§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £27,968,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 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, that a short time ago he asked a Question of the Government with reference to their alleged intention to give up the Island of Ascension, and also with reference to the alterations which such abandonment would necessitate at the naval station of Simon's Town. He should like, for a moment, to ask the attention of the Committee to the position of affairs in these two places. With reference to the Island of Ascension, he believed that it was popularly supposed to be rather a barren and useless spot, and that at the most it was only a sort of port of call for ships occasionally when they were in distress. So far, however, from that being the correct view, the Island of Ascension was a fertile and healthy spot, and most agreeable as a sanitarium. So far from its being an arid waste, it was 975 to-day not only very fertile, but of late years had had a rainfall of as much as from 40 to 53 inches, and sheep and cattle bred well in the Island. He merely mentioned these facts to draw attention to the importance of the place as a sanitarium. It had, he believed, long been used as such for the benefit of our officials in that part of the world.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)I rise to Order. I wish to point out that there is nothing relating to Ascension contained in this Vote. The Vote for the Island of Ascension is taken in the Navy Estimates, and I wish to know, therefore, whether the hon. Member's observations are in Order?
THE CHAIRMANAny observations in connection with the retention of the Island of Ascension would be in Order, because that question would refer to Colonial policy; but if the question is merely as to the retention of the Admiralty establishment there, that would not be in Order.
§ MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that he wished to deal with the question of the Island of Ascension and the question of Simon's Town as matters of Imperial Policy. He had commenced his observations by saying that he had called the attention of the Government to these matters the other day.
THE CHAIRMANAs I understand it, there is no intention whatever of altering the possession of the Island of Ascension, and the subject is not, therefore, one of Colonial policy. The question of the Admiralty establishment being kept up there is not relative to Colonial policy.
§ MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he understood that, and did not think he should be out of Order in what he was about to say. He did not desire to detain the Committee by entering into the advantages of retaining the Island. He was aware that it was used primarily, or had been used primarily, as a naval station, and any remarks which he might be disposed to make with regard to the Island in its character as a naval station, he would reserve until they came to the Naval Estimates if there were any Votes left in those Estimates upon which he could bring this matter forward. But he apprehended that, so far as the question of retaining the Island as a sanitarium 976 was concerned, that was a question which he was perfectly entitled to raise now, because it did not affect simply the question of our Navy, but, as was well known, the Island had been used as a sanitarium for our Colonial officers and Governors on the West Coast of Africa. It was because he thought it of some importance, from that point of view, that he desired to address some observations to the Committee. Everybody knew that the West Coast of Africa was extremely unhealthy, and the importance of having such a sanitarium as this Island had been admitted, he thought, by most persons. Assuming that there was any value attaching to the Island as a sanitarium for recruiting the health of officers of different kinds in the Colonial Service on the West Coast of Africa, the question as to whether the cost involved in maintaining the Island was equal to the benefits we derived from it was the point he wished to consider. The inquiry he had addressed to the Government the other day had reference to both points—that was to say, as to the desirability of retaining the Island as a naval station, and as to the desirability of its being retained as a sanitarium. On both points he was answered that it was intended to give up the Island, and he thought he was entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had fully decided, as he understood they had, to give up the Island as a sanitarium, and whether there was any possibility of getting them to reconsider that decision? The point of Imperial policy which be had raised, and to which he had referred, was one which he could not altogether keep out of view at that moment. It appeared to him that if Her Majesty's Government intended to give up the Island both as a sanitarium and as a navalstation, the Island practically would become useless to us. He did not know what proposal Her Majesty's Government intended to make for the purpose of maintaining our rights over the Island. He had asked them, on a former occasion, what means should be taken for the purpose of preventing its being seized by some Foreign Power, and he had not yet received any satisfactory answer to that question. If the Island was not to be used either as a sanitarium or as a naval station, it appeared to him that it would be perfectly idle and use- 977 less to keep any guard there, and if no guard was kept, he did not know what was to prevent any Foreign Power from seizing the Island if it felt so disposed. However that might be, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to give them some explanation of the matter, only expressing as his opinion what he did not give as his opinion merely, but as based on the authority and assurances of persons who were more familiar with that part of the world than he was himself, that it would be a great loss to this country if the Island were given up, as it was proposed to do, and if we no longer had the advantage of using it for the purpose of recruiting the health of our Colonial officers on the West Coast of Africa. Now he would pass on for one moment to the question of Simon's Town. He did not wish to say a word about Simon's Town from the point of view of its being merely a naval station, but at the same time he quite felt that the remarks which he desired to address to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Simon's Town might possibly be ruled out of Order, on the same ground that the noble Lord opposite had endeavoured to have ruled out of Order his observations with regard to the Island of Ascension. He did not wish to speak of Simon's Town simply as a naval station, but the point he wanted to raise was this—and he should be glad to ask the Chairman whether he should be out of Order in raising it—as to the present position of the fortifications of that port, and as to the future policy of the Government in respect to it.
THE CHAIRMANThat would certainly not come under this Vote. It is not a question connected with the Colonial Office at all.
§ MR. CONYBEAREVery well, then, he would not trespass upon the atention of the Committee with regard to that subject. He would, he hoped, have some other opportunity of raising the question of the condition of the fortifications of Simon's Town, and he would merely leave the matter, so far as the Island of Ascension was concerned, where he had placed it, before Her Majesty's Government, asking them to give him some answer to the question he had addressed to them. With reference to the details of the Vote for the Colonial Office, he should like to draw attention 978 to one item, not for the purpose of opposing it; but he observed that, amongst other items, there was an extra allowance for attendance on Sundays to Queen's, Home Office, and First Class Messengers, who got 5s. a-week for that extra service. Lower down in the Estimate he saw that door-keepers also had a similar extra allowance for attendance on Sundays. It appeared to him to be a sound principle that officials in different branches of the Service should be treated equally and fairly and on the same principle, and the reason he drew attention to these extra allowances for Sunday work was because on several occasions he had had to direct the notice of the Government to the want of a similar arrangement so far as firemen engaged in the Devonport Dockyard were concerned. He was aware that he was sailing very close to the wind in mentioning the firemen in the Devonport Dockyard, but he simply mentioned them in order to draw attention to the difference of treatment between them and the messengers and door-keespers who were paid under the Colonial Vote.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member had made his observations as to the Island of Ascension under a complete misapprehension as to the use to which the Island had been put for years past. The Island had been used as a naval station, and it had been decided, after full consideration, by a Royal Commission who had gone very carefully into the question of the defence of our Colonies and coaling stations, that it was not advisable any longer to maintain this naval establishment at Ascension. The matter was subsequently referred to the Admiralty, and the Colonial Defence Committee, composed of representatives of the Colonial Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office, and they confirmed the opinion of the Commissioners, and consequently the present Board of Admiralty thought it advisable, in the interests of economy, that this naval station should be transferred elsewhere. Therefore, for naval purposes, the establishment hitherto maintained at Ascension would be transferred to other stations on the African Coast. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the Island had been used as a sanitarium for civil officers employed on the African Coast. That 979 was entirely a mistake. [Mr. CONYBEARE: I did not say so.] The hon. Member assumed that it was used by Colonial and other officers, and he also assumed that it was a very fertile Island. Well, the fertility could not be very great, for, as a matter of fact, the Island was an extinct volcano, and all the cultivated soil it possessed, some five acres in extent, had been carried up on men's backs. The hon. Member had said that any Foreign Power could seize the Island if England abandoned it. Well, every Foreign Power would know that if it attempted to seize any Island belonging to the English people, it would come in contact with the most powerful Naval Power in the world. The Island of Ascension, whether a naval station were maintained there or not, would enjoy the same immunity from attack as all other Britishs Possessions in every part of the world.
§ MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it might be that he had gone too far in talking about Colonial and other officials having systematically used the Island of Ascension, or as being supposed to have systematically used the Island as a sanitarium; but he certainly had been given to understand that others besides men belonging to the Navy had been sent to Ascension for the purpose of recruiting their health. However, he accepted the statement of the noble Lord. He was at variance with the noble Lord as to the fertility of the place. He understood that the Island was small, and probably the five acres to which the noble Lord alluded constituted a considerable portion of it. But whether that was so or not, the reasons he had given for retaining the Island as a sanitarium, if not as a naval station, appeared to him to be sufficient; but, of course, when one was prevented from discussing the matter in all its aspects as a naval station as well as a sanitarium, it was impossible to lay all the facts before the Committee. However, he did not wish to labour that point. It occurred to him that he would not be out of Order, in speaking of Simon's Town, to ask Her Majesty's Government with reference to the proposed railway, with regard to which some correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cape Colony had been laid before the House. It appeared from that correspondence that the Government had now 980 finally decided not to lend their assistance in any way to promote the extension of the railway from Hawk's Bay to Simon's Town. He did not know whether he correctly stated the intention of the Government in that respect; but he should like to mention that it would be a very great saving to this country, to the administration of the Naval Department at any rate, if we had that extension of railway carried out, because he was assured, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not deny it, that during the last few years, while the construction of forts at Simon's Town had been proceeding, the cost of transport alone had amounted to £10,000 per annum, which was double what would have been necessary to spend if they had had the railway. There were other reasons, he thought, why it was desirable that the railway should be completed. After the removal of the naval station from Ascension, Simon's Town would become a larger and more important depôt than it was at present. That, it appeared to him, was a very strong reason in favour of the Government in some way contributing or assisting in the completion of this short railway, for he believed it was only five or six miles in length, and was easy and inexpensive to construct.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)said, he should like it if the Government would give him some information with regard to the Island of Cyprus upon a matter which he had brought before the House some time ago, but upon which he was unfortunately stopped by a "Count." He should like to know what they were doing with reference to the compulsory cultivation of land in the Island, which, by two Ordinances, they had sought to enforce, partly by a penalty tax and partly by confiscation of lands? It would, he was sure, be interesting to the Committee if the Government would say how the farther policy had succeeded; how much land they had confiscated; and what they had done with the land they had so confiscated. He did not wish to press the Government unfairly upon the matter. He had given them no Notice of his intention to raise the point; but as they had had their attention drawn to it quite recently, he thought that some Member of the Government would probably be able to give him an answer.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)said, it would perhaps be more convenient to defer the discussion upon the question of Cyprus until a later period. There was a Vote for Cyprus.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, it was true he had not given Notice of the Question, but the Government had had an opportunity of investigating the matter since he had last raised the question. He was willing, however, not to carry it any further, and he would content himself with giving Notice that when they came to the Vote on Cyprus he should ask for the information he had indicated.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, that technically the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Baron Henry de Worms) was no doubt a sound one—namely, that there was a separate Vote for Cyprus on which the question could be raised; but the hon. Gentleman had not reminded the Committee that the Vote for Cyprus, which was £18,000 last year, was £30,000 this year, and that almost the entire Vote had already been taken on account. The Government had already obtained £29,000 on account out of the Vote of £30,000. It was on that ground that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) objected, when the Vote on Account was before the Committee, to the very unreasonable proceedings of the Government in obtaining such a large proportion of the Vote by such means.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORYes; I am not going to discuss the Vote on Account.
THE CHAIRMANIt is quite irregular to enter into the question of the deficiency of the Vote for Cyprus on this Vote.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORQuite so; but I was simply dealing with the subject to which the Under Secretary had referred. If I am out of Order, he was clearly out of Order too.
THE CHAIRMANThe Under Secretary was simply referring to a Vote to come on later, and showing the inadvisability of going into the question now.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not pursue the point further. 982 With regard to the Office itself it appeared to him that the Colonial Office as an establishment was in a very curious condition. There were under the Secretary of State an Under Secretary, three assistant Under Secretaries, and then there were four principal clerks receiving £1,000 each. All these gentlemen were at the maximum of their salary. There were below them seven first-class clerks, with salaries rising from £700 to £800. All the seven were at the maximum of their salaries. In other words there was absolutely no promotion; there was no prospect for any portion of the staff in the Office. The non-effective Vote in connection with the Colonial Office was £10,000. Over and above the regular classified staff there were a Superintendent of the Correspondence and Legal Instruments Branch, who was almost at his maximum too; a Superintendent of Registry, a Superintendent of Printing Branch, a Superintendent of the Library, and a Superintendent of the Copying Branch. All these gentlemen occupied positions which were altogether exceptional. Hon. Members would not find any set of appointments like this in any other office. There was a Note appended to the Estimate by which it appeared that "no vacancy in the superintendentships was to be filled up without previous reference to the Treasury"—that was to say, that besides a staff which was so old and of such long service that all of them were at the maximum of their salaries, there were maintained at the Colonial Office a number of superintendents of different branches, not one of whom would appear to be necessary, because the special sanction of the Treasury was to be obtained for the filling up of a vacancy. The history of any of these appointments in the Colonial Office was rather a strange one, and in certain cases it was rather a shabby one. The superintendent of the library had £400. That post represented one which was held by a Mr. Wood, who was removed from the Treasury on the distinct promise that he would be allowed to succeed from the post of sub-librarian to that of librarian. Mr. Wood gave up his prospects at the Treasury under the assurance he obtained on his transfer. When he was in the Colonial Office the Treasury abolished the post of librarian and pensioned him, but not on the sum he was assured he would obtain, 983 but the very much lower pay of the sub-librarian.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I fail to understand how the case of Mr. Wood can be brought under this Vote. I remember it was settled at the Colonial Office before my time there many years ago.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was, no doubt, settled years ago; but these superintendents were, he presumed, contemporaries of Mr. Wood. He knew perfectly well that the Under Secretary for the Colonies might tell him that all these positions were under the consideration of a Committee. With that answer the hon. Gentleman might possibly meet any inquiries addressed to him; but, as a matter of fact, in spite of the existence of the Committee, the Government was setting its house in order in a great number of different directions, especially in the Department from which the hon. Gentleman had lately been removed—namely, the Board of Trade. So it might be in the Colonial Office; and, if it was not, he should like to ask why it was not—why such a staff, at such rates of pay, was maintained in its present position? Was it a fact that there were officers at the Colonial Office who were not really necessary, and that some of them, at least, were kept at a very high rate of pay when they were beyond effective work?
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had really answered the question he himself had put. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware that the whole question was now being considered by a Committee, and that when the Report was received, very important changes and reforms would, no doubt, take place. As had been pointed out, these were no new appointments. If the hon. Gentleman would look at page 111, he would find that, with regard to the Superintendent of the Correspondence and Legal Instrument Branch and the Superintendent of the Printing Branch, the rates of salary were personal to the present holders. Those places might possibly not be continued when the present occupants ceased to hold office.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, there was one topic on which the Government ought to give the Committee some information—it was one which was exciting very intense feeling in 984 Australia, and which was likely to cause considerable friction between the colonists and the Colonial Office—namely, the emigration of Chinese to Australia. Of course, he spoke subject to correction, because no Papers had been laid before the House on the subject, and hon. Members had no information except what was to be derived from the newspapers; but he understood the policy of the Colonial Office was, in the supposed interest of the Empire, to oppose the policy which found favour with some of the Australian colonists, who desired to exclude the Chinese from the Australian Colonies. That was a question of great importance, both to the Colonies and to the Empire, and it was most desirable that no uncertain sound should be given on the subject. He trusted the Under Secretary of State was in a position to inform the Committee what was the present stage of the negotiations between the Australian Governments and the Colonial Office, and what was the policy the Government intended to pursue.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that he must demur to the views that had been expressed that Her Majesty's Government were in any way opposed to the line of policy adopted by the Australian Colonies. He was not yet in a position to lay Papers on the Table of the House dealing with the subject. He explained, in an answer he gave the other day, that one or two telegrams had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian Governments, and that it would not be advisable, before the Papers were completed, to lay them on the Table. On the 12th of the present month, a Conference would meet in Sydney for the purpose of considering this very important question; and until the result of that Conference was known, it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to make a statement to the House. But Her Majesty's Government were deeply sensible of the very strong feeling which existed in Australia that they should not be called upon to receive an unlimited number of Chinese. The Government were most anxious to see that the best measures possible were taken. He might remind the Committee that a very similar question was being dealt with in this country, and a Select Committee was at present sitting to 985 consider the best means of meeting the enormous influx of foreign labour which found its way to these shores. There was one point which was of very great importance, and which ought to be cleared up. There seemed to be an impression that China could claim, on general grounds, the right of pouring her subjects into our Colonies. That was not the case; and he asked the attention of the Committee to what was really the fact. Although the Emperor of China had engaged by Treaty not to prevent his subjects from leaving China and emigrating to British Colonies, there was no engagement on the part of Her Majesty's Government that Chinese emigrants should be permitted to enter any British Colonies at their pleasure; so that the engagement was not reciprocal. On the other hand, it was desirable, if possible, to make such arrangements with China as would obviate any check in the extensive commercial relations between her and our Australian Colonies. It might, perhaps, be of interest that the Committee should know what the words of the Treaty really were. Article 9 of the Treaty between Great Britain and China, signed at Tien-Tsin, June 26, 1858, said—
British subjects are hereby authorized to travel, for their pleasure or for the purposes of trade, to all parts of the interior under passports, which will be issued by their Consols and countersigned by the local authoritiesThis was amended by Rule 8 of the agreement. Rule 8, referring to foreign trade under passports, was as follows:—It is agreed that Article 9 of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin shall not be interpreted as authorizing British subjects to enter the capital city of Pekin for purposes of trade.He quoted this in order to show that there was no reciprocal engagement between China and Great Britain. Article 13 of the Treaty said—The Chinese Government will place no restrictions whatever upon the employment by British subjects of Chinese subjects in any lawful capacity.There was nothing in the Treaty that could be construed into an obligation on the part of the British Government to admit an unlimited number of Chinese into British Colonies. There also seemed to be an entire misapprehension as to what was said by the noble Lord the 986 Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford) with regard to this question. The noble Lord was quoted as having said—That if the Australian Governments will join together and make common cause, then, and then only, will he communicate the character of the negotiations between China and the Home Government on the Australian difficulty.No negotiations had been commenced as a matter of fact, and what Lord Knutsford really said was embodied in the following telegram, which was sent to Sir William Robinson, at South Australia, on the 22nd of May:—Referring to your telegram of the 10th of May, there can be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would obtain assistance from Australasian Colonies, making joint representation in dealing with Chinese immigration. If Conference meets, Her Majesty's Government will be happy to telegraph for consideration points for discussion which appear important.As he had said, the Conference would sit on the 12th instant. The decision would be communicated to the Home Government, and then he might be in a position to communicate the result to the House. There was no pretence for saying that Her Majesty's Government had in any way ignored the wishes and representations of the Australian Governments, and in corroboration of this he would read another despatch, which was sent to Lord Carrington on the 11th of May, by Lord Knutsford—No foundation for report that Her Majesty's Government refuse to negotiate with the Chinese Government. Before arriving at conclusion against negotiations, Australian Colonies would have been consulted further. Her Majesty's Government fully recognize strength of feeling.Now, it appeared to him that from the information he had given, the Committee would be satisfied that, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they were not in the slightest degree in antagonism to the Australian Governments. The question was of very great importance, and one not to be decided hastily. It would be obviously improper if any decision were suddenly arrived at by the Australian Governments which should prevent many thousands of persons from landing on their shores, under the idea that their so doing would be prejudicial to their commercial interests. On the other hand, it was equally clear that, in view 987 of the treaty which he had quoted, it might be reasonably argued that there was no ground for saying that the landing of Chinese there could be demanded as a right. The Conference would, naturally, take all the facts into consideration, and he had little doubt that some arrangement might be arrived at, perhaps in some degree similar to that which had already been arrived at with the United States, and which might be entirely satisfactory to Australia, without in any way wounding the susceptibilities of the Chinese.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, there was one phrase he would like the hon. Gentleman to modify. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Select Committee which was sitting in reference to the "enormous" influx of foreign labour into this country. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would not be in Order in referring to the proceedings of the Committee; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would erase the word "enormous" from his remarks. There were certainly no statistics before the House which would justify the use of the word at present, and he was not at all sure there ever would be. There might be immigration oppressive to a particular trade; but the evidence in a general sense was the other way.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he accepted the correction, and would substitute the word "considerable" for enormous.
§ MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury)said, he did not desire to obstruct the passing of the Vote, but he would like a little more information. He was anxious to be informed whether there was anything in the Treaty between England and China which would prevent as favourable terms being granted to Australia as were granted by China to America.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, there had been no refusal to negotiate with China a similar treaty to that made between China and the United States, as far as the conditions of that Treaty might be applicable to Australia.
§ MR. HUNTERsaid, he had to put a single question to make clear what was a very important point with regard to the Treaty rights of the Chinese. Was he right in the view that according to Treaty, the Emperor of China bound himself not to prevent any of his sub- 988 jects leaving China, and leaving China to reside permanently in British Colonies; and, in the second place, whether by Treaty, or by International Law, Chinese who left China with that intention, had the right to take up residence in the Australian Colonies?
§ MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid, there was another thing in regard to which more information was desired. The House was informed last night that these negotiations were not carried on with the Agent's General of the Colonies, but directly with the Governments of the Australian Colonies themselves. It would strike one that those Agent's General could give most important information, and hon. Members would like to know whether the Governments of the Australian Colonies were compelled to send over the Bills which were passed by the Parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria to the Queen for her Assent? He believed that all previous Acts of Parliament relating to China were sent over to England, and that several were refused.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, it would be impossible for him to give information as to the exact bearing of the Treaty. Of course, the Treaty would be considered by competent authorities, and before any decision was arrived at, the facts might be laid before the House.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)said, he desired to refer to the personal changes which had taken place in the Colonial Office. The head of the Department was no longer a Member of the House of Commons. He did not imply any censure upon Lord Knutsford, because he was sure he only did what all hon. Members were prepared to do, when he acknowledged the courtesy and ability which Lord Knutsford invariably brought to bear upon the duties of his Office. Neither did he complain of the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms) who now represented the Colonial Office in the House of Commons. His complaint was of a more general character. He thought there were too many Members of the House of Lords in the present Ministry, as in all Ministries. Probably the country did not know or realize how largely the House of Lords absorbed the high places of every Administration. He found that in the present Government, to deal with that alone, out of the 17 989 principal Ministers, including the Secretary for Scotland, 11 were Members of the House of Lords. He held that that was a totally unfair proportion. He once made a calculation of probabilities. The question was—Supposing the average number of a British Cabinet to be 15, how often, on the average, might a Duke be expected to be a Member of the British Government, and be found—
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks have any bearing on the vote?
THE CHAIRMANI understand the hon. and learned Member is commenting on the fact that the Colonial Secretary is a Peer, but he is taking a very wide scope.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that what he was about to say was that while on the average a Duke might be expected to be a Cabinet Minister once in 32,000 years, there never was a Cabinet without a Duke in it. He should say that, on the average, if there was one Peer in a Ministry that would be a fair proportion, supposing Peers to be no wiser and no better and no luckier than any other people. He had another objection. He held that the heads of all Departments ought to be Members of the House of Commons, and there was a perfectly good and sound Constitutional reason for that proposition. The House of Lords had no control whatever over the Administration of the country—
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that he would content himself by saying that, in his opinion, the House of Lords having no control over the Administration, and the House of Commons having sole control over the Administration, the heads of Departments who were responsible to the House of Commons ought to be Members of the House of Commons. That was a general principle he laid down. He took objection to this Vote for the Secretary for the Colonies, not on any personal grounds, but on that general ground; and, in order to test the opinion of the Committee, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000, the salary of the Colonial Secretary.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,968, 990 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)said, he had had the honour of being a Member of the House during the three Administrations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and during the whole of those Administrations the Secretary for the Colonies was a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained was, therefore, sanctioned by his own Leader.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 103: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 120.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, he would like the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give him some explanation as to what the Queen's Home Service Messengers were. In the last Vote passed, provision was made for Foreign Service Messengers. There were five of these Queen's Home Service or First Class Messengers, and they received from £150 a-year each. In addition, there were second and third class and extra Messengers. He really could not understand what all these Queen's Home Messengers did, and why they had different salaries to the Messengers of the Foreign Office? What did they do? Did they take messages to Her Majesty in any particular way? If that were the case, surely there were too many of them. He found eight in the Foreign Office, and five in this Office, and he had no doubt if he went into the other Offices he would find several more. He imagined they took boxes of despatches to Her Majesty, or to Members of the Cabinet. If so, the salaries were excessive. It was Lord Palmerston who first appointed Foreign Office Queen's Messengers. The noble Lord used to appoint butlers and such like people. It was then felt he had got relations, or his friends had got relations, members of the aristocracy, and he thought it desirable, as the salaries were good, that these places should be given to them. Lord Palmerston then sent a circular abroad to say that henceforth Queen's Messengers were not to be treated as butlers, but as gentlemen. Under these circumstances, the Committee might 991 fairly ask what these gentlemen were? what their precise salaries were? why their salaries should be larger than the salaries of other persons in a similar position.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that these Messengers were Messengers of the Secretary of State. He was not able to say why there was a different scale of pay for the Foreign Office and Colonial Office Messengers. All he could say was, that the duties were the ordinary duties of Messengers. Their duties were confidential, as they carried despatch boxes.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that under the circumstances, he must move the reduction of the Vote by £250. The hon. Gentleman said that these Gentlemen were paid more than other people, because their duties were confidential. What were these confidential duties? Taking a few boxes with despatches to Ministers. Who did the despatches come from? Why was not the Minister in his proper place in the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office? Why could he not carry his boxes himself? This was one of the instances of abuse which had crept into the Civil Service, and which was porpetuated year by year. It was high time the House of Commons registered its protest against the continuance of the abuse, and therefore he moved the reduction of the Vote by £250.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,718, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 114: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 121.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid, he wished for some information with regard to Item B for telegrams, £3,500. He pointed out that even the large sum here asked for was generally exceeded, and a further sum asked for under a Supplementary Estimate. He thought hon. Members would agree that the time was come when the payment of these large sums for telegrams should cease. The Government paid as much as £50,000 a-year for telegrams, and he asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade for some explanation of the item to which he referred.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that no doubt the sum in question was large; but hon. Members would bear in mind that last year there was much communication with Australia, and that the cost of this by telegram was as high as 10s. a word. The only explanation he could give was, that the amount of communication by telegraph being large, there must be a corresponding amount of charge.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that recently strong claims for representative government had been put forward by many of the Colonies, especially by the Colony of British Guiana. Very urgent representations had been made from that place to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the absolute disfranchisement of the great mass of the population. The Colony was ruled by a Court of Policy, consisting of five nominated and five elected members, the latter being chosen by a College of Electors, composed of five members. The people who chose the members for the College of Electors were only equal to about 1 in 250 of the population. There was, therefore, really no representative Government whatever, and practically a few members who were large plantation owners ruled the Colony. Taxation was carried out by a Combined Court, the Members of which were only nominally elected. Under those circumstances, representations had been made to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the claim of the Colony to something like representative Government. The population of the Colony was very rapidly increasing, and in the near future its position, in respect of its neighbour Venezuela, would be an important question. Without representative institutions of some kind, it was impossible to ascertain what were the views and wishes of the people. The question was also of importance with regard to other Colonies which were clamouring for representative government.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, the hon. Member's description of the Government of British Guiana was not quite correct. The present constitution of British Guiana was practically that established by the Dutch previous to the cession of the country to Great Britain in 1803. It consisted of the Governor the Court of Policy, and 993 Combined Court; there was no Executive Council; the executive functions were exercised by the Governor and the Court of Policy, and the line between what was executive and what was legislative was not sharply drawn. The Court of Policy consisted of five official and five elective members, the latter being indirectly elected. There was a College of Keisers or Electors, consisting, not of five, but of seven persons elected for life by such of the inhabitants as possessed the required property qualification for the franchise; and when a vacancy in the Court of Policy occurred, the Keisers nominated two persons, one of whom was selected by the Court of Policy to fill the vacancy. All legislative matters were dealt with by the Court of Policy, except subjects relating to finance; these were considered by the Combined Court, which consisted of the members of the Court of Policy, together with six financial representatives chosen directly by the same electorate that chose the College of Keisers, but who only hold Office for two years. No change of any kind had been made in the political system since 1849, A Memorial had been addressed to the Government by certain inhabitants, and the general desire of the Memorialists was to obtain such a modification of the qualification for membership of the Court of Policy as would enable those who were not landed proprietors—that was, professional and commercial men—to obtain seats in it. He would say that the subject was engaging the very serious attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford); but, to prevent any possible misunderstanding, he would point out that although there was every disposition to consider the expediency of reforming the representation so as to give more representation to every class than was the case now, Her Majesty's Government had no intention of adopting any such changes as would transfer from the Crown the full control of such questions relating to boundaries, or otherwise, as wore being agitated for at the present time.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he never expected that the Crown should abrogate any rights in respect of such questions as that of territorial boundaries. What he urged was that the electorate which now existed, and which 994 was merely nominal, should be made really representative of the people, and that, instead of a single elector in 250 of the population, there should be 1 in 50 or 60, so that the desires of the people should be made known. He pointed out that the reform which the hon. Gentleman referred to—namely, the reduction of the qualification for membership of the College of Electors—was a most worthless reform, inasmuch as it would leave the whole Government in the hands of a small clique of planters, who arranged all matters to suit their own interests, utterly regardless of the wishes of the people. The desire was the extension of the suffrage to the whole body of the population.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he had stated that there was every desire to consider the expediency of extending the suffrage, so that all classes should be represented, but that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to allow them to have any voice in the question of boundaries.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.) Kirkcaldysaid, it was perfectly clear that the present Government of British Guiana was an oligarchy of the narrowest kind, and he trusted that any reform that might take place would not be merely an enlargement of that oligarchy, but that it would be on the basis of popular representation. In Colonies where the Government had conceded popular representation the result had never been anything more than what he called oligarchy on a wider basis—that was to say, the main body of the population of the country was excluded. To give British Guiana a Constitution like that at the Mauritius would do more harm than good. He would also invite the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give the Committee some information with regard to the burning question of the Chinese in Australia. He knew that this was a delicate subject; but Sir Henry Parkes, and other Australian Ministers, had not treated it in that sense, but had, in fact, attempted to "bounce" us in the matter. He did not wish, at that hour, to prejudge the question; but he said that if the Chinese immigration was prohibited we might under existing Treaties with China get into very great difficulties. What would be the position taken up by this country 995 and the House if the Chinese Government acted in the same way with regard to Europeans entering China, or if they were to put upon them a heavy prohibitive tax? He thought they ought to treat the Chinese in the same way as we insisted on their treating us. He asked the Government to inform the Committee if they were prepared to enforce the law in Australia as well as in Ireland, and see that our Treaties were duly observed? He was far from depreciating the sentimental connection between this country and the Colonies; but it could not be long maintained, unless the latter were prepared, to some extent, to subordinate their wishes to Imperial requirements and interests. He hoped the Government would tell them as much as they could on the present position of that important matter without injury to the public interests.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not think him discourteous if he refrained from repeating the speech which he had delivered half-an-hour ago, and in which, as far as he was able, he had explained the exact position of the question with regard to Chinese immigration into Australia.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the Papers relating to Cyprus for which he moved some time ago would be presented before the Cyprus Vote was taken? If so, he would not now enter upon the Turkish tribute and other matters, which he would raise on a future occasion.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, the Papers would be in the hands of Members before the Vote came forward.
§ SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)asked what was the state of the negotiations with regard to the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela?
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that was a question within the province of the Foreign Office.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £37,356, 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 1889, for the salaries and
996
Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council and Subordinate Departments.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said, he only intended to call attention to one of the many questions which might be raised on this Vote. He would like to have an explanation of the item of £5,000 for agricultural purposes. The items were so set forth in the Vote that it was impossible to understand what assistance was to be given to agriculture under the various heads. He wished to urge upon the Government the great value there would be in having, during hay-making and harvest time, the weather calculations posted up at the post offices, as was, he believed, done in the United States of America.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, that when the Estimate was prepared, the Committee was just finishing its work. It had not been decided in what form the £5,000 should be applied; but the Government had put the sum of —5,000 into the Estimate, in order to show that it had an earnest intention to do something in the matter. The Committee had made several recommendations; these were considered by the Privy Council Office, and the Privy Council Office communicated with the Government. The matter was now under consideration, and when a decision was arrived at they would be able to appropriate the money in the best way for agriculture generally. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and which was made also last year, he had made inquiry of the Post Office Authorities, who, although they recognized the importance of the question, pointed out that there were many practical difficulties in the way, and he was sorry to be unable to say at present that the proposal could be adopted.
§ MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)said, he hoped the Government would state what amount of the grant would be given to the different parts of the United Kingdom, and in what way the recommendations of the Committee would be carried out. All that they received in Scotland was £150 a-year in aid of an Agricultural Chair in the University of Edinburgh, and he considered that grant for the purpose of technical education very small. In 997 Scotland they wanted better teachers. The ordinary school teachers who came up with certificates from several Universities were utterly unacquainted with practical agriculture. There were many reasons why they were anxious to hear from the Government in what way this money would be distributed. He was anxious that Scotland should get a larger share than she did at present; and he would urge upon the Government especially that Scotland should be allowed to use her share of the grant as she thought best, and without being hampered with restrictions from a central office in London.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)said, the Committee would observe that the Departmental Committee had recommended a great many things. They recommended that grants should be given to elementary schools; that new State-schools should be set up for the purpose of agricultural education; and that grants should be given to secondary and endowed schools. Three distinct courses were suggested. The Government now asked for £5,000 for the purpose of giving effect to such of the recommendations as might be adopted by them, and surely the Committee might ask which of the recommendations they intended to adopt. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) could not give that information—he could only say that communications were going on between the various Departments. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Mark Stewart) in asking how much Scotland was to receive, and for the same reason he would ask how much of the grant would go to England? They were all agreed that it was a good thing to support agricultural education; but there was some difference of opinion as to how it should be supported. He thought that, at all events, they should have some information from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how the Government proposed to allocate the grant.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)There is some force, no doubt, in the observations of my hon. Friend that the Committee are entitled to know how this £5,000 is to be distributed. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has stated 998 the circumstances under which this item was inserted in the Estimate. At the time no final scheme had been made, but the Government were anxious to redeem the pledge of assisting agriculture in this matter. We regret that this extremely difficult subject is not in a more advanced condition, and that we are unable to state the manner in which this sum will be expended; but I am sure the Committee will feel that nothing can be worse than to act in a hurried manner, and without taking into consideration all the difficulties of the case. Of course, the Committee can insist upon the postponement of the Vote if they think it desirable to do so. The Government have given their most anxious consideration to the mode in which the money should be spent. The Privy Council have reason to believe that much might be done by the expenditure of £5,000 in the first year, which would cover the cost of grants-in-aid to selected schools in various parts of the country, and the inspection which would be necessary in order to insure proper distribution of the money; and the communication states that if the Commissioners of the Treasury would agree to this arrangement their Lordships would at once frame regulations. The Treasury has not yet agreed, and it is for that reason that we cannot yet state the way in which the money will be allocated. We do not feel in a position to carry cut the recommendations of the Committee that there should be established seven dairy schools in different parts of the country, five for England and two for Scotland, as it is felt that the districts would be too large for the development of that local effort and interest which would be necessary for the full development of the schools. It is, therefore, thought wiser that grants-in-aid should be made to the existing schools which would undertake to give agricultural education. If the Committee will leave it to us to propose a scheme, to be hereafter communicated to Parliament, we will then proceed to elaborate conditions on which the grants will be made; but I think we may undertake, although I have not communicated with the Privy Council on the subject, that no part of the money will be spent until we are able to lay before Parliament the perfect scheme under which the expenditure would take place, and in the prepara- 999 tion of which I can assure the Committee that no time shall be lost.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought, under the circumstances, the course pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the best to adopt. He would have been much better pleased if a scheme had been submitted by the Government; but as the item was an earnest of their intention to do something to assist agriculture he should vote for it.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he had spoken of agricultural schools, had said nothing about agricultural colleges. He would like to hear that no portion of the money would be used to subsidize Cirencester, or any other agricultural college.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)said, he thought, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Vote ought to be postponed until the Government had decided how the money ought to be spent. The Committee must not forget that they were the custodians of the public purse, and that it was no part of their duty to entrust the Government with money before they knew what was to be done with it. To test the question he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £32,356, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
§ MR. HUNTERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an answer to his Question.
§ MR. GOSCHENIt is not proposed that any portion of this £5,000 should be given to any college.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 130: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 122.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ It being after Midnight, the Chairman rose to interrupt the Business,
§ Whereupon Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
1000§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne), as a point of Order, asked, was it competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that Motion, seeing that it was past midnight?
THE CHAIRMANThe Motion may be made "on the interruption of Business," and Business would be interrupted at the close of the Division.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 40: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 123.)
§ Original Question put accordingly.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 32: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 124.)
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)gave Notice that on Report of Supply [1st June] on Civil Service Estimates, Class II., Vote 7, Privy Council Office, to move to reduce the Vote by £12,635.