| CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. | |
| Great Britain:— | £ |
| Admiralty, Extension of Buildings | |
| Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales) | |
| Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland) |
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, that the policy of passing Votes on Account was a very doubtful and dangerous one, and that the present Vote, although it did not affect the Army and Navy, practically covered the whole of the Civil Service Estimates, of which only Class I. and Class II. had already been obtained. On Friday last the Government put down upon the Paper a Notice of effective Supply, as if they had intended to take Supply that evening; but, nevertheless, they permitted the House to be counted out before a quarter to 8 o'clock. They, therefore, lost that opportunity, as they had done also on several previous occasions. He was of opinion that they had failed to make such a use of the time of the House for pushing forward the Estimates as they might have done without difficulty, and under those circumstances it was a somewhat strong measure for them to come down to the House in the middle of May, and ask for a second Vote of Credit for those very Estimates which, if they had desired, they might have placed in a much more advanced position than they actually occupied. There had already been one Vote on Account abused on the 16th of May, and that Vote put Her Majesty's Government in funds for two months of the financial year. He did not object to the course taken on that occasion; in fact, it was, under the arrangements which prevailed in reference to the financial Business of the country, invariable that a Vote on Account should be taken in connection with the Civil Service Estimates, in order to enable the Government to carry on the business of the country. But a second Vote on Account was justifiable only in extreme and very unusual circumstances. The whole system of Votes on Account was open to very great abuse, and of late years it had been very considerably so treated, with the result that the scrutiny and fair con- 571 sideration at the hands of independent Members of the House of Commons was altogether impossible. The Vote the Committee was asked to pass now would carry on the Government until the end of July. That was to say, that if the Committee consented to the Vote, as in all probability they would—indeed he knew they would—the Government would be so much in funds that they could go on with their Administration until the very eve of the month of August, altogether independent of the criticism and supervision which it was the first duty of the House of Commons to give to that Administration. He would ask any Member of the House whether his own practical experience did not prove that the amount of supervision, criticism, and control that should be applied to the Estimates in the month of August was not of the most unreal and ineffective character. To discuss Votes of Supply in the month of August was practically to turn the proceeding of Supply into little more than a question of form. The present Government, of all others, was scarcely one which ought to bring forward a second Vote on Account with hardihood; because they were more open to suspicion in regard to their intentions than almost any other Government which had ever sat on the Treasury Bench. With one single exception, they were the first Government which had asked for a third Vote on Account, and they did that last year With the exception of the unfortunate precedent to which he alluded, and which occurred earlier, that was the first occasion on which the Government came down to the House to ask for a third Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates and that they did in the middle of July last. The result of that proceeding was that there was no practical discussion on the Civil Service Estimates in Committee of Supply last year with regard to a considerable portion of the Votes What the Government did last year there was every reason to suppose they would do, or be strongly tempted to do again this year. If they obtained this Vote there was absolutely nothing to prevent them repeating and establishing the precedent of last year, and, at the last moment, towards the end of July they would ask the House to consent to a third Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates. This system of 572 Votes on Account was bad in itself, and was one which had been strenuously resisted in respect of the Army and Navy Estimates whenever it had been suggested. It had only been allowed in regard to the Civil Service Estimates. Some years ago, in 1882, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was Prime Minister, in the debate on the Army Estimates the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) suggested at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, that instead of persisting with Vote 1 of the Army Estimates, the Government should be satisfied with a Vote on Account for a smaller sum than was asked for. The Prime Minister at once repudiated the suggestion, and he said—
I believe it to be a practice totally unknown to Parliament to take a Vote on Account in regard to the Army Estimates, and the only occasions on which it has been assented to has been when there has been a Dissolution of Parliament, or a change of Government in prospect. That constitutes a state of things wholly exceptional, and the whole of the House of Commons, it may be, has not been in a position to discuss the policy, because it was not known what Government would deal with the Estimates of the year.—(3 Hansard, [267] 852.)Those were the only circumstances on which Votes on Account could be permitted upon the Army or Navy Estimates. In regard to the Civil Service Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that Votes on Account of the Civil Services were absolutely necessary; but they were never tolerated, except in cases of absolute necessity. He thought the Government would find it rather difficult to show that it was absolutely necessary that this Vote on Account should be taken that evening. The money which they had now in hand from the previous Vote on Account would carry them down to the end of the present month. They proposed to take power to obtain effective Supply on the 31st of May, when the House re-assembled; and, therefore, it was not necessary that this Vote on Account should be taken on the 17th of May. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in the remarks which he made in 1882, went on to say that if they allowed Votes on Account to apply to the Military and Naval Services, the consequence would be that a large portion of the expenditure would be in- 573 curred by the House of Commons at the beginning of the year without discussing the scale of expenditure as fixed by the Government, and a considerable portion of it without any discussion at all. What was true of the Army and Navy Estimates was equally true with respect of the Civil Service Estimates, so far as Votes on Account were concerned. In passing a Vote on Account, they gave the sanction of the House of Commons for a certain portion of the year to the entire scale of expenses in all its parts and particulars, and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian added, that a practice of this kind greatly tended to relax the control of the House of Commons and to encourage the Government to put forward other Business after taking as many Votes of Supply as they were able to get. Hon. Members would be aware that the Government had evinced a desire to push forward other measures—such as the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill, and what they had already done they would be prepared to do again; because their hands were quite full of measures. If the House assented to Votes on Account it would be taking an important step in the direction of establishing a most mischievous precedent—a precedent attended by all the mischief which was indicated by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in his speech in 1882. It appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the Committee was making a great mistake in relaxing its hold over the voting of public money, and allowing the Constitutional practice which had been provided for controlling the action of the Executive to slip away. At any rate, they ought to have an assurance from the Government that they would not do this year what they did last Session, and come to the House in the month of July for a third Vote on Account, so that they might be enabled, as they were last year, to evade any responsibility to the House of explaining the details of the expenditure. He altogether objected on principle to the Government being put in possession of funds for such long periods. He would refer to one or two of the items affected by the present Vote, and he thought that he should be able, in so doing, to show the Committee what the nature of his objections was. He would say 574 nothing of Class I., but there were two or three items in Class II. which he thought would show that a Vote on Account was not at all likely to add to the efficiency of the House in criticizing the policy of the Government. The Government had already been voted a large sum for the Foreign Office, and they now came forward to ask for another sum of £15,000. That was to say, that they proposed to place themselves in possession of funds which would enable them to carry on until the end of August. Both with regard to the Foreign Office Vote, and the Colonial Vote, it was perfectly clear that the situation of affairs, not only in Europe, but in Asia, was of such a nature that some very important matters were likely to occur between this and the month of August. Was, therefore, the Government to be in such a position as to afford to dispense altogether with the assistance of the House of Commons with respect of its Foreign and Colonial policy for so long a period? Then, again, there was the Board of Trade and its subordinate Departments. Further Votes were to be taken for that Department, and yet the Government admitted that they did not know, and were not able at present to afford to the House any information in regard to the amount of money it was proposed to take from the suitors or creditors in Bankruptcy, nor what steps were proposed to be taken to enable the House to judge of the propriety of the future proceedings that were to be taken in reference to the Bankruptcy Court. They were told by the Government that the site at the west-end of the Law Courts was to be covered by a new Court of Bankruptcy, and he wanted to know whether the whole of the expenses in connection with that new building was really to be taken out of the Suitors Fund, and whether the creditors were to be despoiled in that manner. He thought the Committee were entitled to have information on matters of that kind before the Government came down and asked for a large Vote on Account, which would practically enable them to evade explanation. Then, again, there was the Exchequer and Audit Department. The Government asked for a sum of £10,000, when they had already received £9,000. The Exchequer and Audit Department was, at the present 575 moment, in an interesting position. One of the most important posts in the whole of the Public Service was at present vacant, and it was a matter of great concern to know who was to succeed the late Controller and Auditor General, a man of exceptional ability and of great experience, who, although he had retired on account of failing health and advanced age, had done great public service. There was a Gentleman subordinate to him, Sir Charles Ryan, who had clone excellent work as a public officer. It was of great importance to the public to know how servants of that kind were to be treated, or who was to occupy this particular post in future as representing the House of Commons in checking the public expenditure. They were not informed about that, nor what future means the Government were taking for the administration of the Exchequer and Audit Department. The next item in the Votes which appeared to call for challenge was that of the Patent Office. It had had £9,000 advanced for it already out of a total Vote of £54,000, and the Committee were asked to vote £9,000 more, making £18,000 in all; or one third of the annual expenditure in connection with the Office was to be advanced without any effective criticism being possible in the House of Commons, or without the Committee being informed what the Government proposed to do in connection with the Department. At present it was a notoriously mismanaged Department. Thousands of pounds had been voted for the Department, in order that they should be spent in a particular way; but year after year the work for which the money was voted had not been done, in spite of representations from Lord Chancellors, Committees, and Commissioners. Indeed, the work had not been done to that day, and then it was proposed that the Committee should vote to those who had the control of the Department a further sum of £9,000. The last item was that of the Mercantile Marine Fund. Out of a total Vote of £40,000, £15,000 had already been advanced, and the Government now asked for £20,000 more. That was to say, that they asked for £35,000 out of a total annual sum of £10,000, leaving only £5,000 to be voted hereafter. Now, what was the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund? 576 Everyone knew that the whole question of fees and dues for lighting in connection with our shipping would have to be revised by reason of the reckless fashion in which some time ago they were reduced. They were reduced in such a way that in one single year there was a loss of over £300,000, and it was found necessary to borrow a sum of £150,000 from Greenwich Hospital in order to allow the thing to go on. It was important, not only to the Committee, but to the whole mercantile community of this country, that some information should be given in regard to the way in which the Mercantile Marine Fund was to be dealt with. He did not object to the Votes which were proposed to be taken for most of the public offices in Ireland. So far as the Lord Lieutenant's Household, the Chief Secretary's Office, and other Departments were concerned, the demands which were made seemed to him to be reasonable and just, and it would not be fair to withhold a contribution from them when they were voting money on account. But there was one Office in Ireland—namely, the Public Office of Works—which would have important work thrown upon it in the new legislation which the House would shortly be invited to consider. Now, the Board of Works had already been subjected to much criticism in regard to their proceedings in the past. Their relations with the Treasury up to a recent period had been always anything but satisfactory, as the Treasury had itself more than once admitted. Therefore, the Committee ought to know something about the position of the Board before they were asked to vote such a large sum as £6,000 for that Department. There was another extraordinary feature in these Estimates. Many questions had lately been asked in regard to the Metropolitan Police, and he found that the total sum to be voted for that Force in the present year was £583,000, of which £125,000 had already been provided. The Committee were now asked to vote another sum of £125,000—that was to say, that it was proposed to take one-half of the necessary expenditure in the shape of two Votes on Account. Those Votes would carry the Government beyond the possible duration of the present Session; and when once the Committee passed this Vote on Account, the Government 577 would be under no necessity of submitting another Vote to the consideration of Parliament until the very eve of the Prorogation. Another extraordinary fact with regard to this Vote for the Metropolitan Police was this—that whereas the Government required almost 50 per cent of the total Vote for the Metropolitan Police, with regard to the other police of the country it did not require anything of the kind. They wanted very little for the County and Borough Police, notwithstanding the fact that they were asking for 50 per cent of the total Vote for the Metropolitan Police. Why was that, unless the Government were anxious to obtain sufficient money in respect of the Metropolitan Police to enable them to set at naught all the criticisms which might be addressed against the Metropolitan Police from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and thus stave off any adverse vote which the House might consider it necessary to come to? Then, again, there was another Vote on Account of Ireland which it seemed to him was very much in excess of what the real requirements were. He referred to the Land Commission. The total Vote was £45,000; £20,000, or about one-half of it, had already been voted. The Government were, therefore, in funds for six months of the financial year, which would carry them up to the end of September; and yet the Committee were asked now for a further sum of £15,000, or £35,000 out of a total of £45,000. This Vote, if it were passed, would carry them on to January next. What would be the use of any comment by any Member of the Committee upon the Land Commission, if the Government were to have the money in hand so that they could go on utterly regardless of any observations from those who were concerned in criticizing their policy? This Land Commission was one of the Offices about which the Committee ought to have exceptional information; because the Government had now on the Table a Bill relating to the Office, and it was only right that hon. Members should be informed why this unusually large sum was to be taken for the Commission. He was afraid that he was wearying the House, but he would only cite one other item. Last year there was a Grant-in-Aid for Cyprus of £18,000. This year that £18,000 was to be run up to £30,000, or an 578 addition of £12,000. What were the Committee now asked to do? £30,000 being the total Vote for the year, they were asked to vote on account a further sum of £11,000, making £29,000 in all, and there would only remain a balance of £1,000 out of the £30,000 to be discussed hereafter. Of what use would any discussion be, if the House had already voted £29,000 out of a total of £30,000 and the money had been spent? He presumed that the money was required for immediate expenditure, because the Government told them it was absolutely necessary to vote it. He respectfully submitted to the House that, whether necessary or not, it was only right and proper that the House should give some distinct information as to how it was that 29–30ths of the total Grant-in-Aid for Cyprus was required to be voted on account. There were other matters in this Vote which he might have gone into, but he had no desire to detain the Committee. He thought he had said enough to show, first of all, that the policy of these Votes on Account was a very doubtful and a very dangerous policy; and secondly, that many of the details and items of the Vote required special explanation at the hands of the Government.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)The hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his observations referred to the "count out" which occurred last Friday; but when that "count out" took place, and it was moved on the other side of the House, it is right to say that there were only three Members present on the opposite Benches, while there were 24 or 25 on those Benches, the Government Bench itself being full.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORThere would have been all the evening to get the Vote.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe hon. Member would be aware that there were seven Notices of Motion down on the Paper on going into Supply, and that certainly one hon. Gentleman intended to go on with his Motion if the House were kept, so that the Government had no chance of getting any Votes on that evening.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORIn the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member, could not have 579 moved the Motion, because the terms of it had not been placed on the Paper.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe hon. Member must be aware that on the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, any kind of conversation may take place, and that it may extend for any period. I think the eagerness of hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep on with the Business of the House was evinced by the fact that nearly the whole of them were absent, whereas the attendance of about 27 Members on this side fully evinced our desire to keep a House, and it would have been kept, if any Gentleman opposite had supported us. The hon. Gentleman altogether objects to this Vote on Account, owing to the early date—the 17th of May—upon which it is asked for; but he must be aware that the 31st of May, the date to which it is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Vacation, is the last day of the two months for which we obtained the previous Vote on Account. Therefore, practically, unless we obtain a further Vote on Account before the 31st of May, we cannot use the money which is absolutely needed for the service of the country until the House reassembles. It may, or may not, be obtained on Friday, the 31st of May, and, if not, it could not be obtained until Monday, the 4th of June. The Treasury are in need of the money, and if the Government do not obtain this Vote on Account to-night, they will be in the position of being unable to make payments which ought to be made. Therefore, our only course is to come down to the House of Commons and ask for a further Vote on Account. The hon. Member objects to the system of taking Votes on Account. Now, I think that we have shown that the Government have endeavoured, as far as they can, to make progress with Supply this Session; but there is a Procedure Committee now sitting, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member, to inquire into the system under which Votes are taken in this House, and from the investigation of that Committee I hope that great benefit will be derived, not only as far as the House is concerned, but also by the country. I am quite with the hon. Member in the remarks he made as to the inconvenience and want of common sense and the arrangements which now prevail with regard to the voting of 580 the Estimates. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that if the service of the country is only provided for up to the 31st of March, and if there is any desire on the part of the country that legislation should proceed, it is utterly impossible for the Estimates to be voted in sufficient time to prevent the necessity arising, not only for one Vote on Account, but for two Votes in the course of the Session. As far as the Government are concerned, they have shown themselves most anxious that the Financial Votes should be considered in this House, and I think that they have followed precedent in the course they have taken in putting down Supply on every available opportunity and asking the House to consider the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman says that he objects to our taking a Vote on Account that will last till near the end of July. That does not mean that hon. Members will lose the opportunity they desire to have of discussing the Votes long before that day. With the assistance of the House the Government will use their best endeavours to enable the Committee to consider the Votes on every opportunity they can avail themselves of. The hon. Member and his Friends are aware that we have had Business before us in which both the House and the country are deeply interested, and if the House will only assist us in limiting the deliberations of such measures as we are compelled to bring forward we shall be glad to avail ourselves of the opportunity of putting down Supply whenever we think it is possible to proceed with the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian with reference to the Army and Navy Estimates in 1882. The hon. Member is so well acquainted with the Forms of the House and the practice of the Departments, that it is hardly necessary to point out that as regards the Army and Navy Estimates, a power exists of applying a substantive Vote for one purpose to all the services of the Army and Navy. No similar power exists with regard to the Civil Service Estimates. For instance, we cannot apply the Vote for Education or for the Post Office to any other branch of the Civil Service that is included in the Estimates presented to Parliament. If that were so, probably they might be applied with advantage; 581 but it is open to question whether Parliament would ever permit a Government, however strong it might be in the confidence of the House, to apply money for a specific purpose to an entirely different purpose. Until that is done, and until some great change is made in our financial system, I think the hon. Gentleman will see that no Government can, by any possibility, avoid asking Parliament from time to time for a second Vote on Account. It is altogether different with regard to the Army and Navy Estimates. The Army Estimates are substantially a Vote for men and money to carry on the service for three or four months. And so it is with the Navy, and the money once voted for one purpose can be applied to any other service included in the Army or Navy Estimates. The hon. Gentleman has criticized the Foreign Vote, the Colonial Office Vote, the Board of Trade Vote, the Vote for the Exchequer and Audit Department, and the Votes for the Patent Office, the Mercantile Marine Fund, the Irish Board of Works, and the Irish Land Commission. He is well aware that the Votes are taken in the order in which they stand, and that Supply is put down for Thursday week. The Foreign Office Vote stands first, the Colonial Office Vote next, the Board of Trade third, followed by the Vote for the Exchequer and Audit Department. Therefore, it is quite certain that with regard to those Votes the delay of a fortnight will not occasion any considerable amount of inconvenience as far as the House of Commons is concerned. The Government will be prepared to receive assistance from the House of Commons, and to give every information in their power on common questions of interest that may arise upon the Votes. As far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, the hon. Gentleman complains that the sum asked for will carry us over a period of four months. The reason of that is that the payment to the Metropolitan Police is made in quarterly sums, and, therefore, as two months have passed, another quarterly payment has become due and has to be provided for. In regard to the Land Commission the hon. Gentleman has asked why we should take so large a portion of the entire charge for that Commission. Now the Land Commission expires by statute in August next, and, therefore, it was not in our 582 power to put on the Estimates a provision that would carry us over August. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, see at once that much more than one-third of the whole sum necessary for carrying on the work of the Land Commission for 12 months will have to be provided for. Under the present Estimate four-fifths of the sum necessary for the five months are provided for. I hope I have now answered the questions which have been put by the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORThe right hon. Gentleman has not alluded to the Grant-in-Aid for Cyprus.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe Government are in no sense responsible for that. The payment is made under the obligations which this country has contracted to the Turkish Government. Those obligations have to be paid by Her Majesty's Government, and the money is payable in July. Under those circumstances, we are obliged to put in the full sum required, which has been increased to £30,000, owing to the failure of the crops in Cyprus last year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) who takes a great interest in these matters, and the Committee on which the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman sit, will be able, before the House rises, to make some suggestions to Parliament by which we may arrive at some more businesslike arrangement for dealing with the estimates than that which now exists. Any assistance which the Government can give, with that object in view, they will be glad to give; and let me remind the Committee that this is not a Party question, but one that concerns the character of the House of Commons. No one can justify the system which now exists, which is not creditable to the business-like character and habits of the English Members of Parliament. I therefore trust that the labours of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those of the Committee to which I have referred, will result in some recommendations which it will be in the power of the Government to adopt.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)I think the Committee are under an obligation to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur 583 O'Connor) for calling our attention to the principle of these Votes on Account. As the First Lord of the Treasury has said, they are not very creditable to our business-like mode of procedure, and I quite agree with every remark he has made as to the desirability of introducing some reform. The question is now undergoing very careful consideration in the Committee upstairs, and I am very sanguine, in the belief that we shall be able to make a proposal which will meet the approval of the House for securing more complete control over the expenditure, and also a more rational mode of discussing that expenditure. But I do not believe it will be possible—in fact, I know it will be impossible—to abolish Votes on Account. So long as Parliament does not sit until the middle of February, and so long as our financial year closes on the 31st of March, and that our financial system wisely requires that all balances should be surrendered to the Exchequer at that time, and that no payment can be made after the 31st of March, except under the direct authority of this House, it is absolutely necessary that a Vote on Account should be given for the service of the current year. I will not indicate what might be the best plan for carrying the system out, but I will say that the present plan under which we proceed is not satisfactory. There are one or two words I should like to say in reference to this Vote on Account. I cannot agree with the First Lord of the Treasury that Supply has proceeded with great rapidity this year, and that the House has devoted a great amount of time to it. I am under the impression that the Civil Service Estimates have only had two nights devoted to them during the Session if we exclude the Army and Navy Estimates and the Supplementary Votes. When the House meets after a Recess, there is a tendency to make progress on the first night. The Secretary to the Treasury is fully aware of that fact, and I congratulate him on having appropriated Thursday week, when the House re-assembles after the Whitsuntide holidays. In reference to the present Vote, I do not find any fault with it. I know it to be necessary to have a further Vote on Account, and I do not agree with the criticism of the hon. Member for East Donegal. All the ex- 584 ceptional amounts which the hon. Member has mentioned are capable of explanation. The Votes themselves are prepared by competent officials of the Treasury, who know what the requirements will be, and this Vote on Account does not represent more than an actual expenditure for two months. I would, however, impress upon the First Lord of the Treasury that we ought not to have a third Vote on Account this year. There are no special legislative measures which are likely to interfere with the taking of Votes in Supply, and before the 31st of July we ought to have made such satisfactory progress in discussing the Estimates that a third Vote on Account ought to be unnecessary. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there will be considerable discussion on the Army and Navy Votes. It will be impossible for the House this year to do what was done last year. Totally outside the great and grave question which has recently occupied our attention, there have been many cases of what I may call extravagant and unnecessary expenditure which have been ascertained by the Committee over which the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) presided, in connection with the Army and Navy Estimates, which will have to be brought before the House in Committee of Supply. I am afraid they will necessitate a good deal of discussion, and I think we may anticipate that the consideration of the Army and Navy Votes will occupy more of the time of the House than it generally does. I am certain that full opportunity must be afforded for discussing and criticizing a good deal of the evidence which has been given before the Committee presided over by the noble Lord. In addition to that, we have the ordinary Civil Service Estimates to discuss. I do not ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give any pledge, but I should ask him to consider favourably what I have now suggested—namely, the desirability, in the first place, of avoiding a third Vote on Account, and in the next, of making such arrangements for the conduct of Public Business during the next six weeks that the House of Commons may be able to afford considerable time to the discussion of the Estimates in Com- 585 mittee of Supply. Ample time should be allowed this year for that criticism of the Estimates which is reasonable and desirable, and the consideration of Supply ought not to be thrown over until the fag end of the Session in August. So far as this Vote is concerned I shall support it.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, (Kincardine)said, he cordially concurred with the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in regard to the service of the late Comptroller and Auditor General, who had recently retired from the office. Having watched that Gentleman for a number of years, he had been much impressed with the admirable manner with which he had discharged his duties.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in thinking that Votes on Account had now reached such a point that the Committee ought to protest against them. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said the Vote on Account would only carry them over until the end of July, and that the Estimates were in a very forward state. Now, the Estimates were not in a very forward state. Two days, and two days alone, had been devoted to the consideration of the Estimates, and what were those days? They were the very best days which that astute Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could have secured for his purpose—namely, those immediately after the Easter Holidays, when hon. Members had not returned from the country. The right hon. Gentleman was about to do the same thing now. He knew that people would not rush back after the holidays, and there would be few practical persons present except the hon. Gentleman and his Friends on the Front Bench. The right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was a Member of the Committee which had been appointed to examine into the best way of taking cognizance of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said the matter was not a Party one. No doubt there was much in the Estimates that was of a purely financial character; but there were other points on which per- 586 sons took different views in accordance with their political leanings. He would take one case—namely, the salaries of Ministers. Speaking as a Radical and a Democrat, he thought the salaries of Ministers were extravagant. It was perfectly absurd that Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should have £5,000 per annum. That raised the whole scale of salaries all along the line, and for that reason he had occasionally moved the reduction of the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury and other Ministers. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no personal feeling against him, and he had taken that course equally in regard to right hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House. He did not think they ought to indulge in nagging against 2½d. given to a postman, and yet give these large salaries to Ministers. He thought it would be best to reduce the large salaries first. There might be some Gentlemen who were patriots, and who did not care for large salaries, and who would be ready to accept Office without any at all. But all Gentlemen were not constituted in that way, and allowance must be made for the feebleness and weakness of right hon. Gentlemen. In his opinion, nothing would tend more to get good sound men at the head of affairs than to reduce salaries. They ought to go into the market, and get the services of men at the market price. Would any right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench say that he was there solely on account of the salary he received? He did not think the First Lord of the Treasury would leave the position he occupied or give up his seat in Parliament if they reduced his salary? No; he would still remain. They must look at these matters in a strictly commercial aspect, and when they had managed to reduce the salaries of right hon. Gentlemen in that House they would be able to reduce those of Admirals, Generals, Foreign Ministers, Judges, and other high officials. His opinion was that the highest salary any person ought to receive from the State was £2,000 a-year. A man could live on that, and he thought that it was possible to get good Judges, Admirals, and Generals for such a sum.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St.587 Andrew's Universities) was understood to say that a General would cost more than a Minister.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was quite aware that Generals and Admirals were just as eager after money as even the Lord Advocate. Many of the Generals they now employed were useless. Take the Generals serving in India who were in command of the different Presidencies. A Committee had reported against them, declaring that they were of no use, yet, with allowances, they received as much as £5,000 and £6,000 a-year. Many of them not only got as much as the Lord Advocate, but a great deal more. He had merely stated that as one of the instances in which something beyond a mere financial question was brought before the Committee of Supply, and which it was impossible to engage the attention of a Committee appointed simply for the purpose of investigating the Estimates. There ought to be a Committee with power to look into the Estimates, to call before them the permanent officials, and submit a Report to the House of Commons; but the House ought not to be deprived of the right it now possessed of fully discussing the Estimates. It was perfectly well known that when the Estimates were under consideration a Motion was brought forward, not for the purpose of reducing the Vote by a particular sum, but in order to raise a point which was essentially one of principle, on the ground that redress of grievances come before the voting of money. Every day private Members were losing some of their rights. The sole chance they had now was upon the Estimates, and they ought to take care not to lose that chance by the system of taking Votes on Account and postponing the discussion of the Estimates until the end of the Session. When that was done, hon. Members knew very well what occurred. If a protest was raised against it, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said it was a duty he owed to the country. What was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman? It was the duty of shutting the mouths of hon. Members; yet they also owed a duty to the country. Vigilance was the price paid for economy, and it was their duty to be vigilant and to discuss the Estimates whenever 588 they found it necessary. They could not do that in the month of August. If they attempted it they were bullied all round, not only by the First Lord of the Treasury, but by private Members, who said: "Surely you are not going to keep us here? Do you want to prolong the Session? It is all your fault that the sitting of the House is prolonged." There ought to be some understanding that if the Committee consented to grant this Vote on Account, the Government would use their best endeavours to have the Estimates before the 31st of July. A guarantee ought to be given that a certain number of nights should be devoted to Supply before that date. He was quite ready to make this bargain—let the Government give them one night a-week, not necessarily one in each particular week, but let the total number up to the 31st of July be the number of nights at the rate of one a-week, which would occur from the first of June to the 31st of July. Of course, Ministers were naturally inclined to get Votes on Account, and when they asked for them they talked of using their best endeavours to have the Estimates satisfactorily discussed. He thought the Committee ought to have something more clear and definite before they consented to part with the large amount of money now asked for. There was no idea of discussing this Vote on Account. He was perfectly ready to act fairly towards the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and he hoped that in return the right hon. Gentleman would act fairly towards those who felt it their duty to discuss the Estimates.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI hope that hon. Members will not deem it necessary to prolong this discussion. I fully reciprocate the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, that it is the duty, as it is also the object, of the Government to give every possible opportunity to the House of considering the Estimates before the end of July. I do not think, however, that any good purpose will be facilitated by continuing this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) know that it is impossible for the Government to enter into any specific engagement as to the appropriation of time between this and the end of July. We will, however, do our best to meet 589 the views of the Committee; but I can give no undertaking on the subject, as the discussion at this moment must be more or less of an academic character, and, considering that there is a measure on the Paper with which we are anxious to make progress this evening—considering also that we have arrived at a comparatively late hour, and that six hours will not be too much to devote to the important question we desire to bring before the House—I make an earnest appeal to the Committee to agree to the Vote at once.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)said, he was sorry he was not able to agree to the speed at which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to travel when voting those huge Grants on Account. His principal reason was that so few opportunities would be afforded to the House to take up those great questions of foreign policy which must come under consideration. They had already been engaged in a discussion which involved a large expenditure upon the Army and Navy, and many hon. Members must feel themselves in a peculiar position in regard to that subject. It might be that the money was necessary.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHAllow me to point out that there is no item included in this Vote on Account for the Army and Navy. The Vote which is necessary for that purpose will afford ample material for a subsequent Resolution of the House.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was quite aware that there was no Vote in the Vote on Account which dealt with the Army and Navy; but the point he was coming to was that the Vote contained a sum on account of the Foreign Office. It seemed to him that in the course taken by the Government in asking for these huge sums of money they were putting the cart before the horse. Surely, before making this grant, the country had a right to know what the policy of the Government was with reference to foreign affairs. At any rate, that ought to be made plain before Parliament sanctioned a new and extensive departure in regard to the Army and Navy expenditure. Many independent Members felt themselves placed in this respect in a very embarrassing position. How was it possible for the House or the country to 590 appreciate the seriousness of the position, unless they were informed what the policy of the Government in regard to foreign questions was? There had been a discussion in "another place" which, perhaps, might throw some little light upon the subject; but for his own part, he thought it was of importance for the House of Commons to insist upon a great deal more light being thrown upon the question. So far as he knew, there had not been a single hour in the course of the present Session in which the question of our foreign policy had been raised or considered. The Government complained that the progress which had been made with Public Business had been slow. No Members on that side of the House had offered any factious opposition in regard to foreign questions; he was afraid they were falling into the other extreme, and that they were neglecting their duty as vigilant servants of the public by leaving those foreign questions to take care of themselves. The position of this country was one which required the closest observance on the part of the Representatives of the people. The state of affairs on the Continent was extremely critical, and placed in the hands of the Government almost overwhelming responsibilities. For his own part, he was of opinion that no increase in our naval or military expenditure was necessary, if the foreign policy of the Government were of a sufficiently wise character as not to involve any interference on our part. He confessed that he was extremely anxious to know from some responsible Member of the Government, and he was glad to see the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, whether this country was absolutely free from any engagement which was likely at the first brush of Continental difficulties to land us in any naval or military interference. Nobody could doubt that the state of the Continent was such as to inspire alarm on the part of all commercial people in this and every other country. All business undertakings were under a cloud, and the state of the Continent, its military condition, and the relations of one Power with another were such as to be a source of constant anxiety. They could not take up a foreign newspaper or the correspondence of an English journal in which that was not apparent every hour 591 of the day. Some words were uttered by the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary some time ago, which remained in the memory of all men who had business obligations in every part of the world. The noble Lord indicated that whatever might happen to be the policy of Austria must be a question of primary interest to this country. Those words must be construed to carry with them a very great danger to this country. If complications should arise in the East of Europe, he wanted to have an assurance from the Government that it was their firm intention not to make this country responsible, should an international war break out. Many of them would remember the circumstances of the Crimean War. They knew that in that case Great Britain was the first of the Great Powers to rush into conflict with Russia, and that, in reality, we left Austria and Germany with their hands absolutely free, laughing in their sleeves, while we fought the conflict in which they were much more interested than we. We might find that situation repeated, and he wished to ascertain whether the Government had learned wisdom from the experience this country had gained in the Crimean War. We had the admission of more than one foreign statesman that the policy pursued by this country on that occasion was unwise, and that the conflict, as far as we were concerned, might have been avoided for a considerable period, if not altogether. He, therefore, wished to know from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Foreign Office, and from Her Majesty's Government generally, that there existed no obligation by which this country could become involved in any foreign complication in the event of the peace of Europe being disturbed. He did not say that this country ought to take no share, no matter what complications might arise, because something might happen which might affect us as well as other parts of the world. But assuredly it became us to be guided by a due sense of our responsibility in regard to our Colonial engagements and our relationship to our dependencies, and we should be the very last to commit ourselves and tie our hands in reference to any foreign Power. He would confess that, if there was a lingering disposition on the part of the Government to take 592 part in any Continental broil—our Army, as had been stated by the Adjutant General and the Commander-in-Chief, was really too weak for any such purpose. If, on the other hand, the Government maintained the steady purpose not to interfere in any continental squabble which was likely to break out in the existing relations between Russia, Austria, and Germany, he thought it would be possible for this country to maintain such a position as would not render it necessary to make any large increase in the Army. Probably most of them would agree that our Navy ought to be maintained at such strength as to afford full security to our possessions at home and abroad. He thought that the present provision for the Navy was ample for that purpose, if we kept ourselves free from Continental complications. There was no reason why there should not exist between this country and France and this country and Russia such a state of feeling as would keep us apart from any Continental squabble. In that case this country would run no risk whatever, and there would be very little necessity for an increase of expenditure on the part of the Army. He hoped to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman representing the Foreign Office or from the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was the desire of the Government and their intention to leave our hands free from any entangling engagements which would deprive us of our freedom of action if war should unhappily break out on the Continent.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to Vote No. 29.
§ MR. LABOUCHERErose to Order, and said that he desired to discuss several Votes before the hon. Member moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)said, he had recently asked a Question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the Zambesi River. The Portuguese claimed all that portion of South Africa from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Now, upon some of the tributaries of the Zambesi River, as well as upon the Zambesi River itself, there were a considerable number of British subjects. The Portuguese, however, had deprived them of the means of navigating the river, and he wanted to 593 know whether the Government would take steps to protect British traders and the Scotch missionaries on the Zambesi River from the encroachments and usurpations of the Portuguese Government and their subjects? If they took no such steps, they practically, by their inaction, recognized the Zambesi River and its tributaries as belonging to the Portuguese Government. We had taken over a portion of the territory of one of the Chiefs which ran down to the Zambesi River. At present, all the mouths of the river were in the hands of the Portuguese, who imposed transit duties on foreign goods or everything that went into Africa by means of that river. He was not prepared to say that they had not the right to place transit duties on all goods that entered Africa by means of the Zambesi River. That was rather a question for the consideration of the Government. But he was informed that the Portuguese Authorities were preventing our steamers from coasting there, and wore demanding that British vessels trading there, and the missionaries who had settlements on Lake Nyassa, should fly the Portuguese flag or cease trading. He wished to know whether the Government intended to protect British subjects and their steamers, or to acknowledge the right of the Portuguese Government to prevent the British Government sailing on the Zambesi River, having in view the fact that by taking over territory which ran down to the river they had now become one of the Powers on the Zambesi? There was another point which he also desired to call attention to. He had put a Question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, in regard to a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Bristol in reference to the Office of Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Secretary to the Treasury said, in reply, that he had no means of getting the information asked for. He might tell the hon. Gentleman that some of the secretaries and officials of these friendly societies were getting larger salaries than the Prime Minister himself. Two of them received £6,000 a-year each. To his knowledge, there were 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 of persons, principally belonging to the working classes, who were insured in those industrial and friendly societies.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, it came under the Vote for the Registration of Friendly Societies, which was Vote 13. He had said, last year, that he would move the rejection of the Vote, unless something was done to make the Office a reality instead of a sham. The present registration meant nothing, but it led people to believe that, because the rules were registered, there was Government security. The Government had indicated that they were willing to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question, and the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had brought in a Bill upon the subject. He understood, however, that the Government were opposing that Bill. The hon. Baronet said that his measure only affected collecting societies; but this was a question affecting the whole of our working population, as one of these societies consisted of from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 members. The Secretary to the Treasury had refused to print evidence which was given on the last inquiry. He (Dr. Clark) thought the time had arrived when there ought to be a full investigation into the working of the Act. Then would come the time for the Select Committee to consider the matter. As they had received a pledge from the Treasury last Session, he thought the Government ought now to state what they intended to do in the matter. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that they could not get the information; but if a Select Committee were appointed, it would soon be able to lay all the information that was necessary before the House and the Government.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)said, he should like to say a few words on this subject before the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) rose to reply to the observations of hon. Members who had spoken on that side of the House. There were undoubtedly many of the Scotch people who at that moment took a very strong interest in the condition of affairs in the interior of Africa, and who thought that the fact that many of the missionaries were at stations beyond the settlement of any European Power was no reason for their not receiving protection at the hands of the British Government. The first and most important point which 595 they were inclined to urge on Her Majesty's Government was that which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—namely, that the access to the interior—the only good and available one—by the Zambesi, should be kept open to all nations, and particularly to this country, which had made settlements in the interior of that part of Africa. He urged on Her Majesty's Government to enforce on Portugal and other Powers the necessity of keeping open the Zambesi as an international highway. Portugal had undoubtedly certain legal rights on the South African literal, and she had of late been not only exercising those rights, but, as he thought, unduly extending them in the manner alluded to by his hon. Friend. Hon. Members, he thought, ought to insist that the Government should recognize in no way whatever any territorial Sovereignty in South Africa over the waters of the Zambesi. We had a Consul at Nyassa—of course, not accredited to any Power, because there was no Power to whom he could be accredited—whose duty it would be to look after British interests when an appeal was made to him. Such an appeal would be made to him naturally when an attack was made upon the settlement by the slave dealers, and he, in his turn, would naturally appeal to the British Government for instructions. He, therefore, urged upon the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that something should be done for the maintenance of the authority of our Consul; that there should be no recognition, under any circumstances whatever, of any claim to territorial Sovereignty in the interior; and, lastly, the maintenance in all cases of free navigation on the Zambesi.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, that the considerations laid before the Committee with regard to the position in Southern Africa were exceedingly important at the present time, and it was also necessary that they should ascertain from the Government what were their views and policy with regard to the Northern districts. At present, our territory, so far as it was represented by the Protectorate, was limited by a line drawn on a level with the Northern boundary of the Transvaal—that was to say, the 22nd parallel. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman 596 would know the limits to which he (Mr. Conybeare) referred. In the last few weeks news had arrived that we had actually extended our Protectorate in some form or other to Bechuanaland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what territories that Protectorate included, and whether the Government themselves had any clear idea of the limit to which the Portuguese territory was supposed to extend Westward from the Eastern seaboard; because it appeared to him, from what he had been able to gather, that the limits of the Portuguese territory were altogether of the most shadowy and uncertain character. It was worth while to recollect what took place in connection with Angra Peguena. He believed they had kept Germany waiting for two years to know our views with regard to the interior of Africa, in consequence of which Prince Bismarck became impatient, and secured a tract of territory which he believed he was correct in saying exceeded in extent anything which the people of this country believed to be in the hands of Germany. The cession of Angra Peguena included the acquisition by Germany of a huge district in which were some of the richest gold mines in South Africa. They did not want the same sort of imbroglio to arise in connection with Matabeleland as had arisen in that case. He did not say that it was wise for the Government to lay down a hard and fast line of demarcation. That would be impossible; but they did not want to allow matters to drift in an unbusiness-like way in connection with affairs in South Africa, and presently to find that Germany or Portugal had established a locus standi in the country, and acquired a vested interest which it would be impossible not to recognize. There were two courses which this country might adopt with reference to Matabeleland—one was that we should never interfere with a view to appropriating that country; and the other was to make it clear to other countries that we had interests there, and that those interests would probably extend in future, and that we intended to take such means for their protection as might be necessary. The first course appeared to him to be impossible; because, although it was well known that some parts of the Transvaal were rich in gold 597 and precious stones, this district was richer than anything they had yet seen. It was probable, therefore, that there would be a very considerable inrush of British subjects into Matabeleland. If that were so, it would be far better to take a statesman-like view of the situation and decide, once for all, what shape our policy should assume rather than let the matter slide. They did not want the history of Stellaland and Zululand to be repeated in Matabeleland. They had a right to ask that the Government should come to some understanding with Portugal as to where its territory was to begin and where it was to end; and if the right hon. Gentleman knew how that matter stood, he should be glad if he would give the Committee some information about it. It was well known that there had been some expeditions by British officers across the Victoria Falls, and the accounts given of the country showed how interesting it was, and how rich it would become if it were developed and fully opened up. Another consideration was that British subjects were already flocking into the country. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that valuable concessions had been granted, or attempted to be obtained, of mineral rights extending over huge tracts of the country? If the country was to come at all under British control, he thought they had a right to claim that concessions of mineral rights should not be made to individuals. He thought these matters should be regulated; because the difficulties which had arisen in other parts of South Africa were the consequence of the Chiefs unknowingly assigning away their rights. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had already taken steps in that direction; and if so, he should be glad to hear what had been done. He should like to point out to the Government that there was a very strong feeling amongst those who were conversant with matters in Bechuanaland and Matabeleland generally that the proper trade route to the latter would be through Bechuanaland, and that the best thing to be done would be to extend the existing railway. This, although a difficult undertaking, would be an important step to take, and would not cost more than £3,000,000, a sum that we had thrown away on Sir Charles Warren's expedition, which was practi- 598 cally useless. If that money had been spent in constructing this railway, it would have been a thousand times more usefully employed than on that expedition. He was told that the Germans had an expedition in Matabeleland at the present time, or, at any rate, that there was competition between them, the Portuguese, and other nations, for a locus standi in the country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some information on this subject. It was very desirable that we should come to some common understanding with those countries that were taking action on the Continent, and prevent the recurrence of such a step as was taken by Germany in the case of Angra Peguena.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)I do not think Her Majesty's Government will ever complain of interest being taken in foreign affairs and of demands being made for information before any step is made which would involve the interests of the country. I am glad to acknowledge the reticence and prudence of hon. Gentlemen in the midst of anxious affairs, in not unduly pressing the Government, and I hope that the assurances that I gave the House at the beginning of the Session, when challenged directly on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, were satisfactory to the House. I then assured the Committee that the Government had not entered into any engagement pledging the material action of the country which was not known to the House of Commons—that is to say, that the Government were free to deal in the interest of the country with events as they might occur. There had been no fresh engagements incurred by the Government since, and the position remained the same as when he last ex-explained it. It would, indeed, be most imprudent for the Government to make any general and binding declaration of abstinence from interference in the affairs of the world. When we considered how wide and diversified were our national interests, and how great was the influence of this country in assisting in the maintenance of the peace of the world, any declaration of total abstinence from interference in European politics would be not only imprudent, 599 but unworthy of the duty we owed to the world. I hope that will be considered by the hon. Member for West Bradford a sufficient answer to the observations he has made. I would remind the Committee that a wide discussion on foreign affairs is unnecessary at this moment, because the Foreign Office Vote stands first on the Paper for discussion on the 31st of the present month, and foreign affairs will, therefore, occupy our attention when the House re-assembles after Whitsuntide. But in answer to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), who has put some questions of undoubtedly great interest, I say that Her Majesty's Government distinctly do not recognize unlimited claims on the part of Portugal in the interior of Africa. The conditions by which the spheres of influence of European Powers in South Africa are bounded are perfectly well known. Those influences are not recognized, except where settlements take place, and where a Power possessed the means of maintaining order, protecting foreigners, and controlling the Natives. Where a Power, though seated on the sea coast, has made no approach to a settlement in the interior, and no step in the fulfilment of international duties, it is evident that we cannot recognize that it has any claim to deny us free commerce with the interior by a natural highway. Thus Her Majesty's Government cannot for a moment admit a right on the part of such a Power to stop the free passage of the Zambesi, which gives access to regions where the enterprize of our fellow-countrymen has already made considerable progress. It is a matter of regret that our commerce should be hindered by heavy charges; but where no international obligations interpose, it is in the power of Portugal or any other country to levy such duties as she may impose within her own territories. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the condition of the settlements in the interior of Africa. I must entirely deny that anything like a state of war has been entered into by Her Majesty's Consul on the authority of Her Majesty's Government. It is true that in view of the danger that threatened European Settlements, two British Consuls assisted personally in checking an attack upon those Settlements and in beating back the Arabs, 600 but undoubtedly it would not be the duty of the Consul to join in any hostile expedition against these tribes. It had been said it was for the settlers themselves to take steps for their own protection. That was obviously their duty, and it would be out of question to hinder them from taking steps for their own legitimate defence; but it would be incurring a most dangerous responsibility if Her Majesty's Government were to authorize, as suggested by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), the Consul to enrol men, or to take up any position in which he would require to be supported in case of disaster. It would be impossible that we could support a force entirely cut off from the British base, and from British territory. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) has asked me questions with regard to matters of very recent date, but I hope he will allow me to postpone giving an answer to them, because it would require reference to documents which are not at hand. I trust it will not be supposed that we are not aware of the importance of not losing an opportunity of developing our interest through supineness, and the recent assumption of our Protectorate in what is generally called Amatongaland is a clear indication that neither the Imperial nor Colonial Authorities are indifferent to their obligations in that respect. I hope we shall keep pace with the expansion of colonization within the sphere of these most important Colonies in South Africa, the legitimate development of which they have a right to expect shall not be checked. It is undoubtedly an important point to which the hon. Member has directed attention, namely, that there should be no waste of the valuable mineral deposits in these countries by hurried grants made by the Native Chiefs, so that if they should become British Colonies, they should not be found to have been despoiled of those natural resources. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those important considerations will not be lost sight of. In assuming a Protectorate it is evident that we ought to give advice and also exercise control.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONI must, I think, ask the hon. Member to give me Notice to enable me to answer that ques- 601 tion with more precision than I can do at the present moment. I had no intimation that this discussion would be initiated to night; but I may say that of the correctness of the view that British enterprize in these territories should proceed on a settled plan, there can, I think, be no doubt. While there is much to be said in favour of the view that the vast regions of the interior of Africa should be opened up by an extension of railways from the South, it seems to me that there may also be valuable communication from points on the Eastern Coast. I trust the Committee will not think it necessary for me now to go into further details, and I am only sorry that it has not been possible for me to anticipate the questions which hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHAs there will be another and early opportunity of discussing foreign affairs, I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that looking at the time of the evening (7 p.m.), and the importance of the subject, he thought it reasonable that the discussion should proceed, say for another half-hour.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said he did not propose to enter into the discussion on Matabeleland, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown that it was desirable not to do so without Notice. He rose only to advert very shortly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). He hoped he was correct in understanding that it was the intention of the Government that there should be free and open navigation of the Zambesi. The free navigation of that river was a matter of great importance to this country, and he thought that Her Majesty's Government should not admit any interference with that policy, which would, he believed, make it one of the great highways of commerce. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for West Bradford, he wished to express the satisfaction he felt at the acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman at the great forbearance which had been shown on that side of the House as regarded the foreign policy of the present 602 Government. But while they felt that it was desirable to avoid anything which would embarrass Her Majesty's Government and increase the great difficulty in which they had been placed (during the last few months, they thought at the same time that it was the paramount duty of the Government to embrace the earliest possible opportunity of taking the opinion of the House, and through the House the opinion of the country, before committing the country in any way to a change of relations with any foreign Power.
§ MR. HUNTERsaid, there was one point to which he must ask the attention of the Committee. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would admit that, if it was the intention of hon. Members to censure the course of the Government with regard to their action in reference to emigration from Scotland, they should do so at the first possible opportunity. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the question of the condition of the crofters was last before the House, the Government had disclosed very little with regard to their plan of emigration. In answer to Questions put to them from that side of the House, both the Lord Advocate and the First Lord had taken refuge in silence, but promised that a full scheme of emigration should be laid before the House. His astonishment had been very great to find, although the scheme had not been laid before the House, a new departure of a most grave and serious character had been taken on the sole responsibility of the Government and the Secretary for Scotland, and that on Monday last 25 families were reported to have left their homes en route for Canada. He objected to the action of the Secretary for Scotland on two grounds. In the first place, he objected to his not having first submitted his plans to Parliament, and obtained the consent of that House; and, in the second place, he was opposed to his emigration scheme in toto. What was that scheme? The Committee had heard that 100 crofters and their children had been sent to Canada, at the same rate at which 100 might be sent. He asked if that was a measure of the slightest practical value for the relief of distress in Lewis or for the benefit of the people in the Highlands. That ques 603 tion the Committee would be able to understand when he had stated the figures relating to the case. Under this scheme they were to remove from the Island of Lewis 500 people out of a population which in 1881 amounted to 25,487, and which at present was probably larger; in other words, they were going to cure the distress in the Highlands by removing one out of every 51 or 52 of the population. Now, he thought that fact was sufficient to show that the action of the Government, if it was to be limited to this £10,000, was for practical purposes wholly useless; and if it was not to be so, it must be the beginning of action which would involve an enormous drain upon the Exchequer. If the people were to be expatriated to America at the cost contemplated by the Government, it was the taxpayers who would have to face a very heavy bill indeed. But he objected also to the scheme, because they had not been told on what terms the crofters had been sent out. All he could gather from the statement of the Lord Advocate was that the people were to be in a state of bondage for five years, either to the British Government or to certain Land Companies in America. They were not going out with their hands free to begin the world; they went with a load of debt upon them, which it was contemplated might, under favourable circumstances, be removed in five years; but, although in some cases there might be an ultimate improvement in the condition of the crofters, they were in the meantime to remain under the tender mercy of the Land Companies. There was another thing which he must refer to, and that was the kind of place, of all places in the world, to which they had been sent to. These people had little power of resisting cold; they lived in a climate which was naturally damp, but never very cold, and it was from such a climate that they were being sent to the British Siberia, where the extremes of heat and cold were greater than in any other part of the British dominions. Whatever might be the result of that experiment he could not regard it as one free from danger and risk, for no spot could have been less congenial to the habits of the crofters. Now, he objected again to State emigration as being nothing more than a perfectly hollow and illusory remedy for the 604 distress in the country. Emigration had been recommended to them by no less a personage than the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was done upon the ground that there was something abnormal in the rapid increase of the population in Lewis; it was said that the people there were so given to multiplying their species, that it was impossible to deal with their grievances until some radical change took place in the population. But anyone who looked at the facts would see that the Lewis people were not sinners in that respect, above all others. If it were to be said that up to 1851 the population of Lewis increased somewhat rapidly, there would have been facts to support that conclusion, because, beginning with the present century and coming down to 1851, he found that the population had doubled in 45 years; whereas in England and Wales the population had doubled in 51 years. But since 1851, while the increase in the population of England and Wales had been 45 per cent, that in Lewis amounted to no more than 23 per cent, or only one-half the rate of increase in the former case. There was contained in the Papers laid on the Table of the House a most striking statement made by a gentleman who conducted the inquiry at Lewis on behalf of the Government, to the effect that in 1851 it was confidently predicted that unless the surplus population of Lewis were induced to remove some fearful calamity would ensue. But the people had not removed, and the predictions of 1851 had not been verified, and he said that the people remained and continued to multiply with great rapidity; that they had not starved, but year after year were adding to their expenditure on food and clothing, by-and-bye adding luxuries to their former articles of daily use. There was nothing abnormal in the increase of the population of Lewis, although it had been larger than the increase in purely agricultural districts, the reason being that the people there had never been wholly dependent on agriculture in the present century. During the early part of the century they had the kelp industry, and after 1851 they had the fishing industry. It was, therefore, not a question of overpopulation; the distress in Lewis was simply the effect of the temporary de- 605 pression under which their primary industry of herring fishing was suffering. After 1851, that industry had enlarged to such an extent as not only to maintain the whole population, which was considered very excessive, but to maintain a far larger and steadily-increasing population. He entirely refused to accept the views of those who said that the fishing industry was permanently destroyed in the Highlands; he could not believe that when there was a population of 30,000,000, so to speak, at the doors of these people, and an ocean teeming with fish, that permanent collapse of that industry had taken place, and therefore he thought the course of the Government would have been to deal with the present distress as of a temporary and not a permanent nature. The present condition of the people was not due to over-population; they were in distress, because they were denied access to the land. The general law was that a population would multiply until the lowest standard of comfort was reached, and the only thing that differentiated Lewis from the other parts of the Kingdom was that the standard of comfort there was very low. Some 200 years ago the standard of comfort throughout the country was about the same; but as time had gone on, the standard had improved elsewhere, and had remained very low in Lewis. He did not think it could be said that less than 25 per cent of the gross earnings of the people had been destroyed by the landlords. If that 25 per cent had been left to fructify in the pockets of the people, or used to raise their standard of comfort, there would be very little reason to complain of the total or relative amount of population in Lewis. He thought emigration was very much to be deprecated, because there were alternatives. There were home industries which might be created by the direct action of the Government. He was unwilling to put before the Committee any ideas on the subject, because, until they had Home Rule for Scotland and a national purse, a proposal which recommended itself to many people in Scotland might not be considered a practical one. But, to anyone who had travelled in the Highlands, it would be evident that the destiny of a large part of the Highlands was not to grow deer and sheep and grouse, but to 606 grow timber. He did not attempt to enter into the question at any length; but he might remind hon. Members that the subject was before a Committee of the House last year, and that three foresters—the foresters of the Duke of Atholl, the Countess of Seafield and of Lord Mansfield—three of the most experienced Men in Scotland, gave evidence. The substance of their testimony was that a great part of the land in the Highlands, which for a sheep rent, a deer rent, or a grouse rent, would only yield 1s. 3d. per acre, would, if planted with timber, yield from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per acre. There was unquestionably a vast amount of money in that proposal. The reason why proprietors had not planted as largely as they might was obvious; they could not afford to plant for posterity; but the nation could afford to plant for posterity, and if a practical scheme for planting the greater part of the Highlands with timber were inaugurated, it would be found that so far from it being a wise course to export the population to British Siberia, or elsewhere, they would require a larger population than existed in the Highlands at present. Therefore, he said that on every ground the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland in this matter was to be deplored; it was to be deplored that he should have taken the question of emigration out of the hands of the House of Commons and decided it for himself, and especially in the manner he had done. In order to take the sense of the Committee upon the conduct of the noble Marquess, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)said, it was quite clear that if the Government were to emigrate every man, woman, and child in the Island of Lewis with the exception of one family, and the same conditions were to apply to that family as now applied to the people, they would be paupers, because they would be shut out from the resources of nature. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) had suggested certain alternatives to emigration; but there was one alternative which he did not suggest, and it was one which must naturally suggest itself to Her Majesty's Government, and that was that the people should have access to the land. That alternative should, in his opinion, take precedence of that of planting the Highlands. It 607 was generally assumed that there was not sufficient land in the Island of Lewis for the population; yet, as a matter of fact, there was in that Island 35 acres for every man, woman, and child there. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) say that the majority of the people had a holding of anything like that size? He (Mr. A. Sutherland) thought that until there was something approaching an equal division of land, it was not time to talk of emigration. They knew there was a state of things existing in the Island of Lewis that must be painful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as well as to them. But the question was whether the Government had hit upon a proper remedy. He and his hon. Friends maintained that the Government had not done so; that they were deliberately shutting their eyes to the remedy which was at their door, and they were taking a course which would prove utterly futile. It would appear as if there never had been emigration from the Island before. There had been a constant stream of emigration from the Island for many years, and yet it had been of no use. Why? Because concurrently with that emigration there had been no opening up of the land for the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate knew perfectly well that the whole of the destitution in Lewis—the whole of the unsatisfactory state of the Island—arose from the pursuance of such a policy. This House had recognized the fact in legislation; because one of the conditions laid down in the Crofters Holdings Act, 1886, was, that there should be an attempt made to revert to the state of matters with regard to the distribution of the land which existed 80 years ago. That condition was a practical recognition that the Government made a mistake in allowing the depopulation of the Island, and that landlords made a mistake in carrying it out. The Committee was perfectly justified in criticizing the conduct of the Government in the matter of emigration, because emigration was not wanted by the people. He was perfectly aware that emigration was wanted by the Highland landlords, but it was never desired by the people. While redistribution of the land had been asked for by the Highland people for years, their request had 608 never been listened to. Emigration was wanted by the landlords, so that there would be no danger of the people asking for land, and the Government hastened to carry out the wishes of the landlords. He asked the Committee to contrast the conduct of the Government in the matter of emigration with their conduct with regard to money that was expressly voted by Act of Parliament. There was a clause in the Crofters Act to the effect that a certain amount of money should be devoted to the purpose of assisting people in the crofting parishes of the Highlands to buy boats and fishing gear; yet it was only after an agitation in the House, extending over a year, that the Government thought fit to give power that that money, should be paid out of the Exchequer, and even then it was given under conditions which made it almost impossible for the people to get any benefit from it. No money had been asked by the people for emigration; but in the case where money was provided by Act of Parliament the Government did everything they could to throw obstacles in the way of giving it. Then he noticed that it was only picked families who had been deported. What would be the result on the Highlands if the flower of the population were to be taken out and the useless people left at home? What result would that have upon the development of the country? How could the Government hope to develop the fisheries, or do anything to mitigate the sufferings of the people when the flower of the population were sent away? Besides, he could not think that the conduct of the Government in this matter was Constitutional. It required an Act of Parliament to grant money in order to help the people to get fishing boats, but it seemed it required no Act of Parliament to deport the population. That was a matter upon which he hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to afford some satisfactory explanation to the Committee. For the reasons he had given, he heartily seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £1,000, for the Secretary for Scotland, be reduced by the sum of £100."—(Mr. Hunter.)
§ DR. R. M'DONALD (Ross and Cromarty)said, there was one point of some 609 importance to which no attention had been drawn in the course of the debate, and that was that the Government had begun too late. They were sending these people to Canada after the crops had been sown, when, indeed, the crops were half-grown, and there was nothing more to do than prepare for the winter. Of course, they would have £100 to live upon; but what was to become of them until next year? Could any Gentleman who knew anything about America or Manitoba controvert the statement that emigrants going out now had nothing to do but build shanties? If the Government wanted to send these people away, why not send them just when the snow was melting? As it was, the money given to them would be spent before the next season came round. He was afraid that either this Government or the Government of Canada would have to furnish these people with money to prevent them dying of starvation. There was another point to which he wanted to direct attention. This was the only remedy, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) had said, which was always offered to them, no matter what Government was in Office. The Government professed to know the wants of the Highland people better than they who had been born and bred amongst those people. The Lord Advocate could not but allow that if he moved half the crofters in the Highlands, and gave two crofts to each crofter remaining, the latter would be very nearly as badly off as hitherto. But supposing that half the population were removed, and that the remaining crofters would be better off, what did the proposal mean? It meant that they would have to remove from 20,000 to 25,000 families. Were the Government prepared to do that? If not, what was their remedy worth? Who was to gain by this scheme? He did not see how the landlords would gain. He understood that each family was to get £120 out in Canada. Assuming that on the average there were five in a family, the fares to Manitoba would bring the total cost of the emigration of each family to £180. To remove half the population of the Highlands, therefore, they would be required to spend £3,600,000. Was the country prepared to spend so large a sum of money in sending crofters out of the country? It 610 would be much more sensible for this Government, or any Government, to spend £500,000 sterling in increasing, the crofts, and giving the crofters a chance of making a living in the country in which they were. But the Government seemed to think it was the landlords who must be attended to—that they must not be interfered with in any way. Why had the present Government, who had assented to the proposal for increasing the holdings, when asked to prepare rules and regulations respecting the increase of holdings, always answered "No?" He would not weary the Committee with any further observations, because what he was particularly anxious about was that the Lord Advocate should tell the Committee how these people were to live in Manitoba until they got their first crops out of the ground.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDMy hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) was correct in saying that the answers given to the Questions have been dull in the sense of being short; but if, in answering Questions, one had gone into an argument, it would have taken up too much time, besides being irregular. But I think I stated very distinctly, in my answers to Questions, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give a full opportunity to discuss this matter upon an Estimate which would be laid before the Committee of the House for this purpose. I take it that it is the mind and intention of my hon. Friends that it would be more just to go into the matter then, and that this is but a preliminary skirmish with the view of opening up the question. Having given that distinct intimation, it was our intention to place materials before hon. Members in ample time for that discussion, because it could not come on before the Recess. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hunter) made a remark which struck me as a very remarkable one. He said the proprietors in Lewis had in the past taken 25 per cent of the gross earnings of the laud, and all the other earnings, to themselves. If that was the case, and if it be the fact, as has been stated over and over again in this Rouse, that the average payment to the landlord in Lewis is only £2—[Hon. MEMBERS: £4.] I beg pardon; my information is different; but I will take it at £4.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDI do not think I ever stated that the average rental in Lewis was £4. If I did, it was, I believe, wrong; but I will take it at so much. Twenty-five per cent on that would leave for the whole family £16 per annum upon which they could live. But our policy has been all along to accept the decision of the Crofters' Commission, which sat some years ago; which declared that, without emigration from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, there was no real hope of any satisfactory solution of the difficulties which exist. We have been supported in that by hon. Members of the Party opposite, who have inquired into this question, and have in this House, within the present year, told us the same thing. Our policy is one which we have declared over and over again, and it has been met with obloquy. I am afraid we must bear that obloquy. If it is wrong, it must be put right by those who have the power to put it right; but consistency in this matter is the course we intend to pursue. We cannot help it. It is said that this is a scheme to send people out from the Highlands to what is called British Siberia, I can only say that people who have gone from the Highlands to that part of the British Dominions on former occasions have prospered, and have been happy and successful; and that the result of their going, on the inducement of others, had been that they themselves had induced others to go. The experiment we have made is a small one; but, in making it, we give the best proof of our good faith. If this place to which these people have gone out is, indeed, a British Siberia, then we have done certainly a most foolish thing as regards the future, because the reports which will reach home will be such as will prevent any further carrying out of our scheme. We are willing to face that condition, and we shall see who is right in the matter. Observations made here are reported; and I only say this for the purpose of stating that we do not agree with hon. Members opposite that it will be found to be a Siberia. No doubt, people who go out to Canada, and accept its more genial summer, which is better adapted for raising good crops, must face the consequence of 612 a severe winter. These people in Lewis are spoken of as being "deported." I really must ask my hon. Friends not to use such language; it is not fair. There is not one of the persons who has gone off in the steamer to-day who has not gone willingly. As a matter of fact, there has been a difficulty in making a choice, and many have remained behind disappointed. I say it is not fair to use such a word as "deported," which indicates compulsion, instead of, as we hope, willingness, and with the result of inducing others to go. If there is not willingness to go, then our scheme falls through. I may mention another fact which I think of good omen. The opportunity presented to these people to go abroad has resulted in this—out of 100 who have gone I learn to-day that six married before they started. I am glad to say they were sufficiently prudent to abstain from entering on the obligations of matrimony before they started for that land, where, we believe, they will prosper. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross (Dr. R. M'Donald) complains that these people have been sent out so late in the year. I quite admit it would have been a good thing if we could have started them a little sooner this year. That was not to be done; but we have had very excellent advice, and the advice given by those who know something about the matter is that we are not too late in sending them out, considering the way they will be received and looked after during their first year. It is a serious matter; but I can assure hon. Members it was not overlooked. Now I would like to correct one or two matters of fact. There is no intention to ask any interest on the money advanced to these people for the first four years, so that they will not be oppressed with any fear of that; and although they are to receive the money for four years without deduction, ultimate payments, including principal and interest, will not come to more than £4 16s. per £100.
§ MR. HUNTERFor how many years will it run?
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDI think it will run for about 12 years, and I think there will be no difficulty in accomplishing that repayment. Nor will there be the least disposition on this side of the ocean or the other to press 613 these people, if it should turn out that the period is too short. The matter will be controlled and managed by a Board of Commissioners, representing the imperial Government, the Canadian Government, private subscribers, and the Land Companies.
§ MR. A. SUTHERLANDWill the crofters who receive the money be represented?
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDI think they will be represented by the private subscribers, who have philanthropically advanced money.
§ MR. A. SUTHERLANDAre those who pay the interest represented direct?
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDIt is not usual, I think, so to treat people who have money advanced to them, and have to repay it. But, I repeat, they are substantially represented by the private subscribers, who have taken an extreme interest in this philanthropic scheme, and believe in its success. It is perfectly true that what we are doing at this particular moment is, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) has said, a mere drop in the bucket. But you must make a beginning somewhere. If we succeed, as I earnestly hope we shall, we shall have a good opportunity of showing whether emigration can be carried out with practical success; and I have no doubt, if it is shown that that can be done, the people themselves will take it up.
§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)said, he would much have preferred that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, instead of entering into a discussion which was hardly germane to the particular Vote before them, had told them by what authority, statutory or otherwise, the Government engaged in a scheme involving expenditure without, first of all, obtaining for it the sanction of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that a Commission was to be appointed, and he told them how that Commission was to be constituted. Was that Commission to be a statutory one; and, if so, by what authority was it to be appointed? Was it to be appointed by Parliament; and, if it was to be appointed by Parliament, why had the Government commenced a scheme to be regulated by a Commission without, in the first place, having obtained the requisite power from Parliament? The right hon. and 614 learned Gentleman told them that full opportunity would be given for the discussion of this matter; that Papers and Estimates would soon be laid on the Table; and that that would afford an opportunity for discussing the whole subject of State-aided emigration from the Highlands. If they were to have Papers and Estimates so soon, why had there been this unseemly and unconstitutional haste in forcing on an experiment which he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would admit it was perfectly right they should have full opportunity of considering? Why had the Government been in such haste, without any powers, without any authorization from the House, to spend money upon this scheme? His hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) asked the Lord Advocate to explain by what authority he committed the Government to this expenditure of money, by what authority he had acted in the matter; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman carefully avoided the point. The Lord advocate went into all sorts of extraneous matter; he raised a laugh here and a laugh there; but he carefully avoided what was the real matter of which he (Dr. Cameron) and his hon. Friends complained. The Lord Advocate told them that the Crofters' Commission recommended State-aided emigration, and that the policy of the Government was to carry out the decision of the Crofters' Commission. That was only one of the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission. Why had the Government not shown something like equal alacrity to carry out some of the other recommendations of the Commission, to carry out recommendations which they might have carried out without doing what appeared to him to be an unconstitutional act—namely, forestalling the House in the expenditure of public money? At the commencement of the evening he was much struck with a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). That right hon. Gentleman referred to the most valuable Constitutional provision under which, he said, no payment could be made out of the Treasury after the 31st of March, except on the authority of a direct Vote of the House. But when the right hon. Gentleman was saying that, they knew 615 that in a few minutes they would have to discuss this commitment of the Government to the expenditure of money for a policy which was open to the gravest criticism. He did not blame the Government for trying an experiment of this sort tentatively, and in such a way as to make sure they did not do mischief; but what he did complain of was that while they pretended to give the House a full opportunity, by laying Papers on the Table, and introducing a special Vote, for the discussion of a most important question—namely, the propriety of devoting the funds of the State to the emigration of certain people, they prejudged the whole question by rushing in and carrying out the scheme with a high hand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that of the men who had been emigrated no fewer than six got married on the morning before they left. He (Dr. Cameron) could quite understand that, because, according to the estate regulations, any young man who married without permission was liable to be evicted. No wonder that when men got an opportunity of going abroad they should rush into matrimony. In going into this scheme, the Government had gone in for a scheme which was tried by Sir James Matheson, and failed. Sir James Matheson spent, in connection with this very Island, as large a sum of money as the Government proposed to spend—he spent £12,000 on an emigration scheme, and the result was absolutely nil. Years passed, and it was then said that unless an emigration scheme were adopted the Island would go from bad to worse. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) had proved, by the quotations he read to the Committee from the Report of the Board of Supervision, events had completely given the lie to that prediction; and yet, in face of that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to repeat the experiment. He did not blame the Lord Advocate; he did not blame the Government for acting upon their conviction: what he blamed them for was committing the country to the expenditure of public money in a new direction and for a new departure altogether, and for doing so, when there was not the smallest need for haste, in such a manner as absolutely to forestall the House in the matter. He thought the least the right hon. and learned 616 Gentleman could have done, if he wished fairly to carry out the pledge he gave to the House that they should have an opportunity of discussing the question before anything was done—[Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD dissented.] He admitted that they required to construe an answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as they would a contentious clause in a Bill; but, certainly, the interpretation he had put upon the pledge of the Lord Advocate was the interpretation which any ordinary-minded man would put upon it. It certainly would have been very much better had the right hon. and learned Gentleman refrained from doing anything until he had given hon. Members an opportunity of discussing the whole question.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to say a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). They were asked by what authority they had acted in this matter? They had acted, as all other Governments had acted, in the face of a great emergency. They had taken upon themselves the responsibility of applying public money which, if Parliament did not give them, they must make good. They were in face of a great emergency and difficulty. The hon. Gentleman (Dr. Cameron) said he had no objection whatever to a tentative process, or to an effort to ascertain whether the emigration of crofters from Lewis would tend to the advantage of those unfortunate people, and all he found fault with them for was that they had been in a hurry. The hon. Gentleman thought they had done this before they ought to have done it—that Parliament ought to have had a full opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the whole scheme before anything was done. But what would have been the result of that? The tentative process which the hon. Gentleman desired should be carried out could not be carried out that year. For another year these people who had now gone out must have remained in Lewis, must have remained in a condition of destitution, and with the prospect of starvation before them. The Government would have been just a year behind in the testing of this experiment which, in their conscience, they believed to be necessary, and which they hoped would 617 be entirely successful. They were applying a scheme of emigration tentatively, upon their responsibility, as one of the measures which they hoped might, if extended, afford relief to those distressed people. The hon. Gentleman said they ought to have laid the Papers and the Estimate on the Table before embarking on the scheme. They could not. It was impossible for them to lay Papers on the Table and ask for a Vote of £10,000, which Parliament knew they were about to apply for, in time to have obtained a judgment upon it. They bad to carry out negotiations in Canada; they had to obtain an Act in the Canadian Parliament authorizing the course they had taken. Until that Act was obtained they could not proceed. The crofters themselves were only too anxious to go. The difficulty had been to make a selection, and in making a selection their aim and purpose had been to choose those who, as far as human foresight could see, would profit, and be successful in the new country. Whether the Government failed or succeeded, whether they were right or wrong, they had acted in the discharge of what they believed to be their duty to these people. They were prepared to take the consequences, and they believed that Parliament would approve of their action.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, he and his hon. Friends would take a Division, because the arguments used on the part of the Government by the Lord Advocate and the First Lord of the Treasury did not meet the case at all. He quite admitted it was competent for the Government to act independently of Parliament; and if some special reason had been urged for their doing so, he and his hon. Friends might not have taken the action they intended. As a matter of fact, no experiment could be tried by the Government during the present year. The emigrants, or transported crofters, would not reach their destination until June, and it would be utterly impossible that they could do anything during the present year, so far as the sowing of crops was concerned. By sending them out now the Government were simply wasting the men's time. The Government were sending these crofters out far too late to be of any use this year, and the experiment they were making would be null and void, in place of being attended with satisfactory 618 results. All the result would be to give some 40 or 50 extra labourers to the farmers in that neighbourhood. The reasons given by the Lord Advocate for the unconstitutional step taken by the Government—for it was unconstitutional for the Government to spend money without the knowledge of Parliament, and to conceal the fact until pressed for information in the House—were wholly insufficient. There was no necessity for the unseemly hurry in which this emigration scheme had been carried out. The proper time to have sent the people out would have been in the Indian summer, or the fall of the year. It was said that the late Royal Commission had recommended that emigration should take place; but the late Royal Commission did not do so. Only a portion of the Royal Commission recommended it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) did not recommend it—the recommendation only came from the landlord part of the Commission, and even then it was only one of the minor recommendations of the Commission. The important recommendations were two. The first was that the size of the present crofters' holdings should be increased. It was recommended that the Sheriff should have power, when a township declared itself overcrowded, to increase the holdings in that township; but nothing had been done by the Government to carry out that, the principal, recommendation of the Commission. Secondly, they recommended that, in addition to new holdings, new townships should be formed under the conditions laid down in the Crofters' Act; but as he had lately brought before the notice of the House, though clauses were put into the Crofters' Act allowing the Crofter Commission to increase holdings for five years, now over two years of that period had passed, and not a single holding had been increased by the Commission, and during the remaining three years he did not expect that there would be more than 500 holdings increased, because the conditions upon which the enlargement was to be allowed would render the crofts worthless. The Government, he maintained, ought to have amended the Crofters' Act before they tried this emigration scheme, and ought to have allowed the Crofter Commission to have increased existing hold- 619 ings, and to have created new townships for the accommodation of the great bulk of the population. Under the Crofters' Act, in the arrangements for increasing the holdings, the Government had not touched that other important factor in this matter—namely, the cottars who were one-third of the population in the crofter districts. These cottars, who were evicted crofters or their immediate descendants, had no land, and the only way to benefit them was to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission he had named—namely, to create new townships. But nothing of the kind had been done, and of all those recommendations of the Royal Commission which were made unanimously, the Government had disregarded the only recommendation they were anxious to adopt, having been a recommendation upon which the Commissioners were not at one. He (Dr. Clark) was opposed to the principle of the scheme the Government were carrying out—he was opposed to their policy in this matter in every shape and form. He had lived, he thought, in every one of our self-governing Colonies, and he knew something of our Crown Colonies; and he must say that, so far as comfort in the ordinary conditions of life was concerned, he should infinitely prefer to live in Sydney, Melbourne, or Dunedin, than in London, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Physically, those places in the Colonies were infinitely better than our large towns at home, and it was only sentimental reasons which kept him here. The other countries were superior in a great many ways, and they would be great nations when we probably were played out; but, as a citizen of this Empire, and as a Scotchman, he certainly objected to the principle underlying the Government policy. They were clearing away the agricultural population of these Islands, and for what? In order to create deer forests and sheep farms. What was the economical condition of the country under the present system? Why, it was this—that the land was becoming less and less fruitful, the production from it decreasing year by year. The sheep farms had no labour placed upon them, and were returning to a state of nature, the result being that they did not grow more than half, or, at the outside, two-thirds of what they used to grow. The land formerly occu- 620 pied by crofters, being allowed to remain fallow, was producing less and less every year, and, of course, the general production of the whole country was less and less every year. No one would contend, except, perhaps, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that deer forests were of any use to the people generally, and he said emphatically that if they were going to get rid of their country population they would bring about a national calamity. We relied too much upon the extent of our manufactures. He knew something about the countries that used to be our customers for our manufactured goods, and he said, from his knowledge of them, that they were now supplying themselves with those commodities which they formerly used to obtain from us. What we should have to depend upon ultimately would be the home trade, and if we lessened the possibility of providing for our own wants at home we should be gradually preparing the way for a national calamity—we should be filling our towns more and more with an idle population with less food to feed them on, and would be, in fact, guilty of a national crime. However, those were questions which must be entered upon fully when the Government brought their scheme formally before the House. All that could be done now was to protest against the policy carried out by the Government, and to protest against the manner in which it had been sought to conceal from the House the real facts of the case until hon. Members had, unwillingly, wrung those facts from the Front Bench opposite. Furthermore, Members interested in this subject submitted that the Government were carrying out their experiments at a bad time of the year, when there was no chance of success, instead of deferring the discussion and putting off the adoption of arrangements until a period when there was a likelihood of light being thrown upon the subject, and a probability of the scheme being carried out successfully. He supported the Motion of his hon. Friend, and trusted he would carry it to a Division.
§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)said, he wished to say a few words upon this question, and to call the attention of the Government to certain points at this stage, because he had had several communications from members of his 621 constituency who were crofters and fishermen, and who were desirous of ascertaining whether the proposed scheme of emigration would be applied to that part of the country which he represented. He had once or twice asked the Lord Advocate for information on the subject; but, in reply to every Question put to that right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the government of Scotland, they got little or no information. He did not altogether think it was the fault of the Lord Advocate, however. It was the fault of the First Lord of the Treasury, who would not have the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate merely came to that House as a machine to read from Papers answers to certain Questions. When the Scotch Members pressed him earnestly for further answers, he was, of course, like the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the President of the Local Government Board, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as Scotland was concerned, and so far as the subjects to which the Questions related were concerned—that was to say, he knew nothing about them. The consequence was that Scotch Members had to drag important statements from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate bit by bit, and often had to put the same Question down on the Paper three or four times, because they could not get a reply. He declared that, so far as the present Vote was concerned, the Secretary for Scotland and the Government were very much to blame for not having someone in that House who was responsible for the affairs of Scotland and knew what was taking place in Scotland, and who was, in fact, the Secretary for Scotland. He thought, if the First Lord of the Treasury would consider this matter—if he ever did consider Scotch affairs—the right hon. Gentleman would see that this debate illustrated emphatically the point he (Mr. Anderson) was making. On this emigration question what information had they got? Hardly any, except that they were told that the policy—the only policy—of the Government with regard to the state of things in Scotland was emigration. Well, he should have thought that, inasmuch as there were other alternative policies, the Government might have turned their attention 622 to them. The policy the crofters wanted was not that of sending them to Canada or other far-off places. They wanted to live in their own country; they wanted to have land given to them, and to be allowed to cultivate that land. He wondered whether the Government had seen the Memorial just presented to Lady Matheson, in which it was pointed out to her that two districts which were now deer forests—namely, Lochs and Aline, 30 or 40 years ago were covered by small though flourishing crofter townships. These places were cleared for the purpose of making the Lochs Forest and the Aline Forest. He (Mr. Anderson) wanted to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he did not think the attention of the Government should be turned rather to the expressed wishes of those people, in order to see if they could not bring in some legislation which would bring the crofter population back to the land they originally occupied? To get up here and say that the people wanted to emigrate was all stuff and nonsense. They did nothing of the kind. They looked upon going to foreign countries as absolute banishment. Think of what emigration meant to a man well advanced in life! Emigration might very well be a good thing to a young unmarried man of 18, or from 18 to 25; but if they took a man past 30 years of age—say a man of 40—with a family, and, transplanting him from his own country, sent him over to Canada, without friends, ignorant of the habits of the people and having to learn everything there, it was no wonder that they found numbers and numbers of instances in which the people returned to their own country, having, as emigrants, proved utter failures. He would send to the First Lord of the Treasury—if in the midst of his multifarious duties he could devote a little time to the perusal of such a document—an account which appeared in one of the local newspapers of the counties he (Mr. Anderson) represented. This account, which he had received that morning, gave particulars of the condition in which some of these emigrants found themselves abroad. The account was given by two fishermen who had heard from emigration agencies brilliant statements as to the profits which were to be made by fishermen, and, being hard pressed to live at home, they had been led away 623 by the rosy descriptions they had heard and had emigrated. But what did they find in the country to which they had emigrated? Why, they had had to go from place to place, and had everywhere found the trade crowded by competition; but, worse than that, they found wages far lower and living very much inferior, and houses far worse and the fishery much more difficult, than at home. And yet it was said that these men were to go out to British Columbia and fish and secure great prosperity. He did not think it was possible to read an instance of more absolute failure than that of the two men he referred to, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would not object to his sending him the account in question. If the right hon. Gentleman, as he had said, could in the midst of his other numerous duties find time to read it, it would, no doubt, produce a very strong effect upon his mind, as it would open up to him a new phase of this question which he had not been in the habit of considering. The Government were remarkable in this matter for a want of policy. They had not considered the interests and the capabilities and the character of the persons who were to be benefited, and they rushed blindly into this scheme of emigration. To think, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, that at this great crisis an expenditure of some £10,000 would be sufficient for the relief of the distressed crofters, and to think that by that means they would be putting a stop to agitation and really conferring a benefit upon the population, was the most absurd proposition ever made from the Treasury Bench. But there was another point upon which he wished to say a word; and it was this—Where were the Government going to take these people from? Were they going to take them simply from Lady Matheson's estate? Were they going merely to give her an opportunity of getting rid of her crofters by sending them off, that she might be relieved of the trouble they gave her? How did the Government mean to select the emigrants? He rather thought—in fact, he had heard it stated—that the emigrants were selected in this way—there was a sort of anxious desire that the leading crofters, those people who were agitating to get their land back, should 624 be got out of the way, and that those were the people who were preferred in the patronage of the Government. It was said that the Government were anxious to transplant from their native country those people who gave most trouble; and certainly, unless some preference was exhibited, he was at a loss to understand how the selection was being made. There must be some influence of that kind at work. At any rate, he would ask the Government this question, which he thought was a fair one. Why were the fishermen living on the Eastern Coast of Scotland left out? Let the Government think of the jealousy they were creating with these people. There was amongst the fishermen of the Moray Firth a great deal of distress, and perhaps the men there were anxious to try the experiment of emigration. Probably, after reading the account of their want of success given by the two fishermen to whom he had referred, these people would not be so anxious for emigration as they had been hitherto; but, be that as it might, the people on whose behalf he was speaking were anxious, whilst there was money being spent in this way, that they should derive some advantage from it as well as other people. He did not wish to increase the difficulties of the Government. All he desired to say was that he viewed with great disfavour any scheme which would ignore the counties he represented; and if the scheme did not include these people he certainly should move its rejection. If the scheme was one merely for the purpose of spending money on one particular county or estate, he looked upon it as very objectionable; and, therefore, he trusted that, before the scheme was wholly carried out, the Government would consider the suggestion he was making. Perhaps the remarks he had addressed to the Government would come to the notice of the Secretary for Scotland. They would not be reported to him by the Lord Advocate, because that right hon. and learned Gentleman had not been there to listen to them; but he (Mr. Anderson) trusted, at all events, that through one of the many different channels which had to be traversed in order to get at the Secretary for Scotland, and to bring any influence to bear upon him, there would be brought to his notice the view taken by 625 some Scotch Members upon this subject, and that the scheme would not, after all, be an exclusive one, but would extend to other counties. He knew the difficulties which surrounded the subject—he knew the difficulties the Government had to face in dealing with the Crofter Question; but the Government seemed to be impressed with the idea that there were no crofters in any of the counties, except four or five. They seemed to have the most supreme ignorance as to what the crofters were, and where they were to be found. He trusted they would consider the few remarks he had made, and certainly hoped that his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment would carry it to a Division, as he did not think the House had been fairly treated in this matter. He thought that on this, as on other questions as to the management of their affairs, Members representing Scotch constituencies were not fairly dealt with by the Government, mainly for the reason, as he had pointed out, that they had nobody to represent Scotch affairs in the Government in that House.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 88: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 114.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, he wished to call attention to a subject of local interest in connection with the item in the Vote for County Courts. There had been no satisfactory explanation given with reference to the complaint which had been made of the action of the County Court Judge at Stowmarket in Suffolk. There had been a good deal of friction between the County Court Judge and the suitors who came before him in the ordinary course of business. Questions which had been asked of the Government had had reference to special points; but the broad question which appeared to underlie all these special points was this—that the County Court Judge in question had been acting in a very harsh manner, and not to one person only, but to a great number of persons who had come before him. In that House the Government had referred hon. Members to the Lord Chancellor, and had put hon. Members off with answers which were not satisfactory—he would not call 626 them evasive answers, because he did not suppose they were anxious to burke the question. No doubt, it was a difficult and even a delicate question; but he contended that in a matter like that, where constant complaints were arising from different Members of the House who were asked to take up the matter and press it upon the attention of the Government, where they had evidence of a state of things which could not be allowed to continue, it was no answer to the poor people whose claims for redress in a Court of Justice had been set aside and injured by the conduct of a particular individual—it was no satisfaction to them to be told——
THE CHAIRMANI understand the hon. Member is raising a question as to the conduct of a County Court Judge.
§ MR. CONYBEARE.Certainly, Sir.
THE CHAIRMANThe salaries of County Court Judges are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and are not included in this Vote.
§ MR. CONYBEAREWhat, Sir, is this Vote for County Courts for?
THE CHAIRMANThe salaries of the Judges of the County Courts and the salaries of the Judges in the higher Courts are included in the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. CONYBEAREThen do I understand, Sir, that it is impossible to discuss a question connected with the County Courts upon the Estimates?
THE CHAIRMANIt is impossible to discuss a question as to the conduct of a County Court Judge upon this Vote.
§ MR. CONYBEAREThen I beg to give Notice that I shall take the opportunity of bringing this subject forward on the Motion for Adjournment.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)said, in the course of some introductory remarks made on this Vote on Account, the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Donegal laid particular stress on Vote 37. Dealing with it in a very few words, the hon. Member had practically shown that a great deal of money had been wasted over the Vote in past years. Anyone who would take up the Auditor General's Report on this Vote would see from those figures that the estimated receipts last year were £78,500, and the actual receipts £74,011 3s. 3d.; therefore the Estimates exceeded the 627 receipts by £4,448 16s. 9d. But that was not all. He did not propose to deal with the matter in extenso, but he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to it, and he knew that that Gentleman in that House was always most anxious to clear up any point—
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that we have passed the item upon which he is speaking.
§ DR. TANNERI was not aware, Sir, that these Votes were being taken seriatim.
THE CHAIRMANThere was a Division on an item subsequent to that to which the hon. Member is refering.
§ DR. TANNERI presume, Sir, I should be in Order in taking up any Irish Vote on page 3, the Lord Lieutenant's Household for instance. There has been no Division on those Votes. I would ask your ruling, Sir, upon another point, and that is this—supposing a Division is taken upon any one of these Votes, and that then any one of us discusses a Vote lower down on the list, would it be in Order for an hon. Member who might not happen to have been present, and who might have something to say on a succeeding Vote to that made the subject, would he be able to speak?
THE CHAIRMANIt is quite unnecessary to deal with a hypothetical case. The case in point has already been practically decided.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, he wished to say a word with regard to the payment of Fiscals. A Royal Commission had recommended that in future Procurators Fiscal, when appointed, should be limited to Crown work—that was to say, should be the servants of the Crown, and should not represent landlords as well. Since then, however, an important appointment had been made, and this recommendation had been overlooked, notwithstanding that all the lawyers in Scotland had been opposed to it. He thought it desirable that they should know how they stood in this matter, as there had been a pledge given by the late Lord Advocate. The Scotch Members understood, and it was agreed that in future Fiscals should be appointed for Crown work only, and that they should not be allowed to do private work, for the reason that if they were allowed to do private work 628 as well as Crown work, the private work was affected by that Crown work. He (Dr. Clark) desired to know why, notwithstanding the pledges which had been given, the recommendations made by the Royal Commission had not been carried out? He did not wish to take up the time of the House by moving the reduction of the Lord Advocate's salary; but he wished to know the reason why the Treasury stood in the way of carrying out the system recommended by the Royal Commission?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he was afraid he had no facts upon which to answer the specific question put by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman knew that in some districts the Procurator Fiscal had to give his whole time to the Crown, and take no other work. In other districts, however, a much higher rate of pay would have to be given to get the requisite ability than that which the amount of work would really require or demand, if the Procurator Fiscal were required to do no other work. He was sorry the Lord Advocate was not present, but he would communicate with him and ascertain what had taken place.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, he should like to ask the Government if they could give him any information as to the reason why the Crofter Commission had not been allowed to appoint Assistant Commissioners, in order that they might dispose of their work more quickly than they were doing? Three or four times this subject had been brought before the notice of the Treasury, and Scotch Members had understood that at last something was to be done to appoint Assistant Commissioners in order that the Commission might get through a portion of the work which was very urgent. Lewis had been spoken of a good deal in connection with the Crofter Question, but during the two years that the Commission had been at work they had not yet got there, and goodness knew when they would get there, because he understood they were going to Orkney and Shetland first. That was very hard on those poor crofters who applied to the Commission nearly two years ago for relief, and had not yet had their cases attended to. Unless the Government did something to have Assistant Commissioners ap- 629 pointed, the three men who were now at work on the business of the Commission would not possibly be able to hear all the cases. They had dealt with but few of the holdings, and the time they had occupied in deciding these cases was worth more than the value of the crofts. The Commissioners examined the land, and the work they did was so little compared with the necessities of the case, and with the work they might do, that he did not think it was worth while for Parliament to carry on the Commission at all in its present inadequate shape. Surely an appeal ought to be heard within 12 months of the time of its being lodged? Men, feeling that they were rack-rented, and seeing on estates in other parts of the country reductions made ranging from 25 to 75 per cent, were naturally unwilling to pay their rents, and in this way things were getting into a very bad state. The Government would have serious trouble to face unless they made provisions to have the crofter cases heard, and also to have appeals decided. He thought that the present attitude of the Government was a penny wise and pound foolish one, as it led to great expense being piled up. He trusted they would make good what the Act permitted. Clauses were passed in the Act to allow Assistant Commissioners, Valuers, and officers of that kind to be appointed; and surely it was the original intention of the Government to appoint men to do the work, and not to have the muddle and deadlock which existed at present. The Commissioners had been unable for years to do the work. As he had pointed out, in an island like that of Lewis, they had been unable to do it. The only way in which it was possible to get the Commission to go anywhere to hear cases within a reasonable time was to kick up a row, and to do illegal acts. That, however, was teaching the peasantry a very bad lesson. He thought that the Government should give the Act a fair chance, so far as they could, and should not prevent its being carried out merely because the Secretary to the Treasury was afraid of spending a pound or two. The Government scorned to forget that for every pound they spent for legal purposes in Scotland in England they were spending £2 10s. 0d., and in Ireland £5. He protested that in this 630 matter they were treating Scotland in a mean and niggardly fashion.
§ DR. TANNERsaid, that, in the Vote on Account, there was included an item to which he took considerable objection; in fact, if the Members of the Party to which he had the honour to belong took the matter up seriously, it would require a whole Sitting to deal with it, or, perhaps, two Sittings of the House. The item to which he referred was one for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland. Now, it was within the recollection of the House that since the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, which was popularly known as the Coercion Act, was passed, a number of cases had been tried under its provisions, and again and again illegal actions had been committed by the magistrates who had tried those cases. He felt sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—no matter how much they might differ from hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House—if they only thoroughly appreciated the facts, would understand that it was necessary that the Irish Members should be privileged to discuss these questions when money was asked under such a Vote, seeing that that money was not only to pay the magistrates who tried the cases, but the prosecuting counsel who appeared before the magistrates. Practically speaking, from the magistrates who sat on the Bench to the counsel who prosecuted, and the policemen who arrested a person, all these officials were paid by the Crown, and they were all part and parcel of the same method of carrying out, as far as possible, the political modus vivendi of the right hon. Gentleman who conducted, or rather misconducted, the business of Ireland. He should like to bring before the notice of the Committee two or three cases which had come under his own observation. What he was about to describe he had seen himself, and they said that—"Seeing was believing." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, when he (Dr. Tanner) told him what he had seen in connection with one of the cases, had stated that his (the right hon. Gentleman's) information—which was inconsistent with what he (Dr. Tanner) had seen—was received from a reliable source; and what the right hon. Gentleman's insinuation there 631 was he (Dr. Tanner) would leave to the judgment of the House. He would now allude to the case of one of his constituents—the case of a man named Creedon. This man, on Sunday the 8th April last, went into the town of Macroom. Well, it was within the knowledge of most men who paid any attention to Irish affairs that Ireland had been relegated, or was supposed to have been relegated, to a subordinate position by Her Majesty's Ministers, although, as a matter of fact, she still occupied that position to which she was entitled, aye, and which she would ever maintain. The Government might do their utmost against her, but she would come to the fore again and again. The more they tried to put her down, the stronger she would stand in front of them, and the more certain she would be to procure the downfall of the enemies to patriotic and single-minded and undivided action. But he was about to refer to the case of the young man Creedon. On that very day, Sunday the 8th of April, several meetings were to be held in different parts of Ireland by the Irish Nationalist Party. It had been determined to hold these meetings in consequence of a boast of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. For his own part, he did not find any fault with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for making this boast. The poor unfortunate right hon. Gentleman really did not know very often what he did. He had never visited the Province of Munster; he had never visited the Province of Connaught, and he had never gone into Ulster. In that very House he (Dr. Tanner) had said that, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him, he should only be too glad to bring to his personal notice a great number of cases which might, perhaps, occasion his turning over a new leaf and being a better boy for the future. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in that House that the National League was dead. He (Dr. Tanner) happened to be the Representative of a portion of Cork in which the National League was "suppressed," consequently the right hon. Gentleman's boast referred to a portion of his (Dr. Tanner's) constituency. Well, the members of the suppressed branches of the National League determined that they would show the Chief Secretary to the 632 Lord Lieutenant that he was utterly mistaken in his premises, and that in the speech he had delivered he had made a false statement to the country. Of course, it was immaterial for him (Dr. Tanner) whether or not the right hon. Gentleman had simply made his statement for the purpose of catching votes in this country, and to show what a great man the right hon. Gentleman was; suffice it to say that it was determined to hold meetings of the National League all over the country, and it subsequently transpired that several meetings were held in Macroom. On the Saturday before the meeting to which he was about to refer, he happened to meet in the City of Cork an old gentleman, a quiet old gentleman, a really good old man to play a game of whist with, but a person utterly unfitted to act as a magistrate, the duties of such a post being altogether past his time of life. This old gentleman told him that the meeting in Macroom was to be suppressed, whereupon he rejoined—"Who is going to suppress it?" and, turning round with a gallant air, this Captain Redmond—for this gentleman, as his name would indicate, had held a position in Her Majesty's Reserve Forces—of course, most of those gentlemen who belonged to the Magisterial Bench were attached to Her Majesty's Reserve Forces and had never been in action—Captain Redmond's manly breast heaved, and he said—"I am going to suppress it!" Now, really, there ought to be some common sense displayed in the matter of the suppression of these meetings. When an elderly gentleman of that kind took upon himself to suppress an entire district, and refused to give anyone any information as to the matter, he protested that the policy which permitted such a thing was absurd, and that the state of affairs was such that it could not be expected to meet with the sanction of the people of the country they now occupied. He asked Captain Redmond for further information, but he refused to give it. He (Dr. Tanner) had gone down to Macroom next day, as it was his duty to do. He had not been served with a copy of the writ stating that the meeting was to be suppressed, and he held the meeting in the morning—a meeting which was attended by some 500 men on horseback. At that meeting they 633 discussed the matters most worthy of their consideration, and they congratulated one another on the fact that notwithstanding the edict of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who knew nothing whatever about the district, not only was the League doing well there, but, as a matter of fact, the numbers of the National League in the town of Macroom had increased once and a-half what they were before the publication of the edict. They also congratulated themselves upon the fact that in other places similar advances had been made by the League. So great had been the success from a National point of view which attended the suppression of the League, that it was a question whether it was not advisable, in order to make the organization more successful in those places where it had taken less hold amongst the people, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as a special and peculiar favour, to suppress the organization in the remaining parts of the county he had the honour to represent. Well, the morning meeting was held, and at 2 o'clock they proceeded to hold another meeting. At that time a troop of Cavalry had ridden into the Square, and there were over 100 Constabulary there. They were led by Captain Redmond, who walked up and down the Square, looking very uncomfortable, and by two or three District Inspectors of Police, trying to make the best of their time smoking cigarettes. He (Dr. Tanner) then thought it was desirable to make a protest in the name of the constituency and in the name of law and order, as supported by the people, as against this illegal demonstration on the part of the Crown. Accordingly, in order that the people might not suffer, he himself undertook to go forward. He tried to get the people to step back and remain quiet whilst the protest was being made, because he knew, from circumstances which had preceded this occasion, that the police had received orders "to bâton, but not to arrest." The Crown did not take the responsibility of arresting him on that occasion; but they did what they would not have dared to do in England, Scotland, or Wales—that was to say, they tried to break his head. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh; but he could 634 assure hon. Members from the North of Ireland and also English Members that if they could have witnessed the conduct of the police officials and the official supporters of law and order on the occasion in question they would not have been disposed to laugh, and would have been very much ashamed of supporting a Government which endeavoured to carry out its mandates by such brutal illegality. What happened on the occasion to which he was referring? He went into the Square, being perfectly content to do so, so far as he was personally concerned. He had, as he had said, told the people to be quiet and not to follow him; for if they did they would get into trouble. He had said—"Stop there, and let me go on." He got to the centre of the Square, and there he was collared. [Laughter.] He doubted whether hon. Gentlemen would laugh if they know what took place. The District Inspectors in days gone by used to be considered gentlemen; but in recent years they had sadly degenerated, and that description could no longer with justice be applied to them. Well, while he was in the hands of three policemen and firmly pinioned, a District Inspector came up, and deliberately struck him in the face. The District Inspector would not have done it if his (Dr. Tanner's) arms had been free. Was, therefore, the act of this person gentlemanly or cowardly? He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would endorse such action; but he could assure them that it was quite a common occurrence in Ireland under the existing state of things in that country. He merely alluded to this incident because it was a personal matter, and he had no grudge against the unfortunate man who had been guilty of this piece of brutality. He treated him and the rest of his class as beneath contempt, and merely alluded to the subject en passant. The policemen who collared him took him off the Square; but he would do some of them the justice to say that in the evening they came to him and apologized, stating that although they were obliged to carry out the mandate of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, practically speaking, their hearts, their inclinations, and their minds were altogether against such dirty work. This young man, when he 635 saw him dragged from the Square, made an exclamation, and the policeman struck him.
§ MR. MACINNES (Northumberland, Hexham)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 13: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 115.)
§ Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday 31st May.
§ Committee to sit again upon Thursday 31st May.