Commons Sitting of 3 May 1889

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
Order for Consideration read.
Mr. W. M'LAREN: I wish to say one word on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Invernessshire (Mr. F. Mackintosh), who has a notice on the Paper in reference to this Bill. It is that the opponents of the Bill do not intend to trouble the House further in the matter, but they desire me to say that they intend to carry their opposition elsewhere.
Bill considered, and ordered to be read a third time.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY (MONUMENTAL CHAPEL) BILL (by Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: For the reason which I mentioned to the House yesterday I now beg to move that the order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn.
Order for Second Reading discharged: Bill withdrawn.

QUESTIONS

  CEYLON—THE, NEW COMMUTATION ACT.
  MR. BARBOURasked the Under Secretary of State for the

  1079
  Colonies if it is true that in Ceylon, by the new Commutation Act, the tax on the food of the people has been raised 50 per cent; that by the method of assessment in blocks, irrespective of ownership, the land of one or more owners in the block may be confiscated, although such owners were ready to pay, and had tendered payment; and that, as stated in the Ceylon Independent of the 22nd of February last, in one district alone over 2,000 acres had been sold for default, and thrown out of cultivation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth): No information has reached the Colonial Office which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's question in detail; nor has the Secretary of State heard of any hardship being caused by the working of the Commutation Act of 1878, which was introduced solely in the interest of the native cultivator. The Governor will, however, be called upon for a Report.

  TRADE MARKS.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Patents Office in persistently refusing to register (Reference No. 79,032) the trade mark "Mignon," as applied to tin and terne plates, which the applicants deny can have any reference to the quality or character of the goods; and, whether he will direct the said authorities to comply with the wish of the applicants in this respect?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. Hicks BEACH,): If the applicant is dissatisfied with the Comptroller's decision, he can appeal to the Board of Trade, or, if he particularly wishes it, can have his case referred to the Court.

  IRELAND—CASE OF JOHN HEANEY.
  MR. BLANE,asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Mr. John Heaney, a tenant on the estate of Lord Lurgan, signed an agreement with his landlord for the purchase of his holding under Lord Ashbourne's Act: if, afterwards, Mr. Heaney was sued for arrears of rent at Lurgan Quarter Sessions, and a
  1080
  decree granted by County Judge Kisbey; if Mr. Heaney appealed to a Superior Court against the judgment, and got the amount reduced by the learned Baron on re-hearing; if the Sub-Sheriff of county Armagh proceeded to his house and executed the decree of Judge Kisbey, which was set aside on appeal; if Mr. Heaney was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for resisting the decree so set aside; and, if the Government will consider the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that on no occasion did Heaney sign an agreement under the provisions of Lord Ashbourne's Act. He did, a considerable time after the appeal was decided affirming the decree, signify in writing his desire to purchase. The learned Baron who heard the appeal stated in his judgment that the decree was affirmed in every particular except that he varied the amount by a few pounds. The decree appears to have been duly executed. Heaney was, with three others, sentenced to imprisonment for violent resistance with pitchforks, stones, and hot water at the execution of the decree, one of the Sheriff's bailiffs being stabbed with a pitchfork under the eye.
  MR. BLANE: The gravamen of the question is whether the decree was set aside. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was resisted, and I want to know which version is correct.
  *MR. A. J.BALFOUR: I understand that it was not set aside.
  MR. BLANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a. re-hearing of the case, and that the former decree was held to be valid.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. I say that it was valid, and that it was not set aside.

  THE POLICE AT GWEEDORE.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state the amount of rent paid to Mr. Wybrant Olphert for accommodating the Royal Irish Constabulary and Military at Falcarragh, county Donegal, and what rent was paid for police at Mr. Wybrant Olpherts' own house; what rent was paid Captain Hill, Inspector of Prisons, for the temporary barracks at Bunbeg, Gwee-

  1081
  dore. What amount was charged for the Military at Gweedore Hotel, of which Captain Hill was proprietor; and, whether the rents received from Government exceeded in amount the total rent-roll from the other tenants?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The constabulary authorities report that the rent of the permanent barracks at Falcarragh is £17 a year. There are three temporary barracks taken at the rent of 1s. a week from Mr. Olphert, who likewise receives for accommodating the military the usual billeting rate of 4d. a day per man. No rent is paid for the police at his house for his protection. No rent is paid to Captain Hill for the temporary barracks at Bunbeg. Whilst at Gweedore Hotel 4d. a day per man was paid for infantry and 4s. 9d. for each horse, the latter rate being due to the exceptional difficulty of obtaining forage in the district. The rents received from the Government bear no comparison to the rent-roll of the estate in question.
  MR. BLANE: What was the charge to the officers?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume that the particulars supplied to me only relate to the men and not to the officers. If the hon. Gentleman wants further particulars about the officers I shall be glad to make inquiry if he will give me notice of the question.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  MR. LYELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Article XIV. of the Convention of 1884, made between Her Majesty and the South African Republic, is contravened by Law No. 3, 1885, of the South African Republic; whether certain Indian traders, subjects of Her Majesty resident in the Republic, who, relying upon the terms of the Convention, have embarked large sums of capital there, are now unable to obtain trade licences or to acquire real property or leases in the Republic, and are consequently suffering great loss; and, whether he will inform the House what steps are being taken to effect the carrying out of the terms of the Convention?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that the Law of 1885, as amended in 1886, at the instance of Her Majesty's Government does not prohibit the
  1082
  acquisition of real property or leases by natives of Asia, but merely restricts them in such acquisition to the "streets, wards, and districts, which the Government shall for sanitary purposes point out for habitation" (cl. 2 B.). The law has been enacted on grounds of public health, and makes no discrimination against British subjects, or any particular Asiatics. Representations have at various times been made to the Government of the South African Republic at the instance of persons who felt aggrieved by the law; and in response to these the President has agreed to renew licenses to all Asiatic traders actually possessing leases, wherever situated. The High Commissioner has been directed to make certain further representations which will no doubt receive the same attention.

  IRELAND—THE ATHY UNION.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board of Ireland have yet decided on ordering an election of guardians for the Athy Union; and when the ratepayers may expect the notices to be issued for that purpose?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is proposed to reinstate the Board of Guardians for the Athy Union, the vice-guardians having ceased their labour. The election will take place under the General Supplemental Election Order of the Local Government Board which is usually issued at the end of May or early in June.

  THE MASSERENE ESTATE.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the following extract from United Ireland of the 27th April,. referring to the occupation of farms on Lord Massereene's estate in the county Louth: "The proposed plantation of little gangs of Northern Orange landgrabbers in the houses and holdings of Catholic evicted tenants, and in the heart of Catholic and National districts, if for one moment we could suppose it possible, must of necessity beget stern resistance and retaliation….The evicted tenants would be more or less than human if they patiently permitted their homes and holdings to be held by

  1083
  these greedy and unconscionable intruders;" and what steps will be taken to secure the lives and liberties of the new tenants thus threatened? Perhaps I may be allowed to supplement the question by asking if there is any law in Ireland to punish incitement to assassination by the organ of the National league?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know how I can answer that question without notice, seeing that it involves a legal point. As to the question on the Paper, I have not seen the paragraph referred to by my hon. Friend. Every precaution will be taken to secure the safety of these persons.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, why, considering that molasses were now largely used for the feeding of cattle, it was included as sugar in the definition clause of the Sugar Convention Bill?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to to the hon. Baronet, I have to say that as bounties are given on molasses as well as upon raw and refined sugar and glucose, it was necessarily included in the Convention, the object of which is the total abolition of such bounties.

  THE ZALINSKI AIR AND DYNAMITE GUN.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULLHUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that any representative of the British Government was present at the trial of the Zalinski air and dynamite gun in the United States; whether it is a fact that the British Government have ordered guns of this type; and, if so, how many; and, whether it is a fact, as reported in the Globe of 30th April, that one of the guns of the United States dynamite cruiser Vesuvius was "badly wrecked," and that the hollow cast shell immediately went to pieces in the gun-breech?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Experiments with the Zalinski dynamite gun were witnessed by British officers in 1886,1887, and 1888. Guns of this type have not been ordered by the British Government. I have no
  1084
  information as to the alleged accident referred to in the third question.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is any possibility now of the fulfilment of the promises made by successive Governments for 22 years to Constabulary Forces, that the question of their superannuation shall be brought before Parliament for legislation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The question of police superannuation was delayed by the Local Government legislation of last year, which made it expedient to wait till the County Councils were in working order before saddling them with a new burden. Moreover, the principles of superannuation for the Civil Service, which must have an influence on police superannuation, and which has recently been reported on by the Royal Commission, is still under the consideration of the Treasury, and I am not at present in a position to introduce legislation on this subject, the interest and importance of which are fully present to the mind of the Government.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: May I ask if it will not be possible to send to the County Councils some tentative scheme approved by the Government, although not to be regarded as a definite scheme, so that the same principle might be more or less acted upon throughout the whole of the Country. As matters stand at the present, every County Council may give what retiring allowance they please.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The suggestion thrown out by my hon. and gallant Friend appears to me to be worthy of careful and serious consideration. At this moment I am having an actuarial calculation made, but it is a calculation which is extremely intricate and difficult to settle. It may, however, be an assistance in forming an ultimate decision on the subject.

  THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Report of the Inspector under "The

  1085
  Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876,"for the year 1888, which was laid upon the Table on the 15th of April, will be distributed; and whether the Report of the Vote in Supply relating to this Inspector will be postponed until Members have his Report in their hands?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The English and Scotch portions are ready and in type. The Irish portion is outstanding. Last year this Paper was distributed on June 5th, and in 1887 on June 25th.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Does the delay in the Irish Department arise from the proof having been sent across the Channel to Dublin?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: No; I understand that the Irish Report is not in type at all. I have the other reports in proof, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes I shall be glad to show them to him privately.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Can we have a copy of them by Monday?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I shall have to inquire whether it is the practice of the Department to present these Reports separately.

  TONNAGE MEASUREMENT.
  SIR EDWARD BATESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steamers Miranda, Helvetia and Dresden, of respectively 1,584, 2,765, and 2,850 tons net register, recently built in this country and now owned by foreigners, had the full advantage of present reading of Tonnage Measurement Acts as regards deductions for crew space, and inclusive of light and air spaces, in calculations for arriving at net tonnage; what would be the net register tonnage of these steamers if measured under the proposed new Bill; and whether, if the Bill passes and is made retrospective, these steamers will pay light and other dues here and abroad on their present registers; and, if so, whether they will have an advantage on similar British steamers to which the new Act being retrospective would apply?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have not been able to obtain the particulars which would enable me to reply to the second paragraph of this question; but I understand that the three ships to
  1086
  which the hon. Member refers are registered as German ships, and therefore it would be in ordinary cases assumed that they had been measured before register under the German law. The German law is the international law,. which is not the law of measurement in accordance with the Isabella decision. But if, as I understand from the first paragraph of the question, these ships, or any of them, before becoming registered as German ships were measured according to the Isabella decision, then no doubt if the Bill now before the House passed in its present shape, and those ships were again to come within the ports of this country, they would be subject to re-measurement.
  In reply to a further question from Sir E. Bates,
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid: I mean ports in this country at which there are officers of the Board of Trade who could perform the duty of re-measurement.

  VIOLATION OF THE TRUCK ACT.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some building firms in Nottingham are exacting compulsory weekly contributions from their workmen's wages for the purpose of forming sick and accident funds; and, if so, whether stoppages of this kind constitute a violation of the Truck Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has not been called to any specific breach of the Truck Act in Nottingham, but I have directed the Inspector to make inquiries. With regard to the legality of the practice referred to, I must refer the hon. Member to the statute, upon the proper construction of which I must decline to give opinions in this House, especially on a question couched in such general terms as that upon the paper?

  INDIA—UNCOVENANTED OFFICERS PENSIONS—PAYMENT IN RUPEES.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether there is any record at the India Office of the pension of an Indian Uncovenanted Officer being paid at a rate higher than 2s. to the rupee during those years when the ex-

  1087
  change value of the rupee was above par.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): No; for since such pensions have been payable in England, the rupee has never been above par.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: In consequence of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, which is contrary to the information at my disposal, I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to this question on an early day.

  SOUTH EAST AFRICA.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to Zanzibar and South East Africa, promised by the First Lord of the Treasury on 21st February, will be issued?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): It is possible that the First Lord of the Treasury was referring to the Papers up to the institution of the blockade, which were distributed at about the time of the re-assembling of Parliament. I cannot, after this lapse of time be sure if I am responsible for the statement, but at present there are no further Papers which could be conveniently presented.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the First Lord of the Treasury has stated that the Papers were in the course of preparation.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is possible that I may have misled my right hon. Friend. All I can say at the present moment is that no other Papers can be conveniently presented.

  SCHOOL FEES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate when the Minute of the Scotch Education Department stating the mode by which the portion of the Probate Duty set apart for the payment of school fees under section 19 of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill will be issued?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The manner in which the portion of the Probate Duty Grant which it is proposed to apply in relief from the payment of school fees may be distributed is now
  1088
  under consideration by the Scotch Education Department. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Scotch Local Government Bill we hope to be able to indicate the chief features of the scheme which we propose to submit; but until the general proposal has received confirmation by Parliament, it would be premature for the Department to lay upon the Table the Minute referred to in the Clause. We are anxious that the scheme should be in accordance with local requirements and should meet as fully as possible the reasonable claims of all those interested, and in order that the plan adopted may be one which best fulfils these conditions any suggestions which those interested may wish to offer should be forwarded to the Scotch Education Department without delay and will receive their Lordships' most careful attention.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state on the Second Reading of the Bill the general lines on which he proposes to allot this money?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, that will be done in accordance with the intimation I have already given.

  THE VACCINATION COMMISSION.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is intended that it shall be open, under the terms of the proposed Royal Commission on Vaccination, to investigate the history and scientific foundation of vaccination, and to question whether compulsion by law to vaccination is justifiable?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I suspect that the question is not so much one of what was the intention of the Government, as what are the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission, and what the reference includes. The Government have always been desirous that the terms of the reference should be wide enough to include all aspects of this case. I have read the terms of the reference to the House, and I understand that those who are interested are satisfied that they are sufficiently wide. As to whether they include the particular point of the hon. Gentleman, he is as well able to judge as I am.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what I understood him to say yesterday that there will be a full inquiry into the whole question of compulsion?
  *MR. RITCHIE: My view is that the Commission will be able to consider the whole question, but there are other matters of a technical character which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, about which there may be some doubt.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will only remind the right hon. Gentlemen that an opinion expressed by him must have more authority than any assumption of mine.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I expect that upon questions of opinion the Commission will have more authority than I can possess.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now name the date for the discussion of the Resolution disagreeing with the Treasury Minute on Perpetual Pensions?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The discussion will be taken on Thursday, the 16th, at an early part of the evening.

  THE EDUCATION CODE, 1889.
  MR. ARTHUR ACLAND (Yorkshire W.R., Rotherham)asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was able at present to name a day for the discussion of the New Code?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it will be to the convenience of the House that this question should be considered in connection with the Education Vote and I hope to take the Education Vote, and the discussion of the New Code together.
  MR. ACLAND: Will the discussion be taken as the first business of the day?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Education Vote is always taken on a day specially named in order to meet the convenience of Members. I will undertake that ample notice shall be given to Members who take an interest in the question, and that a day shall be fixed on which a full discussion may take place.
  *MR. PICTON: The New Code will, I presume, not be enforced until the
  1090
  House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not. That is the understanding.

  THE EXETER POST OFFICE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Postmaster General if it is true that the Sunday labour in the Exeter Post Office has been increased by the despatch of a new mail to the North in the middle of the afternoon of Sundays; whether this is a part of a general system to be extended through England; and if he will state what is the necessity for the step, seeing that all letters posted for Saturday's night mail are delivered in Scotland on Monday mornings?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES,): An inappreciable increase of Sunday labour in the Post Office at Exeter has been caused by the establishment of the mail to which the hon. Member refers. The arrangement was not part of a general system, but was sanctioned on a special application from the Exeter Chamber of Commerce, and on an assurance from the Mayor of Exeter that the inhabitants generally desired it. The effect of the arrangement has been to admit of letters posted after the despatch of Saturday night's mail being delivered in the North of England and Scotland on Monday morning, which otherwise could not be delivered until late on Monday night, or on Tuesday morning.

  IRISH LACE-MAKING.
  MR. JUSTIN H. M'CARTHYasked the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any report has been made by Mr. Cole as to his visits to lace-making schools in Ireland during April of this year; and whether, if he has, the report will be circulated; and, whether arrangements have been made by the Department with the Treasury by which such visits may be repeated in October, in accordance with the requests made for them?
  *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL (SIR. HART DYKE,): A report has been made, and, if desired, extracts could be printed for circulation, or it might be shown to the hon. Member

  1091
  or anyone interested in the matter who called at the Department; but there are certain points in it which are not intended for general publication. Whether Mr. Cole's visits can be repeated in October is a question at present under consideration with the Treasury.

  INDIA—CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNOR OF THE ALLAHABAD PRISON.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether any inquiry had been instituted by Sir Auckland Colvin, Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces, into certain charges brought by Captain Hearsey (some time a prisoner in Allahabad Prison for assault) against Dr. Hill, Governor of the Allahabad Prison; whether any report had been made en such inquiry; and whether he would Jay the papers relating to the matter upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has no information and has received no papers relating to the matter referred to in the question.

  DISTRESS IN GANJAM.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that severe distress, amounting to famine and requiring Government relief on an extensive scale, now prevails in the district of Ganjam, in the Madras Presidency; if he would state what steps are being taken by the Government of Madras to relieve such distress; and whether the report made by Mr. J. H. Garstin, C.S.I., of his visit to and inspection of Ganjam in December last has reached this country and can be laid upon the Table of this House?
  SIR J. GORST: The Reports received from the Government of Madras do not corroborate the statement that severe distress amounting to famine prevails in Ganjam; and the Governor in Council has telegraphed to-day as follows, in answer to the Secretary of State's inquiries—
  "Condition Ganjam unchanged. Private prices stationary. Showers fallen in some places. Private import of food grains sufficient. Number of persons employed on relief, works under 13,000. Pecuniary relief to 800 Scarcity, but no deaths from starvation."
  1092
  Two large relief works have been opened since December. The number of persons employed on these, on 31st March, was 19,000. Several smaller ones have been sanctioned, and the Local Officers provided with funds to open them if required. Authority has been given to the Local Officers to grant gratuitous relief to prevent starvation, and the necessary means have been provided. Additional Civil Officers including engineers have been sent to Ganjam for the relief works. There is believed to be a sufficient food stock in, the district, and no Government importation is as yet requisite. The Reports from Mr. Garstin on the subject were received in January and will be produced, if moved for, as an unopposed Return.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman say that in the opinion of the Indian Government the necessity for relief works to 13,000 people does not constitute severe distress?
  SIR J. GORST: Not distress amounting to famine, which were the hon. Member's words.

  IRELAND—MR. CAREW.
  MR. GILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the following statement respecting Mr. Carew, M.P., published in the Freeman's Journal by the hon. Member for Wexford, who visited Mr. Carew on Tuesday as his legal adviser:—
  "He found the hon. Gentleman very pale and apparently ill. Since his return from Belfast Mr. Carew has been a hospital patient. He is suffering from want of sleep and acute headaches. He has no appetite, and is unable to take exercise. He is losing weight steadily, and his hair has become quite thin and is turning grey. On the whole the condition of hon. Gentleman is such as to cause grave anxiety to his friends."
  And, whether he has any communication to make to the House on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad to say that the statement referred to in the question appears to be exaggerated. It is, however, the case that Mr. Carew complains of headache and loss of appetite, nor will he take sufficient open-air exercise. His total loss of weight since his return from Belfast to Dublin is under 2 lb. His hair is unchanged, and in an interview yesterday

  1093
  with the Chairman of the General Prisons Board he stated that he had no complaint to make as to his prison treatment.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  BARON FERDINAND DE ROTHSCHILD (Bucks,)asked the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that the character of the duties performed by officers of the first class at the Central Telegraph Office and the general body of senior-class telegraphists is precisely similar, in many instances the duties performed by the former being of the greater difficulty; how does he propose to admit the clerks at this office to the full benefit of the "Fawcett Scheme" if those at the maximum of the first class are not to be promoted to the senior class except through vacancies by death, which has already kept them waiting for promotion over two years whether, if the present action of the Department be continued, it will be possible that a vacancy may not occur for years; and, if so, is it his intention to keep the majority of this deserving body of public servants, after 18 years' service, at the salary of £2 13s. 8d. per week for the remainder of their career; and, whether, when the first class becomes full, he intends to apply the same policy to the second class, and so practically limit the highest salary attainable by the clerks to £100 per annum?
  *MR. RAIKES: It is not the case that the duties of the telegraphists of the first class are precisely similar to those of the senior class. It will always happen in a very large department like the Central Telegraph Office that some officers of a lower class may be performing superior duties. It was no part of the "Fawcett Scheme" that officers in one class should be promoted to the next higher class regardless of vacancies, and I am not in a position to say how long it may take certain officers to rise out of their present classes; but it will be my duty to examine the matter from time to time and to take such measures as appear to be required in the interests of the public and the officers themselves.

  THE TRIAL OF DIEMHOLZ.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secre-
  1094
  tary of State for the Home Department if, at the recent trial of Diemholz and Kozebrodski, Mr. Gill, who appeared for the Home Office, obtained an assent on behalf of the accused to their pleading guilty of a technical assault; and, if during the trial of Diemholz, his wife was refused admittance to the Court on the plea of want of space?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. There was no plea of guilty and no consent to a plea. The constable on duty in the Court remembers a woman, who said she was a witness in the case, but did not give her name, asking to be allowed to enter the Court, and he told her, in conformity with a standing order of the Bench as to witnesses, that she could not enter until her name was called. He did not know that she was the wife of the defendant.

  REPORT OF SUPPLY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will allow Progress to be reported this evening earlier than usual in order that the Report of yesterday's Supply may be taken, because I wish to call attention to the attitude of the Government in reference to the French Exhibitions? I may say that I remained in the House during the whole of yesterday evening for the purpose of bringing that question on, but owing to the long debate which took place on African affairs, I thought it only right that the Government should take the Vote. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear-that fact in mind and that he will take the Report of Supply at a more seasonable hour than after midnight.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I fully acknowledge the fairness and temper which the hon. Gentleman has displayed; but whether progress can be reported at an earlier hour this evening] must depend on the progress made with Supply. If the discussion of the Votes which stands for consideration to-day is not unduly prolonged, it will be in my power to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Can the Report of Supply on Vote 5 be taken before the Report of Supply on Vote 4? I beg to remind the Government that the Debate on the Report of Supply on Vote 4 was ad-

  1095
  journed upon a very important question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge).
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Adjourned Debate to which the hon. Member refers is put down for Monday next. The Report of Supply which is down for to-night refers to the Votes taken yesterday.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: When do the Government intend to take the Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill? At present it is set down for the 13th of May.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able at this moment to say if it will be possible to take it on the 13th; I am afraid that it will not be, but due notice will be given of the day on which it will be taken.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE).
  Ordered:—
  "Return showing in detail the calculation by which the net register of the s.s. Anglesey was brought down to the figure of only 45 tons, by deductions and allowances from her gross measurement of 827 tons; similar figures for the s.s. Duchess of Sutherland, showing how, with an original gross measurement of 908 tons, and net register of 446 tons when she was a paddle steamer, her net register is now brought down to only 111 tons since her conversion into a screw steamer."—(Mr. T. W. Russell)

  ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    CLASS II.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £35,286, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise for the purpose of moving the formal reduction of the salary of the Colonial Secretary by the sum of £100, in order to challenge the decision which
    1096
    has been given by Lord Knutsford on an important matter which came within his jurisdiction. My complaint is that Lord Knutsford has not adequately dealt with very serious misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas. A man named Thomas Taylor, after receiving sentence on the 27th July last, for an offence of which he had been duly found guilty, committed a serious assault on the Chief Justice in open Court. On the 31st of July he was again brought into Court, when the Chief Justice, after reciting that he had been guilty of contempt of Court, sentenced him to receive 30 lashes and to undergo penal servitude for life. I have no hesitation in saying that the outrage committed by the Chief Justice on Taylor, was as lawless as the outrage committed by Taylor on the Chief Justice. The matter seems to have attracted the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James) who put a question in regard to it to the Under Secretary on the same night upon which a question by myself appeared on the Paper. The Under Secretary admitted the substantial accuracy of the facts, and the Attorney General acknowledged the illegality of the sentence of the Chief Justice. But I think I can carry the matter a good deal further. It is part of my case that the Chief Justice must have known he was acting illegally when he made the order. It is not a case, however oppressive such cases may occasionally be, of the revival of an obsolete Statute or of an obsolete practice or doctrine of the Common Law. I think I may say with some confidence, having looked carefully into the matter, that such conduct as this would have been as lawless as it is to-day at any time since the passing of Magna Charta. There are many cases recorded in the law books of contempt of Court, and of punishment for such contempt, but I will only mention one which occurred in the reign of Charles the First, when Mr. Justice Hutton was accused by a man named Harrison in open Court of high treason, that distinguished Judge having incurred the odium of the Court party, because with splendid courage and integrity he had maintained the illegality of ship-money. It was a gross outrage committed in the face of three Judges, but Mr.

    1097
    Justice Hutton did not take on himself the punishment of the offender for contempt. The man was indicted, tried, and found guilty, and even then he was punished not with imprisonment, but with a heavy fine. Then, I would ask, how does the Attorney General endeavour to explain or tone down the conduct of the Chief Justice in this case? He says that the offence of Taylor was a very serious offence. I am surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see the danger of the argument he was employing, because the more serious the offence the more imperative was the claim which Taylor had to be tried by his Peers. The hon. and learned Gentleman dropped one very significant statement—namely, that the Attorney General had intended to indict Taylor. Now that was precisely the course that ought to have been taken, and any candid-minded man must come to the conclusion that the Chief Justice interposed because he was afraid that if this man were put upon his trial he would not have been able to punish him with flogging, and he was determined to have him flogged, with law or without it. The Attorney General quoted a local Act of the Bahamas which provides that in case of a man being convicted of felony after a previous conviction he may be punished with flogging. As to that I have only to say that it seems to me very probable that if this man had been put on his trial the jury might have found that the wounding, serious as it was, was, after all, only an unlawful wounding, and therefore the punishment of flogging would not have been applicable. And how has the Colonial Secretary dealt with the case? The Under Secretary has informed the House that a letter has been written to the Chief Justice informing him that very serious consequences may happen to him if this kind of thing should occur again. But the question is not what is to happen to the Chief Justice if the offence is repeated. My complaint is that no punishment has been inflicted upon him for the offence that he has actually committed. Of course this question must be considered on its merits. It would not be right that the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas should in any way be prejudiced by scandals in connection with other Colonial Judges;
    1098
    but when, in any particular case, it has been shown that punishment has been justly incurred, it is quite fair, and in many cases it is very necessary, to consider whether the public interest, public policy, and the public honour require that a serious example should be made. Now it happens, and I regret it very much, that during the last few years there have been many very serious indications that Colonial Judges are getting a little out of hand. There was a case brought before this House only last year of Mr. de Souza, a gentleman favourably known to some Members of this House, and I regret very much that Mr. de Souza has died within these last few weeks; and it is said that his death was caused, in part, by the hardships be suffered during his imprisonment. That imprisonment was consequent upon an alleged contempt of Court committed by Mr. de Souza, for which he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but the peculiarity of the case was that the contempt was committed in respect to a matter that was not then pending before the Court. The Attorney-General says in this case the action of the Court was legal, and if we are to be guided by the strict letter of the law, I am disposed to think that it was; but, at all events, it was a harsh and oppressive straining of the law that would not for a moment have been tolerated in this country. Then there is one other case I should like to refer to, a case which came before the Privy Council on Appeal from the Supreme Court of British Honduras. In that case a man named Dillet, a barrister, had been convicted of perjury, and consequently an order was obtained to strike him off the roll of the Court; but the point of the case is the tone of the observations which were made on the conduct of the Judge by the Privy Council in this country. Lord Watson, in pronouncing judgment, after some very strong remarks on the conduct of the Judge in the Colony, proceeded:—"The Chief Justice converted himself into a witness and, without being sworn, made statements to the jury regarding a visit of the accused to his house and other matters which are not to be found in the record nor in the evidence; "and then he added, "A conviction obtained by such unworthy means cannot be permitted to stand."
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth): When was this; what is the date?
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: The appeal came before the Privy Council in March, 1887. Now, in conclusion, let me say that I believe Thomas Taylor is not, in fact I know he is not, an Englishman. I believe he is not even of our race or of our colour; but I am sure that that will not be permitted by the Committee to prejudice his case for a moment. Moreover, let me say that I do not rest my case upon sympathy with Thomas Taylor. He had undoubtedly committed a very gross offence indeed, for which he ought to have been properly put on his trial. My point is that there has been, in the circumstances I have briefly put before the Committee, a gross outrage committed in the name of law, and in such a case we look to the Colonial Secretary—because I may mention this Judge holds office during pleasure—we look to the Colonial Secretary to vindicate the law. In this case I have submitted we have looked to him in vain, and therefore it is that I appeal from the Colonial Secretary to the Committee of this House and move the reduction of which I have given notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786, for Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Mr. Pickersgill).
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I think it would be well to recall to the Committee, in answering the statement of the hon. Member the facts of this case. On September 3rd last the Secretary of State received a despatch dated July 31st from the administrator at the Bahamas reporting that upon sentence being passed on a prisoner named Thomas Taylor, an old and hardened offender, by the Chief Justice, before whom he was tried for housebreaking and larceny, the prisoner, seizing a policeman's staff, made a desperate attempt to murder the Chief Justice. The first blow was broken by the intervention of a screen and the second blow by the Clerk of the Crown seizing the prisoner's arm, the Chief Justice escaping with an abrasion of the skin of the right arm. It is well to recall these facts to the Committee because the hon.
    1100
    and learned Member seemed rather to minimize the nature of the assault and to come to the conclusion somewhat prematurely that it was not an assault with intent to murder. Certainly on the face of the evidence it was an assault with that intent, and it probably would have been attended with that result but for the prompt intervention of the Clerk of the Crown.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "evidence." What is the nature of the evidence? So far as I know no evidence was given.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The official statement to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member does not contradict that?
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: It is not evidence.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: Not in the legal sense of the word, but it was evidence that enabled the Secretary of State to form a judgment. The Chief Justice then, acting far beyond the powers vested in him, did alter the sentence he had passed of seven years'' penal servitude to a life sentence, and he did order the prisoner to be flogged. In answer to various questions put to me in the House, I have explained that the moment this came to the knowledge of the Secretary of State, and before any question was raised in the House the Secretary of State immediately telegraphed to the Bahamas, reversing the sentence and strongly censuring the action of the Chief Justice. It was not possible to prevent the sentence of flogging being carried out, because it had already been inflicted when the Secretary of State heard of the matter. As the hon. Member has said, the Attorney General himself expressed some doubt as to whether, under an old Statute, it might not have been within the power of the Judge to inflict for such an offence as contempt of court the sentence of flogging, and that may perhaps be pleaded to some extent in extenuation of the action of the Chief Justice in this matter. I do not say that he ought not to have known, but possibly he believed he had the power under an old Statute to pass a sentence of this kind.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: It is rather important to clearly understand what the Attorney General said, which was that if a man was convicted, that is found guilty after trial, of felony after pre-

    1101
    vious conviction he might be whipped. The Attorney General did not for a moment suggest that the whipping which actually took place was legal.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The Attorney General said that under the old statute the punishment might have been inflicted for a gross offence on indictment before a Court of Law. The Secretary of State took a strong and very proper view, and immediately sent a despatch to the Bahamas warning the Chief Justice that on any such gross case occurring again, most serious consequences would follow. Now I must point out teat any action in this case against the Chief Justice must originate not from the Secretary of State, but in the Colony itself. If the Governor, acting by the advice of his Legislative Council, were to suspend the Judge, the case would come before the Secretary of State, and be by him submitted to the Privy Council for confirmation. No such action was taken in the Colony although when the Governor returned, and prior to any action of the Secretary of State, a notice appeared in the Government Gazette of November 3, that the Governor had annulled the sentence of imprisonment for life; therefore both the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Colony were fully alive to the unfortunate occurrence and the mistake made by the Chief Justice, and immediately set about rectifying it as far as they could. The only other step that could have been taken, would have been for the Governor acting with the Legislative Council to suspend the Chief Justice from his functions, and to report the case to the Secretary of State who would lay it before the Privy Council. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it was not thought necessary to adopt this step. I may mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who also put a question on this subject, and asked to see all the papers in relation to it, after I had put the papers before him and he had read them attentively, agreed with me, that justice in the case had been fully met by the action taken by the Secretary of State.
    *Mr. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: After what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman as to the opinion of my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to press the
    1102
    subject further. I will only simply say that the very idea that at this time of day a man may be subjected to flogging for a mere contempt of court under the authority of some old statute which the Attorney General does not even venture to quote, does seem to me perfectly monstrous. After the light thrown on the subject, and the sensation created here as well as in the Colony, I hope we shall be saved from a repetition of one of the most highhanded and despotic acts I have ever heard of in these modern times.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I regret that Lord Knutsford did not think it right to emphazise his condemnation of the conduct of the Chief Justice more than he did. Since about 40 years ago, when there was a discussion in the House of Lords on this subject of contempt of court, the feeling has been growing in favour of minimizing as much as possible consistently with preserving the authority of the court the power of a Judge to pass indefinite sentences for this offence, and this case seems to me to indicate a return to a barbarous fashion of old days, and which should not escape notice by this House.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: I propose to go to a division, for I think the action of the Colonial Secretary was wholly inadequate, and that the case is made considerably worse by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 106. —(Division List No. 93).
    Original Question again proposed.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: In moving the reduction of the Vote by £500 my object is—and I trust the answer I may receive will save me from the necessity of putting the Committee to the trouble of division—is to call attention to the exceedingly shocking state of the prisons both in Cape Colony and other portions of our South African dominions under the authority of the High Commissioner. I will not go into matters which are in any fashion disputable —
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be greatly extending the scope of the functions of Committee of Supply to enter upon a discussion of the action of responsible

    1103
    authorities in a Colony having responsible self-government.
    *MR. BRADLAUGHThere is, Sir, a large portion of our South African dominions which is not included in Colonies having self government, and it is to this portion I intend to confine my remarks, only using the Cape Colony jails as illustrations, and only so using them because we have evidence carefully taken which will save the Committee and myself from having to rely on vague and difficult statements. I will show how vague and difficult by the fact that in cases where the evidence is very conclusive the man who made the complaints was ordered by the prison authorities not to give evidence, and on his giving evidence was put into chains and kept in chains for a period of several days, notwithstanding that the investigating magistrate held the opinion, and it was ultimately so reported that this man had good ground for his complaint. The state of these prisons is simply shocking. In several of the prisons there is not room for the prisoners to lie down at full length at night, and men and women are confined together under circumstances which are perfectly horrible. There are cases in which lunatics and and persons suffering from contagious diseases are confined with the other prisoners.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: Will the hon. Member specify the names of the colonies?
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I would be only too glad to do so, but my difficulty is that I am afraid of bringing myself under the censure of the Chair if I specify the particular prisons as to which I have actual evidence. But I can assure the Under Secretary and the Committee that what I am stating is unfortunately still more true of the whole of the prisons outside the jurisdiction of Cape Colony. The way in which the unfortunate Kaffirs are huddled together is perfectly shocking. In one case a child born in the prison contracted a loathsome contagious disease from the prisoners. In another case it has been shown on investigation that cats, having their knots intertwined with wire taken from soda water bottles, had been used as a method of punishment. When I called attention to these things some time ago, the Under Secretary gave two
    1104
    reasons for not expressing an opinion—first, that Cape Colony had its own responsible Government; and secondly, that an Act of Parliament had been lately passed dealing with this state of things. I quite agree that this is true. So far as Cape Colony is concerned, an Act of Parliament has been passed; I hold a copy of it in my hand; but the latest reports by the last mail show that alike in Cape Colony and in the Colonies under the direct jurisdiction of the Colonial Office, and not under the Cape Parliament at all, the same evils are now existing, and. that no attempt, except a paper attempt, within the limits of the Colony has been made to redress them. I trust hon. Members will deem it right to say that in no part of Her Majesty's dominions, whether with intermediate Parliaments existing or not, there shall be—at any rate without their very strong expression of disapproval—a state of things allowed to exist which would be a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. If the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary makes a statement of that kind, I shall not think it necessary to take up the time of the Committee further; but if he does not, I shall have to ask for the sense of the Committee upon my Amendment.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I am sure the hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that I am not in a position to challenge any statement of fact, because no distinct charge has really been made. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any case relating to the bad treatment of prisoners, I will inquire into it.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I say that in the colonial papers the state of colonial prisons has been justified on the ground that those under the direct control of British Government were in a much worse state.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I know there have been charges made, but the hon. Gentleman is far too logical and fair to make a general and sweeping charge without giving any details, and to think that I could deal with such a charge. If the hon. Member will give the Secretary of State any details of prison treatment bearing out the description he has given, the cases will certainly be immediately investigated, and, if possible, immediately remedied.

    1105
    We have no right to interfere in the case of the self-governing colonies, as they have their own Parliament and their own Ministers, but I think I have a right to say that the principles of humanity, prevail in all our Colonies whether they he self-governing or not.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I feel I could not give the details of cases this afternoon without committing a breach of your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and I also quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the cases which are proveable are the cases in which, unfortunately, there is a responsible government, over which the Secretary of State has no control, and in regard to which, therefore, I shall not be entitled to ask the opinion of the Committee. But I may put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that, when in the papers circulating in South Africa the conditions of these prisons is justified and excused on the ground that those under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government are in a worse state, it ought hardly to be required of a private man that he should furnish the Committee with details of the cases, and that common humanity would prompt the Secretary to the Colonies to send some letter of inquiry to the Colonies on the subject.
    *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I may point out that, although in the self-governing Colonies it is impossible for the Government to interfere, still, if such cases as my hon. Friend has alluded to can be proved to exist, it would be possible for the Colonial Office to make representations to the Colonial Governments on the subject which would not in all probability be without effect.
    *SIR G. BADEN POWELL: I think that if inquiries are made, it will be found that the Colonial Governments are already taking steps to remedy the evils complained of.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I think my information up to the receipt of the last mail was that the Government had taken no step except that of the paper Act of Parliament.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I desire to move the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State by £1,000 in regard to a very important matter relating to the lands of Western Australia. I find fault with the Secre-
    1106
    tary of State not only for what he has-done on this subject, but for refusing to give the House any sufficient detail in regard to what he is doing. He tells us that he proposes to alienate the temperate portion of Western Australia altogether from the authority of the House of Commons, and that, before the measure is finally adopted, a Bill on the subject must receive the sanction of this House. But before it can come before this House, Her Majesty's Government will have given it their imprimatur and approved of the scheme in all the stages of the negotiations with the Colonial Authorities. That, I say, is not a proper way in which to deal with a matter of this great and supreme importance. I have not strong views with regard to emigration. I have my doubts whether what is called State emigration is quite required by this country; but I am of opinion that, if any system of emigration is to be aided by the State, it is most unfair to-the country that the best people—the cream of the country—should be sent away, whilst the dregs are left to be a drag upon the ratepayers. If it is desirable that emigration should be promoted, it is most objectionable and undesirable that we should be deprived of promoting it in a form that is fair to this country. If we look round the world we find that not only are the United States and other countries very much disinclined to receive people who have no means, but that our own Colonies are taking that line to a very great degree. The other day a very remarkable Paper, which seems completely to prove my case, was circulated. It contains correspondence from the Colonial Governments in answer to the Memorandum of the Parliamentary Colonization Committee of the 1st of May, 1888. The Parliamentary Colonization Committee was composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament who, with the highest and most patriotic motives, formed a plan for State-directed colonization. Her Majesty's Government so far received their overtures with favour as to consent to circulate the plan through the Colonies, and to ask the opinion of the Colonies upon it. It was not a scheme of the character of which the Colonies could reasonably complain. It was one under which, I think, only the cream of our

    1107
    population would be sent to our Colonies, while the poor would remain behind. Preference was to be given to the colonists who contributed towards the outlay. The money was to be advanced not by the colonists, but by this country, to be recovered in a moderate time; and, altogether, one would have thought it was a plan which was as favourable to the independent colonists as could possibly be conceived. Well, all the Colonies which had anything approaching to responsible Governments rejected the scheme.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how this comes under the Vote. The plan was proposed by an irresponsible Committee.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I merely wish to show the inexpediency of alienating Western Australia, whilst all the other Colonies refuse to receive our emigrants.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, in entering into this scheme, is going outside the Vote.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Well, Sir, I have said all I desire to say about the scheme. I may state, in general terms, that every colony rejected the scheme except Western Australia; and it is clear that every other colony but Western Australia will accept those of our emigrants who are not endowed with some means of their own. Western Australia is an enormous country. It contains something like 1,100,000 square miles—that is to say, it is as large as all Europe, without Russia. The present colonists are a mere handful of between 30,000 and 40,000 people. I have reason to believe that there are immense tracts of temperate land there extremely well-fitted for colonization, and I find that this is amply borne out by a Report on the subject, which I hold in my hand. Under these circumstances it would surely be utter madness to give over this enormous territory to the small handful of colonists who now occupy it, and deprive ourselves of all power of dealing with it. The result of adopting a policy of that kind must be that those who have the monopoly of land will turn round on their poor fellow countrymen and refuse to receive them. This House is entitled to express an opinion before the thing goes too far, and ought not to be put off with the promise that the complete scheme will be laid before the House in
    1108
    the shape of a Bill brought in at the end of the Session. I therefore wish to move the reduction of the Vote. I may say I have every respect for Lord Knutsford. He is a man of great colonial experience, and I know it is a good thing that such a man should be at the head of the Colonial Office. I am afraid, however, he is too old a colonial official, and too ready to follow the common policy of getting rid of all difficulties by pleasing the colonists and hoodwinking this House. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786, for Salaries, be reduced by £1,000, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    *SIR R. N. FOWLER: I have some sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I am rather curious to hear from the Under Secretary how much land is to given up. I was in New South Wales and South Australia a little more than two years ago. I asked several persons in those Colonies whether the colonists would not raise objection to the scheme of handing over Western Australia to a responsible Government. As far as I could ascertain, no objection was entertained. All those with whom I conversed seemed to think it was a matter in which they could not interfere. They all had plenty of land, and they seemed to think it was no business of theirs. Under those circumstances, although I have some sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend, I cannot support the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I have a Motion on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote, and I had the same object as my hon. Friend (Sir G. Campbell) in putting it down. The question of disposing of the waste lands of the Empire is one of very great public importance, and I think it is time that a protest was entered against the policy of handing over vast areas of territory to scanty populations. That has been done in several cases in the past. The question of Western Australia has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), but the case of Bechuanaland might also be considered. The Australians themselves

    1109
    have spoken against the policy of handing over these vast areas unless they have a sufficient number of colonists to undertake responsible government. Sir Thomas M'Illwraith, when interviewed by a correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, said he thought that a vast expanse of land which had been handed over ought never to have been so handed over. In Western Australia there is an area of a million square miles, with a population of something like 48,000. In Bechuanaland it is really impossible at this moment to estimate what is the area of the land that we control. But in neither case is there any sufficient ground for alienating the country from Imperial control. To take an analogy elsewhere, Dakota, which is about to attain to the position of a State, has an area of 100,000 square miles, and a population of from 6,000 to 8,000. There are special reasons why attention should be given to this important subject of waste lands. The world is filling up at a very rapid rate, indeed, in these days, and almost all the great waste areas in the world belong to the British Empire or the United States. All the Colonies except Natal are beginning to object to emigration. The pressure of population is becoming greater within these islands, and both in America and elsewhere restrictions are being placed upon emigration, which will make it very difficult in the future for intending emigrants to find homes beyond the sea. These waste lands of the British Empire represent a vast expenditure both of blood and money, and what we maintain is that until they are occupied by a sufficient number of persons to undertake the duties of responsible Government, they should remain under Imperial control. I should like just to touch on the question of Bechuanaland. A recent article by Sir William Metcalfe in the Fortnightly Review shows that that country will form an admirable field for settlement. I wish to know whether the Government approve of the extraordinary speech reported to have been made by Sir Hercules Robinson before he left the Cape Colony. The first extract published reflecting Colonial expansion is one which it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to understand. There is, however, no difficulty in understanding the second extract, in which he
    1110
    says that preparation is being made for handing over native territory to the Cape and Natal. The interesting part of the statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies is that it must be accepted as a declaration of policy, and it is upon those terms, I suppose, that he will accept the re-appointment as Governor of the Cape. This is the more interesting that there is a further report that the Governorship of the Cape has been refused by a very large number of persons, and the Imperial Party will have to take what it can get in South Africa. And if Sir Hercules Robinson goes back to South Africa upon his own terms, it is to be supposed that this policy of handing over those areas to the Government of Cape Colony, and taking them out of the control of the Imperial officers, is the policy that is followed by Her Majesty's Government. It is very unfortunate, no doubt, that the Imperial Parliament can find no one fit to act as Governor in those parts of the Empire. If we are unable to find pro-Consuls to go abroad for us, the sooner we cease to have an Empire the better, and we will probably follow this policy of alienation on which the Government seem to be embarking. Now, the question of Bechuanaland was discussed in a Blue Book issued not long ago, and the expense of British government was there put down at a million sterling. The cost the first year was £100,000, and the amount gradually diminished to £50,000; and that fact is used by Sir Hercules Robinson as an argument for handing over the sooner this land to the Cape Colony Government. I think that is a very peculiar argument. What we really desire on this side of the House to know is whether these vast areas of land are to be maintained for the benefit of the population and not handed over to a few of the residents who are not yet in a fit state to undertake their efficient administration.
    *MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: Mr. Courtney, I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will press this matter to a division, in order that we may protest against the attempt on the part of the Government to alienate so large an area to so comparatively few settlers. I pass to Western Australia, by far the largest of the Australian Colonies, and with by far the smallest population, and

    1111
    if responsible government were granted to that Colony in its naked form, the result would be that some 40,000 would have absolute control over the lands, which comprise an area of over a million miles. The right hon. Gentleman says that a certain portion of the area has been reserved for Imperial purposes, but we are not told exactly what that area is to consist of. The statement has been made that the land which is worth having is to be handed over to the responsible Government, whereas that portion of the area which is not worth having is to be reserved to the Imperial Authority. It is highly desirable that any measure dealing with the subject should not be relegated to the fag end of the Session, when only a small number of Members could possibly deal with it, but that it should be introduced at a time which will admit of thorough discussion. My hon. Friend referred to Bechuanaland. I am far from conceding that these two questions stand entirely on the same footing. Still, there are certain lessons which may be drawn from the analogy of Bechuanaland. The Government intend to reserve a certain portion of the territory of Western Australia. In what way has control to be exercised? The Governor would act in two capacities, as the High Commissoner does in South Africa. We all know there has been a considerable difficulty in South Africa in consequence of two offices being united in one and the same person. The fact of the High Commissioner of Cape Colony uniting in himself two distinct offices has created considerable difficulty. In one respect, the Governor of Cape Colony acts on the advice of the Cape Ministry and is responsible to the Cape Parliament; and it is very difficult for him to dissociate his action in that capacity for his feelings and modes of thought as the Representative of the Imperial Parliament. As Bechuanaland extends to the Zambesi, it is desirable that Imperial control should be retained, at any rate, for the present. Not very long ago the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking at Gloucester, gave a very distinct pledge on the subject. In view of the expression of opinion since by the Cape, and in view of the telegraphic Report of Sir Hercules Robinson's speech, I hope that pledge will be given by the Government in a
    1112
    more marked manner than has hitherto been the case. I hope the point will be emphasized, so that we may have an opportunity of protesting against this alienation of Crown lands from Imperial control.
    *SIR GEORGE BADEN POWELL: Mr. Courtney, hon. Gentlemen who urge a division on this Amendment are really criticizing the Secretary of State for doing something which he has not yet done. It is well known that nothing with regard to the alienation of these areas has yet taken place, and what is the use of taking a division on a point upon which the Secretary for the Colonies has not yet told us he has come to a decision? I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to explain exactly what portions of Western Australia are to be handed over to responsible government. I know as a matter of fact that a large portion of the residents in the South Eastern corner of Western Australia are very anxious that their portion of the Colony should not be placed under responsible government, but should continue under the control of the Imperial Government. The case differs with regard to those districts in which white labour is impossible; and, in my opinion, this country will always do well to retain some control over those portions in. which European labour is not possible. I hope the Secretary of State will give due weight to the opinions of those who do not desire responsible government. As regards South Africa, I think we have plenty of lands there admirably suited to European colonization. I venture to think that some of the Governments in South Africa would be quite willing to take over territories on condition that emigrants to that country were admitted freely, and arrangements made for giving them lands. The Colonial Office have not yet told us what they are going to do in Bechuanaland and Western Australia, and those who do not desire to see the alienation of white lands without conditions would stultify themselves by passing judgment on that which has not yet been decided.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should have said that, as a matter of fact, a Bill has been brought in to the Western Australian Legislature by the Representative of Her Majesty's Government,

    1113
    that being a Crown Colony, and, as I understand, it has been passed by the Local Legislature, making over to responsible government the whole of the temperate portions of Western Australia.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement. A Bill has passed, but we are not aware how its provisions now stand.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Who introduced it?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I am not aware. I am not prepared to accept without reservation the statement of the hon. Member. A Bill has finally passed the the Legislative Council, and it is expected to arrive here in the first week in June. I will lay before the House all the correspondence on the subject, so that it will be in the hands of hon. Members before any Bill to give effect to this measure can be introduced. As my hon. Friend (Sir G. Baden-Powell) remarks, it is extremely difficult to discuss a question with which we are not acquainted, and it would be still more remarkable to pass a Vote of Censure on a scheme without knowing what that scheme is.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I asked for the Bill, and was refused it.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I have not got a copy of the Bill as passed; I have not seen it myself. That shows how impossible it is to discuss questions of detail which are not before the Committee. Numerous representations have been made against the control of the Crown lands of Western Australia by a Parliament elected by the present population, and controlled by those who are said to be anxious that emigration from this country should not be increased. It is really in deference to those views that we stipulate that the Legislature should not have the power of alienating Crown lands north of the 26th parallel of south latitude. That is the stipulation which the Government have made; and the territory so preserved represents the greater part of the colony. That being the case, and those views being known to the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, the Bill is understood to contain provisions in that sense; but should the contrary be found to be the case, the measure will have to be amended. Power is reserved to erect a
    1114
    new colony in course of time to the north of that line. The portion so reserved is mainly within the tropics, and, therefore, much of it is not desirable as a field of labour for British emigrants, but it would not be possible to withhold from the future Legislature the control of the southern lands within which most of the present population reside; because if a responsible Government is to be given at all, it must be given to that part of the colony in which the civilized population chiefly resides. If the Bill should arrive at a period of the Session that would not permit of a full discussion of it, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it should not be postponed to some future time, when it can be adequately considered. There need be no doubt that time will be given for the purpose of raising any objections that may be entertained to the scheme. It is impossible at the present moment to give the full scope of the measure, as I am not yet in a position to state the details. There was one question put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that was whether, in the event of a responsible government being granted, the Governor of Western Australia would occupy towards the reserved portions of the colony the same position as the High Commissioner at the Cape. I am not at present in a position to give an answer to that question, and can only say that there is not at the present moment any such intention. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson) asked the question whether there was any intention to surrender the Imperial control in Bechuanaland. I have to say that there is no such intention, and I do not understand on what ground the hon. Gentleman could have based his question.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I based my argument on the speech of Sir Hercules Robinson, and I asked whether the speech has met with the approval of Her Majesty's Government.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I pointed out yesterday that the only information the Government had received on that subject is exactly the same as that which anyone else possesses, and the hon. Member must be aware that it would be rather dangerous if we were to base our views of an important statement on a telegraphic summary in a

    1115
    newspaper, which may not be accurate. I must therefore decline to express an opinion on the statement of Sir Hercules Robinson until I have had an opportunity of looking at an authentic report of it. As to South Africa and the general policy of the Government, I would appeal to the Committee not to press questions now, because Sir Hercules Robinson is coming home, and we shall then be able to obtain every information from him that may be desired. When, hereafter, the Estimates come before the Committee, I shall be in a better position to give full information to the House than I possess at the present moment, and I think it will be far better to wait until the Secretary of State has had that opportunity of completing his information.
    *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I have waited to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say, and I find it comes to very little. He has told us that a Bill is to be brought in, presumably by the Government, which is to reserve, or cut and carve out of the whole of this large province of Western Australia everything south of 26 degrees of latitude; that is, to take away from the Imperial Government every portion of the colony of Western Australia in which Europeans can work and live; in other words, he is taking all the plums out of the pudding. Let us look at the position in which this matter stands. In an area of a million square miles, there is a population of between 30,000 and 40,000; that is to say, there are about 40 square miles for every man, woman, and child. Can it be said that a country with so sparse a population as that is fit for self government? Now, I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite who knows the Australian colonies well, will say that in the older Colonies there is a large Labour Party, who practically control legislation, and who are opposed to emigration from this country because a large influx of labourers necessarily affects the labour market and depresses the price of labour. Now in view of the fact that, every day new countries are being closed against our colonists, this subject is becoming one of great importance, and, When the Bill comes before us, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to insist on the insertion of some provision which would prevent
    1116
    self-governing colonies from objecting to, and placing under restraint, emigrants from this country.
    DR. CLARK: I am in the position of being able heartily to support the Government proposal in regard to Western Australia, which has made so little progress as a colony because of the way in which it has been controlled by Downing Street. I think the best thing that can be done for Western Australia will be to carry out the plan of Lord Knutsford, because it would enable the people of that part of the world—where there are, fortunately, neither Dutchmen nor Frenchmen, but merely Englishmen and Scotchmen—to bring out emigrants who would spend their money in their own fashion. I believe the limitations laid down by Lord Knutsford to be very wise, and that instead of the northern portion of the territory being cut off as the least valuable, it will be the most valuable, for it is well watered, and contains no poison bush. If this new scheme be succesful we shall, I believe, see in that portion of Western Australia as big a population as we now find in other parts of the country. This is an attempt to scientifically divide Australia. What is called South Australia runs the whole extent of the continent for thousands of miles in each direction, and the fact is that the northern portion of Western Australia, together with the northern portion of South Australia, may throw in their lot with Northern Queensland, in which case you will have a grand colony possessed of great local resources, with splendid cattle runs and sheep tracts, in which there is no poison bush, and splendid opportunities for rearing horses for the Indian market. Therefore, the policy of the Government in the Bill they are going to bring in is, in my opinion, a very wise one, and I do not think the criticisms we have had passed on it here will be sustained. As far as I can understand the scheme, I I thoroughly approve of it, as I think it will give the colony a fillip and enable it to ensure a due share of emigration while giving it full control of its own destinies. With regard to Bechuanaland I should like the Government to make up their minds as to the policy they intend to pursue. It is one of the best portions of the country, being for the most part well watered and offering

    1117
    plenty of room for Europeans and other people; but at present nobody will go there except a number of land speculators who are endeavouring to get from the native chiefs concessions of land as well as facilities for gold mining. We have had no enunciation of the policy of the present Governors of Bechuanaland, and have been told of the unfair terms on which land and mining concessions are obtained. I hope the Government will do something to stop this. I do not want to press the matter now, because Sir Hercules Robinson is coming home very soon and we shall then be able to decide the Parliamentary questions that have to be settled, one of which is whether the Governor of the Cape should continue to be the High Commissioner, or what form our Government shall assume. We have splendid interests in South Africa, and if we only take care we may have a magnificent colony out there. After you have spent a million or two will you then hand over the Crown lands and everything else as has been the policy of the past, or will you adopt the wise policy of keeping a High Commissioner at the head of the Government and allowing the country to be ruled at the cost and according to the wishes of the Cape people? What do we find to be the history of the colonies governed from Downing Street? Why, in the case of New Zealand, so long as it was governed from Downing street, there was nothing but war. We spent the money, and they fought and gained by the wars; but when the colonists have to pay for their own wars, then war generally ceases, and there has, as a fact, been no war in New Zealand since they have had to act on their own responsibility. And so, if you give Natal responsible government, there will be no wars there. I know something of South Africa, and I say that during the three years we held the Transvaal there was more bloodshed than during the 30 years the Boers held it. Under the Boers there were no wars, because they were not strong enough to be aggressive, and they had to temporize. I hope that the result of Sir Hercules Robinson's visit will be to induce the Government to adopt some policy and stick to it, for it will be better than the present condition of things. As to the
    1118
    telegram from South Africa, my opinion is that nine-tenths of these telegrams are untrue, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that probably Sir Hercules said the very reverse of what is stated in the telegram which has been referred to. I, at any rate, shall refuse to believe the telegram until I see it verified.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: With regard to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire, I must say I sympathize with them. The matter of the possible exclusion of emigrants from the colony is a matter worthy of very serious consideration.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: If the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not seen the Bill passed by the Legislature of Western Australia, he showed to the Committee that he understood the provisions sufficiently well. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Bill is well within the knowledge of the Colonial Office. The fact is, that the southern part of Australia is going to be given up to the administration of this particular class of people. Of course, where there is a sufficient population, we cannot deny for a moment that it is desirable that those resident in the Colony should manage their own affairs, but I contend that there is not a sufficient population in Western Australia to constitute it a self-governing colony. I should not be prepared, either, to hand over Bechuanaland on the same grounds. The telegram as to Sir Hercules Robinson may be wrong, but surely-the correspondence relating to the High Commissionership in South Africa represents his views. If he goes back to South Africa, we know perfectly well what the policy of the Government will be. It is because of the distrust with which we view in some measure the proposals of Sir Hercules Robinson that we protest. I hope we shall be allowed to go to a division against this Vote.
    *SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness has mixed up with Western Australia the question of Bechuanaland, because in my opinion the two cases stand in a different position. Now, the state of things in Western Australia is admitted on all hands to be that a population of some 40,000

    1119
    people is in some sort of technical and apparent possession of a territory of, roughly, 500,000 square miles, and the feeling both on this side of the water and in Australia is that this small population is to have absolute power over this great territory. Just as in Queensland the Colony is not willing to encourage immigrants because all the valuable lands not in freehold are underlease to pastoral tenants, so will the condition of Western Australia be in the future if it is handed over to a population of some 8,000 families without restriction. I cannot conceive anything more deliberately inexpedient not only in the interests of possible emigrants from Queensland or from our own shores, but in the interests of the Colony itself, than deliberately to set up a community of possessors of large tracts of territory who, under the somewhat ignoble and unaristocratic title of squatters, have made the great difficulties of our Australasian fellow-countrymen. The right hon. Gentleman has promised that full information shall be laid before Parliament, and that conditions shall be laid down under which Colonists shall be able to pass into the country; but that is not nearly enough. What we want is that, if those 8,000 families are put in possession of 500,000 square miles, a definite limit shall be put to the power of dividing the lands among themselves, which those who then will have the full authority will possess. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not give the Committee a guarantee that Government will introduce this Bill to the House, give it their sanction, and press it forward, unless it contains conditions that land-grabbing and land-jobbing on a big scale shall be impossible, and that the land shall be divided only in limited portions to those who are fortunate enough to be citizens of the new community. I would recommend the Committee to divide with my hon. Friend.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to say I believe that the Government are wholly and absolutely responsible for this Bill. I would rather discuss the question with the full knowledge that the Bill will be brought in at a proper time, and full opportunity afforded for discussing it; but we know that late in the Session the closure is applied, and Bills are rushed through the House. Unless, therefore, I have
    1120
    some assurance from the Government that opportunity will be given for discussion, I shall take the sense of the Committee as a protest against the course which has been followed by the Colonial Office in this matter. This is not a case in which we are likely to find ourselves embroiled in war with a native population, but I wish to point out that in regard to self government in the United States, the Central Government always retains a full and ample control over unoccupied land; whereas in all British Colonies, without exception, land jobbing has prevailed. In South Africa millions of acres have been jobbed away, and money made out of the transaction. That is a system which I wish to see done away with.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: Of course it will be necessary to introduce a Bill into this House to give effect to the Bill which has been passed by the Legislature of Western Australia. Full power will be retained by the Imperial Parliament to lay down in the Bill what conditions they may think fit both as to immigration and as to the principles on which unoccupied land in the colony shall be dealt with.
    *SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: After the very definite pledge which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman that the condition on which unoccupied land is to be taken shall be laid down in the Bill, I do not think my hon. Friend would be justified in pressing the Motion to a division.
    *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to know, in reference to Bechuanaland, whether the Government intend to hold their hands until the arrival of Sir Hercules Robinson, before deciding whether that country is to be left under the Imperial Government or handed over to the Cape Colony. So far as the native races are concerned, it is important that we should know, once for all, what is the policy to be pursued in regard to the government of that part of Africa.
    MR. JAMES ELLIS: I am afraid that the Committee are locking the door after the steed is stolen. I believe that the demand for self-government in Western Australia is more in consequence of the way in which land has hitherto been dealt with than anything else. The people of Western Australia, when they have had

    1121
    self-government, have managed their affairs much better than the Colonial Office would have managed them, and we are wrong in stopping them now. It is for the purpose of putting a stop to land-grabbing that the people of Western Australia demand self-government, and I believe that almost the whole of the land that is sufficiently watered and fit for settlement has already been let on long leases to persons who intend to speculate in land. I imagine that the best thing we can do is to allow the people to manage the land in their own way.
    SIR G. GAMPBELL: I do not think that the assurance which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory, but I am willing to withdraw the Motion on the understanding that a full opportunity will be afforded for discussing the Bill.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I can give the hon. Member an assurance that the Bill will be brought in in time for a full discussion to take place upon it.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Under those circumstances I will not press the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original question again proposed.
    *MR. PICTON: In moving to reduce the salary of the Colonial Secretary by the sum of £50, said: The matter which I desire to bring before the Committee is one which, in my opinion, justifies me in asking for the earnest and serious attention of the Committee. To put it briefly, the case is this: On the 18th of June last year, a day generally supposed to be bright in the military annals of this country, a terrible massacre was perpetrated in a district of the Gold Coast by a force of native soldiers employed in the interests of the British Empire. In that massacre 700 poor people were slaughtered or otherwise done to death, 200 of them being women and children. I am sorry to say that this massacre has received the approval of the Colonial Secretary, I hope with an insufficient understanding at the time of what the facts were. More information has come to light since. But on the 3rd of August Lord Knutsford wrote these words, "I have to express my entire approval of your action "—that is the action of the Governor—" under the circumstances,
    1122
    and my satisfaction at the good work which has been done by the Colonial Secretary and the other officers concerned." It may be thought that at that time full information had not reached this country as to the extent of the slaughter, and, indeed, that was the case, but those facts were fully known in September. And yet on the 29th of that month Lord Knutsford wrote a despatch deploring the great loss of life, but again expressing his approval of the action of the Governor. It is this letter of which I ask the Committee to express its disapproval in the manner my Motion indicates. In order to justify the Motion I must ask the permission of the Committee to lay the facts of the case before them in a little detail. The district in which the massacre occurred is very remote and has very little communication with anybody but officials. The newspapers of this country know nothing whatever about it. It lies inland from the sea and is upon the border of the notorious kingdom of Dahomey. This Crepi country is divided into a number of little communities which appear to have been organized more or less on the feudal system—or a savage imitation of the feudal system. There is a Chief named Quadjoe Deh supreme over that district. Under him there are subordinate chiefs, one of whom is placed over the settlement of Tavieve, and then there is another district and settlement called Shave. Between Tavieve and Shave there have been for 15 years' past many unpleasantnesses and much disturbance. It is well known that when once a quarrel breaks out in these districts, it is only by a wise and most careful exercise of diplomacy and the moral weight of superior civilization that peace can be preserved. But in this district we have adopted a very different method, as I shall presently show. On the 3rd of April, Quadjoe Deh, the Chief or King, reported to the District Commissioner, who is, of course, an official of the Government of the Colony, that an attack had been made by the people of Tavieve, under their Chieftain, upon the district of Shave. Accordingly, as reported in the Blue Book, Mr. Frederick Evans, the Colonial Secretary, directed the Assistant Inspector, Dalrymple, to proceed with an armed force to Akuse, and thence operate upon the disturbed district, and endeavour to

    1123
    restore peace. I suppose that this officer, whose lamentable death followed, was zealous in the service to which he had given himself, and was anxious to take the shortest road to distinction. His ardour must have forewarned his superiors that some kind of caution was necessary, for I find in one of the papers a letter from the Colonial Secretary to this, I presume, young man, in which he is urged to be very careful how he proceeds. He is told that—
    "The Tavieve people are reported to be the most virulent and quarrelsome in the whole of Crepi, and are given to blocking the trade roads from the interior to the sea coast."
    Then a recitation is given of the previous disturbances they have had with the neighbouring King, and he is told that they have recently made peace, and the Government hopes that this peace will be confirmed. Then the letter goes on:—
    "You will remember that the policy of this Government is not to irritate or engender a spirit of disaffection, but by peaceful and conciliatory measures to establish harmony among the peoples under its protection and teach them to look to the Government for advice and guidance. It is in this case especially important that no measures which may embarrass the Government, or bring it into discord with any part of Crepi should be allowed to take place. In this connection I must point out to you that the force placed at your disposal must not be used as a menace to the people with whom you have to deal, and it is required that you will not take offensive measures under any circumstances, or resort at all to the use of arms unless absolutely compelled to do so in the interests of the safety of yourself and Party. As already stated, a peaceful solution of the difficulty is what is required—conciliation, not agression."
    That is admirable advice, and no doubt if the proceedings had been carried on in that spirit, I am convinced that this frightful massacre to which I refer never could have occurred. But when Assistant Inspector Dalrymple came to the borders of the district from which the raid had been made upon Shave, he seems to have arrived at the conclusion that the people there ought to be severely punished. Let me say here that he had great difficulty in inducing the Superior King Quadjoe Deh to submit to his persuasion, and to refrain from attacking his rebellious feudatories. They might have been made to submit in a peaceable manner, but in a letter that he addressed on the 24th of April to the Colonial Secretary, he says:—
    1124
    "I am of the opinion that unless the Tavieves be severely punished in a practical manner before the eyes of all Crepee, my mission must be a failure. I look to the Government for instructions as to the mode of chastisement to be dealt out to them, I may mention that I have rockets to burn villages."
    This last illustration of the weapons, of civilization is akin to the battering ram used in Ireland. It is a great pity we cannot carry out the Christian principles we profess by our Established Church a little more consistently than we do. This letter was not cordially received by the authorities of the Colony, and Assistant Inspector Dalrymple was warned that this was not quite the thing for which he had been sent out. On the 2nd of May a letter signed. by the Colonial Secretary was dispatched to him in which these words occur:—
    "In reference to the proposed punishment of the Tavieves, I am to recall your attention to the instructions given to you on leaving Accra, and to say that the relations which the Governor desires to see established between this Government and the Tavieves are not likely to be advanced by the means you suggest for adoption."
    In conclusion the Colonial Secretary says:—
    "Should you find that it is not possible to bring about a satisfactory understanding between the Tavieves and their enemies, or to procure the arrest of the parties most concerned in the attack and firing upon the Chaves, without resorting to force, you are to report at once to me by special messenger, giving me full information as to the general disposition of the offending parties, their strength, &c., &c., &c., but his Excellency the Governor anxiously hopes that you will be able to bring your mission to a successful issue at an early date by the use of conciliatory measures only. You are not, however, on any pretext to resort to forcible measures without receiving the Governor's permission in that regard."
    Could any officer sent out on a responsible duty receive stricter orders than this young man received? But he was not content to obey his orders. He was determined, apparently, to act on his own responsibility. Accordingly, when he came to Tavieve he met the subordinate Chief there, who is called Bello Kwabla. He told this Chief—what? That he must submit to the superior Government of Great Britain? No. That he must go to Peki, the seat of his superior lord. There was a blood. feud between the two peoples. Bello Kwabla was afraid to go to Peki because, some fifteen years ago, a subor-

    1125
    dinate King of Tavieve had been, as he alleged, treacherously murdered by the Chieftain of Peki, and he naturally feared that if he was put in the power of his savage superior he would suffer the same fate. Accordingly, he and his colleagues pleaded earnestly with the young Assistant Inspector that he might, instead of being sent to Peki, be taken down to Accra, and then the case between Tavieve and Shave might be tried by the English authorities, in whom they stated they had confidence. This young man would not yield to this appeal. He was staying in the house of the Chief, but he would not listen to the voice of sympathy and of justice. District Inspector Burnett, who ought to know the district very well, wrote a letter after the death of this unfortunate and misguided young man, in which he said that no other result but his death could have been expected by the course Assistant Inspector Dalrymple took. Unfortunately, the words of Mr. Burnett were not written until after the death of yong Dalrymple. When Bello Kwabla refused to go to Peki, Dalrymple put his hand upon him—with no violence, I am bound to confess, but apparently in a friendly manner—and stated, "I arrest you in the name of the Queen"; and he called upon his men to arrest the subordinate Chiefs, with the result that eleven of them were taken into custody. Bello Kwabla, however, asked permission to go into his house to obtain some cloth; he availed himself of the permission granted to him to escape, and he was not for some hours afterwards seen. In a few moments Mr. Dalrymple, wisely thinking he ought not to wait under these circumstances, put his soldiers on the march, placed his ten remaining prisoners amongst them, and proceeded, it is believed, towards Crepi. After going some miles—I cannot ascertain the exact distance—it was observed that the bush on either side of the road was thronged with natives belonging to Tavieve. There was no concealment on the point. The jury before whom the trial subsequently took place declared that it was the custom to escort a Chief in this way, when he was going from one place to another, that the openness of the action of these people was a proof that it was not an ambush, and that they only intended to do
    1126
    homage to the subordinate chieftains. However, when they had marched some miles, one of the Chiefs positively refused to go any further. The evidence then becomes conflicting, but the balance of evidence certainly seems in favour of what appears very likely in itself—namely, that Assistant Inspector Dalrymple, like a brave man, determined to have his orders carried out, and that he drew his pistol and shot the Chief. At any rate the man was shot and was killed.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Can he point to any despatch in which such a statement is made?
    *MR. PICTON: I can only point to the memorial of the jury, signed with their names, in which they summarize the evidence given at the trial, and give their reasons for believing the evidence that Dalrymple shot the prisoner. I do not say this is proof positive; I am saying that it is a case for inquiry. Well, then, of course, there was more shooting, and poor Dalrymple was shot from the bush. Some of the witnesses have it that he was shot without any previous shot being fired. Instantly there was a general skirmish in the road and in the bush, and a considerable amount of murder was effected, the Tavieve' people suffering more than the Houssas. I do not deny that this occurrence was an outrage upon British authority, and that it had to be dealt with. None of us would permit murder to be perpetrated in any part of the British dominions if it could be prevented. But. there are different modes of preventing such an occurrence, and of dealing with. it after it has taken place. What I. wish to refer to is the mode of vengeance adopted, a mode of vengeance which has since been approved by the Secretary for the Colonies. As soon as this lamentable and terrible event was known orders were given at Accra to Assistant Inspector Akers to take a force of 50 Houssas—afterwards increased to 63—to obtain allies from Chief Quadjoe Deh of Peki and to march upon Tavieve. That place was taken without resistance on May 29th. Then Assistant Inspector Akers went down to Accra, leaving 50, Houssas and 50 Crepi allies to watch the town. Then arose another disturbance. The Peki people were

    1127
    driven off and the Houssas were withdrawn. Subsequently Mr. Akers came back and recaptured the town of Tavieve. For a week afterwards the Houssas and their allies were pursuing the unfortunate people all about the bush, and the number slain, at first reported at 167, was afterwards ascertained to be between five and six hundred. Here I must read what Mr. Akers says:—
    "I also enclose a correct list of all casualties that have occurred in Tavieve since the 11th of May last. So far as I have been able to ascertain, about 500 to 600 of the Tavieve men have been killed, and about 200 women and children have died of exposure and starvation, or been accidentally shot during the fighting. The population of Tavieve was some 2,000 souls before any fighting took place, and so I shall leave here about 1,200 men, women, and children."
    It is easy to reconcile ourselves to events of this kind when they take place in a remote and savage land, the conditions of existence of whose people we can hardly understand. But suppose that a skirmish took place, say in Ireland, and between 500 and 600 of our fellow-countrymen were shot down by the police and military, and 200 women and children were injured or exposed to such privations that they died. Why everyone knows that a revolution would take place in popular opinion, that the whole population from south to north would rise and insist that this diabolical wickedness should come to an end at once, and Home Rule would undoubtedly be carried in the course of three months. But of course when things take place at such a distance from home we do not take them so much to heart. We shall be told of course that a murder had been committed. No doubt that was so, but we are obliged to look at the events that preceded it as well as the events which succeeded it. The Secretary of the Colony in one letter acknowledges that Mr. Dalrymple had somewhat exceeded his discretion. He was told to act in a conciliatory manner and to refer back to his superiors if further arrests were to take place. He acted, however, on his own authority, and therefore, although I cannot but profoundly regret his fate, I cannot help thinking that he was himself largely responsible. No doubt it was necessary to avenge the murder that was perpetrated, but it should have been avenged in a legal way. Surely
    1128
    there was no need for a campaign among a weak people, so badly armed as they were and so ready to submit to the exercise of the British jury system. What do the jury say in their memorial to the Secretary of State for the Colonies? They ask why neither a Judge nor a District Commissioner was sent to the Crepi country for the purpose of dealing with the alleged murder. Two prisoners, Bello Kwabla and Napael Seheh, were taken down to Accra and put on their trial before a jury. We glory in the institution of the British jury and offer it as a precious boon to backward races. Well, a jury was called together. Whether the jury was packed or not we have no proof. But certainly it was not packed in the interest of the prisoners. At any rate, the case was tried before the Acting Chief Justice of the Colony, Mr. Smith, and the charge was for conspiracy to murder Mr. Dalrymple. The evidence was exceedingly discordant, and it would puzzle a good lawyer to make out the truth from the contradictory statements. According to the report which I have seen the judge in his charge told the jury in effect that they could not possibly convict this man for the offence alleged. For it should be particularly noted that he was not in the first instance charged with murder, but with conspiracy to murder. The acting Chief Justice informed the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to substantiate the accusation that was made. Accordingly this man and his fellows in misfortune were acquitted. They were then brought forward upon a new accusation for murder and being accessory before the fact, whereupon the Attorney General entered at once a nolle prosequi, and the case was presumed to be at an end. But it did not end there. The Governor called together his Council and informed them, the Chief Justice being present, that the acquittal in the first trial was entirely against the evidence. He then persuaded the Legislative Council to pass a most extraordinary ordinance giving power to him to imprison these poor people without any trial at all simply at his discretion. I do not know what the law may be in the Colonies, but I cannot conceive that, such a thing could take place bill. What would be thought of a Bill of Attainder being introduced in Parliament

    1129
    to punish a man who had been acquitted of murder? Yet this is what took place in the Gold Coast Colony under the ægis of the British Empire. The matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is; but there must be some further inquiry. I have no wish to divide the Committee unnecessarily if we have a distinct and frank assurance that an effort will be made to secure an impartial inquiry into what has actually taken place. That would be a strong reason for not dividing; but certainly things cannot remain where they are. In dealing with these unfortunate people it is not for a great Power like this, trained as it is in arts and civilization for centuries, to point to deeds of violence and say that these are a sufficient justification for indiscriminate vengeance. We are bound to treat the races which are subject to us sympathetically, and to show them a better example than that of their own savage life. Yet, upon the borders of this awful kingdom of Dahomey, we, a Christian nation, in order to punish fanatics for a casual act of murder, actually massacred 700 people, including 200 women and children. We are told that it is better that two guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. In this case we have pursued a contrary principle. We have assumed that it is better to massacre hundreds of innocent people than to allow one guilty man to escape. I ask the House to realize its responsibility; and unless we have some satisfactory assurance that a searching and impartial inquiry will be made, I trust the Committee will mark its sense of the wrong done by reducing the salary of the Secretary of State and insisting that we shall be set right before the nations of the world. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £50.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £36,786 for Salaries, be reduced by £50, part of the Salary of the Secretary of State." — (Mr. Picton).
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) concluded his remarks by saying that be hoped an impartial inquiry will be made into the unfortunate occurrence to which he has drawn attention. I hope that if such inquiry be made, that it will be in a more impartial spirit than
    1130
    has been shown by the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member said that a jury was empanelled to try the case, but that we were not told whether it was packed or not. That is a specimen of the impartial spirit in which the hon. Member considers that an inquiry of this sort should be conducted. The hon. Member has been only too anxious to agree with the finding of the jury, whether it was correct or not.
    *MR. PICTON: I said there was a strong case for inquiry, but I did not undertake to say whether the finding of the jury was correct or not.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Gentleman said the jury indicated that there was a possibility of one of the natives having been shot by Mr. Dalrymple, and he satisfied his own mind that such a possibility existed. But when he turned to the other jury who had to try the alleged murder of Mr. Dalrymple, he was not so satisfied. He did not come to the conclusion that the finding was incorrect, nor did he talk of the jury being packed. That is an example of the spirit of fairness displayed by the hon. Member. He began his observations by saying that the late Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, and he went on to insinuate that Mr. Dalrymple had used those rockets. Nothing of the sort. Mr. Dalrymple used no more force than was necessary. But having opened his case by saying that Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, the hon. Member said nothing further in regard to them. He simply drew conclusions as to what might have occurred if Mr. Dalrymple had used the rockets. Now what really occurred? There was a dispute between the King of Krepi and the people of Tavieve. The Colonial Governor sent Mr. Dalrymple with a small force to compose the quarrel. Mr. Dalrymple succeeded in allaying the quarrel, and after some trouble he induced the King of Crepi to dismiss his force. He then continued his march to Tavieve. But on his return, according to a letter from Mr. Burnett, a District Commissioner, the chief of the Tavieves laid an ambush for him, and a native Tavieve shot Mr. Dalrymple and killed him, and then pursued Mr. Burnett, and overtook some of his carriers, who dropped their loads and ran away to save their lives. Mr.

    1131
    Dalrymple was shot before the Houssas who accompanied him fired. Two Houssas were killed and five missing. In the despatch which was written some time after Mr. Dalrymple's death. Mr. Bennett seems to have attributed Mr. Dalrymple's death, in part, to his own conduct. But there is no evidence in support of this view, and Mr. Bennett himself escaped death by discreetly running away. After the news of Mr. Dalrymple's death measures were taken for the arrest of the murderers. It is easy to arouse sympathy by calling attention to the great number of natives killed; but in order to vindicate the principles of justice it was necessary that Mr. Dalrymple's murderers should be punished. The spurious humanitarian views of hon. Members opposite would lead to more bloodshed than what may appear to be a sterner policy. Mercy and humanity are excellent things, and they ought to be carried out, but we owe something to those who are under our flag, and whose lives we are bound to protect Surely we are bound to punish severely those who resort to murder?
    *Mr. PICTON: In this case, 200 of the victims were women and children.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: They perished from hunger and exposure. They were following the army—for it was an army—which attacked our small force. I protest against the word "massacre" being used. There can be no excuse for murder, and in this case there was no provocation whatever given by Mr. Dalrymple.
    *MR. PICTON: Yes there was.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I defy the hon. Member to show that there was any real provocation given by Mr. Dalrymple.
    *MR. PICTON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to misrepresent me. It was not a case of wanting these people to go down to Tavieve. They would have gone gladly, but Mr. Dalrymple wanted them to go to Peki, the residence of their incensed enemy.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: What was Mr. Dalrymple sent there for? He was sent to prevent two hostile tribes from fighting, and how could he do it? One tribe had already separated peacefully, but the other was contemplating a raid
    1132
    which would have resulted in great bloodshed. What could he do but arrest the ringleaders and try to prevent bloodshed? It was in the execution of that duty that Mr. Dalrymple was wantonly and treacherously murdered. The following two telegrams from the Colonial Secretary to the Governor confirm this:—
    "Accra, May 19, 1888.
    "A man brought to me by Riby Williams says that a man who was present when Dalrymple was shot told him that when Dalrymple arrested the Chiefs, he marched alongside Chief of Tavieve, that an ambush was made. Houssas saw and gave warning, but warning was disregarded, a man sprang out of bush and pointed his gun at Dalrymple a few paces off. Dalrymple waived him off, man fired and hit him in the stomach, a running fire ensued, Houssas bearing the body."
    "Accra, May 22, 1888.
    "Letter from Bennett, dated Ho, 14th May, received. It would appear that Mr. Dalrymple unfolded his plans to Chief of Tavieve, who was enabled to lay an ambush for him; that Taviewe, having shot Mr. Dalrymple, pursued. Mr. Bennett, overtook some of his carriers, who, dropped their loads and ran to save their lives. Mr. Dalrymple was shot before Houssas commenced firing; two Houssas killed and five missing.''
    I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not express any sympathy with this unfortunate man who was murdered in the execution of his duty, but tried. rather to show that he was to blame.
    *MR. PICTON: No.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: All the sympathy expressed by the hon. Member has been for the savages, and he tried all in his power to show that Mr. Dalrymple's murder was through his own fault. Why did the hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Dalrymple had rockets with him, unless he meant to imply that Mr. Dalrymple used them? As a matter-of fact he never did use them. Does the hon. Member mean to say that Mr. Dalrymple was not entitled to take with him the ordinary means of defence? If the hon. Gentleman meant nothing, why did he say anything about rockets? If he meant something, he ought to have said what it was. The hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe that a large force under Mr. Akers suddenly came upon a number of unfortunate men and shot them down. Surely he cannot have taken the trouble to investigate the facts of the case. Does not the hon. Member know that this is a most warlike and treacherous tribe,

    1133
    and when Mr. Akers went to arrest the murderers he was met by the savages, who were very well armed, and who engaged in a pitched battle with the force under his command. The result was that the more civilized and better armed force had the advantage. It is very much to be regretted that in this unequal strife a great number of these people, as I admit, were killed. But the object was a necessary and a legitimate one—that of arresting and punishing the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple. These are the plain facts of the case. I regret, and the Secretary of State regrets, that so many of these people were killed, but when we have said that we have said all we can say, because it was necessary for those under the protection of our flag that every effort should be made to bring the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple to justice. It is impossible to put the case more fairly than the Secretary of State has done, when he says that, while he regrets very much this unfortunate loss of life, he acquits Mr. Akers of doing anything beyond that which he was entitled to do under the circumstances. I hope the Committee will not be misled by what has fallen from the hon. Member for Leicester, who has overstated one part of the case and understated another.
    *MR. G. O. MORGAN: There can be no doubt that this was a most unfortunate affair, and, as usual in such cases, there is a good deal of difficulty about it. As I understand it, putting the statements of the hon. Member for Leicester and the Under Secretary together, it comes to this that Mr. Dalrymple was sent on a conciliatory mission at the head of a small number of persons. Well, Mr. Dalrymple is dead, and I do not want to say a word against him. He is not here to defend himself. It is only fair to him to say that he did nothing with which I can find fault with, except that he acted somewhat injudiciously. He has been shot, perhaps treacherously. But assuming that he was treacherously shot, without having given any provocation to his murderers, can it be said that it was necessary, in order to avenge his death, to kill 800 people. To say that would be perfectly monstrous.
    *BARON DE WORMS: What I stated was that it was necessary to arrest his
    1134
    murderers, and that the endeavour to arrest them led to resistance and to this unfortunate bloodshed.
    *MR. G. O MORGAN: Was it necessary, in order to arrest the murderers, that out of a population of 2,000 some 800 should be killed, including 200 women and children? It is a most unprecedented thing, and in my opinion this unfortunate matter calls for inquiry. At present we have had none. Unless some sort of impartial inquiry is conceded to my hon. Friend, I shall support his Motion.
    DR. CLARK: I was astonished to hear the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not often astonished, because it is rarely that right hon. Gentlemen opposite attempt to reply to the arguments adduced on this side of the House, or to give reasons for their action. The right hon. Gentleman sat down without having said a single word in defence of Mr. Akers' action, nor has he given a single reason why this chief, after having been tried by a jury and acquitted, should be tried again and kept a prisoner for life, a Bill having been brought in and carried in a single morning for that purpose. Not a single word has been said in defence of that policy. We are always fighting with these savage tribes on the Gold Coast, and we are fighting now as we used to fight in the Highlands 200 years ago. A mission appears to have been sent out for the purpose of trying to conciliate two native tribes. Mr. Dalrymple said the object of the mission was to endeavour to effect a peaceful reconciliation. But what did Mr. Dalrymple do? He disregarded and disobeyed the instructions of his superior, the Governor of the Gold Coast and his own Commissioner Mr. Burnett, and he wrote that he was of opinion that the natives of Tavieve ought to be punished. He added these words "I may mention that I have rockets with me to burn the village." You have Mr. Dalrymple going on a peaceful mission to reconcile two hostile tribes, but Mr. Dalrymple like many others in such a position being ambitious of distinction, and wanting promotion, having his Houssas around him, thought he would try warlike operations on his own account and wipe out the Tavieve chief. Despite the warning of his superior officer, he resolved to carry on a war

    1135
    on his own account. In the sixth paragraph of Mr. Burnett's Report, the Commissioner said it was his deliberate opinion that the troubles arising with the Tavieves after his departure arose in a great measure from the fact that Mr. Dalrymple very unwisely expressed his intention of making the chief a prisoner, and he (Mr. Burnett) strongly advised Mr. Dalrymple not to attempt it, but Dalrymple laughed at his fears. So here was a young man in authority who laughed at the advice of his superior officer the Chief Commissioner, disregarded the orders of the Governor as to the object of his mission, and there is the result that as one of the consequences he is killed. You have had the evidence from both sides. The Chief was being taken a prisoner into the camp of his hereditary enemy—why, it is similar to taking a Home Rule leader to Belfast to be tried by Orangemen. There was a blood feud between the tribes of the bitterest character, and it had existed for years, but instead of sending the Chief of Accra to be brought to trial before judges in whom he would have had some confidence, he was being taken among his hereditary enemies, and some of the more active members of his tribe seeing their Chief about to be taken away, as they would think to death, planned a rescue. The result was that Mr. Dalrymple met his death through his own folly and disobedience to orders, having laughed at and scorned the objections of his superior officer. A force was then sent to avenge his death, and some 800 of these Tavieves were murdered while only five Houssas were killed and wounded. Naturally this was the result when a force armed with breech-loading guns fought with natives armed with old guns and spears. Mr. Dalrymple's murder was avenged by the death of 800 Tavieves, some killed at once, others dying from wounds and starvation. The Chief and head man were tried and found not guilty, Judge and jury both being against conviction. More vengeance, however, was wanted, and so a Bill was rushed through the Legislative Council, a Council principally composed of members subservient to the will of the Governor, and the Tavieve Chief, though acquitted by Judge and jury of the crime imputed to him, is detained a prisoner. Even the
    1136
    Attorney General refused to go on with another indictment. And yet the Colonial Office is satisfied with the perversion of justice by which this unfortunate Chief is detained in prison.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: The men are detained in the interest of the public peace, and because a renewal of disturbance is apprehended were they to be sent back at the present time. There is another matter I did not wish to allude to, but as I am challenged with it I must. Great stress has been laid upon the observations of Mr. Burnett, and the hon. Member for Leicester attached great importance to the blame imputed by Mr. Burnett to the unfortunate Mr. Dalrymple. Mr. Burnett has been compelled to resign his appointment in consequence of his cowardice on the occasion, and the evidence given to the Committee by the hon. Members opposite is that which Mr. Burnett gave against the man whom he did not support. Mr. Burnett is no longer a Member of the Civil Service of the Colony, because of his conduct on the occasion, and I think hon. Members would have done well to have omitted these references.
    MR. W. JAMES: I should like to say a few words upon this matter if only to bear testimony to the terms of studied moderation in which the hon. Member for Leicester referred to the action through which Mr. Dalrymple forfeited his life, and to contrast the language with that employed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. The matter and form of the latter speech are not calculated, I think, to improve future trade relations, British credit, British prestige, or the honourable name of this country, in this dark corner of the earth or in other parts of the world. The right hon. Gentleman in defending the course taken, sustained a part, played a role we have heard and seen again and again. The proceedings complained of, he says, were not a massacre — well, as a matter of fact, every battle is more or less a massacre —but the whole tone and spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend, he said, were likely to engender more difficulties. and bloodshed, and then the Under Secretary gave expression to what I may call the "British Lion" view, calculated to precipitate party feelings and

    1137
    to prevent impartial discussions of this matter. For my part I think these transactions on distant coasts are as distasteful to our political opponents as they are to us. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is not for the credit of this country, and is calculated to repeat the difficulties into which we have been brought by "prancing Pro-Consuls" in different parts of the world. In the growth of our Colonial Empire we have found that before the conquering spirit of British enterprise aboriginal races disappear, and our humbler fellow creatures, such as the Indians in Canada, the Maories in New Zealand, and the natives of Australia cease to exist; but that is not so in Africa, where the black tide of humanity is ever before us. We only occupy a small fringe of the coast line, and are ever liable to troubles, which the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman is not likely to mitigate. The right hon. Gentleman thought he produced an effect by stating that Mr. Burnett was dismissed for cowardice, but it is quite conceivable that the officials who take an exaggerated view of what should be our policy towards the natives, are likely to condemn for cowardice those who do not entirely approve of their conduct. On all these points a full and impartial inquiry is necessary; the reply of the Under Secretary is eminently unsatisfactory, and thanks are due to the hon. Member for Leicester for bringing this matter forward.
    *SIR R. N. FOWLER: It is, I think, the feeling of the Committee that everybody must deplore the very sad events that have taken place, but the question is, what is to be done? The hon. Gentleman opposite, who has rendered a service in bringing the question before the House, recommends that a Commission of Inquiry should be sent out, and I should be very glad to see that done if it were possible to get a good Commission to go out. I do not think the hon. Member for Leicester would be disposed to leave his duties here, or even in the Recess would care to go out on such a mission to the Gold Coast. There would be great difficulty, I fear, in finding impartial men to go out. Now, I do not like the new principle, the new practice which is springing up of making Votes on Supply an opportunity for moving Votes of Censure
    1138
    upon the Government. Such a practice did not exist when I came into the House, and I do not like it now. If the hon. Member for Leicester had made these events the foundation of a substantive Motion for censuring the local administration in this part of the world, I should have been glad to support him, but the form the Motion now takes is a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. Now, I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen on either side, do they know a more humane man than Lord Knutsford? I do not see how we can have a better tribunal to investigate the case. Lord Knutsford may have erred in his decision, but I am not prepared to censure him for that in the manner proposed.
    *SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), the saddest, most dangerous point in reference to this matter is the answer we have had from the Under Secretary, though I cannot agree with him as to the necessity of an inquiry. I do not see that much good would be done by that, for the facts are patent. We have two tribes engaged in a quarrel in the neighbourhood of a small British settlement; a British officer is sent out to interfere, and he is killed in a scuffle; the term murder is not well applied, practically it was a scuffle in which the officer was killed. This unfortunate occurrence arose out of some indiscretion on the part of the officer, but not out of any great breach of duty. Then we sent out a force which took a merciless revenge in the slaughter of some 800 human beings, and this part of the transaction is to be regretted, to be deeply deplored, to be spoken of with bated breath, and in such a tone as will not encourage other officers in other Colonies to adopt such a course without the direst, most absolute necessity. I would speak with strong feeling on this subject, for I am inclined to think that this is not the worst case, among many such cases we have from time to time heard of from the coast of Africa, or distant isles in the Pacific. Disputes arise between traders and natives, the British Consul is appealed to, and takes the part of the traders, a man-of-war and an armed force sent for, and a merciless massacre helpless natives follows. Scarcely

    1139
    year passes without such incidents. It is to be deplored that the Under Secretary for the Colonies should have attempted not to excuse or mitigate what has happened, but to justify it out and out in the manner he has.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir R. Fowler) throw a very important light on this discussion. I quite agree with him that this is not an occasion for passing a Vote of Censure upon Lord Knutsford, but we ought to take note of this, that throughout the debate the opinion which has been expressed on both sides and well presented by the hon. Baronet is that of these very deplorable events serious notice ought to be taken, and measures should be adopted to prevent the recurrence of such circumstances. Now I have long had the means of knowing the humane part which the hon. Baronet has always taken in discussions affecting natives of far distant lands, and it is worthy of him to express the opinion that if there had been an opportunity for moving a Vote of Censure upon the authorities on the spot who are responsible for these transactions, he would have voted in support of it.
    *SIR. R. N. FOWLER: Hear, hear.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a very different thing to what has been urged by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. With the exception of that right hon. Gentleman, there is no man who has not spoken in a tone of condemnation of the manner in which the unfortunate death of Mr. Dalrymple was followed up. This is really the point of this discussion, and in regard to what the hon. Baronet has said as to making this a substantive Motion, it must be remembered that Tuesdays and Fridays have been practically appropriated to Supply, and the manner in which the subject is now brought forward is the only manner open to the House to express an opinion which as the hon. Baronet says he would himself desire to express. I do not think that if it had been Lord Knutsford who had to answer for the Colonial Office in this discussion, he would have answered as the right hon. Gentleman has. What I imagine is desired on this side of the House is to convey an opinion to Lord Knutsford, who is the Minister respon-
    1140
    sible for the government of the Colonies, the desire that measures should be taken to prevent a recurrence of such transactions as these. I do not know whether it is possible to send out a Commissioner or not, but if it is not it shows that we are unable to fulfil the duties we have undertaken. We have great responsibilities, and we have a great power which we have to guard against abusing. I believe that with the single exception of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, there is hardly a man in the House who thinks that in this case the giant's power has not been abused. The object of the debate will be accomplished by making known to the Government the opinion of the Committee that these transactions ought not to have taken place, and that some measures ought to be taken to prevent a repetition of them. The case is not satisfactorily met by the hoity-toity tone of the Under Secretary, conceived not so much in the tone of the British Lion as in the vindictive spirit of the British Tiger. The object of the debate will have been accomplished if it is known that the House of Commons condemns the manner in which this matter was dealt with, and conveys to the Government its view that measures ought to be taken to prevent a recurrence of such transactions.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I must protest against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to imply —and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) took the same line—that I was in no way struck with the terrible result of these unfortunate transactions. I repeated over and over again in relation to this matter that I deplored the terrible result as much as anybody could, though I expressed my belief that under the circumstances it was unavoidable. There is a great difference between regretting what has taken place and blaming those who took part in these transactions, though the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) does not appear to appreciate or understand the distinction. There was no massacre in the sense that hon. Members would have us understand it. All that Mr. Akers had to do was to arrest ten men guilty of a most barbarous murder, a murder of the most treacherous kind, by savages in ambush. The Governor of the English

    1141
    Colony on the Gold Coast rightly thought it was his duty to bring the murderers of Mr. Dalrymple to justice, and it was through resistance to the process of law that the unfortunate result happened which I as well as everybody in the House deplore.
    *MR. PICTON: After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, I feel bound to take a Division, however few may be those who intend to vote in the cause of humanity. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and after what I cannot but take to be the intentionally unfair manner in which he has treated the motive and manner of my address to the Committee, I may be permitted a word or two of explanation. The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not include me or the natives of West Africa in his very cosmopolitan sympathies, and thinks it necessary to impute to me motives and a lack of sympathy with the victims of crime which I hope most of my friends know are far from my disposition. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the hackneyed story of the solicitor who gave advice as to the mode of conducting a bad case, but in his endeavour to affix some stigma upon me he has betrayed ignorance of affairs in which he is supposed to have some subordinate authority. He said that Mr. Dalrymple was about to take the murderers to Accra, but this was just what he would not do, and what the so-called murderers wanted him to do. If hon. Members will refer to the Blue Book they will see that these chiefs and head-men wanted to be taken to Accra, and were willing to stand their trial at Accra; but Mr. Dalrymple decided they should not go there, but that they should be taken into the power of their ancient bloodthirsty enemies the Crepis. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little unjust in his forgetfulness of this most important item in the facts. Then the right hon Gentleman says I displayed no sympathy for the fate of Mr. Dalrymple. Well, I need not reply to that, for I am sure my hon. Friends interpreted my observations in a very different sense. As to what the right hon. Gentleman considered the very conclusive fact that Mr. Commissioner Burnett was dismissed for
    1142
    cowardice, of course I am not in a position to defend Mr. Burnett, but my argument does not depend apon this gentleman's valour or cowardice, but simply on this, that the authorities at the Colony and the Colonial Secretary warned Mr. Dalrymple in emphatic words that he was not going on a warlike errand, and that he was not to exercise coercion, and that if violence appeared necessary, he was again to apply to headquarters before taking any such measures. The officer thought violence was necessary; he did not refer to headquarters; he made a violent arrest, and hence the result we deplore. Why, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any savage would be content to be taken like a lamb and delivered to his hereditary enemy? He did not come under British dominion for that; he claimed to be tried by impartial Judges and an impartial tribunal. Something has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler) about the undesirability of passing a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. I propose nothing of the sort; it is a Vote of Censure on the system pursued towards the native races. I do not want specially and personally to make Lord Knutsford responsible for this series of blunders and crimes. It is not to be expected that any man, however humane and enlightened, can suddenly desert the current of your bad policy. Do not be misled; it is not a Vote of Censure on Lord Knutsford. I ask for support to a protest in a well-known form, expressing a reprobation of what has been done, and on our part I desire that this policy shall be amended in the future. Therefore it is that I move this reduction.
    DR. CLARK: In addition to our own forces—of whom only two were killed and three wounded—we were assisted by 3,000 natives belonging to a tribe between whom and those we were attacking existed a blood feud. For these natives we could not be responsible, and I protest against the horrible system of employing the services of such people on an occasion of this kind as I protested last year in regard to the Zulus.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I desire to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to a rather unfortunate condition of affairs existing in the Falkland Islands. I believe some friction has arisen between the Governor of the colony and the Colonial Surgeon in regard to some quarantine regulations, and I am informed that an application has been made by the Governor to the Government to have the Colonial Surgeon dismissed. I desire to know whether the Government will inquire into this matter. The residents on the Falkland Islands are well pleased with the surgeon, and seeing that there is only one medical man there, it is desirable that he should always be a gentleman acceptable to the families. I mention this matter now as I do not think another opportunity will arise before the mail leaves.
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I will inquire into the matter.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.

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

    THE OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA.
    *MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, I rise in pursuance of the Notice I have placed on the Paper,
    "To call attention to the Opium Trade with China; and to move, that this House views with deep regret the history of our Opium policy towards China, and regards the traffic in that drug as repugnant to the true interests of that country; that it calls upon the Government of India to take steps looking to the final extinction of the trade, and urges upon Her Majesty's Government to intimate to the Chinese Government that in the next revision of the Treaty of Tientsin full power will be given to extinguish the trade in Opium if it thinks fit."
    I am concious that I am raising a question of extraordinary difficulty; but I am so impressed with the gigantic evil of this opium trade that I cannot remain silent with regard to it. Our nation has woven for itself a network of difficulty in connection with the opium trade from which extrication seems to be almost impossible; yet we cannot sit still and idly fold our
    1144
    hands. I therefore ask the House once more to register a protest against England's greatest national sin. We have had no debate on the Opium Question in this House since the year 1886. There are no doubt many hon. Members to whom this subject may be somewhat strange, and who have not heard the old debates that used to take place upon it; consequently it will be necessary for me to-night to go to some extent over ground that has been trodden before, in order that all Members of this House may be able to judge of the morality of the position we occupy. We cannot form such a judgment except in connection with the history of the past. We find ourselves the heirs of what has gone before, and it is only by getting some competent knowledge of the past history of the subject that the House will be able to form a judgment as to the responsibilities that rest upon it. I will therefore attempt to prove the two following propositions—first, that we forced the opium trade upon China against its determined opposition and; secondly, that it has done incalculable harm to that country. To prove the first of these two propositions, I must take a rapid survey of our relations to China. The Chinese opium trade is one of comparatively modern growth. As far as I can gather from the early history of that country, there was no common use of opium there in the sense in which it now exists until towards the close of the last century. There is no allusion to it in the literature of the country as a national vice in the sense in which it is spoken of to-day. Indeed, there is no evidence that opium smoking was a common practice in China until towards the end of the last century and the beginning of this. Up to the year 1767- the export of opium from India to China seldom exceeded 200 chests a year; in, 1767 that amount was increased, and it grew during that century to about 4,000 chests, while now it has gone up to the terrible figure of 100,000 chests a year. As soon as the habit began to spread, the Chinese Government passed stringent regulations against the use, manufacture, and sale of opium in their dominions. These regulations became more and more severe until at last the Chinese Government went so far as to decree capital punishment against those who either smoked or

    1145
    sold opium. When the trade was forbidden it was carried on between India and China by smugglers, the opium being sold by the East India Company to the smugglers for the avowed purpose of being run into China, the profit derived from the trade being divided between the Company and the smugglers. To show what the East India Company thought of the effects of this drug I will quote a few lines from a despatch dated 1817, in which they say—
    "Were it possible to prevent the use of the drug altogether we would gladly do it in compassion to mankind."
    But, notwithstanding this fine sentiment, the East India Company were not ashamed to make a profit out of the degradation of the Chinese. The trade thus went on until in 1836 the Chinese Government made a determined effort to stop it, and resolved once for all to stamp it out. The result of that action on their part was the first Chinese War. The act which immediately led to that war was the destruction of 20,000 chests of opium, which were seized by the Chinese Authorities at Canton and thrown into the river, in doing which the Chinese Government were acting entirely within their own rights. What would have any European country have done under similar circumstances? We had no right to go to war on such a ground, but unhappily we did go to war and bombarded Canton and many other defenceless towns, and in the end compelled the Chinese to pay to the smuggling traders an indemnity for the opium destroyed. Still, we could not get them to legalize the trade. Our Ambassador, Sir H. Pottinger, tried it, and what was the noble reply made to him by the Chinese Emperor? He said—
    "It is true, I cannot prevent the introduction of the flowing poison. Gain-seeking and corrupt men will, for profit and sensuality, defeat my wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people."
    Then a letter was written by the Chinese Government to Sir H. Pottinger, in which they said—
    "Our nations have been united by a friendly commercial intercourse for 200 years. How then, at this time, are our old relations so suddenly changed, so as to be the cause of national quarrel? It arises most assuredly from the spreading opium poison. Opium is neither pulse nor grain, and yet multitudes of our
    1146
    Chinese subjects consume it, wasting their property and destroying their lives, and the calamities arising therefrom are unutterable. How is it possible for us to refrain from forbidding our people to use it?"
    That was what a heathen Government wrote to Christian England. And now I will read a few words from one whose authority, I am sure, will be recognized by this House. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). Speaking in the year 1840, about the Chinese War, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "They gave you notice to abandon your contraband trade. When they found that you would not, they had a right to drive you from their coasts, on account of your obstinacy in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic. You allowed your agent to aid and abet those who were concerned in carrying on that trade; and I do not know how it can be urged as a crime against the Chinese that they refused provisions to those who refused obedience to their laws whilst residing within their territories. A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I have not read of. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the British flag waving in glory at Canton. That flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic; and if it never were hoisted, except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror."
    The right hon. Gentleman has spoken many noble words, but he certainly never spoke any that were nobler or truer than these. Nevertheless, the smuggling of opium into China still went on until, in 858, it had the effect of producing the second Chinese War, which sprang out of the case of the lorcha Arrow, which was seized by the Chinese. This was during the Government of Lord Palmerston. In this war the Chinese were again defeated, the capital of China was taken, and the Chinese compelled at the point of the bayonet to legalize the trade in opium under the Treaty of Tientsin. Therefore, it was not till we had fought two successful wars that we were enabled to bring about that result. The trade then went on; but what the Chinese thought about the matter may be gathered from what was. said by Sir Thomas Wade, our Ambassador at Pekin, who wrote the following despatch to the British Government in 1868:—
    "We are generally prone to forget that the footing we have in China has been obtained by force, and by force alone, and that, unwarlike

    1147
    and unenergetic as we hold the Chinese to be, it is in reality to the fear of force alone that we are indebted for the safety we enjoy at certain points accessible to our force.… Yet nothing that has been gained, it must be remembered, was received from the free-will of the Chinese; more, the concessions made to us from time to time have been, from first to last, extorted against the conscience of the nation; in defiance, that is to say, of the moral convictions of its educated men; not merely of the office-holders, whom we call mandarins, and who are numerically but a small proportion of the educated class, but of the millions who are saturated with a knowledge of the history and philosophy of their country. To these, as a rule, the very extension of our trade must appear politically, or what is in China the same thing, morally wrong: and the story of foreign intercourse during the last 30 years can have had no effect but to confirm them in their opinion."
    These were the deliberate words of our own Ambassador at Pekin—the one who extorted the Treaty of Tientsin. There is one more quotation on this point of the subject which I should like to read. I do not know anything more touching, and I am sure there is not one here but will feel the force of it. Here is our Ambassador's despatch of 1869, in which he reports that the Chinese Minister used the following notable words in reply to the charge that the Chinese Government were hostile to foreigners. The Chinese Ministers at first disputed the fact, but —
    "In the end Wen-Seang shifted his ground, and asked how could it be otherwise? They had often seen foreigners making war on the country; and then, again, how irreparable and continuous was the injury which they saw inflicted upon the whole Empire by the foreign importation of opium! If England would consent to interdict this—cease either to grow it in India, or to allow their ships to bring it to China— there might be some hope of more friendly feelings. No doubt there was a very strong feeling entertained by all the literati and gentry as to the frightful evils attending the smoking of opium, its thoroughly demoralizing effects, and the utter ruin brought upon all who once gave way to the vice. They believed the extension of this pernicious habit was mainly due to the alacrity with which foreigners supplied the poison for their own profit, perfectly regardless of the irreparable injury inflicted, and naturally they felt hostile to all concerned in such a traffic.… If England ceased to protect the trade, it could then be effectually prohibited by the Emperor; and it would eventually cease to trouble them, while a great cause of hostility and distrust in the minds of the people would be removed."
    I confess it is very difficult to read these words without feeling ashamed. I do not believe that, if the British
    1148
    people had fully understood the nature of these operations and the policy we were pursuing towards China, that they would ever have tolerated what we were doing. The great mass of the nation knew nothing about the question. Parliament was not at that time as fully representative of the views of the people as it is now. I do not believe that any educated democracy would tolerate such cruel and unjust conduct towards a helpless nation as we at that time practised towards China. Well, I have only one more step to allude to, and that will bring to an end this brief review of the history of our relations with China. I said that the Treaty of Tientsin legalized the trade in opium. But, after a few years, the opium merchants began to complain that local dues were placed upon opium in the interior, so high as to somewhat restrict the trade. The Treaty of Tientsin, it appears, only provided for an Import Duty payable at the Customs. And so they began, backed up by the Indian Government, to agitate that we should urge upon China to abolish these inland imposts so as to make it easier for opium to get up the country. And so we had the Chefoo Convention in 1876, providing that there should be no "likin" imposts in the interior, but that a certain fixed duty should be paid at the port in addition to the Foreign Import Duty. This Chefoo Convention was not considered to be sufficiently favourable to British trade by the Home Government, and it remained unratified for no less than nine years. All that time our Government continued to urge upon China more favourable terms. At last the ratification was completed in the year 1885. And, if I am not mistaken, the total amount of duty now chargeable is 110 "taels" per chest. But that Convention was liable to be cancelled by twelve months' notice from either Power from the year 1890. And I wish to call the attention of the House to this important fact, that we are approaching a time when either England or China can give notice to end this Convention; and it is partly in view of this that I venture to bring this question before the House. Now, what I have said I think will lead those who are present to accept the first part of the Resolution—namely—

    1149
    "That this House views with deep regret the history of our opium policy towards China, and regards the traffic in that drug as repugnant to the true interests of that country."
    I think I may challenge the unanimous assent of this House to this proposition. Now, I am quite aware that within the last few years a feeble and a futile effort has been made to persuade the British public that the use of opium is not noxious, that opium is a comparatively healthy drug, and that it may be used by the great mass of the Chinese without any greater harm than results from the use of beer by our population, or even with any greater harm than from tobacco smoking. There is one gentleman, Sir George Birdwood, who has signalized himself by propounding what I must call preposterous views in posing as an apologist of the opium trade. Now, in order to induce the House to believe that the evils resulting from the use of opium are no less than the Chinese Government have always alleged, I shall be required to cite some competent witnesses. I may state to the House that for some 20 years at least I have been in the habit of discussing this question with persons long resident in China. I have gathered the opinions of many missionaries and medical men—men in charge of the hospitals, and who have gained an intimate knowledge of the evils arising from the use of opium. I have collected a large amount of information on the subject during those 20years, and I make this statement to the House that I have never come across a single disinterested witness who did not regard the common use of opium as one of the most terrible curses that could befal humanity. [Sir G. CAMPBELL: Worse than whisky?] I say much worse than whisky. A man may give up the use of whisky and recover, but the opium eater, after a certain stage, cannot give it up, because to do so means speedy death. In any case, the recovery from the use of opium causes such torments, such exquisite suffering, that not one man in a thousand can undergo the ordeal. I will call two witnesses, both of them competent —two of our own Ambassadors to China, the two men who negotiated our Treaties with China, the one Sir R. Alcock, and the other Sir Thomas Wade. Sir R. Alcock examined before a Com-
    1150
    mittee of this House in 1871, answered the following question:—
    "Can the evils, physical, moral, commercial, and political, as respects individuals, families, and the nation at large, of indulgence in this vice be exaggerated?—(Sir R. Alcock.) "I have no doubt that, where there is a great amount of evil, there is always a certain danger of exaggeration; but looking to the universality of the belief among the Chinese, that whenever a man takes to smoking opium, it will probably be the impoverishment and ruin of his family—a popular feeling which is universal both among those who are addicted to it, who always consider themselves as moral criminals and amongst those who abstain from it, and are merely endeavouring to prevent its consumption—it is difficult not to conclude that what we hear of it is essentially true, and that it is a source of impovishment and ruin to families.'"
    That was the unwilling evidence given by our own Ambassador. Now I will give you the evidence of Sir Thomas Wade, who was intimately acquainted with the Chinese people and knew their language, who lived long in the country, and who, I believe, is even a more competent witness than Sir R. Alcock, and he says that it does greater mischief than drink, because it works insidiously and does not show external evidence of the effects which expose the victim of habitual drunkenness. His words are:—
    "It is to me vain to think otherwise of the drug in China than as of a habit many times more pernicious, nationally speaking, than the gin and whisky drinking which we deplore at home. It takes possession more insidiously, and keeps its hold to the full as tenaciously. It has insured, in every case within my knowledge, the steady descent, moral and physical, of the smoker; and it is so far a greater mischief: than drink, that it does not, by external evidence of its effect, expose its victim to the loss of repute which is the penalty of habitual drunkenness."
    I think I could rest my case on the testimony of our two Ambassadors, competent witnesses, who were not likely to weigh unduly the charge against their own country, and whose natural bias would be the other way. But I will add to that testimony one or two statements made by missionaries of long experience in China. I believe there is no class of men who are so capable of giving an honest and true opinion upon such a question as the men who spend the greater part of their lives labouring among the poor Chinese, and, in many cases, attending in the hospitals, where they become acquainted

    1151
    with the evils of opium in a way that the merchants do not know of. Now here is the evidence of Archdeacon Wolfe, written only last September:—
    "In consequence of the removal of the local tax on the sale of opium, the drug is very much cheaper than before; consequently its use is rapidly spreading among all classes, and is fast destroying the vitality of this people. The devil could not have invented a more pernicious vice for the destruction of soul and body than this of opium smoking, and woe to the man who by word or deed gives any support or encouragement to the hell-born traffic! It is necessary for every friend of the Chinese to speak out in the plainest and most decisive manner on the evils of opium smoking. The people are being ruined by it, and it is indeed a lamentable spectacle to see professing Christian men speaking and writing in defence of the horrible crime. The pernicious results of this soul and body-destroying vice are apparent all round. Cadaverous looking faces meet one on every side, and the slovenly habits and the filthy appearance of the people generally testify too plainly to the evil it is working on this once industrious and energetic population. The rapid progress which opium smoking has made during the last twenty years among all classes of this population is a very serious matter for us missionaries. Almost the entire population in some places is abandoned to the use of this poisonous drug. The effects are witnessed in the extreme poverty of the people, in the broken down and dilapidated dwellings all through the village, and in the gross immorality which prevails amongst the inhabitants. Men openly and without shame prostitute their wives, in order to procure for themselves the means of indulging in opium smoking. Little children are sold as slaves and turned away from the embrace of their helpless mothers in order that their degraded fathers may have money to buy opium. Often and often has the missionary to endure the humiliation which no other nationality has to bear in this country. Often has he wished in his heart that the flag of some other nation which is not stained with the poisonous, polluted opium drug, was the one under which he lived in this country rather than the English, which to the Chinese is the emblem of the moral ruin of their nation.
    Just let me give one more description of the physical effects of opium smoking, that by the testimony of the Rev. S. Whitehead, long resident in China—
    "Hollow eyes, sunken cheeks, high shoulder-bones, emaciated frame, discoloured teeth, sallow complexion, are the signs which announce the opium smoker everywhere. And the evils thus set forth have their correspondence in the mental and moral degradation of the people. A smoker needs some three hours a day to consume the opium that is requisite for him. He is unable to do more than two hour consecutive work because he must have his opium, and when he needs it, whatever he may be doing, he must and will have it. If he has not time to take his rice and his opium, then he will smoke
    1152
    his opium. If he has not money enough to buy both rice and opium, he will spend his last cash on opium. If he has no money left, he will pawn his garments. If he has already pawned his garments, then he will steal. By one means or another he must have it. If he is deprived of it too long, water flows from the eyes, he experiences a burning in the throat and a dizziness in the head, and coldness in the extremities. If he is altogether denied the use of opium, he will die, and in agony."
    I have stated to the House that one of the greatest evils in connection with this system is the almost hopelessness of cure. The torment undergone by the patient is such that very few have the moral courage to withstand it. This is what Dr. Galt, who has charge of an hospital for opium smokers, says:—
    "Giving up the opium is something dreadful. No one who has not seen it can form any idea. The stomach sometimes rejects everything, even a drop of water. They toss about in their beds, and they are sleepless for nearly a week. In fact, they are in the most abject misery it is conceivable for a human being to be in, yet they came in hundreds every year to the hospital, and were willing to undergo all the misery that they might give up the use of the drug. They wished to do it, and wanted our help, as the craving is so strong that few can do it unaided."
    Surely it is unreasonable to compare the use of alcoholic stimulants or tobacco smoking with opium smoking. Why the Chinese people treat opium smoking as one of the worst vices. I know it will be said that China now grows so much opium that it is useless to stop the importation of the Indian drug. It it, alas! too true. But for many years the Chinese Government struggled with all their might against the introduction of opium; they punished with death those who grew it, and indeed there was very little grown until after the first Chinese war. Then they began to realize their incapacity to keep it out of the country; the restrictions on the growth of opium were not enforced with the same severity, and after the treaty of 1858, which legalized the trade, they were still further relaxed. It was only after the last war that the Chinese Government found how hopeless were their efforts to stamp out the vice, and now we see the sad result in the poverty, misery, and demoralization which it has wrought among the people. In the last few years there has been a great increase in the growth and consumption of opium in Western China. It is computed by some that

    1153
    there are something like 25,000,000 of opium smokers in the country; and that every year 60,000 of these persons commit suicide. Are we now to abstain from doing what is right in itself because the Chinese have abandoned all restrictions and are gradually sinking deeper and deeper into the mire? Are we to go on having our share in the creation of all this misery, drawing our share of the wicked gain, simply because it is impossible to undo what has been done? If we were to set a good example for conscience sake, perhaps the Chinese Government might be encouraged even yet to make a supreme effort to stamp out this vice. I cannot admit that we should continue doing what we know to be morally wrong. One thing is certain, unless the vice is combatted, China will commit something like national suicide and her population will succumb to pauperism, famine and death. It is for the Chinese a matter simply of life and death. There is a mote in our eye which prevents us seeing our duty in this great question, and that mote is that India derives six millions from the export of opium to China; and the problem is how to make up that six millions which India cannot afford to lose. Remember that, owing to Chinese competition, the price of opium is falling, and we shall have to export more and more in order to keep up the revenue. I am afraid that the Indian Government will increase the export unless this House brings pressure to bear on the Administration. Of course, I cannot ask the Government to abandon this six millions of revenue without suggesting a substitute for it. Now, I am going to suggest one or two ways of making up this revenue. There is a tax which the population of India would willingly pay —a tax, speaking generally, on manufactured goods. To oblige Lancashire we took off the taxes on cotton goods imported into India, although the people of India did not object to that taxation. The manufactured goods imported into India exceed in value forty millions, and a tax of 10 per cent ad valorem would produce four millions, which would be increased by a corresponding tax on India home manufactures, and that would deprive the import duties of protective character. Thus the taxation would not be protection; it would
    1154
    be simply a fiscal arrangement. Then I think it right that England should do something in the way of a direct subvention. It is well known that the annexation of Upper Burmah was very repugnant to the native population of India, who believe it was carried out for the benefit of England, and that it is unjust to saddle the cost upon India. But India has had to bear an extra charge of two millions a-year ever since the annexation was carried out. I hold that this country ought to take on its shoulders this amount, being the extra cost of the government of Upper Burmah. That would give relief to the finances of India. Again, we know that India is very expensively governed, and something might be saved by a larger employment of native agency. Again the Indian Revenue has been depleted to the extent of three or four millions by the fall in the silver currency; and a considerable gain might be secured to it if we adopted bimetallism, even at the ratio of 20 to one. By these adjustments we would get out of this difficulty. I hope the nation may be induced to carry out a policy of practical righteousness. I know that such a great change cannot take place suddenly, but the adjustments could be made gradually in proportion as the opium revenue is surrendered. I may mention that this revenue is derived from two sources. About two-thirds is derived from the Government monopoly in Bengal, which brings in about three-and-a-half millions, and the remainder from what is called the Malwa opium, grown in native States, and which is subjected to a heavy tax as it passes through our territories. Now it will not be enough for us merely to retire from manufacturing and trading in opium, and leave the trade to private persons, in that case the remedy would be worse than the disease. The only logical policy that would attain the end at which we aim is one that looks towards the final suppression of the trade. Considering that the Bengal monopoly is in the hands of the Government, they have it in their power entirely to stamp it out. We have, of couse, to get rid of the difficulty with the native states, which are semi-independent and are large growers of opium; but none of their opium can reach the seaboard without passing through our territory; and practically

    1155
    the British Government would be able to accomplish the extinction of the opium trade if it set itself earnestly to effect that object. For instance, they could prohibit the opium passing through British territory, or they could raise the tax to a prohibitive point. Unfortunately, the Chinese Government have now ceased to protest against the traffic; and I am afraid that it connives at it. We have agreed to share the plunder with them and have dulled their conscience. China now derives a considerable revenue from it, though less than the Indian Government receives; and since she has shared so largely in the profit the conscience of her Government has, I fear, grown rather lax in the matter. I may be met with the argument that if we withdraw from exporting the drug to China other nations will take our place. But surely we can stipulate that when we retire from the trade it shall be prohibited all round. Already the Chinese Government in their treaties with the United States, Russia, and, I believe, other countries, prohibit the importation of opium into China; and, of course, if we surrender that revenue, it will be on condition that China concludes or maintains with other Powers treaties also excluding opium. When this country retired from the slave trade it was very jealous of its being carried on by other nations, and it employed a squadron to put it down; and so, if we obtain from China treaty stipulations absolutely excluding opium from all sources, no doubt we shall become exceedingly jealous that no opium should be smuggled into China. Japan, one of the most progressive countries in that part of the world, has stipulated with every Power that no opium shall be imported into her ports, and she imposes very heavy penalties on its sale; and the consequence is that Japan is rapidly rising in the scale, while China is declining. This is simply owing to the fact that one nation prohibits while the other allows the trade. I believe that if this nation had the honesty and moral courage to adopt the policy I recommend, compensations would come to us from unexpected quarters. We should gain enormously in our trade with China, which is at present stagnant compared with 20 years ago. With India our trade is increasing by leaps and bounds; with
    1156
    China it has been falling off for the last ten or fifteen years. Let me quote a few figures in proof of this. I will take the returns of the exports from the United Kingdom to India. In 1871 the exports were valued at £20,900,000; in 1887 they had risen to £33,600,000. But whereas the exports to China in 1881 were £9,400,000, in 1887 they had fallen: to £8,700,000. We have virtually free trade with China; we have access to all the great waterways and all the great cities, and yet our trade is falling off. China has 350,000,000 people, and India 250,000,000, yet while India spends 2s. 8d. per head with us, China only spends 6d. per head. The fact is the opium traffic has killed legitimate trade in China; and who can doubt but that the Chinese would spend much more on Manchester goods and on all our other products if they did not spend such large sums on Indian opium. I know that the proposals I am making will not be acceptable to Lancashire, yet most of my interests lie in that county; and let me point out that by the expansion of our trade with China, Lancashire would gain greatly, and there would be a great expansion if ten millions were not spent by the Chinese on Indian opium as now. I know that I am demanding a great deal of the House in asking it to pass a Resolution of this nature. after the kind support it gave the other night to a proposition of a not very dissimilar character. But I believe that the moral sense of the country is now rising in favour of such proposals more than it has done in former times. The reform I now ask. for cannot be carried except by some self-denial, but nothing ennobles a nation more than to make sacrifices for a great cause. God has blessed this nation in many ways; and if we refuse to purge away-this national sin, retribution will overtake us, and the evil thing will be wrested from us in tears and in blood. I appeal to the house to-night to show by their action that they believe in a righteous Ruler of the universe.
    Amendment proposed.
    "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'this House views with deep regret the history of our Opium policy towards China, and regards the traffic in that drug as repugnant to the true interests of that country; that it calls upon the Government of India to take steps looking to the final extinction of the trade, and urges

    1157
    upon Her Majesty's Government to intimate to the Chinese Government that in the next revision of the Treaty of Tientsin full power will be given to extinguish the trade in Opium if it thinks fit."—(Mr. Samuel Smith).
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Questions."
    *SIR J. PEASE: I desire very heartily to support the views which my hon. Friend has enunciated with regard to the character of the opium trade with China, and the cultivation of the poppy in India. I know the statement that we forced this drug on China has been controverted in this House, I think the evidence proves—and I have looked carefully into it—that we did force the trade upon the Chinese. I find among my opium papers a dispatch from a Chinese Minister to Sir Rutherford Alcock, in which the writer complained that England was poisoning his country with opium, that she was wilfully working China's ruin, and had no friendly feeling for her. This was the view of a Chinese statesman as far back as 1869, and I believe it is at this moment the view of those Chinese who take a warm and proper interest in the welfare of their own country. In 1876 the Convention of Cheefoo was negotiated, but we declined to ratify it because it would have placed in the hands of China the entire control of those duties to which my hon. Friend has alluded. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords said that such an action on our part would have a result which practically would neutralize the policy which hitherto had been pursued by this country in respect of the drug. It was the desire of those who supported the ratification of that convention to neutralize the policy of bye-gone days, and to leave China to control the importation of this drug. In the correspondence which took place between Lord Salisbury and Lord Granville on the one side, and China on the other, we kept the Chinese Government hanging on for years, and at last the Treaty was ratified In 1886. In the meantime we were demoralizing China. We got a larger quantity of opium into China in those years than ever before. The four years of the Treaty expire on the 18th of January, 1890; at any subsequent time after that, on 12 months' notice being given
    1158
    on either side, that portion of the Convention comes to an end. I would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to let the Chinese Government know that they are perfectly masters of the position, and that no pressure from Her Majesty's Government or from the English people will be put upon them again to negotiate a treaty of the same kind. All we ask is that the Chinese Government should have perfect freedom in this matter. Well, Sir, what has been our conduct on this subject? I think it was in 1843 or 1844 that the late Lord Shaftesbury called the attention of this House and the country to the iniquities of the Chinese opium trade, and made a speech of remarkable power and eloquence on the effect of that trade upon the Chinese, and he cited various authorities upon the physical effect of opium upon the human constitution. I may say that the cultivation of the poppy in China was then very small. As far as we can make out, there never was a time when the cultivation. of the poppy was unknown in China, but it was at one time very little cultivated, and was very little known or used. It was we who stimulated the growth of the poppy in China by introducing the Indian opium. I maintain that our Government officials stimulated the China trade in every way possible in order to increase the Indian revenue. What we did was politically wrong—it was morally wrong, at any rate, and what is morally wrong can never be politically right. No statesman who has ever sat upon the Treasury bench has ever said a word in favour of opium cultivation in India as a matter of morality. Everyone who has supported it has done so because of the revenue which India derives from it. [An hon. MEMBER: "No, no."] I ask my hon. Friend who says "No," whether he has looked back,. as I have done within the last few hours, to the different speeches made by Ministers on the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) wrote an excellent despatch on the subject, in which. he tacitly admitted that a great deal was to be said against opium cultivation in Bengal. Lord Ripon, in a despatch, made use of very similar language. The present Governor of Madras, when Under Secretary for India, said that no one would defend the trade on moral

    1159
    grounds. So it was with the late Governor of Madras, and so it has been with Under Secretary after Under Secretary in this House. I do not wish to give all the quotations that are in my hand, but there is an enormous phalanx of evidence going far beyond that which my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) has read as to the consequences of the use of opium in China. As far back as 1817 Lord Cornwallis received a despatch from the directors of the East India Company, in which they said—
    "Were it possible to prevent the use of the drug altogether, except for the purposes of medicine, we would gladly do it in compassion to mankind."
    A missionary in China, the Rev. Griffith John, at the Shanghai Conference, said—
    "Attempts are sometimes made to palliate the sin of the trader, and to make light of the evil effects of the drug. On such points our utterance must be clear and emphatic. We know that opium is a curse—a curse physically, a curse morally. and a curse socially to the Chinese, and this fact we must declare in loud, ringing tones. It is our duty to appeal to the great heart of England, for she has a heart, and when that heart begins to beat warmly on the question, this foul blot on her escutcheon will soon be wiped off."
    No one ever condemned the trade in opium as strongly as our former Commissioner in British Burmah, Sir Charles Aitcheson. He says:
    "The papers now submitted for consideration present a painful picture of the demoralization, misery and ruin produced among the Burmese by opium smoking. Responsible officers in all divisions and districts of the province and natives everywhere bear testimony to it. To facilitate examination of the evidence on this point I have thrown some extracts from the reports into an appendix to this Memorandum, to show that among the Burmans the habitual use of the drug saps the physical and mental energies, destroys the nerves, emaciates the body, predisposes to disease, induces indolent and filthy habits of life, destroys self-respect, is one of the most fertile sources of misery, destitution, and crime, fills the jails with men of relaxed frame predisposed to dysentery and cholera, prevents the due extension of cultivation and the development of the land revenue, checks the natural growth of the population and enfeebles the constitution of succeeding generations."
    I daresay it will be said that the Burmese are of not so strong a fibre as the Chinese. But, still, that which does so much damage to the Burmese must do damage to the Chinese, as it has
    1160
    been proved to do damage to Frenchmen, to Californians and to Australians. The drink misery is undoubtedly bad enough, but the opium misery is ten times worse, and opium has a very much more degrading effect than alcohol. I hold in my hand a petition presented to this House a year or two ago and signed by 256 of the missionaries in China. They say—
    "Opium is a great evil to China and the baneful effects of its use cannot be overstated. It enslaves its victim, squanders his substance, destroys his health, weakens his mental powers, lessens his self-esteem, deadens his conscience, unfits him for his duties, and leads to his steady descent—morally, socially and physically."
    I have had papers sent to me from China in which people are warned in the same placard against the missionary and against England which sends with the missionary the opium. Sir, we may lay upon ourselves the onus of having practically brought this trade into China, and now we have it in our Indian Empire in a way that is most demoralizing. ["No, no!"] I hear an hon. Member say "No, no." What did my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) see in Luck-now? He says:—
    "I have been in East-end gin palaces on Saturday nights, I have seen men in various stages of delirium tremens, I have visited many idiot and lunatic asylums, but I have never seen such horrible destruction of God's image in the face of man as I saw in the Government opium dens of Lucknow. To my dying day I shall carry the recollection of the face of a handsome young woman of eighteen or nineteen years, sprawling on the senseless bodies of men, her fine brown eyes flattened and dull with coming stupor, and her lips drawn back from her glittering white teeth."
    He goes on to describe what he saw in the places he visited one after another, and shows that opium is doing immense damage in India. It is perfectly plain to every thinking man who chooses to go into the question with an unbiassed mind that our connection with the opium trade has been a curse upon civilization, and that it is rapidly extending. What we ask of the Indian Government is that they should take such steps as will gradually decrease our cultivation of the poppy and put a stop to a trade which is in defiance of every law of political economy and of every moral law, and opposed to every precept of the religion we profess. One

    1161
    of the arguments used once or twice in debates on this subject is that there is an enormous increase in the growth of the poppy in China, and that the Indian opium bears no comparison to it. That we all admit. But there was very little growth in China when we began to send our Indian opium there. The argument seems to be—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kircaldy (Sir. Geo. Campbell)—that it is far better that the Chinese should be poisoned with good Indian opium than with their own bad opium. But it seems to me that if the thing is bad we have no right to send it at all. What would be said if I saw a man was going to commit suicide and I shot him in order to give him an easier death? Or if a man was going to steal and I went into a jeweller's shop and took the watches out of a case before him? The argument seems to me to amount to the same thing in all these cases. A great temptation is placed before the eyes of the Indian officials to stimulate the trade whenever they are short of revenue, and I have on previous occasions quoted many despatches from Indian officials stating that they must grow more opium because the revenue is falling off. It is a degrading trade in all ways. Indian officials think so much of keeping up the revenue that they forget the consequences of the trade. The desire should be to decrease, and not increase, the exportation of opium from India. I think I have proved in this House over and over again that the opium traffic is of little or no use to the cultivators in India. But, Sir, what do your own people say? I have here a letter addressed to the Government begging that Government not to permit the poppy to be cultivated in Scinde, and expressing very strong objection to the introduction of an industry so demoralizing in its tendency as the poppy cultivation and manufacture of opium into a province where at present it is unknown and not asked for by the people. Now, Sir, the Indian Executive have ample power to do as they like in this matter as far as the cultivation is concerned, because they license every yard of land under cultivation, and if they choose to decrease the quantity they can do so, and I think this House will say they ought to do so. 'The Indian Government is acting, and the Government and my hon. Friends on
    1162
    the other side of the House who are supporting this trade are acting in defiance of the expressed wishes of the whole of the Christian Churches of the country. And I say that a great responsibility rests upon them. The Convocations of Canterbury and York have petitioned this House against the trade; the whole of the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United Kingdom have done the same; the Wesleyan Methodists, the Primitive Methodists, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Society of Friends, and both the Free Church and National Church of Scotland have petitioned the House against it. The representative bodies of the Christian Churches are united on the question, and the feeling they have expressed regarding it is one which the House ought not to put aside. I should think there is hardly an hon. Gentleman in this House who does not subscribe to missions in some way or other; certainly there is not one who does not represent a constituency that does not largely subscribe to them. As long as you are sending your missionaries to China, taking with them the hard-earned money of your constituents, you ought to see that no unnecessary impediments are placed in the way of their work. The Indian Government Report states:—
    "There is no doubt the depreciation of export opium is one of the indications of the great falling off in the China opium trade. The reports from Consuls lead to the belief that the loss to the Indian Revenue will continue, that there will be a steadily increasing deficit."
    I find that the largest net revenue we ever had from opium in any one year was in 1881 when it was £8,451,276. In 1885 it was £5,849,829 and in 1886–7 it was £6,213,913. Of these amounts £5,926,924 was the amount derived from Bengal in 1881, £3,316,172 in 1885, and £3,629,615 in 1886–7, the remainder being due to Bombay opium. I have always felt the great difficulty of touching the Malwa opium; it pays a high duty to independent States, and it can only reach the seaboard through British India, and I have never recommended that anything should be done beyond leaving this to be dealt with hereafter by negotiation with friendly States in a manner that meets the just requirements of the case. But we ought to deal at once, and I think we can deal,

    1163
    with our own Department of Revenue. Looking at the depreciated value of silver we have to deal with a Bengal revenue from opium of some £2,500,000, but taking it even at £3,000,000 it is not a figure we need be afraid to deal with. My hon. Friend has made various suggestions as to how the falling off in the revenue could be met. The Cotton Dates, as he said, were not abolished at the request of the Indian Government, or people, but to meet the desires of the manufacturers here. £1,200,000 was the amount thus taken from the Indian Exchequer, and the duties replaced would be so much (nearly one-half) towards the £3,000,000 we desire to find. Investigations have been made by Lord Northbrook and others into the Indian military expenditure, and it has been pointed out as the result how large savings might be effected under that head without in any way detracting from the power we ought to possess in India. I have put the question to a great many military men, and they all agree that large savings might be made without lowering our actual military strength. Suppose we get £500,000 or £600,000 from that, and speaking from memory I believe that it has been suggested by some authorities we could save a great deal more, more than double that sum. There is then the question of what is the duty of this country as regards the expenses of Burmah. I have always advocated that if we in this House ask the Indian Government to make considerable sacrifices of revenue in order to fulfil the demand made on them by this country, we ought to be prepared out of our own taxation to do something towards meeting the deficit, if such occurred, by the adoption of our policy. I feel perfectly certain that if the Indian Government, instead of looking at the abolition of the opium trade as something impossible to accomplish would regard it as an end which, is desirable, and is to be attained, and were to apply their minds to it with the desire of accomplishing that which all Christian people desire, the cultivation of the poppy in Bengal might be abandoned without injury to the cultivators there, for it is all we can do to get them to cultivate it at all. By these methods by the Cotton Goods Duty, by the help of this country in regard to Burmah, and by
    1164
    economy in administration we could find a way out of the financial difficulty of the policy we earnestly recommend to the House. I have spoken earnestly, for I feel warmly on this subject as one of the greatest blots on the fair name of Englishmen and of English administration in the world. Turn over French and German newspapers, and you find it constantly alluded to. I really think, if Her Majesty's Government would look at it in the light in which we have endeavoured to indicate it, with the desire to do something that would not expose the people of India, who are poor enough and could not bear much more pressure of taxation, to fresh burdens, they would be able first to curtail and then abandon that portion of the revenue derived from the cultivation in Bengal, leaving for future negotiation the two and a-half millions of transport duties on Malwa opium. I have endeavoured to do what I could to throw light on the subject, and I have great faith in those religious teachings which, in one form or another, are dear to every Member here. This trade, demoralizing to so large a portion of mankind, stands in the way of the spread of the Christian faith that we all desire, knowing the blessings which always must accompany it.
    *MR. J. M. MACLEAN: The speech of the hon. Baronet who seconded this Motion is not nearly so thorough going as that of the hon. Member who proposed the Motion. The contention of the hon. Member for Flintshire is that the Government of India is as responsible for the duty on the Malwa opium as for the cultivation of the poppy in Bengal, and that is thoroughly consistent with the principle he has always advocated. No doubt, if we are to take the moral view recommended by the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Resolution, if we are to try and fulfil what they call the desire of the Christian people of this country, that the traffic in opium should be abolished, we cannot stop at half measures—the abolition must be complete. I have always admired the courage and consistency of the hon Member for Flintshire, but I think to-night he has surpassed himself. Only two days ago he made a very serious attack upon the Excise Revenue the Government of India derives from

    1165
    the sale of spirituous liquors, and now he is attacking the Opium Revenue. Last year he attacked the Salt Tax, and, as we are now going back upon ancient history to make atonement for the sins of our fathers committed in carrying on the opium war of 1840, we might as well retrace our steps a little further and give up the land revenue of Bengal on account of the misdeeds of Warren Hastings; and as to the land revenue of the Punjab, I think, considering the number of undeveloped Burkes that sit below the Gangway opposite, we may look forward to the formation of a party to urge the claims of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh to the revenue of that province. The hon. Member for Flintshire is perfectly insatiable in his attacks upon the revenues of India. I remember in his somewhat irreverent commentary upon certain passages in "Exodus" Mark Twain remarks that if Pharoah had only dreamed another dream and Joseph had interpreted it, the people of Egypt would have had nothing left to live upon; and I think if the hon. Member for Flintshire makes another pilgrimage to Bombay the unfortunate Indian Government will be in danger of having no revenue left. However, on this occasion, the hon. Member was good enough to tell us how he intended to supply the Revenue he proposes to take away in the manner set forth in his Motion. The hon. Member is, I think, a little in error in his estimate of the total amount of which he would deprive the people of India; he puts it at six millions, and that is the net revenue derived by the Government of India, but the total value of the crop sold to China is between ten and eleven millions. If you are going to do away with the cultivation of the poppy, you deprive the people of India of 10 or 11 millions derived from the cultivation of the crop.
    *MR. S. SMITH: They could grow something else.
    *MR. J. M. MACLEAN: A suggestion readily made, but they could not grow anything so profitable. Opium is the most profitable crop that can be grown. The hon. Member made proposals to-night which were accepted substantially by his seconder, and as to which I shall, with some curiosity, watch the course of this debate to see if any
    1166
    responsible Member on the Front Bench opposite adopts them. The hon. Member would supply the deficiency he proposes to create in the Indian Revenue, first by laying a tax of ten per cent on all English manufactures imported into India, not only cotton goods but other goods, and he mentioned metals. From that he hopes to get four millions, and then he is going to ask the British tax-payer to be good enough to pay a million and a half a year for the expenses of the administration of Burmah, and then he proposes to get another half-million out of bi-metallism. This is the financial programme of the hon. Member for Flintshire, and I look with eagerness to see if it is adopted on the Front Bench opposite. It would be a delightful programme for the Liberal Party to go to the country with, but I should like to know how many Members who voted for it would return to this House to assist in carrying it into effect. The hon. Members opposite have told us a good deal about the frightful sufferings we inflict on the people of China by this Godless traffic, but I should like to know who are the hon. Members' clients. Are they the Government of China or the people of China? Where are the hon. Members' credentials? Why does the hon. Member for Flintshire come here and claim to speak in the name of the people of China, and ask for the abolition of the trade? The hon. Member has given us nothing in support of his claim, but extracts from the reports of missionaries—excellent men, no doubt, and animated by the best intentions, but, according to the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), who lately travelled over the scene of their labours, they are not always so successful as one would desire them to be. After all, missionaries are but human, and it must be a great temptation to them when they know their mission has failed to raise a cry likely to appeal at once both to the hearts and the pockets of the English people. I maintain that portions of the language quoted by the hon. Member show a tendency to exaggeration greatly to be deplored. Human nature, in all countries and among all races, has always shown a craving for stimulants of one kind or another. Some persons satisfy this craving by indulgence in alcoholic drinks, some by

    1167
    smoking tobacco, some by smoking or drinking opium, and some even gratify it by unlimited indulgence in platform oratory, or by moving sensational Resolutions in the House of Commons. All these ways of gratifying the appetite are injurious if carried to excess, but I believe a moderate use of stimulants is wholesome and beneficial rather than injurious to mankind. The hon. Member has declaimed upon the decay and degradation of the Chinese people, their terrible state of misery and poverty and so on, and offered as proof the falling off in the direct trade between Great Britain and China. Now I must say that in this part of his speech he was not quite so candid as I should have expected him to be, for he, with his very thorough knowledge of commercial affairs, must be perfectly well aware that the falling off in the value of trade between England and China of late years is due to these facts: First, a general decline in prices which has affected the trade of all countries in some degree; secondly, Indian tea now enters very largely into competition with Chinese tea, and the exportation of tea from China has considerably decreased; and also Indian cotton manufactures have to a considerable extent supplanted the cotton goods which used to be sent from this country to the East. So in both exports and imports there has been a considerable reduction in trade, but this falling off is not at all due to a falling off in either the producing or the consuming capacity of the Chinese people. The hon. Member tells us these people are in a state of miserable physical decay, but as everybody knows there is no more prolific, industrious, or energetic race in all the East than the Chinese; they overflow their own country and emigrate in such swarms, not only to the Straits Settlements, where they are predominant, but to America and Australia, that the Governments of America and Australia, the foremost communities of the Western World, are passing stringent laws to keep out the competition of Chinese labour, and this labour, which our own race find so difficult to compete with, the hon. Member says is that of a people utterly demoralized by the consumption of opium! Why, Sir, these are travellers tales, which seem to me even to be
    1168
    invented to trade on the credulity of the English people. For Heaven's sake let us deal with this matter as men of the world. The hon. Member for Flintshire sets up as a universal censor of morals; he has laid down the law that nobody in this country should drink a glass of beer or read a French novel, and now he appears to have taken under his protection the morals of all the people of India and China. I do not think they will thank him for his efforts. I do not believe that the Chinese people have any of those fine feelings about the consumption of opium he attributes to their Government. No doubt the Emperor at the time of the Chinese War of 1840 did give utterance to a very grand sentiment, that he would not at any price consent to the introduction of a drug that would demoralize his people, but I fancy that he must at the time have had at his elbow a mandarin of something of the same temperament as the hon. Member for Flintshire who indited this very beautiful moral maxim for him. The real position of the Chinese Government was to try and get as much revenue from the foreign. importations as they possibly could, and. the cause of their quarrel with us was that we would not let them have a larger share of the Opium Revenue than we thought they were legitimately entitled. to. The hon. Member says we are responsible for the introduction of the taste for opium into China, but I think it can be proved that, long before the war of 1840, native opium was very largely cultivated in many of the provinces of China, and that cultivation has gone on increasing ever since. If we were to give up the traffic, and inflict on the people of India the loss of this large revenue, we should do no good to the morality of the Chinese people. There is another point that I would impress on the House, and it is this. The hon. Member, in talking so glibly of the millions the British taxpayers ought to present to the Indian people as compensation. for their loss of revenue, has not told us where the money should come from. I hope when he lays his programme before the country he will tell the British taxpayers in what way he intends to bring this 11/2 millions a-year of extra taxation we are going to make a present of to the Government of India.

    1169
    Well, Sir, I do not say that we ought to extort any tribute from the people of India; but I must maintain that it would be far better for us to abandon that country, than to make it a drain upon the resources of England as the hon. Member proposes we should. I should have the greatest confidence in appealing to the country to maintain this revenue, which is of the greatest value to the people of India, against the programme of the hon. member to do away with it, and replace it by a burden on the taxpayers of Great Britain.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member below me has certainly been very fortunate in the ballot in securing two places in one week for his Motions in relation to India. I cordially voted with him on the last occasion but I cannot do so on this, and my main reason is that we are responsible for the people of India, but not for the people of China. This view prevents me voting with one part of the Motion though I could support the other, and in that sense I placed an Amendment on the Notice Paper that expresses what I think the right view in this matter. I entirely assent to the first part of the Resolution regretting the history of our opium policy in forcing the introduction upon China. That I think should be the subject of national regret, and I accept that part of the Motion in the most complete manner. But then my hon. Friend goes on to say that the traffic in the drug is repugnant to the true interests of China, and though I do not greatly differ from him I doubt whether it is any affair of ours whether the trade is repugnant to the interests of China or not. My view is that the Government of India have nothing to do with that; they impose a tax and restrict the cultivation of opium, as they might of any other drug, and for the rest my Amendment expresses my view that our Government should abstain from forcing or facilitating the introduction of opium into China by treaty or otherwise. We do not force opium into Chinese ports; China accepts it on certain terms arising
    1170
    out of circumstances of former times; but I go further and say we should not afford special facilities for the introduction of our opium. We are bound to let the Chinese Government take their own course; we are bound to regard the Chinese as a free and independent nation, and to say "we repent of our past sins; you are now free to admit or leave our opium; tax high, tax low as you please, we are not entitled to interfere, more than that the trade is on our conscience, and we do not feel justified in forcing you to take ours or any other opium. "That position I take it would be a just position and free us from much trouble. But I am afraid that it is the case that the Chinese Government are not now anxious to stop the trade, but are intent rather on dividing the profit with ourselves. They have made a bargain by which they agree to admit our opium on certain terms, and we agree to collect the duty for them. I object to that course. I think we ought to wash our hands of this business and make no attempt to induce the Chinese to receive our opium in return for our facilitating the collection of that duty. I think we should leave the Chinese free to do exactly as they like; but I object to the phrase in this Resolution, which says that it is the duty of the Indian Government to stop the opium traffic. The Indian Government have nothing to do with the introduction of opium into China. It does not encourage he growing of opium in India; on the contrary, it very materially restricts it by imposing a heavy tax upon it—a heavier one even than that upon alcoholic liquors in this country. Well, objecting as I do to the injury to Indian cultivators and to Indian taxpayers which would ensue from the stopping of opium cultivation, what strikes me is that neither the Mover nor Seconder of the Resolution has ever faced the practical question how you are to make up for the loss to the Indian Exchequer if you call upon the Indian Government to put an end to the traffic. What substitute would they propose for the opium duty? But I have denied before and I deny again that this is a question of Indian revenue. No doubt it is the case that the revenue derived from this source is incidentally an important question, but I maintain that it is not a

    1171
    vital question which we are entitled to put forward as an argument against stopping the opium trade, if it could be stopped. If China herself were to put a stop to it I should say we must submit and make up for the loss of revenue as best we can. But I deny that it is purely a revenue question. If the cultivation of the poppy were stopped in India the effect would be to stimulate the cultivation in other parts of the world. The Seconder of the Resolution alluded to the cultivation in the Native States, but did not attempt to deal with the point to which I am now referring. The result of putting an end to the cultivation in India would be that it would be taken up in the Native States. It may be said that we could prevent the cultivation there also. So we could, but it would only be by the adoption of a high-handed policy. How could we do it without taking on ourselves the administration of those States? And even when we had stopped the cultivation in the Native States we should be powerless to prevent increased cultivation in China. Why, even now the cultivation is increasing to such an extent in China that it threatens to extinguish the Indian trade. And if the Indian trade is stopped it will be stimulated in Persia, Turkey, Africa, America, and other places; so that, whilst we shall be doing no good to our own people, we shall be encouraging the trade in other countries. It is because this result would be brought about, that I cannot support the Motion. I would urge the Government to intimate to the Chinese that the Treaties of Tientsin and Chefoo will be brought to an end, and that this country will no more interfere with the opium trade of China than it does with the whisky trade at home. I have lived in opium districts a considerable part of my life, and have been responsible for the opium revenue in Bengal, where a searching inquiry was made into the question. I can say, from my own knowledge, that the opium cultivators are not debauched by opium—that they do not use their own opium to any extent. I have studied this matter a good deal, and the conclusion I have come to is that opium smoking is a matter of race. Nations, we are told, require some sort of stimulant—
    1172
    some opium, some whisky, some speechifying. Without dealing with the last-named category, the Arian races, I may say, are given to alcoholic stimulants, and the Turanian have a tendency to opium, and that probably is why opium is less baneful in its effects upon the Chinese than upon others. The opium question is not so difficult as the question of alcohol, and it is on that ground that I voted with the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) when he brought forward his Motion the other day relating to the liquor traffic in India, although I am not prepared to vote for a Resolution condemning the the cultivation of the poppy in India, either as an Indian or a Chinese question. With regard to the picturesque description which has been given to us of an opium den, I venture to say that a Chinese traveller in this country would be able to draw quite as vivid and telling a picture of horror of a London gin palace. Drugs and strong drinks are no more injurious in the one country than in the other, and when we have put an end to the liquor traffic in this country we may begin to think about putting an end to the opium traffic in India. I admit that opium in India and spirits in this country are bad, but I contend that opium in India is not nearly so injurious as spirits in this country.
    *MR. MARK STEWART: I think that if we refer to what took place on this subject some 14 years ago when the question was brought under the consideration of the House we shall see that a great advance has been made towards a solution of the problem. At that time I myself brought forward a Motion having for its object a diminution in the manufacture of opium by the Government of India, and that Motion, as hon. Members may suppose, was rejected by a large majority. Since then the question has grown in the minds of the people of the country, so much so that in 1876, when considerable pressure had been brought to bear on the Government of the day and the Chefoo Convention was drawn up it took something like six years to

    1173
    get the Convention ratified, the Government of the day being unwilling to ratify it. That Convention produced almost a revolution in political history as between China and this country. China had no independence up to then, but she has now became practically independent, and was able to impose a far heavier tax on Indian opium than she had ever imposed before. We no longer coerce China in the matter, and that I hold is a considerable advance to have made. Indignant protests were made, extending as far back as 1858, when the Treaty of Tientsin was ratified between this country and China, and great dissatisfaction was caused in the minds of thinking people, but much of that dissatisfaction has been since removed, and China is now in a very different position from what she was then. Now that the matter has come before the House of Commons in a somewhat different form than formerly—rather attacking the Government of India in regard to the manufacture of opium and the monopoly it holds than dealing with the matter on general grounds—I think we, at all events, may have some good hope for believing that the Indian Government will take note of the view so strongly held by many persons in this country — held by every Christian Church, so far as I know, in the country. The opinion of the Christian Churches in this country is that the Indian Government ought no longer to be the producers and manufacturers of this drug. Those who have studied the question know the great difficulties to be faced, especially the difficulty of dealing with Malwa opium. You will not by raising the tax stop the flow of opium into China; and you have to consider the difficulty caused by the fact that this has become a question of revenue in China. Since the Chefoo Convention China has obtained a large sum from the
    1174
    opium trade, and now that she has got so much she will try to get more when the Treaty comes to be reviewed in the course of a few years. I hope she will be allowed to exercise a free hand in the matter, whether she desires to impose a prohibitive tariff or admit opium to the privileges of free trade. In addition to the evidence on this opium question quoted by other hon. Members, I would point out that Sir William Muir in an able article thought it most objectionable that the Indian Government should take so active a part in the opium trade, and that Sir Rutherford Alcock maintained some years ago that if there was a gradual diminution of the manufacture of opium in India the Chinese Government would pari passu, diminish the production of opium in China. Whether or not that can be said now I do not know. Travellers who have been to China tell us that the cultivation of the poppy is largely increasing in that country. Knowing well the difficulties that beset the Government, I do trust that they will use their best endeavours to, if not altogether abolish, at any rate diminish the amount of opium grown and manufactured in Bengal. Though we cannot hope for the total extinction of the manufacture of the drug, I believe that these protests from time to time, and the fact of our calling public attention to the matter, will strengthen the Government in taking a wise and equitable view of it, so that if any sudden resolution is passed by the House in favour of stopping the opium manufacture, this House will be found willing to recoup the Indian Exchequer for the loss.
    *SIR R. TEMPLE: At this late hour I shall endeavour to be brief, therefore I will not touch upon what has been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham in what is practically a reproduction of a speech about India de-

    1175
    livered from these Benches in 1886 and answered by me from the opposite Benches. I then ventured to play the part of St. George to the hon. Baronet's dragon. But more than this, I have the fear of your ruling, Sir, before my eyes, and do not desire to follow the hon. Baronet into irrelevant matter, the Motion before the House relating to China rather than to India. The hon. Mover of this Resolution has again made a temperance speech which ought to have been addressed to the people of China rather than preached to the Members of this House, who are already converted. The hon. Mover should go to China with an ascetic robe, accompanied by the hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Cockermouth as acolytes. Their utterances would no doubt be adequately reproduced through the medium of a Chinese interpreter, and great would be the effect on Chinese hearts. Temperance advocates in this country, when they preach against the evils of gin-drinking, do not propose to do away with the revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer derives from that source. We are no more bound to give up the corresponding taxes on Indian opium than we are to abandon our revenue from wines and spirits in England. The hon. Baronet asks whether the whole opinion of China is wrong, and the opinion of England right, and points to the prohibitions against the use of opium issued from time to time by the Chinese Authorities. But are we to accept the opinions of men who preach against what they themselves practise? The Chinese proclamation of 1869 has been quoted, and its language sounded so near to the sublime that it touched hon. Members; but at that very time the Chinese Government were encouraging the growth of the poppy over a vast tract of their own country, and were deriving revenue therefrom. The very Mandarins were
    1176
    opium-smokers. Am I not entitled to say that these proclamations, which are quoted with such effect in this House, are nothing more than organized hypocrisy. One hon. Member mentioned the case of a district in China which had been depopulated from the consequences of opium smoking, and any outsider hearing him would have supposed that he was speaking of Indian opium. But that is not the case. It was native grown Chinese opium that the people had been smoking. Much is said about the evil of opium smoking in China; but the very same class of persons who draw these melancholy pictures of the condition of China would draw the same picture of intemperance at home. Why should we apply to China a standard which we dare not apply to our own revenue and our own people? The hon. Mover says England has a hand in the opium traffic, but I maintain that England has no hand whatever in the opium traffic in the sense that the hon. Member means. The fact is that the proportion of Indian opium to Chinese opium is now very small, the former bearing about the same proportion to the latter as is borne by the champagne wine of France to the rest of the wine grown in that favoured country. Thus it is China which has become the great producer of the opium drug. I will spare the House some quotations I had intended to make from the official reports of British Consuls, describing how the opium of China is superseding that of India; but they are accessible to any Member of this House. It is an extraordinary circumstance that 30 years ago India was a great opium producing country and China a great tea producing country, whereas India is now more and more driving the Chinese tea out of the British market, while, on the other hand, China is superseding India in production of opium which used to be chiefly an Indian drug. These results are, I think, altogether to the credit of India and of British rule. The

    1177
    fact is that the cause of the Chinese opposition is fiscal jealousy and nothing else. The Chinese desire to participate in the revenue from Indian opium, and, therefore, with an eye to the temperance advocates in England they have tried to throw every opprobrium on the Indian opium. They brought that to the front, though they knew perfectly well they had their own opium at the back of it. China has now gained what she considers to be something like a fair share of the tax, and, therefore, is now ceasing to protest. She has gained her object, and is now competing in the production and so beating off the Indian drug, so that her own may have the command of the market. Some hon. Members have spoken to-night as if we have a share in the profits of the trade; but that is not an accurate expression. Those profits go to the Armenians and Jews, and various other classes of highly esteemed nationalities.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I did not refer to the profits of the trade, but to the profits of the taxation.
    *SIR. R. TEMPLE: I am afraid the word "profits" is used in a manner which involves misapprehension in this House. Our share is in the taxation, and we have no more concern in the profits than the British Exchequer has in the beer or wine trades of this country. With regard to the Chefoo Convention, it is a mistake to suppose that that Convention related to opium alone. That Convention is the latest edition of the Treaty of Tientsin. There is a tariff as long as your arm, containing hundreds of items, of which opium is only one. Of course, at the next revision of the Convention there may be modifications here and there, but opium must take its chance with the rest. That revision is, I understand, to take place in the year 1896, and not 1890, as has been said, that is beyond the duration of this Parliament. So I hope the House will not be inclined to interfere in the matter until then. I must say a word in contradiction of the statement that it
    1178
    was we who taught the Chinese to smoke opium. They knew something about opium smoking generations before we ever went there. The report of Sir Robert Hart, who is probably the best informed man on the subject, and who is the Imperial Commisioners of Customs to the Chinese Government, sets forth that the use of opium in China has been going on for—I forget how many generations. Then, again, as to the causes of the Chinese wars to which attention has been called, it is misleading and an entire misreading of history to stigmatize those wars as opium wars. No title was ever given to particular wars which had less justification. It is nothing more than this—that the Chinese had for generations determined to get rid of the barbarians and to have no commerce with England or any other nation. In opposition to that policy it was determined that China should be thrown open to the commerce of the world, and it so happened that in the struggle which arose between the British local officials and the Chinese officials the first quarrel occurred about certain opium stores. It chanced that some opium stores were destroyed. The case would have been the same had the stores consisted of grain or of piece goods. That was only the spark which set the powder magazine on fire, and hence it was that there arose what appeared to be an opium war, whereas it was nothing but a war of commerce and international communication—and very justly so. Then, as to the second war the same thing occurred. It began with the lorcha Arrow. But was she an opium vessel? Not at all; she was a trader, and the question that arose was one relative to the commercial position we held on the Coast of China. I would merely add that the proportion which opium bears to the trade of China has always been small. The trade with China now is not far from £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 per annum, and the opium trade is not more than one-fourth or one-sixth of that amount. The hon. Gentleman opposite proposes that we should sacrifice some six millions of Indian Revenue not for the purpose of improving the con-

    1179
    dition of the Chinese, because it would do no good in their behalf, and really for nothing at all that will conduce to the interests of China or the cause of practical morality anywhere. The hon. Member suggests by way of compensation for the loss of this revenue, that there should be a tax on the importation of piece goods into India; so that, for the sake of this most fruitless, bootless, and unnecessary sacrifice, we are to impose a burden on British enterprise entering British territory. To-morrow, I have to go to Manchester to address a meeting of my friends there, and I will take care to submit to the people of that city the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and to ask them how they like the prospect of such a suggestion being carried into effect when the Party to which the hon. Member belongs returns to Power? Then it is suggested that there should be a subvention—that the British taxpayer is to bear a part of the cost of the late Burmese War. Why is not India to bear the cost of that war? Burmah is essentially a part of the British Empire. It is a neighbour of India—connected with India for two generations. The House will remember that for many years India has been drawing a great surplus from Lower Burmah. But after all that, India is not to bear the burden in relation to her own newly acquired territory, and the British taxpayer is to be called upon to sustain it, not for any moral purposes but simply to gratify or to satisfy the sentimental tastes of the hon. Mover. I appeal to the House to reject this resolution upon the very considerations which have been frankly and candidly adduced by the hon. Mover himself. His Resolution is virtually answered by his own reasons. He admits that the Chinese people are growing opium to such an extent that nothing we can do will have the slightest effect upon it. Therefore to sacrifice the Indian revenue would be merely to injure our own subjects in India for no purpose, and the remedies which the right hon. Mover approves and proposes by way of compensation are politically, socially, and administratively impossible.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: My right hon. Friend has spoken of opium wars, but what he has
    1180
    stated with regard to them was not well founded, because they were simply wars of tariff. I wish simply to deal with our Government in connection with the charge of our having forced opium on the Chinese. I do not know whether hon. Members recollect the correspondence which appeared in the Times nine years ago, and which was carried on by the Chinese Envoy and the late Mr. Lawrence Oliphant. M. Lay, Chinese Secretary to Lord Elgin's Special Mission, wrote to the Times on October 22nd, 1880, and said:—
    "The Chinese Government admitted opium as a legal article of import, not under constraint, but of their own free will, deliberately."
    And Mr. Lawrence Oliphant, Secretary to the same Mission, also referring to the Tientsin Treaty, wrote:—
    "I was appointed, in 1868, to the Commission for the settlement of the trade and tariff regulations with China, and, during my absence with Lord Elgin in Japan, M. Lay was charged to consider the details with the subordinate Chinese officials named for the purpose. On my return to Shanghai, I went through the tariff elaborated by these gentlemen with the Commission appointed by the Chinese Government. When we came to the article opium, I informed the Commissioner that I had received instructions from Lord Elgin not to insist on the insertion of the drug in the tariff should the Chinese Government wish to omit it. This he declined to do. I then proposed that the duty should be increased beyond the figure suggested on the tariff; but to this he objected, on the ground that it would increase the inducements to smuggling. I trust that the delusion that the opium trade now existing with China. was extorted from that country by the British Ambassador may be finally dispelled."
    That correspondence proves successfully, if not to the House, to my own mind, that opium trade was not forced upon the Chinese Government by ourselves, and that really the Chinese were not reluctant to enter upon it, to say nothing more. I would like to say one word as to the effects of the use of opium. With great deference to my hon. Friend the mover of the Resolution, with whose object I have much sympathy, and who made an excellent and instructive speech on this question. I think there has been a great deal of exaggeration of the injurious effects of opium upon the

    1181
    Chinese and Indian populations. Mr. Hart, Consul at China, an extremely experienced man, sums up the number of opium eaters in China at one-third of 1 per cent, an infinitesimal percentage indeed. He pointed out that the Chinese people are strong enough and industrious enough, and do not seem in any way or in any material degree to suffer by the use of the drug. Really I think that those who take the opposite view try to prove a great deal too much. If it were correct that there is this frightful demoralization from the use of opium, we should see the Chinese people making enormously rapid strides to destruction. I am not prepared to say that the evidence in proof of such a statement is of a satisfactory character. I think a case may be made out on the other side. I venture to say that the use of opium in small doses may be of a beneficial character. Very many use it in small doses with in no degree hurtful, but beneficial, results. The Chinese soldiers are in the habit of taking, as a matter of routine, certain small doses of opium; at the same time those who have had an opportunity of seeing them in the field admit that a more brave, hardy, and admirable set of men cannot be conceived. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy will bear me out when I say that the Rajpoots, who are the finest race in India, the finest men, are also in the habit of taking opium as a matter of routine. It does not make the man sleep; it seems to brace him, and invigorate him for his work, I remember, on a former occasion, giving instances of opium eaters, and I recollect reminding the House that Wilberforce, one of the greatest of English statesmen, always took an opium pill before getting up to speak. Then I should like to say a word on the comparative effects of the use of opium and alcohol. Now, no one can deny, who has looked at the question, that the effects of alcohol are very much worse than those of opium. It causes degeneration of the tissues of the body, and injures the kidneys, or brain, or some other internal organ. No such effects are produced by opium, nor has anyone contended that such effects are produced. We often find a large number of
    1182
    diseases, including insanity, as the results of the use of alcohol. And it has been said that 40 per cent of the crime of the country is produced by alcohol. There is no proof whatever that the use of opium has produced any specific disease, certainly not any crime, because opium eaters in excess sleep away a considerable portion of their life. We see a great number of painful and humiliating external manifestations of the use of alcohol, but these are not seen, nor proved to exist, in the case of opium. I do not pretend to say for a single moment that there are not evils in connection with the excessive use of opium; but I do not think any of them are so terrible as the effects of alcohol. I do not know that there is any specific deterioration from the use of opium. As I endeavoured to show, we do not force opium upon the Chinese people, and the effects of opium upon the Chinese people have been very much exaggerated. I think a case has been made out against my hon. Friend, and, therefore, in support of my own convictions I shall walk into the Lobby against him.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Before I address the House on the main subject, allow me to say a few words on the moral aspect of the question. Now, I have the most profound respect for the good intentions of the mover and seconder of this Resolution, and I have been taught such a respect for all persons who spend their lives in seeking to improve the morals of their fellow-creatures. But the older one grows, and the more experience one has, the more one sees how frequently those who desire to improve the morality of their fellow creatures inflict greater hardships and misfortunes upon them, and how dangerous it is for people, however good and however earnest, to endeavour to impose by violent means their ideas of what is right and moral upon their fellow-creatures. Now, I was brought up in the belief that it was very wicked either to smoke or to drink

    1183
    opium, and that anyone who was engaged in that trade was guilty of a great moral laxity. Experience has taught me that no persons are more fond of abusing a particular food or drink than those who do not use it themselves. I remember I was myself once severely called to task by one of the New Zealand chiefs because my countrymen considered it a luxury to eat decayed and rotting cheese. And there are millions of people in the East possessing high education and strict moral fidelity who see no harm in indulging in opium. When one considers that the Rajpoots, the Sikhs, and some of the best men who cultivate the soil in India indulge habitually in the moderate use of opium, and when in this House one has experienced men like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, who tell us from their professional knowledge and experience that there is such a thing as the use and abuse of opium, one perhaps is induced to admit that on the whole, it might be best if we were to confine ourselves to our own errors and leave the people of China themselves to judge whether or not it is wise or just to use opium or not. There is another aspect of the moral question to which I will ask the attention of the House. This is a practical assembly, and it must consider what is the practical result of the Resolution. It is easy to pass abstract Resolutions in this House recommending abstinence from alcohol and opium, but there is no very high morality in indulging in this cheap philanthropy and virtue, and getting the credit and the glory when somebody else has to pay the price of our heroic and exalted virtue. Nobody in the House will be a penny the worse if the Resolution is passed. Your constituents will not mind it much, as their interests are not involved, and no Member's seat will be endangered. All the difficulty will be thrown upon the Government of India, and all the hardship upon the poor people of India, of whom the hon.
    1184
    Member for Flintshire has sometimes made himself the advocate. And now after these observations on the moral aspect of the question, let me address myself to its practical bearing. In the first place, I will promise the House that I will not follow the hon. Member for Flintshire into ancient history. This ancient history of the conduct of Great Britain towards China has been discussed in this House over and over again. There have been debates in 1880, 1883, 1884, and 1886, and on all those occasions the House refused to go into ancient history and to condemn the conduct of previous Governments in respect of their relations with China. And, after these decisions of the House of Commons, I think it would be wise if the present House imitated the example of its predecessors, and confined themselves to considering the practical part of the hon. Member's Resolution. The Resolution calls upon the House to take steps to bring about the final extinction of the trade. Now, Sir, there are signs that the export of Indian opium may be extinguished without our assistance. All the opium which goes from India to China is only sufficient to supply the wants of about a million smokers; therefore of this 350 million of people less than one-third per cent can possibly be demoralized by the action of the Indian Government. The cultivation of native opium in China is increasing rapidly. As the importation had increased so had the native cultivation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Durham told the House there was no such thing as opium grown in China.
    *SIR J. PEASE: No, Sir. I said that my reading on the subject showed me that there never was a time when there was no opium grown in China, but that when we began our dealings in it, in China it was grown to a very small extent.
    *SIR J. GORST: That is very likely. No doubt there is a good deal of truth in that, and probably down to the end of the last century very little opium was either grown in China or imported into it. It may also be quite true there were the most stringent edicts against

    1185
    it, and that the growth of it was punishable with death; but I believe there is no record of the death punishment having been inflicted (an hon. Member: Yes); well, it has been inflicted very seldom. I can quote passage after passage from Consuls in China showing that the decrees were merely colourable announcements, such as were sometimes made for moral purposes in this country; and that all people knew that the mandarins who issued the decrees were not in earnest, and that while they denounced the cultivation of the poppy, the people quietly sowed their fields, reaped their fruits, and paid duty to the very mandarins who issued the prohibitions. Besides Chinese opium, Persian opium is becoming a formidable competitor with the Indian drug, and this competition is more and more squeezing the Indian opium out of the Chinese market. Not only is the revenue diminishing, but the acreage under cultivation in Bengal is diminishing too, and it is possible the Indian opium trade may by degrees die out. The Resolution asks the Government of India to take active steps to kill it. On whom would the loss and the inconvenience fall? We have heard that the extinction of the trade would involve the Indian Revenue in a loss of six millions. Very little is made of the loss to the million and a-half of Indian cultivators in Behar—one of the poorest parts of India—who depend on the production of the crop for their livelihood and their prosperity. No, Sir; the hon. Baronet opposite gained a laugh at the expense of these poor people because they are guilty of the monstrous offence of paying their rents. He said what sympathy could they expect for people who by means of that cultivation were able to pay their rents.
    *SIR J. PEASE: That is not what I endeavoured to point out. It was that the Indian Report said that the ready money enabled their rent to be paid to
    1186
    the landlord. It was a landlord's benefit, not a tenant's.
    *SIR J. GORST: Does the hon. Baronet suppose we paid their rent? I confess I thought that they paid it themselves. My knowledge of India is such as to lead me to think that if these cultivators do not pay their rent themselves nobody is likely to pay it for them. These people receive from 40 to 45 rupees per acre for growing those crops. The House will consider what a valuable crop it is. The hon. Member for Flintshire said, "Oh, they will grow something else." So they may in time; but you cannot turn 600,000 acres of land and a million and a-half of people from the cultivation of the poppy to the cultivation of corn or of something else at a moment's notice. Then we hear something about the native states which produce the poppy to a large amount. Are they to give up its cultivation? But the Chiefs have not got the moral sentiment of the hon. Member for Flintshire. They do not think it wrong to grow poppies or to eat opium as no doubt many of them are in the habit of doing; and how are we to make it intelligible to them that they are, for the sake of the idea of this Western Parliament, to abandon a cultivation that is so profitable to themselves and their people for some other kind of cultivation that has yet to come? The hon. Member for Flintshire would compel those people with whom we have made treaties to give up the cultivation of the poppy. I say we have no right to do so.
    *MR. S. SMITH: I never proposed that we should compel the native States to give up the cultivation of opium, but I suggested that we should impose a tax on that part of the Indian opium which passes through our territory, and that it is in our power to put a prohibitory duty upon it.
    *SIR J. GORST: A prohibitory duty would be just as much a breach of treaty. I cannot understand the morality which would break faith with those native Princes with whom we are

    1187
    bound by treaty in order to put down the cultivation of a drug which in our opinion ought not to be grown.
    *MR. S. SMITH: But treaties expire.
    *SIR J. GORST: Yes, but these treaties are now in force. An hon. Member has spoken of compensating the native States for the loss to be sustained if we stop the growth of the poppy; but remember that the total revenue now received by the Native States from the cultivation of the poppy is 1,200,000 Rx, and the sum that would be required in compensation for the loss of that amount would be such as I should hardly like to propose either to the Indian or the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. And even if this were done, what would be the result? Would it stop the consumption of opium in China and turn the Chinese people into a people of abstainers? Nothing of the kind. It would simply open the door for native-grown and for Persian opium; and those poor Indian ryots would suffer in order that Persian cultivators might gain the profits which the morality of this House has deprived them of. Indian opium in China is a luxury, just as French wine is a luxury in this country. The common people in England consume beer and gin, and the rich drink French wine. So the Chinese common people consume native-grown Chinese opium, while the richer classes in China indulge in Indian opium, and it would be just as sensible for the French Government to stop the trade in French wine because of the intemperate use of gin and beer in Great Britain as it would be for the Government of India to stop the trade in Indian opium because of the excesses of the Chinese consumers of native-grown Chinese opium. Nay, the action of the French Government in such a case would be more sensible than that of the Indian Government, because the French Government would be inflicting injury on their own people, whereas we should be indulging our high moral sense at the expense of the Indian ryot who does not understand our scruples or our motives. The last part of the
    1188
    Resolution is, I consider, really an insult to China. The hon. Member for Flintshire invites the House to urge Her Majesty's Government to intimate to the Government of China "that in the next revision of the Treaty of Tientsin full power will be given to extinguish the trade in opium if it thinks fit." A great independent Power like China does not want such an assurance from us. I do not know whether the House has properly appreciated the extracts which the hon. Member for Aberdeen gave from letters written by gentlemen concerned in framing the Treaty which, it is asserted, has been wrung from China. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] As the hon. Member said "Hear, hear," I am afraid I must trouble the House by again referring to those letters. Mr. Lay, who was Secretary to Lord Elgin's mission, said:
    "All the negotiations at Tientsin passed through me. Not one word upon either side was ever said about opium from first to last. The preparation of the tariff devolved upon me at the desire of the Chinese no less than of Lord Elgin. When I came to opium I inquired what course they proposed to take in respect to it. The answer was, 'We have resolved to put it into the tariff as foreign medicine.' I urged a moderate duty in view of the cost of collection, which was agreed to. This represents with strict accuracy the amount of 'extortion' resorted to."
    Mr. Laurence Oliphant who was one of the Commissioners engaged in the negotiation of the treaty, said:—
    "When we came to the article 'opium' I informed the Commissioner that I had received instructions from Lord Elgin not to insist on the insertion of the drug in the tariff should the Chinese Government wish to omit it. This he declined to do. I then proposed that that the duty should be increased beyond the figure suggested in the tariff; but to this he objected, on the ground that it would increase the inducements to smuggling. I trust that the delusion that the opium trade now existing with China was extorted' from that country by the British Ambassador may be finally dispelled."
    So far, however, from its being finally dispelled by that letter to The Times in 1880, the delusion is in full vigour tonight, and after those words has been quoted twice in the House the delusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Durham is as vigorous as ever. But the Chinese are not inclined to renounce this treaty. They raise at present a

    1189
    revenue of £1,000,000 sterling from the opium imported from India, and they quite appreciate the advantages of that revenue, while they have no moral scruples which prevent them from accepting it. Therefore, if the Chinese and British Governments are let alone there is no doubt whatever that the Indian- trade in opium will be continued so long as it is not displaced by the natural growth of the native Chinese opium or imported Persian opium. And what I submit to this House is that in matters of this kind we should leave to the Chinese Government the care of the morality of their own subjects, and should not in our presumptuous ignorance venture to dictate to Oriental nations what they may morally eat and virtuously drink, but should rather confine ourselves to the condition of our own home population, with whose wants we are far better acquainted, and when we have put a final stop to the abuse of alcohol in Great Britain then will be the time to commence a crusade against the evils of the use of opium in China.
    SIR R. N. FOWLER: Having on several previous occasions voted in favour of similar Resolutions, I shall now support my hon. Friend opposite, but I desire to explain I feel very strongly that we have no right to impose any addition to burdens on the people of India, and if the tax is to be taken away it must be at the expense of this country. If we take from India a source of revenue we must put our hands into our own pockets. My hon. Friend (Sir R. Temple) the Member for Evesham seems to think that there is an analogy between the revenue for spirits in this country and the revenue for opium in India. But nobody knows better than he that the opium revenue in Bengal is obtained in a very peculiar way, and that the Government make advances to the ryots from whom they purchase the opium which they prepare for the Chinese market at Patna and Gazeepore. To make the analogy perfect our Government should distil their own spirits and sell them to the people. We do not do this, and I do not think, therefore, that the analogy is borne out.
    *SIR U. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH: My hon. Friend often brings subjects under the attention of this House in a manner calculated to command the sympathies of hon. Members on these Benches, and I always feel a desire to vote with him, especially considering the class of argument he advances. If a policy is morally wrong I agree with him that it cannot be politically right. Now he asks the House to call on the Government of India to take steps for the suppression of this trade. But we have before us evidence which has been quoted over and over again in the course of this debate, that the Chinese are themselves producing more and more opium, and that they produce much more than is imported from India. Therefore the only effect of stopping the cultivation of Indian opium would be largely to transfer the cultivation to China, and to Persia and Turkey, and the state of China in the end would be no better than it now is. The object in view is, therefore, impracticable. But there is also this very great difficulty. In India a large portion of the native population, in whom my hon. Friend takes such a deep and sincere interest, is dependent on the cultivation of the poppy, and to deprive them of their occupation would be dangerous. Moreover if my hon. Friend advocates this, as he does in some degree from the point of view of the interests of opium-smokers among the Indian people, he must know that it is highly probable that if they did not consume opium they would consume those local alcoholic spirits which are so pernicious in their effects. The last state of the Indian population, therefore, would be worse than the first. Then he asks us to pass this resolution in the interests of the Chinese. It is very doubtful whether any benefit would be done to the Chinese. My belief is that they would consume just as much opium if we took the action proposed as they do now. But if we are about to enter upon the extinction of the trade in stimulants surely we

    1191
    should address ourselves to the question of the stimulants which are consumed in such great quantities in this country before we interfere with the stimulants in which the Chinese indulge. But what particularly called me to my legs at this hour was the substitutes for the Opium Revenue which my hon. Friend proposed to the House. He said that the problem of making good the revenue which would be lost by the non-cultivation of the poppy was insurmountable, and then he immediately proceeded to try and surmount it. He suggested that there should be a 10 per cent ad valorem tax levied upon all cotton goods imported into India, which he estimated would yield 4,000,000 sterling and he suggested a similar tax upon all goods manufactured in India. He also proposed that there should be something in the nature of a direct subvention and finally he advocated a resort to bimettalism. I will only deal with the first of these proposals. My hon Friend himself indicated that he did not expect his proposal would be received with very much favovr in the county in which he lives and a division of which I have the honour to represent. Certainly not. But consider it from the Indian point of view. He proposes to tax the cotton garments which the people of India wear. For what reason? In response to some demand, coming from the Indian people? No. Simply to satisfy a British cry the hon. Gentleman proposes to lay a tax on the whole population of India. Is this to benefit the Indian people? No: But to confer an imaginary benefit upon the Chinese. I say "imaginary" because it is well to remember that the Indian opium imported into China is the luxury of the rich in China. The opium consumed by the masses of the people is grown in China itself, indeed, the Under Secretary for India has told the House that out of 350 millions of people living in China only about one million consume Indian opium. Let us compare what we are asked to do with what the French Chamber of Deputies might be asked to do. Suppose the Chamber passed a resolution that it was immoral to intoxicate rich English and Scotch people with claret and brandy, and that therefore they must prohibit the export of the best claret and brandy.
    1192
    What should we think of the French Chamber? That is precisely the same position in which we should place ourselves if we passed this Resolution. On these grounds I am sorry to say that I cannot support the Resolution.
    *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE, who rose amidst cries of "Divide, Divide ": I ask the indulgence of the House for two minutes only. Having been for many years interested in the operations of the Church Missionary Society in China, I cannot allow the attack made upon the Bishops and Missionaries in China by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean) to pass without a word from me in contradiction. The hon. Member sneered at the Missionaries in China as men who, conscious of failure in their missions, made false excuses for that failure, and availed themselves of those false excuses to extract money from the pockets of the English people. I maintain that the missions in China have not been failures; that looking to the enormous obstacles in the way of the progress of Christianity in that country, to the great difficulty of the language, to the immobility of their ancient civilization, to the fact that many years ago—about the time we first planted Christian Missions there—opium was introduced into that country by the gun and at the point of the bayonet, I say the Missions have not been failures, but that the success of Christianity in that country has been equal to the success of the Apostles in the first century. Some of the Missionaries are personal friends of my own, and I know they are quite incapable of the conduct which the hon. Member for Oldham has imputed to them. I indignantly deny the charge, but I shall not not vote on this question at all.
    The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 88. (Div. List, No. 95.)
    House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock, till Monday next.