Commons Sitting of 25 April 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (RENT- CHARGES).
Return ordered—
"Of Rent-Charges subject to Charitable Trusts in the County of Hereford, returned as paid in the Reports of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1819–37, and not now paid (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 309, of Session 18S9.)"—(Mr. Rankin,)

KEW AND PETERSHAM VICARAGE BILL (No. 229) (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely, Kew and Petersham Vicarage Bill.
MOTION.

  HARES AND RABBITS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Williams, Bill to amend the Law relating to the killing and taking of Hares and Rabbits, ordered to be

  1409
  brought in by Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, and Mr. Lloyd-George.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 235.]

QUESTIONS.

  LICENCE DUTIES—THE "BETTERMENT" PRINCIPLE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in arranging for the compensation of publicans deprived of licences, he will apply the principle of "betterment" by establishing a compensation fund, to which shall be contributed, either by increased Licence Duties or direct payments, an equivalent of the augmented value of the property and business of the publicans remaining licensed and possessed of a fixed monopoly of the trade?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really confined to devising means; the licensing question will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. The Government are hastening on as best they can the preparation of a measure on this subject; and therefore it will be better to refer the hon. Member to the provisions of that measure when it is produced, rather than to give explanations across the floor of the House.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the Bill dealing with this matter will be ready?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Probably in the course of the next three or four days.

  THE GLASGOW POLICE.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to two Memorials sent to him by the police constables of Glasgow urging the adoption of the Government model scale of pay in their case, and to the fact that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland has, in successive Annual Reports, supported the prayer of the Memorialists; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Two Memorials of the nature referred to in the question have been received by the Secretary for Scotland, and though, in some of his Annual Reports, the Inspector of Constabulary has expressed general approval of the adoption of the model scale of pay throughout Scotland he has not, so far as I am aware, made any special reference in those Reports to the Glasgow Police Force, or to the prayer of the Memorialists. The Secretary for Scotland has communicated with the Local Authorities who have absolute discretion in the matter; but they have declined to give effect to the request of the Petitioners. It is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.

  THE SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, considering the large surplus in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the financial year 1889–90, he is now prepared to make such arrangements for the earlier delivery of southern mails in Dingall, Cromarty, Tain, Dornoch, Wick, and Kirkwall, particularly the two latter, as was recently asked for?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I do not think I should be justified in incurring additional expenditure on the Mail Service to the Highland District; but, as already stated, in reply to a question which the hon. Member put to me on the 17th, I am considering whether improved arrangements can be effected without a further charge on the Revenue. The hon. Member should be aware that the repetition of questions on this point can only tend to prejudice the satisfactory result of any negotiations carried on with this object.

MEETINGS OF POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that he has issued a, Circular containing the following Regulations with respect to meetings held for discussion of official questions by telegraph and Post Office servants outside Post Office buildings:—

1411

"1. That ample notice be given to the local Post Office authorities that such meeting will be held, and where;

"2. That the meeting will be confined to Post Office servants, and to those Post Office Servants only who are directly interested in matters to be discussed;

"3. That an official shorthand writer is present if required by the authorities;

"These Rules apply both to telegraphic and Post Office servants. Should any meeting be held hereafter in respect to which the foregoing conditions are not complied with, those who take part in it will be held strictly responsible for the breach of the Rules;"
and whether there is any precedent for such restrictions upon the right of telegraphic and Post Office Civil servants to meet and discuss questions affecting their position and interests?
*MR. RAIKES: It is the fact that a Circular has been issued to the effect stated by the hon. Member. At least, one precedent I can mention and that within the Post Office itself; for until this Circular was issued the Rule, as it has existed for nearly a quarter of a century, was absolutely prohibitory. As I stated only yesterday, the Circular is in relaxation and not in restraint.
MR. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the exact terms of the Rule which prohibits these meetings?
*MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; I have no objection to do so, if the House desires it.
MR. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject, with the view to asking the House to affirm the undoubted right of Civil Service employés to discuss their grievances free from official intimidation or interference.

THE INDIAN COUNCILS—MINUTES OF THE LATE AND PRESENT VICEROYS.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that the late Viceroy and the present Viceroy of India have, in Minutes, severally addressed to the Secretary of State, expressed opinions in favour of the introduction of the elective principle in any reform of the Indian Councils; and, if so, whether he will lay such Minutes upon the Table of the House?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Papers asked for in the question are confidential communications which have
1412
been made by the Viceroys of India to the Secretary of State. It has already been stated in both Houses of Parliament that these Papers cannot be given, with due regard to the interests of the Public Service. Publication of such documents would put a stop to those confidential relations between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India, which it is essential to maintain. As the Papers cannot be produced, I cannot answer the inquiry as to the nature of their contents.

THE INDIAN FINANCE COMMITTEE.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now state whether any, and which, of the recommendations made by the Indian Finance Committee on 20th December, 1886, have been accepted and acted upon, and what are the savings, specifying such savings, which have been effected?
*SIR J. GORST: The recommendations which have been adopted and are now being acted on are:—Arrangements with Provincial Governments in 1887 Rx640,100; further reductions in provincial expenditure Rx57,480; reorganisation of Public Works Department Rx157,500; allowances for hill stations and Simla travelling allowances Rx 12,600; various (Salt and Customs, High Courts, Presidency allowances, &c.) Rx45,540; supplementary proposals Rx182,648, being a gross total of Rxl,095,868. Some of these reductions, although accepted, can only take place gradually.

GOVERNMENT WRITERS.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total number of Writers now upon the Register; how many are in receipt of bonus under the Treasury Minute of December 21st, 1886; how many have accepted the gratuity and retired; how many are still eligible to compete for vacancies in the Second Division; how many were recommended for promotion to the Lower Division by the Heads of their Departments, under the Treasury Minute of 21st December, 1886; and how many were actually promoted?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Total number now on Register, 961; number

1413
in receipt of bonus under Treasury Minute, 1886, 534; number who have retired with a gratuity, 259; number still eligible to compete, 152; number nominated for promotion, 81; number actually promoted, 70; number appointed to other situations in the Civil Service, 13.

METHYLATED SPIRITS.
MR. BARING: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether spirits imported for methylation should have a return of the duty on reexportation; and, if not, why not?
*MR. GOSCHEN: Subject to the payment of the differential duty or surtax of 4d. in the case of foreign spirits used for methylation, methylated spirits are either prepared from spirits upon which duty has not been paid, or, in the case of a rectifier of spirits, from duty-paid spirits upon which a drawback of the duty of Excise is allowed at the time of methylation. There is not, therefore, any duty to be returned upon the exportation of methylated spirits.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES AND TAXATION.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would propose an alteration of the law whereby all Limited Liability, Joint Stock, Civil Service, and Co-operative Societies would be treated as units for purposes of taxation without rebate to individual members?
*MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; I should not be prepared to propose an alteration of the law which would practically involve that persons with a less income than £150 should pay Income Tax. That is not a policy which I should be prepared to endorse.

THE ROYAL SCHOOL OF MINES.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that there are assayers, metallurgists, and mining men who are in the habit of using the initials that denote the Associateship of the Royal School of Mines, but who have not graduated at that institution; and whether the Council of the School is in a position to effectually deal with such
1414
persons; and, if not, whether he will take steps to invest the Council with the power necessary to do so?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): General statements to the effect have, I believe, been made, but no specific cases have been brought to my knowledge. If any such are laid before the Department, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown will be taken on the subject.

THE ESSEX MILITIA.
MAJOR RASCH: I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Essex Militia are to be placed under canvas on 28th April; and whether it is usual to place unseasoned troops under canvas so early in the year; but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to defer the question.

THE WRECK COMMISSION.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there is any intention of filling the position held by the late Mr. Rothery over the Wreck Commission; how long the position has been vacant; and if it is correctly stated that in this Office great difficulty exists in consequence of the staff of clerks having no responsible chief?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir. There is no present intention of filling the position referred to. The late Wreck Commissioner died on the 1st of August, 1888. I am not aware of any difficulty having arisen in the late Wreck Commissioners' Office, as suggested in the hon. Member's question.

TEA AND CURRANT DUTIES.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the complaints of grocers who have recently laid in large stocks of tea, and also the complaints of Cooperative Distributive Societies who have large stocks of tea and currants; and whether he will, by a repayment of the whole or part of the duty, or by a postponement of the dates at which the new scales of duty are to come in force, minimise the loss to such traders and Societies?
*MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid I can only give the same answer as I gave yesterday. I would point out to the hon. Member that in the case of Cooperative Associations the members will gain by the lower prices what the Associations might lose in profit.
MR. BRYCE: At what date will the reduction of the Tea Duties take place?
*MR. GOSCHEN: The 1st of May.

IRELAND—MR. PERCY MAGAN, J.P.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has yet decided what course he will take in reference to the charge of fraud under the Arrears Act brought against Mr. Percy Magan, J.P.; whether he has taken any steps to ascertain who derived pecuniary benefit from the alleged false representation made in the joint application; and whether, if he entertained any doubt as to the truth of the charges which have been made, he has availed himself of the offer made to him to furnish further evidence in support of them?
*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): In consequence of a former question of the hon. Member I communicated with the Land Commission and have been furnished with the receipt given by Mr. Magan, which does not substantiate the charge of the hon. Member.
MR. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that the landlord in this case made an affidavit that the rent of a certain holding was due and was not paid at a time when it appears from the landlord's own receipt that it had been paid? Under the circumstances, is it not the duty of the Government to institute a prosecution?
*MR. MADDEN: The suggestion made was that Mr. Magan had made an affidavit which was not true. On comparing the receipt with the affidavit I found that the affidavit applied to a holding of £15 a year, whereas the receipt was for £8 15s. Therefore, there is no primâ facie case upon which I can act. Mr. Magan has offered to give any information and submit to any investigation that may be considered necessary.
MR. SEXTON: How is it that the Attorney General in the vindication of the law has not thought it necessary to
1416
institute an inquiry? As there was only one holding it is manifest that the receipt must have referred to it.
*MR. MADDEN: No, that is not manifest. The charge was simply based upon an allegation which the documents do not support.
MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman inquired whether there is any other holding?
*MR. MADDEN: As I have already said, the receipt refers to a rent of £8 15s., and the affidavit deals with a holding at £15 a year.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of showing that the Irish Executive are endeavouring to screen criminal conduct which it is their duty to prosecute.

THE MAGHERAFELT UNION.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that at the recent election of Guardians for the Magherafelt Union the Returning Officer accepted and treated as valid the nomination paper of one of the candidates (Mr. Mann), although delivered to the Returning Officer at his private address, and not, as required by the rule, at the place fixed by the notice of election, i.e. the Board room of the Union; and that the Returning Officer at the same time, though not competent to take evidence on oath, made a private inquiry to prove that the nomination paper of Mr. Mann's opponent had not been signed with the proper signature of the nominator, and, having rejected the nomination paper on this ground, returned Mr. Mann as elected unopposed; and whether the Local Government Board propose, under these circumstances, to hold the usual inquiry as to the validity of the election, so as to permit of the question being tried in a Court of Law?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY JOE IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the case that a complaint was received by the Local Government Board in regard to the recent election of Guardians for the Magher a felt Union. The Board, however, found on inquiry that the nomination paper was delivered to the Returning Officer within the prescribed time, and, following precedent, they ruled that the fact of its delivery

1417
having been at that officer's residence did not invalidate it. A complaint was also received by the Board regarding the rejection of the other nomination paper as invalid by the Returning Officer, which he had done on the ground that he had satisfied himself that the paper had not been signed by the ratepayer nominating. The complainant was thereupon afforded an opportunity of forwarding a written statement from the ratepayer in question, to the effect that he himself had signed the paper, but no such statement has been received by the Board. From the facts submitted to the Local Government Board there appears to be no ground for directing a sworn inquiry to be held.

THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in drafting the Bill embodying the great concessions which he has made in the matter of the incidence of the Inhabited House Duty, he will consider the present position, in reference to this tax, of professional men and others, particularly those keeping schools, who have no option but to pay rents out of all proportion to their means and to their requirements as private persons, with a view of giving them at least the same relief as he proposes to give to the keepers of lodging houses?
*MR. GOSCHEN: I am not prepared to open any further questions this year with regard to remissions in the House Duty.

THE PLATE DUTIES.
MR. H. WILSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true that a shipping house has offered duties in plate to re-land the plate which has been exported, so as to enable them to re-ship it again?
*MR. GOSCHEN: I have heard of that plan—or that scheme, perhaps, would be the more proper appellation; but, fortunately, there are existing means to check it and I am glad to be able to state the fact publicly, namely, that the drawback will only be paid where a declaration is made that the plate was exported without any intention of re-landing or re-importing it. Therefore, any persons
1418
who would re-export plate under the invitation of such a circular would probably render themselves liable to an action for having signed a bond under what might possibly be considered false pretences. At all events, I am glad to say that, though a shipping agent did send circulars to the whole trade, there has been little or no response to the tempting invitation, and the great bulk of the trade have abstained from having recourse to such methods.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is correctly reported as having said that he has not yet decided as to the Plate Duty, and if in any case, having regard to the large number of intricate technical questions involved in the abolition of the duty which, unless carefully considered with the advice of experts, will involve the trade in serious loss, he proposes to postpone the coming into operation of the new order of things?
*MR. GOSCHEN: I must have been misreported yesterday. The only question I understood to be put to me was with regard to the question of gold plate and not silver plate. With regard to silver plate, there has been no hesitation whatever. It would be most inconvenient to postpone the date, especially in view of measures which might be taken, such as were alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Every measure necessary has been taken in concert with men thoroughly acquainted with the trade, and little difficulty is expected in carrying out the matter satisfactorily.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.
MR. J. MORLEY: I rise to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question with regard to the Allotments Bill, on the Paper today. The First Lord will remember that when the House was asked to consent to Morning Sittings, there was, I think, a distinct engagement given that Morning Sittings would be used for purposes of Supply. I want to ask at what hour, and on what grounds, the Allotments Bill was last night put down on the Paper for to-day, and on what grounds the arrangement entered into was departed from?
*MR. CHANNING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether he is aware that the notice with reference to the Allotments Bill was not given in the Times this morning, the Daily News, or any other London newspaper to which hon. Members usually refer in order to ascertain what the business of the day is?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a distinct engagement to him or to the House as to the application of Morning Sittings. I must remind him I distinctly declined to come to an engagement as to the manner in which the Morning Sittings would be used. I said that they would be primarily used for Supply, but that we retained our liberty to put down for those sittings Bills which we were desirous to forward. This Bill was put down for this Sitting last night, standing, as it did, very high on last evening's Paper, and, that there should be no mistake, the President of the Local Government Board gave notice when the Order was reached, about 12.45 this morning, that it was intended to proceed with the Bill at this morning's Sitting. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have no reason whatever to complain; and, as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, he was, I understand, in his place last night, and heard the statement made by my right hon. Friend.
*MR. CHANGING: I do not understand that anything was agreed to as to the Allotments Bill until after the arrangement was made.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government announced, when the Order was reached, that they proposed to take it today at 2 o'clock, and when the question was asked whether it would be really proceeded with at 2 o'clock, my right hon. Friend got up and said that it would.
SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a question in which I take a great deal of interest. This attempt to snatch the Allotments Bill is one of the most extraordinary things I have ever known. It is quite true to say that when the First Lord of the Treasury obtained the Morning Sittings the right hon. Gentleman said that Friday should be taken
1420
for Supply, although it might be reserved in exceptional cases. That was the impression produced on my mind; and with reference to a Bill of importance, surely that meant that if the Morning Sittings were used for other purposes there should be adequate notice given to the House that such other business would be taken. It certainly was never intended that at 1 o'clock in the morning, when Supply had been put down on the Paper, and when all the newspapers reported that Supply would be taken, a Bill of this character should be taken without any notice whatever. Unless hon. Members have some particular reason for remaining in London, they very often go away on a Friday; and I am told that the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb), who has the first Instruction on the Paper relating to this Bill, is not present, but is engaged in visiting his constituents, because he had no idea that the Bill was coming on for discussion. Does anyone believe that this arrangement will be satisfactory to the persons interested? The only knowledge I have had that the Bill was coming on to-day was the receipt of a postcard at 1 o'clock this morning from my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing). This is not the way in which the business of the House ought to be dealt with. I protest against the Government proceeding by means of a surprise with this Bill in the absence of a large number of Gentlemen who take a great interest in the subject. It is not fair to do so, neither is it according to the spirit of the understanding arrived at with respect to Morning Sittings. I was never more astonished than I was this morning when I received the postcard informing mo that the Allotments Bill had been put down for to-day.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be sorry to see the time of the House consumed by anything approaching to a warm discussion. I still maintain the opinion that it was a reasonable arrangement to place the Allotments Bill first on the Paper for this day; but as hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in the subject desire further notice, I am quite willing that it should be given. Accordingly I beg to give notice that the Bill will be taken next Tuesday morning.
*DR. CAMERON: I rise to ask a question on a point of order with reference to the business of the House. In the Blue Papers issued this morning I find that the Motion of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Provand) with reference to raisins and dried fruits, which stood for this evening, is entered as being "deferred from Friday, April 25, till an early day." The same observation applies to the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) with reference to the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women. In the Blue Paper as issued this morning the first Order for the Evening Sitting is put down as Ways and Means, and there is no Amendment on going into Committee; but on the White Order Paper I find that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division with regard to raisins and dried fruits replaced as an Amendment on going into Committee of Ways and Means. I therefore wish to know whether the Motion with regard to raisins and dried fruits, having been postponed from this day, it is now competent to put it down for to-day; and, secondly, whether, the Order Paper being clear of Amendments, it is competent for the Government to put down effective Supply and go on with it; and whether it is competent for hon. Members who wish to bring forward Motions on going into Committee of Supply to do so during the present Sitting, so as to enable them to raise discussion on questions in which they are interested.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unnecessary to answer the first question, inasmuch as I learn that the entry in the White Paper with reference to the Motion on dried fruit is an error. The statement in the Blue Paper that the Motion is deferred to another day is correct. As to the question of the power of the Government to put down Supply for this evening, it is undoubtedly within their power to do so; but it is not within the power of any hon. Member to-day to put down a notice of Amendment.
*DR. CAMERON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that no one could have anticipated that Supply would be brought on this evening, he will undertake to say now that Supply will not be brought on?
*MR. BRADLAUGH: Supposing effective Supply to be taken, will the Government take Classes V., VI, and VII.; or will any other order of Votes be selected?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be lacking in my duty if I did not put down effective Supply for this evening, and especially when there are no notices of Motion to prevent the Chairman leaving the Chair. The Votes will be taken in the order in which they have already been proceeded with.
*DR. CAMERON: I wish to ask, as a point of order, whether it will be competent for hon. Members, on the Question being put that the Speaker leave the Chair, to call attention to different matters in which they are interested?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a Motion on which, no doubt, hon. Members can talk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND POLICE) BILL.

    (No. 146.) SECOND HEADING.
    (3.10.) Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I wish to point out that the Government, in the present Bill, are dealing with a very small part of the question. The Registration Laws at present are in an anomalous condition, and a good many strange decisions have been given by the Courts in Ireland regarding them. In one instance it has been held that a man fined for drunkenness who was sent to prison for nonpayment of the fine had forfeited the franchise. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government have selected a small grievance as a ground for amending the law. I cannot see why these particular classes of the electorate should be singled out by the Government for special treatment on this point; and I invite the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill to be kind enough to tell the House what is the meaning of its provisions.
    *SIR J. GORST: The Bill is not a Registration Bill at all, but is a Bill really to give effect to the provisions of the Act of 1885. I think it is a Bill which has been more than once read a second time. Its object simply is to take away from soldiers and sailors that peculiar disability which they alone labour under, by reason of their being obliged to absent themselves from their homes, and the Bill simply provides that the absence from home of a soldier or a sailor, upon the orders of his superior, shall not be held to deprive him of the franchise. I hope this explanation will satisfy the House.
    MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman laid special stress on the fact that the Bill deals with soldiers and sailors. But it deals with the police also.
    *SIR J. GORST: Yes, certainly.
    MR. STOREY: I have no objection to enabling soldiers and sailors to vote, or even that the police scattered over Ireland enforcing coercion should be enabled to vote. But I cannot see why the Bill should not include the sailors in merchant vessels—a larger and more important class altogether than those serving in the ships belonging to the nation. Under all the circumstances, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months,"—(Mr. Storey,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word "now" stand part of the Question."
    *MR. WHITMORE: While I am sorry that the Bill does not follow the lines of my Bill, and include such persons as railway servants, merchant sailors, clerks, and others, I cannot support the Amendment. I should be only too glad, however, to move Amendments in Committee.
    SIR W. LAWSON: Let me point out that the hon. Member would not be in order in going outside the title of the Bill.
    *MR. WHITMORE: Then I shall endeavour to effect my object, and to remove this artificial disability altogether,
    1424
    by moving an Instruction to the Committee. I consider the opposition to the Bill unreasonable.
    MR. HOWELL: I feel strongly that this Bill ought not to be read a second time, and will, therefore, support the Amendment. I have no objection to the most complete enfranchisement of the people of this country, and have worked for it for a great number of years; but I do not think it is desirable to extend the franchise to those classes of the people alone who are under the influence of the Crown. There are a great many anomalies in connection with our Electoral Law, and I should prefer a measure which dealt with the whole of them. What will the House think of a case of this kind? A man is unable to find employment where he lives, and he goes elsewhere to seek it. While he is away an election takes place, and he finds himself disqualified. The sole object of the Bill is to increase the voting power of the Military and Naval Forces and of the police.
    *COLONEL HUGHES: This Bill is a remedy for an injustice which has been found to exist during the last few years, notably during the celebration of the Jubilee. Soldiers who were removed to Aldershot for only a week or 10 days were, nevertheless, held to have lost their votes, and the same law will apply to Volunteers who were away on military duty at Easter or Whitsuntide, or in the summer. It is unfair that men who are serving their country should be disqualified in the same manner as if they had been confined in the county gaol. I hope that both sides of the House will agree to remedy the injustice that now exists, irrespective of the way in which the votes given will be exercised.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am unwilling to vote against a Bill for removing disabilities in the exercise of the franchise, and I only do so because this Bill makes distinctions between one class of electors and another. If the Government will give an assurance that they will accept a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee to extend the Bill to every class of persons under electoral disabilities, I will support the Second Reading of the measure.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to express my cordial agreement with the views which the hon. Member has just expressed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Instruction to the Committee, so that all anomalous disqualifications to which various classes of persons are subject may be removed by the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), as I think there is a strong case for the postponement of the Bill. I object to the Bill as a political measure of an unfair description. Other classes of persons as well as servants of the Crown suffer under disabilities, and there is no reason why the Government should not bring in a Bill including them as well as Crown servants. Why should sailors in the Mercantile Marine not be included as well as sailors in the Royal Navy? Great dissatisfaction is caused in my constituency by the Militia losing their votes. The Superior Courts in Ireland have held that a man who is imprisoned for seven days for drunkenness because he is unable to pay the fine loses his vote. In dealing with these franchise questions the position and claims of Irish electors must not be left out of view. In Ireland if a man happens to be charged with drunkenness and fined, and in default of payment suffers imprisonment for an hour, he is forthwith struck off the roll. I would recommend the Government to withdraw this Bill, and in dealing with a matter of this kind, to include the many other anomalies and disqualifications that now exist. The present state of the law is such that if in West Belfast a person professing Nationalist opinions is convicted of intemperance, he is thrown off the register; but if he is an adherent of the Government, then it somehow happens that his identity is never discovered, and he remains on the register. For my part, I cannot consent to proceeding with the Bill, which tends simply to increase one political force. To a proposal to deal fairly with all anomalies and electoral disabilities, I am ready to give every consideration; but I shall vote against the Second Heading of this partial, insufficient, and politically unfair Bill, and shall be prepared to offer it every opposition on its future stages.
    SIR J. GORST: I do not think it is decent in this House to speculate too confidently beforehand on the mode in which people who are justly entitled to the franchise will exercise that franchise when they get it. It is an extraordinary doctrine of the hon. Member that a Member of Parliament ought not to advocate the removal of grievances in which his own constituency is specially interested. To state the doctrine is to show its absurdity. The hon. Member has clearly not read the Bill when he says that it does not specify the Militia, because it expressly says "Naval and Military Service shall include service in Her Majesty's Auxiliary Forces." As to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, Her Majesty's Government will certainly give their support to any Instruction which may be moved on going into Committee which would have the effect of extending the exemptions given to naval and military and police voters to those other classes who were comprehended in the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Chelsea last year.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: After the declaration of the Government, which I understand to mean that they will include seamen of the Merchant Service in the provisions of the Bill, I have no hesitation in voting for the Second Reading. It is a great pity that time should be wasted upon a matter that is made quite clear.
    MR. STOREY: As Mover of the Motion, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I heard, with great pleasure, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee. My own desire is to have as many people included in the franchise as possible. I have listened now to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be glad if he will inform me if I am correct in assuming that to be a promise that all other classes who are at the present time under similar disabilities to soldiers and sailors of the Crown should be brought under the Bill on a Motion which will have the support of Her Majesty's Government? I do not want to state whom it shall include. I want to include all classes. But there is another and more important question to which I should like an answer. I do not think the hon. Member for Northampton would

    1427
    have been in such a hurry to promise the Government his support if he had read the 3rd clause of the Bill, and seen what the Bill does for soldiers and sailors of the Crown, without being previously sure——
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: It is quite clear that the acceptance by the Government of such an Instruction will involve Amendments to the clause which will hare to be moved in Committee; this is not a Second Reading question.
    MR. STOREY: Yes; but let me point out to the hon. Member, who seems to think that everything is well——
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. STOREY: I said, seems to think. May I ask attention to Clause 3, which provides that should a soldier, sailor, or policeman be sent away on duty for four months, or a less time, in the case of a police constable he shall be allowed to go to his chief constable and get a certificate, under which he may vote in any polling district in the borough? Now, I put this case, and must press it. A disability rests now upon a workman who, living at one end of a town may be——
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he has exhausted his right to speak.
    MR. STOREY: I desire only a word of explanation in reply to a question which I will put in the briefest form. I wish to know whether the declaration is equivalent to a promise on the part of the Government to put all disqualified classes on an equal footing, so that a workman in a large borough or city should be permitted, on a certificate, say, from the Mayor, to vote in the nearest and most convenient locality?
    SIR HENRY JAMES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I point out that the principle involved in the Bill is a very distinct one, namely, that exemption is founded on involuntary absence? I think the principle might fairly be recognised in the case of sailors in the Mercantile Marine and other persons who, in the pursuit of their legitimate trade, and not for the purpose of getting votes elsewhere, break their occupation. The Government, while accepting that principle, should not give a pledge as to the exact wording of the Instruction at the present stage.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Perhaps I may he allowed to answer the question and describe the intention of the Government, which has been accurately put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not been able to obtain a copy of the Bill of the hon. Member for Chelsea which was before the House last year; but I may say that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept any Instruction to the Committee which will have the effect of extending the operation of the Bill to those other classes which were included in the Bill which the hon. Member for Chelsea introduced last year.
    MR. LAWSON: Of course I attach importance to the concession, but at the same time I must regard it as wholly inadequate to meet the needs of the case. The Bill ought to include the cases of workmen who are absent under contract. [A gesture of assent from Sir J. GORST.] Then I understand that workmen will be placed in precisely the same position in this respect as merchant seamen?
    SIR JOHN GORST: Hear, hear.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: If the claim arises in respect to seaman away on service there is certainly an equal claim on the part of engineers and others who, under the terms of their engagement, are required to go out to various parts of the world and superintend the setting up of machinery contracted for in this country. This sometimes involves an absence of many months in distant countries, and, of course, the occupation of residence is broken. These men are in every way qualified to exercise the franchise when they are at home, and certainly I think the Bill should be widened in its scope to include such cases as these.
    MR. M. HEALY: The concession offered is not quite clear, and the point raised by the hon. Baronet shows the necessity for a little explanation before the Debate terminates. It seems to me the Bill proceeds on wrong lines, and I do not think the concession will meet the points raised unless the Government will agree to go back to what was the old principle of constructive occupation. Formerly the Courts were content to consider the voter had fulfilled the condition of occupation if his wife or family continued to occupy the qualifying premises, even though the voter himself

    1429
    should have boon absent for considerable periods. Without going into petty distinctions the Bill should proceed on this general principle, and the question of a man's exercising the franchise should not depend upon his having been absent from home for a day over or under four months. One other point has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast. The Irish Courts have decided that a man convicted of drunkenness and imprisoned in default of payment of tine shall lose his vote. Will the Government carry their concessions so far as to cover cases of this kind? It is a decision that would never be enforced in England, that a man should forfeit his right to vote simply from inability to pay a fine.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I have a copy of the Bill of the hon. Member for Chelsea last year which we may take as indicating what is intended to be the general scope of the present Bill, and certainly I think the readiest mode of proceeding would be to withdraw the present Bill and start again de. novo. The whole scope and very title of the Bill will have to be altered. If we assent to the Second Reading now, it must be with the distinct understanding that we remove as far as possible all technical disqualification arising from break of occupation. Thus, if a man is absent in fulfilment of a contract for work undertaken, he should not be under disability, nor would it be fair to disqualify a man when he has been absent seeking work. Surely, also, the question of a day over four months' absence should not decide against the vote of a man otherwise qualified.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): Instances have been given in which men, by reason of their being away at work, would lose their votes; but the Bill has been introduced to meet the case of soldiers, sailors, and constables who are held to be disqualified even when their absence is an involuntary one. It was pointed out at the beginning of the discussion that the Bill, if it is passed, will confer a benefit only upon certain classes of public servants; and it was said that the Government, and particularly certain Members of the Government, are specially interested in the removal of this disqualification. An
    1430
    appeal was thereupon made to the Government, which was supported by the Member for the Stirling Burghs and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, that the Bill should be extended so as to apply to the case of persons who are away under contract from their homes during the qualifying period, and where, although to return home would not, as in the case of soldiers, sailors, and constables, be an offence, they cannot practically come back whenever they like. It was suggested that the Bill, as drawn, will exclude merchant seamen and a number of valuable workmen who are sent abroad for a limited time in pursuance of their avocations; and it was proposed that the Bill should be amended in that respect. The Government will accept that Instruction, so that there is now no longer any reason for quarrelling with the Bill on the ground that it refers only to a limited class, having a special interest, because, in its amended form, it will refer to all persons who are away during the qualifying period under contract for a temporary purpose. Under these circumstances, I hope there will be a unanimous acceptance of the Bill by the House, which, I believe, is extremely anxious to admit to the franchise people who have been away in pursuance of duty under contract. If the Member for Sunderland looks at the 3rd section he will see it only applies to constables on duty on the day of election.
    MR. HOWELL: Will engine drivers be included?
    SIR E. CLARKE: There is no such provision in the Bill; but that would give ground for the hon. Member, if he thinks fit, to propose an Amendment in Committee.
    MR. STOREY: Will the Government agree to such an Amendment?
    SIR E. CLARKE: I cannot answer that question now. It is most unusual to ask if the Government will, in regard to a Bill which is not in Committee, accept an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and the terms of which they have had no opportunity of studying. My acquaintance with the law of franchise in Ireland has not informed me that if a man does not pay his fine and goes to prison for the night for drunkenness he loses his vote. That, however, has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill has for its

    1431
    object the securing to persons who, by hypothesis, have a right to vote, but who are often, in consequence of being employed away from their homes, deprived of the opportunity of exercising the franchise.
    *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to know whether it is intended that the word "contract" as applied to the Mercantile Marine shall be interpreted strictly or not, because I believe that sailors employed in the coasting trade do not enter into technical contracts. Contracts are confined to seamen who sail for foreign ports in the Merchant Service.
    *MR. CAUSTON: The Solicitor General said just now that he desired to remove disqualifications from all men who ought to have the right to vote. I am in favour of removing all disqualifications, and last year I was present when a similar Bill which the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore) introduced was read a second time, and I cordially supported the Second Reading. Later, the same evening, the Second Reading of my Voters' Successive Occupation Bill was moved; but that was objected to by hon. Members opposite, whereupon I gave notice of a Motion to extend the scope of the Bill of the hon. Member for Chelsea. When the Motion came before the House, however, it was opposed by the Attorney General. I hope we are not going to be misled by any Government promise with regard to the extension of the operation of this Bill. I quite agree that soldiers, sailors, and policemen ought to have the franchise, but so ought all working men. The Successive Occupation Bill simply provided——
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to a Bill which is on the Order Book.
    *MR. CAUSTON: I will only add that if we are going to remove disqualifications from soldiers, sailors, and policemen, we ought also to remove the disqualification from others. There are hundreds and thou-sands of men in London who are disqualified from voting, simply for the reason that they remove from one division of London to another, or change from lodgers to occupiers. Soldiers, sailors, and policemen go away to do duty in other parts of the country, and so do many working men, and because they happened to be compelled
    1432
    to remove so as to live near their work, they are, under the present law, disqualified for perhaps more than two years. I hope we shall have an assurance that if the operation of the Bill is going to be widened, it will be widened in a way that will prevent men being disqualified for the reasons I have stated in future. The Tory Party professed that it was always their desire that the working men should have a vote; but it seems to me, whenever it is possible, obstacles are placed in the way of their exercising the franchise.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I hope the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time. The scope of the Bill seems to be somewhat misunderstood. The Bill docs not extend the franchise to soldiers and the coastguards, because they already possess it; but it merely provides that when they are qualified to be on the register of voters, they shall not be disqualified by reason of being called upon to do duty at some other place. There are many officers, sergeants, and others at Alder-shot who have quarters given to them by Government; but if one them is required to servo, say, for three or four weeks elsewhere, he thereby breaks his occupation, and loses his vote The passing of this Bill would merely be an act of justice to such men.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: All of us on the Opposition Benches are pleased to find this great desire on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to get rid of disqualifications with regard to voters; but in listening to this debate I have been struck with the fact that it leads to much difficulty to bring in a little Bill to deal with a large question. I am glad the Government have agreed to extend the scope of the Bill, but still I want to emphasise the fact that unless we get rid of all idea of contract, so far as the working classes are concerned, a large number of men will not receive the benefit it is intended they shall receive. Working men who temporarily leave their homes to follow their occupation do not do so under what is legally understood as a contract. I should like to hear whether the Government can give any heed to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. M. Healy) with regard to the question of constructive occupation, be-

    1433
    cause, if they can, they would widen the scope of the Bill very materially. I also think the Government ought to give attention to the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Causton). It is a well established fact that a vast number of the working classes in London are debarred from exercising the franchise because, owing to the exigencies of ther employment, it is necessary they should so frequently remove. You admit the difficulty surrounding the exercise of the franchise by the working classes, but this Bill only goes a little way towards meeting the difficulty.
    MR. G. GRAHAM: I merely wish to press the Government for a more definite answer than they have yet given us. The experience I obtained some two years age, when the Mines Bill was under discussion, does not convince me of the expediency of leaving questions which the Government have promised to deal with by means of amendments unsettled. Perhaps that may be because I have not that infantile or elephantine faith in Governments which the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) seems to have, and because, unlike the hon. Member, I am not engaged in swallowing my life's convictions, and, putting myself up to auction for a place in either of the two Governments, and because I have no great joy in grovelling before those who kicked me and kept me out of the House—[Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!]—who chucked me out at the hands of their ushers.
    *MR. CREMER: I am not, generally speaking, in favour of giving votes to those who live upon taxes. If men choose to go out and play at soldiers, I think they ought to be prepared to take the risks which they necessarily incur. They, of course, do it with the full knowledge that they will be deprived of some portion of the rights of citizenship. What appears to me to be an extraordinary anomaly as regards this Bill is that the Government propose to give the right to vote to men who go out and play at soldiers while they deprive of the vote the working man who, in order to keep his family, is compelled to be away from his home following his occupation or in search of employment.
    SIR J. GORST: The statement of the learned Solicitor General was that the man who left his home for the purpose of following his work would not, according to the existing law, lose his vote.
    *MR. CREMER: I am very glad to hear that. It shows that we are getting on. It is an admission of a very equitable and sound principle. I have made a series of efforts for the last three years to bring the question of the removal of disabilities under the notice of the House and to get it dealt with in a fair and comprehensive manner. The Government having now opened the door, I hope it would not be closed until the whole question has been discussed and dealt with in a satisfactory way.
    *CAPTAIN VERNEY: I feel it to be my duty to vote against this Bill. I cannot see why a soldier or a sailor is to be entitled to exercise political influence by means of voting. People learn how to give votes by attending meetings and consulting others.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks are beside the question.
    MR. GROTRIAN: I am glad the Government have done something in the direction of the removal of disabilities, and that they are going to take a further step in the same direction. It is exceedingly pretty to hear what great interest hon. Members opposite take in the removal of disabilities. Perhaps it would not be in order to move an Amendment giving a vote to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. If Members below the Gangway opposite are really in earnest in this matter, I hope they will take the first opportunity of conceding the franchise to the Irish Constabulary. I am especially glad that the Government are going to allow members of the Mercantile Marine to be included in the provisions of the Bill; and I should like to ask whether the term "sailor" will include firemen and fishermen?
    MR. STOREY: The promises given by the Government are so satisfactory that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I have been in communication with the hon. and learned Member opposite, and understand that the Bill will practically remove disabilities from everyone. If so, I shall heartily

    1435
    support the measure. I wish to know, however, whether a man who is working away from home without being under contract will obtain the benefits of the Bill?
    SIR J. GORST: Such a person would not want it, because he would not be disqualified.
    MR. PICKARD: I should like to know whether this Bill will include miners working at a distance from home?
    SIR J. GORST: No; they would not come within the scope of the Bill.
    *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I shall support the Bill, because I think the disabilities of soldiers and sailors should be removed, and because I understand the Government will extend the Bill in the direction of removing disabilities from private individuals who are under contracts which compel them to absent themselves from their constituencies. Without expressing any definite opinion how, under the Ballot system, it would be practicable to provide for such cases, I may say that at the recent election in my constituency there were 150 or 200 railway men who were unable to vote because they had to be absent in the discharge of their duties.
    MR. LYELL: I wish to know whether it will be possible to allow fishermen to record their votes in the same way as constables?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

    SUCK DRAINAGE [PROVISION OF FUNDS].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a portion of the Costs, Charges, and Expenses (to an amount not exceeding £50,000), which have been or may be incurred by the Drainage Board for the River Suck Drainage District."
    Resolution read a first and second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. STOREY: This is the smallest and least objectionable of the measures which were defeated last year. I am convinced by information which has reached mo that when the money has been expended it will prove to have been absolutely wasted unless further expenditure is incurred. I shall feel it my duty, without extended debate, to divide the House in order to make clear my conviction that public money ought not to be expended in such operations in Ireland any more than in England or in Scotland. I admit the hardship of the case of private persons who have come to the end of their available resources in carrying out this scheme, but I submit it never has been the custom for this country to grant public moneys to private persons for carrying on private works.
    DR. TANNER: I have opposed this measure on several occasions, and had I been allowed to be in my place in the House last Session I should then have objected to the schemes put forward by the Chief Secretary. The people who projected the works at Ballinasloe are altogether antagonistic to the Irish movement, and have been compelled to appeal to the Government for assistance, because their efforts have not been attended with success. Still, looking at the fact that a large number in the district are depending for their livelihood on the continuance of the operations, I shall support the Resolution, and I hope the House will allow the stage to be taken without further opposition.
    MR. WADDY: It appears to me that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would apply with equal force to the shutting up of any large works. That principle is so mischievous that I shall certainly support the hon. Member for Sunderland in dividing against the Resolution.
    (4.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
    Bill ordered to be brought by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 236.]

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) [EXPENSES].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual sum, not exceeding £140,000, towards defraying the cost of the execution, in Great Britain, of any Act of the present Session for conferring further powers under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 188G, with respect to pleuropneumonia; and of an annual sum, not exceeding £20,000, towards defraying the costs of the execution of the said Act in Ireland."
    MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question with regard to the Bill which is to be founded on this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that at the present time there are on the Paper pages of Amendments by Scotch Members bearing directly on financial questions; indeed, there is grave dissatisfaction in Scotland with the financial terms on which it is proposed to base the Bill. I wish to know whether the subject has been brought under the notice of the Government, and when it is intended to take the Bill?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The subject has received the serious consideration of the Government, and they are now considering by what means they can make proposals which will be satisfactory to hon. Members for Scotland in reference to the charge which may possibly be imposed upon Scottish funds by the operation of the Bill. The Government hope to proceed with the Bill on Tuesday next. In the meantime notice will be given of such changes in the measure as I hope will be found to be satisfactory.
    Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES 1890–91.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES 1890–91.

  CLASS V.
  1. £400,000, Exchequer Bonds (Cape Railway).
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come
  1438
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Expenses of Various Services (other than Consular) in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am sorry that this Vote is to be taken at this hour, because there are several facts which have transpired on which some further explanations are requisite, and, indeed, important. I admit that the Government have only followed the usual precedent, but matters in regard to the Slave Trade have drifted into such an extraordinary position that we hardly know where we stand. I see that the contract for steamers between Aden and Zanzibar has been augmented by £9,000 this year. Now we are asked for another £16,000, and I should like to know if a new contract has been entered into with the company? What do we find? That this company is down for £16,000 to put down the Slave Trade, and they are actually employing slaves themselves. We find that these Chartered Companies, particularly the Lakes Company, employ slaves themselves. It is a montrous case of hypocrisy that we should pose before the world as paying a large sum of money for the suppression of the Slave Trade, while we are subsidising a company like this to the extent of £16,000 per annum, and that company is actually employing slaves. There is an Act which renders any English subject liable to penal servitude—I think it is for life—who owns a slave. Even assuming that these slaves are hired——
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say he is in error. The company with whom the contract is made is not the company to which he is referring—the East African Company, who have nothing to do with it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It was admitted the other night that these companies practically belong to the same persons.
  MR. JACKSON: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand the hon. Gentleman that in no case these companies employ slaves? From what source has the right hon. Gentleman got his information? Does he know that they do not employ slaves? In any case, whether it be so or not, this sum is used

  1439
  for commercial purposes by this East African Company, which does employ slaves.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite irregular on this Vote of a subsidy to the Steamship Company to discuss the conduct of the East African Company.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have merely raised this point that this money is used for commercial purposes, and it is put down under the Slave Trade Vote. It is used in no way, except the most indirect, for the suppression of the Slave Trade. Therefore, we shall have to discuss in some sort of way the action of this East African Company. We ought not to allow this increased subsidy to be granted at the present moment. The Secretary to the Treasury will tell me that the contract will be laid on the Table, but we ought not to vote the money until we see the contract. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of putting off this Vote until we see the contract. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £9,130, because I assume that the old contract which was £6,000 has been increased by £9,130, leaving out the Supplementary Estimates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,510, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. DILLON: I rise for the purpose of seconding the reduction of this Vote. We want to be informed what brings this sum into the Slave Trade Vote at all. I only wish to point out that we on this side did not introduce the East African Company. It was the Government who introduced the reference through the Member responsible for these Estimates, who had to inform the Committee as to the necessity for the increase of the subsidy. I was under the impression, having listened to the debate the other night, that the increase was made for the convenience of the East African Company. Of course, if the Secretary to the Treasury tells us that it is not so. I do not understand how the East African Company came to be mentioned at all. I think we are entitled, first of all, to ask why this subsidy to the Steamship Company appears in the Vote for the suppres-
  1440
  sion of the Slave Trade, and also whether it has any indirect connection with the East African Company?
  DR. TANNER: I hold in my hand the Appropriation Account for the year 1888–9, and find the amount the Committee is called upon to pay at the present time is £16,000, which, in point of fact, is an excess over last year of £9,130. When we find that £7,850, which was not on account of Slave Trade services, is passed under cover of this Vote, we see that the sum is increasing by leaps and bounds, and is really doubling the amount originally intended to be granted. I simply rose for the purpose of calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this matter. He is acquainted with the proceedings of the Committee on Public Accounts, where these matters were sifted, and he will recollect that attention was called in that Committee to the way in which this Vote was increased.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member who has just sat down that the matter is clearly and perfectly in order. The Appropriation Account deals with 1888–9, the expenditure terminating on the 31st March, 1889. The amount there stated is the amount of the contract which was then in existence. Since that time there has been a new contract entered into. That contract has been laid on the Table and circulated among Members. It is for a larger sum.
  DR. TANNER: Double.
  MR. JACKSON: Quite so. In fact, it includes the Sea Service, and a quicker service, with calls at more places. The contract will have to obtain the approval of the House before it becomes legally binding, and I hope to lay it before the House in the course of a day or two. As regards the position of the Vote in the Estimates, it was a question when the Estimates were under consideration, whether the amount should be put under the Packet Service connected with the Post Office; but really the sum is paid much more for the suppression of the Slave Trade than for the purposes of the Mail Service. It is quite true that the mails are carried by these steamers, but I think I am justified in saying that it is intended much more for services connected with the Slave Trade. It is generally admitted that these vessels passing to and fro do exercise a beneficial

  1441
  influence in checking the Slave Trade. I suppose by multiplying the vessels that influence is increased. It was felt, further, in view of the general condition of things which prevails in the Red Sea, and the difficulties which have arisen during the past two years, that it would have been an extremely inopportune time to do anything which would weaken the means of communication with the fleet and the East Coast of Africa. The Government felt it desirable to enter into a contract for an improved service, and such contract has been entered into. Though it does appear an anomaly that a contract with a Steamship Company should appear in the Vote for the Slave Trade Service, yet there is much more connection between the two than at first sight appears. Reference has been made to the fact that the gentleman who is Chairman of the Steamship Company is also Chairman of the East African Company; but that does not necessarily imply that there is any connection between the two companies, except so far as concerns the action of that particular individual. I venture to say that there is no connection between this company and the East African Company, and perhaps it would have saved discussion had this explanation been made earlier.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL (): I think it better to leave to the discussion on another Vote this discussion of the connection between the two companies, and to confine ourselves to the contract itself. I suppose we will be afforded opportunity of discussing the contract some time after midnight; but I think we had better utilise the present chance and daylight to examine this contract rather than trust to the tender mercies of the Secretary to the Treasury. On looking into the contract of the Steam Navigation Company I find that it was made without competition.
  MR. JACKSON: That is not so, if the hon. Gentleman means that competition was not invited.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: That is not what I mean. No doubt competition was invited; but there was no competition, inasmuch as there is only one company running vessels in this part. The Chairman of that company is at the same time Chairman of the East African Company, and the contract is made not for a high rate of speed, only 10 knots
  1442
  an hour. The old contract was from Aden to Zanzibar, but the present contract is larger. The vessels are to touch at four places, all the stations of the East African Company. Another extraordinary point of the contract is that £7,000 is to be paid for carrying mails between London and Zanzibar. We have already abundance of mail contracts between London and Aden, the Indian mail contracts, and the China and Australian contracts. There is no need, so far as I can see, for a Mail Service between London and Zanzibar. The service between Aden and Zanzibar would have been ample for all purposes. Notwithstanding, the Steam Navigation Company, whose Chairman and many of the influential Directors, are also Chairman and Directors or the East African Company, are to have a largely increased subsidy. I cannot conceive what influence these mail contracts will have on the Slave Trade. The mail steamers do not stop to pursue slaves; they have no active part in the suppression of the Slave Trade; they simply carry letters to the Fleet, and I confess it does seem to mo that this contract is tinctured with something in the nature of a job.
  SIR L. PELLY: Sir, I confine myself to the question of the British India Company plying along the East Coast of Africa, and to considering this question politically and commercially. It has been said that the commercial side of the subject has no relation to the Slave Trade. I venture to hold an entirely different opinion. I speak not without experience. I was actively engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade 30 years ago on the East Coast of Africa, in the Persian Gulf, and in the principal Slave Groups. I was also a member of the anti-Slavery Mission in 1872–73. I venture to say that the running of mercantile steamers in the Persian Gulf and on the East Coast of Africa has a very close and direct connection with the Slave Trade, and in this way. Before the introduction of steamers trade is carried on by means of dhows. These ship a so-called crew from the East Coast, and proceed whether to Arabia, Persia, or other points in Asia. Most of the men thus shipped are slaves, and many of them are sold as slaves on the dhows reaching their Asiatic ports. This traffic went on

  1443
  year after year. It was going on in 1860, and continued during the 12 years I was in serving' on the Persian Gulf and on the East Coast of Africa. But when we got steamers into the gulf, and now that we are placing them on the East Coast of Africa, these steamers carry goods cheaper than they could be carried by the dhows, which in that way we cut out the dhow trade. The effect is to reduce the Slave Trade. In my belief, such a means of reducing that traffic is more effective than the employment of men-of-war. But, Sir, the argument would apply equally to the land. The more you introduce railways and civilised means of communication between the coast and the Upper Lake regions, the more will you tend to suppress the Slave Trade and prevent the ivory and other produce being brought down by slaves. With regard to the commercial aspect of the subject, I ventured to ask the British India Company what was the outcome of it? Their service began in November last. Since that time they have completed five voyages, and the average loss upon each voyage to the British India Company has been £1,500. If you compare what England does with what is done by other countries, you find that the German subsidy for steam communication on the East Coast is £45,000. Surely, if we want to develop our commerce, and indirectly, as I have shown by that very commerce tend to suppress the Slave Trade, surely, if we wish to maintain our Imperial position, and not be content with our insular position, we ought to be prepared to meet the sacrifices necessary. If we desire to stand before the world as intent upon the maintenance of our Empire, and as the antagonist of the Slave Trade, then we must pay for it. To pretend that we are anxious to develop Imperially, to pretend that we are a great and philanthropic people, anxious to put down slavery, and then to stickle over £16,000 is, to my mind, illogical and contemptible.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Sir, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the inclusion of this sum in the Vote is to be defended on the ground that it will tend to the suppression of the Slave Trade.
  MR. JACKSON: I gave the mails as a subsidiary matter.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Why is it that in the contract there is not a word directly or indirectly about giving anyone facilities for the suppression of the Slave Trade? If the mails are a subsidiary matter, why is it that all mention of the principal matter is omitted from the items stated? It is true that in the Treasury Minute, put in as a preface to this contract, there is a reference—almost as vague as that which came from the Secretary to the Treasury—to the British Mail Service to Zanzibar established in 1873 as a useful auxiliary to the suppression of the Slave Trade. I agree with the hon. Member who last spoke, that general civilisation does gradually bring about the suppression of slavery; but these subventions have nothing to do with that. The singling out of these Companies for the purpose of carrying letters from London to Zanzibar has nothing to do with that. You do not provide that, if a British Indian steamer comes across a dhow in the Red Sea or anywhere else, it has to go after it. I had not intended to take part in this discussion; but I do think that the Secretary to the Treasury should not presume so much on the general credulity of the House and the country as to offer in defence of the inclusion of an item in a Vote in which it should not appear that though it has nothing to do with the question of the suppression of slavery, generally speaking, the carrying of correspondence between civilised people tends in that direction. I defy the hon. Member to read one clause in the contract in which the Slave Trade is mentioned, or a single line which says that the company is to give any kind of assistance to anybody pursuing slave dhows. I defy him to read a word in it which says that there is to be any information given, directly or indirectly, to anybody as to the transport of slaves in consideration of this Vote. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—to whom we are often indebted for very agreeable explanations of financial policy—will add frankly to the information he has given us by saying that he does not defend the insertion of the item, and will leave it out next year.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): There is, no doubt, a great deal in what the hon.

  1445
  Member has said; but I would ask the Committee to recognise that, after all, this is a criticism as to form. It is objected that this contract, being for other purposes than the suppression of the Slave Trade, ought not to appear under the Suppression of the Slave Trade Vote. I suppose the subsidy was originally given to the Steamship Company for carrying mails on this coast with the special object of aiding in the suppression of the Slave Trade, and that it has been allowed to continue in that form. In whatever form it appears, it is necessary. It is of the greatest importance that there should be speedy communication by mail steamer along this coast in order that Her Majesty's ships employed on the stations in that part of the world may communicate with the officers engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade. I myself know of cases where information as to the probable movements of Slave Trading vessels has been carried by these mail steamers so as to lead to most important results. If such steamers were not employed I know of no way in which despatches from one station to another along this coast could be carried, except by a man-of-war. Undoubtedly, this country derives other advantages from this Mail Service than those connected with the suppression of the Slave Trade. I would, for instance, remind the Committee of the great and growing interests which this country has on the East Coast of Africa, and how much more important it is now than it was in times past that we should have a regular and speedy service. This line conveys mails as far as Zanzibar, and there it connects with another Mail Service to the Cape of Good Hope, furnishing a regular communication all down the East Coast of Africa. Surely hon. Members would not wish that this service should fall into the hands of foreign mail steamers—and the House has been told that the German Government pay a much larger subsidy to their mail line going' down this coast than we pay ours. I venture to think that the House would not acquiesce in any proposal to hand over our communications in this direction to foreign mail steamers or to do anything which would render our Mail Service less speedy and efficient than that of any foreign country and less able to
  1446
  successfully compete with the foreigner than we are in other parts of the world. It is because this mail contract is for the benefit of our commerce, and because I believe that the reasons which originally led to the establishment of the service on the East Coast of Africa continue to exist at the present day, that I hope the Committee will assent to the Vote.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is there a word about this service in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade in the contract?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think that that affects the matter. The assistance of the steamers in that direction, though subsidiary, is extremely valuable.
  *MR. J. MACLEAN: I must say that I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman rather tends to show that this subsidy should not have been included under the head of the suppression of the Slave Trade. We have heard a great deal about the value of the Mail Service on the East Coast of Africa, and one can readily understand that a Mail Service of that kind must be of great importance to us for the purpose of helping us to maintain our power in that part of the world as against our rivals. But it is quite apparent from the speech of the hon. Member for North Hackney (Sir L. Pelly)—who has a right to speak with some knowledge on this question—that this service is really established for Imperial and commercial purposes in the first instance, and only in a subsidiary degree for the suppression of the Slave Trade. My hon. Friend quoted to the House figures to show that the British India Company is actually now carrying on the service at a loss. It has lost at least £1,500 on each of the last five voyages. Does anyone believe the company is going to carry on the service at a loss for the purpose of suppressing the Slave Trade? The object of the company is to serve its own interest and the interest of the allied companies with whom it is working out there. It is plain that this service is intended to serve the commercial interests of the British East African Company. The steamers run to Mombassa and other ports, and it must, therefore, be to the interest of the East African Company to encourage the service. I think this subsidy was regularly included in the Suppression of

  1447
  Slavery Vote by what I may call a pious fraud on the part of Sir Bartle Frere. Having been out in this quarter of the globe, he declared that by the establishment of a line of steamers we should be indirectly going some way towards suppressing the Slave Trade. I have not yet heard anything from the Treasury Bench as to the way in which the Slave Trade has been suppressed by the establishment of this service. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs says that these steamers often carry information which enables British officers to intercept slave dhows; but I would ask him if he can point to a single instance where one of these steamers has deviated from her course for the purpose of rendering service to Her Majesty's Government in that way? No doubt the letters they carry give information. I am one of those who do not condemn what we are doing in East Africa; but I say the House ought to have information as to what is being done, and there ought to be no attempt to smuggle through a subsidy for a Mail Service under the head of the Suppression of the Slave Trade.
  MR. WADDY: We seem by degrees to be getting a little light thrown on this Vote. I do not think there is one of us who doubts that this item, instead of being an attack on the Slave Trade, is really a subsidy to a commercial company which appears to have two heads, one of which we are not allowed to deal with to - night, the defence of which is mainly conducted with great ability and perfect fairnesss by the hon. and gallant Member, who is, I believe, a Director of the company.
  *SIR L. PELLY: Which company?
  MR. WADDY: The Imperial British East African Company.
  *SIR L. PELLY: Yes.
  MR. WADDY: We are asked to grant a subsidy to a company which is a sister company to that I refer to on the plea that it is for the suppression of slavery, and it seems that the only connection it has with slavery is to be found in the argument that the more we cover the ocean with our own civilised vessels the less room there will be for others that are uncivilised, and the more information as to the doings of Slave Traders we shall obtain. According
  1448
  to that argument you should subsidise lines of steamers right round the coast of Africa, off the coast of Guinea, and in many other parts of the world. And it is said in support of the Vote, "Where would our Indian Empire have been if it had not been for these subsides to steamships, and where would our Australian Colonies have been? Well, what has all this to do with the suppression of the Slave Trade? No one doubts that, in regard to the general spread of information, you can screw the question of the Slave Trade in or twist it in; but the same thing might be done in the case of Samoa, and almost all other wild and uncultivated parts of the world. I protest against this item going under the head of the Suppression of the Slave Trade when it really has nothing to do with it. There is nothing more deceptive than to put down the Estimates in this way, and I strongly object to this sum of £16,000 being put under the head of the Slave Trade Suppression Services.
  MR. JACKSON: May I make an offer to Gentlemen opposite? I will undertake that when the Estimates are framed next year the Mail Service Vote shall be removed from this heading and put with the general subsidies for these Services. I am sorry I cannot depart from what I have previously said as regards the original provision made on this subject. The Vote has occupied its present position for a good many years, but I am just as anxious as any Member of the Committee to improve as far as possible the form of the Estimates, and I will undertake that next year the Votes shall be separated.
  MR. WADDY: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman agrees to reduce the item to its old amount?
  MR. JACKSON: That is impossible. I daresay my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General will raise an objection to what I have already undertaken.
  MR. DILLON: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that this is merely a question of form. An attempt is clearly being made in this case to smuggle through the Committee a large increase in a subsidy to a Steamship Company, under the pretext of suppressing the Slave Trade, when it has

  1449
  been made manifest that the real object of the increase is to facilitate the expansion of the East African Company's trade. The course of the debate has shown clearly what an inconvenient and improper proceeding this is. We have been cut off from discussing the true purpose for which the money is required. We are asked to vote money for a contract which the House has not yet approved; and when we look at the terms of the contract we see plainly that the main motive for the increase of the subsidy is not at all the suppression of the Slave Trade, but is in reality a political motive connected with the present position of Germany and England in Eastern Africa, and also with the development of the trade of the East African Company. We are asked to believe that every subsidy having for its object to increase commerce and communication along the coast must necessarily tend to the suppression of the Slave Trade. I utterly deny that general statement. Before we can judge of the effect of a trade, we must know what the nature of that trade is. Suppose we heard to-morrow that the goods that are shipped by the Company are brought down to the coast on the backs of slaves. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite whether none of these goods are brought down on the backs of slaves?
  *SIR L. PELLY: As the question is put to me, I beg to say I believe that nearly all the goods are brought down on the backs of slaves. I hope the Government may see fit to give some sort of subsidy or guarantee to a railway in view to assisting the Company in constructing one, thus tending to supplant this use of slaves.
  MR. DILLON: To use an American expression, I have struck oil. I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the frank and manly way in which he has answered the question. It is admitted by a Director of the company that the steamers of the company we are asked to subsidise are engaged in shipping goods that are carried on the backs of slaves; and this is the way in which, according to Members of the Government, we are discouraging the Slave Trade. I protest againt subsidising a company whoso profits depend upon this infamous traffic. The attitude of the Government reminds me of the
  1450
  time when a good many Members of this House did not see any harm in the slavery of the Southern States. To put this item vaguely before the Committee as one for the encouragement of commerce on the East Coast of Africa is a preposterous attempt to deceive the public. The hon. and gallant Member hopes the Government will see their way to subsidise a railway. But the nonexistence of the railway does not justify English merchants in getting goods carried down on the backs of slaves.
  *SIR L. PELLY: The East African Company carry down nothing.
  MR. DILLON: We all know, Mr. Courtney, that the receivers of stolen goods do not steal them.
  *SIR L. PELLY: If there are receivers of these goods they are the English community in London and elsewhere who purchase them.
  MR. DILLON: Yes, but the English community in London and elsewhere do not know who brought down these goods.
  *SIR L. PELLY: Well, now I tell them.
  MR. DILLON: Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman set up a store in London and placard it "for the sale of goods brought down from the interior of Africa on the backs of slaves," and see how many Englishmen will buy of him. If he will do it I will undertake to boycott the store. I say it is useless to talk of discouraging the Slave Trade when you are deriving a profit from the trade. This discussion has served a most useful purpose. It has shown us that, so far from being a mere matter of form, the introduction of this increased subsidy into the Slave Vote is an attempt to deceive the Committee. Under cover of a Vote for the Suppression of the Slave Trade, we are asked to grant an increased subsidy to a company for the purpose of enabling them to develop the trade of the East African Company, which is a trade based entirely on slave labour. Under these circumstances, I think I am justified in appealing to hon. Members to oppose the subsidy. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has offered to alter the Vote next year. I accept no such proposal. This Vote, in my opinion, ought not to be passed on its merits, and the least we can demand is that the Vote shall be postponed until the whole question can be discussed.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I should like to take your ruling, Mr. Courtney, as to whether I shall be in order in making some reply to the many serious allegations which have been made against the East African Company with regard to the Slave Trade, as I am more or less in a position to answer them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The conduct of the East African Company is not in question. As I am speaking, I may be allowed to make a statement from my knowledge of past transactions respecting the point which has been raised. When I was at the Treasury, long before the establishment of the East African Company, the question of the subsidy came up for consideration. It was then thought it ought to go under the Post Office Vote. The Postmaster General objected very strongly, as it was not an enterprise with which the Post Office had anything to do. The argument was used—whether it was good or bad I do not say—that legitimate commerce was the best way to destroy the Slave Trade.
  MR. HANBURY: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the mischief we are doing in dealing with the Slave Trade at all. There is no doubt whatever that by the way we have pottered with this question, and by the inefficient manner in which we have endeavoured to suppress the Slave Trade, we have done more harm than good. The miseries of these unfortunate slaves have been enormously increased by the vacillating and halfhearted way in which we have acted. While making preparations for suppresing the Slave Trade, we have done everything to increase it and to add to its horrors. We are now asked to repeat exactly the same error. This line of steamers is carrying the goods brought down to the coast by slaves, and the result of increasing this subsidy will be that the quantity of goods carried by slaves will be increased and we shall have in the future an enormous additional amount of slavery. If we are going to subsidise anything let it be a line into the interior.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has made a strong point about the immense utility of rapid communication
  1452
  along this coast. When, however, we come to work it out, we find that these steamers are to crawl along the coast at the enormous rate of 10 knots an hour. Yet we are told that they will be of immense assistance in the suppression of the Slave Trade. In reality, all the intelligence will be carried by the swifter German vessels.
  MR. CAINE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Courtney, as a point of order, whether, as two or three hon. Members have shown they are interested in this Vote, it will be competent for them to record their votes?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for them to determine.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: As I protested a good many years ago against British lives being placed in jeopardy by attempting to deal with the Slave Trade in so ineffectual a manner, I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing concurrence with what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury). I do not wish to raise any objection to the granting of legitimate facilities for communication in these regions; but any grant in that direction ought, I think, to come under the Post Office Vote. I wish to protest once more against the ineffectual manner in which this subject of the suppression of the Slave Trade is dealt with, and against the lives of British sailors being risked in these enterprises.
  (6.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 213.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I suppose it is competent for us, under this Vote, to discuss the conduct of any of Her Majesty's subjects, who may be said to have infringed the spirit of the action which has been taken against slavery. I wish to draw attention to the abases which are said to have occurred on the East Coast of Africa in connection with compulsory labour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is quite irrelevant to the subject of the Vote.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I submit that this is a Vote for the suppression of the Slave Trade.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no provision in the Vote for payment of money on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government intend to take to see that the clause in the East African Company's charter respecting discouragement of slavery is carried out?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I would point out that in the discussion which has taken place we have had statements bearing on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question ought not to have been introduced into the debate at all.
  DR. TANNER: We find in the Vot3 an item of £10,000 for the Church Missionary Society; and when we come to examine it we find that it means an allowance of £5 a head to this Society for the maintenance of liberated slaves handed over to the Society by Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar. Now, I do not see why the Church Missionary Society in particular should receive this grant any more than the Gospel Propagation Society or any other Philanthropic Association. I do not think we should make any invidious distinction in matters of this kind. My purpose in referring to the subject now is to endeavour to extract some information, and I hope the answer will be a satisfactory assurance that there is no intention to endow with State-aid any one Society more than another engaged in such work. Failing such an assurance, it may be my duty to move a reduction of the Vote.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I may relieve the hon. Gentleman from any necessity of moving a reduction on these grounds. No distinction whatever is made between Religious Bodies engaged in Missionary work. The Church Missionary Society have a station at this place, and they are willing to undertake the care of liberated slaves, and to provide for them until some means of livelihood is found. This is found to be the cheapest and readiest means of proceeding, and this grant is for the re-imbursement of the Society for the expense of carrying out its charitable work. This is as regards
  1454
  Zanzibar; but I believe a similar course is pursued in other parts of the world. No distinction is made between Religious Denominations.
  DR. TANNER: Then I may take it that these liberated slaves may be apportioned among several Societies, who may share in the grant?
  MR. JACKSON: That involves a question of whether they would be willing to enter into an arrangement. We, in the present case, have an arrangement.
  DR. TANNER: If a modus propaganda has to be adopted, what is the position of Her Majesty's Government? Will the Government undertake to form the religious opinions of a number of people practically spreading the Gospel in a peculiar way, setting up a number of sects in Africa all cordially hating each other, for the love of God? I think it would be better to abolish this Vote to the Church Missionary Society; and if the Society is to carry on its work in foreign lands, as I am sure I hope it will, let that work be supported by voluntary subscriptions. It is a great mistake, I think, to include in a Vote like this an item which may be interpreted in a manner that may give rise to differences of opinion it is well to avoid. I offer no opposition to any Missionary Society, but I do not think there should be even an appearance of invidious distinction in a grant of this kind. Accordingly, I hope that in the future this item may disappear from the Estimates, and that the Church Missionary work will be promoted in the only proper way by private subscriptions, which, considering the wealth of members of the Church, will no doubt be largely provided.
  MR. WADDY: I understand that this is not a grant to a Church Society at all; but it is to meet the expenses of the feeding, clothing, and taking care of a number of released African slaves, taking charge of and maintaining them for a length of time until they can be otherwise provided for. Whether the amount of £5 a head is a proper amount is a point we might question: but to the object of the Vote—the maintenance of these poor creatures—I do not think any of us will take exception. "Making them Christians," says an hon. Friend near me. Well, that is not the worst

  1455
  thing that can befal them, and certainly I will not accept that covert sneer. At the same time, I would suggest that there should be thorough impartiality in this respect. Other Societies, I understand, have acted as this Society has; for instance, for many years a Society at Sierra Leone has been so engaged. I hope the grant may be extended to other Societies carrying on elsewhere the same Christian work.
  MR. PICTON: What is the meaning of maintenance? I imagine these people may be put in the way of earning a living in some way. I can understand the word maintenance as applied to children, or the old blind liberated Africans at Demerara, but I suppose for ordinary adults the maintenance is only temporary?
  MR. JACKSON: That is so. Payment is made until they get something to do.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £128,920 (including an additional sum of £30,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act, 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I be allowed to submit to you, Sir, as a point of order, whether it is competent for Her Majesty's Government to depart from precedent, and submit in these Estimates any number of Votes lumped together under one amount, and whether it is open to any Member to move that the Votes should be divided as they formerly were divided? In regard to these Colonial Votes, the practice of combining items has been carried to an excessive extreme, and so in regard also to the Diplomatic and Consular Votes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be entitled to make such a Motion now. The question is one for a Motion in the House, but not in Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Can I not move that parts of the Vote be considered separately?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can go through the various items, but a Motion for dividing the Votes should be moved on going into Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not know whether the Government intend to proceed with the discussion of a new subject now within a few minutes of the time for suspension of business. If the Government desire we should go on, I will proceed with the Motion of which I have given notice, to move a reduction of the Vote by £5,000, under Sub-head B, for the cost of a New Guinea steamer.
  MR. WADDY: I rise to order. I wish to ask whether if the hon. Member now proceeds to discuss this item for the New Guinea steamer, that cuts us off from raising questions upon preceding items; for instance, in reference to the steamer at Sierra Leone?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If we proceed item by item, the discussion of a subsequent item will preclude returning to a previous item.
  MR. WADDY: Then I would now ask for information in respect to the steamer at Sierra Leone.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): There is nothing new arising on the Vote in respect to a steamer at Sierra Leone. It is maintained for the purposes of the Governor of Sierra Leone, and I can afford the hon. and learned Gentleman no other information. It is required for the service of the colony and for purposes for which such a vessel is naturally and properly used.
  MR. WADDY: Then it is used for carrying passengers and goods and for purposes to which the Governor may put it?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: It is not a passenger steamer; it is for the use of the Governor. It is necessary he should have a steamer on the coast, where there are numerous inlets and mouths of rivers, which, in the discharge of his duties to the colony, the Governor may desire to visit.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: As a point of order merely, I would ask you, Sir, whether when you put the Vote just now (which you state that we should be at liberty to go through item by item) if I should have chanced to catch your eye, I should

  1457
  have been entitled to proceed with the South African part of the subject straight away?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; but when an hon. Member has given notice of an Amendment to a particular item, it is convenient, I think, to call on him first.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Now that we have arrived so near the time for closing discussion, I think I can hardly be expected to open a new subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: May I ask what takes place at 9 o'clock?
  MR. JACKSON: It is intended to proceed with this Vote in Committee of Supply.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.

KEW AND PETERSHAM VICARAGE BILL.—(No. 229.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. TANNER: I do not like to interfere in the discussion of a Bill with which I have little acquaintance: but it is possible that the Bill deals with a matter of too much importance to be passed over in silence. It has been sometimes the practice to introduce in these brief moments before the suspension of business a Bill to carry out some clerical or other job, and to move a Second Reading by a simple nod. Whenever this occurs and I have the opportunity, I feel it my duty to request some explanation, and I hope an explanation may be forthcoming in this case. It has been suggested to me in an informal way that the Bill is to provide for the division of an overgrown parish into two; but whether that is so or not, I think some explanation is due to us. I feel a natural
  1458
  objection to these Bills of an ecclesiastical character, for, generally speaking, they result in providing a sinecure for somebody. Perhaps at 9 o'clock some Member of the Government will be able to give us an explanation of the Bill.
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this day.

COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 15.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL. (No. 140.)
Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Johnston.)
DR. TANNER: I object.
*MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in objecting to a Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and is designed to do justice to a number of deserving public servants in Ireland, many of whom are Roman Catholics. The Bill has the approval of both sides of the House. It formerly went up to the House of Lords, and was only dropped by inadvertence.
MR. SEXTON: I am informed that there are several points in the Bill that require further time for consideration.
Committee deferred to Monday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Mr. Wharton from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Tapling.
Sir JOHN MOWBRAY further reported: That they had added Mr. Lawson to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill.

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
(9.0.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. PICTON: This evening gives us an opportunity of which we may well avail ourselves, to——
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. PICTON: I wish to bring before the House a grievance which is acutely felt by my constituents, namely, the effects of the Vaccination Laws in relation to the working of the Education Code in Leicester. It is well-known that Leicester has led the way in resisting the law of vaccination, 'a question on which, as we know, a Royal Commission is sitting. Comparatively few of the inhabitants have been vaccinated, and last year only 101 children or persons in the town underwent the operation. One result is that the School Board of Leicester experience great difficulty in obtaining in the town young persons as pupil teachers who have been vaccinated; and as the Education Department refuse to consent to the engagement of those who cannot produce a certificate of vaccination, the Board have been obliged either to employ incompetent parsons or to seek for others beyond the town. I should like to point out the extreme hardship of this. In the first place, the choice of the School Board is unduly limited; and, in the second place, it is most undesirable to have to select candidates whose parents live away from the town. A good deal of strong feeling exists on this matter in the constituency. The question is, have the Education Department any right to insist on the production of certificates of vaccination? The Code does not say that the candidate shall produce such a certificate; it only says that a certificate of health shall be forthcoming. Therefore, I do not think the Department is justified in insisting on having certificates of vaccination. In places where smallpox is rife, such a certificate might be necessary as a preventive, but Leicester is not in that position. For 18 years there has been
1460
no epidemic of the kind there, and in such circumstances it is very hard that the Department should forbid the School Board acting in accordance with the convictions of nine-tenths of the inhabitants. All I ask is that an exceptional case should be met by some exceptional leniency and indulgence, and that some consideration should be shown for the views of the population of Leicester. Unless that is done, the School Board will continue to have but a small choice, and they may be driven to cease appointing pupil teachers altogether. I trust that the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education will give me an intimation that some concession will be made in this matter.
MR. JAMES ELLIS: I had no idea that this question would be brought on tonight; but I can assure the House that it is a very important matter, so far as Leicester is concerned. As Chairman of the School Board there, I hold that the young ladies appointed as pupil teachers should have their homes in the town, and I think it is a very serious thing to bring a girl from a long distance and plant her in lodgings. If this rule is enforced by the Department it will certainly end in our ceasing to employ female pupil teachers altogether. Such conduct as this on the part of the Department will only strengthen the opposition to vaccination. Personally, I am not against vaccination; I have had my own children vaccinated, but I am sure you will not gain your end by attempting to force people to have their children vaccinated by public vaccinators. I am very confident also the Department ought not to interfere with the appointments of the Leicester School Board as they are doing.
MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I wish to bring forth a matter, the facts as to which are very brief. It is as to a charge made against Mr. Percy Magan, a Justice of the Peace, of fraud under the Arrears Act, he being accused of having received his full rent from a certain tenant named Power, and of having made a declaration by which he obtained a grant to which he was not entitled. I have asked several questions in reference to this matter, and before Easter I produced a document purporting to show that at the time of the application

1461
to the Court the tenant (Bernard Clogher) owed two years' rent, whereas he did not owe one farthing. The Attorney General, in reply at the time, said the person referred to in the document was not the one as to whom my question had reference. But there is only one Bernard Clogher whoso rent was £15, and I do not know to whom else the receipt can apply. I want a guarantee that the public money shall not be frittered away on men of the class of Mr. Magan, and I am willing now to lay before the Government further proof of the accuracy of the statement I have made. Of course, if the Government choose, they can screen Mr. Magan, who is one of their strong supporters, a Magistrate, and a member of various Coercive Associations.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The hon. Member has addressed to me several questions in connection with this matter. On the first occasion on which a question was put to me, I made the usual inquiries, and was informed that Mr. Magan, when this charge was first brought against him, wrote to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland requesting that an investigation might be made into the circumstances. The Lord Chancellor declined to order such an inquiry to be instituted on the ground that the matter had occurred in a Department over which he had no control. Mr. Magan then applied to the Land Commissioners, who informed him that while they were quite ready to deal with cases under the Arrears Act, they could not make such an investigation as that for which he asked in the absence of any definite charge. After that the hon. Member sent me a receipt purporting to be for a half-year's rent of a holding by a person of the name of Clogher at a yearly rental of £8 15s., and I promised to inquire into the circumstances of the case. I wrote for and obtained a copy of the affidavits on which the application was founded, and compared it with the receipt; but I found that the two did not correspond, and when it is remembered that the application made to me was that I should direct criminal proceedings in the case because of a wrongful representation as to the amount of rent that was due, I think the House will agree with me that even the most speculative and adventurous
1462
Attorney General who ever occupied the position I now have the honour to hold could not for one moment have entertained the idea of a criminal prosecution in such a case as that. The hon. Member now suggests that the £15 a year was a penal rent. I cannot act on a suggestion of the kind. Without further and much more definite information it would be impossible for me to take any further steps in the matter.
COLONEL NOLAN: I desire to call attention to a matter of considerable importance to Ireland. It is a question which vitally affects the interests of the fishermen generally, but especially those on the Western Coast. It is doubtless in the recollection of the Committee that when Her Majesty's present Ministers came into Office they made certain promises in regard to the question of the Irish fisheries and the harbour accommodation round the Irish Coast. They promised to send a Royal Commission to Ireland, and that promise was fulfilled, a Commission of three gentlemen having been appointed for the purpose. That Commission was instructed to make inquiries into three different subjects, two of which I do not intend to refer to, inasmuch as the Government have already taken some steps in the direction to which they relate; but one of those subjects is that to which I am about to refer. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that this particular matter should be thoroughly investigated, and that if the Report of the Commission were favourable to the proposed establishment of fishery harbours on the Irish Coast action would be taken upon the matter. Well, Sir, the Report of that Commission was favourable to the establishment of fishery harbours, and I should like to hear from Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to take any steps in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, because, unless that is their intention, they will be placing themselves and the House in a false position before the country. Owing to the want of larger and better harbours on the Western Coast great difficulty is experienced in the prosecution of the fishing trade, and the boats which are used by the fishermen are very small and inadequate. If they had better harbours, there is little doubt

1463
that they would get larger boats, which are needed to cope with the great waves of the Atlantic, with which the fishermen have to contend in the pursuit of their hazardous calling. Boats of 40 tons would be sufficient for their purpose, and the fishermen would feel safe in navigating them in the Atlantic Ocean. My object in calling the attention of the Government to this matter is that they should feel the necessity of fulfilling the promise they have made on the subject, and should not allow it to be passed over. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in his place, and I should like to hear from him that the Government intend to redeem the pledge they have made on this most important subject.
MR. WEBB: The subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend has just called attention is one in which the constituency I have the honour to represent is deeply interested. I cannot but regard the question he has raised as one of especial importance to inhabitants of the western portion of Ireland. This harbour question has been before the Irish public for a very long period, and although the Government have always been ready to make promises upon the subject, they have not been so ready to fulfil them. If the desire of the Government is to allay the discontent which undoubtedly prevails, and to concede necessary and just reform, I can hardly imagine any question which is more worthy of their attention than that of the construction of harbours on the South and West Coasts of Ireland. A few years ago my attention was especially directed to the want of harbours on the Coast of Donegal. I happened to be for a time on Tory Island, and, owing to the stress of weather, found it absolutely impossible to get back to the mainland coast, on reaching which I could have reached home by train in the course of some few hours. The con-sequence was that we had to take a steamer which conveyed us round the coast to Liverpool, whence we had to proceed to Holyhead and so cross to Dublin by steamer. I only mention this as an illustration of the want of harbours on the Western Coast. The people along that coast use a very imperfect class of boats, those known as coracles,
1464
which are of insufficient size and construction, and which, in bad weather the people were unable to use at all. If they had bettor harbours, doubtless they would have a better description of boats, and would be enabled to prosecute their fishing enterprise under much more favourable circumstances than at present.
SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): Before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury answers the questions put to him by my hon. Friend, I desire to call attention to another matter which, I think, is germane to the question of Supply. I refer to the way in which two most important Votes have been lumped together by the Government, the result being to cause extreme confusion in the discussion of the subjects to which they severally relate. I refer especially to the case of the Votes of the Diplomatic and Consular Service as one of enormous importance, embracing the whole of the relations of the British Empire with the rest of the world, and the same observation may be made with regard to the Consular Vote, which affects the commercial relations of this country with every part of the globe. These two important subjects have hitherto constituted separate Votes, but the Government have thought fit, contrary to precedent, and without consulting the House upon the subject, to put the two Votes together, and they also propose to take the Colonial and South African Vote in the same way as one proposal. I may remind the House that last year a pledge was given by the Government that the Diplomatic and Consular Votes should be brought before the House in an earlier period in the Session than hitherto, so that there might be better opportunity of discussing the subjects to which they relate. The Government have; fulfilled that promise to the ear, but I very much doubt whether they have fulfilled it to the hope, because they were put down for the day immediately preceding the recent holidays. Everybody knows that it is unusual to bring forward important Votes immediately before and after the holidays. The Government, when questioned upon the subject, refused to inform us what they were going to put down for discussion on the days nearest to the holiday recess.

1465
They said we should see their proposals on the Papers. Of course, hon Members might see the Papers if they chose to give up a portion of their holiday, but I did not see the Papers, and I understand that the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs went away under the impression that the Diplomatic and Consular Votes were not to be taken until the House should have a fair opportunity of considering them. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary shakes his head. I suppose he means by that that no such pledge was given. But, at any rate, that was the understanding on the part of the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the result was that many hon. Members who would have liked to bring forward important subjects connected with those Votes, were deprived of their opportunity of discussing those matters. The consequence was, that the Diplomatic and Consular Votes, having been lumped together in the way I have described, were brought before an empty and languid House the first day before the holidays without notice having been given to hon. Members that they were to be so taken. The result was anything but a happy one, either for the House or for the Government, because the questions arising upon these Votes were only half discussed, and the hour arrived at which it was necessary to suspend the discussion. The Government have to-day followed a most deviating and uncertain course in regard to the proceedings in Supply. There was no definite intimation this morning that Supply would be taken. The whole Civil Service Estimates were put down with the hope, I suppose, of running them through. I do not think this is a fair way of treating the House. Then Members who were interested in the Allotments Bill complained that it was sprung upon them in an unfair way, and it was postponed. The result was that if a discussion had not arisen on the question of Electoral Liabilities, the chances are that many of us who are interested in colonial questions would have found the Votes on which we wished to speak passed. This evening we find that the Movers of Amendments have run away, and consequently the Government are trying to get into Committee of Supply. One would have thought that
1466
the colonies might have had a Vote to themselves, and that the great subject of Africa might also have had a Vote. Her Majesty's Government have, however, thought fit to lump together the Colonies and South Africa, and I very much doubt whether we shall have the opportunity of discussing the subjects we wish to raise. If we do discuss them we shall all have the terror of the Closure hanging over us. The lumping of these Votes together is really an abuse of the power of the Government, and is not fair treatment.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I quite agree with the hon. Member as to the extraordinary way in which the Government have jockeyed the Committee in connection with these Votes, and more especially with regard to the Consular and Diplomatic Service Vote. I will take this opportunity of drawing attention to the condition of a people in whom perhaps the British public do not take a very great interest just now—the people of Samoa. I think the condition at which Samoan affairs have arrived gives me a good right to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the policy of this country in relation to the Samoan Islands. The idea in Samoa to-day is that the British Government and the British officials in Samoa are determined to back up the policy of Germany in that part of the world. It is believed that the British officials in Samoa and all over the South Pacific have received instructions from home to do nothing except what the Representatives of the German Empire desire to be done. I do not know whether hon. Members remember what took place not so very long ago in Samoa, and led to the appointment of the Commission which has recently terminated its labours with about the same amount of success as generally seems to attend the labours of such august bodies. It is the old story of land-grabbing—that extraordinary craze for robbing weaker people which seems nowadays to have received an additional impetus in Europe, and which seems to prevail with particular vigour in connection with the foreign policy of the German Empire. The Germans went to Samoa some years ago. They began, I believe, by carrying out missionaries to the natives, and they

1467
finished by robbing the people of their land. That is the general result from the importation of civilisation in these countries, and the Germans succeed in this as well as other people have succeeded. They robbed the Samoans of the land, obtaining it from the chiefs under all sorts of frivolous and ridiculous pretexts. The chief's gave these German gentry the right to cultivate the land, and the Germans looked upon that as giving them the fee-simple, which the chiefs, as a matter of fact, had no right to give. The Germans occupied the land and commenced to establish a hard-and-fast system of despotism, and, in the end, the natives found themselves driven in desperation to take up arms against the "German Colonists," as they called themselves, but as they really were, invaders. They came to hostilities, and Mataafa, one of the chiefs, defeated the Germans—these great German soldiers had to turn tail from native warriors armed only with old guns and primitive spears. After their victory the natives acted with their usual kindliness, and instead of exterminating the colonists allowed them to live there quietly. Their reward was the sanding of a German fleet to shell their villages, but then the Americans intervened. The natives relied on the protection of England, but the English, of course, did not want to interfere with the Germans' little game, and would not give the natives any assistance. However, as I say, the Americans came to the assistance of the people of Samoa, and things were peacefully righted, greatly to the credit of the United States. What I should like to know from Her Majesty's Government is, What is the policy they intend to pursue in regard to the Samoan Islands—what instructions have they given to the High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, and what instructions the British Consul in the Samoan Islands has received? Are your Representatives in that part of the world to follow the dictates of the German Government—because it seems to me to be generally admitted nowadays that England has to play second fiddle to the Germans. From my general study of the Samoan question, I think the interests of humanity requires that England, if she plays second fiddle to anybody in Samoa, should
1468
play second fiddle to the Americans, and not the Germans. The people of this country are very anxious to put slavery down in Africa, and perhaps the House will be surprised to learn that at this very moment there exists in Samoa quite as evil a system of slavery—though perhaps not on so large a scale—as anything to be found in Africa. On one island there are no fewer than 4,000 slaves, and I believe that on the other islands, where there are large cocoanut plantations, there are also large numbers of slaves. Now, we have voted money to put down slavery in Africa, and I should very much like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have given support to the Germans in their slave-owning operations in Samoa. In the Southern Pacific there are schooners carrying the German flag going to the different islands, inducing tile natives to go on board, and, then, on various pretexts and with the connivance of the chiefs, putting the natives in the hold and sailing away with them to the plantations to work as slaves. I have been on board these slave schooners, and have seen where the slaves are manacled, and kept in chains until landed at the plantations. It is monstrous that, for some political or diplomatic reason, this country should shut its eyes to a condition of things so bad as this in the South Sea Islands, when it is perfectly-able to prevent it—or, at any rate, to alleviate the condition of these kidnapped natives. I am not particularly' interested just now in the extension of the British Empire, but though, while the present condition of things prevailing between England and Ireland exists, I am no Imperialist and certainly no jingo, I must say I think it would be preferable to have the Samoans under the protectors-hip of England than under that of Germany. The natives hate the Germans, and the treatment they have received from the Germans justifies their dislike. Most of the natives would be quite ready and willing to be protected by the British flag, and it is for Her Majesty's Government to consider whether their secret or open obligations towards the German Government will allow them to interfere to prevent the system of land grabbing that is going on all over the Southern and Western

1469
Pacific by the Germans. In Australia there is growing up a very strong feeling indeed against this German encroachment, and if the Germans are allowed to continue in their present course, it will end in a state of feeling in Australia and New Zealand which will certainly not conduce to the welfare of the British Empire in this part of the world. If I were an Englishman I would certainly urge Her Majesty's Government to consult the wishes of the colonists in these matters, and to take measures to prevent the Germans from occupying these islands, seeing that the Australians and New Zealanders regard such an occupation as a standing menace to their progress and development. This is, perhaps, not the time to make any appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to protect the Samoans against the treatment to which they have been subjected by the Germans. But I do think that even from an ordinary feeling of humanity the House ought to express a desire that an end should be put to this system of slavery and persecution in the Southern Pacific which I have described.
MR. JACKSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) raised a very interesting question in which I know he takes considerable interest, and he was supported in his observations by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. A. Webb). All I wish to say on the general question of harbours is this, that so far as I can judge of them, from my own personal observations and from what I have read in the papers, a considerable amount of that which has been expended in this direction in the past has not been wisely expended. It is, however, well to bear in mind that on this matter, the Board of Works and those who have been responsible for deciding what work should be done have been proceeding by steps. Though fishing by the use of large boats is impractic able in many instances where those small piers have been built because of inaccessibility at certain states of tide, at the same time it is well to remember that these small piers do answer for ordinary purposes. The money, therefore, has not been entirely thrown away. So far as I can judge, if fishing is to be carried on successfully in this part of Ireland, it can only be by large boats; for these
1470
access must be given to the harbours. I was much gratified to find in what a workmanlike manner the fishing industry is carried on at those places where facilities have been given for the use of large boats, and I should be much more hopeful of the future of this industry at such points than at the points to which reference has been made. As the House knows, there is to be a large expenditure on railways in Ireland, and such an expenditure is a preliminary to the improvements of the fishing industry, as there has always been a want of means to carry the fish caught to market. The Government are endeavouring to deal with that want, and I think it would be desirable to wait and see the effect of connecting the existing harbours with inland districts by direct lines of rail before extending the system of harbours. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy emptied the vials of his wrath on the Government for having made certain changes in the Estimates this year, and he complained that the opportunities for discussing the Votes have been contracted. Well, I confess the impression left in my mind by the hon. Member's speech was, that whilst he complained of want of opportunity, there was nothing more distasteful to him than to take the opportunities when they came. To-night the House has had an opportunity of discussing the Estimates, and yet the hon. Baronet does not seem to care to avail himself of it.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am quite ready.
MR. JACKSON: I am glad of that, because the Government has been waiting for some time; and I, therefore, appeal to the House that we may now be allowed to go into Committee of Supply, and really make some substantial progress.
*CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to call attention to a grievance from which the inhabitants of the Isle of Anglesey suffer. There is an old Act of Edward VI. which prevents the holding of Quarter Sessions in any town in Anglesey except the ancient town of Beaumaris. Great inconvenience is the result. The County Council and the Quarter Sessions have unanimously appealed to the Government for assistance in placing Anglesey on the same footing as other counties in regard to Quarter Sessions, to enable the Home Office to name some other town for Quarter Sessions if thought desirable. The Grand Jury have, again and again,

1471
unanimously requested that this old Act, the reading of which would throw the House into fits of laughter, may be repealed, and the county would experience great satisfaction if the First Lord of the Treasury would give us an assurance that, if the hon. Member for Anglesey brings in a Bill to repeal this ridiculous old Act, the Government would offer no opposition, but give facilities for its passing.
DR. FITZGERALD: I am very astonished my hon. Friend (Sir T. Esmonde) has received no reply upon the important question he brought before the House. In past times we have protected you from the encroachments of other Powers. We hear a good deal about the integrity of the Empire, but it would appear, from the silence of the Government to-night, that even now we, the Irish Members, have more care for the integrity of the British Empire than you yourselves, I am bound to say that if you would only settle our little difficulties in Ireland we are prepared, oven at the eleventh hour, to protect you from Germany and such other powers. But I have a little grievance left, and I regret very much that the learned Attorney General for Ireland is not in his place, because I would like him to assist me in putting an end to an abominable outrage that has been committed in Ireland, in the name of the law, upon dumb animals, who have no power to protect themselves. In times gone by we heard about outrages which were committed in Ireland by foolish and misguided men upon the tails of animals. I am going to bring before the House the question of an outrage which has been committed, and which is being committed in Ireland every day, under the very noses of the police, upon the heads of animals. The other day the Attorney General for Ireland told me that the hideous operation which is called dishorning of cattle is illegal in England, that someone was prosecuted before the High Court of Ireland, and that the operation was also proved to be illegal in Ireland. Some other Court has decided in another case that the operation is not, after all, illegal, and the Attorney General said he has given instructions to the police to bring another case into Court in order that the matter may be decided. If the Attorney
1472
General had taken me into his confidence I could have taken him to a place half-a-mile from a police station in Ireland where he could find the mangled skulls of 160 cattle. Apparently the police have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they cannot find a case in the whole of Ireland to bring before the Courts. It is thought by many that the operation of dishorning beasts is simply cutting off the horns. It is nothing of the kind. I determined to be present at an operation, and some time ago I was present. I saw a two year old bullock tied up by head, tail, and legs, and held down by six men. Three of the men, who had previous to the operation been cleaning out a cesspool, and who looked like men who would have had no fear in going to the lower regions if they had had. one or two more glasses of whisky—they had had three or four glasses of whisky before the operation—recoiled from their operation, left the operator in the lurch, and went back to their work, which no one will admit is pleasant work. The unfortunate animal's howls were like the howls which are said to proceed from a place which I will not describe. It wriggled in every muscle, and the two men who remained demanded that the operator should cease, in what one of them described as his bloody work. I will one day place in the library the horns that were taken from this unfortunate animal, and I think any hon. Member who will examine them will satisfy himself that, although cattle Were given to us for our use, they were not given to us to torture them. I think any hon. Member who has a particle of humanity in his heart will join me in demanding that the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland shall instruct their police to desist, at least for a time, from political operations, and take a walk into the country lanes, where they will find hundreds of animals being tortured in the way I have described.
MR. WADDY: There is a matter which I am very anxious to take this opportunity of mentioning. Next year we are to have a Census, and it has been suggested that we should repeat the experiment which was made for the last time in the year 1851, when a Religious Census was taken. It seems to me impossible to get from the Government any definite statement

1473
of their views on the matter. I know well what are the arguments pro and cow as to a Religious Census, and anyone who has studied the Report made in 1851 by Mr. Horace Mann will admit that a more judicial paper than that it would perhaps be difficult, if not impossible, to draw up. I do not propose to argue the question of the desirability or undesirability of taking a Religious Census: my anxiety, and the anxiety of many people in the country, at present, is to know whether the Government propose to take any such Census or not, and if it is so proposed to know what is the mode to be adopted. There are two modes in which a Religious Census may be taken. It is suggested, on the one hand, that the proper course would be simply to go round to people's houses, and at the time that you take down the names and addresses, ages, sexes, and so forth, take down the people's own statement of what they themselves believe, if they believe anything. To that there is a strong objection. Assuming, for a moment, that a Religious Census is desirable, as to which I express no opinion, we should endeavour first to ascertain the relative; strength of the different religious denominations, and what, in my opinion, is far more important, the strength of the whole combined. It is notorious that there are at this moment in the country a large number of persons who do not in reality profess to have any religion at all. No doubt, if we went to such people they would say they belong to the Church. In Ireland such people would probably say they belonged to the Catholic Church, and in Scotland they would most likely say they belonged to the Church which is the Established Church for all practical purposes of that country. But we do not care for the purpose of ascertaining the truth what people choose to call themselves in order to get rid of the question when put by an investigator. The question, if it is to be settled at all, should be settled on the principle of ascertaining what the people are, and not merely what they say they are. I, therefore, wish to point out to the Government that there is only one way in which we can arrive at an approximate result. I do not say that even by it we shall arrive at the truth, because we never can tell whether a man's
1474
professions are hypocrisy or truth; but the system adopted in 1851 was that of ascertaining how many persons really do attend at the churches, chapels, or meeting-houses of the various denominations throughout the land. The result of that system was to ascertain, at all events, those who not merely had the desire to call themselves something, but the number of those who had attached themselves to some definite form of worship. If a Religious Census is to be taken, it is of the greatest importance that it should be taken on the principle and in the manner adopted in 1851. I know very well what was the argument used when results appeared which had not been expected. One right rev. prelate said that the result had been an unfair one in regard to one particular church, because the Sunday was wet. How far that affected the peculiar religious views of one church more than another I am not able to say, but I think we may take it for granted that rain is as potent a liquifier for one denomination as for another, and they must all take their chance. If you were to take the Census in the way I first mentioned it would simply be a delusive and misleading operation. If, on the other hand, you take it in the way I advocate, I do not say it will be accurate, because you never can get it accurate, but it will, at all events, represent the true state of facts with regard to the number of persons who are worshippers at particular places of worship throughout the land. I have endeavoured to avoid saying one word which would appear to be of a party or sectarian spirit, and I would most earnestly urge on Her Majesty's Government that they should not allow this operation to be made the means of misleading the country with regard to the actual total number of persons professing to belong to any particular church or denomination; and that they should not allow themselves in any way to be made the instruments af any partisan feeling which may lead to the misrepresentation of the strength of one Church to the disparagement of any other.
MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, I invite him to present the Bill to which he has referred to the consideration of the House when it will certainly receive the res-

1475
pectful consideration of the Government. As to the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy), I assure him that I am entirely ignorant of the intentions which have been ascribed to the Government in relation to the Census. A Bill dealing with the question, will, however, be presented to the consideration of the House, and it will be for the House itself to determine on what principle the Census will be taken. There is no desire on the part of the Government to take any unfair advantage of any religious body. I would now make another appeal to hon. Members to allow the Government to proceed to business. The House is aware that progress is required with the Estimates. We are most anxious to make progress with Supply, and we had every reason to believe that we might do so this evening.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I am very sorry I cannot yield to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is one matter which I wish to bring under the attention of the Government, and which I cannot refer to on the Estimates. We, in Scotland, are constantly complaining that we have no access to the Secretary for Scotland, but I hope my appeal will not fall on dull years, so long as the First Lord of the Treasury is in his place. Last year, when we were discussing Local Government in Scotland, we directed the attention of the Government to the exceptional condition of laud tenure in the North East of Scotland in regard to fishermen's dwellings. Her Majesty's Government then undertook that the matter should receive their consideration this Session, though they were unable to say that anything would be done this Session. I am hopeful, however, now that such great progress has been made with the general business of the House, that some opportunity may be given for the discussion of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in reply to a question I recently addressed to him, said he was unable to make any statement with regard to a certain case which is sub judice; but I think there can be no objection to my calling attention to that case as an illustration. It is one in which a fisherman has built, on the ordinary tenure on the North-East coast,
1476
property to the value of £280. The tenure is extremely doubtful, and it has been held generally, I think, in the Scotch Courts that the ground landlord is entitled to turn out the occupier at his pleasure by giving an intimation of ejectment. An intimation of ejectment has been given in the case of this poor man, and, as far as we can see at present, he will be deprived of his property. I only call attention to the case as an illustration; but I may say that we cannot be responsible for what will occur if ejectments of this kind take place. The Government have given us to understand that the question of the tenure of fishermen's dwellings will be dealt with, and there is a rapidly extending feeling that these people are being neglected. If ejectments take place, it will probably be necessary to send gunboats. The people are beginning to think that without an agitation they will get no relief. I hope that now that I have again had the opportunity of bringing this matter forward, a matter which is indeed of pressing importance, that it will receive some attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I have felt it my duty to bring the matter forward even though to the delay of business, with which the Government are anxious to proceed; and I think the nature of the grievance, in which hundreds of industrious, quiet, law-abiding men are concerned, justifies me in availing myself of this opsportunity.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROERTSON,): The hon. Member has referred to one particular case which he has also pressed upon my attention within the last few weeks, and as to which I then informed him that I considered myself precluded from making reply while judicial proceedings were going on. I am not aware that the bar against present discussion has been removed by any judicial decision, and, accordingly, I abstain from any discussion of that particular case. The hon. Member has said that there are a number of occupiers on the North-East coast of Scotland who ought to have a more fixed tenure than they at present possess; and my impression on this subject may be expressed in a very few words, and will absolve the Government from any further undertaking in the

1477
matter. I agree with the hon. Member in thinking that it is most desirable that the fishermen resident on the North-East coast of Scotland should have as permanent a tenure of their holdings as is consistent with existing engagements on their part. The hon. Member suggests that legislation is necessary; but that I doubt, according to the information I at present possess. I find, on investigation into circumstances that have been referred to by the hon. Member and others, that upon a number of the larger properties on the North-East coast of Scotland, where fishermen are resident in large numbers, opportunities have been offered to the tenants by proprietors for obtaining titles of permanence, either by long leases or by feus which are of a most complete character. The hon. Member demurs to that statement; but I must adhere to it in regard to some of the large estates——
*MR. ESSLEMONT: Some.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, some. We must take things by steps. Hon. Members must accept that method of argumentation. On some of the largo estates where these opportunities were offered there was not that alacrity to take long titles which might have been expected from the representations made.
*MR. ESSLEMONT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I agree with him to this extent; that although on some of the properties this opportunity has been given, these fishermen have invariably said that the conditions laid down by the proprietors who offered these opportunities were such as they found impossible to accept. But even if the right hon. Gentleman were right and some offers were made, why should these men, tied to a particular harbour by the nature of their employment, be compelled to have no tenure at all or take the inequitable conditions proposed to them?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I will leave to the judgment of the House whether this is a proper interruption—interposing with an argument in the midst of my reply to the speech the hon. Gentleman has made. The hon. Gentleman assumes in his interpellation that the conditions were inequitable, but I say they were not. We are at variance, but I shall be prepared to make good my contention in a discussion of these proposals.
1478
I challenge the hon. Gentleman to point out one of the conditions having the character he ascribes to them. Accordingly, I say his case must fail; there is no case for legislative interference, so long as the offers of permanent title, unaccompanied by inequitable conditions, were made to these fishermen who declined to avail themselves of such offers. But I do not dwell upon that and for this reason: I think it is desirable both in the interests of landlords and tenants that there should be a title, and I hope that a conference in a more amicable spirit than is suggested by a Parliamentary discussion of the present nature may take place, and that some terms may be arranged between landlord and tenant. I am not aware that any attempt has been made to discuss the matter on that footing, and I rather think too much alacrity has been shown to change the venue to Westminster, and to treat this as a Parliamentary matter, unaccompained by that information as to local requirements and local opinion which ought to be the foundation of any application to Parliament. I do not wish to treat the matter in any arbitrary or imperative sense. I recognise the desirableness of removing the difficulty; but it is more a matter for amicable solution than Parliamentary debate. Nor do I think we advance matters much by continuing a discussion brought on in this impromptu way. The hon. Member has referred to some other topics in relation to harbours, upon which I do not feel called upon to reply, as they do not concern the Department for which I am specially responsible.
MR. CALDWELL: I do not think the First Lord has any just cause for complaint if Members take up time on this a Friday night, which is usually devoted to subjects in which private Members are interested. By a mere accident those Members who have notices on the Paper are not ready to bring them forward, and so the time is not occupied in the usual way. We are not, however, taking up Government time, but private Members' time. There is a subject which, I think, is of more interest than any other set down for any Tuesday or Friday discussion, which I will take the opportunity to mention, though I would not do so if I had an assurance that Class

1479
VII. of the Civil Service Estimates would be reached within the next fortnight. There is a special reason for referring to the Western Highlands and Islands Commission. It is a matter which was referred to in the Queen's Speech, and is of very considerable importance to the Western Highlands.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the subject of a Motion, notice of which is on the Paper for Committee. The hon. Member cannot bring it on now.
MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
(11.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
Question put accordingly.
(11.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £128,920 (including an additional sum of £30,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for sundry Colonial Services, including expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act. 1875,' and certain Charges connected with South Africa."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I must say I doubt the expediency of the First Lord of the Treasury closuring us at half-past 11 on a private Members' night. I am, however, ready and willing to go on with this Vote. I desire to move a reduction of £5,000. This Vote is the result of an agreement between the Government and Queensland with regard to New Guinea, and I object altogether to the arrangement by which Now Guinea is placed under the administration of Queensland. It has been annexed under pressure from Queensland; but, having been annexed, it ought to be administered by the Home Government, and we ought not to allow ourselves to be used as a cats paw to enable Queensland to carry on certain industries there. The Queensland Government, in a rough and overbearing manner, insisted on the annexation of New Guinea. I remember
1480
an eloquent passage in a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in which he denounced the handing over of the population to a Colonial Administration, yet that is what we are now doing. In 1885, after the death of Sir Peter Scratchley, the Government did not appoint an independent administrator. They selected a gentleman whose conduct has since been condemned by the Queensland Government. This gentleman proclaimed that British New Guinea, being an appanage of Australia, was destined ultimately for the white race. That meant, of course, that the natives are to be turned out to make room for the whites. In the last Blue Book (page 629) we are told that Sir Anthony Musgrave stated that the incursion into New Guinea of prospectors for gold had been unwisely encouraged under the régime of the late Commissioner. I admit that the Government have now appointed a better qualified administrator. Sir W. Macgregor, who is perhaps more fitted to be an explorer and naturalist than an administrator, is, at any rate, a fair and honest man. But his administration is altogether starved, the sum set apart for it being very inadequate. This is the result of the contemptible bargain made by the Government with Queensland. For £15,000 a year, guaranteed by the colony for the cost of administration, New Guinea is made subject to Queensland. Sir W. Macgregor found it impossible to keep out of New Guinea prospectors and settlers, and I am afraid he has been obliged to punish the natives for offences which the white people have provoked by their unjustifiable acts. I deliberately say that Queensland ought not to be intrusted with the control of dark races. I am sorry the Member for East Mayo is not present. Only yesterday he denounced the usage to which the dark races have been subject during the last few years. In the Blue Book there is ample proof that many of the people of New Guinea have been kidnapped and unfairly treated. According to the Report of the private secretary of the late Sir Peter Scratchley, the offences committed by the blacks are attributable to the direct and aggressive provocation of the whites. The latest Blue Book that has been issued on this question contains an official Report which is dated 1887, and

1481
states that the hostilities that have occurred in New Guinea have been provoked by the white man himself, and that every native in the service of the white man has been either kidnapped or has been entrapped into the service by false statements. I am free to admit that measures have now been taken to put a stop to this objectionable traffic. But we have the most conclusive evidence that in the years 1885, 1886, and 1887, an unjustifiable traffic was being carried on by the people of Queensland against the people of New Guinea. I believe the traffic will be put an end to altogether in the year 1891, and that already a great improvement of affairs has been secured. It was our own Special Commissioner who said that, directly or indirectly, provocation has come from our side. As we have been induced to annex New Guinea we are responsible for the protection of the natives against injustice from our own colonists. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, which is our contribution towards this New Guinea steamer.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B, £5,000 (New Guinea Steamer) be omitted from the Vote."—(Sir George Campbell.)
BARON H. DE WORMS: Sir, I think the Committee will agree with me that the hon. Member who has just addressed the House at such length has not urged any reason at all for the reduction of the Vote which he has just moved. The hon. Gentleman went into a very long, and, if I may be allowed to say so, a somewhat discursive and irrelevant argument as to what happened in New Guinea some years back; but as the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Administration of New Guinea at the present time, logically, I think, he ought to have made out a case against the present Administration.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I quoted from the latest Blue Books presented to Parliament.
BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Gentleman, in his rhetorical efforts, showed that he had not thoroughly mastered the details of the case, for he spoke of the action taken against a civilised population.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Comparatively civilised.
BARON H. DE WORMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large proportion of the natives are cannibals? Of course, if the hon. Gentleman entertains the view that cannibals are comparatively civilised, all I can say is, it is a view with which I cannot agree. Under the administration of Her Majesty's Government the natives are becoming civilised; and here I must enter a protest, on behalf of Queensland, against the extreme and unwarranted attack made by the hon. Member upon the colonists, not for the first time. The hon. Member proposes that we should break deliberately the contract which we entered into with the colonists on the occasion of the Colonial Conference three years ago. At that Conference Her Majesty's Government gave a pledge to provide a steamer for the New Guinea Government, and also £3,500 a year with respect to it. If the hon. Member objects to this sum of £5,000 on the ground that New Guinea is being badly administered he is misinformed. It is not badly administered, and never has been so well administered as now; it is impossible to have a better and more able Administrator than Sir William Macgregor. If the hon. Member objects on financial grounds he shows that he has not mastered the subject. The original estimate was £18,500, and only £15,132 has been expended, so that the sum of £3,368 has been saved on the purchase money, and in three years only £1,500 will have been spent on maintenance more than was contemplated. I do not see what possible ground the hon. Member has for urging the reduction of this Vote. He has not made one specific charge, but has contented himself with reading extracts, dating from 1886 and 1887, out of the Blue Book. With regard to the present administration of the island the hon. Member is not able to put his finger upon one blot. Nor is the hon. Member quite correct with regard to the administration of the island. He wished the Committee to suppose that the administration rested entirely with Queensland. That is not the fact. Under the existing administration, dating from July, 1888,

1483
the Administrator reports to the Governor of Queensland on the general question of administration, but the appointment and dismissal of the Administrator rests solely with Her Majesty's Government, and if the Administrator had been inefficient, or guilty of cruelty to the natives, Her Majesty's Government would immediately have dismissed or suspended him.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Was Sir John Douglas dismissed?
*BARON H. DE WORMS: That was before New Guinea was taken over. With regard to the protection of the natives that is specially provided for. If the hon. Member had looked at the Letters Patent he would have seen that their protection is specially mentioned in Sections 12 and 13. I maintain that the hon. Member has not made out the shadow of a case for the reduction of the Vote.
MR. A. WILLIAMS: Sir, I now move to report Progress, and I make the Motion because I think, without being unreasonable, we have a right to make this protest. This is the only occasion, probably, we shall have for a very long time of bringing forward grievances, and I think it unreasonable that the Government have not allowed us to have our talk out to-night. I do not wish to put it higher than that; but there are grounds for putting it very much higher. Mr. Courtney, we all know that with the conduct of the business of this House, there is a good deal of talk. [Ministerial cheers.] It is all very well to—I was going to say jeer, but to cheer. In the conduct of the business of the House, however, there must be forbearance, and it is not unreasonable that, on an occasion like this, Her Majesty's Government should be expected to forbear from preventing the discussion of public grievances. I do think we ought to protest against being shut up in the way we have been shut up to-night. I myself, in consequence of an answer given by the Postmaster General, felt it my duty to give notice that I would take the first opportunity of asking the House to affirm the undoubted right of the Civil servants to discuss their grievances, free from official intimidation or interference. Though I will do my best,
1484
the probability is I shall never have a chance of bringing that Motion forward, and to-night is probably the only opportunity I could have had of doing what I believe to be my duty. That is an illustration of the reason why we ought to protest against the way in which the Government determined, at 11 o'clock, to go into Committee. I do protest against the unreasonable way in which these discussions have been stopped by the Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)
MR. JACKSON: With great deference to the hon. Gentleman, I think he will see on reflection that he ought not to press his Motion. The grievances to which references have been made have been long known, and if they are so urgent how is it that not a single notice is put down on the Paper with regard to any one of them? The grievance to which the hon. Member refers is one which can be discussed on one of the Votes which is down on the Paper for to-night. The opportunity he wishes is not, therefore, lost to him.
MR. PICTON: I think the hon. Gentleman is scarcely fair to the hon. Member. There were two notices of Motion on the Paper, and it was quite inconceivable that any further Motions could be discussed. Their disappearance was quite unexpected by all, but it gave us an opportunity, rightly and properly, to bring forward grievances that had failed to obtain a place on the Paper. I challenge the Government to bring forward any precedent for the course that has been pursued to-night. Was ever a case known in which the Government have closured debate on private Members' night? I am sure no such precedent exists, and I am sure we ought to take every means of resisting the innovations on private Members' nights. Why, this is called a Conservative Government, but, so far as this House is concerned, it is the most Revolutionary Government that ever sat on that Bench. There is no tradition of this House sacred to it; none of the liberties of private Members are respected; all it cares to do is to turn

1485
the House into a sort of bureau to record its decisions. It may bring the House to such a sad and degraded condition that we shall not be able to recognise the historical Parliament of which we desire to be Members. I think I have another reason for concurring in this Motion. I think the constituency which I have the honour to represent was treated with considerable discourtesy this evening. As the Representative of 100,000 people, and supported by the Chairman of the School Board, I brought forward a grievance, which, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think of it, is felt very acutely and painfully by the people of my constituency. About the personal aspect of such a slight, I do not care at all, but certainly the constituency which I represent does not deserve it, and I think that a constituency of its size and importance ought not to be treated in such a manner. I consider that I was perfectly justified in bringing forward on their account what to them was a serious grievance, and I protest against the matter being treated so slightingly and scornfully. It is mainly out of regard for the traditions and liberties of this House that I enter into this protest, and express my earnest hope that the matter will be pressed to its uttermost issue.
MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: I do not think it matters very much whether we agree to report Progress or not, but I may say that I recollect having put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the time the Vote was to be taken this Session, and the First Lord then promised that it should be brought forward in sufficient time for its careful consideration. It is quite impossible that there can be adequate discussion on this Vote to-night, and the Government can hardly expect that a question of so much importance as the Colonial Vote can be fairly considered within the limits of three-quarters of an hour. Unless the First Lord is determined upon applying the Closure to this question, I trust he will see the desirability of at once postponing the further consideration of this matter.
MR. CHILDERS: I am bound to say that in
1486
the course of my experience I do not remember an occasion on which a Vote of so much importance as this has been persisted in by the Government at a quarter past 12 o'clock at night on a Friday, against the wish of a large number of Members that opportunity should be given for its further and fuller consideration. In fact, it is a most unusual thing for the Government to propose to take Effective Supply at a late hour on a Friday night, when it is well known a large number of hon. Members have gone away. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will see the propriety of not persisting in the discussion of this Vote at the present moment.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I fully admit that it would not be reasonable on our part to press the House to dispose of the Colonial Vote this evening, but I think that, in as much as the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has moved the reduction of the Vote, it is desirable that we dispose of that Motion, and when it is disposed of the Government will assent to the postponement of the Vote.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I have only one observation to make, and it is this: I think the hon. Gentleman who has moved to report Progress has every reason to make the complaint he has put before the Committee; but I would point out that in making that complaint the hon. Member was treated with very scant courtesy by Her Majesty's Government. In fact, he was absolutely jeered at by those sitting upon the front Bench. I think that when questions of this kind are raised here the very last persons to sneer at and jeer hon. Members who are endeavouring to point out what they regard as real grievances should be the Ministers of the Crown. When right hon. Gentlemen occupying such a position condescend to take this course I think they show, if I may be permitted to use the expression, exceedingly bad taste. They ought rather to invite than to discountenance discussion. At any rate, if they ought not to invite it they certainly ought not to object to it. I think there is every reason for the Motion which has been made to report Progress. Hon. Members on this side of the House have a right, I think, to

1487
complain that the speeches they have made on questions of considerable importance have not received the slightest reply from Ministers of the Crown. My hon. Friend behind me made a very important speech in reference to the administration of affairs belonging to a very important Department of the Government, and no answer whatever has been vouchsafed to the serious charges he has made against those who are in charge of that Department. Other speeches from this side of the House have similarly failed to elicit the least reply from Ministers who are responsible. Under these circumstances, I think it quite right that a strong protest should be made by hon. Members on this side of the House against the course pursued by the Government, especially when we consider they have adopted the unprecedented course of moving the Colonial Vote under the circumstances which have already been the subject of so much comment. The action of the Government involves an undue interference with the rights of private Members, and we cannot therefore allow it to pass without our strenuous protests. On these grounds I shall support the Motion that you, Sir, do report Progress.
(12.25.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 122.—(Div. List, No. 62).
Question again proposed, "That Item B, £5,000 (New Guinea Steamer), be omitted from the Vote."
MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: I regret that on this occasion it is my unhappy fate to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy; but I am bound to say I find it difficult to understand why that hon. Gentleman apparently can never make a speech in this House on Colonial topics, especially on Australia, without making a most unjust attack upon those entrusted by Her Majesty's Government with high offices of Administration.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I may be allowed to say that I have never attacked the Administration of any of our Colonies, except that of Queensland; and the Administration of Queensland, I admit, I have attacked strongly.
*MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: I am in the recollection of the Committee when I say that the hon. Gentleman to-night
1488
attacked, by name, three gentlemen who have been concerned in the Administration of New Guinea; and, I say, that to make attacks of this kind without notice, and without there being a shred of proof of the allegations on which they are founded, is a course which is not fair to gentlemen who undertake the administration of tropical Colonies under circumstances of difficulty, and it is not a course which will commend itself to the judgment of Englishmen.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: To what three gentlemen does the hon. Member refer? I spoke in the highest terms of the three Administrators of New Guinea.
*MR. W. A. McARTHUR: I propose to make a speech, and not to conduct a catechism. I am bound to say I fail to see what connection there is between the question of the general condition of the labour traffic in the Pacific and the Vote for a steamer for New Guinea. But since the hon. Member has attacked the Administration of Queensland as to the labour traffic and its conduct of affairs in New Guinea, I may be allowed to say that the period at which this colony purged itself from the evils of which he complains was not so recent as he imagines. Queensland was not purged by outside influence, but she purged herself as soon as the evils were made known. The cruelties referred to did not take place in Queensland itself, but they occurred upon the labour vessels. When I was at Brisbane, four or five years ago, I saw the report of an investigation into the whole subject. Drastic legislation was then proposed, and it has been since passed, and the perpetrators of cruelties have been punished, and the labourers themselves seem cheerful and contented. It is a matter for congratulation rather than complaint that white settlers and prospectors have gone to New Guinea, and I wish them good luck. The manner in which New Guinea has been annexed is a natural expansion of the British Empire by colonists, who feel that the acquisition of this territory is necessary to themselves and to prevent its being fortified against us.
SIR G. CAMPBELL[Cries of "Divide!"] I would ask the House to allow me a word or two in reply. [Continued cries of "Divide !"] Give me

1489
fair play. Surely it is but decent to allow me to reply. As to what has fallen from the Under Secretary for the Colonies, I must say I was astonished to hear him accuse me of quoting ancient history, seeing that every word I quoted was from the very latest information the Government have vouchsafed to us on the subject of New Guinea. It may be that the Blue Book has not been brought up to date, as it ought to have been, but that is not my fault.
*BARON H DE WORMS: It deals with the period before the annexation.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have endeavoured to master all the information given to me. I have done my very utmost to bring this matter up to date, and it can hardly be made a matter of complaint against me that I have given facts which are the most recent facts communicated to us by Her Majesty's Government. I am glad to find my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall (Mr. McArthur) in accord with me as regards facts; but I think he cannot have listened to my speech, or he certainly would not have accused me of attacking the characters of three successive Administrators. I had nothing but the highest praise for these gentlemen. I did attack Mr. Douglas; but I did so on the authority of Sir A. Musgrave, the Governor of Queensland. As regards what has been said by the Under Secretary, I maintain that, for all practical purposes, the administration of New Guinea is made over to Queensland. The right hon. Gentleman says there are cannibals in the island, in answer to my statement that the mass of the population of New Guinea are comparatively civilised. I could occupy the attention of the House for a long time in reading extracts from the; Blue Book to prove my assertion. No doubt there are some uncivilised people there. There are certainly people in Scotland and Ireland living in hovels, and in a condition approaching to savagery; but I do not think a Minister in any foreign country would be justified in saying on that account that Great Britain is uncivilised. The hon. Member for Cornwall admits that atrocities have been committed, but says that drastic legislation has now been adopted to put a stop to them. I
1490
admitted that. It astonishes me to hear the hon. Member talk about New Guinea being a place for the ultimate overflow of the population of Queensland, a very largo part of which is not inhabited at all. It may be that the British Isles require an overflow which the Australian Colonies are not prepared to give them; but to say that Queensland requires a place for the overflow of her population, is a doctrine that I am content to leave to the judgment of the House. I am free to admit that I have put down this Motion for a reduction in respect of the New Guinea steamer, not because I desire to put down the steamer, but to afford an opportunity for protesting against the doctrines maintained by the hon. Member for Cornwall—who, be it observed, is connected with the Colonies.
SIR T. ESMONDE: We have heard some theories about New Guinea, and we have heard what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has to say, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall has to say. I think there is another version of the matter. Perhaps the House is not aware that the whole of New Guinea has not been annexed. We have annexed a part, and the Germans have annexed the other part. The Australian Colonies got their views as to annexation carried out by the Home Government, because of their objection to have a powerful and armed neighbour next door to them. It would have been possible—if Her Majesty's Government had had the sense to see it—to allow Queensland to annex New Guinea. It would not have cost this country a penny. We should not then have had to send Sir William Macgregor out, and it would not have been necessary to spend this £5,000 on a steamer. The natives of New Guinea are not so civilised as the inhabitants of some other islands near, though, no doubt, they have some very estimable qualities. It is said that they are in process of being civilised—that the Papuans are a sort of semi-civilised cannibals. Some say that they are giving up their cannibalistic practices; but that is hardly borne out by a story I heard not long ago of a German Professor, who was fond of going into the interior of New Guinea for the purpose of collecting

1491
flies and beetles, and so on. On one occasion he went out and never returned. An expedition was sent out by the German Government to discover him, but they heard no tidings of him, until one day a native told them he could take them to a place where they would learn something about him. He accordingly conducted them to some inland place where there was a temple and some gods. They discovered one magnificent god, painted all sorts of colours, and exceedingly beautiful, according to native ideas; and on the end of this god's nose were a pair of blue goggles, which had belonged to the missing Professor. That was all that remained of the celebrated scientist, and that may be taken as an evidence of the civilisation of the place.
Mr. AIRD Mr. AIRD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
*SIR T. ESMONDE: These are the people that Sir W. Macgregor is endeavouring to civilise. Sir William has made some wonderful journeys into the interior of the country, has made some fine surveys, and given some very graphic accounts of his performances; but I am bound to say I do not think New Guinea worthy of the attention of this country. There are other people to whom it would be of more importance, and who would be prepared to subsidise this steamer if the territory were handed over to them. The best policy to adopt would be to hand the island over to Queensland. Let Queensland send over a Governor or Chief Commissioner, and then the First Lord of the Treasury, or whoever represents the Treasury on a Vote of this kind, will not have cause to complain, for nothing will be asked from the Home Government. Whatever expense we have been put to hitherto on account of this island has been due to the extraordinary policy Her Majesty's Government has pursued in making their action subservient to that of Germany. A great mistake was made in not establishing a British protectorate over the island, and in allowing the German Empire to annex part of it.
Mr. AIRD(1.0.) Mr. AIRD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."
House cleared for a Division.
DR. TANNER: Mr. Courtney, I beg to call your attention to the fact that when the Closure was moved it was 1 o'clock. The First Lord of the Treasury, as usual, made a mistake.
THE CHAIRMANnamed Dr. Tanner and Mr. Sheehy as. Tellers for the "Noes."
Members, with the exception of the Government Tellers and Dr. Tanner, having gone into the Lobbies, the Chairman, addressing Dr. Tanner, asked: Where is the other Teller?
DR. TANNER: He's in Limerick. You named Mr. Sheehy.
THE CHAIRMANasked Mr. Akers-Douglas, one of the Government Tellers, to obtain another Teller for the "Noes." Mr. Akers-Douglas left the House, but presently returned, and made a communication to the Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Serjeant, will you bring a Member out of the "No" Lobby to tell?
The Serjeant-at-Arms went to the "No" Lobby and returned with Mr. Waddy.
DR. TANNER: Mr. Waddy is in custody, Sir.
The Division was then proceeded with.
The Numbers were:—Ayes, 120; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 63.)
Question, "That Item B, £5,000 (New Guinea Steamer), be omitted from the Vote," put accordingly, and negatived.
It being after One of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
It being ten minutes after One of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.