HC Deb 14 August 1890 vol 348 cc992-1014

Resolutions [13th August] reported. (See pages 822 to 916).

First Twenty Resolutions agreed to.

Twenty-first Resolution (see page 858) read a second time.

(6.10.) MR. BARTLBY (Islington, N.)

I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Departmental Committee, which has been sitting for four years on some branches of this Service, will be ended, and whether there is any prospect of the clerks being put upon the Second Division, or whether any decision is likely to be come to?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)

I believe the Report will be received this week from the Home Office. It is now under consideration.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions 22, 23, and 24 agreed to.

Resolution 25 (see page 896) read a second time.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

With regard to the lighting of the South Kensington Museum, I understand that the Colonial Society, the Engineers' Society, and other large Societies who hold soirées there, light it at their own expense. What I want to ask is whether the Government will favourably consider the proposition to light the Natural History Museum at night, in order that the people may have further opportunity of seeing the splendid collections which are there displayed? There could be no more useful means of assisting education.

MR. JACKSON

The introduction of the electric light is a matter of experiment. It has been thought advisable to begin with the British Museum, because it is nearer to the masses of the people, and is more easily reached by them than is the Natural History Museum. The same pressure has not as yet been put upon the Trustees to light the Natural History Museum, but experiments will be made with a view to the illumination of the building, should it ultimately be determined upon.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions 26 to 30 agreed to.

Resolution 31 (see page 899) read a second time.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

This Vote was reserved for discussion on Report. It was, to a certain extent, discussed two or three months ago.

MR. JACKSON

For four days.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

The Secretary to the Treasury certainly misleads the House. What happened was this: The Government lumped together two or three large Votes, and South African affairs got not more than a fraction of the four days. There have been considerable events since the Vote for South Africa was last before the House. I gave notice of the reduction of the salary of the High Commissioner, and of the very much larger sum of £110,000 to meet the expenses of the police in Bechuanaland.

(6.20.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

(6.22.) SIR G. CAMPBELL

Sir, £1,000 is given to the High Commissioner by the Cape Government as personal allowance. But it has since been disclosed—and I confess that I never understood it before—that he has £6,000 a year as Governor of the Cape, and £1,000 as personal allowance, and that the Cape Parliament has given him £2,000 a year, not as Cape Governor, but as High Commissioner. I must say I learn that with great astonishment. I cannot conceive why the Cape should pay him £2,000 a year. It seems to me very objectionable indeed that the High Commissioner should not be wholly our servant. That he is the servant of the Cape Government is becoming more and more evident, especially having regard to the Treaty which was negotiated by the High Commissioner, which was the subject of a very sharp Debate at 2 or 3 o'clock the other morning. Sir, I am very much surprised indeed that the Swaziland Treaty——

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESH. de WORMS, Liverpool, East Toxteth)

I rise to order. Swaziland does not arise on this Vote.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

It arises on the salary of the High Commissioner, who negotiated this Treaty with a Cape politician in his joint capacity of servant of the British Government and of the Cape Government. These negotiations have resulted entirely in the interests of the Cape Government, and contrary to the interests of Natal. Some considerable concessions have been given to the Transvaal Government with regard to this question. It seems to me an extraordinary Treaty to have been made under the ægis of Great Britain. The Cape has maintained high protective duties to the extent of 15 per cent., while Natal has successfully gone in for Free Trade. Yet by this Treaty Natal is left out in the cold—a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of a Free Trade country like ours. It is a Treaty which enables the Cape Colony to maintain a protective system totally adverse to the interests of Free Trade, and most unjust and unfair to the Colony of Natal. I am at a loss to understand why we should force the Transvaal to join this Protective Union. And why we should force the Colony of Natal to join the Protective Union against the interests of Great Britain I am also at a loss to understand. I am convinced that it is a very great mistake to combine the offices of Governor of the Cape and High Commissioner of South Africa. I do not see why the Cape should rule over all the rest of South Africa. They have quite enough to do to manage their own affairs. They have managed them so badly that there has been a repetition of wars in South Africa. I hope, with regard to Basutoland, taken from the administration of the Cape, hon. Members will read the White Book, which shows the immense success which has attended the administration of Basutoland by the British Government, I think we ought either to establish a great British South African. Dominion, to be administered by a great officer who would be independent of the Cape, or else that we should promote the federation of the States of South Africa, and wash our hands of all responsibility for the natives. I should be sorry if we ever gave up the Cape, because I have always looked upon it as a sort of midway house between England and India. There is another alternative, and that is that we should take the chestnuts out of the fire for the Cape, that we should annex this country and do all the fighting for the Cape, and that we should then make the territory over to the Cape. That is an alternative which I do not favour. With regard to Swaziland, it is very common for us to rob Native States of everything worth having, and then to make Treaties for protecting them. What I gather is that this drunken Swazi King has conceded the whole of his territory several times over. If the concessions are maintained the result will be that, having got everything from the natives, we should leave them to govern themselves, and leave the Europeans, who have obtained all the plums, to govern themselves. I want to know whether the European Courts are to decide questions between European natives, or who is to decide them? There is a great and vital question as to whether this King has power to make concessions of the whole of his territory without the consent of his people. Who is to decide that question in Swaziland? Is the Court to be a one sided tribunal consisting of Europeans alone, or are the natives to have a voice in it? Then there is the question of the validity of the claims of the British South Africa Company upon these territories. We know that the validity of the grants made by the Swazi King is disputed by a very large portion of the Matabele people. Is the Company to be allowed to decide in its own favour, and to appropriate the whole of the minerals? It is patent that at this moment the Army of the South Africa Company, such as it is, is in course of entering upon the territories it claims, and it is extremely likely that there may be bloodshed between the people of Swaziland, denying the right of their King to make a concession, and the Company's men, who, I believe, were called filibusters by an eminent Member of the Government whom I see opposite (Sir J. Gorst.) Well, I want to know who is to decide upon the validity of these concessions? Then there is the question of Bechuanaland. We are asked to spend £110,000 on Bechuanaland, and this expenditure has been growing year by year. This year the amount in the Estimates was at first £80,000, but there has been a Supplementary Estimate of £30,000, which brings the amount up to £110,000. Bechuanaland is one of those chesnuts which we are asked to take out of the fire, for we are told by Sir Hercules Robinson that we shall have to give it to the Cape in the end. This large force, practically a military force, for which this money is to be voted, is not to be used in Bechuanaland, but in the protected territory beyond, to the minerals in which the South Africa Company say they have obtained a claim. I ask, why should we be put to this expense if this Company is to have the benefit of the diamonds and minerals in that region? The Company should pay for its own police. As to SouthAfrica, a question was asked to day with reference to the treatment of native Indian British subjects in that part of the world. The Under Secretary for India, in reply to that question, told the House, and I have no doubt very fairly, that these subjects of Her Majesty have the sympathy of the Government of India. I hope the Government of India has never been wanting in sympathy for Her Majesty's Indian subjects. But I want to know whether the Indian Government has induced the Secretary for the Colonies, and other Members of the Government, to adopt their view. Are these Ministers as zealous for the welfare of Her Majesty's Indian subjects as they would be for the welfare of Her Majesty's white subjects? We are told that remonstrances have been addressed to the Colonial Office, and that the Colonial Office is doing the best it can to induce the Transvaal and the Orange Free State to deal fairly by these Indian subjects of the Queen; but what I want to know is this: are they pressing the matter as if it were a case in which white men were concerned—white men with British constituents behind them? I cannot believe that they are doing so. In the case of Swaziland, when I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies if he could do anything in the interests of Her Majesty's Indian subjects in that country he said it was impossible to do so, as Swaziland was an independent country. Well, I think that if Manchester traders had been excluded by a Resolution of Dutch Settlers in Swaziland, as were Her Majesty's Indian subjects, we should not have submitted to it quite so tamely as we have done. I know that we are to have a voice in the Government of Swaziland, and I want to know whether care will be taken to mete out equal justice to all Her Majesty's subjects, and, if there is to be Free Trade for Manchester people, whether it is also to be conferred upon our enterprising Indian fellow-subjects as well? I do not call these Indian subjects of Her Majesty "the Jews of the East," as that is a term which implies some reproach. The Jews are not a very much respected body in the East of Europe. But they are contented with small profits, and Her Majesty's Indian subjects in South Africa are very like them. Their wants are few, and they are content to push their trade into Western countries by earning small profits. The result of the trading of these people has been so successful as to make all Europeans who come in contact with them extremely jealous. The traders in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State and in South Africa generally are jealous of being under-sold by these industrious natives of India, and the result is that wherever it has been possible they have been shut out, and wherever it has not been possible attempts have been made to shut them out. Their influence in Natal has been undermined, and I do not know that they are very safe there. What I want to know is whether some effort will not be made to do justice to these people in the same way as if they were white traders. As we have already had a discussion on many points which arise under this Vote, it would not be fair to repeat what has been said, therefore I will confine myself to these observations, which bear upon matters we have had no opportunity of discussing.

*(6.47.) BARON H. DE WORMS

The greater part of the speech of the hon. Member has been made by him once before—on June 2. On that occasion, however, the operation of the 12 o'clock Rule prevented my replying, and so the hon. Member, no doubt, has thought himself justified in repeating his speech. But had the hon. Member been present on a recent occasion at about 3 o'clock in the morning he would know that every single question now put by him with respect to the Swaziland Convention has already been answered, and it is very much to be regretted that I should have to take up the time of the House by repeating the replies I then gave merely because the hon. Member was absent from the House on that occasion.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I have not found a full report of the right hon. Member's speech in the Times.

BARON H. DE WORMS

If a speech delivered at 3 o'clock in the morning cannot be reported at full length, that hardly constitutes a sufficient reason for making me repeat it. The hon. Member alleges that the Cape Government has not been sufficiently consulted with reference to the Swaziland Convention. Curiously enough, on the last occasion when the subject was considered an hon. Member sitting on the same side of the House as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy declared that the Convention has been drawn up wholly in the interests of the Cape Government. There is no clause in the Treaty to justify these views. The object of the Treaty is to establish a proper and fair understanding with the Transvaal Government on the subject of the government of Swaziland. Under the rule of the "drunken King," to whom allusion has been made, the condition of affairs in Swaziland had become disgraceful. The country was really governed by a small committee of Europeans who consulted mainly their own interests, and matters came to such a pass that remedial steps had to be taken. The Transvaal Government having intimated that they intended to send an officer to Swaziland with that object, Her Majesty's Government thought right to send a British Representative to accompany him, and Colonel Martin was appointed in that capacity. The hon. Member asks me by whom a black would be tried who should have come into conflict with a white. According to the telegraphic summary of the arrangements, there is to be a Court of justice to administer Roman-Dutch Law and to decide all cases, civil and criminal, between white settlers. No mention is made of natives, but I presume that a case between a white and a black would be determined in the same way. Of course, disputes between natives will continue to be decided by the King or Indunas, according to the custom of the country. By the Treaty of London we are debarred from taking possession of Swaziland ourselves, and the hon. Member, I feel sure, will not advocate our surrendering the country to the Boers. The middle course of recognising a joint Government had accordingly to be taken. The hon. Member has spoken in indignant terms about the concessions granted by the Swazi King. How, I should like to know, could the English Government have prevented the King from making these concessions? By what authority could they have prevented a ruler from doing what he liked with his own land? The hon. Member, following his usual practice, criticised, but failed to suggest remedies. His is the criticism of irresponsibility and sometimes of ignorance.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I would explain that I want to know who is to decide as to the validity of the concessions?

BARON H. DE WORMS

That question is settled by the Convention. The Court to be appointed will inquire into the validity of the concessions. Then the hon. Gentleman asks me a question in regard to the concessions granted by the Chief Lobengula. We have nothing whatever to do with concessions granted by Lobengula or by any other African chief. When the British South African Company obtained these concessions we thought it advisable to grant a charter giving the Company a higher status than it would have had had it been simply a Limited Liability Company. Further than that, the Government had nothing whatever to do with the South Africa Company. As to the additional expenditure in Bechuanaland, I can only repeat that it is for the purpose of paying for 100 more police mainly to protect the construction of the line of telegraph. It is hoped that the increase in expenditure may be only temporary, and we have, by our precautionary measure in asking for an addition to the police force, prevented further great expenditure.

(7.2.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the details he promised with regard to the expenditure in Bechuanaland. How much of this money is for police? I wish to say a few words on the question. Practically, all the colony of Bechuanaland belongs to two chiefs, and practically all their best land has been taken from them. I happened to see these chiefs a couple of years ago, and it was heart-rending to hear them say that, in consequence of the loss of all their land, their cattle could only be taken to water once in three days. If, instead of throwing away £100,000 on extra police, the Government would put a dam in the river, they would be able to secure a good water supply, and the whole of the land would be made like a garden. Why spend this money on the police? If you want an armed force there, why not give the country a proper British force, and rule it as a Crown Colony? The land lies far above the sea-level, the climate is healthy, and the country would make a splendid sanatorium. The South African Company are building a railway through Bechuanaland. It seems to me that if the Government are going to rule it as a Crown Colony, they must either spend money themselves in developing its resources, or allow the colony to raise money and spend it. Hitherto they have acted like the dog in the manger—they will neither improve the country themselves, nor will they allow anyone else to do so. Hence the white population in Bechuanaland has diminished, and the native population is very discontented. I think there should be some Treaty between Bechuanaland and the Transvaal. The late High Commissioner's policy was one of starving out Bechuanaland, and compelling the Imperial Government to hand it over to the Cape. If the policy of the new Commissioner is to hold Bechuanaland as a Crown Colony, some money must be spent in developing its resources, and bringing white settlers into it. Well, you have given the country over to this company. That being so, surely the company, and not the British Government, ought to spend this £100,000. There are five tribes forming the Bechuana people, and Bechuanaland itself contains only two of them. If the High Commissioner is not going to annex Bechuanaland for a time, he must take the whole of the five tribes and form them into a colony. The man who is responsible for what has taken place is the late Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson. From the beginning he has protested against handing over Bechuanaland to the Cape. I trust that, before we are asked to vote money next year for this purpose, some policy may be placed before us. The Cape is now going to make 250 miles of railway through this territory. The Bill passed the Cape Legislature two or three days ago. The line will cost the Cape between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, and I think, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government might spend their £l,000,000 in damming up the river so as to give the country water during the dry season. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in some respects. When the King made the first concession, he sent down to the Natal Government for permission. All the Government of Natal need have done was to give him a hint that he should not make the concession. You cannot get rid of your responsibility. You only go back to the Treaty of London; but, as a matter of fact, you ought to go back to the Treaty of 1881. By that Treaty Swaziland was cut away from the Transvaal because there were no white men there. Here is a splendid race debauched and destroyed by the action of the Colonial Office, and yet they deny responsibility. Lobengula was not desirous to give the concession, and, indeed, he has repudiated it. You are aiding and abetting Mr. Rhodes in sending a force of 1,000 armed men to take possession of the territory. Sir Sydney Sheppard approves of the proceedings of Mr. Rhodes, and will not permit anyone else to go through Bechuanaland. Lobengula states that the concession was got by fraud, and that he never intended to give it. You are responsible for the action of the Company. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government have given permission to Colonel Carrington to head what was called the police. He is really a recruiting agent. You are responsible, because these 1,000 armed men, these armed filibusters, are going into the King's territory against his will. You are giving these men every assistance you can. The captains of the companies are men holding commissions from Her Majesty. I think that before the Government ask for more money in respect to Bechuanaland, they should let us know what they intend to do.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 32 agreed to.

Resolution 33 read a second time.

(7.17.) DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum proposed to be taken in payment of the subsidy for the Halifax and Bermuda cable. Late as is the period of the Session it would be wrong to allow this payment to pass without some protest against the action of this House being over-ridden by a mere Treasury Solicitor, because it was on the advice of a Treasury Solicitor that the deliberate vote of this House has been overthrown. There is about this matter a most suspicious resemblance to an unbusiness-like job, and I think it but fair we should receive some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. The laying of the cable between Halifax and Bermuda has been long before the Government of the country, and it has been advocated by Naval and Military Authorities on strategic grounds. In 1886 Her Majesty's Government invited tenders for such a cable. Four offers were made, and the lowest was that of the International Cable Company. This Company offered to lay the cable for a subsidy of £8,000 a year for a period of 20 years. The Treasury came to the conclusion that the amount of the subsidy was excessive, and, therefore, they refused to enter into the transactions. In April, 1888, a fresh invitation for tenders was made. Three tenders were sent in, and again the lowest was that of the International Cable Company, who this time volunteered to construct and lay the cable for £6,923 a year for 20 years. This offer was accepted, but subsequently the Company asked to withdraw from the contract, on the ground of the price of material, owing, I suppose, to the corner in copper, so that the contract would be unremunerative. The Treasury very properly cancelled the contract, and invited the International Cable Company and its competitors to send in fresh tenders. Tenders were sent in, and again that of the International Cable Company was the lowest. On this occasion the Company offered to lay the cable for £8,100 a year, extending over 20 years. Before the contract was ratified, the copper ring had collapsed, and I doubt whether there was any particularly valid reason for increasing the subsidy. A contract between the Treasury and the Company was entered into. The Treasury required special securities for the due performance of the contract. Article 14 of the contract sets forth that the capital of the Company, to the amount of £100,000, shall be subscribed and fully paid, within one month of the date of the execution of the agreement, or within seven days of the approval of the agreement by the House of Commons, whichever should first happen. It was further provided that if the Company failed to fulfil any of the conditions, the agreement should thereupon absolutely cease and determine. The condition set forth in Article 14 was not carried into effect. On the 12th of March the money should have been subscribed and fully paid up; but I was astonished to see in the newspapers on the 24th of March a prospectus, not issued by the International Cable Company, but by the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company, inviting subscriptions for £120,000 worth of debentures for the purpose of laying this cable. The prospectus was a most peculiar document. It did not state what was the paid-up capital of the Company; indeed, several things in it induced me to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation. He told me that the time had been extended, and that the contract had been transferred to another Company. Well, but I want to find out something about this other Company. From my inquiries at Somerset House, I learned that the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company was not registered at the time the contract was approved. I also gathered from the information to be found at Somerset House that the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company had its Articles of Association subscribed by one merchant, one accountant, one agent, and four clerks. The nominal capital amounted to £50,000; but, according to information which came to Somerset House, only £35 had been subscribed by the gentlemen named in the Articles. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman what amount of subscribed capital has the Halifax and Bermudas Telegraph Company? The Articles of Association were of the usual tempting character. The Chairman was to receive £300, and the Directors £200 each, and 5 per cent. on the profits above 6 per cent., the Directors being called upon to act upon the representations of these gentlemen, consisting of a merchant, an agent, and four clerks. Then, having got up this bogus company, a prospectus was issued inviting the public to subscribe for £120,000 Four per cent. Mortgage Debenture Bonds for the purpose of laying this cable, the capital for which was to be subscribed in full and paid up before the 12th May. Long before this a prospectus was issued which contained statements of a most misleading character involving the declaration as a fact that there was a Government subsidy, which the Government had promised, of £8,100 a year for 20 years. Now, the Government had agreed to nothing of the sort, but had agreed to pay under certain conditions, and the contract contained a clause that if the cable should cease to work for six months, the whole thing lapsed into the hands of the Government. Where, then, would be the subsidy upon which the debenture holders were to rely? This subsidy was to last for 20 years, but the interest on the £120,000 was to be payable for 26 years, so that, having the capital subscribed, the Directors could carry on until five years of the time, and then leave the debentures to take care of themselves on maturity. Having seen this prospectus, I put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, and after a good deal of pressing he promised a Treasury Minute, which Minute is, if I may be allowed the expression, about the "cheekiest" thing of the kind I have ever seen. Clause 14 of the contract states that, unless £100,000 are subscribed by the 12th May, the contract shall be null and void; and this Minute goes on to state that subsequent to this, and before the approval of the House of Commons, application was made to the Lords of the Treasury for the transfer of the agreement to another company specially formed to carry out the contract, and it was stated their Lordships entertained the application, but did not ratify it until the contract was affirmed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in his explanation of the contract, never told us a word about this; that it was proposed that a bogus company should be formed; that the contract was to be handed over to a non-existent company. In anticipation of the approval of the House, the Minute says the Company proved to the satisfaction of the Treasury Solicitor that capital to the extent of £100,000 had been underwritten by responsible parties. Now, I do not like this underwritten capital; it means a commission to somebody. The prospectus asked for £120,000, and went on to say that Her Majesty's Government would subscribe £8,100 a year on condition that a paid-up capital of £100,000 was subscribed, and that, unless this condition was complied with, the Directors would not proceed to allotment. This means that this newly-formed Company, consisting of the merchant, agent, and clerks, with its paid-up capital of £35 at the time it got the contract, asked £120,000 from the public simply for the purpose of putting it in funds to lay the cable, and expressly told the public that unless £120,000 were subscribed it would not proceed to allotment; and I suppose if that had not been so, there would have been another extension of time, and the control of the House of Commons over these financial transactions would have become still more ridiculous. In this position of matters the Treasury gave a provisional sanction to the transfer to the proposed new Company, and, the Treasury Solicitor being satisfied of the security contemplated by Clause 14, the extension of time was granted. But what right had the Treasury to over-ride the contract, which had the force of law? If this explanation had been before the House when the right hon. Gentleman was defending this contract there would have been rather more criticism than there was. The Treasury Minute was a sort of sop to Cerberus, and we have had no opportunity for discussion until now. The company having been inaugurated, is, to a certain extent, connected with Her Majesty's Government, and they are responsible for it, because under the contract they nominate one member of the Board, and consequently have a right to all the information about the company. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to state what was the amount of capital subscribed to this company on the 12th of April; what was the date on which he agreed formally to transfer the contract to them, and what amount of capital was subscribed at that date, independently of the debentures on which they got the public to subscribe money on grossly false pretences. If the cable comes to grief, if the payment of the subsidy is suspended, the debenture holders have no security. The statements in the prospectus are grossly misleading. I do not think there is a Financial Minister of the Argentine Republic, I might almost say of Guatemala, that would not have come forward and warned the public against a proceeding in which the national honour is involved and the national credit may be damaged. It is not well for a Finance Minister to disregard the promptings of punctilious honour in this connection. The Treasury Minute was simply a means of blinding and bamboozling the House. As the House ratified the contract, so it should stand; and if it became necessary that it should be modified, then the Treasury should have come to the House with a modified form of contract to be sanctioned; the terms of the contract should not be set aside on the mere authority of the Treasury Solicitor. I have brought this matter forward for two reasons: In the first place, because it involves a gross infraction of the control of this House over contracts submitted to it for ratification; secondly, because of the peculiarities of the whole transaction from beginning to end. The cable which was to have been laid within five months of May last year was only laid the other day. It was provided under the contract that there should be direct communication with a cable landing in this country.

MR. JACKSON

Not here, but in Halifax.

DR. CAMERON

The strategic object, of course, was direct communication through our own territory with Bermuda. The company have made no arrangement yet, so far as I am aware, to carry out this condition. The cable was laid at the beginning of last month. We shall probably be told the cable is excellent, and that it was urgently demanded for strategical reasons. But I want to know about this capital of £35 subscribed, and this £50,000 nominal capital, and why the Treasury have allowed the statements in the prospectus to go unchallenged.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£28,375," in order to insert "£22,300."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That '£28,375' stand part of the Question."

(7.44.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)

The hon. Member has brought forward this question not now for the first time; and I had the opportunity of explaining on a previous occasion what took place, I think, to the satisfaction of the House, and I had hoped to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. He has asked me many questions in reference to the Company which I am unable to answer. I decline any responsibility on behalf of the Government for any statement published in the prospectus. It appears to me to be no part of their duty; and as I stated the other day, I think the Government would be very unwise to undertake to protect those who have money to invest, against others who seek to obtain the investment.

DR. CAMERON

I said there was a temptation to invest on the faith of a Government subsidy.

MR. JACKSON

Yes, the hon. Member says that was the statement; but it was not made by the Government, nor have they any responsibility for it. The whole thing is in a nutshell. The hon. Gentleman has referred at great length to proceedings under this contract. He has pointed out that, in the first instance, the Government refused tenders because they were excessive. The tenders originally received ranged from £20,000 to £8,000; and while the advisers of the Treasury declared the highest tenders to be excessive, the Treasury did not regard the company which made the lowest tender as one whose power to carry out the contract might command complete and implicit confidence. The Government, therefore, hesitated about accepting the lowest tender. and were unwilling to agree to the terms of the highest tender. A year passed and we were again pressed, for reasons the hon. Gentleman has stated, to provide the cable. Fresh tenders were called for, and the hon. Member has described correctly what took place as regards the tenders sent in. We then took what certainly, I believe, was a new departure; we laid down a condition that would actually provide a security for the laying of the cable. Our object was to secure that the contract should be given only to somebody who had the power to carry it out. The security was provided, the capital was subscribed, and the cable was laid, and is now in working order. Therefore, the whole object of the Government in attaching the new condition has been fulfilled. We are to-day in the position of having what, according to all accounts, is a very good cable for our money, in working order. That is the whole story. By the effective competition secured by inviting fresh tenders we saved in the first place £4,000 a year.

DR. CAMERON

The tender accepted was £8,100 as against £8,000 offered by the same company previously and considered excessive.

MR. JACKSON

No; I do not accept that at all. The Treasury at the time the four tenders were sent in had regard to the conditions for securing the carrying out of the contract and the laying of the cable. The next highest tender was £12,000, and the highest of all was £20,000; therefore, I think I am justified in saying that we have saved £40,000 a year for 20 years by the contract. We have, at the same time, a satisfactory cable, and I should have thought that instead of seeming to sneer at what we have done the hon. Gentleman would have congratulated the Treasury on the economical and satisfactory result. That is the whole story, and I hope the House, by confirming the Vote, will agree that we have secured the object we set ourselves to obtain. The hon. Member referred to the connection with a Cable Company having a landing station at Halifax. This we are advised has been done.

DR. CAMERON

An arrangement connecting with an Atlantic Cable Company?

MR. JACKSON

I believe that has been done, that this condition has been fulfilled.

(7.57.) The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 37.—(Div. List, No. 253.)

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 34 (see page 901), read a second time.

(8.6.) SIR G. CAMPBELL

I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has come to in pursuance of his promise to consider the question of medical certificates before retiring allowances are granted. I have seen a paragraph in the papers that the rules which have governed these matters in the past have been modified, and that a medical certificate from a private practitioner is not to be accepted by itself. I desire to know what it is will be insisted upon in the future.

MR. JACKSON

The rule followed is this, that when one certificate is accepted it must be that of a medical officer of the Department, and if an individual forwards a certificate from his own doctor the Treasury require it, in case that doctor is not a medical officer of the Department, to be confirmed by the public medical officer.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions 35 to 39 agreed to.

Resolution 40 (see page 904) read a second time.

(8.11.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c)

I rise to raise a final protest against the burden which has been thrown upon the Exchequer in connection with the funeral of the Duchess of Cambridge. I also wish to comment on the contempt with which the offer of the hon. Member for Boston to defray this charge has been met by the Government. The hon. Member offered to pay the £180 out of his own pocket, but the Government have taken no notice of that offer. I venture to say that if the sum was accepted the £180 now proposed to be devoted to defraying the funeral expenses might be put to other and more beneficial purposes.

(813.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I want some clear explanation, which I failed to get last night, as to the charge of £430 for fees payable on the installation of Prince Henry of Prussia as a Knight of the Garter. We know that there are ordinary and extraordinary members of this Order of the Garter. The extraordinary members are limited in number, and consist of foreign princes, to whom Her Majesty grants the Order. I do not wish to protest against the Queen's granting this Order to any number of foreign princes, but it seems to me a strong measure that when Her Majesty confers this distinction we should be asked to pay a sum of £430 in the form of fees to the Garter King at Arms, who receives a salary, and who also receives fees from persons who want him to prove that they belong to ancient families. Now, why should he be paid additional fees when these honours are conferred? I have protested against this expenditure for several years past, and I am glad to say that my efforts have met with a certain amount of success. Formerly when a Knight was made he was given his robes, and if he happened to be a foreigner he also received his underclothing. For many years I have laboured in this vineyard, and I am happy to say that I have succeeded, by persistent efforts, in preventing English noblemen from receiving their robes at all, and I have also prevented Foreign Potentates from being supplied with their under clothing. I have to thank the Government sincerely for this concession. At present, when a Foreign Potentate is made a Knight of the Garter he receives his robes, but not his underclothing. These robes are only worn at Coronations, and I hope that in due time we shall abandon the practice of giving them, seeing that, in all probability, after they have been in the possession of a Knight of the Garter for a few months they are handed over to his valet de chamber. The robes, I believe, cost several hundreds of pounds. Of course, I admit it is absurd to expect a Foreign Prince who is made a Knight of the Garter to pay his own fees, but seeing that the robes are simply useless I think we might abandon the practice of supplying them. What I want to call the attention of this House to is the monstrous proposition that Her Majesty should be debarred from making Knights of the Garter simply because, whenever she does so, it throws a charge of £430 upon the nation. One of the Junior Lords of the Treasury opposite, the hon. Member for Wigton, when defending this, suggested that, as when anyone was raised to the English Peerage a heavy fee was paid into the Exchequer, that was sufficient to counterbalance the outgoings in connection with the fees on making Knights of the Garter. But I think that is rather a false principle, because another Government might say that in a given year when there had been several Knights of the Garter made, and no English Peers, and when, consequently, there was a considerable loss, the only way to cover it was by creating a number of English Peers. Personally, so far as their legislative value is, concerned I should not be unwilling to the making of anyone a Peer who was willing to pay a sum of £500 for the honour. I am not the first one to propose such a thing, for Count Cavour made a proposal to the same effect in Italy once, when the national funds were in a low condition, and offered to make anyone a Count who was willing to pay into the Exchequer 10,000frs. In saying this, therefore, I am only following the example of an eminent statesman.

*(8.20.) CAPTAIN VERNEY (Bucks, N.)

I wish to say a few words with reference to the charge for the funeral of the Duchess of Cambridge. I believe some heated feeling was manifested in this House on the subject last night. I regret I was not then present to record my vote. This is, on the face of it, a small thing, but in reality it is an important and serious question. I have been associated with men and women for some years past in endeavouring to set an example to the labouring people of the country to economise in the matter of funerals. Nothing could be more sad than the way in which some people allow their relatives to die in a workhouse, and then spend large sums of money on their funerals. A near relative of my own, a large landowner in Wales, who died not long since, directed that he should be conveyed to his grave on the parish hearse, in order to set an example to the people in this matter. I say it is not right to spend large sums of money in this way. I know cases of poor old people who hardly get enough to eat, and yet have £10 or £15 put away in order to cover the expense of their funeral. To labouring men, an outlay of £180 for a funeral is an enormous one, and I think we are setting a very bad example to the working classes by consenting to this Vote. I represent a working class constituency, and it will be my duty to explain my vote on this question to my constituents, and it will be very difficult for me to justify this Vote. The relatives of the late Duchess of Cambridge know what manner of men are to be found on this side of the House, and that the Vote would certainly be discussed and criticised. The charge is an outrage; it is injurious to the Throne; injurious to the Constitution of the country, and injurious to the aristocracy. I want to prevent this thing happening again. I regret it should be necessary to discuss this question here, but I feel it my duty to raise this protest on behalf of the labouring classes.

(8.26.) MR. BARTLEY

I notice in this Vote there is an item of a compassionate allowance for one Smythe, in respect of forfeited deposits in the Savings Banks. Under a rule which prevails, if a man has two accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, he is liable to forfeit the whole of his savings. This rule is so unjust and unfair that whenever such a case occurs a compassionate allowance has to be asked for in Parliament to repay the depositor. I think the time has come when there should be some change in the law in this matter, and that an Act should be passed obviating this injustice.

(8.28.) MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

I should have thought it was the duty of the Executors of the Duchess of Cambridge to defray the cost of her funeral, and that that would be one of the first expenses that would be met out of the estate. I wish to ask whether the Government voluntarily went to the Executors and offered to pay these expenses, or if the Executors approached the Government and asked them to do so. I put this as a matter of business, because I am anxious to be informed exactly how this transaction stands.

(8.29.) MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

I should like to know how it is that duplicate accounts are allowed to be opened in the Savings Banks. We know from the evidence given before the Select Committee that this practice is encouraged. Seeing that great injustice is often done under this provision, I wish to know who is responsible for it.

MR. JACKSON

With regard to the point raised in reference to the Savings Banks in the particular case mentioned in this Vote, the person died, and it was discovered that he had two accounts. Under the existing law, his deposits were absolutely forfeited. Extremely hard cases, no doubt, occur from time to time, and, in order to meet them, the Government have to come to this House for the money. With regard to the question of the funeral expenses of the Duchess of Cambridge, £180 was the expenditure by the Office of Works in making preparations that were absolutely necessary. In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh I may say that we have simply followed what has been the practice for all time, and, with all deference to Members who have raised this question, I think it is a very small question to have raised. I mean to say that, so far as my knowledge of the working classes goes, hon. Members opposite have not expressed their view on this matter. In all cases it has been our invariable practice to ascertain if the expenses incurred by the Office of Works have been paid, and there has been no exception in this case. We have simply followed the invariable rule, and I hope that after what I have said the House will affirm this Resolution.

(8.31.) A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL, Wigton)

With reference to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, I may state that the fees of the Herald's College are secured to it by Statute, and if the hon. Member objects to that he will at least know that what has been done has been done by the action of Parliament. At any rate we have no power over the fees.

(8.31.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

It has always been understood that the allowance made to Members of the Royal Family is a maximum amount, and inasmuch as this good lady had received altogether about a quarter of a million of public money since her husband's death, and was able to leave a large sum to her family, there is no reason why the public should be called upon to pay this funeral bill. Something has been said about objections taken to these payments by the working men. No doubt they do object, but there are others who object to such payments besides the working men, and I find that those objections come as much from Tories (outside this House) as they do from the Liberals. I think it is time we put a stop to this sort of thing. We have been told that these payments have been going on for many years, but a good many other bad customs have also been going on. I do not suppose we shall stop this Vote tonight, but discussions such as this have stopped other Votes, and I remember reading that the Member for North Paddington put a stop to the payments of the same kind for the expenses of boats crossing the Channel. It is only by criticism in this House that we can hope to put a stop to these extraordinary and unfair payments, because they are frequently made before we have an opportunity of saying whether we desire to pay the money or not. These payments being forced through by an obedient majority, who come here in force at the bidding of the Government, whether the people like them or not. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, in order to let the Government know that the people of this country are tired of this sort of thing, and that we are determined, as far as we can, although in a minority, to express our opinion upon expenditure such as this.

MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I trust that there will be no necessity for a Division, which, personally, I should deprecate, on so painful a matter. If this contribution has to be defrayed by the Executors I should feel myself compelled——

MR. JACKSON

I said it was defrayed by the Office of Works.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

I was trying to elicit from the hon. Gentleman whether instead of this sum being chargeable to the Executors it is in the nature of an expenditure which must necessarily fall on the Exchequer. I understand that on the burial of a certain lady there was a manifestation of respect in connection with a particular Department, and in that case the money could not properly be charged against the estate of the deceased lady. This was not previously explained, and if a Division had been taken upon it it would have been due to the want of that explanation.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions 41 to 48 agreed to.