreciate the responsibilities which this country has already undertaken in so many parts of the world and are not at all inclined to increase them. The only matter going on at Lagos now, which I hope will receive a peaceful and friendly termination, is a discussion as to the boundaries between some of the Native tribes, ourselves, and the French; but there is no reason to apprehend any serious difficulty on the point. With regard to the last question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I can only repeat that we have no intention of in any way extending our power on the West Coast of Africa.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. TANNER:: I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000, being the amount charged in connection with the salary of the Governor of the Island of Heligoland and other matters. This Island seems to me a sort of bathing machine, situated in the Gorman Ocean; and it would be well if it were a bathing machine and nothing more. But it is more than that. It is understood by the German people merely as a menace to their trade and Mercantile Marine sailing out of the port of Hamburg. We have heard in past years that there was an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the belief that it would be desirable to conciliate Germany, to give up this island to the great country to whose shores it is contiguous. The Governor of the Island, whose name is O'Brien, states in the Report that the prosperity of the island is increasing, for the bathing season has been an exceptionally good one. But who is most interested in this Island; is it Great Britain or is it Germany? We are told in the Report that the majority of the visitors come from Hamburg and Bremen. The Government say that business men can run over from these places, and that the comparative success of the Island may be due to the completion of the railway to Cuxhaven. The Report, which is most amusing, is a curiosity in itself, and it tells us that the only event of political importance during the year was the visit paid to the island by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. On this occasion the Government House was repaired, and the furniture, which is more than 24 years old, has been re-covered—an example of economy to Her Majesty's Government. The Governor has been also obliged to supply glass, plate, and crockery, so that the post of this unfortunate gentleman is really no sinecure. I think if we look into these matters we shall see that, although the cost is not large, it would be well to cut it down still farther; and, having regard to the fact that the German people do not like the English occupation, I think it would be better if the island were once for all handed over to the Power off whose shores it lies.

  1407
  You tell us that the fishery is a success; but there is another point to which I wish to call attention. In dealing with the Postal Savings Banks, the Government tells us that it is very difficult to expect to get anything like progress out of Heligoland. The place does not appear to have been of any advantage whatever, and, moreover, England is placed in a false position by holding the Island. It is all very well to pass this Vote, as has been the case in years gone by; but I think that the time has come —seeing that you are asking the assistance and intervention of Germany in foreign affairs, and that you are constantly appealing to Germany as arbitrator in European matters when you want to secure a technical advantage— when you should give to Germany this little island. She wants to get it, and certainly I do not think that Great Britain cares very much about it. No one can land there; the island, as the Governor states, is merely a bathing place; you cannot get any shelter under the island, and therefore what is the use of keeping the cost of this small but typical White Elephant on the Estimates? I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will give us some explanation of the cause why Heligoland is still an appurtenance of the British Crown, otherwise I shall feel it my painful duty to divide the Committee against this Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C — Heligoland — be reduced by £1,000."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The reason why this Vote is put upon the Estimates, and why we still hold Heligoland, is that this country is not prepared or desirous to part with it. I would remind the hon. Member that more than once the question of handing the island over to Germany has been raised in this House; and every time the hon. Member who made the proposal has met with a very decided rebuff. I must add that I have no information, and do not believe that Germany is very anxious to take Heligoland. I am not aware of any past negotiations or proposals for its surrender, at all events of any recent date. But without going into the question whether Heligoland is
  1408
  of use to the British Empire for defensive purposes, upon which, for reasons which the Committee will appreciate, it will not be desirable to enter, I must state that it is not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to part with Heligoland to Germany. I have some difficulty in dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, for the hon. Gentleman seemed to dislike the prosperity of what he called a mere bathing machine. I am glad to recognize that prosperity, and to be able to state that notwithstanding the small-ness of the Island and the shortness of the bathing season, there is a distinct and increasing improvement in tike financial condition of the Island. This year there is a decrease of £2,500 on the Vote of last year, and £800 of the amount now asked for is for the salary of the Governor, which is to be reduced when the present Governor leaves his post. Considering the importance of the place, it is not too much to ask the Imperial Government to pay £1,275. I really cannot assent to one of the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for handing over the Island to Germany—namely, because it is mainly kept up by people who cross over from Cuxhaven and Bremen to bathe. To sum up the matter, I may state that the Government are not prepared to hand Heligoland over to Germany, and that they have kept the expense to the Imperial taxpayer down to the very smallest amount. Great credit is due to the Governor for his care in closely watching the expenditure, and improving the resources of the Island.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think the right hon. Baronet has proved too much in saying that we have reduced the expenditure on account of Heligoland. Last year we paid off an amount of original debt, and that is a fact which seems to me to emphasize the contention of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), that this is an unnecessary charge on the British taxpayer. I believe that on the whole face of the earth there is not a possession more absolutely useless to us than this Island; or an occupation more unjustifiable than the retention of Heligoland.
  DR. TANNER: Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion. At the same time, I cannot help repeating

  1409
  the remark that this island is simply held as a threat and menace to a country which it is incumbent on us to treat in a fair, proper, and judicious manner.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: We have never received from Germany any complaint of that kind, and there is not the slightest foundation for such a statement.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I must now move the reduction under Sub-head M of £250, part of the salary of the Deputy Commissioner of New Guinea. With regard to the last reduction which I moved, I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was able to give me very satisfactory assurances. I am afraid, however, that with regard to the question which I now bring forward, it will not be in the right hon. Baronet's power to give assurances equally satisfactory. I have placed this Notice on the Paper in order to bring to the notice of the House the policy which is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in connection with Now Guinea. I am very much afraid that Her Majesty's Government have committed themselves to annex this enormous territory and hand it over to Queensland. That is a course which I very much object to— first, on the ground that it is an unjustifiable extension of the Empire; and, secondly, on the ground of risk and cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has told us how dangerous it will be to extend too rapidly our Empire, and go beyond our resources; and although I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has found occasion to make considerable exceptions to his rule, yet this proposal for extension has been steadily opposed by successive Governments. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, I know, disputes the fact that the British Settlements Bill which has been put before the House is really one intended to facilitate annexations. But I altogether dissent from that view, and confidently assert that in certain cases there is an enormous extension of powers which will enable Her Majesty's Government to annex new territories. I will not go further into that point now, but will refer presently to the case of extension with regard
  1410
  to which I have placed a Notice on the Paper. One measure of Her Majesty's Government is that the High Commissioner shall register claims for land over which Her Majesty has no dominion. Up to the present time Her Majesty's Governments had steadily resisted that proposal. I am quite aware that the registration of claims to land beyond the Dominions of Her Majesty would not constitute title; but, on the other hand, it seems to me to be a great encouragement to men to get marketable claims improperly, and to involve considerable danger. My second objection to the Vote is that the Government propose practically to hand the territory over to Queensland. Sir, I hold a very strong opinion upon that matter, and I object to handing over in this way the government of Native races. I hold strongly that if we will take territory containing Native races we have certain responsibilities to assume. I hold that it would be most wrong, most base, and cowardly to shirk these responsibilities. We have taken under our dominion these Native tribes, and I say it would be base to shirk the responsibilities we have thereby incurred, and to hand them over to any Colony that may want to take them. I think that a course of that kind is not only wrong on our part, but is also bad for the Colonies themselves. I believe it will be an evil day for the Australian Colonies if, in addition to their wide Dominions, they have attached to them a kind of Black Southern States, which we know imperilled the position of the United States of America. We are often told when we raise objections of this kind— "Well, but these Colonists whom you seem to distrust are our own flesh and blood." No doubt they are our own flesh and blood; but it must be borne in mind that the Australian Colonists are situated very differently from ourselves. They are a very sparse population, and are distributed over an enormous tract of country; they are not a solid population like ourselves, They are a population made up of enterprizing and ambitious men—men in these days largely given to speculation, anxious to make rapid fortunes, and very desirous of accumulating these fortunes by means of speculations in land. An eminent authority upon these matters, who lately visited that country—namely, Baron Hubner— noticed this circumstance. He says, re-

  1411
  ferring to the constant cry amongst our Colonists in that part of the world for annexation in the Western Pacific—
  "The cry for annexation in the Western Pacific and elsewhere is a craze which is accounted for by the wants of speculators continually in quest of lands to buy and sell."
  My view is that if we must take possession of these Native territories we are bound to protect the Natives, and the dictum of a very eminent statesman in years not very long gone by was this—
  " Where large numbers of Natives and a small number of Whites are brought together under one Government, their control should be entrusted to an authority directly responsible to the Imperial Government, and able to bear itself impartially between conflicting interests."
  In this case of New Guinea it seems to me we are altogether transgressing the most wholesome rules of the great statesmen who have gone before us. I think that the proposed annexation of New Guinea, -which involves the handing over of it to Queensland, is altogether an unjustifiable proceeding. This territory to be annexed in New Guinea is an enormous one, probably as large as France and Germany put together. It is a territory utterly unknown to us. We know it is inhabited by an interesting and comparatively civilized people. Let me quote a few words from a most attentive observer, Captain Bridge, R.N., who says with regard to the character of the people of New Guinea—
  " Throughout the parts of New Guinea with which I am acquainted the inhabitants are ingenious and industrious agriculturists, and carefully fence their plantations. Their houses are large and well built. They make very fine fishing nets. Their canoes are of an enormous size, and the trees are procured a long way off. Pottery is made in large quantities for export."
  I might read many more extracts; but I will not at this time of day trouble the Committee with more. I think that extract is quite sufficient to show what kind of people they are in New Guinea, and I say to annex these people without in any degree attempting to obtain their consent in a most unjustifiable proceeding. I am aware that we do not make a bare and simple present of New Guinea to Queensland; but I am also aware of the fact that indignation meetings have been held in that Colony in order to force the hands of the Government in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, and the Colonists have forced the hands of Her Majesty's
  1412
  Government. Now under a very thin veil of reservation we are yielding to their demands, and are practically handing over this great Island to the Colonists of Queensland, who, by their persistency, have succeeded in getting their way. I admit that the Colonists are our own flesh and blood. Speaking as a Scotchman, I may say that they are specially my own Scotch flesh and blood; but still they are enterprizing and ambitious speculators, as I have said. I must speak plainly in regard to this Colony of Queensland, and I must say that it is specially unfortunate that this territory of New Guinea should be handed over to this particular Colony, and for two reasons. The first is, that Queensland is deeply dyed in that horrible Slave Trade in the Pacific— in that horrible system of kidnapping of which we have had the amplest evidence in the Papers produced before us. I say that New Guinea is deeply dyed in that very criminal Slave Trade which has taken place for years past in the Pacific; and if it were necessary I could read many extracts to show how barbarous that trade is, and how terribly it is disfigured by crime. All who have taken an interest in this matter—and I should think everyone in this House has—must know very well how bad that trade has been. Therefore I say that this Colony is not one which should be entrusted with this great extent of territory, and with the government of this interesting and pacific people. Another reason I will give in support of my view is, that Queensland has attempted to force our hands in regard to the annexation of this territory in spite of the prohibition of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Colony practically proceeded to bully us into giving them their own way. The Colony has got its own way in spite of the remonstrances of this country; it has got the control and the administration of New Guinea in spite of the deliberate opinion expressed by successive Governments of this country. This transaction has taken place without giving Parliament any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject except this miserable opportunity which we have tonight. Practically Her Majesty's Government have surrendered it to Queensland. There is to be an Administrator of New Guinea; but he is to be under

  1413
  the Governor of Queensland and under the Executive Council of that Colony. I do say without reservation that with the exception of the thin veil of protection afforded by this country the control of this territory is to be handed over to Queensland, which I think is a most unjustifiable proceeding. I will once more quote Baron Hubner, who, speaking of our relations with the Colonies and our habit of yielding to them, says —
  " Recent requests for the annexation of New Guinea made again and again were at first categorically refused by Lord Derby, then gently put aside and ultimately admitted in principle."
  Baron Hubner said that in the very early stages of these proceedings; and, that being so, I wonder what he would have said after the Government have adopted the action they have in regard to New Guinea. The terms agreed upon are practically a surrender to Queensland. They were proposed by Queensland— even the reservations were proposed by her. The plan adopted is altogether Queensland's plan, and I say again that it is one taken against the better judgment of Her Majesty's Government. I think the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) was formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies. I wish to quote what he said on the subject a very short time ago. I find that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed himself distinctly upon this subject so lately as December last. He said—
  " Her Majesty's Government have very carefully considered the New Guinea Corres pondence, and desire to state frankly their opinion on the Colonies' proposal. The establishment of sovereignty over New Guinea involves the possibility of very heavy expenditure, and is not necessary for the defence of Australia from foreign aggression."
  That extract will be found in the Blue Book—Proceedings of Colonial Conference, vol. 2, page 200. It is a telegram of the 3rd December, 1886. Well, Queensland was not satisfied. They were determined to have New Guinea, and now it appears they are going to get it with a small reservation which I think will be soon swept away when this country happens to come into collision with the self-governed Colony. We dare not attempt to hold our own against them. Queensland and the other Australian Colonies are very cautious in this matter as people who know they will get all their own way are very apt to be when they make a bargain.
  1414
  They have made one of the character of "Heads I win, tails you lose." They have carefully limited the amount they are to contribute towards the expenses of the new territory. They have undertaken to expend £15,000 a-year on the Government of the territory; but they have been careful to limit the sum to that amount, and to make it clear that if the £15,000 is not sufficient, and any financial difficulty is encountered, the British taxpayer will have to supply the deficit, and bear all the necessary burden. From the same publication from which I have already quoted the present Secretary of State for War, when Colonial Secretary, said—
  " The Gold Coast and Lagos expenditure is £150,000 a-year, and New Guinea might cost more.''
  If New Guinea did cost more than £150,000 the Colony of Queensland would contribute £15,000, and we should have to contribute all the rest. I hold that the bargain we have made with the Colony of Queensland is one under which they get all they desire, and we run the risk of incurring a loss. I stoutly maintain that, as the British Settlements Bill is not passed into law, under the present law we have no power to annex this territory and turn it over to Queensland. I hold that under the existing law we cannot do this thing.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The Law Officers whom we have consulted are of opinion that there is not the least doubt about New Guinea being a British Settlement when sovereignty was declared.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg very humbly to differ from the right hon. Baronet. Her Majesty's Law Advisers gave the opinion that the territory when, annexed must be taken to have been acquired as distinguished from conquest or cession.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Their opinion was that Her Majesty's Government must be taken to have the power they have exercised in the matter.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then read the passage from the Blue Book.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: There is no passage in the Blue Book on this point. The opinion I am referring to is not a published opinion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I can only go on the opinion that has been

  1415
  published, and in this passage to which I refer the Law Advisers of Her Majesty advise that under the present law we can only treat the territory as a British Settlement, as distinguished from a territory obtained by conquest or cession. You cannot say that this country has been conquered, because it has not been conquered; and you cannot say it has been ceded, because it has not been ceded; and, therefore, you cannot treat it from any of those points of view. If Her Majesty's Law Advisers say that we are already entitled to treat this as a British Settlement, why did you place such an unnatural definition in your British Settlements Bill at present before Parliament?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I admit, Sir, that I shall not be in Order in going into the question of the British Settlements Bill; but the right hon. Baronet, by his interruption, rendered it almost necessary for me to say a word or two on that subject. The opinion which the right hon. Baronet says the Law Advisers have given him is not before the House; and I trust he will permit me to say that I hope Her Majesty's Government will in the Bill propose a clause for the purpose of —
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I must rise to Order, Sir. I must protest against the hon. Member going into these matters, because I shall be unable to follow him. I think, Sir, it is quite irregular, and I may add that his statement is altogether incorrect.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I will merely say that, in my view, Her Majesty's Government are not entitled under the existing law to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement, to annex it, and to deal with it under that title. I deny that anyone who reads the present Falkland Islands Law regarding British Settlements can come to any other conclusion than that the British Settlements therein referred to are bonâ fide British Settlements, and not constructive unnatural British Settlements, I have not got the Falkland Islands Law by me just at this moment, because I did not expect that we should have this clashing of opinion. There are two laws on the subject—one of which recites that Her Majesty's subjects have resided on the Falkland Islands and certain portions of
  1416
  the West Coast of Africa, and it is necessary to make laws for such subjects; and they, therefore, recite that Her Majesty has a right to make laws in those Settlements. Then you have another law, which professes to amend the Falkland Islands Law, and says that the same laws shall apply to British Settlements in every other part of the world. In any common-sense point of view, can you say that this great unknown and unexplored territory is really a British Settlement? It is a Settlement that is really not settled at all. You have half-a-dozen settlers, probably in different parts of an enormous territory; but it is a fiction and a perversion of the plain meaning of the Statute to which I have referred to treat New Guinea as a British Settlement. I am free to say at once that, whether it be legal or illegal to treat this territory as a British Settlement, as a matter of expediency, I, for one, should not object to what I may call a nominal annexation which shall enable us to assume jurisdiction along the coast in order to keep off marauding foreigners and to protect the Native tribes in the interior. If we are prepared to do that—if we are prepared to assume responsibility—if the British Crown and the British nation are to be responsible in a matter of this kind, though I may think it illegal to treat the territory as a British Settlement, I should not say that it was altogether inexpedient. I do not object to a nominal annexation of this kind, provided we are prepared to act on the doctrine that the Imperial Government shall be bound to bear the responsibility of conducting the government of the territory and to hold the balance between the Colonists and the Natives. But I hold that you are departing from that principle; and I say that by so doing you are inflicting the greatest injustice on the Natives. In handing over the control of the territory to the Colony of Queensland you are guilty of a most unjust proceeding. The proper course to pursue is to follow the advice that your own Commissioner—Sir Peter Scratchley—gave, when he said—"New Guinea must be governed for the Natives and by the Natives."
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Hear, hear!
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Baronet

  1417
  say "Hear, hear !" and one might assume from that that he is going to adopt that policy, I say, however, advisedly and deliberately, that, in my opinion, the right hon. Baronet is doing nothing of the kind. He is going to basely surrender the Natives, whom he ought to protect and to enable to govern themselves, to the Government of Queensland. He is going to appoint an Administrator, who is to be under the orders of the Executive Government of Queensland; and I repeat again that whenever we come into collision with these self-governing Colonies in these days, the tendency is for the Mother Country to go to the wall, and for the Colony to have its own way. I believe the Government has departed from the principle of governing New Guinea on the system I so much desire to see adopted, and which the Colonial Secretary seemed to approve—namely, by the Natives for the Natives. I protest against the course which the Government are about to adopt; and, in that view, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item M. 1—Salaries—be reduced by £250."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The hon. Member has repeated over and over again that the Government are going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland; indeed, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument was based on that assumption. That assumption is entirely incorrect; and it follows that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument, from beginning to end, so far as it was based upon that assumption, is incorrect. The Government are not going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the discussion upon the question of New Guinea at the Colonial Conference, and who studies the Schedule of the Queensland Bill, which provides for the expenses of the government of British New Guinea and the mode in which the territory is to be administered, must see that this country keeps New Guinea entirely in its own hands. I will not detain the Committee by quoting these passages, but only refer them to the Colonial Conference Papers (Vol. 2, p. 210). There is really
  1418
  no foundation for the contention of the hon. Member that we are practically going to hand over New Guinea to Queensland. It would not be unnatural that—looking to the trade through Torres Straits—the Australasian Colonies should desire to see in British hands the land on the other side of the Straits; and the feeling is not confined to Queensland as to the desirability of claiming Sovereignty over New Guinea. The feeling is universal throughout the Colonies of Australia; and, with the exception of South Australia, they are all ready to subscribe towards the expenses of the government of New Guinea. Therefore the hon. Member is wrong when he assumes that Queensland alone is interested in New Guinea. It is by no means clear that the other Australasian Colonies would be prepared, even if Queensland desired it, to see New Guinea handed over to Queensland. The hon. Member has thought fit to go back to the old complaint of the ill-treatment of Polynesians in Queensland. The hon. Member must be aware that a Commission was appointed, at the instigation of the Queensland Government, to examine into the charges, and that the whole system has been changed. Many Natives have been returned to their own Islands, and everything has been done by the Queensland Government within the past year or two to conduct the system on a proper footing. I am the more surprised at the hon. Member bringing this question forward now, because I read, a short time ago, a book entitled The British Empire, written by a Sir George Campbell. The writer of that book admitted that Queensland had turned over a new leaf, and that practically the Colony was now free from those charges. Of course, I do not wish to put too much weight on the authority of that writer as against the views of the hon. Member; but still I think it right to quote his opinion. The hon. Member seems to think that Her Majesty's Government have made no provision for the Natives of New Guinea. But I would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 210 of the 2nd volume of the discussions at the Colonial Conference. He will see there that paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 most carefully protect the Natives in regard to the buying of land by private persons; the prohibition of the deportation of Natives

  1419
  except under Ordinances, reserved for Her Majesty's assent; and trading with Natives in arms, intoxicants, &c., was absolutely prohibited except under Ordinance reserved for Her Majesty's assent. In short, every protection was given to the Natives, and I am convinced that this measure will be one of undoubted benefit to them. The hon. Member also seems to think that the Government have pursued a different policy from that of their Predecessors. This is not the case. In 1881 the assistance of the Imperial Government to support the Protectorate was recognized by Lord Derby. My immediate Predecessor, the present Secretary of State for War, was of the same opinion, as was shown by his telegram of August 14, 1885, in which he said Her Majesty's Government were willing to proclaim a Sovereignty upon certain conditions therein specified. There was considerable discussion as to those conditions both before and at the Colonial Conference; but in the end there was no material variation between the proposal approved by my Predecessor and the present arrangement. I do not know that there is anything more to answer, because the whole point of the hon. Member's speech is that we are handing New Guinea over to Queensland, and that I have denied. I will not now enter upon a discussion of the British Settlements Bill, although I must say that the hon. Member's statement of it is profoundly incorrect. I say now, as I have said before, that New Guinea does not come under the head of conquest or cession, and that it is a Settlement; and I would point out that parts of it along the sea shore have been for some time past inhabited by some British settlers. It is a British Settlement, and subject to the Act of 23 & 24 Vict.c. 121. With regard to the point as to registration of land purchases in the Western Pacific Islands, that subject was also brought before the Colonial Conference. All other countries are allowing registration of purchases of land by their people— Germans, Dutch, and French—and why we alone, of all countries, should not allow our subjects to settle in these Islands, and have their titles registered, does seem to me unaccountable. That change has been made, and I have to assure the hon. Member that if it had been done long ago we should have
  1420
  been saved a great deal of trouble in Samoa and other places.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR,: I entirely dissent from almost every view of the hon. Member behind me (Sir George Campbell). I happen to have been born in Australia, and to know something about the Australian Colonies. I know very well the extreme difficulties which surround our dealings with the Western Pacific Islands. I know, especially with regard to the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, the registration of claims to land in the Western Pacific —that the want of such registration has for years stood in the way of the settlement of the Islands there. I know that the want of such a system as this has for years past driven away legitimate English business from the Pacific, and I think that the arrangement which has been brought about is one of the greatest boons which could have been given to the mercantile community of Australia. I differ also from my hon. Friend in his estimate of the treatment the Natives are likely to receive under the authority of the Queensland Government. Only so lately as last year I was all through the Northern part of Queensland, and I saw a good deal of the Black labour there, and I must say that I never saw a more cheerful, contented, and hardy-looking lot of men in my life. During the last four or five years these men have been taught that they are under the protection of the Government of this country. They are aware of the fact that they have absolute protection against their masters. No foreman upon any one of the estates upon which Black labour is used can give any one of his labourers half-an-ounce of tobacco less than his proper weekly ration without having a complaint made and the whole thing thrashed out. These men are now thoroughly independent of their masters—more so, in fact, than are the men in trades unions here—and they are better looked after than our ordinary English workman. Then I also entirely differ from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on the whole question of annexation in the Western Pacific. The only regret I feel with regard to our Possessions in New Guinea is that they do not extend over the whole Island. I

  1421
  think it is out of the question that we could ever contemplate the possibility of the Australians remaining content to have around them a large territory which may be taken at any time by any other Power without making some attempt themselves to become possessed of such territory. I think that the extension contemplated by Her Majesty's Government is good for the Natives, for Australia, and for the British Empire; and I sincerely hope that, so far from the Colonial Office being discouraged in the policy they are pursuing, they will do their best to extend as far as possible the authority of England over the Western Pacific.
  MR. WEBSTER: I should like to make one or two remarks upon this important question; but as it is very late in the Session it is my intention to make these observations of a very brief character. With regard to the subject of the New Hebrides —
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: There is a Motion before the Committee for the reduction of an item relating to New Guinea.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) intends to deal with the question of New Guinea he is not now in Order.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Will the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies state to the Committee the nature of the titles he refers to for the registration of which facilities have been granted?
  SIR HENRY HOLLA.ND: As a rule the land is bought from the Natives, and up to the present time there has been no means of registering titles to land so bought by British subjects. It is of extreme importance that when land is bought there should at once be a registration of title, otherwise difficulties arise. At the present moment in Samoa there is trouble arising between German and British subjects from want of this registration.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he addressed to the Committee, narrowed the points upon which I spoke very much. He has brought it to this issue— Is this a surrender to Queensland, or is it not? He says it is not, but I say it is. If the right hon. Baronet will refer to the documentary evidence bearing upon this matter he will find that the Go-
  1422
  vernor of Queensland is directed to consult the Executive Council on all matters relating to New Guinea. The case that the right hon. Baronet referred to, of the Governor of South Africa being also the Governor of Bechuanaland, is an entirely different matter. I quite admit that all the Australian Colonies are anxious that we should take some step in regard to the annexation of New Guinea, because they are anxious to keep the Germans out. That I admit, and I do not object to the assumption of a Protectorate over New Guinea; but what I do object to is the turning this territory over to the administration of Queensland, which, in spite of what the right hon. Baronet has said, I do respectfully urge upon the Committee is not the right authority. The right hon. Baronet must have a very short memory with regard to this Polynesian, labour traffic; he speaks of it as raking up an old story. If he will allow me to say so, it is a very recent story. I admit that when public opinion was directed to the matter, a great change took place in the condition of things which had previously been a great scandal. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the scandal, and I rely for what I said on the horrible nature of that traffic on the Report of this very Commission. The Report of that Commission showed that most abominable and hateful practices existed. I am not consoled by the assurances we have received from the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur), who represents the Spreadeagleism of Australia. He tells us that not only New Guinea, but the whole of the Islands of the Pacific, should be annexed by this country. I am not so satisfied as he is that the people he would thus place under allegiance to Her Majesty would be so satisfied with the arrangement as he would be. I am not so satisfied with the capacity of Queensland for treating Native races with consideration as is the hon. Member. The man who has committed a serious offence may repent and may be reclaimed, but you would not on that account make him your son's tutor. The Commission to which I have referred exposed great and terrible iniquities; but even now I almost doubt whether full justice has been done to the Natives. There were most terrible and horrible crimes. There was a

  1423
  crime as horrible as any which ever disgraced humanity. I refer to that of a slave dealer who ran down a vessel of Natives, and caused those who were endeavouring to save themselves to be shot. The perpetrator of this crime was tried for murder, and convicted; but I do not know that he has been executed. I trust that these iniquities and crimes do not exist now; but still I cannot accept the doctrine that a Colony reformed in these respects is one to which you ought to entrust the care of Natives, as in the case of the inhabitants of New Guinea. I admit the reservation of the right hon. Baronet; but my argument is that when you have these enterprizing gentlemen in North Queensland—the gentlemen who hold indignation meetings, and who desire to speculate in land in New Guinea—when you have these gentlemen pressing Her Majesty's Government bit by bit you will find your reservations disappear, and bit by bit you will find that the dominion will fall into the hands of Queensland. I think that such a thing would be very bad for the Natives, for the Colony of Queensland, and for the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are protected for a period of years by the undertaking of the Colonies to pay £15,000 a-year towards the expenses of New Guinea. I deny that that guarantee is any protection at all, for in the event of Native wars £1,500,000 might have to be spent in place of £15,000, and for every penny of that the Home Government would have to be responsible.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I referred to the expenses of administration.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Yes; but if you go beyond this £15,000 for wars or any other purpose, we, the taxpayers of this country, will have to pay, and not the Colonies. And now just one word about the subject of the registration of titles. It is all very well to say that these lands, the title to which is acquired, are bought from the Natives. But the question is, how is it bought, and who are the Natives from whom it is bought? I have had a great deal of experience in connection with matters of this sort, and I know there are very frequently questions to be gone into as to the outs and ins of the titles of the Natives themselves. There are many
  1424
  Natives whose titles are repudiated by their own people, and these are the people who try to bring in the strangers. I do not care what the French or Germans or Americans or any other people do; but I contend that we are bound to look after the honour and justice of Her Majesty's Government. I say that it is a most serious thing for this country to arrange for the registration of these titles, which, in nine cases out of ten, are, in all probability, of a most rotten description. I will not withdraw my Motion, as I think it is a right one; but as I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division I will allow it to be negatived. I am not convinced —I am of the same opinion still.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I wish to say a word in support of the views of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but on somewhat different grounds from those taken up by the hon. Member. My opposition to the proceeding to which the hon. Member has called attention is, that I am very much afraid that it is one of the greatest dangers to our Empire. In my opinion one of the greatest dangers which we have to face is this constant extension of the Empire. Nothing tends more greatly to weaken an Empire than unwieldy development in distant parts. All these extensions mean expense—mean drafting soldiers into the new territories to take care of them. I think the whole thing is dangerous, and therefore I protest against these continual extensions. Especially do I protest against our having one code of morals in the East, at the Cape, and another in the West. That which we are ashamed to do at the Cape we should also be ashamed to do elsewhere. I must say I think that the course we have taken in connection with New Guinea will lead us eventually, as a similar course in other parts of the world has done, into great trouble, and involve in serious difficulties those who come after us.
  DR. CLARK: I have seen something of this "blackbirding" in the Pacific, and I know something about Queensland's connection with it, and I frankly admit that in the past there was a good deal of murder and piracy and crime of the deepest dye. I know that it was the rule that where Natives died before a certain period their wages died with them, and that while this practice

  1425
  prevailed it was remarkable what a large number of Natives succumbed before the time arrived for them to draw their wages. I have known schooners go down with crowds of Black men on board. I know something about the Kanaka races, and I like them very well—indeed, I think they are amongst the best peoples in the world. Whatever the law may have been in the past, it is now modified, and the planters are now glad to treat the Natives who work for them much better than the Irish tenantry are treated, or than the Scotch crofters are treated, or than the workpeople in large cities in this country are treated by their employers. Queensland stands very free from blame in this matter now, and. I do not think we have a right to throw stones at her at the present time. Of course, we must be ashamed of what took place there; but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great many of the ruffians who were guilty of the worst atrocities were Germans, and were not Englishmen or Britishers. As to the argument of the right hon. Baronet, it is thoroughly illogical. I am thoroughly opposed to extensions of territory under the Colonial Office; but I have no objection to extensions under Colonial Governments. I have no objection to Queensland, at its own expense, annexing New Guinea; but I object to annexation being carried out, and the administration of New Guinea being undertaken at the expense of this country, seeing that Queensland will get all the benefit. In cases of this kind, whether you make these territories Crown Colonies or self - governing Colonies, the feeling of the Colonists is carried out; and, that being so, how can anyone complain? If a Colony is dependent on the Mother Country for assistance in time of need, it is to some extent careless with regard to the difficulties it gets into, and the expenses it incurs; but when it is thrown on its own resources it thinks twice before it does anything that will bring about Native wars or anything of that kind. Remember the history of New Zealand. As long as the New Zealand Colonists had the Colonial Office to fall back upon they had never done with Maori wars, and this country spent hundreds of thousands of pounds upon them; but as soon as New Zealand was made responsible for its own affairs it is remarkable
  1426
  to observe how it has abolished the necessity for wars. Wars are expensive, and the Colony cannot afford them. Government is not carried on so stupidly by those who have to pay for it as by those who have nothing to do but reap the profit, the expense being paid by somebody else. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) seems to have a notion that all the Colonists are bad. Well, I myself have had very often to attack Colonists; but I must say that if the hon. Member had come into contact with savage or semi-savage races, he would probably have shown as much bias as many of the Colonists have shown in their dealings with these peoples.
  MR. MASON: With regard to this territory of New Guinea, I think that the Government of this country has in the past been somewhat neglectful of the interests of the Colonists. In my opinion, when Queensland took the step that it did, it was absolutely required, in the interests of the Australian Colonies, that New Guinea should become a part of the British Empire. New Guinea is situated so near to Queensland that to have admitted any European Power there—as I am sorry to say we have done to a certain extent—was nothing less than a great misfortune to Australia. The Dutch were there originally, and they are not an offending people; and I suppose that the portion of New Guinea they claimed they were entitled to claim, and I do not think we could have objected. But it was well known a few years ago that both France and Germany were casting covetous eyes on New Guinea, when the Queensland Government took prompt action by hoisting the British Flag over aportion of the Island. Unfortunately for this country, and for Australia, Germany had anticipated so far the action of Queensland, or rather of the British Government, as to have planted their Flag upon a portion of the territory. That was a great misfortune, in my opinion, to the Australian people; Germany is there on their frontier, and it may prove a source of difficulty to these Colonies, although I believe that Australia has a great future before her. Possibly European troubles may arise out of Germany having got a footing in that part of the world—a footing which they ought never to have had a chance of securing. In my view, the Govern-

  1427
  ment would act wisely in asserting their position, so far as they possibly can, not only with regard to the British territory in New Guinea, but in taking care that Germany shall have no more of the Island than is absolutely required, and that energetic measures will be taken in support of the Australian Colonies with regard to the New Hebrides, which is a very serious matter just now. I know from personal experience of these Colonies the great inconvenience that Australia is put to through the scum of Europe being sent out to the New Hebrides from France. A great deal of annoyance is caused to the inhabitants, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will be energetic in saying that the Queensland people shall be sustained in their efforts to prevent any more land than is absolutely necessary being acquired by foreigners in order to keep our European neighbours from Australian waters. I trust Her Majesty's Government will always be prepared to assert their position on behalf of the Australian Colonies.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WEBSTER: On the Item for the office of the High Commissioner, I should like to refer to a matter which falls within the cognizance of the Western Pacific High Commissioner. He appears to have vested in him a Protectorate of the Natives, and, amongst others, of the Natives of the New Hebrides. Now, in 1878 there was a mutual agreement come to between Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of France that these Islands were to form a neutral territory which neither France nor England should occupy. This agreement was ratified in the year 1883, and yet I find that so lately as 1886 the Governor of New Caledonia despatched a frigate to the New Hebrides with troops and stores on board, in direct violation of the agreement between Great Britain and France. Now, Sir, this violation of Treaty —
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I fail to see the relevancy of the hon. Member's observations to this Vote.
  MR. WEBSTER: The object for which these Islands were so occupied, Sir, will form my reason for mentioning the subject. The occupation of these
  1428
  islands is, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, for the purpose of forming a syndicate to allow on these Islands a convict or récidivist settlement. Further than that, in the opinion of the Australian Colonies, the Presbyterian ministers who are at work amongst the Natives at the present moment will be very greatly injured and very greatly damnified if this project is carried out. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the High Commissioner has power over these Natives, and I venture to urge that in no respect should his power be affected by the Government of France taking or usurping his position —
  THE CHAIRMAN: The High Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter.
  MR. WEBSTER: I venture to point out that if he has no jurisdiction, he is responsible for the Natives in districts where there are British interests.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The Islands the hon. Member is referring to are not under his control at all.
  DR. CLARK: I should like to put a question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to the affairs of Tonga and the doings of the ex-missionary, Mr. Baker, who, acting through old King George, who is merely his tool, is inflicting great cruelties and injuries on the Wesleyans in that island. This is not the first time that Mr. Baker has been creating all this disturbance down there. When the Wesleyans dismissed him from his position as missionary five or six years ago, he had a warning; and now, after the murder of these unfortunate people, to which attention has already been called in this House, merely because they were Wesleyans, he again received a warning at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Surely we ought to go further than that. This man, acting ostensibly in the name of old King George, who is a man of about 90 and who is merely his tool, is carrying on depredations with impunity. I think he ought to be tried for murder, and deported either to this country or to Australia.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I fully admit the great importance of the subject which has been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, I must remark that Her Majesty's Government have given it very grave consideration.

  1429
  Sir Charles Mitchell was specially appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and went, accompanied by his Legal Adviser, Mr. Clarke, the Chief Justice of Fiji, to examine into the whole question. Sir Charles Mitchell, who has throughout acted in a spirit of absolute impartiality, and with great tact and judgment, examined a large number of witnesses on both sides, besides hearing Mr. Baker himself, as well as King George. Having thoroughly investigated the matter, Sir Charles Mitchell recommended that Mr. Baker should not be deported, but should be warned, together with the King, that they must take means to preserve peace. That Report has been presented to Parliament, and I will, therefore, content myself with reading one paragraph— namely, 68—
  " The conclusion to which I have arrived is not favourable to Mr. Baker, although great allowances must be made for the difficulties of his position.… I should undoubtedly have exercised the power vested in me of prohibiting Mr. Baker from remaining in Tonga for a period, had it not been that I felt that his presence with the King would, after the warning which my visit to Tonga had given, be the best moans of preserving peace."
  In these circumstances, I do not think that I should be justified in overruling Sir Charles Mitchell's opinion until a strong case is established on the other side. I have caused Mr. Baker to be informed that Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove the course which he is shown to have pursued of late years in Tonga; that he must remember that, as a British subject, he is under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner; and that in the event of any further ill-treatment of the people of Tonga being found to be traceable to his influence, it may become the duty of the High Commissioner, without further delay, to put in force the powers under the Western Pacific Orders of Council. A similar warning has been conveyed to King George. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member will see that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered this matter.
  DR. CLARK: What the right hon. Baronet states happened some years ago —that is to say, the same warning was conveyed to Mr. Baker; but nothing came of it.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I can only say that Mr. Baker has now had a final warning.
  MR. ROUND: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) a question which I hope he will see his way to answer. It is whether any further Papers will be submitted to Parliament in connection with the recent events in the Island of Mauritius? I am sure he will agree with me that events of a very grave character have taken place recently in that Island, and that the Government have come a very important decision there.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I have given very full and grave consideration to this matter, and have arrived at the conclusion not to present any further Papers on the question to Parliament. I am extremely grateful to the House for the confidence which it has placed in me in regard to this subject, and to hon. Members for not pressing me to present Papers. Since arriving at the decision I have mentioned, I have again carefully considered this matter, and am absolutely satisfied that it is not desirable to lay any of these Papers on the Table. Grave charges and counter-charges were bandied about during the proceedings. Many of these were collateral to the issues which I had to try, difficult and important as they were; many were based upon hearsay evidence; and the persons who have been charged have not had an opportunity of either explaining away the evidence or defending themselves against it. The Committee will, I think, under the circumstances, consider it unfair that these charges should be published in a Parliamentary Paper without any statement from those who are affected by them being appended. In the interests of peace and order in the Colony, I am satisfied that I have adopted the proper course. It is in the highest degree desirable not in any way to diminish the chance of removing any ill-feeling which exists between the opposing parties. The best course to adopt is to give the Governor a fair chance of restoring the confidence of the people in his administration, and if I presented the Papers to Parliament that chance would, I believe, be greatly diminished.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) I have only one question to ask. I should like him to tell us how he is going to dispose of Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £48,180, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, Bechuanaland, the Island of St. Helena, and the High Commissioner for South Africa."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire, in reference to Sub-Head A, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies for some information with respect to the allowance in consequence of giving up the Orange River Territory. If my historical memory does not fail me, I think the territory was given up 40 years ago. I should have thought that if we had given up territory we ought not to be called upon to pay anything for doing so. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long this payment is going to last?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The British sovereignty over the Orange River Territory was proclaimed in 1848, but was revoked and abandoned in 1854 for reasons which I need not enter into. But I may say that an enormous cost to this country was incurred by maintaining dominion over this territory, and there was constant liability to frontier contests. When it was abandoned, compensation was given to various persons who suffered in consequence of the abandonment. The annuities, which amounted to £48,316 have been reduced to the present sum.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have given Notice to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,099, being the compensation for the abolition of office in the Transvaal, merely in order to enable me to ask the question what these compensations are? Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to afford us some satisfactory explanation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That ItemB—for Salaries—be reduced by £2,099." — (Sir George Campbell.)
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: When the Transvaal territory was retroceded to the Boers and became the South African Republic compensation had to be given to those gentlemen who were in office
  1432
  there under the British Government, and whose services the South African Republic did not desire to retain. Mr. Gurdon, now Sir William Gurdon, was sent out by the Treasury with the object of, among other things, going thoroughly into the cases of these gentlemen, and of considering what compensation should be given. The sum included in the Vote is the compensation allowance of these Transvaal officials— five in number—whose services the Boer Republic did not retain, and who had such length of service that the Government could not deal with them by giving a gratuity, as was the case with some of the other officers. I am quite ready to show the hon. Gentleman the Report of Sir William Gurdon; but I do not think the Committee would desire me, at this late hour, to read out extracts from it. I have no reason to suppose that these officers did not do their duty thoroughly to the British Government in the Transvaal. Therefore the Government cannot fairly deprive them of the pensions which their services entitle them to receive.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am very distrustful on the subject of compensations, for there are no greater abuses than those connected with the matter of compensations. I should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) had told us who the five gentlemen are.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I said I would not trouble the Committee with the details of Mr. Gurdon's Report. I can, however, if the Committee wish, detail the services of these gentlemen. I have offered to show the hon. Gentleman the Report of Mr. Gurdon, and I can hardly think the Committee would care to hear the details.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Is Sir Theophilus Shepstone one of these gentlemen?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Yes; and the sum allowed him is £326 per annum.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then I beg to withdraw my previous Amendment, and to propose the reduction of the Vote by £326, being the amount of pension paid to Sir Theophilus Shepstone.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I must protest most strongly against this grant

  1433
  to Sir Theophilus Shepstone. Sir Theophilus Shepstone was the gentleman who led us into all this trouble. He abused the trust reposed in him by annexing the Transvaal, and led us into the difficulty in which we now find ourselves. It is monstrous that the British taxpayer should be charged with a pension to this man. I am sure I need not trouble the Committee with any further words upon this subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That Item B—Salaries, Transvaal—be reduced by £326, Compensation to Sir Theophilus Shepstone."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  DR. CLARK: There is one important point upon which I should like some information, and I have no doubt that you, Sir, will be interested in knowing something about it, as you have occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that, some time ago, the Treasury surcharged Sir Theophilus Shepstone with a very large amount of money that he was supposed to have misappropriated, or not properly accounted for, while Administrator of the Transvaal. I think the money was put down by Sir Theophilus Shepstone and his sons to forage, and the forage consisted of vases, and combs, and brushes, and fishing-rods, and the like. The late Liberal Government surcharged Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and his pension was stopped for the purpose of the repayment of this money. I understand that since then the pension has been given back to Sir Theophilus Shepstone; and I should like to know the reasons why the action taken by the previous Government in compelling Sir Theophilus Shepstone to pay back money he and his sons had taken from the British taxpayer for fishing-rods, and vases, and other articles, which were put down to forage, has been reversed? Sir William Gurdon. when he examined the accounts, found that these were the articles of which the forage was composed; and you, Sir, when Secretary to the Treasury, made some very strong observations upon the proceeding. I should like to know why this pension has been given back to Sir Theophilus Shepstone, if he has not made good the money?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: As to an abuse of trust by Sir Theophilus Shepstone in annexing the Transvaal, I cannot possibly argue a question now which
  1434
  has been argued for three weeks together in the House of Commons; but I must remind the hon. Member that, at that time, neither Mr. Childers nor Mr. Forster disapproved of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's action. As to the other point, no doubt the accounts were kept in a most irregular—I may almost say ludicrous—form; but the Treasury and Sir William Gurdon acquitted Sir Theophilus Shepstone of making any charges for money not actually expended. I believe that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has paid the amount which it was at last decided he should pay, and that he is now receiving his full pension.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Theophilus Shepstone is receiving anything in the way of salary from any other office?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I believe not.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not quite certain he will make inquiries. He says he only believes that Sir Theophilus Shepstone is not receiving anything in the wav of salary from any other office.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I quite understand the hon. Member, and I will, of course, make inquiries upon the point. I am almost certain, however, that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has paid off what it was finally decided he should pay off, and that now he is receiving full pension.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am very desirous that we should not deal with this question in the dark. I am very distrustful in such cases as this; but I will take advantage of the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries. If, however, I live to another Session of Parliament, I will bring the matter forward again.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I can have no objection to so reasonable an. offer.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Under Sub-head C, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £150, part of the allowance to the Governor of Natal as Special Commissioner in Zululand. I will at once explain my objection to the way we are dealing with Zululand. I am one of those who have always felt that, by the part we

  1435
  took in Zululand, we did injustice to the people. We totally destroyed their Government, and set them by the ears, and made self-government impossible. I do not think we were wrong in annexing Zululand, the more especially as it was not connected with the interior of Africa. My objection, therefore, is not to the annexation of Zululand—it is not to the expense of the annexation—for if Zululand can be administered for £300 a-year the work is done very cheaply indeed. For my part, I do not think it ever will be done so cheaply, It will involve great expense, and I do not think, considering the way in which we have treated these people and the very regrettable change of policy which has occurred, we should begrudge—I, for my part, could not—something very considerable for the administration of Zululand; but I will not go into the question of the administration of the country. My objection to this arrangement is similar to the objection I take in regard to New Guinea—namely, that having taken possession of Native territory, we are making it over to the first Colony desirous of administering it. In Zululand we have not gone quite so far as we have in the case of New Guinea; but we have taken a very considerable step in that direction. What have the Government done? They have taken the first step, and a very large step, towards making over Zululand to Natal. It is proposed that the Governor of Natal shall, in the administration of Zululand, be assisted by an Executive Committee, and that Executive Committee is to be the Executive Government of Natal, plus two elected Members. That is to say, you are to have two official Members of the Executive Government of Natal and four elected Members. Sir, I say that this is a very large step towards making over Zululand to Natal, and I am wholly opposed to anything of the kind. The Government of Natal has already enough to do without administering Zululand, because there are now in Natal 30,000 Europeans, about 40,000 Asiatics, and 400,000 Natives. It is an oligarchy in the strongest sense of the word, and I do not think that oligarchy ought to he extended. I think that if the Government wish to take the responsibility of the administration of Zululand they should not seek to make it over to Natal.
  1436
  I suppose that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) has told us, he has not made over New Guinea to Queensland, á fortiori he will say he has not made over Zululand to Natal, because he has not gone quite so far. I say at once you have not gone quite so far; but the Natal Colonists are covetous of Zululand; and I think that when we have gone so far as to say that the Governor of Natal is to be assisted and advised in the administration of Zululand by an Executive Council of Natal, the majority of which are elected Members, we have entered on a course which must probably result in the annexation of Zululand to Natal. I say that the Government of Natal is, in the strictest sense of the word, an oligarchy. There is a considerable Indian population there. Up to some years ago a few of that Indian population were entitled to vote. The Natal Legislature got alarmed at so many people of colour having the vote, and under the guise of reform a law was passed by which three-fourths of the Indian voters were deprived of the franchise. I am sorry to say that the Government for the time being were base enough to allow the law to pass, and thus make the Natal Government a very much tighter and narrower oligarchy than it was before. I totally object to handing over to this oligarchical Government control of Zululand.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item C —Salary, Zululand—be reduced by £150, part of the allowance to the Governor of Natal, as Special Commissioner in Zululand."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute—in fact, I simply want to ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell), that it would be entirely wrong to allow such a country as Zululand to be annexed to Natal. From a study of the Blue Books, I have come to the conclusion that, so far from Zululand being annexed to Natal in the approximate future, it has been very carefully arranged that Zululand shall remain in the hands of the Imperial Government. With regard to the first question I wish to ask, let me say that I regard

  1437
  the Treaty recently concluded, by which we made over certain portions of Zululand to the new Republic and annexed the remainder, as a mistake. I think that this country has not done all it ought to have done in connection with Zululand. The question I wish to ask refers to the portion of the country which many who are familiar with the subject know as Proviso B. The Boers were allowed to settle there and hold certain farms. There is a great deal of feeling in connection with Proviso B; and many of us believe that that portion of the country, which is perhaps the richest part, and perhaps the most desirable for the purposes of farming, should have been retained for the Zulus. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) whether he anticipates at any time being able to out-purchase the Boers, not by throwing a burden on the taxpayers of this country, but, possibly, by incurring a debt in favour of the Zulus for that purpose? I am bound to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will give me a very favourable answer to my question. But I may, perhaps, remind him that, judging from the latest despatches, there is a considerable portion of this Proviso B which has not been occupied by the Boers. Could not the farms which have not been occupied by the Boers be made to revert to the Zulus? It is very important, if possible, that the Zulus should be able to reoccupy the farms which have not been occupied by the Boers, to whom they were originally allocated. Perhaps I may also ask a question in reference to that portion of Proviso B which includes the graves of the Kings. There have been negotiations with the new Republic; but I do not think any decisive answer has yet been given as to whether that portion of the country shall be given up to the Zulus or not. There is a considerable sentimental grievance in the minds of the Zulus about these graves. These are the only questions I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, because at this period of the Session I do not wish to prolong the discussion.
  DR. CLARK: I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), because I think it will be a wise step to annex Zululand to Natal. At any rate, what we have done
  1438
  is to annex the Zulus to Natal, because 40 years ago there were only 30,000 Zulus in Natal; but now there are 300,000. The Zulus in Zululand number under 100,000; probably there are only 80,000 there. If you want to get a large number of the Zulus back into Zululand, the best way in which you can do it is to annex Zululand to Natal, because Natal is simply a portion of Zululand. Now, as to the policy involved in the annexation of Zululand, I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) that we were practically compelled to annex Zululand, or else to suffer the Zulus to be wiped out. Under the circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) has acted wisely in not proclaiming a Protectorate, but in practically annexing the country. I differed from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) when he raised this question some time ago, and I wish to express now the view I then desired to express. I think we were compelled, after crushing and breaking down the power of Cetewayo, and refusing to support Dinizulu, to take over the country, or that portion of the country not occupied by the Boer settlers. I do not think the solution arrived by Sir Arthur Havelock is the best for the Zulus. In a former debate I pointed out one or two objections to the course taken by Sir Arthur Havelock. Of course, one cannot get over the difficulty unless by reopening the question. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland), who has long been a friend of the Aborigines, would have re-opened the question, especially in regard to the North-Eastern section of the country where Cetewayo's brother has been, and where there are no White settlers. The question which now arises is, what is the future of Zululand to be? The first thing to do is to secure land to the Natives. I hope a Committee will be appointed for the purpose of doing in Zululand what the Boers have done in the Transvaal. I hope you will vest in all the various tribes in Zululand their land, and give them boundaries. I hope you will not allow any White men to acquire any land in Zululand except for a limited period of time, and that the land will be vested in Commissioners for the tribes. The probability is you will have to do something to ease Natal

  1439
  from the great burden of the emigration of Natives into the country. With regard to Proviso B, let me say you have recognized the title of the new Republic, and that whether a man occupies his farm or not the farm is his. The very raising of the question of buying the man out makes the thing impossible. The most important question of all is the reserving of the land to the Natives. Unless something is done, the land will, of course, be got in the usual way, and the Zulus will be robbed of it, as South Africans and others have been robbed of their land before. I hope to hear something from the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to what he is going to do to protect the Zulus in their rights and to get the Zulus back to Zululand.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what has been done in reference to Usibepu? He was an ally of ours, and yet we allowed the opposite Party to crush him by means of the Boers. I believe he is now a fugitive in our territory.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The case of Usibepu is under the consideration of the Government, and they are waiting for a further Report from Sir Arthur Havelock. They have offered him a salary, and the question now is whether the Chief can have any territory besides. I am unable to give a further answer at present, but the matter is receiving consideration. In answer to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), I would point out that a Question as to relieving Natal of the Natives is going to be put to me on Thursday or Friday. Many of the Natives who have crossed into Natal during the existence of previous troubles will now, no doubt, be willing to return to Zululand. The Government, however, are not prepared to assent to any organized scheme of return on the part of the Natives, without its being submitted to Sir Arthur Havelock, and without first seeing that there is sufficient territory, so that the Natives at present in the country may not be cramped. As to the annexation of Natal, I can assure the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that he is labouring under a misapprehension as to the real state of the case. The desire of the Zulus on that point has been ascertained, and it is found that they do not wish to be
  1440
  brought under Natal laws. It is not, therefore, intended that they should be annexed to Natal. I do not know whether the hon. Member has looked at the Regulations which have been published by Sir Arthur Havelock, as Governor of Zululand, under the powers vested in him by his Commission. But I am satisfied that if the hon. Member examines them he will see that the Natives have been carefully protected. In the first place, by Regulation 32, Native Chiefs in Zululand will have original jurisdiction according to the Native Law in all civil and criminal cases between Natives and their own tribes. I fully recognize the importance of the Land Question; but it will be found by reference to the Regulations that the right of allotting land is vested in the Governor, and that he has power to appoint a Commission for the purpose of marking off boundaries, and so forth. This will satisfy the hon. Member, as showing that the Government have very carefully protected the Natives, and especially on the burning question of the land. A Commission can, and probably will, be appointed to examine into these very questions. As to Proviso B, I have stated more than once, and the despatches in the Blue Books show, that Her Majesty's Government have given that question their very anxious and careful consideration. It is impossible to turn out the Boers from that part of Proviso B, because they have thoroughly established themselves there and have good titles, which the Government have undertaken to uphold. With regard to the Zulus in that district, Her Majesty's Government have to make the best bargain they can, and, as far as possible, see that any lights the Zulus have are protected. Although there was at first a great feeling against Proviso B among the Zulu Chiefs, the last Report I had was that that feeling is subsiding, and we may now trust that no difficulties will arise in regard to Proviso B. I agree that if we propose any such plan as buying out the Boers, we should find the prices of the farms rise to a very large price indeed. Her Majesty's Government have done their best to secure, as far as possible, that the graves of the Chiefs should be respected. Those graves are not the graves of the great Chiefs of the present Zulu people,

  1441
  as was at first supposed. Sir Arthur Havelock dealt with the whole subject in his Despatch of May 6, 1887, in which he said that the graves were those of Chiefs who held a comparatively subordinate position with regard to Chiefs of larger tribes; but he thought it desirable, and so do Her Majesty's Government, that measures should be taken to secure due respect to these burial places.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the unoccupied land.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman means land that has been unoccupied?
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I refer to the farms in Proviso B. The new Republic has intimated by some law that the rights of the men who have not taken up the farms will lapse. I should like to know to whom the land will go?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I have not had that question finally brought before me for decision, but I have little or no hesitation in saying that the land would go back to the Zulus.
  MR. KIMBER: I should like to re-assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell). I happened to be travelling in Natal and Zululand at the time this Treaty was being negotiated, and I can testify to the careful and anxious consideration given to all the points, especially to those which affected the interests of the Natives by the Government. It is certainly satisfactory to note that when all the lands have been allotted to the Boers, as well as all the lands in Proviso B, they are very much less in total than the quantity of lands claimed by the Boers. Sir Arthur Havelock has been very helpless in this matter, because the lands claimed by the Boers were given to them by the Chiefs in Zululand themselves. It would come to this, that we should have to exert physical force to compel the rescission of a contract entered into between parties who were sui juris. Under all the circumstances, therefore, although the partition of Zululand is not that which Englishmen would like to see come about, still I think it is one that, on the whole, may be considered to have resulted well for this country.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am glad to hear the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I think, however, he will agree with me that, looking at the Despatches, I was justified in falling into the view I took of the arrangements made for the management of the affairs of Zululand. As I understand Zululand is to be kept independent, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the question of sending Usibepu back to Zululand. If he is sent back it will mean civil war. I trust the Government will be content with giving him a pension. The great bulk of the people were not satisfied with the annexation; the King's brothers and sons, and many Chiefs were all opposed to it.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: They have all assented to it now.
  DR. CLARK: They have all gone into the new Republic.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: No; they have all come out of it.
  DR. CLARK: I think it would be better to give Usibepu a pension or land in the Reserve, but do not let him go back to his own country, or it will simply mean more trouble. Now, with regard to Natal let me say this, it has the best history of all British Colonies in respect to the treatment of Natives. My only complaint is that the Natives have been treated too gingerly, because there are such Native customs yet permitted as the buying and selling of wives.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Under Sub-head D, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500, being part of the personal allowance to the High Commissioner. I may say at once that there is no man of whom I have a higher opinion than I have of Sir Hercules Robinson. I have not the smallest wish to reduce his pay, and I have only made this Motion with the object of obtaining information from the Government with regard to the passing of a law by which it is alleged the vast portion of the Natives of the Cape Colony are disenfranchised.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt the hon.

  1443
  Gentleman. The Act to which he is now referring is a Cape Act and has nothing to do with Bechuanaland. The only Vote we are now considering is the salary of Sir Hercules Robinson. As Governor of Bechuanaland he gets no salary; but gets an allowance for expenses, which is what the hon. Gentleman probably wishes to reduce.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman has me there.
  DR. CLARK: I see there is an item of £500 for cable messages sent by the High Commissioner. I think it would be better if some discretion were used in regard to these cable messages.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I think it is rather hard that any observations should be made upon this item, especially when we have reduced the cost of cable telegrams to £1,500.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The Amendment I have next to move is a more serious one than the last; it is to reduce the Vote by £50,000, part of the grant for Bechuanaland, and I bring it before Her Majesty's Government in the hope that I may obtain from them some information with regard to their policy in that country. When we went to Bechuanaland we had no settled policy; we drifted into our position there, and I am anxious to discover whether we have a settled policy now that we are there. Now, although there maybe a reduction in the Vote this year, still the Vote is very large, and the position is such as to involve very grave risk in the future. We do not know whether in the future it may not amount to millions, and therefore I think it desirable that we should have some information from the Government as to their policy. Bechuanaland is not only a very large territory in itself, but its margin is almost illimitable; and, as was the other day stated at the meeting of the British Association, "Men informed on the subject are utterly without intelligence as to the boundaries of Bechuanaland." The attitude taken up by this country must, if persisted in, inevitably lead to the establishment of a great British Empire in the interior of Africa; and I want to know what are the objects with which we hold this territory—whether Her Majesty's Government propose further extension or otherwise? "We went to Bechuanaland, I believe, to do justice
  1444
  to Montsioa and Mankoroane in the first place; and, secondly, with the desire to establish a trade route through the country with the Cape. Certainly the assistance we gave the Chiefs has been of a very strange and unsatisfactory kind, for, on turning to the Blue Books, I find that their pages are covered with the complaints of Mankoroane and Montsioa, who are very dissatisfied with the way in which they have been treated. In fact, instead of establishing these Chiefs, whom we went there to protect, we have reduced them to the position of British subjects; we have taken most of their land, and reduced them to the condition of occupants, of reserves as in other Colonies. I am not at all surprised at their complaining of the treatment they have received. It is rather hard that these men should have been dealt with thus; they were depicted as virtuous Native Chiefs, and yet we have reduced them to the position I have described. Hence these pitiful complaints, and hence it is that Montsioa has alleged, with or without truth, that the Europeans have been "worse than a bad neighbour to him." Again, the trade route with the Cape Colony is not in a real sense an Imperial interest, and I am very much inclined to protest against the heavy cost laid on the British taxpayer in order to maintain our influence in this part of the world. It seems to me, that if we interfere we must make up our minds for the establishment of our dominion in Central Africa, and take upon ourselves the responsibility of administering that part of the country. I hope, therefore, we shall learn something from Her Majesty's Government as to their real intentions with regard to Bechuanaland, and, with that object, I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £50,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the balance of the Vote is only £48,000.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then I will move the reduction of the Vote by £40,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E—Grant in Aid, British Bechuanaland — be reduced by £40,000."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  DR. CLARK: I am afraid I must take up a few minutes in making some

  1445
  remarks on this important, question. If the British Government and Imperial Parliament will take upon themselves the government of large numbers of people, we must be prepared to give some little time, at any rate, to the consideration of their needs. Some very important decisions have been come to with regard to this territory, and there is no doubt some basis for the complaints made by some of the Chiefs. The Land Commission has given its Report, and it refers to three classes of interests which are involved—first, the interests of the Stellalanders; secondly, British interests; and, thirdly, the interests of the Natives. Now, as far as the Stellalanders are concerned, they have very little to complain of; they have practically got the best part of Bechuanaland, They had it with a restriction with regard to water rights, and they are leaving the country in consequence, but, as I have said, they have little or nothing to complain of; with regard to British interests they have been very scurvily treated; but, passing from that subject, I will come to the third, and most important, part of the question, I can assure the right hon. Baronet that I am no friend of Montsioa, whom I believe I characterized last year as a "bloodthirsty rascal;" but I wish to point out with regard to Mankoroane's people, that they have not got enough land to live upon comfortably if they are going to live as they have in the past. Of course, I know that, to a large extent, the Commission could not help itself in this matter; but the fact remains that Mankoroane's garden ground has been given to the Stellalanders; they are there, and you cannot get them out of it. Although a portion of the land has been given away, there is still a portion which has not been given away available; and as I have said, as far as these people are concerned, if they are to live as they have in the past, more land will be wanted by them. The present position of Members of this House when they ask Questions of the Government is very unsatisfactory, and it may be illustrated by a circumstance in connection with Montsioa, who complained that a European town had been placed near his territory. Now, when I was at the Cape, last year, I found that this town was
  1446
  just 700 yards away from Montsioa's land; but the answer given in this House, when the matter came up in the form of a Question, was that it was two miles away from the place. We have taken away land for town purposes; the town is large and rapidly growing; and it will probably become a large mining centre. The poor Barolongs will probably be wiped out. These people have been agriculturists; but they have not now enough land or enough water— what land they have, owing to the want of water, is rendered practically useless. Now, one thing has taken place lately to which I strongly object, and that is the taking away of Border farms for the purpose of giving them to the Constabulary. I formed a good opinion of the Beehuanaland Police when I was at the Cape, and I do not think the Irish Police were superior to them; as a matter of fact, these were not so much a police force as a military force under Sir Charles Warren. However, to take away this land, give it to policemen, and and then allow them to hand it over to substitutes, is an act which I cannot but regard as a very great blunder, because you are simply taking away land which will be required by the Barolongs. The condition of Bechuanaland is very unsatisfactory. You are going to spend out of the £91,000 advanced £78,000, or nine-tenths of the money, for the maintenance of the Border police, who, I think, at the present time, are not wanted, however much they might have been when Bechuanaland was taken away from the Transvaal—when the men who had farms lost them and became outcasts, and were told to get compensation from the Transvaal Government. But the men who were then troublesome have left the place years ago, and are now gold diggers 500 or 600 miles away; and there is no possibility or chance of their causing further trouble. There is, therefore, no necessity for keeping up this very expensive police force; and I suggest, as there has been nothing done for Bechuanaland in the way of schools and other matters necessary to progress, that the money now spent on the police should be applied for other purposes which would tend to the development of the country. Our Administrator, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, is doing his best, no doubt, under

  1447
  the circumstances; but he has combined two offices which ought to be kept quite distinct—namely, those of Deputy Governor and Judge. In the latter capacity he decided privately a case brought before him upon evidence got outside. What we want in this country is not to have a man acting at the same time both as civil magistrate and administrator; we want these offices discharged by different persons. I hope that next year we shall not be called upon to spend any more money on the police force, and that if you are to spend money on Bechuanaland at all it will be for the development of the resources of the country, unless you are going to change your policy and hand it over to the Cape Colony. I think we ought to lay down some definite lines of policy with regard to these countries, and endeavour to carry them out; and I have suggested the desirability of appointing a Commission, with the object of trying to bring together the different Colonies in a Customs Union, and that some form of confederation should be given, although I am aware that some of my hon. Friends were opposed to the idea, because it was believed that the Government would send out men of the Exeter Hall type. If this is to be done, the sooner it is done the better, because I know that the Dutch and English have a common aim and object, and I think might help each other in developing civilization. At any rate, I hope that we shall see before long a more complete fusion than exists at present in these South African lands.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I agree with the hon. Member that a final settlement of South African affairs can best be effected by the hearty co-operation of the Republics, the Cape and Natal, and Her Majesty's Government; but I think that the first step in bringing about such co-operation ought to come from the other side of the water. Any movement from this country would be viewed with jealousy. Her Majesty's Government would be most anxious to work heartily in that direction if any such offer were made to them. The observations which the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to schools and improvements in Bechuanaland shall receive my best consideration. As regards the slaves, that question has not been brought before me; but I will, of
  1448
  course, make inquiries on the subject. The hon. Member has expressed his belief that the police are of little or no use, and that their numbers might be very largely diminished. I differ entirely from the hon. Member as to the use of the police. I believe that they are of the greatest service in maintaining law and order. But I am glad to be able to state that a considerable diminution of the force has taken place. The police have been reduced from 500 to 300 officers and men in April last, and I hope it will be further reduced to about 200 officers and men by the 1st of October next. A sum at the rate of £18,492 will be saved by these reductions. I attach the highest importance to the police farms along the frontier, and I believe that they not only are useful in keeping peace along the frontier, but that they enable the force to be reduced, as I have before stated.
  DR. CLARK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nine-tenths of these farms are held by substitutes, who are generally Boers?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: The men or their substitutes are obliged to come out.
  DR. CLARK: They are serving now and getting pay as policemen.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I am not aware that such is the case. It is in this way that the savings to which I have referred have been effected. I believe that at the present time there is no feeling on the part of Montsioa against these farmers on the frontier. Possibly a certain amount of hardship has been inflicted by the invasion of Europeans; but I should like to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that if it had not been for our intervention Montsioa and Mankoroane would have been wiped out by the Boers. At the time the new Republics were started by the Boers in the territories of these Chiefs no attempt was made by previous Governments to stop their proceedings. During a previous debate on the subject a strong protest was made in the House of Commons on behalf of the Chiefs who had been faithful allies of this country, and it was pointed out that unless steps were taken they would be entirely swept away. It was owing to that strong opposition that the Government of the day, the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Glad-

  1449
  stone), did then somewhat reluctantly intervene to secure a certain amount of territory for these people. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has asked what the views of the Government are with respect to the retention of the country. The Government propose to retain what they have. They do not propose to hand over Bechuanaland to anyone. The question as to whether the Government are prepared to accept the extension which Sir Charles Warren at one time advocated to the Zambesi is one of very great difficulty. As at present advised, however, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take any further steps to extend the Protectorate beyond its present limits. I do not think it possible to give any further pledge to the House, because the position of affairs in those countries changes so frequently, and difficulties crop up of a very complicated character. The Government feel that if they accept Sir Charles Warren's views and extend the Protectorate to the Zambesi they may find themselves in a difficulty, as to questions which may arise respecting boundaries of the Chiefs Khama and Lo Bengula. The Government therefore propose to reta in what they have, and, unless forced to do so, to take no more. As to the complaints of Montsioa and Mankoroane in the Blue Books, I say concessions have been made, and I do not believe at the present time either Chief has any real cause for grumbling.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am afraid I am not much wiser as regards the future policy of Her Majesty's Government by what we have been told. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to extend this territory if they can help it. With regard to the case of Montsioa and Mankoroane, I must say it is very much worse than I supposed it to be. It is emphatically stated by the right hon. Gentleman that these allies of ours are about to be improved off the face of the earth because, as he tells us, they have been deprived of their land for mining purposes.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I did not say so. The hon. Member entirely misrepresents what I said.
  DR. CLARK: In Bechuanaland we interfered when it was too late; in Zululand we did the same. Let me point out that this question of the White
  1450
  man going North and the Black man going South requires regulation. You have Tongaland, where the same thing may occur, and you have Swaziland and other territories to which adventurers are going. Then there is the question of the boundary between the territory of one of the most powerful Chiefs in South Africa, and the territory of the most Northern tribe of Bochuanas. The time has come when you should lay down conditions to let all White adventurers know that though you whitewashed some of their class in Bechuanaland and Zululand, you will not for the future recognize their doings. You should let them know that it is your intention to interfere in the early stages and not when interference can do no good.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Yes.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (8) £1,000, to complete the sum for Cyprus, Grant in Aid.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I just want to ask one question in reference to this Vote. I have been looking at the Report, and it appears from the statement therein contained that the revenue of Cyprus is £ 170,000 odd, and the expenditure 111,000, leaving a surplus of £61,000, odd. The subsidy we have to pay to Turkey is £92,745, which leaves a balance to be provided for elsewhere than out of the revenue we receive from the Island of £31,712. The Vote asked for in the Estimates is only £18,000, and I confess it is not clear to my mind where the difference comes from. However, that is not the most important point to which I want to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, or, rather, to ask information upon. What I desire to know is whether these payments which we have to make to Turkey are to go on for ever, or whether they are limited to any particular term? Are they to go on increasing or decreasing—can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Island will be of the slightest value to us financially, or can he say whether the burden imposed on this country will continue in the future as it has been in the past? I presume that the Island has been a sort of a military depot, but

  1451
  I have not seen in the Report any statement as to their being any soldiers there. I make that remark in passing. I do not go into the question of the finances of the Island. So far as I have been able to master the Report, it seems there is nothing to complain of as to the prosperity and general development of the Island, and the only point I desire to raise, with the view of getting information, is as to whether the revenues are likely to be a source of income to us, or whether the occupation of the Island will be a prolonged drain on the resources of the country?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I am afraid my reply and explanation must be somewhat lengthy, but I think they will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. It must not be overlooked that there are two series of transactions involved in this question of Cyprus. These are entirely distinct transactions entered into at different times and for reasons quite unconnected with each other. One is, the series of transactions arising out of the insolvency of Turkey, and our joint guarantee with France of the interest of the Turkish Loan of 1855, amounting to £3,815,000. Each country has to pay about £40,872 a-year interest. There are also other debts due from Turkey to us. The other series of transactions is the occupation of Cyprus in 1878, before Turkey stopped payment, which took place in 1879. Our implications in Turkish matters in respect of loan and debts have caused the English Government a loss, up to date, of about £336,000—namely—

  £

  Seven years interest on our half of the Loan

  286,000

  Various bad debts due from Turkey (Synge and Suter ransoms), &c.say

  50,000

  £336,000

  We made this loss whether we took Cyprus or not, and Cyprus cannot be debited with it in any way. But what has been the result of our taking-Cyprus? We have made a profit of about £109,000, and so far recouped our loss after paying for France the whole of her liability on seven years interest. This was paid because we have laid hold of the tribute money—£92,000, which was due from Cyprus to Turkey. The yearly account stands thus—
  1452

  £

  £

  Cyprus has paid to England

  682,000

  Deduct grants in aid

  287,000

  Payments for France — seven years interest

  286,000

  573,000

  573,000

  £109,000

  It is urged by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), who is unfortunately not able to be here this evening, that these Grants in Aid should cease, and be made as loans which Cyprus should repay. But if the present position is understood there is no ground for this contention. Cyprus has an annual surplus of £65,000 (taking an average of last three years), which is paid to England. To this is added an annual Grant in Aid to make up the surplus of Island Revenue over expenditure to £92,000, the approximate amount of tribute. The exact amount of the grant is decided annually by the Treasury on a review of the cash balances of the Island Government and is, therefore, affected by advances, deposits, and other temporary financial transactions not belonging to revenue or expenditure. The Cyprus Government having thus made up the £92,000 out of the surplus Revenue and Grants in Aid, pays the amount over to the Paymaster General, and the Treasury gives a receipt for it on behalf of Turkey. But instead of paying it to Turkey, England lays hands upon it, and appropriates it to make good the debts of Turkey for which England and France are responsible as guarantors. As Turkey could not, or would not pay, this appropriation is pure gain to the guarantors. It thus appears that the Grants in Aid are no benefit to Cyprus, but only book transactions that the Treasury may not have to put each year an item in Estimates under heading "Interest on Turkish Loan in 1855 now in default." Cyprus now cedes the whole of its surplus to England, exactly as it would have done in former times to the Turkish Government. It cannot do more. There is no reason for making Cyprus repay grants which merely pass through the Cyprus books, as a matter of account, and which the Cyprus Government does not retain. Nor, is there in fact the

  1453
  slightest likelihood that Cyprus over could repay the £287,000 thus nominally granted. I hope I have made it clear that we are not such losers by Cyprus as is generally supposed; and that Cyprus gains no benefit by these Grants in Aid. I have put out of consideration the amounts which have been paid by this country for mail services and military expenditure, as these were made for Imperial purposes and are not fairly chargeable to Cyprus.
  MR. KIMBER: Is interest charged for the Grants in Aid? That is the point the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) based his objection on. He objected to these advances being treated as Grants in Aid and not as loans,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I must say it appears to me to be a very satisfactory one. It shows that the financial arrangements are better than the country would have believed. It seems, however, that France gets a better share in these transactions than we do, because, instead of having taken possession of Cyprus and being responsible for its condition financially and otherwise, she gets her £40,000 direct from the Cyprus Government. She would otherwise have got nothing from Turkey for her share of the interest on the loan, and the result of the arrangement is that she is relieved from a burden which otherwise would have fallen upon her. We, having taken Cyprus, are able to recoup ourselves, not to the extent of the whole of the £40,000, but to that sum minus the Grant in Aid. All I can say is, that the arrangement explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland), and which I do not think has ever been fully explained to us before, shows that the acquisition of Cyprus is not so disastrous a matter as it formerly appeared. The right hon. Gentleman shows us that we are not called upon annually to pay the large amount which otherwise we should have had to pay, by reason of our being able to lay hold of the money which Cyprus would otherwise have had to pay to Turkey in aid of the amount which this country guaranteed on the Turkish Loan. It appears, as I say, that the arrange-
  1454
  ment has been more satisfactory to France than to us. I presume that if we did not pay this £40,000 to France it would go directly into the Turkish revenue, and not come to us.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  (9.) £246,082, to complete the sum for Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish to enter into a long discussion of this Vote; but the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will recollect that in the early part of this Session I asked him for a Return which I had previously—last year—asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) for. It was a Return respecting the general superannuation list and pensions; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton gave me to understand that it was a Return which ought to be issued, I do not think, however, that it has been issued yet.
  MR. JACKSON: I think it has been issued.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Very well, then. I do not wish to delay the Committee in the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £11,800, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
  (11.) £470,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, England.
  (12.) £49,500, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
  (13.) £1,259, to complete the sum for Savings Banks and Friendly Societies' Deficiency.
  (14.) £982, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
  MR. CONYBEARE: There is here an item of £1,000 under the head of "Printing of Almanacs under the Great Seal." I should like to know whether this is a permanent charge or whether it is one of those diminishing charges which will disappear in the course of time? If it is the latter, I will say no more about it.
  MR. JACKSON: I believe it is a permanent charge. A certain pension was granted to particular individuals in view of the taking over of the printing of almanacs,
  COLONEL NOLAN: Does the Secretary to the Treasury think that the people in respect of whom these pensions were granted are alive? I wish to draw attention to one item in this Vote. I find that we have here an item respecting persons who gave assistance to the British Army in 1803 and 1814, the amount being £270. It appears, therefore, that the latest of these services were rendered 73 years ago, and, in order to qualify themselves for the money, the people must at the time they rendered the assistance have been 14 years of age. That would make the recipients of the grant 87 years old at least. I think it is a very likely circumstance indeed that people, under this state of facts, are going on drawing their annuities long after they are dead. At any rate, I think there is fair ground for asking the Secretary to the Treasury to give some attention to the matter with the view of ascertaining whether the recipients of the pension are alive.
  MR. JACKSON: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that this is a case which the Treasury might very properly look into. Before coming down to the House I did make some inquiries into the matter. I am assured that the items are carefully examined and looked into, and that the persons entitled to this money are themselves receiving it. As the lion, and gallant Gentleman will understand, the number of persons who receive the payments is a diminishing quantity. I believe that the attention which has been from time to time drawn to this matter has been of great service. It has shown the evils which have arisen under the present system; and I now hope that we shall hear no more of pensions being paid to persons long since dead.
  An hon. MEMBER: How old arc the persons receiving these pensions?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know when they were born.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  1456
  "That a sum, not exceeding £19,055, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries."
  MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Courtney, upon this Vote I feel bound to refer to the action of the Endowed School Commissioners in reference to Hutcheson's Charity in Glasgow. I have no fault to find with the Commissioners personally, but only with the policy they have adopted. The other day I presented to this House a Petition signed by the Preceptor of the Royal Incorporation of Hutcheson's Hospital finding fault with the manner in which the scheme for that endowment has been framed and carried out. I need not go into the particulars of that Petition, as a copy of it was sent to every Scotch Member, and the Petition itself is before the House; but I will refer briefly to its terms. In 1641 the Hutchesons bequeathed a considerable sum of money, first of all, for the support of 12 indigent men who by misfortune had been reduced in circumstances; and, secondly, for the education and maintenance of 12 boys, sons of burgesses, who had either lost their parents, or whoso parents were unable to maintain them. The bequest has so increased in value that the annual income now derived by the Charity is upwards of £13,000. While the income of the Charity has thus largely increased from 1641, the population of the City of Glasgow has increased in equal ratio, and the result is the endowment is no greater in proportion to the population then it was in 1641. From time immemorial this Fund was divided into two parts; two-thirds were devoted to pensioners, and one-third to the purposes of education. In 1872 an Act of Parliament was passed regulating this endowment, and in that Act of Parliament it was prescribed that a sum not exceeding two-thirds should go to pensioners, and a sum not exceeding one-third should go to education. The Endowment Commissioners came into existence, and these Commissioners were anxious to secure as much as possible of this endowment for the purpose of education. Under a scheme which they framed three-fifths of the money goes for pensions, and two-fifths for educa-

  1457
  tional purposes. The effect of this change on the part of the Commissioners is that £900 which should go annually to pensioners is devoted to the purposes of education. Now, the pensions were to be given to a particular class of the community—a most deserving class of the community—namely-—
  " To citizens of Glasgow, or persona who, in the estimation of the Patrons, might be considered needful and deserving of aid, and who should have carried on business or trade in Glasgow for some time, and, to some extent, on their own account, with credit and reputation, or who should have been in any way the means of promoting the prosperity of the city, who by misfortune have been reduced in circumstances, and to the widows and daughters of persons of the above description, whose circumstances the Patrons might consider called for such assistance."
  The Committee will observe that this class of pensions are a class very much neglected in this country. These people have seen better days; have been reduced in circumstances, and any money left for their benefit ought to be very jealously guarded. Then, again, the money applied to the purposes of education has been applied in a manner which certainly does not occur to many to be right. The Commissioners seem to have concluded that the bequest was principally intended for the middle classes, and they have acted accordingly. The result of their action is that there are on the South side of Glasgow, under this endowment, two first class schools, one for boys and another for girls. As regards the management of the schools I have nothing but the highest praise; but what I want to point out to the Committee is, that, as a matter of fact, these schools are practically a saving to the ratepayers of Glasgow. There are similar schools on the North side of Glasgow. In all these schools elementally and secondary education is given. The only difference between the schools is, that the schools on the North side of the City are provided at the expense of the local rates, and those on the South side are provided at the expense of funds that were bequeathed for the education and maintenance of boys who have either lost their parents, or whose parents are unable to maintain them. The objection that is taken to the present scheme is that a most deserving class of persons are deprived of £900 a-year. The interests of the pensioners conflict with
  1458
  the educational interests. The just demands of the pensioners cannot now be complied with, though on the 31st of December last the Commissioners had a balance of upwards of £1,000. Now, I want to impress upon the Committee the fact that these schools on the South side of Glasgow are an absolute necessity. They are required in the locality. This is self-evident because the Commissioners would not be warranted in establishing the schools in the locality if they were not required. If these schools are required in the locality their existence simply means a saving to the ratepayers. If these schools were not there the City of Glasgow would have to provide others of exactly the same description. These funds are being appropriated for the purpose of saving the ratepayers of the City of Glasgow who would otherwise be obliged to provide schools. The Imperial taxpayer is also saved something. Now, according to the Education Act of 1872 the Scotch Education Department are entitled to give grants of money to any school required in a locality. If the Department have come to the conclusion that these schools are required for the locality, there is no reason why they ought not to be maintained out of public money. What would be the amount of public money required? I suppose there are only about 2,000 scholars, so that between £1,500 and £2,000 a-year would be required. The sum in dispute between the pensioners on the one hand and the educational interests on the other, is £900 a year. There can be no reason whatever why funds granted for purely benevolent purposes should be entirely used for the purpose of serving local and Imperial taxpayers, and I do not, of course, expect that at this period of the Session and upon this Vote, the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) can go into the merits of this matter, but I have brought it before his notice in the hope that during the Recess it will receive the serious attention of the Scotch Education Department. That funds bequeathed for the benefit of deserving poor and sons of burgesses, should be applied to the purposes of secondary education for the middle and upper classes, and for saving the pockets of the local and Imperial taxpayers, is a matter deserving of serious attention. There is great pressure on

  1459
  the Hutchesons Trust from those poor people who have seen bettor days and are in reduced circumstances. It would be a very great advantage if £900 more were available for them, and what they ask is that this sum should be again devoted to their relief.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I should like to be permitted to offer a few observations in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell). I have the honour to be one of the Commissioners whose work he has been assailing. In answering him, I wish to acknowledge most thoroughly that the Hutcheson Charity has done a very great amount of good, and I have no fault whatever to find with, what is called the pension part of that institution. It is an evidence also that this great endowment has been in careful hands, that as the hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Caldwell) has shown, the endowment has grown from a sum of about £4,000 in the middle of the 17th century to a sum yielding £13,500 per annum at this moment. The Educational Endowments Commissioners have had to deal with this as with other endowments affecting education. The allegations or charges that are made against the Commissioners in this case, as stated in the Petition from the patrons of Hutchesons' Hospital, or the trustees or managers of the charity part of this endowment, are three in number. The first is, that the Commissioners have made an unfair apportionment of the endowment between charity and education; secondly, that the share they have given to education has been proved to be excessive; and, thirdly, that the education they have given is a misapplication of the endowment. These, I think, are the three charges brought against the Commissioners. Now, Mr. Courtney, I have to explain that the duties of the Educational Endowments Commissioners were set forth in the Act of Parliament which appointed the Commission. The Commissioners were appointed with three objects. One was to extend the usefulness of the educational endowments; the second was to carry out more fully the spirit of the founders' intentions in these endowments; and the third was to make these endowments, as far as possible, available for higher education of a suitable kind. Now, there was a special provision in the Act
  1460
  regarding what are called mixed endowments—that is, endowments which are not wholly educational. With regard to these the Commissioners were empowered to fix the proportion to be applied to education subject to certain directions in the Act, and also subject to a certain check. The directions which were given them were that they were to consider what had been the practice in the conduct of the endowment, but not necessarily to be guided by that practice. They had to look beyond the practice to what was stated in the original foundation. Now, my hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) has referred to an Act of Parliament of 1872, regulating the Hutcheson Trust. That was a private Act, under which the Governors applied at least one third of their income to education, and the remainder to charity. But the Educational Endowments Commissioners had to go beyond this private Act; they had to consider the proportion which ought to have been appropriated and applied to education according to the express directions of the original foundation. Now, when we look back to the original foundation, what do we find? We find that the Hutchesons originally gave for charity £2,295, and for education £1,722, making in all just over £4,000; 43 per cent, therefore, of the total was, by the original bequest, appropriated to education. Now, the Act of Parliament, which was founded upon what had been the practice of the trust for some time, applied at least one third to education, which was 33⅓ per cent, instead of 43 per cent, which was the original proportion. But, in giving evidence before the Commissioners as to the proportion which had been devoted to education, the Chairman of the Trustees—who is called the Preceptor—stated, and he spoke for the managers of the charity, that the endowment gave rather more than 7/12 for charity, and rather leas than 5/12 for education. Now, taking his statement we find that the original endowment gave 41⅔ per cent for education. The Commissioners, looking into the whole case, came to the conclusion that the proper proportion to give wag two-fifths for education—that is, 40 per cent, a little less than the trustees of the charity had acknowledged was the proportion originally. The trustees themselves, through their chairman, stated

  1461
  that two-thirds for education was a shade too little. It is said in the Petition that, although they have given only one-third for education, they have spent a capital sum of from £35,000 to £38,000 on school buildings. But it appears that that sum would not do more than make up—it would not as much as make up— for the shortcomings in the apportionment to education during the many yean before their Act of Parliament was obtained. The Commissioners then, after hearing the evidence of the trustees, arrived at the conclusion that a fair apportionment would be two-fifths to education and three-fifths to charity. Now, it is stated in the Petition that the Commissioners exceeded their powers; but I have said that the Act of Parliament under which the Commissioners proceed gives them not only directions what to do in the case of a mixed endowment, but prescribes a check upon them if they go wrong. The check is that those who feel aggrieved may go to the Court of Session with their complaint. If the Commissioners have done wrong in this case, why did not the managers of the charity apply to the Court of Session? It is an open secret that they took counsel's opinion. They applied for the opinion of counsel as to whether they had a case to go with to the Court of Session. What answer they got I do not know; but the fact is that they did not go to the Court of Session, and this scheme came into operation two years ago. The time for making a complaint was when the scheme was published. The second complaint made against the Commissioners is that the proportion they have given is shown to be excessive because there is a considerable balance on hand. Why, Mr. Courtney, is there a balance on hand? I may say it is a matter with which the Commissioners have nothing to do. If there is any complaint it should be brought against the governing body who are now in charge of the educational part of the endowment. It is no part of my duty to explain or defend the existence of that balance, but the defence is not difficult. The balance arises from the fact that, although the scheme has been in operation for two years, it is not yet in full operation in the sense of having all its bursaries allocated. This is a scheme which, besides maintaining two schools, has an elaborate system of
  1462
  bursaries and scholarships. There are 200 foundationships, and there are 218 bursaries and scholarships. These are tenable for two or three years, and the governing body have done wisely in not awarding all of them the first year. Because the whole of the bursaries and scholarships have not been given there is a balance in hand. It is of importance for the governing body to have a balance in hand at the beginning of a work of this kind. They have no capital fund or reserve fund to fall back upon in case of any extra expenditure, and the saving they have been enabled to make in the first two years of their existence from the bursaries and scholarships not being all taken up provides them with a moderate reserve fund, which will be of essential use to them in carrying on these two large schools. Now, it remains for me to notice the third complaint, which is that the quality of education given in these two schools is not suitable; that, in the words of the Petition, a great part of the money is expended on education of a higher class than the founders intended. My hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) has spoken of the founders having given their money for the benefit of the poor, but there are poor and poor. There are different classes of poor, and the poor the founders had in view were the sons of burgesses. Now, the burgesses of the 17th century were not paupers. A burgess was understood to be a man in a position to be in business for himself, and it was for the benefit of the sons of poor burgesses, or decayed burgesses, that this money was left. What is the kind of education that is given? One would imagine, from the expressions in the Petition, that it is a very expensive education, but the fees in the Grammar Schools under this Trust range from 22 s. 6d. to 40 s. a-quarter. Such are the fees which are drawn from the day scholars who attend these schools. The complaint that is made would lead one to suppose that those who make the complaint had themselves, when they had charge of the money, aimed at something entirely different. Now, the original prospectus of the jovernors—those who make this complaint—contains a sentence to the effect that—
  " This Educational Institution is intended to reproduce in its best form the old Grammar

  1463
  School, where, in former days, a superior education was to be had at a moderate fee; where the children of country gentlemen, professional men, tradesmen, and artizans were educated side by side, and prepared either for the University or commercial life."
  That was the aim which the Directors of this Charity had when they started this school 12 years ago; and now, when the school is carried on by a new governing body, with the same object in view, the old trustees complain that an education is being given of an entirely different kind from what was intended by the founders. I hope the Committee will have no hesitation in declining to be moved by the representations of my hon. Friend.
  MR. CALDWELL: In answer to what has been stated by the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell), I must point out that he has not taken into sufficient consideration the important fact that there was expended on the new buildings the sum of £35,000. That money, at 4 per cent interest, would have yielded about £1,400 a-year. It is all very well to go back to the year 1641 to try and discover what was the proportion for education, and now ask the pensioners of the present day to recoup all that has been expended between then and now. Why should the present pensioners be called upon to refund sums of money that have been expended upon pensions for the last 200 years? Was there ever such a thing done in this country before? To say that the pensioners of the present day should be punished because the pensioners of a former period received too much money is absurd. These buildings are modern buildings—the girls' school is an entirely modern building—and they cost £35,000. The Commissioners say they must take into consideration the fact that £35,000 has been spent on the buildings. Supposing the Commissioners had taken that into consideration, two-thirds and one-third would have been nearer the mark. Then, with regard to education at a grammar school. I pointed out that Mr. Hutcheson had given the money that the boys might be educated at the Grammar School at Glasgow—not in order to provide a school. Now, I say that the school board schools at Glasgow would be quite sufficient for the persons referred to in the instrument governing
  1464
  this foundation. These children do not require special school accommodation for them; and the directions of the school deed would be sufficiently provided for and carried out if they were educated in the school board schools of Glasgow.
  MR. SEXTON: In this Vote we find the details of the expenses of a number of Commissions, indicated by various letters of the alphabet, down to the letter J. Then, under the letter K, we have a Vote of £7,000 "for Commissions not specifically provided for." Now, I object to vote this sum for Commissions that we know nothing of, and as to the objects of which we have no information. I do not think that £7,000 should be voted without some more definite statement of the purpose to which it is to be applied. Then there are two or three Commissions, the expenditure on which is provided for by this Vote, on which I should like to say a few words. There is a sum taken for the Dublin Hospitals Commission. Now, that Commission lapsed in 1886–7; and, therefore, I fail to see why any expenditure on account of it should appear in this Vote. I observe that the Commissioners on the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission are paid salaries of £700 a-year each, while the three Commissioners on the Irish Public Works Commission receive 10 guineas per day. I do not know why there should be this disparity in the remuneration of the members of the two Commissions. I know that the members of the Educational Endowments Commission are persons of the greatest eminence in Ireland; and I cannot understand why they should be paid only £700 a-year each, while so much higher a remuneration is given to the members of the other Commission; unless, indeed, the explanation be that the members of the latter Commission are Englishmen and the members of the former are only Irishmen. Then I find that the Secretary of the Educational Endowments Commission is paid £500 a-year, while the Secretary of the Public Works Commission is only paid £300 a-year. Why should the low paid Commission have a highly paid Secretary, while the highly paid Commissioners have a Secretary with a salary of only £300 a-year? Then there is an expense of £700 for shorthand writing in connection with, one Commission and

  1465
  for £800 in connection with the other. How and where are the shorthand writers procured? Do the Government nominate them, or are they taken out of the newspaper offices; and, if so, out of what office? I hope we shall not find that shorthand writing in Ireland is made a matter of Party or political favour or patronage. I should certainly be glad to find that shorthand writers are taken fairly from different newspapers of different politics, and were not taken from newspapers of only one colour. Then there is another point. I see that only £400 a-year is taken for the travelling expenses of the Educational Endowments Commission while the travelling expenses of the Irish Public Works Commission, who were only appointed last autumn, are put down at £2,000. Why should travelling expenses cost five times as much for one Commission as for the other? The Educational Endowments Commission will expire by Statute on the 1st December, 1888. Is there any prospect that they will complete their work by that time? How many schemes have been drawn up and how many have taken effect? The Public Works Commission have three heads of inquiry— first, Deep Sea Fishing and the harbours and communications needed for; secondly, Arterial Drainage, especially in the districts of the Shannon, the Barrow, and the Bann; and, thirdly, Railways, the management of existing lines and the provision of extensions. Well, they have reported on arterial drainage, but they have yet to report on deep sea fishing and on harbours; and they have also to report on railways. Now the existing railway rates in Ireland are a crying grievance, and one of the greatest sources of embarrassment to the industry of that country, while the neglect of deep sea fishing accounts for a great deal of the misery and the social disorganization which exists round our coasts. When may we expect the Reports of the Public Works Commission on Deep Sea Fishing and Harbours and also on Railways? I see that the Treasury estimated that the Commission might conclude its labours by the 30th of this month, and that in that case its cost might be about £12,000. If the Commission is to conclude its labours on the 30th of this month, how is it that we have not yet
  1466
  heard anything of its Reports on Deep Sea Fishing and on Railways? As to the statement that the cost of the Commission may be put at £12,000 if its labours are completed by the 30th of September, how is that reconcilable with the fact that in these Estimates £6,000 are taken for the cost of the Commission up to March 31st next? The statement and the estimate taken together do not seem to me to be clear or intelligible, and I would invite the Secretary to the Treasury to address himself to the points I have raised.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): First, as to the £7,000 to which the hon. Member for West Belfast called attention as the amount set down for Commissions that might be appointed during the financial year, and for the expenditure in connection with them. The Committee will understand that this Estimate was framed at some time about December or January last. It was then quite impossible for us to say exactly what Commissions might be appointed during the year or what the Commissioners might spend in the course of the year. And although the expression "Commissions not specifically provided for "may be a rather clumsy one, it sufficiently indicates the nature of the Vote, which may be said to be that of a sum to provide for the contingencies which may arise during the year in connection with the Commissions appointed during that period. It is an approximate sum based on experience and on the information we had at the time it was framed. Of course, if the money or any part of it is not required it will not be expended. Then, as to the sum set down for the Dublin Hospital Commission. There is nothing in that Vote for this year. There was an item last year, and it is customary in that case to put down the expenditure in the Votes of this year as a means of comparison and as a guidance to the Committee in regard to the relative amount of the Votes taken, and under the head to which it belongs this year and last year. The hon. Member will see that there is no amount stated in the column for this year.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Will he look at the last line on page 496.
  MR. JACKSON: It is a misprint. In regard to the comparison which the hon. Member drew between the expense of the Irish Educational Commission and the Irish Public Works Commission, I would point out that, in reference to the Irish Public Works Commission — for the whole argument turns on that—the comparatively high remuneration which is paid to the members of that Commission is, in a great measure, accounted for by the fact that at the time that Commission was appointed it was not known how long the work would occupy. It was thought to be extremely desirable that a work of this importance, and one upon which so much might depend, should be entrusted to men of the highest professional ability which money could command. I think I can remember the names of the Commissioners, or some of them. Sir James Allport was the Chairman. Mr. Abernethy, the engineer, was one member; Mr. Barry, the engineer, was another. Mr. Pym was also a member, but he was an unpaid Commissioner. The other men are paid Commissioners, for they were asked to take up this work, which would seriously interfere with their professional duties; and I do not think that anyone, taking into account the eminent position these men occupy in their professions, would think them overpaid at 10 guineas per day. As to the secretary, the explanation of the lower rate for the payment to the Secretary of the Public Works Commission, as compared with the secretary to the Educational Endowments Commission, is this—Mr. Spring Rice, one of the clerks in the Treasury, is Secretary to the Irish Public Works Commission. When he was asked to take the position of secretary to that Commission by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), then Irish Secretary, Mr. Spring Rice was acting as my secretary, and I cannot speak with too much praise of the ability and assiduity with which he does his work. It was entirely due to his position at the Treasury that the right hon. Member for Bristol asked him to take the secretaryship of the Irish Public Works Commission. As to the travelling expenses of the Irish Public Works Commission, the hon. Member for West Belfast will recognize the fact that a Commission charged with such duties must almost of necessity be
  1468
  travelling about almost all the time they are engaged in their work; and, therefore, the travelling expenses of the Commission, and of the witnesses they had occasion to call, must be considerable. With reference to the other question to which the hon. Gentleman has properly called attention—the difference in the Estimates of the cost of the Irish Public Works Commission—he gave an extract from a letter written by the Secretary of the Commission, in which £12,000 was put down as an outside figure for the expense which this Commission would involve. When this estimate was made it was impossible to forecast the length of time the work would occupy. The figure in the Estimates which the Committee is now asked to vote was given by the Secretary of the Commission, after some experience of the work, and when some more approximate idea had been gained of the time the work would occupy. But even that figure must be taken only as an approximate one. When the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) appointed that Commission in the first instance, it was expected at the Treasury that four, or at the outside, six months would be ample time in which to conclude its labours.
  MR. SEXTON: The point to which I addressed myself was that the letter which I read stated that if the Commission closed its work on the 30th of this month the cost would be about £12,000. But the Estimate before us gives the cost up to next March as only £6,000. How do you reconcile these two Estimates?
  MR. JACKSON: The amount of £12,000 was given as an outside figure for the total cost of the Commission assuming that the Commission concluded its labours by the 30th of this month. But when this Estimate now before the Committee was framed, it was anticipated that the work would be done in a much less time than now seems probable. Therefore, I apprehend that when next February comes, and the time arrives for making up the accounts for the current year, a Supplementary Estimate will have to be laid before the House. As to the shorthand writers, they are appointed by the Chief Commissioner, and are paid according to a scale sanctioned by the Treasury. We have no control over them. I do not think the

  1469
  patronage involved in their appointment has been used for private, personal, or Party objects.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman has abstained from replying to the most important points that I have raised. As to the £7,000 for Commissions not specifically provided for, he explained that in a very curious fashion. Although, no doubt, on the 18th February, when this Estimate was drawn up, it might have been impracticable to define the work of the Commissions which might be appointed for the year, we are now on the 6th September. The Session is on the point of closing. The Government know what Commissions they have appointed, or are likely to appoint before next year. It is not usual to appoint Commissions in the Recess unless Parliament has sanctioned their appointment before the close of the Session. Commissions are either appointed during the Session or during the Recess, after information given to Parliament during the Session. The Government ought, therefore, to tell us what Commissions are to be paid for out of this £7,000. If they are extant, what are they? Full information on this point must now be in the possession of the Government, although it might not have been in February when the Estimates were drawn up. I do not think the Secretary to the Treasury apprehended the point I made about the two Estimates of £12,000 and £6,000 for the cost of the Irish Public Works Commission. What the official in Ireland says is this—that if the Public Works Commission complete its labours by the end of this month, its total cost will be £12,000. Well, there was an Estimate taken last year. The Estimate now before us, and which we are asked to vote, is an Estimate of the cost of the Commission up to March, 1888. And according to this, we find that the total sum estimated by the Treasury is £6,000. So that according to the Treasury, if the Commission lasts to the end of March, 1888, it will cost £6,000; while, according to the letter of the Secretary of the Commission itself, it was to cost £12,000 if it completed its labours on the 30th of the present month. How can that be? As to the travelling expenses of the Commission, the hon. Gentleman said that they were necessarily large, because the Commission would be travelling nearly
  1470
  the whole time they were engaged in their labours. How then is it that only 100 days are put down in respect of which salary or remuneration is charged?
  MR. JACKSON: I said nearly the whole time when they are engaged.
  MR. SEXTON: That means that they are engaged when they are travelling. It seems then that although the matters referred to there are urgent, the Commission, out of 500 days which will have elapsed between their appointment and March next, only charge salary for 100 days. That is a very leisurely way of proceeding. Indeed, to work on only 100 days out of 500 is the easiest way of working I ever heard of on the part o f a Royal Commission. I do not think that the Treasury can escape all responsibility with respect to the shorthand writing for the two Commissions to which I have called attention; £1,500 is, a, large sum for shorthand writing, and the Treasury have a right to take cognizance of the way in which this work is done. It appears from the statement of the Secretary for the Treasury that Sir James Allport and the other Commissioners can exercise their discretion as to the appointment of shorthand writers. They may if they like give this shorthand writing to The Dublin Express and The Irish Times, and thus distribute several hundreds of pounds as remuneration for shorthand writing to these Tory papers without giving a shilling to the popular side. I must really ask the Secretary to the Treasury to communicate with the Commissioners and find out from what newspaper offices, if from any, they have taken their shorthand writing staff. Then, I have asked the hon. gentleman how far the work of the two Commissioners to which I have referred has proceeded. We had Estimates in respect of them amounting to several thousand pounds, and yet although one has been at work for two years and the other since October last, we have not heard a word about the way in which they have performed their functions. The Irish Public Works Commission were appointed to report, but have not yet reported on railway rates and deep sea fishing. We are waiting for those Reports in order to get the Government to say what legislation they intend to propose. They have hitherto staved off the inquiry by saying "Oh, we must wait for the Report of

  1471
  the Commission." But although the Commission have reported on arterial drainage, the Government have done nothing in respect to that matter. How soon will the Commission report on the other matters? Will they close their inquiries next month or when, and when shall we have their Reports? When we meet in February what chance is there that we shall have any legislation? Then as to the Educational Endowments Commission, I wish to know how many schemes have been framed and how many have been carried into effect? When Commissioners receive a salary of £700 per annum there is a temptation to dawdle and draw out their labours, and I am anxious to know whether the Educational endowments which fall within the scope of the Commission are likely to be dealt with in the time limited by their act.
  COLONEL NOLAN: As to the time that the Public Works Commission are likely to report, I am afraid that they will go on as long as we pay them 10 guineas a-day. The Commission was very slow in reporting on the arterial drainage, and I am very anxious to see their Reports on deep sea fishing and on railway rates. I am afraid that they will delay their report on deep sea fishing and harbours until they have reported on the subject of railway rates; but, at any rate, we should know when they are likely to report. They went round Ireland in July, and since then they cannot have had much travelling to do. I certainly think that their Report on deep sea fishing should not be much longer delayed. If we do not have this Report printed in October the Cabinet will have an excuse for not going into the question in November. In fact, we ought to have this Report now for the Commissioners have now enormous experience of Ireland, and it is not a case for putting off. It is a question on which we should have an early Report certainly in another month.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (): I shall leave the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to reply to the points of detail that have been raised in this discussion. But I am desirous to say as regards this Commission on Irish public works that the Government are anxious to press forward the Reports on other branches of the
  1472
  inquiry besides that on which the Commission have already reported. I have looked into the Report they have presented, and conversed with some of the Commissioners upon it. I have no hesitation in saying that they have brought the greatest energy and ability to the work on which they are engaged, and I have seldom been more impressed than I am with the desire of the Commissioners to make good progress and do good work. They are gentlemen of the greatest eminence, and they are not anxious to prolong the inquiry; nor are they likely, as has been suggested, to prolong it for the purpose of securing the remuneration they receive. The remuneration which Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Barry receive is not, I may say, high, considering their standing in their profession, and the ordinary scale of remuneration in that profession. Every effort shall be made to push forward these Reports. The Government have already given an earnest of their desire in this matter. I cannot say how soon the Deep Sea Fishery Report will be given; but the work of the Commission has been very laborious, and has required very considerable study. I will, however, communicate with the Commissioners and let the hon. and gallant gentleman know what the prospects of obtaining the Report are.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government intend to follow up the Report of the Commission by any proposals respecting arterial drainage?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It would be impossible to spend more money on the arterial drainage of Ireland this year, because of the legal difficulties there are in the way of interfering with vested rights in the rivers. Any attempt to do it would only lead to litigation. During the Recess, however, a Bill will be prepared, and schemes will be brought forward for proceeding energetically with the works on the Bann, the Shannon, and other rivers.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that in what I said just now I did not make my explanation quite clear. The hon. Member has called attention to the item of £7,000. I would point out that the sum, which is here stated at £6.300, is the amount which will come in course of payment during the current year—that is to say, from the 31st March last to

  1473
  the 31st of March next; but there was an expenditure prior to the 31st of March last, which was met out of the Vote taken in the preceding year for the Commissioners. I have not the exact figures here; but the difference between the Estimate of the £12,000 in the one case and the figures in the other ease, plus any Supplementary Estimate which may be found necessary, will about balance. With regard to the shorthand writers, I will endeavour to ascertain exactly how they are obtained, and let him know.
  MR. SEXTON: As regards the schemes?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that in view of the progress which has been made by the Educational Commission there is no reason at present to anticipate that the original estimate that the Commission would complete its labours, I think, not later than the 31st of De-comber, 1888, will be exceeded.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) that I did not question the ability of these Commissioners, nor did I wish to convey the idea that they are more anxious for salaries than anyone else is. But I suppose there is a certain amount of human nature even about Commissioners who are inquiring into the subject of deep sea fishing or arterial drainage. The points we have raised have not at all been answered. The first was as to the date of the Report. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know, and that there is, consequently, no good in trying to get it. The second point was that the Deep Sea Fishery Report should not wait until the Commissioners have gone into the railway question, and I want to get an assurance from the Government to that effect.
  MR. GOSOHEN: We must allow the Commissioners a certain amount of discretion, and they must take the course they think best for arriving at a proper decision. They will be aware of the great desire there is that there should be an early Report on the subject of the deep sea fishery; but the determination of the question must be left to their discretion.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I must say that if they do not make the Report the whole conduct of the Government will
  1474
  not have been very straightforward since last year, when the Predecessor (Lord Randolph Churchill) of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) made a certain amount of capital out of the appointment of this Commission. There have been many delays in the production of the Report; and if its publication is put off until it will be of no use I must say that I think the Government have been trying to make capital out of promises which they do not fulfil. The reference to the Commission was of a very simple character, and all I want to secure is that the precedent of the Arterial Drainage Reports will be followed in regard to the deep sea fisheries. I believe we shall have to wait another year for the Railway Report.
  MR. SEXTON: I would point out that the most competent witness respecting the labours of the Commission— namely, the Secretary—estimated in January last that the work of the Commission would finish on the 30th of this month. Now, I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if he would ask the Commissioners, consistently, of course, with the due discharge of their functions, to do their best to report during the winter, so as to enable legislation on the subject to be proceeded with next Session?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly. I will make that representation to them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £1,804, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is not here this evening, because recently he had a Notice of Motion upon this Vote; but as he is not present to take up the running, it is incumbent upon us to question the expenses that arise under the Vote, with reference to the cost of the robes and insignia for the Knights, Companions and Officers of the Orders of the Garter, the Bath, the Thistle, St. Michael and St. George, and so on. These expenses

  1475
  amount to £4,770. There is also an item of £210 for repairing the insignia of the several Orders, and other miscellaneous items. What I should, in the first place, like to call the attention of the Committee to is the extraordinary disproportion between the expenditure on what the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) called "tomfoolery," or something equally disrespectful, and the next item, which relates to the Albert Medal for saving life, and which only amounts to a paltry £20. Then we come to another Distinguished Service Order, the cost of insignia for which is £500. Now, I have no objection at all to spending a good deal of money on such things as Albert Medals for saving life. That is what I may call a reward for something in the way of reproductive labour; at any rate, it is an expenditure which reflects some credit upon us as a nation. But what benefit is to be derived from the expenditure of thousands of pounds upon a lot of absurd, old-fashioned arrangements, such as an hon. Member has designated "tomfoolery," connected with the Lord Chamberlain's Department, I cannot understand. My contention is that if noble Lords and others desire to dress themselves up in robes and insignia they should pay for their own enjoyment, and not come upon the poor taxpayers of this country to pay for their equipment. I should like, Mr. Courtney, to ask the Government what repairing the insignia of the several Orders means? I am happy to say that I have no acquaintance with these Orders. I do not know whether the insignia of the Bath, for instance, is a bath, and whether the repairing of that particular insignia means the repairing of a bath in which these noble Knights and others occasionally wash themselves. It is impossible to treat these matters seriously. The whole thing is so utterly ridiculous, so utterly out of place in this 19th century, that it is really out of the question to attempt to deal with it in a serious fashion at all. And I tell you what, Mr. Courtney, the country is not disposed to treat it seriously. People outside ridicule all this. Perhaps a great many of them do not understand it. The only serious point with people outside who have to put their hands in
  1476
  their pockets and pay for these things is that they should have to pay at all. They look upon it as a very serious inconvenience and a great imposition, and there is a growing determination on the part of those who have to pay to put a stop to such things in the future. It is in order to emphasize this growing feeling in the country that we take advantage of every opportunity that is afforded to us of questioning these Votes. The second portion of the Vote, Item B, is part of the same business, but is, perhaps, a little more ridiculous than the first part. It is an allowance to the Marshal of the Ceremonies for attendance on Foreign Ministers. I should like to know who is the Marshal of the Ceremonies, and who are the Foreign Ministers on whom he attends? Then there is a periodical allowance for nine trumpeters. Who on earth wants trumpeters? [Ministerial laughter.] The laughter which proceeds from hon. Gentlemen opposite completely justifies the proceeding I am taking. It is impossible for hon. Members to look on the thing seriously at all. If they go into such roars of laughter over the nine trumpeters, what will they say to the one kettledrum? These different items mount up, in the aggregate, to a very considerable sum, and we have only yet got through some £5,880 worth of what we have to spend upon these absurdities. There is another item—namely, that of fees to heralds and others in respect of patents of creation. Now, there is a mystery about these fees. I think there was an article in one of the daily papers this morning on the subject; and, as far as I can gather—and I have been endeavouring to find some record of these matters—how the people who get these dignities and robes and insignia, and all that sort of thing, and who become Knights of the Garter and the Bath, and the rest of it, do not pay the fees themselves, but have them paid for them by the country. I should like to ask the Goverment whether this is so or not? Do they pay for the stamps, or how is it? There is, as I say, a mystery about these things, and I hare not been able to penetrate it. There is another item, F, which relates to the salary of the Receiver of Hereditary Revenue, £300, and an allowance to the Receiver for office expenses, amounting in all to £445. Who is the Re-

  1477
  ceiver of Hereditary Revenue? I hope he is not the same gentleman as the one we were considering the other day, when we were talking about woods and forests. If he is, that is an additional reason for questioning the Vote. I do not say, with reference to the Receiver of Hereditary Revenue, that his salary is not well earned by the work he has to do; but I cannot express any opinion on the subject, because no information is given to us about it. We are not told what the hereditary revenue is, and who gets it. The last item, G, is, to my mind, the most mysterious of all. It relates to the maintenance of some individual, I suppose; but I should not like to attempt to pronounce his name. The first part of it is spelt Lidge, which has almost a Cornish sound. For the cost, maintenance, and clothing of this person we have to pay £200. I should like to ask who this is. Is it a man or a woman? Is it a Prince, is it a Hottentot or a Chinese? Is it a thing? We ought to have some information. We cannot be reasonably asked to vote these hundreds of pounds in the dark, and without knowing what they are for. When the Government have satisfied us as to what this payment is, I should like them to tell us whether it is a permanent charge, and, if it is not, how long we are to be asked to pay it. There is a variety of topics in connection with these expenses to which we take the greatest objection; and I shall, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote. I do not want to do what the hon. Member behind me (Sir George Campbell) did just now—that is to say, move a reduction which exceeds the Vote itself; and I will, therefore, be content to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,500.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has done precisely the same thing. The balance remaining is only £1,804.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Well, say £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £804, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. JACKSON: I think, Mr. Courtney, I had better take the items which the hon. Member has called attention to in the reverse order to that in which he took them. The hon. Member takes so much interest in this gentleman with
  1478
  the unpronounceable name that I think I may as well at once relieve his mind on that point. It is not a permanent charge, but is for the cost of the education and maintenance of a young Abyssinian Prince who was brought over here and has been educated here.
  COLONEL NOLAN: He is dead.
  MR. JACKSON: He is not dead, Sir.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Who is he?
  MR. JACKSON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was brought back from Abyssinia; that he has been educated at Cambridge; and that he has now gone out to, I believe, Jeddah. Therefore this charge, which was undertaken by the Government— I have no doubt for very good reasons—will come to an end. With regard to the Receiver of the Revenues, to whom the hon. Gentleman called attention, he has nothing whatever to do with the official about whom a question was raised the other day. With respect to the fees on patents of creation, I may say that, as is stated in the Estimates, the fees are now taken in stamps and are paid into the Exchequer, and I believe that the amount paid in last year was about £5,600. The £1,200 which appears in the Vote is the amount paid to these heralds for certain duties they perform. The fees exceed considerably the amount which is paid to them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Are the fees paid by the gentlemen who get their patents of creation?
  MR. JACKSON: They are, Sir. With regard to the Distinguished Service Order, to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention, that is a new Order which is, I believe, conferred upon soldiers who perform distinguished services in the field, and which has been very much appreciated in the Army generally. With regard to the larger item, as to cost of robes, and so on, I must point out that, as long as these Orders exist, so long will it be the duty of those who confer them to do so in the gracious and generous manner in which they are conferred at present, and to provide the robes and insignia. The robes and insignia are given, but on the death of the person are returned to those who gave them. I think I have now answered all the hon. Member's remarks.
  MR. CONYBEARE: But if the old robes are turned over to the new-comers,

  1479
  surely we ought not to pay such large sums for them.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I cannot imagine how the Government can propose to tax the poor of this country in order to provide for the various robes and insignia for these Orders. It seems to me to be one of those things which no one can understand. This expenditure seems to imply that money is no object; and I hope and trust that the Government will put an end to what, in my opinion, is a very profligate way of spending money, because I am quite sure that if they do not the result will be to wean the people from the Government and from the Throne.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not object to this so much on principle, but I do protest against the extreme magnitude of the sum. You put down £4,770 for providing decorations for, perhaps, 200 or 300 persons. I do not think that the decorations ought to cost more than 10 s. or 15 s. a-piece. They would then be better than the soldiers' medals, and would certainly be quite good enough. Let the recipients spend more on them themselves if they like, but do not let the taxpayer be called upon to do so. You have not, I suppose, contracted for these robes, and I think that somebody is getting an order for supplying them, and charging the country about six times what he charges anybody else. I am sure that if you do not get all your coals at Woolwich by contract, you will not get these things by contract; and I think, therefore, you must be spending a great deal more than you need. People would be just as proud of these decorations if you paid 10 s. for them as if they cost £10. As to the Abyssinian Prince, I should like to know who he is, because I never heard of more than one boy being brought from Abyssinia, and he is dead. I really think that when we vote £200 we are entitled to know whom it is for.
  MR. JACKSON: I really think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is most unreasonable. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that the Vote was in the Estimates last year.
  COLONEL NOLAN: No; I do not.
  MR. JACKSON: Well, the hon. and gallant Member would have known it if he had looked at the Estimates. I have really given the Committee all the in-
  1480
  formation I possess in regard to this individual. I have from time to time seen the account of the expenditure that goes to make up this Vote, and therefore I know that he was at Cambridge, and I am informed that he has just been sent out to a Consular appointment. I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman any more information than that he was the son of an Abyssinian nobleman, that he was brought from Abyssinia under the direction of the Government, and that the Government are responsible for him.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not want to be unreasonable; but I should just like to ask, with reference to a very large sum in this Vote, whether it would be possible for any of us to see an account for these robes and insignia, so as to find out how many robes and insignia have been supplied for this enormous cost of £4,760? I think it is not an improper question to ask. We ought to be able to form an estimate of what those robes and insignia cost. Are they merely medals, or do the insignia really include the Garter, the Bath, the Thistle, and so on? These are matters —at least to the people who have to pay for them— of some interest. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think me unreasonable in asking, at any rate, the number of robes and insignia that are provided out of this sum of money.
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Conybeare) really desires to know the number of robes and insignia provided for out of this Vote, I shall be very happy to give him the information. I have not the particulars here, but I will let him see them. I am sorry the hon. Member's knowledge of robes and insignia should be so limited; but I will tell him all I can.
  MR. DILLWYN: We hear a great deal of denunciation of extravagance, and of the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to promote economy; but when we have a practical opportunity afforded us of showing our love for economy we do not exercise it by our votes. And here is a case in which we might clearly do something in the way of economy. I do not want to see the accounts for these robes; but I do not think any Member of this House will deny that the amount of this Vote is very excessive. Therefore, if the Committee are in earnest in

  1481
  their desire to promote economy, they ought, when they have such a chance as this, when a Vote is brought forward which clearly is not necessary, to give their vote for the reduction of this sum. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) has said that those charges for decorations are all unreasonable. At all events, there can be no doubt that the whole of the Vote might be cut down, and still you might keep on having these absurd decorations if people like them. If hon. Members are in earnest in their desire for economy they will support my hon. Friend (Mr. Conybeare) in the Division which hope he will insist upon.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken, and who is so severe and rigid an economist, cannot ignore this fact—that if he puts the items paid into the Exchequer under this Vote side by side with the amount expended he will find that the whole cost is very nearly covered.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is that the case with the insignia?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes.
  MR. CONYBEARE: But there is no credit.
  DR. TANNER: These robes and insignia have been brought into requisition for a very large number of new Peers—Jubilee Peers-most of them very well off. I do not see why they could not provide for them out of their own pockets. On the other hand, if they did not care for the increased dignity, the clothes taken out of the old clothes department—for I see here an item for repairing insignia and for various repairs—might have done very well for the new Peers. I do not see why this insignia, like old wine, should not be the better for keeping, especially if they are maintained in decent repair. It is quite right and proper that those right hon. Gentlemen who got these great dignities conferred upon them should wear these gorgeous trappings when they are ennobled. [Cries of "Divide ! "] But hon. Members on that side who cry "Divide" will agree to this—that if there is to be a great show, a great splutter, and a great dash, these noblemen should pay for it out of their own pockets. So far as regards the Albert Medals, I really think that the Vote for them ought not to be refused, because, if there is any Order that is use-
  1482
  ful and truly noble, it is that which gives rewards for saving life by sea and by land. That is a decoration we should all stand up for. But here is an item, Sub-head B, "Marshals of Ceremonies and Trumpeters in attendance on Foreign Ministers." That has a fine mediaeval sound. I have to remark, in the first place, that if you want Marshals to attend on Foreign Ministers, those officials ought to be placed in a rather important position. Foreign Ministers would, I presume, require some superior person to attend on them. But what does he get? Only £80 a-year—less than right hon. Gentlemen oppose pay their footmen. Anybody who looks at this matter in a common-sense sort of way, in the light of pounds, shillings, and pence, must be clear that these men at £80 a-year are evidently not of the class or stamp or description that ought to attend on these Foreign Ministers, Get a man of higher rank, and pay a proper amount, and do not let this post be the sinecure it certainly seems to be. I say my hon. Friend (Mr. Conybeare) is quite right, not merely in bringing these matters forward, but in pressing his Motion to a Division. Then we have our friends the trumpeters and kettle-drummers turning up again. These menials of the State—these mediæval remnants—turn up on every page of the Votes; and certainly I think the time has come to do away with these useless items of expenditure. Then, again, Sir, as to these fees of patents on creation. These are fees to heralds and others. I want an explanation as to why these fees are not paid directly and not paid into the Treasury, and then paid again by the Treasury to the heralds. I think that is a very absurd thing, for if the heralds assist in conferring a peerage on these gentlemen I think they ought to be paid like other people, and directly by the noble Lords themselves. Then, as to the jewels in the Tower of London, I see by this Vote that the Keeper of the Jewels gets £300 a-year. This is another instance of a sinecure. These jewels—I have often seen them myself —are placed in the Beauchamp Tower, and we all take a pride and a pleasure in looking at them. But what do you want with a keeper? You have got all these beefeaters and soldiers, a receiver of fees, an exhibitor, a collector, wardens, &c.—surely, Sir, it does not

  1483
  require all these to keep the jewels? In the name of common sense I appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) for an explanation. [cries of "Order ! "and "Divide ! "] I can only conclude from this, Sir, that hon. Members opposite have not common sense. I do not see why you should have such a sinecure as a Keeper of the Jewels, for the probability is that the Keeper of the Jewels never goes near them at all. Whenever anybody goes to the Tower there is a man who takes you round.
  MR. BYRON REED: I rise to Order, Sir. I appeal to you whether, in your judgment, the hon. Member is not trifling with the Committee?
  DR. TANNER: The hon. Member talks about trifling with the Committee. What I want to prevent is trifling with the public purse; and I say that unless we get an explanation about this Keeper of the Jewels I shall move the reduction of the Vote by this item. I wish to put it in the clearest manner; and I say that these different individuals who receive office in connection with this Jewel House in the Tower of London ought also to be looked into. There is money received at the gate for seeing these Crown Jewels. Now I pass on to another item, and that is the maintenance of this Abyssinian gentleman. Apparently nobody knows who he is or what he is. All we have hoard about him is that he comes from Abyssinia; and I think at a time like the present, when every item is examined into and receives a certain amount of attention at the hands of the general public, we ought not to pass Votes for any individuals, especially foreigners, without inspiration. This country supports too many foreigners already, and we ought not to vote any money for the support of any foreigner without knowing exactly who he is, and what are the services in respect of which the money is spent. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) will condescend to give me an answer.
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly. I am always glad to give the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) any information in my power. As to the question of the officers of the Tower, he will see, if he looks at the figures, that the receipts from the visitors to the Tower are estimated this year at £2,200, which
  1484
  far exceeds any amount which appears on the Votes by way of expenditure for the custody of the jewels, &c. I think, therefore, that this explanation is about the most satisfactory one I could give to the hon. Member. With regard to the other matter, I have explained that this item will not occur again, because the education and maintenance of this young man is now at an end, as far as the Government is concerned. I am sure this, too, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member, and I hope the Committee will now allow the Vote to be passed.
  MR. HUNTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) will answer my question now. How much of this £4,770 is paid to the officers of the Herald's College?
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot say. I have not got the details. The fees, as the hon. Member will see, are put down at £1,200, a portion of which, I have no doubt, goes to the Herald's College, but how much I cannot say. I think we must face the fact—there is no denying it—that these robes and insignia are very expensive. I have no doubt they cost, some of them, as much as £600 or £700 each. As I have repeatedly said, as long as you have these Orders, I think what we have to do is to see that the Vote is in accordance with the law and custom. Of course, the question of the retention of these Orders is another matter, and that, if raised at all, ought to be raised in some other manner than on the officers' salaries.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 116: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 457.) [1.20 A.M.]
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (17.) £50, to complete the sum for the Adelaide Exhibition.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  (18.) £651,848, to complete the sum for Customs.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope the Government will not proceed with this Vote to-night. I have a most important question with reference to the constituency which I represent, which cannot be properly discussed at this hour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope the hon. Member will allow us to proceed. If we cannot conclude these Votes to-night the close of the Session will be delayed, and I do not think he desires that. We will endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to all the questions he may wish to raise with reference to the constituency he represents. I do not think it advisable that we should postpone this Vote, although the hour is undoubtedly late.
  MR. HUNTER: If that is so, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Scotch Bills on the Order Paper will not be taken to-night, so that the Scotch Members may not have to wait in vain.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir. They will not be taken to-night.
  MR. CLANCYI should like to remark, in corroboration of what my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has said, that I also have an important question to bring forward on this Vote. It affects the tobacco roll industry, to which a great injustice has been done by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. JACKSON: Considering the period of the Session, I think we might discuss both these questions. I hope now that we are so near the end of the Civil Service Votes we shall be allowed to make progress with them, and conclude them.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If the Vote were taken to-night, could not some opportunity be given on Report for the discussion of those subjects?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly.
  MR. CLANCY: I have to draw attention to the case of the roll-tobacco manufacture in Ireland—one of the few important and successful industries in Ireland now remaining—against which a blow has been recently struck by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What opportunities shall we have if we give up our chances now? Will the Government say that the Report of this Vote will not be taken in the few minutes at the end of to-morrow's Sitting?
  MR. SEXTON: The question whether we shall discuss now these two points— the question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy), affecting a very important industry in Ireland, and my own question, relating to the commerce of the City which I have the honour to repre-
  1486
  sent—must be determined by the nature of the subsequent opportunities which will be afforded to us. Unless we have some guarantee that the Report of this Vote will not be taken at the end of tomorrow's Sitting, or at such an hour on Thursday as will render discussion impossible, I think it is better to proceed at once.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be two opportunities, and if the first is not sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose he may avail himself of the second. First, there will be the opportunity afforded on the consideration of the Report of the Supply Resolution; and if he objects to that being taken to-morrow, why then it may stand over to Thursday. Further than that, there will be full opportunity upon the Appropriation Bill, on the three stages of which he may raise questions.
  MR. SEXTON: The discussion on the Appropriation Bill may be taken up for other purposes. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give an undertaking that the Report of Supply shall be taken on Thursday at an hour convenient for discussion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will make the best arrangement in my power. The hon. Member will follow me when I say that the arrangements are that the Civil Service Votes shall be taken this evening, the Navy Votes to-morrow, and the remaining Army Votes on Thursday. When these are disposed of the Report will be taken; it is quite impossible to say whether at an early hour; but I hope the hon. Member will find the opportunity he desires.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall be satisfied if the Secretary to the Treasury will consider the question of the Fort of Belfast in the meanwhile.
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly. I may say that I have considered it, and I have furnished the hon. Member with Returns and statistics upon which he probably founds his case, and I shall be prepared to answer that when I hear it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is it settled that the Indian Budget will be taken on Friday or Saturday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already answered the hon. Member for Northampton. If by good fortune we finish the Estimates to-morrow, then the Indian Budget will be taken on Thursday, if not on Friday.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I suppose there is practically no chance of it being taken on Thursday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not sanguine, Sir.
  MR; CLANCY: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will undertake to be in the House when the question in reference to tobacco is raised?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir. I am generally in the House when any question affecting my Department is raised.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £1,413,879, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme of re-organization in regard to out-door assistants has come into operation? Communications have been made to me by various persons disclosing the fact that very keen dissatisfaction is felt with the scheme. Up to a recent period promotion to the rank of "ride" officer was obtained after four or five years' service. It is now calculated that, inconsequence of the increase in the lower class of assistants and the decrease in the upper, the rate of promotion will be greatly reduced. I am given to understand that two years ago an assistant from the second class would reach the position of "ride" officer after an average of four or five years' service; but now that the numbers of the upper class are reduced to 70, and the lower class to 800, the higher position is not reached for 10 years. The question I ask is, are you going to offer any compensation, by higher salary or otherwise, on this account. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that among the 800 there is grave dissatisfaction, I might almost say despair, felt at the breakdown of their prospect of promotion; and it is a serious question, well worth consideration, whether some compensation should be given to the lower class, to place them in as good a position as they expected to hold when they joined the Public Service.
  MR. JACKSON: No doubt there is always considerable disappointment felt on the part of every individual who occupies a position on the Establishment when for any reason changes are made in the Department detrimental to his prospects of promotion. But I am sure the hon.
  1488
  Member would not desire that the administration of the Public Service should be carried on simply for the convenience of those who occupy posts therein if, by reason of improved organization, their numbers are largely increased. It is clearly the duty of those in charge to carry out the organization. It is an essential part of the scheme that, concurrently with the reduction in numbers, there has been an increase in the work thrown upon some, giving them larger areas, and it is part of the scheme to improve the salaries of men of all grades who may remain in the Service. But I will make further inquiries and acquaint myself with the facts, and I believe I shall be able to show that the question has been very carefully considered, and that an essential part of the scheme of the Treasury is to improve the salaries.
  MR. SEXTON: Of course, I agree that the Public Service should be conducted with the greatest amount of economy compatible with efficiency; but when a man by exceptional education prepares himself and joins the Service upon a certain condition of things, and with reasonable hope of promotion within a given time, and you suddenly spring a system of re-organization that increases the number of lower places and decreases the number in the higher, he has some cause for complaint, and the Government would do well to ease the dissatisfaction that exists, if there is ground for it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly, it cannot be said that this scheme of re-organization has been sprung upon them. The re-organization of the Department has been for a long time under consideration. I entirely agree that every effort should be made to satisfy public servants side by side with economical and efficient administration. Certainly, I was under the impression that the scheme did not cause dissatisfaction, and it was suggested by hon. Members interested in the Service. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do attach great importance to the contentment of its public servants.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS I. — PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

  1489
  " That a sum, not exceeding £8,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, in respect to the preparation of Plans for the Erection of New Offices for the Admiralty and War Departments."
  MR. DILLWYN: I have given Notice of an Amendment to reduce this Vote by £6,000; and in moving this allow me to say that I do not, in any way, wish to cast any discredit or doubt on the conduct of Messrs. Leeming. On the contrary, having sat on the Committee, it appears to me Messrs. Leeming have had hard measure dealt them, and I believe most of the Committee agreed that Messrs. Leeming behaved in a very liberal manner. But my principal object in moving the reduction is that I want to know what is going to be done with the Admiralty buildings before we proceed with the Vote. I suppose it to be £8,000 for the old plan, and £500 for the new plan. My object is to obtain from the Chief Commissioner of Works some explanation as to the course to be pursued. I was one of those who did not entirely agree with the proposals of the Government, and I am anxious to know what is proposed to be done. Looking at the Estimate, it would seem that it is proposed to close the whole thing; and I ask what position will Messrs. Leeming hold after that, and what are the Government going to do? I repeat once more that I disown any intention to prejudice Messrs. Leeming in any shape or form; on the contrary, I believe they have done very well.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Dilwyn.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member at once and answer his question. The object of the Vote is stated on the face of it, and, as hon. Members will be aware, is to carry out as well as we can the Report of the Committee that sat this year. As regards Messrs. Leeming, I join entirely with the hon. Member in the tribute he has paid to them for their complete acquiescence in all that was proposed to them. Hon. Members will recollect that in the Report of the Committee special attention was called to the ability with which Messrs. Leeming
  1490
  had carried out the plans entrusted to them. The fourth paragraph runs thus—
  " It is considered that Messrs. Leeming ably carried out the task assigned to them, and their plans received high commendation from distinguished architects."
  That is from the Report of the majority of the Committee. But, as hon. Members know, although they carried out their work very well, the Committee decided against adopting the scheme on which they were employed. The sum we propose to award Messrs. Leeming was arrived at after careful consideration, and after communication with Messrs. Leeming on the one hand and the Treasury on the other. In the communications I had with Messrs. Leeming on the question they behaved as well as possible all through. I do not anticipate that if the Committee votes this sum that it will close our transactions with them. There was an unanimous feeling in the Committee that Messrs. Leeming should be employed on further works undertaken; and I may say, though, of course, I cannot bind myself under all circumstances to employ Messrs. Leeming, that I have put myself in communication with them, with a view to asking them to prepare plans in case the Committee should adopt this Vote. I have the greatest confidence in Messrs. Leeming. I cannot bind myself absolutely, under all circumstances, not only to enter into negotiations but to employ them; but I am anxious to have their able assistance.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: With regard to that portion of the Vote that awards a considerable sum to Messrs. Leeming I certainly have no objection to make. I do not agree with the conclusions of the Committee. I believe they made a great mistake, and though they acted, on grounds of economy it will result in larger expenditure. But I would not take any step to the prejudice of Messrs. Leeming, and I feel strongly that they were placed in an unfortunate position. They were led to believe three years ago that they would be entrusted with this great work, and on the strength of that they gave up their business at Halifax, and were kept hanging about not knowing what was going to be done. Under the circumstances, they are entitled to a considerable sum. I am glad

  1491
  that the Government were able to come to a conclusion with them, and I do not think the sum is at all too large. But there is another part of the question upon which I wish to say a few words. A sum of £500 is asked for in the Vote for plans to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Now, if by that the right hon. Gentleman refers to preparation of plans for the future consideration of the House, without binding the House to approval of the scheme proposed by the Committee, I shall make no objection. But if, by assenting to the proposed Vote of £500, the House is committed to that scheme, and will not have an opportunity of raising the whole question next year, then I should most strongly object. But I hardly think that is the object or intention of the Government. They will have to come to the House next year for a considerable sum to carry that proposal into effect, and I presume that they will be prepared to give an opportunity for raising the question. I hardly think they would, on such a small sum as that now before the Committee, commit Parliament to the scheme laid before the Committee. It was of a crude and imperfect nature, and it has been for such a short time before the public that there has not been time for the expression of a matured public opinion. I think it would be altogether wrong if the House at this moment, at this period of the Session, when so few Members are in town, committed itself, by voting this small amount, to a scheme involving a large expenditure. I should like, therefore, to know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to commit the Honse definitely to this scheme, or whether it is for the purpose of elaborating and making complete the scheme of the Committee upon which the House shall express its judgment next Session?
  MR. PLUNKET: The way the matter stands is this—passing away from the item as regards the rejected plan and coming to the question of the right hon. Gentleman—the Committee which sat this year were directed to report, first, on the original plan of Messrs. Leeming; and as regards that part of their instructions they reported that the plan should be abandoned. They were also directed to report whether any part of the existing Admiralty buildings could
  1492
  be retained in an alternative scheme. On this they reported—
  " We are satisfied that by making additions to the present Admiralty buildings all the requirements of this Department may be met, and that the work can be done at a moderate cost."
  They further go on to recommend that the staff of the Admiralty and War Department should, as soon as possible, be provided for in buildings at no great distance from each other; and they say—
  " We are of opinion that this recommendation can be carried out with a great saving of time and money by adopting other plans than those referred to. We find that the present buildings of the Admiralty may with advantage be retained."
  So far the desire of the Committee is expressed, and there is an obligation upon us—and the right hon. Gentleman knows how strong that is—to obtain the sanction of the House to the recommendation. He knows perfectly well that the House of Commons next year will be free to agree or disagree with it. But that, I think, is not quite the point of his question. What he wants to call attention to is the elevation or sketch plan prepared by Messrs. Leeming. Now, I say at once that I will not bind myself or the House to the exact plan, which was prepared in haste, It is for the Government, who are responsible, to prepare plans for such a building as they think fit, and then to come to Parliament to sanction the expense. I have no intention to pledge myself or the House to that sketch plan prepared by Messrs. Leeming.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Then I perfectly well understand that there will be an opportunity next Session of raising the question on a more definite plan, and the Government will not, on this particular Vote, commit themselves to large expenditure on a scheme?
  MR. PLUNKET: What I want to make clear is this—that I say nothing to derogate from the importance of the Committee, and I take it they have so far decided the question as to recommend the House to get further plans. But I do not wish to make this sketch plan finally binding on the House or the Government. The Government must propose such a plan as they think best.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I quite understand, and I am satisfied with that.

  1493
  It will be open to me to go into the question next Session.
  MR. DILLWYN: In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I would just remind the Government that the Report of the Committee alluded to was not unanimous.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (21.) £4,000, to complete the sum for the Edinburgh University Buildings.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (22.) £2,000, to complete the sum for the Victoria University.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask where is this Victoria University? There are many of them.
  MR. JACKSON: At Manchester.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  (23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £6,069, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for repaying to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have given Notice of an Amendment in reference to this Vote, and I do not think it will require many words to specify my object. First, I find an item of £2,769 4s. 8d. as equipage money for the Most Honourable the Marquess of Londonderry, on his appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Now, I do not object to this because it is for the Marquess of Londonderry rather than the Earl of Aberdeen or any other noble Lord; what I object to is the expenditure of some £3,000 on occasions such as these. My contention is that when you appoint a wealthy Nobleman like the Marquess of Londonderry to a lucrative Office—I believe he gets £20,000 a-year as Lord Lieutenant—then I think he ought to pay his own equipage expenses. I object to all these subsidiary Supplementary Votes. If you appoint a public servant at this large salary, then it ought to cover all expenses. If £20,000 is not sufficient, make it £25,000 if you like. But I would remind the Committee that the President of the United
  1494
  States only gets £10,000; and why the Ruler, or rather mis-Ruler, of a little island like Ireland should require twice that amount passes my comprehension. But, whether that is a sufficient sum or not, our contention is that it ought to cover all these expenses of equipage. Until I know what it means, and why it should be made the subject of a Supplementary Vote over and above the salary paid, I shall continue my opposition on future occasions. But it is not enough that we should pay this sum for equipage money; I find another item of £200 for special packets for the conveyance of the Earl of Aberdeen from Kingstown to Holyhead, and the Marquess of Londonderry from Holyhead to Kingstown. I do not understand whether it is £100 each for the outgoing and the incoming Lord Lieutenant; but it seems to me an enormous sum. But I do not see why the Lord Lieutenant cannot travel in the same boat as other people; I do not see why he should be above travelling in the same packet as the Chief Secretary, for instance. We do not hear of the Chief Secretary, who is a much more important personage than the Marquess of Londonderry—we do not hear of him getting special money for passages to Ireland. If the Lord Lieutenant is too high a personage to travel in a common boat with common personages, why not get one of the Royal Yachts? We are paying £35,000 a-year for these Royal Yachts, and they practically do nothing at all; and I cannot see why they should not be employed for a useful purpose. But if you are paying £20,000 a-year to a person for undertaking the ornamental functions of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that £20,000 a-year ought to be sufficient for covering his travelling expenses; and I object to our being called upon in Supplementary Estimates to vote these trifling sums. They may be trifling or not, but they ought to be included in the enormous sums paid as salaries. The next and last item in this Vote is one to which I take a stronger objection than the objection I have just raised; it is the item for special sums paid for the conveyance of distinguished persons. I suppose the Marquess of Londonderry is not a distinguished person, as he is not included in it. We have to pay £480 on this account. Last year it was £614, and I recollect there was then a discussion

  1495
  upon this Vote; in fact, there has been a discussion upon it year after year, and I trust there always will be until we knock off such an outrageous demand on the pockets of the ratepayers; but I do not recollect that any satisfactory information was given by the Government. They gave us to understand it was the ordinary and usual custom; and though there is very little to be said in defence of it, yet practically the Ministers have not got the courage to go to the Royal Family and say that this sort of imposition on the people must be put an end to at once. We have some right to demand that the highly-paid functionaries, the highly-paid officers of State, such as the Lord Lieutenant and others, should pay their own expenses out of their own pockets; and the country has a right to demand that the Members of the Royal Family, their friends, and other distinguished personages, should pay their travelling expenses out of their own pockets. There may be some use in the Lord Lieutenant; he may perform some duties other than ornamental; but there are very few duties these distinguished personages perform that are not purely ornamental, connected with circumstances relating to the aristocracy and Royalty in this country. I think it is time we spoke frankly on this subject. I do not desire to say anything disrespectful of any Member of the Royal Family; but I say that it is not in the interests of the institution we call Royalty in this country that these miserable little payments should be continued. These things rankle in the minds of the people out-of-doors—[A laugh.] I dare say hon. Members on the opposite side of the House think they know everything: but I rather flatter myself we, on this side of the House, know more of the feeling with which these matters are regarded by the people out-of-doors than they do. All I can say is that the worst enemy of the institution of Royalty in this country could not desire anything more than that these payments should go on and be encouraged, for the reason that it is not the amount but the meanness of the thing, asking us to pay the travelling expenses of these people, who are, for the most part, lodged and fed at the expense of the ratepayers—lodged and fed and doing nothing; it is that that rankles in the minds of the people. If hon. Members opposite value—and they do value
  1496
  it more than I do—the institution of Royalty, they will see to it, and by their votes ought to leave a standing record that they mean to insist that these supplementary payments on behalf of Royalty shall be put an end to. It will not be long hence before we shall have to overhaul all the questions of expense connected with the institution of Royalty.But, whether that may come sooner or later, in the meantime we have a right to insist that these payments which are not connected with our own people, but payments for their German and other foreign brothers, cousins, other relatives and their friends, we have a right to insist we should not be called on to pay these travelling expenses which they are perfectly competent to pay for themselves. I repeat again, it is the meanest thing I know of that they should come to us, considering the sums we pay for their maintenance, their board and lodging amongst us, and ask us to pay these supplementary sums; and I would make an earnest appeal to the Government to take the bull by the horns at once, and cut off this Vote altogether. Why should they jeopardize their reputation and bring themselves into unpopularity with their constituencies, and continue to bring, not only ridicule, but contempt on the Royal Family itself— [" Oh, oh ! "] I am speaking of what I know, and, as I said before, I am not wanting for myself to say a single word disrespectful to Royalty; but the result of insisting on these payments is that you are bringing ridicule and contempt upon that institution you deem most sacred, I will not say on this occasion what I have it on my mind to say in connection with other Votes for the Royal Family; but I say the sooner you put an end to these ridiculous payments, which the people consider it a fraud and imposition upon them to be called upon to pay, the sooner you will be doing something to render the institution of the Royal Family in our midst more lasting than it is otherwise likely to be.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,620, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think this sum of £200 for the conveyance of the Lord Lieutenant to Ireland might be saved,

  1497
  and I think the Committee ought to give their assistance in this direction. I want to know if it is a fee given when the Lord Lieutenant goes over first to Ireland, because I know that he does not charge this £200? I went over in the same boat with Lord Spencer when he went to Ireland first, and he did not have a special boat. There is no idea about his safety, and therefore no good is got out of this charge; and I would, therefore, ask why it should be done, and what is the object of it?
  DR. TANNER: I would also point out that the distance between Holyhead and Dublin is only GO miles, and the distance between Boulogne and Folkestone about 30 miles—I may be a couple of miles short; but I see here it costs £40 for carrying the Prince of Wales from Boulogne to Folkestone, while it costs £100 to carry the Marquess of Londonderry to Ireland, a sum which I strongly object to. I have crossed to Ireland on several occasions with the Lord Lieutenant upon the same boat; he had his own compartment certainly; but he got across as well as if the whole steamer was dedicated to his sacred person. I think the time has come when this sort of nonsense should be put an end to. Another point I cannot help noticing is in connection with the conveyance of distinguished persons to this country. There is an item for the conveyance of the Crown Princess of Germany from Calais to Dover. She is a very distinguished personage; she is the daughter of the Queen, and the future Empress of Germany, and I admit that every possible distinction should be paid to her; but my objection is that the line is not properly drawn. Here is the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg—who is she, and what is she? She may be some relative of the Royal Family—I do not know about that; but, if so, she is certainly not a person of the same rank as these other Royal personages who have been carried across the waters of the Channel. Then there is another peculiar fact I noticed, and that is this—that here you have the Crown Princess of Germany and the Duchess of Edinburgh crossing the Channel, and only on one occasion the Princess of Wales—she does not seem to tax the country in the same way other Royal personages do. There is another item I want some explanation of. It is a noteworthy fact that when a
  1498
  General is going to take command of a Station in India he gets his passage money paid. I find an item here for the quarter ending 31st December, 1886," The Duke and Duchess of Connaught to Calais from Dover, £140." If the country paid his passage money from England to India, are we to be called on here to pay a supplementary sum for his transit from Dover to Calais? If so, it is most extraordinary; and I hope some explanation will be given. I cannot help calling attention to it, because we all know the Duke of Connaught has been in India, and that we had to pass a Bill to bring him home from India to attend the Jubilee. I cannot see what purpose this item is for, except it is for part and portion of his voyage to India. I hope I shall receive some explanation of this and the other points I have raised.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I can hardly hope to convert either of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee upon this particular question, because their minds are pretty well made up, and anything I could say would not alter their convictions. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said about the £200 for the Lord Lieutenant, I think it is worthy of consideration. I understand £100 is paid, on the occasion of the Lord Lieutenant crossing, to the owners of the vessel, and not to the Lord Lieutenant; but I will make inquiries into the matter. With regard to the item of £480, referred to by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Conybeare), I am one of those who think it is not a very large sum; and I cannot agree that it is either fair or reasonable to speak of these persons as being lodged and fed at the expense of the ratepayers, for it is nothing of the kind. But I will not follow the hon. Member into a discussion as to which I am sure we should not agree; and I would rather appeal to what I venture to call the sense of the Committee. With regard to the larger item of equipage money, to which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division called attention, I have to say that is according to an old arrangement which, I admit, looks rather an odd one. This item represents £3,000 of Irish money; but whether that is another injustice to Ireland I cannot say; it is a sum that has always been paid,

  1499
  and that is the only explanation I have of it. Provision for carrying out the duties of the Office have to be made at very great cost, and I should be very much surprised if any Lord Lieutenant ever came back the richer for holding the Office.
  DR. TANNER: He gets his salary.
  MR. JACKSON: He would get his salary for the time he is in Office; and, whether that is long or short, the outlay upon his taking Office is the same.
  DR. TANNEE: What is the equipage money for?
  MR. JACKSON: It is for general outfit, if you like.
  DR. TANNER: Carriages and horses?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; and if you have a Lord Lieutenant you would wish him to support his position in a manner that would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. I should be very much surprised, as I have said, if any Lord Lieutenant came from Ireland richer than he went.
  DR. TANNER: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Is this another injustice to Ireland?" This equipage money is an injustice to Ireland, and I think I shall be able to show the hon. Gentleman why that is so. I asked him what this money was for, and he said "carriages and horses." Well, everyone knows that in Ireland we have got very good carriage manufacturers, and men who can build as good a carriage as any in the City of London. Then we also know that Ireland is a country where horses are bred; and even Members who sit on the other side of the House constantly come over to buy horses in Ireland. What is done with this equipage money? What has the present Lord Lieutenant done? He goes to a contractor here in the City of London, and pays this money away in the City of London instead of spending it in Ireland. If there is money to be paid by Parliament into the pockets of the Lord Lieutenant, at any rate let Parliament give him a chance of spending the money in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way in which this money has been spent. I can assure him that I learnt it from an official source a few years ago, when I knew some gentlemen connected with the Viceregal Court in Dublin. What the Lord Lieutenant did then, and I am assured since,
  1500
  was to go to one of these large contractors in London and order his carriage and horses here and send them across. I think, perhaps, that some of the hon. Members who do not agree with us on some of the other points, on this particular point will agree with me that this is a standing injustice to Ireland, and ought not to be allowed to continue.
  MR. DILLWYN: A great portion of the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury in justification of the expenditure was that it was what had been done before. That is a very Conservative mode of reasoning; but there is one point that deserves consideration, and that is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) called attention to—namely, the item for the passage of the Duke of Connaught from Dover to Calais. I remember I demurred to the Bill for bringing the Duke of Connaught over here, and we were told on that occasion that the expense would not be charged to the public funds. This is a matter, therefore, that requires some explanation. There is only one question I would ask before we come to the vote. I would like to know upon what principle these Supplementary Votes are drawn up? As I understand it, the Supplementary Votes ought to be Votes for some expenses incurred since the original Estimate was drawn up. Many of these items ought and must have been seen before the Estimates were drawn up; and therefore I should like to know upon what principle they are drawn up?
  MR. JACKSON: The Supplementary Vote is certainly a Vote which is supplementary to the ordinary Vote; and it is further supplementary in this sense— that its service either could not be foreseen, or the amount of it could not be known when the original Estimate was prepared. The hon. Member for Swansea is an old Member of this House, and he knows there is at the disposal of the Treasury an item called the Civil Contingency Fund, used for matters not otherwise provided for in the Vote, and a Vote has to be taken in order to repay the Civil Contingency Fund for the advances made from it. He asks me a question in regard to the passage of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the Estimates he will see these

  1501
  sums are made up to the 31st March last; and therefore these special items have nothing to do with the ordinary Estimates.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I cannot help thinking this Vote deserves censure. One-thirtieth of our population are paupers, and I think we incur great responsibility in voting money away for such a foolish thing as the equipage of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Here we are voting £3,000 for the Lord Lieutenant and £320 for the Prince of Wales crossing the Channel eight times last year. I must say I think we endanger loyalty in this country by these small sums coming up in this offensive way time after time.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to say one word with respect to the way in which I propose to proceed in respect of the Motion I have made. I would rather not take a Division on the first item respecting the Lord Lieutenant, but on the two last items connected with the special payment; and that for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast desires to bring before the Committee some matters in respect of municipal charges. I would like to say this to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with respect to the equipage money. His reasoning was not convincing, the ground put forward being that because these things were done in the past they should be done in the future. If his argument is worth anything—namely, that the Lord Lieutenant is put to a great preliminary expense, and therefore ought to have this subsidiary and equipment money, I would point out that as these occasions do not very frequently arise the proper mode of proceeding would be to come and ask for a Supplementary Vote when they are put to this necessary expense, and do not get their salary for more than a very short period. To make up a constant charge, instead of a mere temporary and exceptional charge, is what we have a very great right to protest against. However, as I sympathize with the grievance of our friends in Ireland, I will not object to this money being granted, provided it is spent in Ireland; and if we have such an assurance I will not press that item.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There would be no difficulty about the hon. Member for West Belfast moving any Motion he
  1502
  desires. Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will withdraw my Motion so far as that item is concerned.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary for the hon. Member to withdraw in order to accommodate the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will withdraw the Motion, and move it in another form.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg now to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £680.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,289, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 118: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 458.) [2.30 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: This Vote contains several items for the expenses of Municipal Charter inquiries for 19 places in different parts of England. Among these I do not notice the name of Haslingden. I am aware that some time ago the occupiers and ratepayers of this place presented a Petition, signed by two-thirds of their number, praying for a Charter of Incorporation. I have looked through their statement of facts upon which their request is founded, and if it is well-founded I should be surprised if their Petition were refused. I cannot understand even why it should be delayed, for the place is far more populous than many municipal towns; it is growing rapidly; and, looking through the figures in relation to taxation, one can see that it is a thriving and important place. Seeing that so large a proportion as two-thirds of the rateable occupiers support the Petition, I should like to know on what grounds it is refused or delayed, when there is such a strong primâ facie case in its support? Another item of the Vote to which I wish to call attention is the sum of £47 17 s. 10 d. for the payment of medical expenses of officers injured during the Belfast riots. The Constabulary officers, incapacitated from duty

  1503
  by reason of injuries sustained, were few; but there were 400 men of the police force and the military injured on that occasion, and tended in the hospitals of Belfast. On consideration of this a grant of £800 in aid of these hospitals, which are supported by voluntary subscriptions, was promised by the late Chief Secretary; but I do not find that this has been carried out. Unless I ascertain that the Government have paid the expenses incurred in the hospitals on account of the wounded men of the military and civil force I shall move to expunge this item from the Vote, for I do not understand why this medical attendance should be paid for, and not that of the men who did all the fighting, and received most injury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a matter that has not come before me during my tenure of Office of Irish Secretary, and I am sorry to say I have not the information the hon. Gentleman desires. Certainly, nothing has been said or suggested to me with regard to payment to these hospitals; but I shall be glad to make inquiries, and give the hon. Member all the information I can.
  MR. JACKSON: As to the other question the hon. Member has raised, I am not in a position to give the hon. Member information; but I will cause inquiry to be made. I could not know that the hon. Member was going to raise the question, inasmuch as it is not connected with any item in the Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: It is a question that affects 60,000 inhabitants.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter to discuss on the Vote; it is a matter of the policy of the Home Office and the Privy Council. This is merely a question of payments made.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not wish to discuss it. Unless the Government tell me there will be an inquiry I will move to reduce the Vote.
  MR. JACKSON: It is not possible for me to give an answer to the question, about which I know nothing. But I will inquire, and I think the hon. Gentleman might be satisfied with that assurance. It is not a matter in the Vote, and therefore I could not anticipate the question coming on. I say I will make inquiry and ascertain what has been done, and then I will inform the hon. Gentleman. If then he is not
  1504
  satisfied it rests with him to take what course he thinks best.
  MR. SEXTON: The Petition from Haslingden has been presented among these others, and it seems a strong primâ facie case.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is a Vote for the repayment of expenses paid last year.
  MR. SEXTON: This Petition was presented last year. I move to reduce the Vote by £200 in the absence of any satisfactory assurance in regard to this matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,869, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish to trouble the Committee with any remarks. I only want to say, as the Financial Secretary has promised, at the instance of the hon. Member for West Belfast, to make inquiries into a particular case, that I wish to ask him if he will also make inquiries in respect to Loughborough—an almost similar case? I have had the matter brought to my notice and have been asked to do something. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to make it the subject of inquiry.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 117: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 459.) [2.45 A.M.]
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [5th September] reported.
  First Eleven Resolutions agreed to.
  (12.) "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the execution of certain Public Works, and the promotion of certain Industries in Ireland."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I desire to bring under the notice of the House—and I will speak

  1505
  very briefly at this hour—two items in this Vote, £5,000 for the drainage of the Barrow, and £7,000 for preliminary inquiry and plans in reference to parts of the Barrow and the Bann. I want really to get some information in regard to these matters. The £5,000 provided in this Vote is a very small sum indeed considering the work to be accomplished. The Royal Commission has recommended not a loan but a gift of £75,000 for these purposes. The Royal Commissioners use these very remarkable words—
  " We think that in this case the Government may treat the improvement of this extensive tract of country as of national concern, as the injuries are very wide-spread."
  Now, I think the Government will see that the sum of £5,000 is a mere flea-bite compared with what will be required. The entire cost will be something like £350,000, and of this the Commission recommended the Government to give £75,000. Now the first question is, do the Government really mean to carry out, to any thorough extent, the recommendations of the Commission with this £5,000 as an instalment of £75,000 to be presently granted? Then another question I want to put to the Government is whether they really intend legislation on the subject? But first I ought to mention that there is a strong feeling in the district that no more money need be expended on preliminary inquiry. The Royal Commissioners have sketched the history of what has been done. The Barrow drainage survey was practically executed as far back as 1847; and, I think it has been revived in various forms since. In 1882 there was a survey and valuation, half of which was carried out by the Government. In 1885, Lord Spencer appointed a Commission for the purpose of considering the matter, which reported in the next year. That, also, resulted in nothing, and now we have the elaborate Report of the Royal Commission to which I have referred. It would seem with all this we have sufficient information already, and I want to know whether the portion of this £1,200 which is going to be granted for preliminary expenses, in connection with this Barrow drainage, should not be spent on the actual drainage itself. Another question is, whether this is to be followed by legislation. The Commissioners say, the entire scheme cannot be carried out with-
  1506
  out legislation, and they lay down certain lines on which that legislation must proceed, Now, if that is so, I want to know definitely, and I hope the Chief Secretary recognizes the importance of the question, whether this legislation will be brought in early next Session, or whether it will be allowed to hang on from month to month and from Session to Session. I can indicate the importance of the question, when I mention that it has been reported that a bad state of health, bordering on pestilence, exists at Portarlington, and the medical officer of the district, after consultation with others, arrived at the conclusion that nothing could be done to remove the danger until the Barrow is drained. The local officer declares, that if a fever were to break out at any time in the neighbourhood the consequences would be disastrous; and at this time of cholera epidemics, the importance of proceeding rapidly with the works is evident. I may mention before I sit down, that the whole of this area the catchment of the Barrow, 700,000 acres,46,000 are subject to periodical inundation, so, under the circumstances, there is every reason to proceed with the matter at once. The people say they would prefer a less expensive scheme than that recommended by the Commission, and that there was an excellent scheme devised by Messrs. Lewis and Stoke to cost £153,000, but as to that I, knowing nothing of it, do not commit myself. At a meeting, held on August 17, to consider the whole subject, resolutions were passed urging the Lord Lieutenant to proceed at once with the work and the formation of drainage districts. I hope this desire of the people to help themselves will induce the Government to do what they can to assist, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the questions I have put to him.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the Government ought to be pressed to consent to an adjournment on this question. One of the great inconveniences of discussing such a subject on an occasion like this, is that we can only speak once. [Laughter.] Well, we allowed the Committee stage to go through without debate, and I think we ought to get an opportunity of expressing our opinions on this subject at some hour other than 3 o'clock in the morning, when it is idle

  1507
  to attempt to say a few words with any hope of their being reported. [Laughter.] It is rather difficult to enter into complicated details, when one is subject to interruption from the few hon. Members who are not sleeping. However, as my appeal meets with no response from the Government, I shall adopt the course of stating my argument as best I can, and possibly, I may conclude with a Motion. The first thing I have to point out is, the extraordinary system that has been followed. When the House consented to this Vote of £50,000, I dare say many Members were not aware how this sum is obtained. It is, with the exception of a small portion from the proprietors, money out of the small tenants of Ireland. This £50,000 is a corresponding sum in two amounts voted for England and Scotland £450,000 and £60,000, the one in the form of a grant for highways in England, and the other for Scotland, and voted for the first time to-night in pursuance of the remission of local taxation announced on the Budget night. But there has been no corresponding remission of County cess in Ireland, but the Government intended to distribute this £50,000 in consultation with the Irish Members. Now, first I object totally to this. I think that when you were giving large grants for highways in England and Scotland, members would have been more willing to relieve the tenants of Ireland from the heavy county rates they pay; in some parts of Connemara as much as 4s. 6d. in the pound, much higher than anything paid in England. Secondly, I object to the manner in which the Government have acted since the declaration on the Budget night. They have never consulted Irish Members; they have simply allocated this £50,000 according to their own fancy. Possibly a few county gentlemen, possibly a few Conservative Members, may have been spoken to on the subject; and I cannot say positively that no Member on this side has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion; but no message has been sent to the Irish Party generally. This proposal for taxing the small Irish farmers was determined on without consulting the Irish Members; it is a crying case in favour of a Home Rule Legislature, especially as the Government now insist upon taking the final stage of the Vote
  1508
  at an hour when the public can know very little about it. I will not say that every part of the scheme for distributing this sum of £50,000, contributed mainly by small Irish farmers, is bad; but I say you are taking upon yourselves an enormous responsibility without sufficient acquaintance with facts when you dispose of it without proper discussion and without submitting your proposals publicly or privately to the consideration of Irish Members. Now, first there is £12,000 for the Shannon. I was on the Shannon Commission; it was a mixed Commission, upon which, I believe, I was the only Home Ruler. All Parties were agreed that there was no gigantic work to be undertaken on the Shannon. All you have to do is to take off a certain amount of water, which you can take off by a stroke of the pen. [Laughter]. Yes; I will take it off tomorrow by a stroke of the pen if the Chief Secretary will give me his signature ordering the sluices to be opened. You keep up a certain amount of water in the interests of navigation; but as the Royal Commission recommended the interests of drainage should be consulted rather than the interests of navigation. But you have not done that, and you are now going into elaborate works to combine the interests of drainage and navigation. But I do not see the necessity of the large expenditure; all that need be done—and it will, I admit, lessen the conveniences of navigation —is to reduce the quantity of water in the Shannon, and that will satisfy everybody so far as drainage is concerned. Navigation would be interfered with to the extent of reducing the depth of water by about a foot. Upon this point you would do well to consult Irish Members before you take advice of engineers and embark upon a large expenditure, of which £12,000 is a beginning. Now, I come to the Bann. This question came before the Royal Commission, and it recommended that something should be done. I do not know that it is good policy to tax Kerry for the Bann drainage, taxing in the sense that you do not remit taxation because of this; but something has to be done. You have locked up the waters of Lough Neagh and put a dam across the upper part of the Bann; also for purposes of navigation, and I admit that something must be done. But the

  1509
  hon. Member for Queen's County has laid a policy before you, and has showed the enormous ultimate expense in which the country and the district will be involved, and this before it has been voted upon by any representative Irish Body or Party. You are doing a serious thing in spending this initial sum without giving heed to public opinion in reference to an expenditure of between £300,000 and £400,000, an enormous sum for a district in Ireland where there is little ready money. Passing over the piers and roads, to which items I do not object very much, I come to the amount to be devoted to the encouragement of the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland. Now, we know what has been done with £3,200 of the money; but we do not know what has been done, or is to be done, with the other £1,800. The £3,200 is given for 16 stallions selected by the Royal Dublin Society. Now, I do not know that the Royal Dublin Society was certainly the best body to have the selection, and I rather think that, instead of 16 stallions at £200 each, it would have been better to have had 32 at £100 each; but this is a matter of opinion. I do not blame the Government much for that; but you have not laid down any system by which farmers are to take advantage of what is offered, and are to send their mares. If you leave it to the selection of owners you throw the arrangement very much into the hands of the groom, or you leave it with the Poor Law Board, and unless you have recourse to the ballot—the only other way—you will find that a few farmers will be favoured at the expense of the many. And then I want to know what is to be done with the £1,800. I do not pay much attention to the other items, that for Donegal, and for the Munster Dairy School; in my county we have no large dairies, and I do not feel prepared to talk about that. As I have said, I doubt very much the desirability of what you propose to do in the way of drainage. You pick out three rivers, but it is not only in regard to the great rivers that drainage is wanted; the glands that feed the great rivers often require attention quite as much. In no case is attention more required than at Tuam. There a large amount, some £70,000 or £80,000, has been spent in arterial drainage, and that requires keeping up.
  1510
  There is no great river; but here and in many other places you may see the effect, of arterial drainage, and can form an opinion as to what is required to be done. But, as was to be expected, engineers turn to the great rivers. I should not have selected the Shannon, and my hon. Friend has referred to the Bann. The Government are working in the dark, and are incurring a great responsibility in taking away money practically in the most unconstitutional manner. Practically, though I admit not theoretically, they are taking money never voted; they are taking the rates of the country and applying them to fancy purposes. I know they have not done it theoretically, but practically they have, because there are remissions allowed to the local rates of England and Scotland; but in consequence of the use to which these funds are to be devoted there is no corresponding remission to Ireland. To mark my protest, I beg to move the adjournment of this debate.
  MR. PYNE: I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend—
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot help regarding this as wilful repetition of a discussion that has already gone far enough.
  MR. PYNE: But I am speaking— [cries of "Order !" and interruptions.]— You speak much more often than I do. My hon. and gallant Friend—[Interruptions.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order !
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I claim to move, Sir, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 16: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 460.)
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee on the said Resolution."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I moved the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, Sir. Was not the Question upon which we decided just now "That the Question be now put; "and is not the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend now before the House that this Debate be now adjourned?
  MR. SPEAKER: No Motion for adjournment was put from the Chair. It

  1511
  was not a completed Motion. An hon. Member was in the act of seconding the Motion when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury claimed to move that the Question be now put. That Question, which I now put, is that this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  Question put.
  The House divided; —Ayes 115; Noes 16: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 461.)
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolution [2nd September] again read;
  (1.) "That a sum, not exceeding £38,508, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. SEXTON: This Resolution has been postponed to the present time to allow us to bring forward matters of urgency in regard to administration in Ireland. I object to proceeding at this hour unless the right hon. Gentleman will promise that he will not immediately step in and stop discussion. If he should desire a further postponement I should be well pleased.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We desire that the Resolution should be taken this evening. [cries of "Morning ! "] I do not understand there is any desire for a lengthy discussion. A reasonable discussion we do not object to.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, in the first place, to get some information as to the action intended to be taken in regard to facts that have been elicited arising out of the Portrush disturbances, and I have to complain that the Government have exerted themselves to cast imputations on a body of my constituents, and to screen a body of men who were guilty of an organized and violent attack upon unoffending persons. The facts have come out one by one, not by the help of the Government, but in spite of them, that in former years the excursionists were attacked by an organized body of roughs as in the present year, and, further, that notice was given to the
  1512
  police of the intention to have the excursion, and the police took no adequate measures in consequence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, Sir. I think this discussion is one for the Police Vote, rather than for the Law Charges Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: I think not, because it has become a matter of criminal proceedings before a Crimes Act Court in County Antrim, and I desire to know what further proceedings the Government intend to take. I have said that the disturbances were the result of au organized attack on the excursionists, and my main point is this, to ask the Government whether, after the proceedings in Court, they will hold an inquiry into the manner in which an attempt was made to defeat the law, and into the evidence, in which it is evident there was a considerable amount of perjury? I maintain that the riot which led to this criminal prosecution was the result of an organized attack; that a body of men were sent from Coleraine to Portrush and their fare paid for this purpose, and the police constable, whose evidence established the fact, was insulted by a mob in Coleraine, and was the next day, by order from Dublin Castle, removed to Derry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I must ask whether this is a discussion for the Police Vote —whether it is a subject relevant to this Vote?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with two points, one of which is out of Order; the other is relevant to this Resolution.
  MR. SEXTON: What I desire to press is, that the Government will establish an inquiry, as they have the power to do so under the Crimes Act, into the allegations that these disturbances arose out of an organized attack. I ask for a reply on that point. Next I ask the Government what they are going to do in reference to the conduct of Major Lidwell, a magistrate in the Templemore district of County Tipperary. The only reply I have hitherto been able to get is the not material circumstance that the bridge blown up was not a bridge of stone. I said that Major Lidwell had blown up a bridge, and I say it is a serious thing to allow a magistrate to indulge in violent conduct of this kind, and that a magistrate should

  1513
  be made amenable to the law, and taught that he cannot indulge in such violence with impunity. The information I have is from Mr. Ryan, a solicitor of Thurles, and is to the effect that about 11 o'clock on the morning of Sunday, the 22nd ultimo, Major Lidwell, accompanied by other persons, went to the bridge that connects the farm of one of his tenants with the road, and which bridge Major Lidwell had sought to prevent the tenant, Patrick Stapleton from using, and there and then applied a charge of dynamite and blew up the bridge, hurling the débris into the yard, killing several fowls, and injuring a woman named Kennedy. Patrick Stapleton was not at home, but Mrs. Stapleton and her children were there at the time. Major Lidwell then retreated, and the bridge was repaired as far as possible. But Major Lidwell returned about 9 in the evening, and exploding another charge completed the work of demolition. His language was then most violent, and going to the house where Mrs. Stapleton was with her children threatened to blow them and the house into the elements, demanded the names of the neighbours who had assembled, and left after giving utterance to more threats. Mrs. Stapleton reported what had occurred to the police, and has since been informed that the police were waiting for instructions from the authorities. This is more than a fortnight since, and the matter is still left in doubt. I have put a Question in the House, and can get no answer. Meanwhile, this magistrate who goes about on Sunday exploding dynamite, endangering the lives of women and children, is still sitting on the Bench when he should be dismissed with ignominy from the Commission of the Peace. I ask has any decision been come to; and, I only add, that common regard for the administration of the law and the credit of the Executive should induce the Government, without loss of time, to make this man amenable for his shameful and cowardly outrage.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I would just like to draw attention to the fact that Members from Ireland who sit on this side have asked that there should be an inquiry into the disturbances at Portrush. There is the greatest possible indignation in Antrim at what has happened, and we are most
  1514
  anxious that the fullest possible inquiry should take place.
  MR. SPEAKER: That point is out of Order. We are now engaged with another matter; but I am bound to say I do not see how it is applicable to the Vote. I do not see how the conduct of Major Lidwell is connected with the Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be allowed to say if an inquiry has taken place, and will a prosecution be obviated?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON;: I can only say that in the materials at present before me I find no ground for a prosecution.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Is a magistrate to go about acting the dynamiter on a Sunday morning—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! I have ruled the subject out of Order, as having no relation to the Vote. I permitted the Attorney General for Ireland to answer a question put to him; but I must say I think there is no connection between the remarks of the hon. Member and the particular Vote with which the House is asked to agree.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON. If you will allow me, Sir, [Cries of "Order ! "] I will not attempt to argue the matter, and respectfully submit to the Chair. But may I be permitted to say that the answer given by the Attorney General for Ireland—[Cries of "Order "]—shows me, as a Member of the House, that this is the view he takes of his duty as a conservator of the law, and how he earns his salary, and what is the class of men who are allowed to go without fear of prosecution in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are not pertinent.
  Question put.
  The House divided;—Ayes 114; Noes 15: Majority 99.—(Div. List No. 462.)
  Resolution agreed to.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT (No. 2)
  BILL [Lords.].—[BILL 381.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th September.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Sir EDWARD CLARKE, Chairman.
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Form of register).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 11: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 463.)
  Clause 8 (The registrar, and the office for registration).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress. No explanation has been given of this Bill, and among the Members now present there are few lawyers, and this is a lawyer's Bill. This is one of the many grounds upon which I might support this Motion. Another ground is that we require some explanation of the effect of the Bill upon existing deeds of arrangement, especially as regards Ireland. There are doubts in the minds of some as to how the Bill will affect deeds of arrangement not registered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —(Mr. Clancy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clancy) has quite forgotten the history of this Bill, or he could not possibly have made the observations he did. The Bill is actually the same, word for word, as when it went through the House on a former occasion, and every clause was carefully discussed. The hon. Member for Kilkenny discussed the Bill from an Irish point of view, and proposed several Amendments, which I accepted. The Bill was read a third time with the full assent of the House, including many Irish Members; but owing to a technical slip it became a lapsed Order, and had to be re-introduced, and the stages of the Bill had to be repeated. I am sure the hon. Member cannot be aware of this, and cannot require me to repeat my statements in reference to the Bill,
  1516
  or give Members the trouble of walking through the Lobbies. There are no doubt stages of other Bills to get through, and if he insists I will not proceed with this; but I appeal to the hon. Member, now he knows the state of the facts, to allow the Bill to go through Committee.
  MR. CLANCY: I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny very highly; but it is not because he sets his imprimation on the Bill that we should all do the same.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: You discussed it in Committee.
  MR. CLANCY: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I never said a word upon it. I never saw or heard of the Bill before. Another reason why we should not proceed in spite of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances is that I myself intended to move an Amendment to Clause 5.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 5 has been disposed of.
  MR. CLANCY: I only say I would have moved an Amendment if I had had an opportunity. It is an additional reason why Progress should be reported. Another reason is, that although the explanation given of the character of the Bill looks very plausible, last night an explanation was given of another Bill, which according to a letter in The Times this morning—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his observations to the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. CLANCY: I thought my observations were relevant to that.
  DR. TANNER: I would ask the Attorney General, out of justice to himself, and consideration for the Committee, to defer further discussion of this Bill. On the last occasion when this Deeds of Arrangement Bill was before the House, I asked him to defer it until such time as hon. Members who took an interest in it were present to take part in the discussion. I hope the good sense of the hon. and learned Gentleman will prompt him on this occasion to some deed of arrangement that will conduce to the benefit of himself and the House.
  Question, put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Rectification of register).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I now move the Motion to report Progress, and I think the Attorney General will be disposed to assent to it.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Of course, there is other Business to be got through, and I did say I would not press this against any resistance. But, inasmuch as I presume the other clauses will be taken without opposition, they may be taken to-morrow, and we need not proceed further now.
  MR. SEXTON: I have no objection intrinsically to the Bill, but I should not be surprised, after the extraordinary conduct of the Government to-night in relation to the case of outrage I felt it my duty to put before the House, I should not be surprised if this and other Bills met with opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BANKRUPTCY (DISCHARGE AND CLOSURE) BILL.— [BILL 327.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Baron Henry De Worms.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 14, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Provision as to release of trustee).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 5, after "official receiver," insert" or official assignee; "line 9, after" him," insert "personally;" line 13, after "official receiver," insert "or official assignee;" line 14, after "official receiver," insert "or official assignee; "in line 17, after" him," insert "personally;" line 18, leave out "or," and after "made," insert "or liability incurred."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL.— [BILL 348.]
  (Baron Henry De Worms, Mr. Jackson.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title and construction).
  MR. CLANCY.: May I ask for some explanation of this Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It is purely of a technical nature, and is simply to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on Public Accounts that certain monies now paid to the Exchequer should be paid to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and also to bring within the definition of lighthouse any improved means of lighting, or apparatus for fog signalling.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Fees on examination of engineers to be paid to Mercantile Marine Fund).
  On the Motion of Baron HENRY DE WORMS, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 2, by leaving out "paid," and inserting "payable;" in line 4, by leaving out "paid," and inserting" levied;" and, in line 5, by leaving out "paid," and inserting "levied."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 severally struck out.
  Clauses 5 and 6 severally agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Explanation of meaning of lighthouse).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 12, after "signals," insert "and the expression ' new lighthouse' shall include the addition to any existing lighthouse of any improved light, or any siren, or any description of fog signal."—(Baron Henry De Worms.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to have some explanation of this and what is the object of it. The clause has that objection in the drafting that it does not explain itself except to a person technically acquainted with the subject. The whole thing is set down by a reference to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, and it is impossible to

  1519
  understand it unless one has acquaintance with that Act.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I shall be glad to give an explanation. The hon. and gallant Member is possibly aware that very great improvements have been made in the lighthouses around the coasts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and it has been found necessary to provide for expenditure on additional apparatus; and it has, therefore, been necessary to include various appliances within the definition lighthouse.
  COLONEL NOLAN: And there is no alteration in the dues?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No alteration at all.
  DR. TANNER: It appears to me that a great part of the clause is superfluous. Should I be in Order in moving the omission of the words from 1854 to the end?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; after the present Amendment is disposed of.
  DR. TANNER: I do not want to offer any factious opposition; but I may say I have visited some 20 or 30 lighthouses, and I found all these foghorns and other apparatus in existence; and I really cannot see why so much attention should be paid to these minute additions to the clause.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the words are absolutely necessary; and a considerable number of lighthouses have not the elaborate apparatus he has seen in some.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Repeal).
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I desire now to move to report Progress.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: There is only one more clause.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: We have had scant courtesy shown us to-night. I make my Motion firmly and decidedly, and it will be my duty to carry it through. We should not now proceed with any more Business. I consider we have not been fairly dealt with, and the reason why I say so will be present to the minds of hon. Members opposite. But I need do no more than urge the usual physical reasons for reporting Progress—that we have been
  1520
  14 hours at work, and we have to meet again at noon to-day.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Edward Harrington.)
  MR. SEXTON: I should have thought the Government would have had something to say on this Motion. I shall support my hon. Friend to any extent. We have been the victims of an outrage here to-night. I have been seven years in Parliament and have never before been treated in a similar manner. However, I pass from this for the moment to return to it again and again. I intend to be here to-morrow for the purpose; and there are good physical reasons for the Motion now.
  DR. TANNER: I support the Motion also. Last Friday we had a very late Sitting; and a right hon. Gentleman found fault with me that I was not in my place at noon on Saturday to ask a Question of which I had given Notice. But it is a physical impossibility to do without rest. We see the physical disability under which the Attorney General is suffering at the present moment—the lassitude he displays. I am sure hon. Members should be in accord with us on this occasion.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I hope the Committee will not agree to the Motion. This is a purely technical Bill, it is absolutely necessary, and there remains but one undisputed clause to pass. I must be allowed to say that the opposition to this last Clause of the Bill can only be characterized as obstructive and unfair. I cannot agree to the motion to report Progress, and feel assured that in resisting it I shall have the support of all hon. Members on this side, and in fact of the majority of the Committee. I trust that the Motion will be withdrawn and the Bill allowed to pass without further delay.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think we have behaved very well; and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should get up in a manner I might almost call ferocious. But I suppose that as some animals usually harmless become fierce in defence of their offspring, so I suppose the hon. Gentleman, putting aside his usual genial manner, is annoyed at opposition to a measure to which he is much attached.

  1521
  I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the Attorney General has shown any lassitude; on the contrary, I think he has been very clear and lucid in his explanations. But remember two hours ago the Government considered time of so much importance that they hurried and slurred over important Irish Business, exhausting all the Forms of the House to get rid of it. Curiously enough they now do not want to go. But really I think we might close Business now, and I think the hon. Gentleman might be satisfied; we have cleared away all the Amendments to this Bill.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: In the interests of peace may I be allowed to make a suggestion? Things look awkward at the end of this prolonged Sitting. I believe the reason why Irish Members support this Motion, that they evince this desire to stop Business, is that they are very much dissatisfied with an answer given to the hon. Member for West Belfast by the Attorney General for Ireland. I do not wish to interfere in the matter at all; I only make a suggestion. I really believe if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to get up and say he will make further inquiry into the matter, in which so much interest is displayed, if he were to say that before the end of the Session he will take an opportunity of explaining the matter more fully, I think it might greatly facilitate progress now.
  MR. GIBSON: In answer to the hon. Baronet I may say inquiry is being made into the subject. That inquiry is not complete. A Question has been given Notice of for Thursday, and that, I think, will be the most convenient time to refer to the subject. I said that on the materials before me, it was not in my power to direct a prosecution.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock in the morning.